Connect with us

Science

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Names Alexandra Bell Its New President

Published

on

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Names Alexandra Bell Its New President

At the end of January, the keepers of the Doomsday Clock announced that the world was 89 seconds to midnight, a metaphor for our proximity to extinction. That’s one second closer than we were for the past two years, and the nearest the clock has ever inched to global destruction by way of human-made risks, including nuclear weapons, climate change and new technologies like artificial intelligence.

The iconic clock is set by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, an organization founded by American physicists at the dawn of the nuclear age, months after the United States detonated atomic bombs in Japan. On Monday, the Bulletin named Alexandra Bell, a nuclear affairs expert, as its new president and chief executive. She replaces Rachel Bronson, who served in the role for a decade.

Ms. Bell worked on arms control and nonproliferation issues in the U.S. State Department starting in the Obama administration, where she was involved in securing ratification of New START, the nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia. She returned to the department as a deputy assistant secretary in 2021, promoting dialogue on nuclear issues with nations around the world. During the last two years of the Biden administration, she led the U.S. delegation of the P5 Process, currently the only forum where the United States, China and Russia discuss nuclear risk reduction.

In an interview last week, Ms. Bell discussed the ever-evolving threats of the day and the role she wants the Bulletin to play in preventing worldwide disaster. “It’s important to listen to the echoes of history,” she said, to be “informed by the past, but not shackled to it.”

The following conversation has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Advertisement

How does an 80-year-old organization like the Bulletin stay relevant in an ever-changing world?

When I entered the field, the Doomsday Clock was at five minutes to midnight. I remember being struck by the symbolism. The clock being at its closest point to midnight now is really a warning that we are running out of time. The fact that it ticked one second closer is an indication that every second counts.

We are living through an overload of crisis with a compounding nature of threats. The key is to understand those threats and make sure that we’re transitioning to solutions. It will take work and patience and persistence, and a broad demand from the public, to address these concerns.

Hopefully, the Doomsday Clock pulls people in to help them understand the urgency of the moment. There’s no single, neat solution. But there are things we can do to pull ourselves away from the edge.

How does this era of nuclear risk differ from the past?

Advertisement

Nuclear threats are on vivid display for the first time, really, since we pulled ourselves away from the edge of catastrophe in the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. The United States and Russia are not in a sustained dialogue about how to stabilize nuclear risk. China has embarked on an unprecedented expansion of their nuclear forces. Iran has the potential to create nuclear weapons, and North Korea continues to flout international law, threaten its neighbors and grow its nuclear arsenal.

We also have structures that we’ve spent the last 50 years building now crumbling under us. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which has held back the tide of nuclear chaos, is under duress. The next steps that we were supposed to take in reducing nuclear threat, like the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, haven’t come to pass yet.

I’m sure people living through the height of the Cold War would not have thought it was uncomplicated. But looking back, that was a bipolar conflict — it was the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Now, it’s more complex.

There are no quick fixes here. This time, it won’t just be the nuclear experts alone who come up with solutions. We have to be talking with experts in A.I., quantum, biotechnology and climate change. These risk areas are overlapping and require coordination we haven’t quite mastered yet. But that cross-pollination of expertise will be key to how we manage these threats.

The looming threat for most people these days seems to be climate change, rather than nuclear weapons.

Advertisement

You’re right, younger generations don’t think about nuclear threat as much. We did a good job of reducing that threat, but it never went away. In some ways, it’s become worse. It’s more complex, more diffuse, and there’s not as much attention on it.

The nuclear issue is a matter of minutes. Intercontinental ballistic missiles in the United States or Russia can reach anywhere in the world in about 33 minutes. If we get the nuclear problem wrong, nothing else matters.

Climate change is a longer-term problem. And the potential conflicts that could arise from it, like mass migration, can increase tension. More nuclear-armed states with climate-related conflicts means the likelihood of nuclear war increases. These threats are tied together. All the more reason to be thinking about both at the same time.

What are your thoughts so far on the direction of the new presidential administration?

