Rare white-clawed crayfish rescued from drying beck in Bradford
The crayfish were rescued by the EA's fisheries team by hand - a difficult job as the crustaceans often hide under rocks or bury into the banks.The rescued crayfish have been moved to the EA's facility hosted by York Gate Gardens near Leeds, until they pass a health check.The agency hopes to return them to their original habitat once water levels stabilise.
Periods of dry weather and low rivers can have serious consequences for the environment and wildlife, the agency said."Rivers that usually flow with water have become a disconnected series of pools, and those pools have become isolated then wildlife can't move as freely within the water as they are used to," said manager Martin Christmas."We've had two or three heat waves and that's meant that the water temperature is a lot warmer than it usually is and warm water doesn't dissolve oxygen as well as cooler water. "So we've seen a number of examples where fish have got into trouble because there's a lack of oxygen in the water."
According to the EA, white-clawed crayfish are the UK's only native freshwater crayfish.They play a vital role in keeping waterways clean and as a source of food for other native species.The species used to be common across Yorkshire but is now critically endangered, largely due to being out-competed by the larger, more aggressive American signal crayfish.Anyone who sees fish or wildlife in distress is asked to contact the agency.
Listen to highlights from West Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
‘Always provided a release': why Aliens is my feelgood movie
Amid a recent IVF crisis, I turned to my husband in A&E and said, 'We should put on a cosy movie when we get home, like Aliens.' Immediately my mind flashed to the film's iconic image of gooey eggs exploding under vigorous gunfire. It seemed faintly ridiculous that Aliens was the chill-out film for this particular moment, but we watched it and, as ever, it hit the spot. I've viewed Aliens at least once a year for the last decade. It is both an excellent and terrible movie. Helmed by James Cameron in place of the original Alien director Ridley Scott, this pumped-up-on-steroids 1986 sequel retains the grisly design of its predecessor. Its walls and ceilings are covered in wet gloop and fleshy tendrils, like the insides of a giant body. Its monsters bring to life the trailblazing designs of the Swiss 'fantastic realist' artist HR Giger. Almost four decades after its release, the film's world building remains chillingly authentic, as a group of marines – plus a villainous corporate executive, heroic android, feisty lone-survivor child and Sigourney Weaver's gun-toting yet wholesome protagonist Ellen Ripley – discover then attempt to escape a nest of parasitic aliens, their nightmarishly outsized mother and her lethal henchmen. The film's high stakes are rarely far from the action while it hits just the right balance between absurd terror and genuine emotion. Like many of Cameron's movies, it simultaneously sends up and fetishizes military power, though ultimately the characters that survive are head-smart first and trigger-happy second. Its cheesy humour stops the violence from descending into cold detachment. The blusterous self-assurance of Bill Paxton's Pte Hudson is repeatedly undermined by douchebag lines like 'We just got our asses kicked, pal!' I've watched it so many times, I can picture his exact look of wide-eyed incredulity. Al Matthews' cigar-loving Sgt Apone satirises the macho marine trope, admonishing his unit with 'All right sweethearts, what are you waiting for? Breakfast in bed?' Aliens is a fast-paced, jump-scare-ridden scramble to violent demise or unlikely escape. Once it's been rewatched to death, there is a calm relief to its desperate fight for survival. I know who will live and who will perish; that the invasive titular form will ultimately not endure. In place of leaping out of my skin and hiding behind a cushion, viewing this movie now brings something else: the chance to process my own physical and emotional angst. When done well, the horror sci-fi genre functions on multiple levels, creating thrilling entertainment while also inviting its audience to digest real life experiences that are too painful or immediate to look at directly. The culturally deep-rooted terror of women's bodies and their functions is a central aspect of the movie. The young facehugger aliens attach to their victims' mouths to plant an embryo inside, which then grows in their hosts' bodies before bursting out the chest. There are undeniable parallels with the oft-unspoken horrors of pregnancy and childbirth, as well as the unsettlingly sci-fi retrievals and implantations of IVF. The movie revels in a certain revulsion at hyper-fertility and the act of birth, but it also captures the natural fears and frustrations of existing in a body that can grow and explosively eject a living being in a manner that is richly cathartic. As a psychotherapist currently in the middle of Kleinian training, I am drawn to embracing the dark side of the body. The British psychoanalyst Melanie Klein addressed the feelings of violence, rage and disgust that can be a normal part of the embodied psyche. I can't help but see her ideas woven through Aliens, as Ripley relentlessly tears through a grotesque symbol of extreme motherhood. A romcom may