In February, I wrote about an asteroid (2024 YR4) that originally had a 3.1% projected chance of hitting the Earth in 2032. As its orbit became more predictable, this was lowered to virtually 0%. Recently they upgraded the chance of asteroid 2024 YR4 hitting the Moon to 3.8%. 

A team of astronomers recently studied the asteroid in more detail and found that 2024 YR4 likely came from the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter and has an unusually flat, disk-like shape, similar to a hockey puck. Most asteroids are believed to be shaped like potatoes rather than flat disks. 

Astronomers discovered the asteroid 2024 YR4 in December 2024 (hence the “2024” in its name). A team studying the asteroid recently determined that the asteroid is rotating very quickly, about once every 20 minutes, and estimated its size is between 98 to 213 feet (30 to 65 meters) wide.

2024 YR4 is one of the largest objects in recent history with the potential to strike the Moon. If it did hit, scientists would have the opportunity to study how the size of an asteroid relates to the size of the crater it creates on an object with little gravity.

Of course, an asteroid striking the Moon is not a novel event. One need only look at the Moon to see that it has been bombarded with asteroids in its past. Because the Moon lacks an atmosphere, Teutonic plates, and volcanic activity, the craters that we see are all due to impact collisions. Most of these impacts probably came during the time period known as the Great Bombardment. During this period, about 3.9 billion years ago, our entire solar system experienced a period of intense bombardment by asteroids and comets. These impacts formed massive impact basins and craters, which are clearly visible on the Moon’s surface. 

Asteroid impacts have also thrown out rocks from the Moon, some of which have landed on Earth as lunar meteorites. Smaller impacts from meteoroids are still occurring on the Moon today. 

If a large asteroid such as 2024 Y4 were to crash into the Moon, it would create a large crater that would eject material from the surface, but that would be the extent of the damage. There aren’t any asteroids large enough to split the Moon apart or knock it off its orbit around the Earth. In fact, the total mass of all the known solar system’s asteroids combined is less than the mass of the Moon.

Because of our human settlements, asteroids that would cause widespread damage on Earth would not cause the same problems on the Moon, even though there’s no lunar atmosphere to slow them down. There’s simply nothing to destroy on the Moon. Damage on Earth is not about the rock underneath us being disturbed, but about the cities, climate, and lives that would be impacted. 

Remembering the chance of impact is less than 4%, it is unlikely that this asteroid will glance the Moon in 2032, but scientists would be excited if it did.

---

 

Angela Rieck, a Caroline County native, received her PhD in Mathematical Psychology from the University of Maryland and worked as a scientist at Bell Labs, and other high-tech companies in New Jersey before retiring as a corporate executive. Angela and her dogs divide their time between St Michaels and Key West Florida. Her daughter lives and works in New York City.

This week my dog, Annie, an (almost) 19-year-old cockapoo passed away. My grief is immeasurable. 

At the end she had dementia, cataracts, and was deaf; but she loved to be by my side or watch Annie TV (watching the birds, squirrels, and bunnies running around the yard). Annie was not a normal dog, nor was she a normal rescue dog. But she adapted in ways that no one expected. She lived a happy life, loving squeaky toys, being petted on the backside, bouncing around the house joyfully, and barking (not my personal favorite). 

Annie came to me from a rescue organization in NJ where I was a volunteer. All of the other rescue groups passed on Annie because she was feral. I reluctantly agreed to take her, I already had four dogs (two of my own and two from an elderly friend who passed away) and a busy life; but I was the only real option. The other fosters were taking 8-10 dogs, and we knew that Annie was going to need more attention than they could give.

Annie was born in a puppy mill to a traumatized puppy mill mother. Unfortunately for Annie, she was a beautiful, a white cockapoo with big brown, doe eyes. She was larger than most dogs and the puppy miller knew that she would produce a lot of pretty babies. She was sold to another puppy mill. She fetched a good price.

Annie’s original home was the back of tractor trailer stuffed with dogs in crates. It had little light, no air conditioning, or heat. In was a dark, filthy, deafening home where she spent her whole life in a cage. The dogs barked incessantly, trying to alert someone, anyone, to their plight. Annie stayed in the back of her crate and trembled. There were no trays underneath the cages, allowing the poo and pee from the dogs in the above crates to rain down on dogs in the lower crates. Her feet were splayed from never being able to stand on a solid surface. When she was covered with feces and urine, she was yanked out and hosed down no matter the weather. 

Annie arrived with severely matted fur covered in excrement, her eyes were matted shut, she was unable to move, and her butt was severely matted. Our organization took her, vetted her, shaved her down; took care of her physical needs. It was my job to work on emotional needs.

