Devastating Myanmar Earthquake Hints at What's in Store for California
In a study published on August 11 in the journal PNAS, a team of researchers used satellite images of the Sagaing Fault's movement to enhance computer models that predict how similar faults might move in the future. Their research suggests that strike-slip faults, like the Sagaing and the San Andreas, could produce earthquakes unlike—and perhaps much bigger than—past known seismic events.
'We use remote sensing observations to document surface deformation caused by the 2025 Mw7.7 Mandalay earthquake,' the researchers wrote in the paper. 'This event is a unique case of an extremely long (~510 km [317 miles]) and sustained supershear rupture probably favored by the rather smooth and continuous geometry of this section of the structurally mature Sagaing Fault.'
Given the Sagaing fault's past recorded earthquakes, researchers had predicted that a strong earthquake would take place on a 186-mile (300-kilometer) stretch that hadn't experienced a large earthquake since 1839. According to the seismic gap hypothesis, such 'stuck' parts of a fault should eventually slip and 'catch up,' according to a California Institute of Technology (Caltech) statement. The seismologists got it right—in March, this section of the Sagaing fault fractured. But so did another over 124 miles (200 km), meaning the fault did more than just catch up.
Shocking Video Shows Earth Tearing Open During Myanmar's Earthquake in March
Strike-slip faults consist of boundaries where slabs of earth grind horizontally past each other in opposite directions, accumulating stress. When the stress is enough, the fault slips and the earth slides quickly, triggering an earthquake. The devastating Myanmar earthquake offers insight into the San Andreas Fault's future seismic potential, since both it and the Sagaing Fault are long, straight strike-slip faults.
'The study shows that future earthquakes might not simply repeat past known earthquakes,' said Jean-Philippe Avouac, director of Caltech's Center for Geomechanics and Mitigation of Geohazards. 'Successive ruptures of a given fault, even as simple as the Sagaing or the San Andreas faults, can be very different and can release even more than the deficit of slip since the last event.'
The March earthquake in Myanmar 'turned out to be an ideal case to apply image correlation methods [techniques to compare images before and after a geological event] that were developed by our research group,' explained Solène Antoine, first author of the study and a postdoctoral fellow in geology at Caltech. 'They allow us to measure ground displacements at the fault.'
This approach revealed that the 311-mile (500-km) section of the Sagaing fault moved a net of 9 feet (3 meters) because of the earthquake, meaning the eastern side of the north-south fault moved that distance southward in relation to the western side. The researchers argue that models have to take into account the most recent fault slips, slip location, and slip distance to provide informed seismic hazard predictions for specific time periods—for example, the next 10 years—and not just any given timespan for an area. This is what current models do, mostly using earthquake statistics.
'In addition, historical records are generally far too short for statistical models to represent the full range of possible earthquakes and eventual patterns in earthquake recurrence,' Avouac explained. 'Physics-based models provide an alternative approach with the advantage that they could, in principle, be tuned to observations and used for time-dependent forecast.'
While researchers still can't predict exactly when an earthquake will strike, every new observation helps us understand and hopefully better prepare for the natural disasters that continue claiming lives all over the world.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
2 hours ago
- Associated Press
Physicians for Informed Consent Publishes Silver Booklet, Shows Childhood Vaccines Not Proven Safer Than the Diseases They Target
Data-driven analysis compares disease risks to vaccine risks, highlighting evidence gaps and urging review of school vaccine mandates NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA / ACCESS Newswire / August 19, 2025 / Physicians for Informed Consent ( PIC ) has announced the publication of 'Vaccines and the Diseases They Target: An Analysis of Vaccine Safety and Epidemiology,' also known as the Silver Booklet, a groundbreaking book that challenges the belief that vaccines are unequivocally safer than the diseases they intend to Booklet Drawing on peer-reviewed studies, government health statistics, and over a decade of research and development by PIC, the book presents a reader-friendly analysis of the risks of childhood vaccines compared to that of infectious diseases - and equips parents, healthcare professionals, and policymakers with clear, concise data to support informed decision-making. The book covers: 'Vaccine policies have operated within a paradigm that assumes vaccines are inherently safer than the diseases they target,' said Shira Miller, M.D., PIC founder and president. 'However, the data tell a different story - particularly for children at normal risk. That's why vaccine mandates deserve immediate and serious reconsideration.' Key findings: 'As the nation considers how to improve children's health in the face of rising chronic illness, there's never been a more critical time to review vaccine policy through a scientific lens,' said Greg Glaser, Esq., PIC general counsel. 'The Silver Booklet offers that lens.' Who should read this book: How to order: To learn more or order your copy of 'Vaccines and the Diseases They Target,' visit Contact Information Greg Glaser General Counsel [email protected] 925-642-6651 SOURCE: Physicians for Informed Consent press release
Gizmodo
6 hours ago
- Gizmodo
Why Pooping on Planes Might Actually Be a Good Thing
Researchers have developed a new critical warning system for the spread of antimicrobial resistant (AMR) superbugs: poop and pee from airplane bathrooms. Scientists predict that by 2050, AMR superbugs, or pathogens that don't respond to antimicrobial medicines, might take more lives than cancer. As such, it's critical for countries to keep an eye on the global propagation of these dangerous pathogens, which can travel with people, in order to best prepare for future infections. In a study published in May in the journal Microbiology Spectrum, a team of international researchers suggests that aircraft toilet wastewater could warn authorities about the arrival of such superbugs. 'Long-haul flight aircraft wastewater may serve as a representative microbial footprint, often of mixed country origin, offering valuable insight into the movement of pathogens and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) on a global scale,' the team wrote in the study. 'Herein, we present a proof-of-concept for aircraft-based surveillance of AMR by investigating lavatory wastewater samples from 44 repatriation flights to Australia departing from nine countries.' The analysis revealed nine dangerous pathogens, including some superbugs that are resistant to more than one drug. The team investigated the superbugs' genetic signatures and antibiotic resistance gene (ARG) profiles, finding a gene that lends resistance to last-resort antibiotics on 17 flights. Interestingly, this dangerous gene was not present in Australia's urban wastewater at the time, indicating its arrival via international travel. All 44 flight samples had five out of the nine superbugs. 'Aircraft wastewater captures microbial signatures from passengers across different continents, offering a non-invasive, cost-effective way to monitor threats like AMR,' Warish Ahmed, a senior author of the study and researcher from CSIRO, said in a University of South Australia statement. Eighteen of the flights came from India, 14 from the United Kingdom, six from Germany, and one each from France, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, South Africa, Japan, and Indonesia. According to Nicholas Ashbolt, a co-author of the study and a microbiologist at the University of South Australia, flights from Asia, especially from India, revealed greater concentrations of antibiotic-resistance genes than those from Europe and the United Kingdom. These distinctions could be due to differences in antibiotic use, water sanitation, population density, and public health policies. 'International travel is one of the major drivers of AMR spread,' said Yawen Liu, lead author of the study and a postdoctoral fellow at Xiamen University. 'By monitoring aircraft wastewater, we can potentially detect and track antibiotic resistance genes before they become established in local environments.' Tuberculosis, influenza, and SARS-CoV-2, for example, can also spread by air travel. While the researchers collected the wastewater samples from Covid-19 pandemic repatriation flights, potentially swaying passenger demographics, they argue that similar methods can also work for regular international travel. 'With AMR projected to cause more than 39 million deaths globally by 2050, the need for innovative surveillance tools is urgent,' Ashbolt concluded. 'Aircraft wastewater monitoring could complement existing public health systems, providing early warnings of emerging superbug threats.'
