Rachel Feltman: Happy Monday, listeners! For Scientific American’s Science Quickly, I’m Rachel Feltman. Let’s kick off the week with a quick roundup of some science news you may have missed.

First, you may have seen some headlines last week about an outbreak of hantavirus on a cruise ship. Here to tell us more about what happened is Tanya Lewis, SciAm’s senior desk editor for health and medicine.

Tanya, thanks so much for coming on to walk us through this.

On supporting science journalism

If you’re enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Tanya Lewis: Yeah, no, thanks so much for having me.

Feltman: Why are we talking about hantavirus and this cruise ship? What happened?

Lewis: Just to catch people up, this outbreak was first noticed about a week ago on a ship called the MV Hondius, which was a cruise ship departing from South America, Argentina. And the people that were sickened and unfortunately passed away, two of those individuals were a married couple who had been traveling—it was a Dutch couple—we think were infected in Argentina and then boarded the ship. And then subsequently, multiple other people have been infected. As of May 7 the number of people on this cruise ship who had been infected with hantavirus was eight people. So that probably could still change.

But you might not have heard of hantavirus before, but it is a virus family that people have been sickened with before, and it’s generally spread by rodents, like rats or mice. And this commonly happens in places where people are exposed to the feces of these animals.

And it causes pretty severe disease. It can cause anything from respiratory distress and fluid in the lungs to some forms of it can be more of, like, a hemorrhagic fever, kind of like Ebola. But the kind that we’re seeing on this cruise ship is more the respiratory kind.

But yeah, this is a virus that, while it is fairly rare to be infected with it, it’s quite lethal. The estimates of its lethality vary, but anywhere from, like, 30 percent to even 50 percent of people infected have died of it.

Feltman: Right, well, and like you said, it, it’s usually spread through rodent feces. But unfortunately, the specific virus we’re talking about, with regard to this cruise ship, is one of the rare instances where it is technically possible to spread from human to human. Can you tell us a little bit more about that?

Lewis: Basically, these individuals on the ship were thought to be infected by human-to-human transmission. At least, that’s the working hypothesis right now. And the reason has to do with the exposure routes.

As I mentioned two of the people were a married couple, so we’re talking about, like, very close contact. This is not something like SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID, where it’s, like, in the air and wafting around for hours or something. This is something that you would probably need to be, like, breathing very closely, in the same space. And of course, cruise ships are, like, kind of the perfect petri dish for that.

Feltman: Yeah.

So I think there are two things to talk about. There’s, one, why experts are not immediately super concerned about pandemic potential from this specific thing, but also why it is reasonable that I think so many of us, when seeing this news, went, “Uh-oh. We’re—this is a reminder of public-health paradigms I do not wanna be reminded of.”

So let’s start with the good news: Why are experts not freaking out about this?

Lewis: Yeah, so we have to remember that this is a virus that is very different than a lot of the pathogens that have caused respiratory pandemics in the past. In order for a pathogen to be a major pandemic concern, it needs to be very transmissible, and that is something that we have not yet seen with this hantavirus.

I should say, this particular strain is the only strain that has been shown to transmit human to human; it’s called the Andes strain. Most hantaviruses are not thought to spread that way. So the good news is, it’s kind of rare. The bad news, maybe, is that it does appear to have spread, at least, you know, in a limited way, between people.

But yeah, in terms of why experts are not, like, immediately concerned that this will spark a larger epidemic, I think the reason is just that this type of virus and the way it spreads is not conducive, as far as we know, to that type of outbreak. And it’s also happening in a very contained space, so although there have been reports that several of the people on board the ship have disembarked and we are still following that closely, at this point there is no indication of wider community spread, which is what we call it when people are getting infected who have not had direct exposure to the infected individuals.

Feltman: Is there any concern that the time that this virus spent, you know, in such a perfect petri dish may have given it the opportunity to mutate and be better at jumping from person to person?

Lewis: I think what virologists would tell you is, like, the more opportunities a virus has to jump between people, the higher the risk of it developing, like, a concerning mutation that makes it more transmissible.

That said, we’re still talking about a relatively small number of individuals. I mean, eight people sounds like a lot, but, you know, when you’re talking about this being very close quarters on a ship, this is not like, oh, you’re walking into a giant city like New York City and infecting everyone around you or something. So I think that is a little bit reassuring, perhaps, at this point.

But that said, we’ve been humbled before, and I think if there’s one lesson we can take from the COVID pandemic, it’s that we shouldn’t panic, but we should definitely pay attention. And at least scientists wanna know and learn more about this virus and understand it better.