Annie had a long way to go. She was at 60% of her body weight and feral. She bit vigorously and continuously. When she was not attacking, she was running and hiding, always trying to escape. She was terrified of humans, dogs, the outdoors (which she had never seen), and the world in general. Grass was scary, bunnies and birds, everything was there to hurt her. After I put her in the house, I made a cardinal error of taking her leash off. It took me an hour to catch her; she bit me more than 20 times.

I worked with her slowly, but her formative years had taken their toll. She never learned cause and effect. She had learned that no matter what she did, her life would be one of abuse and neglect. It was hard to get her to eat quality food. She ate boiled potatoes (a staple in puppy mills), and it took weeks to get her to eat meat and other foods that are natural to animals. 

It was not the easiest of journeys. It took six years to housetrain her. Food was not a motivator. She was originally suspicious of every treat, food, and toy. She could be frozen in her past trauma. 

But Annie was very resilient and eager to please. She stopped biting by the end of the first year, determined to be feral no longer. Annie had too sweet a disposition for what happened to her. Annie was too trusting, too loving, and too kind for her abysmal treatment. 

Some people give me credit for her transformation. But the truth is that it was her. She was willing to let go of her fears and see if another world was friendly to her. She was willing to trust.

Over time, Annnie became a sweet, loving dog. I learned a lot of lessons from Annie. She taught me that a fearful, feral dog can become a loving, sweet, happy, gal. Annie never gave up trying to fit in. She taught me how animals and people who are abused in their youth bear permanent scars and how fragile trust can be. 

She also taught me about empathy. The Annie that I first met had no prospect of a happy life. But she was willing to open up to another world. 

After caring for Annie, I understand the permanent scars that remain after childhood abuse, especially sexual abuse by trusted institutions. But Annie’s resiliency is in everyone. Annie taught me patience. Changes can take years…but Annie taught me that they will come.

Annie ended up living a long, happy life, she was joyous, carefree and always so sweet. She was kind to people and animals. I think I will miss her sweetness the most.

Sorry for the picture, but Annie was afraid of phones pointed at her.

---

Angela Rieck, a Caroline County native, received her PhD in Mathematical Psychology from the University of Maryland and worked as a scientist at Bell Labs, and other high-tech companies in New Jersey before retiring as a corporate executive. Angela and her dogs divide their time between St Michaels and Key West Florida. Her daughter lives and works in New York City.

There are many ways to categorize people, but one way is mindset. Do you have a destination or a journey mindset?

People with a “destination mindset” (like me) have a focus on the end result, the achievement, the completion of a task or subtask, or the “box checked.” Our motivation is to reach the specific goal or target. “Destination mindsets” have certain targets or goals in mind and work towards them. The goals can be as diverse as wanting to visit 50 countries, completing a “to do” checklist, or cleaning out the garage.

Those with a “journey mindset” focus on the process and experiences along the way. They focus on the growth that comes from the journey rather than the end result. A “journey mindset” is considered more beneficial because it can lead to greater satisfaction, resilience, and an appreciation for the experience. Someone with a “journey mindset” enjoys the process without necessarily having an end goal in mind. They want to squeeze more out of the moment. They enjoy the intricacies of the smaller things in the larger. Having a “journey mindset” is especially good when traveling. “Journey mindsets” allow them to stop and enjoy the sights, smells, or experiences of that moment.

Psychologists argue that a balanced approach, enjoying both the journey and the destination, is often the most fulfilling. But I am convinced that not all tasks are journey worthy, and not all task completions give a feeling of accomplishment. 

While I believe that we have predilections, I think that to a large extent it depends on the task. For travel, even those with a “destination mindset” take a “journey mindset” to enjoy the full experience. On the other hand, for tedious tasks, a “destination mindset” is needed to ensure that they are completed.

To improve my health, I am using a trainer to help me retain muscle while I lose weight. It is a painful and dull process, but when I finished, I feel great. I simply hate doing the exercises. On the other hand, my “journey mindset” trainer enjoys the feeling of working her muscles and seeing what she can accomplish with each exercise.

Being a “destination mindset” person, I believe that our viewpoint is underrated. First, we get the break down the “finish point.” Using my exercise as an example, after I complete each set of exercises, I feel that I have accomplished something and when the ½ hour is over, I feel exhilarated. The journey of doing these routines is painful and boring, so focusing on completing the tasks is the only way that I can get through it.

There is a downside to “destination mindsets,” we can become so focused on completing our goal, that we can ignore the learning on the journey. I had friends with “destination mindsets” who traveled and simply checked off what they came to see. At the end of the day, they were exhilarated by visiting a large number of places in a single day. Those of us with “destination mindset” can be so self-directed that we miss the subtleties. Those with a journey mindset sometimes are not able to complete the task.

Being a destination person simply suits me better. I gain confidence when I accomplish a task. My “journey mindset” friends enjoy the process. For example, I like doing puzzles, but I am obsessed with completing them, and will sometimes work on them for 12 hours straight to finish. My “journey mindset” friend enjoys fitting pieces together and is in no rush to finish the puzzle. 

Having a predominantly “journey mindset” or “destination mindset” to some extent helps define us. So, which one are you?

---

Angela Rieck, a Caroline County native, received her PhD in Mathematical Psychology from the University of Maryland and worked as a scientist at Bell Labs, and other high-tech companies in New Jersey before retiring as a corporate executive. Angela and her dogs divide their time between St Michaels and Key West Florida. Her daughter lives and works in New York City.

Arguably, one of the most important books in the 20th century was Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, published in 1962. Before his seminal work, science was believed to move in linear increments. Namely, science progressed in a relatively predictable way as scientists learned more and more. But instead, Kuhn demonstrated that science really progresses through what he called paradigm shifts. Scientists continue along a path until someone comes in and shakes up the prevailing wisdom. A lot of research follows to prove or disprove this radical new hypothesis, and science “leaps” into this new understanding. Kuhn’s model suggests that science progresses through periods of stability (normal science) punctuated by revolutionary upheavals (paradigm shifts). Einstein’s theory of relativity is one example, as he was the first to recognize that space and time were related. This paradigm shift involved a fundamental change in how scientists perceive the universe. 

One such interesting paradigm shift in paleontology is described in Nova’s program Hunt for the Oldest DNA.

It tells the story of Eske Willerslev, a Danish scientist studying at the University of Copenhagen. He was interested in the study of ancient DNA, but he was of no importance and couldn’t get ancient DNA samples. 

He believed that no one, including himself, would have predicted that he would become a scientist. He characterized himself as a basic failure in school. He was a rebel, a bit of troublemaker and not particularly good at schoolwork. 

While pursuing his graduate degree, he was thinking about how to get ancient DNA. And one cold and rainy day he observed a person walking her dog and the dog defecating into the soil (this was before the days of cleaning up after your pet). He wondered what happened to the DNA from the stool when it went into the dirt. Would the DNA remain in the soil?

Excited by his idea, he went over to his professor who was seated with a number of other professors and described his hypothesis. Over guffaws from the other professors, his own professor pronounced it was “the stupidest thing that he had ever heard.”

A rebel, unwilling to be deterred, he pursed this question with ancient dirt from Siberian permafrost. He discovered not just a single animal’s DNA (a wooly mammoth), but at least 12 different ancient animal DNAs and plant DNA as well. A new field was born.

Up until Eske’s discovery, ancient DNA was only available from a minute number of fossils that contained some DNA.

By the way, Jurassic Park is a myth. There is no dinosaur DNA. Dinosaurs were extinguished 65 million years ago. In a most recent study, Eske was able to find identifiable DNA fragments that were approximately 2 ½ million years old. Scientists agree that it is not possible to recover 65-million-year-old DNA.

One major problem with finding ancient DNA is that DNA degrades rapidly. Instead of a full DNA strand, only snippets of DNA remain. Before Eske, approximately 100 pairs had to be recovered to identify a species (we have 3 billion pairs of DNA steps in our DNA ladder). But a technique emerged that allowed him to identify smaller snippets of DNA in dirt. Recently it was discovered that in the soil, certain minerals like clay and quartz bind to the DNA to preserve some fragments.

What makes this particularly relevant for us is that the newly discovered DNA are from the Pliocene era. This is the era before the Ice Age, where the earth was far hotter than it is now. Scientists believe with our CO2 issue that we are headed for a warmer climate that could mimic the Pliocene age.

And the moral of the story? That by using our imagination we can even make dog poop revolutionary.

---

Angela Rieck, a Caroline County native, received her PhD in Mathematical Psychology from the University of Maryland and worked as a scientist at Bell Labs, and other high-tech companies in New Jersey before retiring as a corporate executive. Angela and her dogs divide their time between St Michaels and Key West Florida. Her daughter lives and works in New York City.

As a Floridian, one of the things that I miss the most is early spring in the mid-Atlantic. This is when the landscape shakes off its winter doldrums. Bright green shoots appear on seemingly dead shrub branches. The trees cast a light green or red tint, letting us know that large expansive leaves are growing inside of them. The grass turns a bright green, and the sap is running again, allowing evergreens to get their color.

But what this season offers the most is hope.

Those of us who are hiding from the cold weather can enjoy the orchids blooming on our trees. What is not to love about an orchid? The flowers last months. They come in a myriad of colors. They are great cut flowers. They don’t wilt, so that you can put them in bouquets, as garni or decorations. Their leaves are a dark green and complement the flower.

But I miss the hope of early spring.

This is going to be the year when my ferocious struggle with violets finally wins out. Those weedy, unwanted plants are gone forever. This is going to be the year that my gooseneck loosestrife remains contained and does not grow too high. This is going to be the year that my astilbe blooms like it did in NJ. This is going to be the year that my roses bloom nonstop.

All around early spring is hope, the forsythias are awash in yellow. The daffodils provide bright yellow color when the cheery sun is hidden by clouds. Multi-colored tulips stand upright saluting the spring. Flowering cherry and pear trees provide soft, pastel pink and white clouds against the sky. My Hellebores host masses of white and mauve flowers.

Yes, this is the year, we’ll get rain at just the right time (unlike last year), my acidifier will work, and I will have blue Hydrangeas. The crab grass and dandelions will give up. 

The cool air gives hope and promise. But then that weed emerges, you the know one…the one that you have been fighting for years, and it begins to comingle with the plants that I have carefully cultivated…if I don’t fight it early, it will take over.

And that is the problem with missing early spring in Florida…I am likely to lose the battle before it even begins.

---

Angela Rieck, a Caroline County native, received her PhD in Mathematical Psychology from the University of Maryland and worked as a scientist at Bell Labs, and other high-tech companies in New Jersey before retiring as a corporate executive. Angela and her dogs divide their time between St Michaels and Key West Florida. Her daughter lives and works in New York City.

It’s Women’s History month. And this month, I would like to celebrate Orin O’Brien. She is representative of so many women who have made contributions that we don’t always see.

For those who haven’t been lucky enough to watch it, I recommend the Oscar-winning short film The Only Girl in the Orchestra (on Netflix). It is the story of Orin O’Brien. She began her career as a double bassist in 1966 at the New York Philharmonic and was the first woman to break the gender barrier. This sounds like it should be a tribute to a pioneer in a difficult field (Zubin Mehta, for instance, believed women did not belong in an orchestra). But it is also a tribute to who she is.

Orin O’Brien was the daughter of two movie stars, George O’Brien and Marguerite Churchill, who after giving birth to her, had little time for her. Their careers were paramount, and Orin was shuffled from place to place, living with different relatives. She went to 10 different grade schools. Her parents craved the spotlight, but she never did. Instead, she chose a path where she could be part of something.

After falling in love with Beethoven and Bach at 13, she wanted to play in the school orchestra. The conductor indicated that he needed someone to play the double bass, so she practiced rigorously for 4 years to learn her craft. Her joy in playing music filled the void of a neglected childhood and helped her organize her thoughts and emotions.

She went on to play for 55 years in the New York Philharmonic orchestra and retired at the age of 87. She also taught many students. Leonard Bernstein said simply, “She is a miracle.” She was one of the best double bassists of her time.

But what she loved the most was being part of something. As she explains, the double bass is meant to be an instrument in an orchestra, not at its center stage. She loved the sound of the instrument and its temperamental nature…but she wanted to hear the other parts of the orchestra and contribute to them. 

She says the key to satisfaction in later years is to always play second fiddle. Many people are unhappy in retirement because they are no longer important. But she is content. Happy teaching her students, happy listening to an orchestra where she is not playing, happy doing things that she put off during her career. To her, creating together is better than creating alone. She preferred being in the background with the feeling of notes falling all around her. 

All of us know these women. These are the women who run book clubs and ensure that all the members are able to contribute. These are team leaders where every member feels like they are important. These are the women who quietly volunteer. These are the women who raise their families and aid other families. My mother was one of these women. I have many of these every-women in my family and among my friends. They are role models, not for taking center stage but for being a part of something and making it better. Orien O’Brien is the model of this every-woman…and like them, she is remarkable.

So, for women’s history month I would like to celebrate all of these every-women, you know them. They are quietly among us, there when we need them. They are the glue to families, friends, and teams, and they would not appreciate being singled out. But they deserve to be recognized and valued, every one of them.

---

Angela Rieck, a Caroline County native, received her PhD in Mathematical Psychology from the University of Maryland and worked as a scientist at Bell Labs, and other high-tech companies in New Jersey before retiring as a corporate executive. Angela and her dogs divide their time between St Michaels and Key West Florida. Her daughter lives and works in New York City.

Retirement is called the gift because it allows us to reflect on what we have learned in life. By now most of us have become comfortable in our own skin. 

I was talking to a friend about principles that I have learned, but still sometimes find hard to follow. The first is about criticism and praise. Like everyone, I enjoy praise, and I sometimes overreact to criticism. Long ago, I learned that praise or criticism has less to do with me and more about the person who is dispensing it. 

Let me explain. Praise is the hardest concept to understand. When someone praises you it is because they appreciate something about you. For example, I was blessed with my grandmother’s blue eyes, and I get compliments on them. But the compliments are only from people who value blue eyes. But I always like hearing it. 

Praise is even more valued when the praise is about a core value. For example, I am trying, with emphasis on the word “trying,” to be kind as that is something I value. When I receive praise for that, it feels very good because it aligns with my core value. The person giving it probably shares that core value.

Criticism is easy to dismiss when you recognize that it is about the person that is giving it. Back to my blue eyes example, if someone really liked brown eyes and not blue eyes, they might criticize my eyes as bloodshot or pale. It is easy for me to ignore that criticism because I know that this is their individual preference and has nothing to do with the eyes I was born with. However, if I am criticized for not being kind that is a core value that will hurt more and I will need to assess if it is valid. I might determine that their criticism indicates that their views about kindness are different from mine. For example, what if I ask someone who butted in front of a long line (which in my value system is not kind) if they are aware where the end of the line is? They might respond that they didn’t know and thank me (which happens most of the time) or they might respond that I am being rude (unkind). Then I have to take my values of kindness and decide to accept or reject their criticism. 

Another situation that I am seeing more of these days is adult bullying. Bullying can arise from a desire to exert dominance, a need to bolster one’s own fragile self-image, a profound lack of empathy, or a recognition of wrongdoing. Therefore, when being exposed to bullies it is important to realize their bullying is not about you, it is about their need to assert themselves. Adult bullies often disregard the personal limits or rules others have set. They tend to attack someone’s character, appearance, abilities, or background. Public shaming is another tactic that involves humiliating or embarrassing someone in front of others. There is also cyberbullying through social media, emails, or messaging apps.

Most people who are demeaned often feel less than, but the secret is that most observers actually see the bully in a negative light and are sympathetic to the person who is the victim. 

And that knowledge is important. 

Eleanor Roosevelt famously said, “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.” She understood the power of self-belief and the importance of not allowing others to dictate our self-worth. While bullies may try to make us feel bad about ourselves, ultimately, it’s our choice to accept those feelings. Since the offender’s motivations are about themselves, it is easier to make the choice not to be affected by bullying.

Equally important is that most who witness this “humiliation” are actually in the corner of the victim. 

Gandhi shared a similar perspective, “They cannot take away our self-respect if we do not give it to them.” Mahatma Gandhi also believed that self-respect is critical in life, stating that “I cannot conceive of a greater loss than the loss of one’s self-respect.” To Gandhi, all individuals, regardless of their circumstances, possess inherent dignity and self-worth. 

And that is the important lesson; by allowing bullies to humiliate us, we are allowing them to take away something that is inherently ours. 

It’s a good reminder that in these times we need to hold onto our own self-worth and be confident in who we are. It allows the criticism and bullying to be recognized for what it is, a seriously flawed person lashing out into empty space.

---

Angela Rieck, a Caroline County native, received her PhD in Mathematical Psychology from the University of Maryland and worked as a scientist at Bell Labs, and other high-tech companies in New Jersey before retiring as a corporate executive. Angela and her dogs divide their time between St Michaels and Key West Florida. Her daughter lives and works in New York City.

The FDA recently announced that Novo Nordisk’s semaglutide GLP-1 medication (Ozempic and Wegovy) is no longer in short supply. Before this announcement, the FDA permitted compounded GLP-1 products to be sold at much lower prices to maintain supplies. But, since the FDA only allows compounded drugs to be sold while the branded forms they’re mimicking are limited, compounded GLP-1 sellers will have until April or May to take their products (which are far cheaper than their branded counterparts) off the market.

This announcement means that weight loss treatment is going to get more expensive. Compounded semaglutide medications are currently being sold at large online healthcare providers for as little as $165 per month. The decision by the FDA could raise those costs as much as 10-fold, as only expensive brands by big Pharma will be available.

What are compounded GLP-1s? You may have heard the brand names in advertisements, Mounjaro, Wegovy, Ozempic, Zepbound. Compounded GLP-1s are purported to have the same ingredients and formulas as the brand names at significantly lower prices. 

GLP-1s are game changing weight loss drugs. These medications were initially developed to help people with type 2 diabetes manage their blood sugar. When weight loss was recognized as a side effect, physicians began prescribing them off label for weight loss. Now, GLP-1s are prescribed for those who qualify as overweight (with certain comorbidities) or obese based on Body Mass Index (BMI). 

How do these medications work? GLP-1 drugs mimic the GLP-1 gut hormone and amplify its effects. This hormone decreases blood sugar levels and slows down the stomach. More importantly, it suppresses hunger signals by affecting the hypothalamus, known as the appetite center of the brain. People taking these drugs report experiencing little or no hunger. 

The success of GLP-1 drugs for weight loss is significant. And in most cases, GLP-1 drugs are prescribed alongside lifestyle changes, like a healthy diet and physical activity, to help patients lose weight and maintain their weight long-term. Numerous clinical studies have shown they can help patients lose weight (between 17% to 23% of body weight) more effectively and maintain a healthy body weight (if they continue to take them). The use of GLP-1s has resulted in a 20% reduction in cardiovascular diseases, reduced fatty liver disorder, and reduced instances of type 2 diabetes.

The population of overweight people in America is not a small one. According to the CDC, 74% of adults are overweight based on BMI. About 43% of the population are clinically obese (BMI>30).

Recent guidelines by the CDC emphasize preventing obesity through better education about health and diet, improving food labels, and continuing programs that focus on healthy eating. These habits include adequate nutrition, reduced sugar, reduced fast food intake, recommended activity levels, and limited exposure to unhealthy stressors. 

It is easy to say that overweight people are merely people who lack willpower, but the truth is that our bodies are designed to retain weight, not lose it. Scientists learned a lot about fat and weight loss after monitoring participants from the television show The Biggest Loser. Most of the poor souls who participated in that television show have gained their weight back. Not because they are weak-willed or lazy, but because the biology of their bodies is determined to return to their unhealthy weight levels.

One of the causes of their weight regain was the hormone leptin, which causes the feelings of hunger and satiety. Contestants began their weight-loss journey with normal levels of the hormone leptin. By the season’s finale, they had almost no leptin at all. In short, they were starving.

Their metabolism, regulated by the thyroid, had slowed dramatically as well. After weight loss, they needed to eat 600 fewer calories than the average person to maintain their weight. One contestant who has been working to keep his weight down; is a 295-pound man, 6 feet tall; whose metabolism has so slowed that, despite 6-8 hours of rigorous weekly strength exercise and constant feelings of starvation, he must consume 800 calories per day fewer than a typical male his size to maintain his current weight. Hardly a fair fight.

Our body uses other mechanisms to prevent us from losing weight. After losing 10% of our body weight, our muscles start using genes to exercise more efficiently, causing us to burn 20-30% fewer calories while doing the same amount of exercise. 

The combined effects of low leptin levels and a slower metabolism conspired to make the contestants regain most, if not all, of the weight they’d lost. But the truly shocking part was that their leptin and metabolism levels never rebounded. The more weight a contestant lost, the slower his metabolism became. Weight regain was inevitable.

But GLP-1 medications have proven to be the game changer for these issues, and can be continued after weight loss to maintain weight. So why did the FDA eliminate the low-cost version of these medications, the compounded semaglutide injections? 

The FDA allowed compounded semaglutide (GLP-1s) to be produced when there were scarcities in the branded drugs Wegovy and Ozempic. Allowing compounded semaglutides (GLP-1s) ensured that the population could get access to these medications. The FDA recently declared that these shortages no longer exist, thus paving the way for only the branded (and significantly more expensive) FDA approved drugs to be used.

The FDA expressed concerns that compounded GLP-1 drugs, which are not regulated by the FDA, could pose risks for the patient. While most of these online health organizations that supply these GLP-1 medications use FDA approved components in FDA approved labs, there is no regulation on the actual compounded product. There have been few reports of problems, but the potential exists. Branded GLP-1s (such as Wegovy, Zepbound, Ozempic), on the other hand, have undergone rigorous testing to obtain FDA approval.

For many reasons, including the costs of research and development, big pharma cannot compete with the lower priced compounded GLP-1s. The hope is that as more big pharma products are introduced (Eli Lilly is introducing a GLP-1 pill next year), competition will reduce prices. Eli Lilly recently lowered the price of its tirzepatide (another GLP-1 drug).

But, for now, this announcement significantly increases the cost of GLP-1 weight loss medicines. At this time, most insurance companies and Medicare do not cover these medications for weight loss (only for diabetes), so someone who wants to lose weight using GLP-1s must have sufficient funds to pay for this medicine. (At current prices, it would be very costly for Medicare and insurance companies to cover GLP-1s for weight management.)

Which begs the larger question. If scientists are calling obesity a disease, which they are, why is it not being treated as a disease? We have a solution for obesity that is proven to work, but without insurance and affordable prices, these treatments are only available to those who have the resources to pay for these medications. The rest must fight their biology with weight loss plans, diets, but mostly, sheer willpower. Hardly a fair fight.

---

Angela Rieck, a Caroline County native, received her PhD in Mathematical Psychology from the University of Maryland and worked as a scientist at Bell Labs, and other high-tech companies in New Jersey before retiring as a corporate executive. Angela and her dogs divide their time between St Michaels and Key West Florida. Her daughter lives and works in New York City.

Okay, I am being overly dramatic by the title, the asteroid YR4 was initially projected to have a 3.1% chance of hitting the earth in 2032. A day later, NASA downgraded it significantly and by February 21st, the space agency lowered its chances of a potential strike to 0.28%. At the same time, they increased the asteroid’s chances to 1% of hitting the moon. 

First, it’s a relief. This asteroid whose full name is 2024YR4 has a width of 177 feet (54 meters) and is considered a “city killer.” While its impact would not be as devastating as the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs (it had a width of 10-15 kilometers), YR4 would be large enough to eviscerate a major city. It would release more than 500 times the energy released by the Hiroshima atomic bomb. If the asteroid landed in the ocean, it could spare a city but create an immense tsunami.

At its peak, YR4 was the highest impact-probability NASA had ever recorded for a space object as large as YR4. The latest reduction in impact probability came after astronomers made overnight observations of YR4 in mid-February. The darker skies enabled astronomers to get a better observation of the asteroid. Even while YR4’s impact odds were going up, the increase was due to uncertainty about the asteroid’s orbital path. 

But there are misses. In 2023, an asteroid, 2023NT1, came close to earth and astronomers did not see it due to the sun’s glare. Astronomers didn’t catch the skyscraper-size rock until two days after it passed, when it was discovered leaving earth’s path by a telescope in South Africa. 

There are a couple of other asteroids that we need to be aware of. In 2029, another city-killer, asteroid Apopohis, will pass earth even closer than some of our satellites, but for now, it has zero chance of crashing into the earth. 

Astronomers are also closely watching the asteroid Bennu (.5 kilometers). This asteroid was the target of the 2023 OSIRIS-REx mission, which proved that a spacecraft could retrieve samples of space rock and return them to Earth. There is currently a 1-in-2,700 chance that Bennu will crash into Earth in 2082, pretty low odds.

There is a system for reporting asteroids and keeping track of them. Scientists and amateur astronomers search the skies each night for tiny dots of moving light. Most of these observations are generally made with ground-based telescopes like the Catalina Sky Survey in Arizona or the Infrared Telescope Facility atop Hawaii’s Mauna Kea volcano. The Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System (ATLAS) is an array of telescopes designed to spot asteroids several days to weeks before any potential impact. 

When someone observes an asteroid or a comet, they report it to the International Astronomical Union (IAU) Minor Planet Center, which compiles all of the observations. From there, scientists at other observatories and NASA can make more measurements to determine the object’s precise orbit and whether it may threaten Earth. The International Astronomical Union (IAU) is a non-governmental organization that is responsible for, among other things, naming celestial objects and defining types of objects like planets and dwarf planets. (They are the ones that determined that Pluto was a dwarf planet.)

So, what happens if there is an asteroid heading for earth? Is there something that we can do? 

NASA scientists believe that the best method to address this threat is to alter the asteroid’s orbital path. They have studied several ways or doing this. One method is called a gravity tractor, in which a spacecraft would orbit an asteroid and tug it off course. The most feasible strategy involves launching a spacecraft that would deliberately collide with the asteroid to knock it off course. In 2022, NASA provided a proof of concept by altering the course of the space rock Dimorphos by 32 minutes. Unfortunately, this method requires years of careful planning and a precise knowledge of the asteroid’s orbit.

While all of this seems daunting, scientists currently believe that the earth will be safe from extinction-inducing asteroids for the next thousand years. Let’s hope that the earth is safe from us by that time, too.

---

Angela Rieck, a Caroline County native, received her PhD in Mathematical Psychology from the University of Maryland and worked as a scientist at Bell Labs, and other high-tech companies in New Jersey before retiring as a corporate executive. Angela and her dogs divide their time between St Michaels and Key West Florida. Her daughter lives and works in New York City.

It’s hard to say something nice about viruses, but Dr. Joaquín Martínez Martínez can. Dr. Martínez Martínez is a new aquatic virus ecologist at Horn Point who studies how viruses interact with acceptable host cells (typically each virus targets only a single host cell type). He studies how those interactions are influenced by environmental conditions and correspondingly, how these interactions impact the environment.

When we think of viruses, we think of COVID 19, HIV, influenza, Herpes, Shingles, Measles and a suite of viruses that cause discomfort and loss of life. But there are more to viruses than human infections. For one, viruses are the most abundant life forms on Earth, able to live in all environments. They have the ability to remain dormant for long periods until they find a host to infect. Viruses are the most abundant biological entities in the oceans, lakes, soil, and shallow sediments, far exceeding the number of bacteria. 

There are so many viruses that the majority of viruses remain unidentified. This is due to their microscopic size and their complexity. However, advancements in omics—techniques that analyze genetic material recovered directly from environmental samples—have revolutionized the field. Omic tools enable scientists to discover new viruses without having to culture them in a lab.

The evolutionary history of viruses is not known, but there are theories. One theory is that viruses, or their precursors, may have evolved before other forms of life. This hypothesis suggests that viruses could have played a crucial role in the development of cellular life. The simplicity of their structure, combined with their ability to transfer genetic material, implies that viruses may have been integral to the evolution of complex organisms.

We know viruses as causes of diseases, but they are also active participants in the evolutionary process of their hosts. Through a mechanism known as horizontal gene transfer, viruses can transfer genes into the host, contributing to genetic diversity and evolution. Some of the genes that viruses have inserted into our DNA millions of years ago are now essential for cellular functions. Other viruses help by maintaining the balance of bad bacteria, even in our gut. Viruses exist in the ecosystem, in plants, animals, humans and because of their specificity they help the organisms that carry them by infecting and killing pathogens.