Medscape
6 hours ago
- Medscape
Q&A: Cervical Cancer
Maurie Markman, MD Dr Maurie Markman, an internationally recognized medical oncologist and president of medicine and science at City of Hope, specializes in gynecologic malignancies. In this interview, he discusses the transformative role of immunotherapy in advanced and recurrent cervical cancer treatment. He also addresses practical management considerations for special populations, immunotherapy toxicity profiles, surveillance strategies, resistance mechanisms, and the field's future directions. How has immunotherapy transformed the landscape for recurrent and metastatic cervical cancer, and what defines the current standard of care? The transformation has been nothing short of remarkable. Before immunotherapy, we were essentially offering patients with cervical cancer single-agent cisplatin with awful toxicity and minimal response rates; it was a pretty dismal situation. The introduction of pembrolizumab in the first-line setting has been a true game-changer. Based on the KEYNOTE-826 trial results, pembrolizumab — combined with platinum-based chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab — significantly prolonged both progression-free and overall survival compared to chemotherapy alone.[1,2] This has become our standard approach for PD-L1-positive disease.[3] In practice, this means that patients who previously had almost no effective therapy options now have a regimen that produces meaningful tumor responses and substantial survival gains. We're talking about dramatically improved outcomes where none existed before. The current standard involves simultaneous administration of all agents from cycle 1. For patients who are candidates for triple therapy, we give pembrolizumab on day 1 with cisplatin or carboplatin plus paclitaxel and add bevacizumab at its usual dose and schedule if there are no contraindications.[3] The beauty is that pembrolizumab toxicities don't meaningfully interact with chemotherapy or bevacizumab; the immune-related adverse events occur independently of vascular toxicities. We only withhold bevacizumab for patient-specific reasons like recent major surgery or active fistula, not because of immunotherapy concerns. Walk us through PD-L1 testing and biomarker strategies. What should oncologists know about patient selection? Every patient with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer should undergo PD-L1 testing using an FDA-approved assay; this is nonnegotiable.[3] The score is reported as a combined positive score (CPS), which is the number of PD-L1-staining cells (tumor cells, lymphocytes, macrophages) divided by the total number of viable tumor cells, multiplied by 100. A CPS of 1 or more is considered PD-L1-positive based on FDA definition and KEYNOTE-826 data. Essentially, if at least 1% of cells are PD-L1-positive based on this formula, the tumor qualifies for pembrolizumab-based therapy.[1,2] But we don't stop there. While PD-L1 remains the primary biomarker, we routinely obtain comprehensive genomic testing because other features can influence the treatment strategy. NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) recommends testing for MSI/MMR in recurrent disease.[3] Although MSI-H is uncommon in cervical cancer, any patient with MSI-H or high tumor mutational burden would be eligible for pembrolizumab on a tumor-agnostic basis. We also recommend comprehensive panel testing, including HER2 amplification/overexpression and NTRK fusions.[3] These markers may not predict pembrolizumab response per se, but they identify other targeted therapies if immunotherapy fails. For example, HER2 overexpression opens the door to trastuzumab deruxtecan later in the treatment course. How do targeted therapies like trastuzumab deruxtecan and tisotumab vedotin fit into the treatment paradigm? This is where things get exciting for the small subset of patients with specific molecular targets. HER2 overexpression occurs in roughly 2%-6% of cervical cancers, but it's clinically significant when these are present. The DESTINY-PanTumor02 trial included a cervical cancer cohort and showed impressive activity; the confirmed objective response rate was about 50% overall, and in the subset with IHC 3+ tumors, it reached 75%.[4] Based on these results, NCCN now recommends routine HER2 testing (IHC with FISH reflex) in recurrent/metastatic disease and lists trastuzumab deruxtecan as a category 2A, second-line option for HER2-positive tumors (IHC 3+ or 2+).[3] So, while only a minority of patients have HER2-positive disease, those who do have access to an active ADC (antibody-drug conjugate) therapy after first-line treatment. Tisotumab vedotin represents another significant advance. This tissue factor-directed ADC received full FDA approval in April 2024 for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer with disease progression on or after chemotherapy, and it's now the only NCCN category 1 preferred option for second-line therapy.[3,5] What's particularly interesting is the ongoing innovaTV 205 (GOG-3024) trial combining tisotumab vedotin with pembrolizumab in the first-line setting; the NCCN guidelines already note this combination as an option for PD-L1-positive patients based on encouraging phase 2 activity.[3] The rationale behind these ADCs is compelling: They can target tumor cells independent of the PD-1 pathway, potentially overcoming immunotherapy resistance mechanisms. How do you approach treatment in special populations such as elderly patients, those with poor performance status, and PD-L1-negative disease? This requires individualized decision-making and honest conversations about goals of care. Age alone is never a contraindication; we don't refuse immunotherapy solely because of chronological age. However, older patients often have more comorbidities that can amplify even low-grade toxicities. Before treating such patients, we carefully assess overall health, lab values, and organ function.