Alaska
One man’s pork is another man’s pigskin: The 1982 question of whether Alaska should move the capital or buy the NFL
Part of a continuing weekly series on Alaska history by local historian David Reamer. Have a question about Anchorage or Alaska history or an idea for a future article? Go to the form at the bottom of this story.
In late October 1982, the Anchorage Daily News ran a particularly interesting advertisement. It took the form of a question and answer about one of the hottest topics of the day, though few modern readers will remember. “I’m real excited about Alaska buying the National Football League but won’t the cost be so great that we will have to forego our plans for a new capital city or for building the Susitna Dam?”
And the response, “Hardly. We should have plenty of money to buy the National Football League, build a new capital city in the wilderness, and construct the Susitna Dam. We may even have a few dollars left over to bail out Chrysler and pay off the National Debt.”
In 1982, Alaskans faced the weightiest choices: whether to move the state capital or buy the NFL. Our legislators could be sitting in Willow right now. Or the state could own the NFL. The former question made it to ballots that November. The latter question, and the thoughts it engendered, influenced the failure of the former. In this way, Football Fannie and the NFL Access Committee helped shape modern Alaska, one of the wilder anecdotes in state history.
In the decades before statehood, politicians campaigning outside Juneau frequently invoked the idea of a capital move as an easy, crowd-pleasing move. In 1922, Territorial Legislature candidate Harry Staser addressed the Anchorage Women’s Club. He declared, “The capital of Alaska belongs in Anchorage or in the third division at least. I had a talk with the Hon. James Wickersham on this subject, and he says that it is within our power to move the capital, and I will most certainly try to move it.” The Anchorage women surely enjoyed those ultimately empty words.
While there were several proposals to move the capital during the Territorial years, such efforts intensified after statehood, beginning with a 1960 ballot initiative to relocate the capital “within the Cook Inlet-Railbelt Area.” Voters rejected it 23,972 to 18,865. In 1962, another referendum asked voters whether to move the capital to “Western Alaska, to a site not within thirty miles of Anchorage.” Voters rejected that 32,325 to 26,542.
By the early 1970s, there were tens of thousands of new arrivals and some corresponding shift in attitudes. The issue returned to ballots in 1974 when voters approved — 46,659 to 35,683 — an initiative for the “construction of a new Alaskan capital city” in “Western Alaska at least thirty miles from Anchorage and Fairbanks.” Three potential sites were selected by a governor-appointed committee: Mount Yenlo, Larson Lake and Willow. And in 1976, voters selected Willow, which received more votes than the other two choices combined.
From there, the momentum somewhat dissipated. In 1978, voters overwhelmingly rejected nearly $1 billion in new capital construction bonds, 88,783 to 31,491. On the same ballot, Alaskans also passed an initiative that required all costs of a capital relocation to be determined in advance.
That brings us to Nov. 2, 1982, when voters were presented with the opportunity to respond to the results of that calculation. Per the ballot, “Considering the cost, revenue and population estimates set out below, may the State of Alaska spend the money necessary (estimated to total $2,843,147,000) to accomplish relocation of a functional state capital from Juneau to the new capital site at Willow?” Yes, the capital move was projected to cost some pocket change more than $2.84 billion, a contentious estimate in several ways.
Several organizations formed to oppose the move to Willow, including the early Alaska Committee, Frustrated Responsible Alaskans Needing Knowledge (FRANK), Fairbanks Against Relocation Expenditures (FARE), and Anchorage Rejects the Move (ARM). Collectively, the anti-move groups spent over a million dollars in the lead-up to the 1982 election.
Their anti-move arguments were generally logical and grounded, focused on factors such as inflation, expected overruns, and infrastructure opportunity costs, e.g., sewers, roads. On the other hand, this was also a rather dry approach to an election with momentous implications. For example, one Alaska Committee advertisement listed some of the needed capital improvements potentially lost if the capital move was approved, among them an expanded A and C Street couplet in Anchorage and a University of Alaska Anchorage office building. How could voters not think of a lost university office building given the option of a more accessible, shiny new capital city?
