Experts issue warning after beachcombers make unexpected discovery on US coastline: 'They will continue to spread'
Beachcombers in Ketchikan, Alaska, found shells of invasive European green crabs on a sandy state park shore in June, making this the newest location in a fight with these harmful non-native species, reported the Alaska Beacon.
What's happening?
The shells were found during a beach survey June 6 as part of a University of Alaska Southeast class. After this first find, more shells turned up at other spots along Ketchikan's road system.
These crabs first showed up in Alaska in 2022 on Annette Island, about 30 miles south of the recent Ketchikan find. The Metlakatla Indian Community has caught around 3,000 of these invasive crabs since they were first spotted, with more than 300 trapped on nearby Gravina Island just last month.
"They have continued to spread. They will continue to spread," said Barbara Morgan, a UAS professor who helped lead the beach surveys, per the Beacon. "They are expected to spread through Southeast Alaska, probably most of Southcentral — kind of the southern coast of Southcentral."
Why are invasive green crabs concerning?
These destructive crabs threaten Alaska's marine ecosystem and fishing industry. They eat salmon fry, young Dungeness crabs, and other native fish species. They also destroy eelgrass beds, which serve as essential habitats for many fish species, including commercially valuable salmon.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration warns Alaskans that green crabs "could potentially damage Alaska's multibillion-dollar fisheries industries, especially for salmon, crab, and mariculture operations."
What's being done about invasive species?
The Metlakatla Indian Community leads Alaska's most active response effort, establishing a detection program in 2020 that has trapped thousands of green crabs. This "functional eradication" approach focuses on protecting key sites vital to native species, such as salmon and Dungeness crab.
The Alaska Invasive Species Partnership coordinates broader work among government agencies, university experts, nonprofits, and community organizations, per the Beacon. It advocates for establishing a stronger state invasive species council to coordinate broader protection and facilitate a quicker response.
Bills now in the Alaska Legislature would create such a council. The House approved earlier attempts but didn't reach final approval before the sessions ended, per the Beacon.
If you spot what might be a European green crab, you can help by learning to identify them correctly. They have five spikes on each side of their shells and three bumps between their eyes. They can be green, brown, yellow, reddish, or a combination of these colors.
Contact your local wildlife office if you spot suspicious crabs or shells. Supporting laws for invasive species control can also help shield Alaska's valuable marine ecosystems and the communities that rely on them.
Do you worry about companies drilling too deep into the ground?
Definitely
Depends on what it's for
Only if it's near my home
Not really
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Researchers hope the findings will boost 'validity and credibility' for patients
People diagnosed with ME/chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) have significant differences in their DNA compared to those without the condition, according to a 'groundbreaking' new study. Scientists said the findings offer the first robust evidence that genes contribute to a person's chance of developing the disease. The DecodeME study, said to be the largest of its kind in the world, uncovered eight areas of genetic code in people with ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) that are markedly different to the DNA of people without the condition. Researchers hope the findings will boost 'validity and credibility' for patients, and help rebuff some of the stigma and lack of belief that exists around the condition. There is currently no diagnostic test or cure for ME/CFS, which is believed to affect around 67 million people worldwide, and very little is known about what causes it. A key feature of the condition is a disproportionate worsening of symptoms following even minor physical or mental activity, which is known as post-exertional malaise (PEM,) while other symptoms include pain, brain fog and extreme energy limitations that do not improve with rest. For the new study, researchers analysed 15,579 DNA samples from the 27,000 people with ME/CFS participating in DecodeME, described as the world's largest data set of people with the disease. The eight regions of DNA where scientists found genetic differences involve genes linked to the immune and nervous systems. At least two of the genetic signals relate to how the body responds to infection, which researchers said aligns with long-standing patient reports that the onset of symptoms often followed an infectious illness. Professor Chris Ponting, DecodeME investigator from the University of Edinburgh, said: 'This is a wake-up call. These extraordinary DNA results speak the language of ME/CFS, often recounting people's ME/CFS symptoms. 'DecodeME's eight genetic signals reveal much about why infection triggers ME/CFS and why pain is a common symptom. 'ME/CFS is a serious illness and we now know that someone's genetics can tip the balance on whether they are diagnosed with it.' As a person's DNA does not change over time, experts say the genetic signals identified would not have developed because of ME/CFS and are therefore likely to reflect the causes of the disease. Populations used in the initial study were limited to those from European ancestries. READ MORE: We must protect chronic pain management services: it's not just about 'old people' I suffer from chronic fatigue syndrome. I know it's real - so why don't doctors? The sorry tale of Scotland's chronic pain crisis DecodeME research studying DNA data from all ancestries is ongoing. ME/CFS, thought to affect around 404,000 people in the UK, affects more females than males, although researchers found nothing to explain why this is the case. The DecodeME team is now calling on researchers from around the world to access its 'rich' dataset and help drive forward targeted studies into ME/CFS. Sonya Chowdhury, chief executive of Action for ME and a DecodeME co-investigator, said: 'These results are groundbreaking. 'With DecodeME, we have gone from knowing next to nothing about the causes of ME/CFS, to giving researchers clear targets.' She also hopes the discoveries will help change the way the condition is viewed. Ms Chowdhury said: 'This really adds validity and credibility for people with ME. 'We know that many people have experienced comments like ME is not real, or they've been to doctors and been disbelieved or told that it's not a real illness. 'Whilst things have changed and continue to change, that is still the case for some people and we hear that repeatedly as a charity. 'Being able to take this study into the treatment room and say there are genetic causes that play a part in ME is going to be really significant for individuals. 'It will rebuff that lack of belief and the stigma that exists.' The findings have been reported in a pre-print publication, or unpublished study. During a media briefing about the study, researchers were asked about similarities between the symptoms of long Covid and ME/CFS. Prof Ponting said: 'It's very clear that the symptomology between long Covid and ME is highly similar. 'Not for everyone but there are substantial similarities but as a geneticist the key question for me is are there overlapping genetic factors, and we haven't found that in DECode ME with the methods that we've employed. 'One of the key things that we're doing is enabling others to use their different approaches to ask and answer the same question.' DecodeME is a collaboration between the University of Edinburgh, the charity Action for ME, the Forward ME alliance of charities, and people with ME/CFS. It is funded by the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health and Care Research.
The Hill
2 days ago
- The Hill
Tired of walking 10,000 steps a day? You can aim for this instead, research suggests
(NEXSTAR) — You've likely been told you need to get thousands and thousands of steps a day, causing you to frequently check your smartwatch to make sure you hit that benchmark. If the 10,000 steps goal has felt strenuous, new research suggests you can take far fewer daily steps and still reap the reward. The study, led by Professor Melody Ding of the University of Sydney and published in The Lancet Public Health last month, analyzed dozens of studies that have been conducted worldwide since 2014 to consider the impacts of how many steps you take daily and other health outcomes. That includes developing diseases like cancer, type 2 diabetes, dementia, and depression, as well as dying from cancer or heart disease, a press release from the University explained. Overall, according to Ding, the study found that aiming for 7,000 steps a day, far less than the aforementioned 10,000, is not only more realistic for some but just as beneficial. Why you don't need to listen to the 10,000 daily steps marketing ploy 'We know daily step count is linked to living longer, but we now also have evidence that walking at least 7,000 steps a day can significantly improve eight major health outcomes – including reducing risk of cardiovascular disease, dementia and depressive symptoms,' she explained in the release. For context, to reach 10,000 daily steps (advice that started as a marketing ploy), you would need to walk nearly five miles. To record 7,000 steps, you may need to walk only a little more than three miles. If 7,000 still feels difficult, Ding, like other health experts, suggests making small increases to your current step count. That could mean working toward an average of 2,000 steps a day to 4,000. The study did, however, find notable benefits between walking 2,000 and 7,000 steps daily. For example, researchers found that walking 7,000 steps daily can reduce the risk of death by almost 50 percent. The risk of developing dementia drops by 38 percent, while the risk of type 2 diabetes drops by 22 percent. What is the Presidential Fitness Test? Previous research has shown there are plenty of benefits to walking fewer than 10,000 daily steps. Dr. John Jakicic, a research professor in the Division of Physical Activity and Weight Management in the Department of Internal Medicine at KU School of Medicine, told Nexstar last year that more recent data suggests a goal of 8,000 steps a day can help prevent major chronic health conditions and extend your quality of life years. Even fewer steps can still be beneficial. Dr. Tamanna Singh, co-director of the Cleveland Clinic's sports cardiology center, pointed to a 2023 study that suggested 2,600 to 2,800 daily steps were enough to produce health benefits, while a European study from 2022 found that increasing your step count by 1,000-step increments may lead to a 15% decrease in your risk of all-cause mortality. Jakicic noted, though, that there is no firm answer on how many steps you should take in a day. That ultimately comes down to your personal goals. 'These studies just suggest a possible association – there is no direct causation here,' Singh explained. 'But the takeaway is that more physical activity – which we already know – leads to a healthier lifestyle.' Instead, some health experts say to focus more on the clock than the pedometer when it comes to physical activity. The American Heart Association recommends that weekly, you should get 150 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity physical activity. A structured, timed workout isn't for everyone, Jakicic says — if you're 'exercise adverse,' you may prefer having a step goal. 'It gives a person credit for all the things that they're doing throughout the day,' he told Nexstar. 'And it can help them build a pattern of activity without them having to carve out 30, 45, 60 minutes at one time to go out and do this exercise.' He adds that one method isn't better than the other, 'but they apply to people for different purposes.' Whether it's a step count, a time-based goal, or just getting up and moving during the day, Singh says it's important to 'do what you can commit to and stay consistent.' 'The most important thing is to incorporate intentional physical activity most days of the week if not daily,' Singh notes. 'Your body does not care whether you are walking, jogging, swimming, biking, rowing, dancing – again, physical stimulus on a consistent basis will contribute to improvements in both cardiovascular and physical wellbeing.'
Medscape
3 days ago
- Medscape
These Markers May Predict Risk for Bone Loss in SLE
TOPLINE: Osteoporosis was prevalent in 41% of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Factors such as lupus nephritis classes III and IV, U1-ribonucleoprotein (RNP) antibodies, and longer disease duration were associated with lower areal bone mineral density (BMD), and active lupus nephritis was associated with osteoporosis. METHODOLOGY: Researchers analysed data of a subcohort of patients from a prospective observational study to identify factors associated with BMD and the risk for osteoporosis. They included 110 patients with SLE (mean age, 48 years; 92% women) from a hospital in Berlin between July 2015 and January 2022 who fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology/ European League Against Rheumatism 2019 SLE classification criteria and had current or prior glucocorticoid treatment. The analysis included SLE disease activity and a standardised bone health assessment with the DEXA scan and trabecular bone score measurement according to national guidelines. BMD- and osteoporosis-related factors were assessed. The following three co-primary endpoints were assessed: Areal BMD, expressed as the lowest DEXA-derived T score at the lumbar spine (L1-L4), total hip, or femoral neck A composite osteoporosis outcome (a femoral or lumbar spine T score ≤ -2.5 and/or history of a major fragility fracture and/or antiosteoporotic treatment) The prevalence of fragility fractures (any, vertebral, and non-vertebral). TAKEAWAY: Overall, 41% and 35% of patients with SLE had osteoporosis and lupus nephritis, respectively. Factors significantly associated with lower areal BMD included lupus nephritis classes III and IV (P = .025), U1-RNP antibodies (P = .009), higher C-reactive protein levels (P = .015), and longer disease duration (P = .001). Clinical remission (P = .033) and higher Health Assessment Questionnaire scores (P = .009) were positively correlated with areal BMD. Active lupus nephritis was strongly associated with osteoporosis in patients with SLE (odds ratio [OR], 7.42; P = .027), along with other factors such as older age (OR, 1.06; P = .003) and lower Health Assessment Questionnaire scores (OR, 0.29; P = .005). IN PRACTICE: "The identification of SLE-specific risk factors allows us to recognize patients at particular high risk for OP [osteoporosis]. This prompts us to suggest a thorough osteoporosis check-up in patients with high CRP [C-reactive protein], LN [lupus nephritis], or U1-RNP-antibodies," the authors wrote. SOURCE: This study was led by Edgar Wiebe, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charitéplatz 1, Berlin, Germany. It was published online on July 28, 2025, in Arthritis Research & Therapy. LIMITATIONS: This monocentric cohort study primarily involved White Caucasians, thereby limiting the generalisability of the findings to other patient groups. A potential selection bias may have resulted in overrepresentation of patients with more severe disease courses who were at a high risk for osteoporosis. The cross-sectional design limited the ability to establish causality between identified factors and outcomes. DISCLOSURES: Open access funding was enabled and organised by Projekt DEAL. The prospective observational study received a joint funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Alfasigma, Almirall, Biogen, BMS, Chugai, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, GA Generic Assays, GSK, Hexal, Horizon Therapeutics, Lilly, Medac, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, and UCB. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