[6] For truly frail patients or those with poor performance status (ECOG [Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group] ≥ 2) due to disease burden, we discuss goals of care candidly. Sometimes we choose single-agent chemotherapy or best supportive care instead of full triple therapy. For moderately impaired patients who seem reasonably functional, we may proceed with chemo-immunotherapy but with closer monitoring and potentially modified dosing. The key is vigilant follow-up; these patients need frequent labs and clinic visits to catch toxicity early. We personalize the approach: full regimen if they can tolerate it, otherwise a modified strategy. For PD-L1-negative disease, pembrolizumab isn't indicated, so we revert to traditional approaches: platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab when feasible, followed by second-line agents like topotecan or irinotecan.[3] We still ensure broad molecular profiling since targets like NTRK fusions or microsatellite instability could open second-line options, but immunotherapy is reserved for PD-L1-positive cases per label. What are the key principles for managing immunotherapy-related toxicities, and are there cervical cancer-specific considerations? Toxicity management for pembrolizumab in cervical cancer follows the same principles as other tumors. There are no cervical cancer-specific immune toxicities. We monitor for the usual immune-related adverse events (thyroid function tests, skin checks, GI symptoms) and treat according to standard guidelines like steroids for grade ≥ 2 colitis and hormone replacement for hypothyroidism. The main caveat is that many patients with cervical cancer have had extensive prior therapy (eg, radiation, cisplatin) and may have compromised organ function or poor performance status at baseline. This means that even the same immune side effect could be more clinically challenging. For example, a patient with heavy tumor burden and GI involvement might not tolerate low-grade colitis as well as someone with good performance status.[6] We apply common sense; patients with multiple comorbidities or moderate ECOG 2-3 status require very close monitoring since any grade 3-4 immune-related adverse event could tip the balance. In practice, we treat most patients with PD-L1-positive disease regardless of age or mild frailty, but we have a lower threshold to hold therapy and manage side effects aggressively in vulnerable populations. What does surveillance look like during and after immunotherapy, and what emerging resistance mechanisms concern you? Unlike some other cancers, we don't have reliable tumor markers to follow in cervical cancer. There's no CA-125 equivalent. We rely entirely on imaging, typically CT scans every 3 months or as clinically indicated by symptoms. For patients with visceral disease, we image the chest, abdomen, and pelvis together.[3] We continue therapy as long as patients derive benefit (response or stable disease) without prohibitive toxicity. The surveillance schedule is similar to other metastatic cancers: every 2-3 cycles (6-8 weeks) for the first 6 months and then every 3 months if stable. Regarding resistance mechanisms, this is an active area of research that keeps me up at night. We know from other cancers that tumors can evade immunotherapy through several routes: downregulating antigen presentation machinery, upregulating alternative checkpoints like LAG-3 or TIM-3, or creating an immunosuppressive microenvironment. In cervical cancer specifically, these mechanisms haven't been fully elucidated. What's clear is our need for effective second-line strategies. This is where ADCs become particularly attractive; they target tumor cells independent of the PD-1 pathway.[4,5] Beyond HER2-targeted and tissue factor-directed ADCs, new conjugates targeting novel antigens are in development. The field is also exploring combination strategies adding other checkpoint inhibitors or stimulatory agents and novel approaches like therapeutic vaccines. What developments in earlier-stage disease and emerging trials should we be watching? Immunotherapy is rapidly moving upstream, and this trend will likely accelerate. Pembrolizumab was recently approved in combination with definitive chemoradiation for high-risk locally advanced cervical cancer (FIGO 2014 stage III–IVA) based on the ENGOT-cx11/GOG-3047 (KEYNOTE-A18) trial.[7] This trial showed that adding pembrolizumab after chemo-RT improves outcomes, and NCCN guidelines now include this as a category 1 recommendation.[3] Whether to extend immunotherapy to even earlier stages remains to be proven. For bulky stage IB or IIA disease, we'd need to weigh benefits against long-term toxicity and cost. The current priority is optimizing use in high-risk settings where relapse rates are significant, rather than treating early-stage patients we already cure with surgery or chemoradiation. Several trials deserve attention. The innovaTV 205 (GOG-3024) study combining tisotumab vedotin with pembrolizumab in first-line treatment is particularly intriguing; the rationale is that tisotumab vedotin may provide synergy with PD-1 blockade.[3] Other ongoing trials are testing combinations of PD-1 inhibitors with CTLA-4 inhibitors or novel immunomodulators.[8,9,10] Looking ahead, ADC combinations and additional checkpoint combinations represent the major themes. We're also seeing movement toward incorporating immunotherapy into adjuvant settings for high-risk patients. The goal is to build on our success in metastatic disease and prevent recurrences before they occur. Of course, while we're making these therapeutic advances, we can't forget that prevention through HPV vaccination and screening remains our best strategy for reducing cervical cancer incidence overall.