Enter Lee Stoops, then an aide for state Sen. John Sackett. A lifelong avid sports fan, he had two problems that fall. He was a Juneau resident opposed to the capital move, and a players’ strike shut down the National Football League. Though the two concerns seemed entirely unrelated, he saw a possible connection and so founded the NFL Access Committee.
As Stoops told me in a phone interview, “The capital move was looking bad for Alaska, for Juneau in particular, where I was a resident, and I didn’t like the way that others attacked the move. There was a lot of crying about people losing the value of their homes and just stuff that didn’t seem relevant to an election like that. And I decided to just make fun of the whole process and the amount of money they wanted to spend to move the capital and build in Willow. So, I combined that with the fact that the NFL was on strike, and of course, everybody loves the NFL.”
The conceit was simple. With its surging oil wealth, Alaska should buy the NFL, a comparatively simple bauble than the far more expensive new capital site at Willow. The teams would move to Alaska and, in doing so, positively represent the state with every player, game, highlight and broadcast. Further, by ending the strike, Alaska would earn the goodwill of an entire sports-loving nation.
Football Fannie, a cheerleader at a typewriter, was the face of the campaign. Designed by Bob Grogan, she parodied Access Annie, the mascot for the pro-move Capital Access Committee chaired by Frank Harris. On at least one occasion, Access Annie and Football Fannie advertisements ran on the same newspaper page.
The wildest month of Stoops’ life began on Oct. 8, 1982, the first day of many print advertisements, radio spots, letters to editors, and interviews. Stoops had the sums to back his proposal, as laid out in the inaugural Football Fannie notice. “In 1981, Al Davis offered to sell the then-Oakland Raiders for $17 million. Allowing $20 million each for all 28 NFL teams comes to only $560 million. The Kingdome in Seattle was built for $40 million about 7 years ago, so we could certainly build three domed stadiums for $80 million each. The whole package, 28 NFL Teams and 3 stadiums would only cost $800 million.”
With the math out of the way, the advertisement continued. “Interestingly enough, this is only about one-fourth of the amount proposed to move the capital to Willow. NFL football once and for all: We can’t afford not to buy it.”
Naturally, Stoops had already worked out where the teams should relocate. The combinations are surprisingly apt. There would be the Alaska Patriots, Susitna Chargers, Chicken Cardinals, Prudhoe Bay Oilers, Elmendorf Jets, Haines Eagles, Willow Raiders, Deadhorse Broncos, McKinley Park Rams, LaTouche Buccaneers, Tanana Chiefs, Juneau Packers, Anchorage Steelers — or Stealers — and Kodiak Bears, the most obvious choice. As Stoops noted, a Juneau-Anchorage rivalry was inevitable.
As envisioned by Stoops, the purchase would pay for itself in a few short years. If the state bought the famously profitable NFL, then that money would flow in only one, Alaska-friendly direction. From the Oct. 19 Football Fannie edition in the Daily News, “The profit is so large that the cost of the NFL purchase would be paid back to the State in only a few years. Free football!!—Free money!”
Then there were to be the “thousands” of jobs created by the NFL purchase and move. From the Oct. 27 Football Fannie edition in the Daily News, “In addition to short-term construction jobs stemming from the building of domed stadiums, each team has hundreds of jobs associated with administration, public relations, maintenance, laundry and on and on and on. And these jobs will last as long as football itself.”
The NFL Access Committee did not beg for donations, as many political action committees do. Instead, they sold T-shirts and buttons to fund the campaign. Pam Calhoun dressed as Football Fannie at Juneau events. After their first 10 days of public operation, contributions totaled more than $13,000.
The T-shirts, made to look like football jerseys for the fictional Alaskan teams, were their fundraising foundation. Stoops remembers, “They were, they were just a phenomenon, and everybody wanted them. So, we were selling them for twenty dollars each, and we paid like six dollars each, and we sold thousands of them. So there was our fifty thousand or so that we spent on advertising.”
The Anchorage “Stealers” T-shirt was a popular offering. The jersey number on the back was “2.84,” referring to the $2.84 billion estimated cost for the capital move. Stoops’ catchphrase was at the bottom: “One Man’s Pork Is Another Man’s Pigskin.”
The nameplate read “Frank O. Harris,” a dual reference to Capital Access Committee chairman Frank Harris and Pittsburgh Steelers running back Franco Harris. Stoops trademarked Football Fannie before the first advertisement ran, then contacted Frank Harris regarding the similarity between Access Annie and his own legally protected Football Fannie. Feeling generous, Stoops did not request the removal of Access Annie, though he did solicit a contribution from Harris.
Eventually, smaller state press caught wind of the proposal, some of them delighted to have something different to talk about than the NFL strike. According to Stoops, “I remember one day doing six radio interviews with radio stations in Philadelphia, Chicago, and Jacksonville. Just all these sports shows were having fun with the idea. They loved it.”
Yes, the entire campaign was a satirical farce. It was gleefully absurdist, but it was also clever and insightful regarding the typical Alaska voter. Football Fannie and the NFL Access Committee drove its point home better than any other argument at the time, emphasizing the opportunity costs of the capital move to the masses better than any amount of possible infrastructure improvements.
Stoops says, “It was all tongue-in-cheek and a beautiful subject matter to play with, because there are people out there who believed every word I said and thought it was a great idea and that it could be done. And then there were those who graduated from high school and knew that it wasn’t really likely to happen. But it was, it was all a way to draw people that would otherwise be unattached to the election.”
That massive number for a capital move, that $2.84 billion, prompted some cognition issues. To the common person, multiple billions of dollars are beyond their ability to effectively contextualize. People who live in terms of groceries and rent and car payments, which was and is most Alaskans, rarely think about things in terms of billions. Functionally, billions have little meaning for people who live in a world of thousands or less. Nearly $3 billion might as well just have been noted as “a lot of money,” and people always think governments cost “a lot of money.”
For Stoops understood the brutal realities of public knowledge. The average Alaska adult, after all, is likely able to identify far more NFL quarterbacks than Alaska legislators. In raw, cynical numbers, NFL coverage certainly garners more interest than anything the Legislature or governor get up to. And so, putting that $2.84 billion in terms of multiple NFLs was a better way to illustrate the scale of that figure, more useful than any number of unpaved roads, unbuilt sewers or lacking schools.
Moreover, while the capital move debates otherwise ranged from dour to combative, the NFL Access Committee, Football Fannie, and Stoops were always lighthearted and entertaining, albeit subtly didactic. After decades of capital move arguments, the ray of positivity looked all the sunnier by comparison. Ultimately, it may have swayed the vote.
To many in Alaska, on both sides of the issue, the capital move seemed inevitable. In late September 1982, Dittman Research of Anchorage conducted a statewide poll on the capital move question. Of the 527 respondents, 52% said they would probably vote in favor of the move versus 45% opposed. Only 3% were undecided, understandable given the years spent on the question. Every Alaska resident, whether newcomer or old-timer, had endured questions about a possible capital move throughout their residency. Of course, they already had opinions.
According to Dittman Research founder Dave Dittman, the results were consistent with the firm’s surveys over the previous eight years. He also did not believe the price tag was a sufficiently relevant factor in the outcome, that the cost figure “is not a mystery. It’s been so well publicized.” This polling data was coincidentally released a day after the first Football Fannie advertisement.
But to quote former New York Jets head coach Herm Edwards, “You play to win the game. You don’t play to just play it.” Come Nov. 2, the Hotel Captain Cook was the election headquarters in Anchorage, where many candidates and their adherents gathered, waiting for the outcomes. The crowd included Football Fannie accompanied by supporters in Anchorage Stealers, Prudhoe Bay Oilers and Juneau Packers shirts. Her group led the cheer when the numbers arrived. Voters rejected the capital move. The final count was 102,083 to 91,249. In Juneau, where the jubilation was highest, the NFL Access Committee hosted a victory dance at the Armory featuring a Football Fannie look-alike contest.