I was pleased to see President Trump’s comments in Davos about reducing nuclear threats. That was encouraging. But he is also withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. That is a step in the wrong direction.

Advertisement

Hopefully, the administration will see that there are economic and security benefits to the U.S. pursuing a move to greener technology.

I hope there is an acknowledgment that climate change isn’t a matter of belief. This is happening. You can choose not to believe in it, but I guarantee that your insurance company believes in it. When that starts financially impacting people across the country, they will be looking to their leaders to do something about it.

In what ways do you hope to shape the work of the Bulletin in the years ahead?

The Bulletin is trying to facilitate a public reckoning with human-made existential risk. It’s been an increasingly exclusive conversation, and I don’t want it to be that. I want people anywhere to understand why this is so important, and why they have a part in it.

I am from Tuxedo, N.C. — a place with no stoplights. My folks’ house got 40 inches of rain in two days from Hurricane Helene. The havoc caused by a changing climate has now happened in a place like my hometown. How do we connect those people into the conversation about preventing this? It’s our job to make sure they are a part of it just as much as people in the Beltway are.

Advertisement

It can be easy to look at these challenges and go to a dark place. The harder thing is to let those challenges drive you. My mother is from Finland, and we always talk about this Finnish ethos of “sisu” — unstoppable grit in the face of extreme adversity. We need more sisu in this field. We’ve inherited a mess, and we have to work together to clean it up.

Science

What to plant (and what to remove) in California’s new ‘Zone Zero’ fire-safety proposal

Published

on

What to plant (and what to remove) in California’s new ‘Zone Zero’ fire-safety proposal

After years of heated debates among fire officials, scientists and local advocates, California’s Board of Forestry and Fire Protection released new proposed landscaping rules for fire-prone areas Friday that outline what residents can and can’t do within the first 5 feet of their homes.

Many of these proposed rules — designed to reduce the risk of a home burning down amid a wildfire — have wide support (or at least acceptance); however, the most contentious by far has been whether the state would allow healthy plants in the zone.

Many fire officials and safety advocates have essentially argued anything that can burn, will burn and have supported removing virtually anything capable of combustion from this zone within 5 feet of houses, dubbed “Zone Zero.” They point to the string of devastating urban wildfires in recent years as reason to move quickly.

Yet, researchers who study the array of benefits shade and extra foliage can bring to neighborhoods — and local advocates who are worried about the money and labor needed to comply with the regulations — have argued that this approach goes beyond what current science shows is effective. They have, instead, generally been in favor of allowing green, healthy plants within the zone.

The new draft regulations attempt to bridge the gap. They outline more stringent requirements to remove all plants in a new “Safety Zone” within a foot of the house and within a bigger buffer around potential vulnerabilities in a home’s wildfire armor, including windows that can shatter in extreme heat and wooden decks that can easily burst into flames. Everywhere else, the rules would allow residents to maintain some plants, although still with significant restrictions.

Advertisement

The rules generally do not require the removal of healthy trees — instead, they require giving these trees routine haircuts.

Once the state adopts a final version of the rules, homeowners would have three years to get their landscaping in order and up to five years for the bigger asks, including removing all vegetation from the Safety Zone and updating combustible fencing and sheds within 5 feet of the home. New constructions would have to comply immediately.

The rules only apply to areas with notable fire hazard, including urban areas that Cal Fire has determined have “very high” fire hazard and rural wildlands.

Officials with the Board will meet in Calabasas on Thursday from 1 p.m. to 7 p.m. to discuss the new proposal and hear from residents.

Advertisement
  • Share via

Advertisement

Some L.A. residents are championing a proposed fire-safety rule, referred to as “Zone Zero,” requiring the clearance of flammable material within the first five feet of homes. Others are skeptical of its value.

Where is the Safety Zone?

The proposed Safety Zone with stricter requirements to remove all vegetation would extend 1 foot from the exterior walls of a house.

In a few areas with heightened vulnerabilities to wildfires, it extends further.