Feltman: I think a lot of people are getting a little freaked out by this news. [Laughs.]

Lewis: Yeah, and I mean, I would be the first to say, like, something like this you hear about, it’s, like, instantly puts you back in that fearful space of 2020. And of course, there was the famous cruise ship, the Diamond Princess, where some of the early COVID cases happened. So that is always concerning.

On the other hand, you know, we have to sort of put it in perspective and remember this is a rare virus and it is something that people have been infected with in the past, so it’s not a completely new virus, unlike SARS-CoV-2, which we had never seen before. So we do have some idea of how this virus works, and while we don’t have any specific treatments for it, we do at least have experts who study it. So that should hopefully give some reassurance that, like, this is not a complete unknown. We are not starting from square one.

Feltman: Thanks for that, Tanya.

Now, listeners, keep in mind we had this conversation on Thursday, May 7. But you can always go to ScientificAmerican.com for more up-to-date science news.

Now for new research on micro- and nanoplastics—but this isn’t the health story you might be expecting. According to a study published last Monday in Nature Climate Change, these tiny bits of broken-down plastic could be contributing to our planet’s warming temperatures.

For starters, just in case you are blissfully unaware: yes, there are, unfortunately, microplastics in the sky. According to a study published in 2021, some of these particles swirl up into the air from the road, where tires and brakes frequently shed small pieces of plastic.

Now, the idea of microplastics permeating the air and even seeding clouds into existence is creepy enough, in my opinion. But this new study suggests they can also have a warming effect on the atmosphere.

Here’s how that would work: if you’ve ever spent time on a patch of blacktop on a sunny summer day, you know that black material absorbs heat. Conversely, white material reflects heat. The same thing happens when you scatter bits of dark and light plastic into the atmosphere, which is what humanity has inadvertently done quite a bit over the past few decades.

Unfortunately, according to this new study, any cooling effects we might get from light microplastics are probably vastly outweighed by the warming effects of dark microplastics. While the estimated effect is a small percentage of the warming fueled by soot from coal power plants, the results are still worrying.

As Jackie Flynn Mogenson reported for SciAm last week, we don’t actually know the concentration of micro- and nanoplastics currently in our atmosphere. But the authors of the new study argue that global climate assessments should do more to factor in these tiny plastic bits. And their findings serve as a great reminder that when we talk about the downsides of plastic, we should recognize that there may be impacts far less concrete and obvious than creating growing piles of trash in landfills.

Now I’ll turn the mic over briefly to SciAm’s chief newsletter editor, Andrea Gawrylewski. She’s gonna tell us about the science behind a tsunami that caught Alaska by surprise.

Andrea Gawrylewski: Thanks, Rachel.

Last summer, in August, a small cruise boat called the David B spent the night in an inlet about 50 miles from Juneau, Alaska. They were supposed to be at anchor nearer to Juneau in this beautiful fjord called Tracy Arm, but bad weather had forced them to pick another place to stay. And it turns out that detour may have saved their lives.

In the morning, from where they were anchored, the boat’s owners noticed seawater rolling over the nearby [sandbar] and shoreline. It was weird because the tide was supposed to be out at that time, and they had no idea why the water was so high.

When scientists heard about the strange sea-level rise, they began examining seismic data, they looked at aerial footage and satellite images, and determined that a massive landslide had occurred at the top of the Tracy Arm fjord.

So what had happened?

The South Sawyer Glacier at the top of Tracy Arm has been steadily shrinking and retreating for the last 25 years. In the spring and summer of last year the ice retreated inland several hundred feet, exposing so much bare rock that it ultimately caused a landslide.

That big slide hit the water and sent a tsunami racing through the fjord—like, so much water that the tsunami surged more than 1,500 feet up the sides of the fjord and sloshed back and forth, like in a bathtub.

That event also produced a seismic signal equivalent to a magnitude 5.4 earthquake. Scientists found smaller seismic events in the data that had occurred at least 24 hours before the big one, and they were increasing exponentially in intensity in the six hours before the landslide.

So now the question is: Could these early seismic signals be used as a warning system? One scientist at the Alaska Earthquake Center has been testing a landslide detection algorithm, and so far it’s detected 35 landslides in near real time. Sending out warnings within three to four minutes of big events could make all the difference to people who live in the area, so scientists are working to improve tools like these.

If you want more updates like this, sign up for my free daily newsletter, Today in Science, at SciAm.com/#newsletter.

Feltman: That’s all for this week’s science news roundup. We’ll be back on Wednesday to talk all about protein. Why is it everywhere all of a sudden? We’ll cut through the hype so you can just enjoy your tofu in peace.

Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Sushmita Pathak and Jeff DelViscio. This episode was edited by Alex Sugiura. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news.

For Scientific American, this is Rachel Feltman. Have a great week!

As former mayors of Anchorage, we each had the responsibility of leading Alaska’s largest city through moments of challenge and opportunity. While our administrations differed in time and approach, one priority remained constant: ensuring that Anchorage and Alaska have access to reliable, affordable energy.

Energy keeps our homes warm through long winters, powers our schools and hospitals, and fuels the businesses that employ our neighbors. It literally fuels every aspect of our economy and our quality of life. When energy becomes uncertain or unaffordable, the consequences are felt immediately by families, employers and communities across the state.

Today, Alaska faces a generational energy challenge. Cook Inlet natural gas production has been declining for decades. Like the frog in a pot on the stove, the problem around us has slowly grown but is about to reach a raging boil. Declining supplies of inexpensive Cook Inlet gas, rising demand and a lack of long-term certainty jeopardize the stability we rely on. Without action — right now — we will lose control over energy costs and availability.

We have faced moments like this before. During his tenure as mayor, Dan Sullivan recognized early the urgency created by declining Cook Inlet gas production. He convened an Energy Task Force that brought together industry leaders, policymakers and stakeholders to confront the issue directly. That work helped lay the foundation for the Cook Inlet Recovery Act, which the Legislature passed quickly to spur new investment and extend the life of the basin. It showed what is possible when Alaska acts with focus and urgency. It also showed the legislature can move fast when aligned on policy.

This is not a new conversation. For years, studies commissioned by both the Alaska Legislature and multiple administrations have identified the need to modernize Alaska’s tax structure and energy policies to remain competitive for large-scale investment and infrastructure projects. Again and again, those reviews reached the same conclusion: If Alaska wants to attract and keep transformational projects, the state must provide a stable, competitive framework that reflects the realities of modern energy development.

The Alaska LNG project is the only viable path to meet that need. It would deliver a stable, long-term supply of natural gas to Southcentral Alaska, helping ensure that homes, schools and businesses have dependable energy at predictable prices. It would also create jobs, strengthen the economy and generate revenue that supports essential public services.

For Anchorage and the entire Southcentral region, the stakes could not be higher. As the economic center of the state, Anchorage depends on dependable energy to sustain growth and opportunity. Utilities, employers and families all need certainty to plan ahead.

If the Legislature fails to pass meaningful property tax reform for Alaska LNG, this opportunity will slip away like other projects have done. Alaska’s property tax system was not designed for a megaproject like Alaska LNG. Because of that, tax reform legislation was introduced in March that will lower our energy bills and speed the delivery of natural gas from the North Slope. Our legislators must act quickly on a targeted solution and avoid making changes that raise energy costs or slow this project. Otherwise, Anchorage and all Southcentral Alaska will be forced to rely on imported gas for decades.

That outcome exposes us to higher and more volatile costs, shrinks our economy, prevents job growth and sends billions of dollars out of state.

Every day of delay increases that risk. As our electric and gas bills made clear this winter, costs are already rising. Without fast action, consumers should be prepared for increases of 30% to 40% or more. Our state will become an even harder place to start a family or a business.

A project of this scale requires careful consideration and responsible decision-making. But waiting carries its own consequences. The longer Alaska delays, the fewer options remain and the more expensive those options become.

As former mayors of Anchorage, we each had unique approaches to problem-solving. But now we speak with one voice: State leaders and legislators must act with urgency and purpose to enact tax changes that propel this project and unlock the revenue, economic, energy security and other benefits from our North Slope natural gas. Decisions now will shape the state’s economic future for generations.

George Wuerch (Anchorage mayor from 2000-2003) previously served as governmental affairs manager for the Northwest Alaskan Gasline, was founder/president of Fluor Daniel Alaska Engineering and served as vice president of corporate affairs for Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.

Mark Begich (Anchorage mayor from 2003-2009 and U.S. senator from 2009-2015) is a strategic consulting adviser hired by Gov. Dunleavy’s office to help advance the Alaska LNG project.

Dan Sullivan (Anchorage mayor from 2009-2015) previously served on the Regulatory Commission of Alaska and the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority board.

Dave Bronson (Anchorage mayor from 2021-2024) is a candidate for governor of Alaska.

• • •

The Anchorage Daily News welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.

SOLDOTNA — Alaska Republican Party leaders on Saturday reelected Carmela Warfield to continue serving as chair, two years after she was first chosen for the role.

The vote took place during a statewide convention in Soldotna, where more than 200 delegates from across the state gathered under garlands of Alaska and U.S. flags to update the party platform and hobnob with both elected officials and candidates.

Warfield was challenged for the chairmanship by Zackary Gottshall, who called on Alaska GOP leaders to do more to oppose elected Alaska Republicans who work across the political aisle.

Warfield beat Gottshall in a 165-45 vote, after Gottshall accused Warfield of appearing “more focused on building personal political visibility and securing endorsements for another term than organizing a serious effort to replace the seven Republican legislators caucusing with Democrats or challenge Sen. Lisa Murkowski.”

Warfield, ahead of Saturday’s vote, said “the Alaska Republican Party is stronger when we focus on what unites us instead of what divides us.”

Warfield now enters her third year at the helm of Alaska’s largest political organization. She has tightly controlled the party’s public image, declining numerous interview requests from the Daily News during her tenure.

In a departure from the norm, Warfield allowed reporters to attend only five hours out of the two-day convention, denying reporters access to debates on the party rules and a forum featuring several gubernatorial candidates.

Cheerful party staffers were stationed at the entrance to the Soldotna Field House to ensure no reporters had access to the building beyond the allotted window.

But during a brief window of access, divisions over the GOP’s direction and operations were on full display. Delegates spent roughly an hour debating whether to add a sentence to the party platform supporting “granting personhood of the unborn at conception.” The motion ultimately failed 89-109.

Factions of the Alaska GOP have long been critical of elected party members who work with Democrats or deviate from the party platform, which already formally opposes same-sex marriage and abortion access, and supports teaching “the historical Judeo-Christian foundation” of the U.S. in schools.

The party has a long history of attempting to keep its elected members in line and punishing those who stray.

Party leaders in 2021 censured Murkowski, a Republican who has served in the U.S. Senate since 2002, after she voted to impeach President Donald Trump. They also voted in 2021 to censure Republican Eagle River state lawmaker Kelly Merrick after she supported a bipartisan coalition in the Alaska House. But after both Murkowski and Merrick won reelection in 2022, defeating party-backed challengers from the right, party leaders promised to turn away from censuring GOP candidates for a period of at least two years.

Since then, the number of Republicans in the Legislature joining bipartisan legislative coalitions has grown, despite party leaders’ consternation.

In the Alaska Senate, a 14-member bipartisan majority includes five Republicans. In the House, the 21-member majority includes two Republicans. Republican leaders of the bipartisan coalitions did not attend the Saturday convention.

Under Warfield’s leadership, the Alaska Republican Party has aligned itself closely with Trump, who in turn has endorsed Warfield, along with U.S. Rep. Nick Begich and U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan, who are running for reelection this year.

Trump has also voiced support for the repeal of Alaska’s open primary and ranked choice voting system, which has weakened the party’s tight control over candidate selection.

Both opponents and supporters of Alaska’s voting system, which was adopted by Alaskans in 2020 and withstood a repeal effort in 2024, say it had aided moderate political candidates who are willing to work across the political aisle, ensuring they can more easily withstand challengers from the right.

The Alaska GOP has made repealing the voting system a key tenet of its efforts in the 2026 election. A successful repeal would enable the party to again assert more control over the Republican primary process,

Party leaders on Saturday also elected Jason Perry, a Baptist pastor, as the new Alaska GOP vice chair. Perry received 161 votes in a three-way race against Paul Bauer Jr., a former Anchorage Assembly member who received 23 votes, and Jeanne Reveal, a party district chair on the Kenai Peninsula who received 22 votes.

Voting on party leaders and resolutions was almost derailed — again — by party leaders’ concerns over using an online system to tally the votes of more than 220 delegates.

Several party members said they wanted to use paper ballots instead of “clickers” that allow delegates to cast votes in real time. A similar motion was made during the 2024 convention.

But the idea this year was met with exasperation and outright derision from some longtime party members. Brett Huber — state director for Alaska’s chapter of Americans for Prosperity, a conservative advocacy group — openly chided some of the delegates.

“Everybody agrees on God and country. Everybody. And then we forget that and fight amongst ourselves,” said Huber.

“If we remember what brought us here — God and country — and we quit misbehaving, we may win,” he added.