On Oct. 25, Juneau Empire reporter Mark Baumgartner wrote, “By now everyone is familiar with the thinking of the NFL Access Committee.” The Empire itself editorialized, “The beauty of the campaign is its simplicity, its humor — we all needed it in this life-and-death campaign — and its positive nature.” Bob Miller, the Anchorage campaign coordinator for the Alaska Committee, described Football Fannie as “the greatest campaign stunt I’ve seen in my life.”
After the election, Sally Fowler wrote to the Empire. She stated, “Another group that deserves our vote of thanks is that which created ‘Football Fannie.’ Her questions and answers have pointed out, in a very reasonable way, the absurdity of the capital move and just as importantly, they have created a bright funny note in an otherwise pretty tense, emotionally charged atmosphere.”
In 1978, more than 120,000 Alaskans voted on the capital move referendums. In 1982, that number was over 190,000. At the very least, the NFL Access Committee was a factor in the failure of that capital move election. The campaign possessed a strong hook, a clean elevator pitch with a compelling populist approach. Anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that its reach was significant, particularly in the key Anchorage battleground. At best, it was perhaps the crucial variable for the capital move failure.
“A vote for Willow was a vote against the NFL,” says Stoops. And people love their football.
The difference between Juneau and Willow as the state capital came down to a few thousand votes from a few thousand Alaska voters who might not otherwise have shown up at the polls. Stoops believes that the NFL Access Committee reached a disengaged section of the electorate. He says, “And I mean, it was a close, close election, and there’s no way anyone could ever tell me that, that Football Fannie did not determine that election.”
One frantic month was the entire lifespan of the NFL Access Committee and Football Fannie. As soon as the idea went public, Stoops’ home was besieged with phone calls, to his epic delight. “I never had more fun,” says Stoops, “and it was all done in a whirlwind, one month.” After Football Fannie, he had a long and varied career in Alaska — legislative aide, state Senate candidate, lobbyist, economic development director, fisherman and sportswriter — before retiring to Florida. He’s written novels and become a notable sandcastle artist.
The 1982 NFL strike lasted 57 days, ending two weeks after the Alaska election. Each team played only nine games in that regular season. The owners won the public relations war, and the players negotiated higher salaries and benefits. However, neither side was content with the outcome, and the lingering antipathies led directly to the ugly 1987 strike and later lawsuits for free agency.
The 1980s NFL labor strife is poorly remembered primarily because of the relatively peaceful and prosperous years since. No matter the lighthearted approach, Stoops was right. The NFL was an appreciating asset. By every possible metric, the NFL as a business is bigger than ever, and team values have accordingly skyrocketed. The Dallas Cowboys, for example, sold for a reported $80 million in 1985, then $140 million in 1989. According to a 2025 estimate, the team is now worth roughly $12.8 billion. Alaska would have profited a tiny bit if it had bought back in 1982.
The 1982 election did not end efforts to move the capital. Some Alaska elders still question the authenticity of that vote, grumbling about power-outage conspiracy theories. Still, voters also rejected subsequent initiatives to relocate the capital to Wasilla in 1994 and to move all state legislative sessions to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough in 2002. And almost everyone today has some opinions and feelings about that.
Ten years later, Stoops had another, far more earnest proposal for Alaska. The Seattle Mariners, then up for sale, would be the perfect Permanent Fund investment opportunity.” As he wrote, “Ken Griffey Jr., Kevin Mitchell, Eric Hansen and all their Seattle Mariners are ready, able and willing to go to work for us, the people of Alaska … I think we ought to ante up $100 million and buy it. $100 million amounts to about 1/120th, or less than 1 percent of the Permanent Fund.” But that is a story for another time, during baseball season.
My thanks go to reader Ross Oliver for suggesting this topic. Special thanks also go out to Rep. Sara Hannan, Reed Stoops and, most of all, Lee Stoops.