Advertisement

The Safety Zone covers any land under the overhang of roofs. If the overhang extends 3 feet, so does the Safety Zone in that area. It also extends 2 feet out from any windows, doors and vents, as well as 5 feet out from attached decks.

What plants would be allowed in the Safety Zone?

Generally, nothing that can burn can sit in the Safety Zone. This includes mulch, green grass, bushes and flowers.

What plants would be allowed in the rest of Zone Zero?

Homeowners can keep grasses (and other ground-covers, like moss) in this area, as long as it’s trimmed down to no taller than 3 inches.

The rules also allow small plants — from begonias to succulents — up to 18 inches tall as long as they are spaced out in groups. Residents can also keep spaced-out potted plants under this height, as long as they’re easily movable.

What about fences, trees and gates?

Any sheds or other outbuildings would need noncombustible exterior walls and roofs in Zone Zero — Safety Zone or not.

Advertisement

Residents would have to replace the first five feet of any combustible fencing or gates attached to their house with something made out of a noncombustible material, such as metal.

Trees generally would be allowed in Zone Zero. Homeowners would need to keep any branches one foot away from the walls, five feet above the roof and 10 feet from chimneys.

Residents would also have to remove any branches from the lower third of the tree (or up to 6 feet, whichever is shorter) to prevent fires on the ground from climbing into the canopy.

Some trees with trunks directly up against a house in this 1-foot buffer or under the roof’s overhang might need to go — since keeping branches away from the home could prove difficult (or impossible).

However, the board stressed it wants to avoid the removal of trees whenever feasible and encouraged homeowners to work with their local fire department’s inspectors to find case-by-case solutions.

Advertisement

What’s new and what’s not

Some of the rules discussed in Zone Zero are not new — they’ve been on the books for years, classified as requirements for Zone One, extending 30 feet from the home with generally less strict rules, and Zone Two, extending 100 feet from the house with the least strict rules.

For example, homeowners are already required to remove any dead or dying grasses, plants and trees. They also have to remove leaves, twigs and needles from gutters, and they already cannot keep exposed firewood in piles next to their house.

Residents are also already required to keep grasses shorter than 4 inches; Zone Zero lowers this by an inch.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Science

Video: Rescuers Mount a Likely Final Push to Save a Stranded Whale

Published

on

Video: Rescuers Mount a Likely Final Push to Save a Stranded Whale

new video loaded: Rescuers Mount a Likely Final Push to Save a Stranded Whale

Rescue crews mounted a likely final push to save a stranded humpback whale off the coast of Northern Germany on Friday. The large mammal, nicknamed “Timmy,” captivated the nation after it was stranded in shallow waters for weeks.

By Jorge Mitssunaga

April 17, 2026

Continue Reading

Science

1,200% jump in kratom-related calls to poison control centers in last decade, analysis shows

Published

on

1,200% jump in kratom-related calls to poison control centers in last decade, analysis shows

Over the last decade, poison control centers around the country have received tens of thousands of calls from consumers of kratom products reporting adverse and life-threatening health effects, with researchers saying reports in 2025 reached a new level. California’s poison center is reporting similar findings.

Last month, researchers analyzed information from the National Poison Data System and found that between 2015 and 2025, poison control centers across the nation received 14,449 calls related to kratom. More than 23% of those calls, or 3,434, were made last year, according to a published report in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That represents a more than 1,200% increase from 2015, when only 258 calls were reported.

Officers gather illegally grown kratom plants in 2019 in Phang Nha province, Thailand. The country decriminalized the possession and sale of kratom in 2021.

(Associated Press)

Advertisement

Kratom is derived from the leaves of Mitragyna speciosa, a tree native to Southeast Asia. It has a long history of being used for chronic pain or to boost energy and in the U.S., research points to Americans also using it to alleviate anxiety. In low doses, kratom appears to act as a stimulant but in high doses, it can have effects more like opioids.

