Thursday, October 05, 2006

How To Build a Solar Generator

Affordable solar power using auto parts could make this electricity source far more available.

A set of prototype solar concentrators installed in Lesotho. (Courtesy of Amy Mueller.)

Demand for solar power is rapidly heating up (see "New Solar Technologies Fueled by Hot Markets"). But constructing and deploying large photovoltaic panels to generate electricity remains expensive. Now two groups at MIT are working on alternative approaches to solar-based electricity that could significantly cut costs -- and put the ability to harvest electricity from the sun into the hands of villagers in poor countries and backyard tinkerers alike.

During a stint in the Peace Corps in Lesotho in southern Africa, Matthew Orosz, an MIT graduate student advised by Harold Hemond, professor of civil and environmental engineering, learned that reflective parabolic troughs can bake bread. Now he plans to use these same contraptions to bring power to parts of Africa baked in sun but starved for electricity. His solar generators, cobbled together from auto parts and plumbing supplies, can easily be built in a backyard.

The basic design of Orosz's solar generator system is simple: a parabolic trough (taking up 15 square meters in this case) focuses light on a pipe containing motor oil. The oil circulates through a heat exchanger, turning a refrigerant into steam, which drives a turbine that, in turn, drives a generator.

The refrigerant is then cooled in two stages. The first stage recovers heat to make hot water or, in one design, to power an absorption process chiller, like the propane-powered refrigerators in RVs. The solar-generated heat would replace or augment the propane flame used in these devices. The second stage cools the refrigerant further, which improves the efficiency of the system, Orosz says. This stage will probably use cool groundwater pumped to the surface using power from the generator. The water can then be stored in a reservoir for drinking water.

The design uses readily available parts and tools. For example, both the feed pump and steam turbine are actually power-steering pumps used in cars and trucks. To generate electricity, the team uses an alternator, which is not as efficient as an ordinary generator, but comes already designed to charge a battery, which reduces some of the complexity of the system. And, like power-steering pumps, alternators, including less-expensive reconditioned ones, are easy to come by.

As a result, the complete system for generating one kilowatt of electricity and 10 kilowatts of heat, including a battery for storing the power generated, can be built for a couple thousand dollars, Orosz says, which is less than half the cost of one kilowatt of photovoltaic panels.

"You can't afford something that's designed for solar. You have to buy something that's mass-produced for something else -- that way the cost is reasonable," says Duane Johnson, owner of Red Rock Energy, in White Bear Lake, MN, who developed and sells thousands of the inexpensive LED-based sun-tracking devices Orosz uses to orient the solar concentrators. Most of the devices are used to position photovoltaic panels, he says, but some people are using them with old satellite dishes to concentrate heat and make steam. Sales of his devices have been growing 25 percent a year, a rate similar to that of the solar photovoltaics industry.

more > > >

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Report links global warming, storms

Click to View

Scientists say they have found what could be the key to ending a yearlong debate about what is making hurricanes more violent and common -- evidence that human-caused global warming is heating the ocean and providing more fuel for the world's deadliest storms.

For the past 13 months, researchers have debated whether humanity is to blame for a surge in hurricanes since the mid-1990s or whether the increased activity is merely a natural cycle that occurs every several decades.

Employing 80 computer simulations, scientists from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and other institutions concluded that there is only one answer: that the burning of fossil fuels, which warms the climate, is also heating the oceans.

Humans, Ben Santer, the report's lead author, told The Chronicle, are making hurricanes globally more violent "and violent hurricanes more common" -- at least, in the latter case, in the northern Atlantic Ocean. The findings were published Monday in the latest issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Hurricanes are born from tropical storms fueled by rising warm, moist air in the tropics. The Earth's rotation puts a spin on the storms, causing them to suck in more and more warm, moist air -- thus making them bigger and more ferocious.

In that regard, the report says, since 1906, sea-surface temperatures have warmed by between one-third and two-thirds of a degree Celsius -- or between 0.6 and 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit -- in the tropical parts of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, which are hurricane breeding grounds.

Critics of the theory that greenhouse gases are making hurricanes worse remained unconvinced by the latest research.