• • •
Key sources:
Baumgartner, Mark. “Alaska Can’t Afford Not to Buy the NFL.” Juneau Empire. October 25, 1982, 7.
Davies, Karin. “Football Fannie Confesses She’s No Rookie to Politics.” Anchorage Daily News. October 18, 1982, A-1, A-16.
Fowler, Sally. Letter to editor. Juneau Empire. November 3, 1982, 4.
“Harry I. Staser, Candidate for the Territorial Legislature, Addresses Letter to Anchorage Woman’s Club.” Anchorage Daily Times. November 4, 1922, 1, 4.
“Keep Cool, Be Positive.” Juneau Empire. October 4, 1982, 4.
Lindback, John. “Majority of Alaskans Favor Capital Move, Poll Finds.” Anchorage Daily News. October 9, 1982, A-1, A-12.
Murkowski, Carol. “Suite Moods Followed Returns.” Anchorage Times. November 3, 1982, D-1.
National Football League Access Committee. Football Fannie advertisement. Juneau Empire. October 8, 1982, 7.
National Football League Access Committee. Football Fannie advertisement. Anchorage Daily News. October 25, 1982, D-3.
National Football League Access Committee. Football Fannie advertisement. Anchorage Daily News. October 27, 1982, E-3.
Scandling, Bruce. “ARM Works Against Move.” Juneau Empire. November 3, 1982, 2.
Scandling, Bruce. “NFL Access Sought.” Juneau Empire. October 8, 1982, 1.
Stoops, Lee. Interview by David Reamer. February 2, 2026
Stoops, Lee. “My Turn: Alaska! Let’s Buy the Mariners!” Juneau Empire. January 8, 1992, 4.
Virtue, Cary. “Move Cost May Cloud Capital Vote.” Anchorage Times. October 24, 1982, E-1, E-3.
Alaska already has glaciers, whales, old gold-rush towns, wild seafood, and mountains. But Princess Cruises is taking the year by storm with something bigger than a standard summer schedule. The line is sending eight ships to Alaska, adding new North-to-Alaska programming, and giving travelers more ways to turn their trip into a full land-and-sea adventure.
Princess Is Going Bigger Than Ever
Credit: Wikimedia Commons
The 2026 Alaska season gives Princess its largest presence in the region to date, with eight ships, 180 departures, and visits to 19 destinations. Travelers are not boxed into a narrow route or one small batch of dates. The ship lineup includes Star Princess, Coral Princess, Royal Princess, Ruby Princess, Grand Princess, Emerald Princess, Discovery Princess, and Island Princess. For anyone comparing Alaska cruise options, that much capacity means more itinerary choices.
Star Princess Gives The Season A New Headliner
Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Star Princess is the newest ship in the Princess fleet. This matters because Alaska cruising can easily feel like a trade-off between destination and ship experience. Princess is putting one of its newest vessels into one of its most important regions. Star Princess also hosts the new Après Sea experience inside The Dome, a high-positioned venue designed around big views.
Glacier Days Get The Full Main-Event Treatment
Credit: Getty Images
Glacier viewing has always been one of Alaska cruising’s biggest draws, but Princess is giving it extra structure through “The Glacier Experience: A Signature Princess Day.” On select Glacier Bay sailings, guests get close-up glacier views, live narration, and Park Ranger commentary from the bridge and open decks. There are also theater presentations and Junior and Teen Ranger programming. VIP viewing areas and bowfront access add another layer for guests who want the best possible look at the ice.
The Trip Can Extend Deep Into Alaska By Land
Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Princess has long built part of its reputation around cruisetours that combine time at sea with inland travel. A seven-night sailing can deliver a strong Alaska trip in itself. However, inland travel opens the door to scenic train journeys, Princess Wilderness Lodges, and routes to places such as Denali, Kenai, and the Mt. McKinley lodge area. The 2026 season continues to lean into sea-and-land travel.