Gene transfer can also occur when the virus gets DNA from the host cell. Viruses can carry key genes from the host even if the host shuts down the infection, then virus can beat the host cell because it is carrying some host’s DNA.

To understand viruses, it is important to understand that viruses very selectively target host cells; generally speaking, each virus can only infect a single type of host cell (e.g., a certain virus can only attack a certain bacteria). Viruses are not alive until they enter a host cell and hijack the host cell metabolism and nutrients to reproduce. Often, the virus kills the host cell through a process called lysis where the host cell “bursts” spewing out its contents into the system (e.g., aquatic system, our bloodstream).

Other times, viruses can co-exist for extended times with the host without killing it, for example inserting their genetic material into the host cell’s genetic material. When the host cell makes copies, the virus DNA is duplicated. This viral DNA often remains dormant in the cell, until it becomes activated. An example that we are familiar with is the HIV virus, which remains dormant in the cells until it expresses itself as full blown AIDS.

Viruses play a vital role in regulating the ecosystems of our rivers and seas. The largest type of aquatic viruses are bacteriophages, which attack bacteria. Viruses can control bacterial populations and algae blooms. In marine environments, viruses are responsible for the lysis (breaking down) of a significant fraction of the bacterial population each day, releasing nutrients back into the ecosystem and supporting the food web. When a cell breaks down in lysis, the contents of the cell (including nutrients) are injected into the environment. This is called nutrient cycling, and it helps maintain ecological equilibrium.

Dr. Joaquín Martínez Martínez has been studying red tide algae blooms in the Gulf of Mexico, which can have devastating consequences. The algae produce toxins that can kill fish, marine mammals, birds, and other marine life. Red tide algae blooms can lead to massive die-offs and disrupt the ecosystem. 

Dr. Joaquín Martínez Martínez and other scientists are studying the microbes (e.g., viruses, bacteria, algae), nutrients, temperature, currents, tides, and microbial interactions to determine the causes and preconditions for these blooms. Scientists need to determine which viruses and bacteria can be helpful in prevention and control. The current goal is to be able to forecast the conditions when a red tide algae bloom will occur and provide an early warning. Eventually, they hope to be able to use viruses and bacteria in the ecosystem to regulate these devastating red tide algae blooms. In his new position at Horn Point Laboratory, he is hoping to translate what he and his colleagues are learning from this study to harmful blooms around the Chesapeake Bay.

When hosts are virally infected, they become a virtually different organism. For example, due to chemical changes induced by the infection, one phytoplankton species becomes more nutritional when infected with a certain virus. This extra nutrition enables other organisms to grow faster when feeding on this infected phytoplankton. Other phytoplankton species can take more CO2 from the environment when infected with their specific viruses. Scientists are studying such phenomena under natural conditions so that they can assess its impact and determine how to maintain the balance that is currently in nature. Is it scalable? Research is investigating this because it has a potential to remove carbon from the atmosphere or improve feed production for aquaculture.  

Horn Point has recognized the potential of viruses in the ecosystem for its research in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Dr. Joaquín Martínez Martínez’s intends to create partnerships and collaborate with scientist that study aquatic vegetation and oyster populations. He has currently proposed a study of marshes on Poplar Island. Marshes are critical to the shoreline and ecosystem, yet sometimes they die suddenly, and scientists need to know why and what are the roles of microbes in these deaths. 

So, despite our negative perception of viruses, Dr. Joaquín Martínez Martínez wants us to know that viruses are not necessarily the bad guys. Viruses, in fact, create balance, especially against bacteria that are detrimental to us and the environment. Viruses can be helpful in medicine. Since they are mostly specific to a host, they may become an alternative to antibiotics. Additionally, viruses are used as markers in gene therapy to deliver therapeutic genes to target cells. Oncolytic viruses, which selectively infect and kill cancer cells, are offering new hope in cancer treatment. Environmental viruses may serve as innocuous surrogates to safely deliver those treatments to humans.

The viruses that we hate are the tiniest, tiniest fraction of the viruses in the world…maybe it’s time we cast them as players in the environment rather than demons.

Dr. Joaquín Martínez Martínez will be discussing his research on February 27th at 5:30 at the Dorchester Center for the Arts, 321 High Street, Cambridge. Check the Horn Point Laboratory website, www.umces.edu/hpl or their social media for more information about registration.

---

Angela Rieck, a Caroline County native, received her PhD in Mathematical Psychology from the University of Maryland and worked as a scientist at Bell Labs, and other high-tech companies in New Jersey before retiring as a corporate executive. Angela and her dogs divide their time between St Michaels and Key West Florida. Her daughter lives and works in New York City.