plant lover, cookie monster, shoe fiend
19966 stories
·
20 followers

Geedge

1 Share

The Great Firewall of China (GFW) experienced the largest leak of internal documents in its history on Thursday September 11, 2025. Over 500 GB of source code, work logs, and internal communication records were leaked, revealing details of the GFW’s research, development, and operations.

The leak originated from a core technical force behind the GFW: Geedge Networks (whose chief scientist is Fang Binxing) and the MESA Lab at the Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences. The documents show that the company not only provides services to governments in places like Xinjiang, Jiangsu, and Fujian, but also exports censorship and surveillance technology to countries such as Myanmar, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, and other unidentified country under the “Belt and Road” framework.

The significance and far-reaching implications of this leak are substantial. Due to the massive volume of data, GFW Report will continue to analyze and provide updates on the current page and on the Net4People.

Enlace Hacktivista has provided the access to the leak:

The leaked files total about 600 GB. Among them, the file mirror/repo.tar alone, as an archive of the RPM packaging server, takes up 500 GB.

For detailed instructions on how to use the specific files, David Fifield has already provided a more thorough explanation on Net4People.

     7206346  mirror/filelist.txt
497103482880  mirror/repo.tar
 14811058515  geedge_docs.tar.zst
  2724387262  geedge_jira.tar.zst
 35024722703  mesalab_docs.tar.zst
 63792097732  mesalab_git.tar.zst
       71382  A HAMSON-EN.docx
       16982  A Hamson.docx
      161765  BRI.docx
       14052  CPEC.docx
     2068705  CTF-AWD.docx
       19288  Schedule.docx
       26536  TSG Solution Review Description-20230208.docx
      704281  TSG-问题.docx
       35040  chat.docx
       27242  ty-Schedule.docx
      111244  待学习整理-23年MOTC-SWG合同草本V.1-2020230320.docx
       52049  打印.docx
      418620  替票证明.docx
      260551  领导修改版-待看Reponse to Customer's Suggestions-2022110-V001--1647350669.docx

Due to the highly sensitive nature of these leaked materials, we strongly advise anyone who chooses to download and analyze them to take proper operational security precautions. It may be possible that these files may contain potentially risky content and accessing them in an insecure environment could expose you to surveillance or malware.

Please consider analyzing these files only in an isolated (virtual) machine without internet access.

4. Background

Great Firewall of China (GFW) is an umbrella term for a series of Internet censorship systems. Behind it, teams for research and development, operations, hardware, and management each play their roles and coordinate with one another. In addition to fixed government agencies (such as the CNCERT), different entities provide technical support depending on individual contracts and tenders. This leak originates from an important branch of the GFW’s R&D capacity: Geedge Networks and MESA Lab. The MESA lab is affiliated with the Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences (IIE, CAS).

The origins trace back to Fang Binxing, the “Father of the Great Firewall”, coming to Beijing. At the end of 2008, he established the National Engineering Laboratory for Information Content Security (NELIST), initially based at the Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Beginning in 2012, the supporting institution changed to the Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences. In January 2012, some NELIST personnel formed a team at IIE, and in June 2012 the team was officially named the Processing Architecture Team, English name MESA (Massive Effective Stream Analysis). Below is an excerpt from MESA’s self-introduction:

MESA Timeline

   January 2012: Liu Qingyun, Sun Yong, Zheng Chao, Yang Rong, Qin Peng, Liu Yang, and Li Jia formed a team at IIE;
   June 2012: The team was officially named the Processing Architecture Team, English name MESA (Massive Effective Stream Analysis);
   2012: Liu Qingyun was selected for IIE’s inaugural “Rising Star” talent program;
   2012: Yang Wei and Zhou Zhou joined the team;
   2012: The team successfully completed the cybersecurity assurance task for the 18th National Congress;
   January 2013: MESA’s first PhD trainee, Liu Tingwen, graduated successfully;
   2013: Li Shu, Liu Junpeng, and Liu Xueli joined the team;
   December 2013: The MESA team received IIE’s 2013 Major Scientific and Technological Progress Award;
   2014: Zhou Zhou was selected for IIE’s “Rising Star” talent program;
   2014: The MESA component SAPP platform began large-scale engineering deployment;
   2014: Zhang Peng, Yu Lingjing, and Jia Mengdie joined the team;
   2015: Zheng Chao was selected for IIE’s “Rising Star” talent program, and Zhang Peng was selected for IIE’s “Outstanding Talent Introduction” program;
   August 2015: MESA moved from the Agriculture Bureau to the Huayan Beili office area;
   July 2015: PhD student Sha Hongzhou trained by MESA graduated successfully, and Liu Xiaomei received Outstanding Graduate honors;
   2016: Dou Fenghu, Zhu Yujia, Wang Fengmei, Li Zhao, Lu Qiuwen, Du Meijie, Shen Yan, and Fang Xupeng joined MESA in succession, and the team expanded rapidly;
   2016: The team undertook multiple major engineering projects, with annual contracted revenue exceeding 35 million;
   December 2016: The MESA team participated in winning the National Science and Technology Progress Award (Second Prize);
   2018: Sun Yong and Zhou Zhou received the 2017 National State Secrecy Science and Technology Award (Second Prize);

By 2018, Fang Binxing had also established himself in Hainan, and Geedge (Hainan) Information Technology Co., Ltd. (Geedge Networks Ltd.) was founded in the same year. Fang served as chief scientist, and the “core R&D personnel came from universities and research institutes such as the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Harbin Institute of Technology, and Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications.” Much of this talent came from MESA—for example, Zheng Chao served as CTO. Attentive readers will notice that many mentors and students from the MESA timeline appear in the leaked Geedge company git commits.

5. Analysis of Non–Source Code Files

The non–source-code portion of the leaked files has already been analyzed in detail by multiple professional teams. Below are David Fifield’s notes on related media reports and technical write-ups. Please note that the source-code portion of the leak has not yet been analyzed:

6. Analysis of Source Code Files

The source-code portion of the leaked files has not yet been carefully analyzed. This leak is significant and far-reaching. Given the large volume of material, GFW Report will continue to update our analysis and findings on the current page as well as on Net4People.

This report was first published on GFW Report. We also actively updated our analysis and findings on Net4People.

We encourage you to share questions, comments, analysis, or additional evidence on this topic, either publicly or privately. Our private contact information can be found in the footer of the GFW Report website.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
3 minutes ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Shocked by Epstein’s birthday book? That culture was everywhere before feminism | Rebecca Solnit | The Guardian

1 Comment and 3 Shares

I was there. I kept the receipts. I remember how normalized the sexual exploitation of teenage girls and even tweens by adult men was, how it showed up in movies, in the tales of rock stars and “baby groupies”, in counterculture and mainstream culture, how normalized rape, exploitation, grooming, objectification, commodification was.

The last Woody Allen movie I ever saw was Manhattan, in which he cast himself as more or less himself, a dweeb in his mid-40s, dating a high school student played by Mariel Hemingway. She was my age, 17, and I was only too familiar with creeps, and the movie creeped me out, even though it was only long afterward that I read that she said he was at the time pressuring her to get sexually involved with him in real life.

Manhattan came out in 1979; two years earlier Roman Polanski, on the pretext that he was taking photographs for French Vogue, got a 13-year-old girl to come alone to a house, where he drugged and raped her vaginally and anally. The probation officer assigned to him wrote: “There was some indication that circumstances were provocative, that there was some permissiveness by the mother,” and “that the victim was not only physically mature, but willing”. In her own account, the girl had said no repeatedly and even pretended to have an asthma attack to try to dissuade him, but the probation officer was of his era and only too willing to blame a drugged child. That was normal then.

Movies of the 1970s normalized all this. Jodie Foster was 12 when she played a prostitute in Taxi Driver. In Pretty Baby, an 11-year-old Brooke Shields played another prostitute in quaint New Orleans whose virginity is auctioned off, and who appears nude in some scenes, as she did in a Playboy Magazine special “sugar and spice” issue at age 10. In Milos Forman’s 1971 Taking Off, the runaway 15-year-old daughter of the protagonist reappears with a rock star boyfriend. Groupie culture included more than a few children sleeping with rock stars; Interview Magazine recounts of one prominent groupie that she “lost her virginity at age 12 to Spirit guitarist Randy California. For a time, she was involved with Iggy Pop, who glorified their relationship in his 1996 song Look Away. I slept with Sable when she was 13 / Her parents were too rich to do anything.”

It was the 70s in which the soft-focus color photographs of nude and semi-clad pubescent girls of David Hamilton were normalized as coffee table books and posters. By the 1990s, Jock Sturges’s black-and-white photographs of similar slender white girls shot in a nudist colony in the midst of puberty launched controversies. While he defended them with bland notions of high art and edenic life without shame, a former student of his made a semi-documentary film about the sexual relationship she had with him when she was 14 and he was her art teacher, in the 1970s.

Later on, when Brooke Shields tried to stop Gary Gross’s nude images of her at age 10 from circulating, as the Guardian reported in 2009, “Gross’s lawyers argued that his photographs could not further damage Shields’s reputation because, since they were taken, she had made a profitable career “as a young vamp and a harlot, a seasoned sexual veteran, a provocative child-woman, an erotic and sensual sex symbol, the Lolita of her generation”. The judge concurred and, while praising the pictures’ “sultry, sensual appeal”, ruled that Gross was not a pornographer: “They have no erotic appeal except to possibly perverse minds.”

That’s what the 1980s were like too. As an adult Molly Ringwald wrote of the John Hughes teen movies in which she starred back then, “I’m a little embarrassed to say that it took even longer for me to fully comprehend the scene late in Sixteen Candles, when the dreamboat, Jake, essentially trades his drunk girlfriend, Caroline, to the Geek, to satisfy the latter’s sexual urges, in return for Samantha’s underwear. The Geek takes Polaroids with Caroline to have proof of his conquest; when she wakes up in the morning with someone she doesn’t know, he asks her if she ‘enjoyed it.’” That this was rape was not clear to Ringwald, as she says, or to audiences. In 1984, Rolling Stones bass player Bill Wyman, who was 47, began having a relationship with a child he met, claiming “she was a woman at thirteen”. Much later in her life, she advocated for raising Britain’s age of consent from 16 to 18, saying, “You are still a child – even at 16.”

Before what got called the sexual revolution, prudery and propriety regarded girls and young women as the property of fathers and future husbands, and not besmirching the purity that was part of their value was at least grounds for saying no. The sexual revolution removed this barrier and when I was a teenager in the 1970s the general idea was that sex was good and everyone should have it, and so I started getting hit on by counterculture dudes when I was 12 or 13, as did my female peers. Everything meant yes; nothing meant no; almost no one aided girls who wanted to avoid these guys; we were on our own and had to become escape artists. In the alternative school I went to in the mid-1970s, in a nice suburb, 13-year-old girls were dating adult drug dealers, a 14-year-old showed off a ring from her middle-aged fiancee, and a 15-year-old got pregnant from a sailor on a nearby base and decided to have the baby. No adults seemed concerned.

It was still a misogynist culture; sex was still framed largely in terms of male needs. One more striking piece of 1970s culture was the sexual ethos of the counterculture terrorists who kidnapped Patti Hearst in 1974: that it was “comradely” to meet the needs of others, and thus the women in the Symbionese Liberation Army were always supposed to say yes to the men, to meet the latter’s needs, never mind their own. So much for liberation.

Founded in 1978, NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, was an organization of adult men actively campaigning for legalizing sex with male children, and was only gradually driven underground. Straight men didn’t need a special organization to advocate for them; the whole culture did. It was the Playboy Philosophy, it was Hollywood and rock’n’roll, cheesy art like David Hamilton’s, and sniggers and excuses.

I write all this because the just-released 2003 Jeffrey Epstein birthday album is a late relic of that culture, as is Donald Trump’s attitude toward women. Trump was often seen at Epstein’s events, packed with very young female models, at a time when models were sent out to mingle with affluent men.

Two pages in the album are particularly striking. In one, a photograph of three people holding a giant check to Epstein, with Trump’s signature (presumably not real), describing Epstein selling a “fully depreciated” woman whose name is redacted to Trump for $22,500. Depreciated is a real-estate term; the joke seems to be that somehow a woman has lost some of her value, but is still saleable as property, livestock, chattel or whatever term you use when you turn humans into property.

In the other, a drawing of Epstein in 1983 approaching girl children with balloons and candy clearly recognizes him as a groomer; the other half of the pictures shows him in 2003 in a recliner being serviced by four young women or girls, two in thong bikini bottoms, one with Epstein’s initials tattooed on her butt cheek. It’s clear whoever contributed these suggestive pages to the Epstein album knew of his sexual appetite for young girls, and that a great many others did as well.

What happened between the 1970s I’ve described and the present is feminism: feminism that insisted that women were people endowed with rights, that sex, as distinct from rape, had to be something both parties desired, that consent had to be active and conscious, that all human interactions involve power and that the vast power differential between adult men and children meant that no such consent was possible.

It was feminism that exposed the ubiquity of child abuse, rape, sexual harassment and domestic violence, that denormalized these abuses that were so much part of patriarchal society. And still are, far too much, but the dismissive, permissive attitude of the past is past, at least in mainstream culture.

  • Rebecca Solnit is a Guardian US columnist. She is the author of Orwell’s Roses and co-editor with Thelma Young Lutunatabua of the climate anthology

Read the whole story
sarcozona
8 hours ago
reply
“Before what got called the sexual revolution, prudery and propriety regarded girls and young women as the property of fathers and future husbands, and not besmirching the purity that was part of their value was at least grounds for saying no. The sexual revolution removed this barrier and when I was a teenager in the 1970s the general idea was that sex was good and everyone should have it, and so I started getting hit on by counterculture dudes when I was 12 or 13, as did my female peers. Everything meant yes; nothing meant no; almost no one aided girls who wanted to avoid these guys; we were on our own and had to become escape artists. In the alternative school I went to in the mid-1970s, in a nice suburb, 13-year-old girls were dating adult drug dealers, a 14-year-old showed off a ring from her middle-aged fiancee, and a 15-year-old got pregnant from a sailor on a nearby base and decided to have the baby. No adults seemed concerned.”
Epiphyte City
rocketo
2 hours ago
reply
seattle, wa
acdha
11 hours ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete

US plans to close Chemical Safety Board by October | Business | Chemistry World

1 Comment

John Bresland, member of the Chemical Safety and Hazard investigation Board

The Trump administration has proposed to shut down the US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), an independent federal agency charged with investigating industrial chemical accidents and developing recommendations to prevent their recurrence. The government wants the agency’s $14 million (£10 million) budget to be withdrawn by 30 September, before the start of the next fiscal year.

The CSB should only have access to funds needed to ‘carry out the closure of the Board,’ the White House said. The administration claims in the CSB’s budget request that the agency ‘duplicates substantial capabilities’ in the US Environmental Protection Agency and the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) to investigate chemical-related mishaps. It also says the agency generates ‘unprompted studies of the chemical industry and recommends policies that they have no authority to create or enforce,’ suggesting that this function should reside within agencies that have authority to issue regulations.

Shutting the CSB would be ‘part of the administration’s plans to move the nation towards fiscal responsibility and to redefine the proper role of the federal government,’ the administration claimed.

During his first term, Trump repeatedly tried to cancel the agency’s funding, but Congress intervened to maintain or increase its budget. This time around, both chambers of Congress are controlled by Republicans, and the president has taken greater control of independent agencies.

Opposition voiced

Jordan Barab, who served as a deputy assistant secretary of Osha from 2009 to 2017, before which he worked on workplace safety for the CSB and as a labour policy advisor for health and safety on Capitol Hill, reacted strongly to the news. ‘Trump wants to shut down the Chemical Safety Board which has a unique role investigating chemical plant incidents,’ he wrote on the social media platform Bluesky. ‘The result: more chemical releases, worker deaths and community pollution. All to save $14 million.’

Congressman Mark DeSaulnier from California, a senior member of the House Education and Workforce Committee that has jurisdiction over occupational and mine safety, went further. He called the move ‘unconscionable’ and vowed to ‘do everything possible in Congress to fight this dangerous executive overreach and protect the Chemical Safety Board.’

‘Having spent my career fighting to regulate nearby refineries, I know the vital role the CSB plays in probing the root causes of chemical incidents and in issuing recommendations that have helped keep workers and communities safer,’ DeSaulnier continued.

The chemical industry also expressed concern. ‘The reports and recommendations that the CSB produces have served as a valuable resource for industry stakeholders,’ stated the American Chemistry Council trade association. ‘We value the work of the CSB and want to see it continue, and we will engage with the White House and Congress, so they understand we support the CSB as the budget works its way through the approval process.’

The CSB has recently concluded two investigations – into a fatal explosion at a molten salt nitriding plant in Tennessee in 2024, and a series of hydrogen fluoride leaks at a Honeywell plant in Louisiana. The Board found that all these incidents were preventable, and identified various safety and policy failings at the sites involved.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
1 day ago
reply
What! I only just learned about the CSB and their epic YouTube channel. This is going to kill so many people!!
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Smoke from Canada’s wildfires killed nine-year-old Carter Vigh – and 82,000 others around the world | Air pollution | The Guardian

1 Share

Amber Vigh had taken the usual precautions when bringing her nine-year-old son, Carter, to summer camp in July 2023. There were no fires near their home in British Columbia, Canada. Her air quality app showed low levels of pollution. She could not smell any smoke.

Carter, a music-loving Lego enthusiast who had asthma, brought along his smiling shark tooth-patterned emergency kit that held an inhaler, allergy pill and EpiPen. When smoke did roll in from the north, Vigh took him indoors.

But at home that evening, Carter began to cough uncontrollably. Vigh and her husband, James, followed the doctors’ checklist – emergency inhaler, drink of water, steroid inhaler – and gave him a bath to cool down. Then, “all of a sudden, he started coughing again like crazy”, said Vigh.

Alarmed, she drove Carter to the local hospital and called ahead so medics would be waiting. “This isn’t good,” Carter told his dad while being carried to the truck.

“Right then, we both knew this wasn’t just a normal asthma attack,” said Vigh, a teaching assistant. “Never thinking in a million years it was going to result the way that it did.”

Carter died in hospital that day from what the coroner called an asthma attack aggravated by wildfire smoke. And though most people in his family’s shoes will not know it, his death was far from the only one made more likely by the fumes.

Tiny toxic particles spewed by Canadian wildfires killed 82,000 people in 2023, according to a study published in Nature on Wednesday. The long tendrils of smoke choked towns not just in Canada and the US, but also across the Atlantic. The pollution was responsible for 22,000 early deaths in Europe alone.

The findings add to a growing body of evidence that suggests smoke from wildfires ranks among the greatest threats to human health. In December, a study in the Lancet medical journal attributed 1.53 million deaths each year to exposure to air pollution from wildfires.

Despite the vast death toll, experts warn of a widespread lack of public awareness and government action. The air quality app that Vigh checked on the day that Carter died had relied on a monitoring station 60 miles (100km) away. It was too far to detect the invisible pollutants cloying the air around their home.

Vigh has since started an initiative with the BC Lung Foundation in Carter’s memory, distributing free air quality monitors to towns that lack adequate coverage. “His life was taken way too soon, but he’s out there saving lives for other kids and adults.”

The wildfires that ravaged Canada in 2023 were the country’s most destructive on record, and pumped out pollutants across the world. They increased annual exposure to dangerous particles known as PM2.5 by 65% in Canada, 21% in the US, and 4% in Europe, according to data from the Nature study. The particles are small enough to pass from the lungs into the bloodstream, irritating everything from the airways to the brain.

Prof Cathryn Tonne, an environmental epidemiologist at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal), who was not involved in the study, said the research was important but the death toll was probably conservative.

“This analysis assumes wildfire PM2.5 has the same toxicity as PM2.5 from all sources in its estimate of deaths due to exposure over the course of a year,” said Tonne, who published a study last month suggesting short-term exposure to wildfire smoke was deadlier than previously thought. “This is likely an underestimate as there is growing evidence that wildfire PM2.5 is more toxic than PM2.5 from all sources.”

Wildfires in North America and Europe are breaking records as a blanket of fossil fuel pollution has smothered the Earth, heating the planet and drying out plant matter on which blazes feed. The plumes of smoke have devastating impacts on the body that often go unattributed.

Vigh said she was proud of the work that Carter’s project had achieved – last month, BC Lung Foundation brought air quality monitors to Dawson Creek and next week, she and Carter’s two siblings would bring some to Golden River – and hoped it would spread across Canada.

“It’s kind of a love-hate thing,” said Vigh. “I want to make a difference for Carter, but I would give it all back in a heartbeat if I could have him back.”

Read the whole story
sarcozona
1 day ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

The grief of a fandom: on Starship, Musk and losing the spark - SpaceNews

1 Comment

SpaceX recently launched its 10th Starship flight from Starbase in South Texas. This proved to be the most successful Starship flight yet, with the vehicle making a (mostly) intact water landing. Starship is the most powerful heavy-lift launch vehicle ever built and it’s making some progress amid numerous high-profile failures and one test stand explosion this year. So I should be happy, right? Yeah, um, no. I have been a space fan for pretty much all of my life, yet I couldn’t find the enthusiasm even to watch the launch and mission unfold. 

I was surprised and a bit relieved to discover that it wasn’t just me, as evidenced by the many responses I received on Facebook and Threads when I posted about my feelings. One response read, “We cannot ignore [Elon, SpaceX’s CEO] Musk. He’s trying to be all cute on Twitter with his ‘I’m a scientist again!’ cosplay. But he facilitated the platforming and victory of a true authoritarian regime. You can’t just separate that.”

Another response read, “This is how I feel. Space obsessed since I watched Apollo as a five-year-old. Space mad. Read every book I could, build my own rockets, named a child after a cosmonaut, cried the whole way around [Kennedy Space Center] – and I just feel nothing.”

A considerable part of the space fandom is experiencing a specific kind of grief when the thing you most enjoyed is now associated with other things that are irretrievably dark. We haven’t yet found a civilized way to discuss it, so we’re just distancing ourselves from the thing we enjoyed. 

On the other side of the coin, many gladly admitted to watching the launch, which is fine — no one is attacking anyone for enjoying and being excited about a space launch. Most of the time, watching a rocket launch as a grown-up fills me with the same feelings I had when I saw my first as a kid — fear, glee, wonder and excitement – as a spaceship makes its way into a largely foreign environment. It really never gets old. What was disturbing to me, however, was the number of people who ignored or denied Elon Musk’s frankly erratic behavior over the last year and even defended it. 

For better or worse, Musk is the “face” of SpaceX, as most CEOs define the corporate culture and public relations of their organizations. Here are some things that cannot be denied or brushed under the rug. A longform New York Times article detailed Musk’s family drama and alleged drug use during and after Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and his election, which Musk prominently supported. Most visibly shocking was Musk making two Nazi salutes at Trump’s inauguration in January, a gesture that perhaps overshadowed the inauguration itself. 

But there’s more. Musk used his X platform to share xenophobic and antisemitic content, spurring American and Canadian Jewish groups to call for an exodus from the social media platform. He also used the platform to promote disinformation about “white genocide” in his native country of South Africa, prompting South African President Cyril Ramaphosa to push back on Musk’s “completely false narrative.” Musk, the world’s richest man, has 14 kids by four different women and also gleefully bragged about destroying a government agency that provided food to starving people.

Musk’s damage to United States space policy is likely to be long-lasting and permanent. While Musk was heading DOGE, the Trump administration proposed slashing NASA’s budget by 25%, ending many missions and programs including the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft, ironically championed in Trump’s first term as he promoted a U.S. return to the moon. In more recent months, Musk and Trump had a very public falling out on social media, and Musk proposed starting his own “America Party.” Their ongoing feud likely led the administration to rescind its nomination of Jared Isaacman to head NASA, and currently the U.S. space agency is without an administrator.

When asked by some why I felt a lack of interest in Starship, I pointed out Musk’s January gesture, which to me could not be mistaken as anything other than what it appeared to be: a Nazi salute. I saw this happen with my eyes, which are connected to my optic nerves that happen to be connected to my brain, so I don’t think — especially given the many articles and think pieces generated about this gesture and what it meant — I merely imagined, conjured or hallucinated it. Nevertheless, I had some SpaceX fans denying he’d ever done it in my comments. 

Why do people defend someone who has done things that are frankly terrible? Is it because they’re fans of what the person has previously done? Is it a matter of identity and self-concept (“I’m a fan of this and it defines me”)? Is it cognitive dissonance? Is it social pressure from fellow SpaceX fans, or a bias? Or is it because they’ve already emotionally invested themselves in SpaceX, and simply are hopeful and optimistic? Many of Musk’s earlier fans who now understandably deride him previously supported him because his ideas about off-world space settlement resembled influential futurist Gerard K. O’Neill’s, at least on a surface level, and somewhat mirrored O’Neill’s 1970s brand of optimism and better living through tech. All these things populated my mind as I tried to understand why so many of us are excusing the actual harm someone has directly done to our society, economy, and culture. 

Consider the making and reception of the 1976 version of A Star is Born, which starred perennial chanteuse Barbra Streisand. While I’m not supposing Streisand is anything like Musk politically or personally, there are some minor parallels in how her fandom reacted to the movie upon its release. Streisand was so displeased with the final product that she chopped up the film herself to make a version she liked. The result was a movie that was widely critically panned upon its release, but her fans ate it up. Film historian Karina Longworth stated something to the effect that Streisand’s fans liked the movie anyway, because they loved that Streisand just “didn’t give a shit.” 

Indeed, many of Musk’s fans love him because they, too, believe he “doesn’t give a shit.” But a bad movie never permanently hurt anyone. Musk did. There are still repercussions from his work at DOGE, and a whistleblower has pointed out how DOGE compromised the U.S. Social Security database, home to millions of Social Security numbers. 

Musk never had to enter himself into U.S. politics and space policy. He chose to. And now this makes him, SpaceX and even NASA, which was dragged into partisan politics in a way it previously hadn’t been, targets — which his diehards don’t quite understand. 

As I write this, Musk’s efforts with DOGE have largely gutted NASA’s resources, and scores of employees have either been laid off or opted to leave the agency. The damage to the agency, although not publicly visible, is likely to be substantial and long-term. The Artemis program is rumored not to fly past Artemis 3; there’s some murkiness about whether there will even be enough of a workforce to support the remaining flights. It also bears mentioning that the massive reduction in NASA’s workforce could jeopardize what remains of the Artemis program’s management and safety — not good things if you want to send machines and people to the Moon. Ironically, in text and meta-text, Starship is actually part of the Artemis plan and is supposed to function as a moon lander. It seems like when a finger points at “government waste,” another finger points directly at itself. 

Again, the most exasperating thing about this whole sad saga is that Musk’s fan contingent seems not to understand that Musk is not some random target of “The Left.” Rather, he made the choice himself to enter the full-contact world of politics. His actions hurt not only governmental agencies and employees but also the companies he leads, and nobody else pushed him into it. Indeed, many Tesla owners who are embarrassed by him have bumper-stickered their electric cars with, “I bought this before he went crazy.” Others have taken a loss on their cars and gotten rid of them entirely. There’s a song on the 1995 Radiohead album The Bends that, to me, best sums it up, called “Just”: 

You do it to yourself, you do
And that’s what really hurts
Is that you do it to yourself, just you
You and no one else
You do it to yourself
You do it to yourself

Emily Carney is a space historian and lives in Saint Petersburg, Florida. She is the author of “Star Bound: A Beginner’s Guide to the American Space Program, from Goddard’s Rockets to Goldilocks Planets and Everything in Between” along with Bruce McCandless III. She would like to thank Dwayne Day and Bruce McCandless III for their help with this article. 

SpaceNews is committed to publishing our community’s diverse perspectives. Whether you’re an academic, executive, engineer or even just a concerned citizen of the cosmos, send your arguments and viewpoints to opinion@spacenews.com to be considered for publication online or in our next magazine. The perspectives shared in these opinion articles are solely those of the authors.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
2 days ago
reply
It’s weird to see a space historian write an article like this without discussing the ways space programs have always been about military posture. Like obviously we the people love them for more than that and want more from them, but the only way they’ve gotten funding and government backing is because of the way they project power.
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Vox scoop: RFK Jr. and Trump silenced a groundbreaking report on cancer and alcohol | Vox

Vox
1 Comment and 3 Shares

Most Americans still don’t know that alcohol can cause cancer — and the alcohol industry is working hard to make sure it stays that way.

For the past three years, the industry, aided by its allies in Congress and later the Trump administration, has sought to discredit and eventually bury a major analysis that offers new evidence of the link between drinking alcohol and getting sick and dying from various causes, including cancer.

It appears their campaign has succeeded. Three co-authors on the Alcohol Intake and Health Study, which was commissioned in early 2022 by the US Department of Health and Human Services under President Joe Biden, told Vox that they were informed last month that the Trump administration did not intend to publish the final draft of the study or its findings.

“The thing that the alcohol industry fears more than increased taxes is increased knowledge about the risks associated with drinking alcohol, particularly around cancer,” Mike Marshall, CEO of a group dedicated to reducing alcohol’s harms called the Alcohol Policy Alliance, who was not involved with the study, told me. “Like the tobacco industry, like the opioid industry, they are working hard to prevent the American people from gaining the knowledge that they need to make the best decisions for themselves.”

Why assert so much pressure? It makes sense if you look at the headwinds the alcohol industry faces. Americans today are drinking less. This year, Gallup recorded a historic low in the percentage of US adults who drink: 54 percent, down from 67 percent in 2022.

Though the vibes around alcohol are shifting, a lot of people still don’t fully understand alcohol’s health consequences. Surveys have found that while the percentage of Americans who know that alcohol is a carcinogen has been rising, it is still below 50 percent.

By the end of the year, the federal government will issue new dietary guidelines — something that happens every five years — which include recommended limits on alcohol consumption. The alcohol study’s results were intended to inform those guidelines.

“I was hopeful. … Look at all this evidence we have,” Priscilla Martinez, deputy scientific director of the Alcohol Research Group at the Public Health Institute and one of the co-authors, told me in an interview. “This is when the change is going to happen.”

But after the authors submitted their final report to Trump’s health department in March and never saw it again, Reuters reported in June, citing anonymous sources, that the new dietary guidelines would eliminate any specific recommended limits on alcohol consumption.

“I think it’s a shame,” said Katherine Keyes, an epidemiologist at Columbia University and another co-author. “Anyone who is a decision-making authority, you want them to have all of the information.”