North To Alaska Makes The Ship Feel Local
Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Princess first introduced its North to Alaska program in 2015, and in 2026, every Princess ship sailing in Alaska will carry the new programming. The whole idea is to bring local culture, food, personalities, and storytelling on board so guests learn something about Alaska between ports. This includes Native Alaskan speakers, naturalists, enrichment presenters, and destination-focused events that connect the trip to the place outside the ship. Names in the speaker series include Tlingit voices, Alaska Native educators, writers, and photographers.
Alaska Seafood Gets A Bigger Seat At The Table
Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Princess is leaning into Alaska’s food identity with “A Taste of The Great Land.” The 2026 specialty restaurant offerings feature sustainably sourced, wild-caught Alaskan seafood created with regional suppliers. Crown Grill offers dishes such as Wild King Salmon, Alaskan Jumbo Lump Crab Cake, and Jumbo Lump Crab paired with Butter-Broiled Lobster Tail. Sabatini’s Italian Trattoria also brings Alaskan fish into an Italian-style setting.
The Entertainment Has Alaska In Its Bones
Credit: Wikimedia Commons
This season also features “Candlelight Concert Series: Fire & Ice,” with Alaska singer-songwriters performing in a candlelit setting twice per voyage. This gives the onboard entertainment a stronger sense of place than a generic music night. Returning favorites add a livelier side, including Great Alaskan Lumberjack Show elements with axe-throwing recruits, trivia, and timber-sports storytelling tied to Ketchikan. Select sailings also feature Deadliest Catch captains and crew members sharing Bering Sea crab-fishing stories. The lineup draws from Alaska’s labor, music, weather, and folklore.
Families Get More Than A Pretty View
Credit: Tripadvisor
Younger travelers are getting special attention, not a watered-down version of the adult trip. Glacier Bay Junior Rangers let kids complete activity books, attend presentations, and earn a badge and certificate through a partnership with the National Park Service. Gold Rush Adventures pulls families into a shipwide Klondike-style search, while Great Alaskan Expedition offers youth and teens a three-hour team-based experience across land, sea, and air. As puppies in the Piazza also return on ships visiting Skagway, guests get to see Alaskan Huskies and sled-dog culture.
Après Sea Gives Alaska A Stylish Cooldown
Credit: Wikimedia Commons
After a long day outside, Princess is adding a dedicated wind-down ritual through Après Sea. The setup is inspired by après-ski culture. Guests can expect warm drinks, happy hour, and panoramic views after they return from exploring. On Star Princess, the experience is in The Dome, and it provides a strong visual setting at the top of the ship. A relaxed lounge concept gives the evening its own personality, and guests don’t have to jump straight from adventure into dinner.
MedallionClass Keeps The Whole Trip Moving Smoothly
Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Alaska days can get busy fast, with early excursions, glacier viewing, dinner plans, family meetups, and plenty of time spent moving around the ship. The Princess Medallion Class setup helps cut down on small hassles. The wearable Medallion supports contactless boarding, keyless stateroom entry, onboard ordering, contactless payment, ship navigation, and locating travel companions through the app. When the day already includes ports, wildlife, ice, and dinner reservations, fewer friction points onboard can make a real difference.
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.
-
World49 seconds agoTrump administration rejects UN migration declaration, says ‘mass migration was never safe’
-
Politics7 minutes agoStacey Abrams hit with subpoena in alleged campaign finance violations saga: ‘No one is above the law’
-
Health13 minutes agoTwo Maryland residents monitored for hantavirus after sharing flight with infected cruise ship passenger
-
Sports19 minutes agoCraig Morton, quarterback who led the Broncos to their first Super Bowl appearance, dead at 83
-
Technology25 minutes agoRobotaxi drives off from airport with passenger’s suitcase
-
Business31 minutes agoL.A. port traffic rises in April despite trade disruption, higher fuel costs
-
Entertainment37 minutes agoEntertainment mogul Byron Allen to acquire Buzzfeed, HuffPost
-
Politics49 minutes agoOversight chair seeks information from OpenAI’s Sam Altman about potential financial conflicts