Chris Landsea, a top hurricane expert, praised the Proceedings paper as a worthwhile contribution to science, but said the authors failed to persuasively counter earlier objections -- that warmer seas would have negligible impact on hurricane activity.

Landsea, science and operations officer at the U.S. National Hurricane Center in Miami, noted that modern satellite observations have made hurricanes easier to detect and analyze, and that could foster the impression of long-term trends in hurricane frequency or violence that are, in fact, illusory. The surge in hurricane activity since the mid-1990s is just the latest wave in repeating cycles of hurricane activity, he said.

Philip Klotzbach, a hurricane forecaster at Colorado State University, said that "sea-surface temperatures have certainly warmed over the past century, and ... there is probably a human-induced (global warming) component." But his own research indicates "there has been very little change in global hurricane activity over the past 20 years, where the data is most reliable."

Researchers report in the Proceedings paper an 84 percent chance that at least two-thirds of the rise in ocean temperatures in these so-called hurricane breeding grounds is caused by human activities -- and primarily by the production of greenhouse gases.

Tom Wigley, one of the world's top climate modelers and a co-author of the paper, said in a teleconference last week that the scientists tried to figure out what caused the oceans to warm by running many different computer models based on possible single causes. Those causes ranged from human production of greenhouse gases to natural variations in solar intensity.

Wigley said that when the researchers reviewed the results, they found that only one model was best able to explain changing ocean temperatures, and it pointed to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The most infamous greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, a product of human burning of fossil fuels in cars and factories.

Wigley estimated the odds as smaller than 1 percent that ocean warming could be blamed on random fluctuations in hurricane activity, as some scientists suggest.

The debate among scientists was triggered in August 2005, a few weeks before Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, when hurricane expert Kerry Emanuel of MIT wrote an article for the journal Nature proposing that since the 1970s, ocean warming had made hurricanes about 50 percent more intense in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

Later, two scientific teams, both at Georgia Tech, estimated that warmer sea-surface temperatures were boosting both hurricane intensity and the number of the two worst types of hurricanes, known as Category 4 and Category 5 storms.

Nineteen scientists from 10 institutions were involved in the Proceedings paper. In addition to Lawrence Livermore, other U.S. institutions included Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, NASA, UC Merced, Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla (San Diego County), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Santer's co-authors included six Livermore colleagues -- Peter J. Gleckler, Krishna AchutaRao, Jim Boyle, Mike Fiorino, Steve Klein and Karl Taylor -- and 12 other researchers from elsewhere in the United States and from Germany and England.

Assuming that warmer water equals more bad hurricanes, scary times could be ahead for inhabitants of hurricane-prone regions.

That's because "the models that we've used to understand the causes of (ocean warming) in these hurricane formation regions predict that the oceans are going to get a lot warmer over the 21st century," Santer said in a statement. "That causes some concern."


How Hurricanes form in the Atlantic Ocean Hurricanes are born in far western Africa, where modest windstorms known as tropical disturbances pick up moisture from the warm sea and begin to whirl. As atmospheric pressures drop, tropical depressions form with wind speeds up to 38 mph. As they speed westward they become tropical storms, lashing the ocean with sheets of rain and winds blowing up to 70 mph or more, finally building into hurricanes with winds exceeding 100 mph.

Hurricane Source: NOAA, The New York Times Joe Shoulak / The Chronicle
Article Source

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Junk food makers using internet to target children, says watchdog

Sarah Boseley, health editor
Wednesday September 6, 2006
The Guardian


Children are being targeted by junk food manufacturers through internet advertising, chatrooms, text messages and "advergames" on websites, an obesity watchdog warned yesterday, calling for global action to protect their health.

Self-regulation by the food industry has failed, according to a report from the UK-based International Obesity Task Force to a conference in Sydney, Australia. "New forms of advertising are increasingly being employed which bypass parental control and target children directly," says the report by Tim Lobstein, coordinator of the taskforce's childhood obesity group.

"These include internet promotion (using interactive games, free downloads, blogs and chatterbots), SMS texting to children's cell phones, product promotions in schools and pre-schools and brand advertising in educational materials."

During three months of 2005 more than 12.2 million children visited commercial websites promoting food and drinks. A survey by the Food Commission that year found that most big food brands had websites and many have sites specifically aimed at children as young as six.