It is another example of the Trump administration seeming to work against the best interest of public health — despite allying itself closely with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his Make America Healthy Again movement.

Kennedy and MAHA are fixated on harmful toxins and the corrupting influence of corporate interests. But neither Kennedy, who has been in addiction recovery himself for decades, nor the broader movement has seemed to make reducing alcohol consumption a priority. Instead, the Trump administration will not release a report that would actually show just how harmful to people’s health drinking alcohol can be, the latest in a series of decisions that could actually leave Americans less healthy.

Vox reached out to the White House and HHS to ask why the administration hasn’t published the study, but a spokesperson for the Substance Use and Mental Health Services Administration, the HHS subagency that oversaw the Alcohol Intake and Health Report, declined to address our questions directly.

“People are going to get sick who might have avoided getting sick, because they might have decreased their drinking,” Martinez said.

For this story, I spoke with three of the six authors of the study: Martinez, Keyes, and co-author Tim Naimi, an alcohol researcher affiliated with the University of Victoria and Boston University. They all emphasized that they had sought to conduct a study that would fairly represent America’s alcohol consumption. They not only reviewed a wide range of observational studies, but they also ran data through a statistical model based on the US population, specifically to estimate the mortality effects of alcohol for Americans.

Martinez said the thinking was: “We’ve got to make this relevant to Americans.”

They broke out their findings by different drinking levels — from one drink per day to three — and focused on health outcomes that have been proven to be associated with alcohol use. Their big-picture conclusion: Among the US population, the negative health effects of drinking alcohol start at low levels of consumption and begin to increase sharply the more a person drinks. A man drinking one drink per day has roughly a one in 1,000 chance of dying from any alcohol-related cause, whether an alcohol-associated cancer or liver disease or a drunk driving accident. Increase that to two drinks per day, and the odds increase to one in 25.

The general finding that the health risks from alcohol start at low levels of drinking and increase significantly for people who drink more is consistent with previous research, as I covered in a story earlier this year. Public health experts broadly agree that heavy drinking is bad for your health; the debate has been over moderate amounts of drinking. There is another issue that continues to complicate the debate: Lay people may have an inflated definition of what “moderate” drinking means compared to their doctor or a scientist, which could lead to people putting their health at risk even if they don’t think of themselves as heavy drinkers.

In that context, the report is a harrowing read: Alcohol use is associated with increased mortality for seven types of cancer — colorectal, breast cancer in women, liver, oral, pharynx, larynx, and esophagus. Risk for these cancers increases with any alcohol use and continues to grow with higher levels of use, the study’s authors concluded. Women experience a higher risk of an alcohol-attributable cancer per drink consumed than men. Men and women who die from an alcohol-attributable cause die 15 years earlier on average.

Amid all of the public discourse about alcohol and its health effects, here was a clear and authoritative summary of the evidence that would be most relevant to Americans. It was, its authors told me, consistent with the scientific consensus at this time.

“Nothing we’re saying is all that surprising or controversial to those of us who know the field,” Keyes said.

So, why has the US government buried the final draft of that report for the past six months? And why does it appear that the Trump administration will instead push the country’s dietary guidelines in the opposite direction?

Every five years, the federal government reviews the nation’s dietary guidelines and issues new ones that reflect the current best consensus among scientists about what we should eat, how much of it we should eat, and what we should avoid eating and drinking to lead a healthy life.

US officials always solicit expert opinion as they prepare a fresh set of dietary guidelines. The input is usually compiled into one massive report from a group of experts called the US Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee and then submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture, the two agencies that produce the guidelines.

That was how the process went in 2020, and at that time, the subcommittee of researchers dedicated to alcohol (including Naimi) advised the government to reduce the recommended limit down to one drink per day for men, from two. The Trump administration ultimately decided not to follow the recommendation.

Ahead of drafting the new guidance for 2025, the Biden administration began considering in February 2022 whether to take a different approach to more thoroughly review alcohol’s health effects ahead of the 2025 dietary guidelines being developed and released. By April 2022, HHS had decided to launch a new review of the science on alcohol and health, called the Alcohol Intake and Health Study — the research Trump’s administration has yet to release — to be conducted by an outside expert panel. That analysis would be submitted to Congress as part of an annual report on underage drinking, and it would be shared with USDA and HHS to consider for the 2025 dietary guidelines.

It makes sense why the federal government would launch an effort like this. The negative health effects of alcohol have been getting more and more attention, and research continues to link drinking even in moderate amounts to cancer, liver disease, and mental health problems. The World Health Organization declared in 2023 that no amount of drinking could be considered safe. It was time to take a hard look at American drinking.

With their mouthful titles and tangle of acronyms, it’s easy to lose track of which government report is which. To keep them straight, here are the key ways the Biden-commissioned Alcohol Intake and Health Study differs from the more recent National Academies report:

  • The Alcohol Intake and Health Study reviewed the effects of different levels of drinking; it reported on mortality directly linked to alcohol use, and included original modeling based on the US population.
  • The National Academies report reviewed the differences between moderate drinking and no drinking; it reported on all-cause mortality rather than deaths from specific causes, and it did not include any original modeling.
  • The Alcohol Intake and Health Study found the negative health effects of alcohol started at relatively low levels of drinking and increased exponentially with more drinks per day. Drinking was linked to higher overall mortality rates and increased cancer rates.
  • The National Academies report, on the other hand, found modestly positive benefits from alcohol at low levels of drinking and a weak association with most kinds of cancer except for breast cancer among women.