But in the last few years, a synthetic form of kratom refined for its psychoactive compound, 7-hydroxymitragynine or 7-OH, has entered the market that is highly concentrated and not clearly labeled, leading to confusion and problems for consumers. The synthetic form gaining momentum in the market is sparking concern among public health officials because of its ability to bind to opioid receptors in the body, causing it to have a higher potential for abuse.

Los Angeles County leaders, meanwhile, have grappled with differentiating the two and regulating the products that come in the form of powder, capsules and drinks and have been linked to six county deaths. Sales of kratom and 7-OH products were banned in the county in November.

In reviewing the data, which did not differentiate whether callers had consumed natural or synthetic kratom, researchers set out to understand the effect of what they believe is a “rapidly evolving kratom market,” and highlight the role poison centers can play as an early warning surveillance system to detect new trends.

National Poison Data System findings

The data showed that over the last 10 years, 62% of the kratom-related calls to poison control centers were from people who said they consumed the drug by itself, and the other 38% were from people who combined it with another substance or substances.

Advertisement

Those who consumed kratom with another substance combined it most frequently with one or a combination of the following: alcohol, opioids, benzodiazepines (like Xanax or Valium), cannabis and cannabinoids, stimulants and antidepressants.

The data also broke down hospitalizations related to kratom — adults who took it alone or in combination and experienced “adverse” health effects; and adults who took it alone or in combination and experienced more serious “moderate” or “major” health effects, including death.

Kratom powder products are displayed at a smoke shop.

Kratom powder products are displayed in a smoke shop in Los Angeles in 2024.

(Michael Blackshire/Los Angeles Times)

Hospitalizations for adults who had consumed kratom alone and experienced adverse effects increased from 43 in 2015 to 538 in 2025. For those who took it in combination and were hospitalized with an adverse health effect, the total jumped from 40 in 2015 to 549 last year.

Advertisement

The numbers were even higher for hospitalizations where the health effects were more serious or fatal.

In 2015, there were 76 reports of people being hospitalized after taking kratom alone and experiencing a serious health effect or dying. By last year, that number had climbed to 919. The reports of serious health effects, including death, for those who took kratom in combination with another substance grew from 51 in 2015 to 725 last year.

The research does not break down kratom-related deaths by year but states that there were 233 deaths over the 10-year study period, or just over 3% of all 7,287 serious medical outcomes. Of the total number of kratom-related deaths, 184 cases involved the consumption of multiple substances.

What California’s poison control system found in its state data

The California Poison Control System is currently reviewing its data concerning kratom-related calls but an initial analysis shows parallels to the national report, said Rais Vohra, medical director of the state poison control system.

“We have about 10% of the national population and about 10% of the national call volume with poison control,” Vohra said. “And so, not surprisingly, we were able to identify over 900 cases of calls related to kratom in that same period.”

Advertisement

Local researchers are still deciphering the state data but they too have found that kratom-related calls are climbing.

“It’s accelerating, which I think is one of the main points of the [published] report,” Vohra said.

A majority of calls received by poison control come from healthcare facilities where “presumably someone has a problem … severe enough to warrant calling 911 or going to the emergency room, and that’s when our agency gets involved,” Vohra said.

Kait Brown, clinical managing director for America’s Poison Control Centers, said the fact that kratom and 7-OH are federally unregulated products sold online, in gas stations and smoke shops gives people across the country easy access.

And while kratom enthusiasts maintain that it has been used in its natural form for hundreds of years, “there are new formulations that are a little bit different than how people have used it, at least historically,” said William Eggleston, a pharmacist and the assistant clinical director of the Upstate New York Poison Center in Syracuse.

Advertisement

People are no longer consuming kratom only as a powder or capsule but also in the form of an energy shot or extract; it’s similar for synthetic, more concentrated 7-OH products.

When regional poison centers compare their findings and experiences with the analysis of calls in the National Poison Data System, Eggleston said, “undeniably there is an increase in calls related to kratom.”

“But when you put it in the bigger perspective of all the calls … this is still a very small percentage of what we’re dealing with on a day to day basis,” he said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending