April 7, 2016

No Image

Entertainment April 7, 2016

The Last Sci-Fi Blog: The Amazing Science Fiction Kernel at the Center of 'Hardcore Henry'

Hardcore Henry is, first and foremost, an action movie. More specifically, it is an action movie shot from the first person perspective, putting the audience directly in the shoes of its title character. The result is a movie that borrows borrows video game language. Above everything else, Hardcore Henry is what we get when filmmakers who grew up with gaming controllers in their hand get the chance to strut their stuff with an actual budget and a crew and stunt performers willing to do insane things in the name of truly crazy action. I didn’t love Hardcore Henry, but I admire the hell out of it. This movie sets a goal and it reaches it. For a certain kind of audience, it’s going to be a big deal and I can’t begrudge anyone for digging it.

However, there is one aspect of the film I unabashedly love. When Hardcore Henry isn’t being a nutty first person POV action movie full of guns and mayhem, it’s actually a science fiction movie. After all, the movie begins with Henry waking up in a laboratory, resurrected from beyond the grave and missing a few limbs. Soon, he gets himself some robotic replacements. He’s a cyborg, capable of incredible feats of strength and endurance. This is not what I love about Hardcore Henry, but it helps set the stage for later revelations, which take a wild left turn into a slightly harder and more imaginative science fiction.

Slight spoilers for Hardcore Henry begin here.

Early on, Henry encounters Jimmy, a seemingly capable gentlemen dressed for business and ready for battle. He’s played by Sharlto Copley, so we instantly recognize him. And then, moments after he’s introduced, he’s brutally killed. Then, a few minutes later, Jimmy shows up again, now dressed as a homeless person. Once again, he’s brutally taken apart by the villains in pursuit of Henry. The pattern repeats. Various forms of Jimmy, all in various states of dress and all representing a variety of lifestyles, continue to aid Henry on his mission. Most of the Jimmys die, but there are always more where that came from. Eventually, Henry is led to an isolated compound where he learns the truth about his mysteries allies: they are all robotic avatars created by the real Jimmy, who was paralyzed by the film’s main villain some years before. Now, he plots his revenge by wirelessly plugging into and controlling his small army of synthetic selves, who give him an opportunity to blend into various environments and live out aspects of life that he never experiences when he was healthy.

It’s a very cool revelation and a story point that could have been the complete focus of entire movie. A scientist who did evil work now has a second chance. He can be a soldier and a punk rocker and a coke snorting buffoon. He can be everything he wants to be and everything he dares to be. But in the end, he’s still confined to a wheelchair and still alone in his secret lab, plotting vengeance against the man who took his health.

Hardcore Henry gleefully recycles many familiar video game and action movie tropes, filtering them through a big action movie lens, but the character of Jimmy is the only area where the movie actually comments on the film’s unique presentation. “We” are Henry in the same way that Jimmy is his avatars — he fights and he bleeds and he suffers, but it’s all secondhand. It’s all a game. It’s all so detached. Another movie may have taken time to ponder whether or not Jimmy feels responsible for the violence and mayhem he causes while in control of a virtual self (and maybe implicate the audience in enjoying “being” Henry while he rampages), but Hardcore Henry is only eager to get to the next big action scene. The film dips its toe into this concept rather than take a plunge.

And this is why Hardcore Henry is a curiosity more than a must-see film. In Jimmy, I find a character I’m deeply fascinated by, living a life that I want to know more about. But he’s not the focus of the story. He’s just another stop along the way for Henry. And that’s a shame.

[embedded content]

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

No Image

Business April 7, 2016

Unable To Compete On Price, Nuclear Power On The Decline In The U.S.

The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant sits along the banks of the Connecticut River in Vernon, Vt. It began operations in 1972 and was shut down at the end of 2014, the victim of competition from plants powered by abundant and cheap natural gas.

The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant sits along the banks of the Connecticut River in Vernon, Vt. It began operations in 1972 and was shut down at the end of 2014, the victim of competition from plants powered by abundant and cheap natural gas. Toby Talbot/AP hide caption

toggle caption Toby Talbot/AP

Renewable energy and new technologies that are making low-carbon power more reliable are growing rapidly in the U.S. Renewables are so cheap in some parts of the country that they’re undercutting the price of older sources of electricity such as nuclear power.

The impact has been significant on the nuclear industry, and a growing number of unprofitable reactors are shutting down.

When the first nuclear power plants went online 60 years ago, nuclear energy seemed like the next big thing.

There are 100 commercial nuclear reactors licensed to operate. Link to a full list. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission hide caption

toggle caption U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

In many ways, it lived up to that promise. It turned out to be remarkably safe and reliable and clean. It’s carbon-free and is the source of about 20 percent of the country’s electricity.

But right from the start, people in the nuclear industry struggled with a big problem: cost. Making nuclear power cheap was the Holy Grail.

It never panned out. Nuclear plants keep coming in over-budget. And after the Fukushima disaster in Japan in 2011 — when three nuclear reactors melted down after an earthquake and tsunami hit — companies were forced to spend millions of dollars more on safety equipment to keep older plants operating.

“It would be very difficult for any company to make a decision to try to build a new nuclear plant,” says Mike Twomey, a spokesman for Entergy Nuclear, which runs nuclear power plants.

Entergy has already taken one unprofitable reactor offline in Vermont and plans to close two more plants that are losing money in upstate New York and Massachusetts.

In all, 19 nuclear reactors are undergoing decommissioning, of which five have been shut down in the past decade, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is overseeing the decommissioning of 19 nuclear power reactors. Link to the full list.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is overseeing the decommissioning of 19 nuclear power reactors. Link to the full list. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission hide caption

toggle caption U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The main reason behind the wave of closures is a new generation of cheap, gas-fired power plants that has pushed the wholesale price of electricity into the basement.

But Mycle Schneider, a nuclear industry analyst, says nuclear also faces growing price pressure from wind and solar. Renewable energy is so cheap in some parts of the U.S. that it’s even undercutting coal and natural gas.

“We are seeing really a radical shift in the competitive markets which leave nuclear power pretty much out in the rain,” Schneider says.

Over the past decade, no new nuclear power plants have begun commercial operations in the U.S.; the last reactor to start up in the U.S. was in Tennessee in 1996 (another unit at the same plant is expected to come online sometime later this year).

There are a handful of new nuclear reactors under construction in the South, where energy markets are still highly regulated. Big power authorities there don’t face the kind of head-to-head competition that has revolutionized energy markets in other parts of the country.

But even within the nuclear industry itself, a growing number of experts agree that the U.S. has reached a pivot point, where new nuclear power plants are just too expensive.

“We think that the costs of new nuclear right now are not competitive with other zero-carbon technologies, renewables and storage that we see in the marketplace,” says Joe Dominguez, executive vice president for governmental and regulatory affairs and public policy at Exelon, a nuclear power company that has announced plans to close one of its existing reactors in New Jersey.

Three other plants that are losing money in Illinois and upstate New York are also being reviewed for possible closure, Dominguez says.

“Right now we just don’t have any plans on the board to build any new reactors,” he says.

Companies like Exelon and Entergy hope state governments will agree to subsidize their existing reactors, paying a premium for low-carbon nuclear power in the same way they now subsidize wind and solar.

The companies say the steady power generated by nuclear still pays an important role stabilizing the nation’s energy grid.

But America’s reactors are aging. The average is now 35 years old. With the new investment going to natural gas and increasingly to wind and solar, the old energy of the future may soon be eclipsed by the new energy of the future.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

No Image

Health April 7, 2016

Private Investors Eagerly Enter Addiction Treatment Business

The cry for more substance abuse treatment beds has not missed the ears of some private investors. They’re eager to get in on the estimated $35 billion treatment business.

Transcript

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST:

Some private equity investors are getting into the business of substance abuse treatment. They’re putting big money into building treatment centers, promising to fundamentally change the industry. It’s estimated that 22 million Americans need help with substance abuse. Deborah Becker member station WBUR reports on the huge private equity investment behind eight new facilities in the Northeast.

DEBORAH BECKER, BYLINE: The newly formed for-profit company Recovery Centers of America, or RCA, says it plans to become the nation’s largest addiction treatment provider. Its first steps toward that involve building these eight new centers, the largest of which is under construction in Danvers, a town just north of Boston.

BRAD GREENSTEIN: I’m Brad Greenstein, CEO of Recovery Centers of America Danvers facility.

BECKER: So right now we’re walking through a building that’s really been completely gutted.

GREENSTEIN: We demolished 140,000 square feet of interior, and we’re starting from scratch.

BECKER: Greenstein says this center will resemble a boutique hotel and will provide inpatient and outpatient treatment, medication-assisted treatment and will follow its patients through the initial stages of recovery. Although RCA eventually plans to build other facilities that will accept those using public insurance, this center will accept only privately insured patients or those who pay out-of-pocket, a population Greenstein says is now underserved.

GREENSTEIN: What we found not just in Massachusetts but nationwide is this lack of availability for just your average, everyday individual who’s been dutifully paying their insurance premium – are those are the ones that are generally having a hard time accessing care.

BECKER: Much of the funding for these centers comes from what some say is the largest private equity investment ever in addiction treatment – a $231 million commitment from the New York private equity firm Deerfield Management. Leslie Henshaw, a partner at Deerfield, says treatment is generating investor interest for several reasons, namely laws requiring insurers to pay for it and the Affordable Care Act allowing young people to stay on their parents’ health insurance until age 26. Henshaw says more investment will ultimately result in better care.

LESLIE HENSHAW: It’s an industry that, to date, has had very little accountability with regard to delivering on effective outcomes. And so, you know, we see both an enormous need and an imperative to change the model in which care is delivered.

BECKER: Barbara Herbert is president of the Massachusetts chapter of the American Society for Addiction Medicine.

BARBARA HERBERT: I sort of have that sense of vultures overhead who see a great opportunity to make money but not necessarily in the best interest of my patients.

BECKER: She also says that right now there are no agreed-upon minimum standards for what treatment should be. But Herbert says the metrics that investors use to measure success are often based on profits, which could mean that the more people there are in treatment, the more it’s considered a success.

HERBERT: I think the biggest metric that you need if you open a new facility is having it full and paid for. I’m not saying people are that cynical, but I’m not saying that outcomes necessarily drive investment in this circumstance.

BECKER: But some longtime Massachusetts treatment providers say if someone has the insurance or the money, they should use it, and that could free up beds for more patients. Boston University public health professor David Rosenbloom says this new growth in treatment may not only improve care with more oversight, but it could reduce the often long waits to get into treatment.

DAVID ROSENBLOOM: If this is a step toward increasing both the size and the quality and the accountability of the system, then it’s a step we have to take.

BECKER: National statistics suggest some 25 million Americans have a substance use disorder, and only about 10 percent of those who need treatment actually get it. For NPR News, I’m Deborah Becker in Boston.

Copyright © 2016 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

No Image

Sports April 7, 2016

Some Fat-Burning Supplements Contain Banned Stimulant Drug

Asafa Powell of Jamaica was barred from competition after testing positive for the stimulant oxilofrine.

Asafa Powell of Jamaica was barred from competition after testing positive for the stimulant oxilofrine. Streeter Lecka/Getty Images hide caption

toggle caption Streeter Lecka/Getty Images

If you’re taking sports supplements that claim to burn fat or improve your workout, you might want to check the label.

Some of those supplements contain a stimulant drug that hasn’t been approved in the U.S., is banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency and may pose health risks, according to research published Thursday. The paper comes just days after the FDA sent warning letters to seven manufacturers, saying the substance shouldn’t be in their dietary supplements.

Oxilofrine, also known as methylsynephrine or p-hydroxyephedrine, can stimulate the heart and is useful in some medical situations, such as enhancing heart function in patients under anesthesia, says Pieter Cohen, a general internist with the Cambridge Health Alliance, assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, and an author of the study. But it’s not supposed to be in dietary supplements, which are sold over the counter and which by law are supposed to consist of “dietary ingredients.”

Cohen, who frequently conducts research on supplements, started looking into oxilofrine after several high-profile athletes tested positive for the drug. Asafa Powell, a Jamaican sprinter, blamed a supplement for a positive test that led to him withdrawing from the 2013 World Championships.

Cohen found that methylsynephrine was openly listed on some supplement labels. “It’s sold as a pre-workout supplement, to get pumped up and have better workouts,” he says. It’s also marketed for speeding fat loss.

When Cohen and his colleagues ran lab tests on 27 supplement brands with methylsynephrine on the labels, they found oxilofrine in 14 of them. Some had a small amount of the drug, but six contained pharmaceutical or higher doses. One contained more than twice the usual adult dose and three times the usual adolescent dose, the study found. The health effects of that kind of dose aren’t known, but research on lower doses suggests users might experience adverse effects including heart palpitations, arrhythmias and increased blood pressure, the study says.

The FDA, meantime, has received 47 reports of adverse events associated with oxilofrine-containing supplements, though it can’t say whether or not the supplements caused harm, says Steven Tave, acting director of the FDA’s Office of Dietary Supplement Programs. The agency doesn’t review supplements for safety and efficacy before they come to market, the way it does with drugs.

The FDA took action against manufacturers because oxilofrine doesn’t meet the definition of a dietary ingredient.

U.S. law “defines a dietary ingredient as a vitamin; mineral; herb or other botanical; amino acid; dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake; or a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combination of the preceding substances,” the FDA said in announcing the warning letters. “Methylsynephrine does not fit under any of these categories, rendering misbranded any dietary supplements that declare methylsynephrine as a dietary ingredient.”

Cohen’s research turned up no evidence that the ingredient has been detected in a plant or botanical. (It shouldn’t be confused with synephrine, which is a constituent of bitter orange and is a legal supplement ingredient, he says.)

Since the lab tested one sample of each supplement, this should be considered a “snapshot;” the amount of the drug may vary in other batches of the same brand, says Cohen. In addition, researchers tested only for oxilofrine, and not for other stimulants that might be in the supplement.

“If it’s not something that’s in the diet, folks shouldn’t be selling it,” says Daniel Fabricant, executive director and CEO of the Natural Products Association. His group represents supplement makers, but he says the companies warned by the FDA are not members of his association. He suggests that consumers always ask themselves why they’re taking a supplement. “If you’re looking for something to act like a drug, don’t take a supplement,” he says.

The study appears in the journal Drug Testing and Analysis.

Katherine Hobson is a freelance health and science writer based in Brooklyn, N.Y. She’s on Twitter: @katherinehobson

Let’s block ads! (Why?)