The report says that internet advertising is rapidly expanding, using a range of technologies such as flash-animated games and online chat rooms. One popular form is the "text 2 win" competition, offering children prizes to text the code from a specially-printed pack. Fanta and Cadbury are among the companies that have run successful campaigns.

Viral marketing generated interest among school children for Real Fruit Winders. Kellogg's, the manufacturer, launched an interactive website which included animated icons children could email to their friends. A McDonald's website offered free e-postcards. Pepsi has an online game in which characters race to serve thirsty customers.

At the International Congress on Obesity yesterday, the Global Prevention Alliance - an umbrella organisation representing concerned non-governmental organisations - called on the World Health Organisation and other UN agencies and governments to develop international standards to protect children from the marketing of junk food.

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

California Senate Preserves Local Rules on Genetically Engineered Crops

Senate rebuffs biotech industry-sponsored play to pre-emt local democracy

(September 1, 2006) Proponents of precautions for genetically engineered crops today declared victory in their battle to defend the rights of counties and cities to enact local restrictions on genetically engineered (GE) organisms. SB1056, a bill that would have pre-empted such local laws, failed to make it out of committee in the California Senate and died with the close of the legislative year.

The Monsanto-backed bill was introduced last year after the passage of four county and two city bans on GE crops. It was opposed by associations of cities and counties, environmentalists, organic and family farmers, and thousands of citizens concerned that it would have pre-empted democratically established local rules. California currently has no state regulations to protect farmers, consumers or the environment from the risks of GE crops.

"In the absence of statewide safeguards, local governments have stepped up to the plate and taken the precaution of restricting GE crops," said Lisa Bunin, Ph.D., member of the Santa Cruz County Public Health Commission GE Subcommittee. "With the passage of local GE-free laws, these governments have sent a clear message that the state needs to act not only to protect the state's diverse agriculture, but also public health and the environment."

One of the central concerns about genetically engineered crops is contamination of the food supply by engineered varieties. Just this month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that an unapproved variety of GE rice has been contaminating the U.S. rice supply for years. Japan, the E.U., and other important U.S. rice importing countries reacted immediately with bans and restrictions on long grain rice imports, shaking the rice industry and causing the rice futures market to plummet by more than $150 million so far.

Peggy Miars, Executive Director of California Certified Organic Farmers, explains, "Organic farmers are often portrayed as the main farming sector concerned about genetic contamination. While it is true that organic markets are highly vulnerable to GE contamination, the recent rice fiasco demonstrates once again that this is an issue for all farmers, both organic and non-organic, whose customers don't want to buy gene altered foods."

"The rice contamination incident highlights the inadequacy of the federal GE regulatory system, and the high economic stakes involved when contamination occurs. It serves as a wake-up call to California lawmakers about the need for state legislation on GE," stated Rebecca Spector, Center for Food Safety's West Coast Director.

Beginning last year, the biotechnology industry pushed for similar pre-emption laws in several U.S. states, fearful that California's model of local bans would take hold elsewhere. It has also spent decades fighting all over the world against any regulatory restrictions on experimental GE foods.

"By not even bringing SB1056 to a vote, the Senate sent a clear message that enacting pre-emption before state legislation is bad policy," said Renata Brillinger, Director of Californians for GE-Free Agriculture. "We commend Senate leadership, and look forward to moving ahead with discussions on effective state laws to address the problems associated with genetic engineering of crops and food."

Source

Thursday, August 31, 2006

ANALYSIS - US Oversight of Biotech Crops Seen Lacking

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Criticism is mounting over the US government's efforts to control experimental genetically modified crops in the wake of admissions that a discarded biotech rice has contaminated US commercial supplies.

The disclosure of the contamination of experimental biotech rice owned by Bayer CropScience, a unit of Bayer AG, coupled with statements by USDA officials that they have no idea how the contamination occurred or how extensive it may be, has outraged players up and down the food chain.

Farmers, food and beverage makers and exporters all are positioning themselves for a long, and likely costly, ordeal.

Already, Japan has suspended imports of US long grain rice because of the contamination, and Europe, a major export market for US rice, has insisted rice imports be tested and any contaminated rice excluded from shipments to the 25-member European Union.

Other US rice customers are also reportedly reviewing their planned purchases even as US rice prices have dropped sharply.

Meanwhile, with much of the US rice industry in turmoil because the extent of the contamination is unknown, an official with the USDA's Animal Health and Plant Health Inspection Service said it would likely take two to three months before the agency had many answers.

"This is real money that farmers are losing," said Arkansas Rice Growers Association executive director Greg Yielding, who said he has fielded dozens of calls from frantic rice farmers. "It is a big deal. We do not feel that USDA and APHIS have adequate funds or staff to do this job. They can't tell you where anything is even though they get permits for it."


HOLES IN OVERSIGHT

Over the last decade, the USDA has approved applications for more than 49,000 field site tests of GMO crops and APHIS has deregulated more than 70 GMO crop lines, many of which have been embraced by farmers because they are easier and/or more profitable to grow.

USDA and APHIS have touted the government's ability to oversee the growth of biotechnology in agriculture and repeatedly assured consumer groups and foreign governments that safety was a foremost concern for regulators.

But an Office of Inspector General audit of APHIS' and its biotechnology regulatory services unit found numerous holes in oversight efforts and issued a stern warning in its December 2005 report.

It said APHIS lacks "basic information about the field test sites it approves and is responsible for monitoring, including where and how the crops are being grown and what becomes of them at the end of the field test."

The OIG said that even though APHIS was supposed to inspect experimental fields, it was not even requiring companies to provide site location information. The government did not require companies to document efforts to make sure GMO crops were segregated, and it didn't test neighboring fields to look for contamination during or after field trials.

The OIG also said it found widespread violations of a rule requiring experimental crops to be shipped in metal containers, instead allowing them to be shipped in boxes or bags.

Overall, the OIG audit found the APHIS regulatory system so weak that it increased the risk that experimental GMO crops would "persist in the environment."

The contaminated rice is only one example of unapproved GMO's slipping into the mainstream. Last year, Swiss agrochemicals firm Syngenta revealed that its unapproved, experimental strain of corn known as Bt10, was found to have contaminated corn supplies from 2001-2004.

Also, a biotech grass resistant to weedkiller developed in part by Monsanto Co. has been found growing in the wild, while ProdiGene Inc. had to buy back and destroy millions of dollars of grain after tainting crops with an experimental corn plant used to produce medicine.

And earlier this month, a US district judge ruled that APHIS broke environmental rules when it allowed the planting of certain biotech corn and sugarcane between 2001 and 2003 in Hawaii.


MORATORIUM SOUGHT

Because of the government oversight concerns, Greenpeace International has called for a ban on US GMO rice and the Center for Food Safety has said it wants a moratorium on all field tests of genetically modified crops until government oversight improves.

"There is all this stuff in writing to give you a sense of security but when you look at what they're actually doing, it's nothing," said Center for Food Safety scientist policy analyst Bill Freese.

Cindy Smith, deputy administrator for APHIS' biotechnology regulatory services acknowledged in an interview some issues with oversight, but said those problems were largely in the past and had been corrected or would be soon.

"You will likely continue to see the program evolve in different ways. As long as we're regulating this technology, we're going to have to continue to grow and expand and respond based on the nature of the technology," Smith said.

Original Story at PlanetArk

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Section 18 Emergency Exemptions from Pesticide Registration

Under the authority of §18 of Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenticide Act, EPA can allow State and Federal agencies to permit the unregistered use of a pesticide in a specific geographic area for a limited time if emergency pest conditions exist. EPA's background document, Section 18s Program and Proposed Reforms, details proposed changes to the Section 18 process.

Typically, a need for an emergency exemption arises when growers and others encounter a pest problem on a site (in most cases, a crop) for which there is either no registered pesticide available, or for which there is a registered pesticide that would be effective but is not yet approved for use on that particular site. Also, exemptions can be approved for public health and quarantine reasons.

Most requests for emergency exemptions are made by state lead agricultural agencies, although the United States Department of Agriculture and United States Department of Interior also request exemptions.

In New Jersey, the state lead agency is the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). Typically, a request for the emergency exemption will be accompanied by a description of the pest problem and why a particular control is warranted. EPA then issues the NJDEP a letter of specific exemption from registration (also known as a 'Section 18') for the pesticide product to deal with the emergency pest condition for a prescribed time period.

If a need is immediate, a state agency may issue a crisis exemption under Section 18 of FIFRA which allows the unregistered use for 15 days. Crisis exemptions are typically requested following a specific exemption that has not been processed in accord within the sometimes limited window of a pest outbreak.

In cooperation with the NJDEP, NJinPAS posts notices of these Section 18 specific or crisis exemptions to the appropriate topical NJinPAS listservs. If you would like to receive notice of Section 18's issued, you may enroll in the individual NJinPAS listservs for fruit, vegetables, or field and forage crops.

Section 18 Emergency Exemptions (both 'crisis' and 'specific') from pesticide registration granted in New Jersey are listed below. Each exemption listing includes: the emergency exemption number assigned by EPA, the date issued; date of expiration; the registrant (company that manufactures the pesticide product); the common and brand names with the EPA Registration Number of the pesticide product; and the prescribed use of the pesticide product. Additionally, the exemption listing includes the date and responsible party for a required report to the NJDEP on the exemption; the persons listed are typically those who requested the exemption form the NJDEP initially. You may view a selection of corresponding labels to these Emergency Exemptions on the Rutgers Cooperative Extension website. When available, these labels are provided as hyperlinks at the individual brand listing (see the 'Brand & Label' column of the table below).

Original Article

Biotech Firm, Govt. Hid Rice Contamination from Public

Aug. 24 – Last week, the US Department of Agriculture announced that US commercial long-grain rice supplies are contaminated with "trace amounts" of genetically engineered rice unapproved for human consumption.

The genetically engineered (GE) rice is known as Liberty Link (LL) 601. Its genetic code has been modified to provide resistance to herbicides and is illegal for marketing to humans because it has not undergone environmental and health impact reviews by the USDA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). LL601 was field-tested from 1998 to 2001 under permits granted by the USDA, but Bayer Corp Science, the developer of the experimental rice, did not seek commercial approval for it.

The contamination was only disclosed after Bayer notified the USDA itself. Currently, the government relies on self-reporting from food companies to determine genetically engineered (GE) contamination, rather than a federal testing system. The USDA dismissed concerns that companies may not always "self-report" or even be aware of their mistakes, which would lead to further undetected contamination of unapproved GE food.

It appears a separate company first detected the contamination in January of this year and that Bayer may have known about the contamination since May. But the government was not notified until July 31. It took another 18 days for the USDA to tell the public.
Today's reason to support The NewStandard

At a press conference, Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns would not divulge how the contamination had happened, or how far it had spread. It was unclear whether he even knew. Jim Rogers, a USDA spokesperson, told The NewStandard the contaminated rice was detected in barrels sent to Missouri and Arizona.

"But the rice could have come from anywhere [in the US]," Rogers said.

Riceland, a farmer-owned cooperative that markets rice produced by Southern farmers, issued a press release on August 18, saying it first discovered the contamination in January. Riceland conducted its own tests from several grain-storage locations and found: "A significant number tested positive for the Bayer trait. The positive results were geographically dispersed and random throughout the rice-growing area."
Appreciate the effort it takes to bring you quality journalism? Support The NewStandard!

Riceland notified Bayer of the contamination in May, but did not notify the public or the government.

Johanns indicated that an economic motive was behind the government’s delay of nearly three weeks before informing the public about the contamination, as the government anticipated foreign rice importers might reject the product. The Secretary said the USDA spent the time preparing tests for rice importers to check the product for contamination. The US constitutes about 12 percent of the world’s rice trade.

There are currently no plans to destroy or recall the rice, and Rogers is unsure if Bayer will be fined. While the government "validates" its tests for the rice, Johanns directed people to Bayer’s website, saying the company "has made arrangements with private laboratories to run tests" on the rice.
“We see this as an opportunity to get out the message that this is a radically new technology. These foods have not been tested and we don’t know if they’re safe.”