But almost immediately, controversy was already brewing around the Alcohol Intake and Health Study.

In December 2022, several months after HHS had decided to launch the Alcohol Intake and Health Study, Congress included a provision in a routine government spending bill: The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine should undertake its own study of alcohol’s health effects and submit that as the basis for the 2025 dietary guidelines. Two of the initial co-authors for that report were removed after objections over their reported connections to the alcohol industry. But at least one of the scholars who replaced them has also had their work supported by the industry.

When the experts who would produce the Alcohol Intake and Health Study were named in 2023, the alcohol industry began to circulate documents to lawmakers and other government officials claiming authors of the study were prejudiced against alcohol (all of the researchers had submitted conflict-of-interest paperwork ahead of joining the project). Naimi, in particular, has been labeled a “new prohibitionist” by Reason, a libertarian publication.

Keyes told me that she believed she had been criticized for, in effect, describing the findings of various alcohol-related studies.

“When I read criticism of my involvement in the committee, and it was described as a conflict of interest, the conflict was that I had accurately described scientific research in the media,” Keyes said.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill waded into the fight. In March 2024, Congress tucked a provision into another omnibus spending bill that instructed HHS and USDA to consider the National Academies report when writing the alcohol guidelines. Representatives from states including Kentucky and California — where whiskey and wine are important cultural exports, respectively — sent letters to HHS in April 2024 and again that September, criticizing the Alcohol Intake and Health Study for being duplicative of the National Academies report — even though the former was commissioned by the government first. (HHS said at the time that it would not be duplicative but complementary.) The House Oversight Committee even sought to subpoena documents from the agency on the HHS report and the process that was producing it.

Both groups of researchers continued to assemble their reports as the public relations war raged. But when it came time to publish their findings, they had very different experiences.

A draft version of the Alcohol Intake and Health Study was posted on January 15, just days before Trump’s second inauguration and around the same time that then-Surgeon General Vivek Murthy recommended that alcohol come with cancer warning labels; you can still find it online here. This is the process for most government reports: The authors put together a draft, the initial findings are released for public comment, stakeholders submit their takes, and then the authors will take those comments into consideration and revise their report for its final publication.

But that didn’t happen with the Alcohol Intake and Health Study. After the public comment period, the authors made minor revisions — not to the findings themselves but to help translate its takeaways for non-experts. They sent that final report to the Trump administration in March.

And after that…nothing. The report never surfaced, and, according to the three co-authors I spoke with, they received no explanation for the radio silence.

Vox contacted HHS with a detailed list of questions about the Alcohol Intake and Health Study and why it hasn’t been released, as well as Kennedy’s general perspective on alcohol and health. The agency sent a brief comment in response:

“This information has been provided to HHS and USDA for consideration during the development of the 2025-2030 Guidelines,” an HHS spokesperson said.

Some of the authors still held out hope that the study would be included in the annual report on underage drinking that is required by federal law to be submitted to Congress and is expected later this year.

But then in August, those hopes were shattered: According to all three co-authors, they were told that the Trump administration did not intend to publish the study in any form and would not include it in the upcoming congressional report on underage drinking. (The authors are currently working, as they always planned to do, on publishing their findings in an independent academic journal.)

Then, at the beginning of September, Congress introduced a new government spending bill that would, among many other things, defund the interagency group responsible for launching the Alcohol Intake and Health Study in the first place during the Biden administration.

The National Academies report, on the other hand, has been released on time. Its findings, however, were controversial: It indicated that moderate levels of drinking could actually be beneficial to people, and even the links to cancer, despite ethanol being widely classified as a carcinogen, were limited. Some unaffiliated alcohol researchers have called their findings and their methodology into question.

Critics said the National Academies report was based on observational studies that can show a correlation between, for example, moderate drinking and cardiovascular health, but don’t prove a cause; the National Academies report’s authors acknowledged that limitation. As Naimi told me earlier this year, many moderate drinkers may have other attributes — such as higher incomes — that could explain their better health without accounting for alcohol. Critics of the National Academies report also said the authors had used overly restrictive criteria for which research to include, excluding many studies that have found harmful effects from alcohol use.

The Alcohol Intake and Health Study, on the other hand, focused on health outcomes for which there is a substantiated link to alcohol, included more studies, and modeled the available data to the US population.

The ball is now in the Trump administration’s court. Will it change the dietary guidelines as rumored and eliminate a specific recommended limit on alcohol consumption? The National Academies report would appear to set the stage for such a change, with its industry-preferred messaging that low levels of drinking could make people healthier.

And all the while, the Alcohol Intake and Health Study and a very different perspective on alcohol’s health effects remains locked in the administration’s proverbial basement.

Read the whole story
acdha
9 days ago
reply
“A man drinking one drink per day has roughly a one in 1,000 chance of dying from any alcohol-related cause, whether an alcohol-associated cancer or liver disease or a drunk driving accident. Increase that to two drinks per day, and the odds increase to one in 25.”
Washington, DC
sarcozona
2 days ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories