Reserve may submerge in Ken-Betwa project

September 25, 2016

New Delhi, Sep 25: About 7.2 lakh trees and a huge 90 square kilometres area of Panna Tiger Reserve (PTR) may be submerged in water due to the Ken-Betwa river linking project, according to an official report.

tiger

There will be also be an "irreversible" loss of breeding sites for wild animals after submergence of critical and specialised habitats under the proposed project which is likely to cost over Rs 9,000 crore.

The Ken-Betwa project is expected to provide drinking water supply for 13.42 lakh people and help irrigate 6.75 lakh hectares of land in the poverty-ridden Bundelkhand region covering parts of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh.

The project is founded on construction of a dam at Dhaudan village inside the PTR's core area in Chhatarpur district of Madhya Pradesh.

"The entire forest area under the proposed submergence both within and outside PTR is tiger habitat, while the non-forest area is potential tiger habitat. Thus, about 90 sq km area of tiger habitat, including potential habitat, will have to be considered as submergence zone," National Board of Wildlife (NBWL) Standing Committee report on Ken-Betwa link project said.

At present, there are around 35 tigers in the reserve, which had in 2009 reported extinction of the big cats.

The report, which has been submitted to Union Environment Ministry, said the total counting of trees in the proposed submergence area has not been done, but a sample survey by the forest department has estimated that "about 7.2 lakh trees above 20 cm girth at breast height would submerge in the national park area and this number may go up to about 12 lakh stems when young poles and established sapling are accounted".

It said an equally high number of trees will be cut or lost in the forest areas outside the national park. "Thus considerable quantity of carbon stored as biomass would be released once the dam is constructed, in addition to loss of vegetation diversity," said the report, a copy of which was received by wildlife activist Ajay Dubey in response to an RTI query filed by him.

He said the National Green Tribunal and appropriate court will be approached to challenge the proposed project on the basis of the report's findings. The report said Panna Tiger Reserve has largely been valued with respect to the requirement of the tiger.

"The importance of other key wildlife such as sloth bear, leopard, rusty spotted cat, hyena, sambhar, chital, four-horned antelope and chinkara are largely ignored under the shadow of tiger, although tiger conservation may support the conservation of its associated fauna. Ken river along with its tributary is a lifeline of the park. Ken river basin is full of gorges, caves, rock crevices which are normally occupied by wild mammals for breeding and resting.

"During hot days in summer, these gorges, caves, rock crevices are major shelters for some of the animals listed above. Loss of breeding sites will be irreversible after submergence of these critical and specialised habitats, specifically in the major submergence zone," it said.

The blasting of stone quarries, use of heavy machinery, movement of heavy vehicles and presence of over 500 workers (at a time) for construction are some of the "major concerns", the report said.

"Given that the region (Bundelkhand) is poverty-ridden, the realised benefit of the project cannot be ignored and that there would certainly be a need to strike a balance between wildlife conservation and people's livelihood considerations," it said. The estimated cost of Ken-Betwa project is Rs 9,393 crore.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
July 19,2020

New Delhi, Jul 19: Three of the 10 most valued companies added a total of Rs 98,622.89 crore to their market valuation last week, led by stellar gains in IT major Infosys.

Seven companies from the coveted list witnessed a decline in their market valuation last week, but their cumulative loss of Rs 37,701.1 crore was less than the total gain made by three firms -- Reliance Industries Limited, Hindustan Unilever Limited and Infosys.

The market capitalisation of Infosys zoomed Rs 52,046.87 crore to Rs 3,85,027.58 crore. Shares of Infosys had rallied over 9 per cent on Thursday after the company posted a stronger-than-expected 12.4 per cent rise in the first quarter consolidated net profit.

Hindustan Unilever Limited added Rs 25,751.07 crore in its market valuation which stood at Rs 5,48,232.26 crore at close on Friday. Reliance Industries' m-cap jumped Rs 20,824.95 crore to Rs 12,11,682.08 crore.

In contrast, HDFC's valuation plunged Rs 13,920.21 crore to Rs 3,13,269.70 crore and that of Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) declined Rs 7,617.34 crore to Rs 8,26,031.21 crore.

The valuation of ICICI Bank tumbled Rs 4,205.71 crore to Rs 2,29,156.24 crore and that of Kotak Mahindra Bank by Rs 4,175.28 crore to Rs 2,62,864.37 crore.

Bharti Airtel's m-cap dipped Rs 4,009.83 crore to Rs 3,09,521.05 crore and HDFC Bank's by Rs 3,403.97 crore to Rs 6,03,463.97 crore.

The valuation of ITC declined by Rs 368.76 crore to Rs 2,38,469.29 crore.

In the ranking of top-10 firms, RIL was at the number one rank followed by TCS, HDFC Bank, HUL, Infosys, HDFC, Bharti Airtel, Kotak Mahindra Bank, ITC and ICICI Bank.

During the last week, the 30-share BSE index advanced 425.81 points or 1.16 per cent.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
January 20,2020

Washington D.C., Jan 20: An American bride asked for money from her invitees so that they can be on the 'exclusive guest list'.

Weddings can be surely expensive. But is it feasible for one to charge the guests to make up for the expenses?

According to Fox News, that is exactly what happened in a recent American wedding. A 19-year-old shared on Reddit that her cousin was getting married on Sunday and announced that she would charge 50 dollars to those who wanted to attend her wedding.

"She said that they can Venmo her money so there won't be no [sic] problems and everyone who paid will be added onto the 'exclusive guest list' which basically means you won't have to wait in line while other guests pay," wrote the user named DaintySheep.

While she refused to pay for entry into her cousin's wedding the bride-to-be contacted the elders in the family which ended up in an embarrassing situation.

"She wanted to get the money she spent on her special day back. I told her I wouldn't be able to come because this was outrageous and that I wish her well on her special day. She contacted my aunt and my aunt called me cheap and rude. My parents offered to pay for my entry, but I refused," continued the disheartened girl.

While in almost every nook and cranny of the world gifting the bride-groom with money is a tradition, asking for money from friends and family to replenish the money spent on a wedding is can be said to be a rare scenario.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 17,2020

Paris, Apr 17: Even as virologists zero in on the virus that causes COVID-19, a very basic question remains unanswered: do those who recover from the disease have immunity?

There is no clear answer to this question, experts say, even if many have assumed that contracting the potentially deadly disease confers immunity, at least for a while.

"Being immunised means that you have developed an immune response against a virus such that you can repulse it," explained Eric Vivier, a professor of immunology in the public hospital system in Marseilles.

"Our immune systems remember, which normally prevents you from being infected by the same virus later on."

For some viral diseases such a measles, overcoming the sickness confers immunity for life.

But for RNA-based viruses such as Sars-Cov-2 -- the scientific name for the bug that causes the COVID-19 disease -- it takes about three weeks to build up a sufficient quantity of antibodies, and even then they may provide protection for only a few months, Vivier told AFP.

At least that is the theory. In reality, the new coronavirus has thrown up one surprise after another, to the point where virologists and epidemiologists are sure of very little.

"We do not have the answers to that -- it's an unknown," Michael Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organization's Emergencies Programme said in a press conference this week when asked how long a recovered COVID-19 patient would have immunity.

"We would expect that to be a reasonable period of protection, but it is very difficult to say with a new virus -- we can only extrapolate from other coronaviruses, and even that data is quite limited."

For SARS, which killed about 800 people across the world in 2002 and 2003, recovered patients remained protected "for about three years, on average," Francois Balloux director of the Genetics Institute at University College London, said.

"One can certainly get reinfected, but after how much time? We'll only know retroactively."

A recent study from China that has not gone through peer review reported on rhesus monkeys that recovered from Sars-Cov-2 and did not get reinfected when exposed once again to the virus.

"But that doesn't really reveal anything," said Pasteur Institute researcher Frederic Tangy, noting that the experiment unfolded over only a month.

Indeed,several cases from South Korea -- one of the first countries hit by the new coronavirus -- found that patients who recovered from COVID-19 later tested positive for the virus.

But there are several ways to explain that outcome, scientists cautioned.

While it is not impossible that these individuals became infected a second time, there is little evidence this is what happened.

More likely, said Balloux, is that the virus never completely disappeared in the first place and remains -- dormant and asymptomatic -- as a "chronic infection", like herpes.

As tests for live virus and antibodies have not yet been perfected, it is also possible that these patients at some point tested "false negative" when in fact they had not rid themselves of the pathogen.

"That suggests that people remain infected for a long time -- several weeks," Balloux added. "That is not ideal."

Another pre-publication study that looked at 175 recovered patients in Shanghai showed different concentrations of protective antibodies 10 to 15 days after the onset of symptoms.

"But whether that antibody response actually means immunity is a separate question," commented Maria Van Kerhove, Technical Lead of the WHO Emergencies Programme.

"That's something we really need to better understand -- what does that antibody response look like in terms of immunity."

Indeed, a host of questions remain.

"We are at the stage of asking whether someone who has overcome COVID-19 is really that protected," said Jean-Francois Delfraissy, president of France's official science advisory board.

For Tangy, an even grimmer reality cannot be excluded.

"It is possible that the antibodies that someone develops against the virus could actually increase the risk of the disease becoming worse," he said, noting that the most serious symptoms come later, after the patient had formed antibodies.

For the moment, it is also unclear whose antibodies are more potent in beating back the disease: someone who nearly died, or someone with only light symptoms or even no symptoms at all. And does age make a difference?

Faced with all these uncertainties, some experts have doubts about the wisdom of persuing a "herd immunity" strategy such that the virus -- unable to find new victims -- peters out by itself when a majority of the population is immune.

"The only real solution for now is a vaccine," Archie Clements, a professor at Curtin University in Perth Australia, told AFP.

At the same time, laboratories are developing a slew of antibody tests to see what proportion of the population in different countries and regions have been contaminated.

Such an approach has been favoured in Britain and Finland, while in Germany some experts have floated the idea of an "immunity passport" that would allow people to go back to work.

"It's too premature at this point," said Saad Omer, a professor of infectious diseases at the Yale School of Medicine.

"We should be able to get clearer data very quickly -- in a couple of months -- when there will be reliable antibody tests with sensitivity and specificity."

One concern is "false positives" caused by the tests detecting antibodies unrelated to COVID-19.

The idea of immunity passports or certificates also raises ethical questions, researchers say.

"People who absolutely need to work -- to feed their families, for example -- could try to get infected," Balloux.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.