Although the field tests for LL601 ended in 2001, the contamination appeared in a 2005 harvest, leaving some food-safety advocates to worry that the contamination has been present for several years and suggesting that genetically modified strains can persist in the environment well after they have been discontinued in experiments.

Two other varieties of rice with the same gene and from the same company have already been approved for human consumption, though never marketed. There is currently no known, intentional commercial US production of genetically engineered rice.

Johanns said that based on "available scientific data" provided by Bayer, the USDA and the FDA have concluded "that there are no human-health, food-safety or environmental concerns associated with this GE rice."

When pressed about the health implications of the contaminated rice, Rogers noted that foods from pesticide- and herbicide-resistant crops are already on the market. In fact, according to the USDA, 70 percent of processed foods on grocery store shelves contain genetically engineered ingredients.

Rogers dismissed concern that, because the government relies on companies’ self-reporting, there could be widespread contamination of unapproved GE ingredients in the US food supply. He said the government did not have plans to begin testing food itself.

But this is not the first time unapproved genetic material has escaped detection in the food supply. In 2004, the company Syngenta admitted that for four years, it had sold unapproved GE maize in the US.

In response to the Bayer revelation, Greenpeace has called for a worldwide ban on imports of US rice. Already, Japan has suspended US rice imports.

The Center for Food Safety, a public-interest organization, is also calling for a moratorium on all new permits for open-air field testing of GE crops. The Center is concerned that open-air testing allows GE crops to cross pollinate with neighboring non-GE crops.

"We see this as an opportunity to get out the message that this is a radically new technology," said Bill Freese, science policy analyst for the Center. "These foods have not been tested, and we don’t know if they’re safe."

Original Story

FDA approves viruses for treating food

A mix of bacteria-killing viruses can be safely sprayed on cold cuts, hot dogs and sausages to combat common microbes that kill hundreds of people a year, federal health officials said Friday in granting the first-ever approval of viruses as a food additive.

The combination of six viruses is designed to be sprayed on ready-to-eat meat and poultry products, including sliced ham and turkey, said John Vazzana, president and chief executive officer of manufacturer Intralytix Inc.

The special viruses called bacteriophages are meant to kill strains of the Listeria monocytogenes bacterium, the Food and Drug Administration said in declaring it safe to use on ready-to-eat meats prior to their packaging.

The viruses are the first to win FDA approval for use as a food additive, said Andrew Zajac, of the regulatory agency's office of food additive safety.

The bacterium the viruses target can cause a serious infection called listeriosis, primarily in pregnant women, newborns and adults with weakened immune systems. In the United States, an estimated 2,500 people become seriously ill with listeriosis each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Of those, 500 die.

Luncheon meats are particularly vulnerable to Listeria since once purchased, they typically aren't cooked or reheated, which can kill harmful bacteria like Listeria, Zajac said.

The preparation of bacteriophages — the name is Greek for "bacteria-eater" — attacks only strains of the Listeria bacterium and not human or plant cells, the FDA said.

"As long as it used in accordance with the regulations, we have concluded it's safe," Zajac said. People normally come into contact with phages through food, water and the environment, and they are found in our digestive tracts, the FDA said.

Consumers won't be aware that meat and poultry products have been treated with the spray, Zajac added. The Department of Agriculture will regulate the actual use of the product.

The viruses are grown in a preparation of the very bacteria they kill, and then purified. The FDA had concerns that the virus preparation potentially could contain toxic residues associated with the bacteria. However, testing did not reveal the presence of such residues, which in small quantities likely wouldn't cause health problems anyway, the FDA said.

"The FDA is applying one of the toughest food-safety standards which they have to find this is safe," said Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of food safety for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group. "They couldn't approve this product if they had questions about its safety."

Intralytix, based in Baltimore, first petitioned the FDA in 2002 to allow the viruses to be used as a food additive. It has since licensed the product to a multinational company, which intends to market it worldwide, said Intralytix president Vazzana. He declined to name the company but said he expected it to announce its plans within weeks or months.

Intralytix also plans to seek FDA approval for another bacteriophage product to kill E. coli bacteria on beef before it is ground, Vazzana said.

Scientists have long studied bacteriophages as a bacteria-fighting alternative to antibiotics.

Original Story