distract me temporarily from the bodily dread of IVF needles, speculums and dearly longed for new life, but the visceral sight of exploding eggs and torsos hits something deeper and more real. Aliens, with its invasive, parasitic monsters, finds parallels with other psychological and bodily battles that are often repressed. Over the years, this film has always provided a release, whether working through rage, sexual trauma or long Covid. It strikes the perfect tonal balance that enables momentary relief without further traumatising. After Ripley settles Newt, Hicks and Bishop into their cryo-sleep, her final long rest is well-earned and beautifully peaceful. I, too, always sleep well after watching it, my nightmare-prone mind settled knowing the on-screen and internal big beasts have momentarily been vanquished. I just have to pretend Alien 3 was never made. Aliens is available on Hulu in the US and Disney+ in the UK and Australia
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Is toxic air putting YOU at risk of dementia? Map reveals UK's pollution hotspots as disturbing research links dirty air to deadly brain condition
Scientists have uncovered yet more evidence to link developing dementia with air pollution—and this interactive map reveals the parts of the UK which are spluttering beneath clouds of toxic smog. The leading cause of dementia, Alzheimer's, is estimated to affect 57.4 million people worldwide. Meanwhile, memory-robbing illness dementia, strikes 982,000 people in the UK, with cases predicted to rise to 1.4million by 2040. In a fresh analysis, a team of University of Cambridge researchers looked at existing studies connecting cases of dementia to air pollution. They examined a total of 51 studies that included data from more than 29 million participants globally. Their findings revealed a positive and statistically significant link between dementia and three different types of air pollution. These included particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and soot. PM25 is a pollutant made up of tiny particles, small enough that they can be inhaled in the lungs from, for example, car fumes, industrial emissions and gas stoves. NO2 is a pollutant released from the burning of fossil fuels. Similarly, soot can be released through trendy wood burners and wood burning stoves. The researchers found that for every ten micrograms of pollutant per cubic meter (µg/m³), the risk of dementia increased by 17 per cent. This is concerning as the average roadside measurement of PM2.5 in central London is ten µg/m³. Meanwhile for every ten µg/m³ of NO2, the risk of dementia increased by three per cent; the average roadside measurement for the pollutant in the Capital is 33µg/m³. And for every one µg/m³ of soot, which is found in PM2.5, the risk increased by 13 per cent. The average soot concentrations at roadsides measured in 2023 were 0.93 µg/m³ in London, 1.51 µg/m³ in Birmingham and 0.65 µg/m³ in Glasgow. Lead author Dr Haneen Khreis said their findings support evidence that long-term exposure to air pollution is linked to the 'onset of dementia in previously healthy adults'. 'Tackling air pollution can deliver long-term health, social, climate and economic benefit. It can reduce the immense burden on patients, families, and caregivers, while easing pressure on overstretched healthcare systems,' he added. In response to the findings, Dr Mark Dallas, a neuroscience specialist at the University of Reading told MailOnline: 'We still need to understand exactly how these pollutants damage the brain and increase the diversity in dementia research participants. 'This will help us learn more about how air pollution affects different types of dementia and whether some communities face higher risks than others.' Dr Isolde Radford, senior policy manager at Alzheimer's Research UK, added: 'This rigorous review adds to mounting evidence that exposure to air pollution – from traffic fumes to wood burners – increases the risk of developing dementia. 'But poor air quality doesn't affect all communities equally. As this analysis highlights, marginalised groups are often exposed to higher levels of pollution, yet remain underrepresented in research. 'Future studies must reflect the full diversity of society – because those most at risk could stand to benefit the most from action.' There have been many suggestions by experts as to why air pollution causes dementia. Some have proposed it causes inflammation of the brain and oxidative stress—when cells, proteins and DNA is damaged. These two processes have been strongly linked to the devastating illness dementia, the authors said. They explained, when we breathe in these pollutants they can trigger these processes through direct entry to the brain. Air pollution can also enter circulation from the lungs, travelling to solid organs, initiating local and wide-spread inflammation, they warned. Other studies have shown dementia may also be caused by hearing loss, social isolation and smoking. Meanwhile, toxic outdoor air pollution has also been linked to lung cancer and colon cancer. Specifically, the cancers were linked to the pollutants PM2.5, NO2, and ozone—a secondary pollutant created NO2 reacts with others in the sunlight. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has long demanded countries to combat air pollution, which is thought to kill seven million globally.
BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
Why you are not as selfish as you think
Science suggests we are hardwired for altruism, but do we really need to be thinking of others all the time? Whenever I fly, one line jumps out from the pre-flight safety briefing. Somewhere between "welcome aboard" and "use this whistle for attracting attention", we're reminded to "put on your own oxygen mask before helping others". This is, essentially, an official instruction to be "selfish". And it is sage advice if there's an emergency at 33,000ft and 550mph (10,000m and (890km/h). If the cabin depressurises, you won't be able to assist others if you black out from oxygen starvation. But on the other hand, in a world that often seems to reward narcissism, there could be a risk that that same line speaks to a somewhat troubling life philosophy. The idea that you should always put yourself first – and that selfishness trumps altruism. Individualism was defined by social psychologist Geert Hofstede as "the extent to which people feel independent, as opposed to being interdependent as members of larger wholes". And in many parts of the world, particularly the West, individualism is not only endemic, but increasingly on trend. The question is whether that's a good thing or not. Elements of psychology, economics and biology – not least the ideas of selfish genes and neo-Darwinism – have normalised the assumption that competition means humans are intrinsically cruel, ruthless or selfish, says Steve Taylor, a senior lecturer in psychology at Leeds Beckett University. But while we clearly can all be selfish – our brain's first job, after all, is arguably to keep us alive – he adds that new research paints a more optimistic picture, challenging the somewhat gloomy notion that we only ever prioritise ourselves. Take the "bystander effect", which first emerged in the 1960s. This is the widely cited idea that people typically avoid intervening in a crisis when others are nearby. The theory followed outrage over the 1964 New York murder of Kitty Genovese, a 28-year-old bartender who was reportedly raped and killed in front of nearly 40 witnesses, none of whom helped. But the final detail of the story behind the "bystander effect" appears to be an apocryphal one. While, tragically, Genovese really was sexually assaulted and murdered, investigations suggest that reports of there being 38 passive bystanders were inaccurate. One 2007 paper, for example, stated there was no evidence that any people witnessed Genovese's murder and simply did nothing. The story, the researchers surmised, was a "modern parable, the telling of which has served to limit the scope of inquiry into emergency helping". Research suggests that people are actually more than willing to prioritise others' safety over their own in many situations. A paper published in 2020, for example, investigated CCTV recordings of violent attacks in the UK, the Netherlands and South Africa. It found that one or more people had tried to assist in nine out of 10 of the attacks – with bigger groups making an intervention more, not less likely. You might argue that even so-called "have-a-go-heroes" are on some level motivated by self-gratification, perhaps to gain group approval. But a 2014 study about recipients of the Carnegie Hero Medal, awarded to people who have risked their lives for others, found that such extreme altruists, largely described their actions as intuitive rather than deliberative, suggesting their altruism was a reflexive, or "automatic" response. It's something we are when we don't have time to think. "There is a superficial level at which we can operate selfishly, and we often do," says Taylor whose book, DisConnected, explores how certain human behaviours can cause social problems. "But that's at the level of our ego, or socially constructed identity." Humans also have the capacity to be impulsively altruistic, he adds. In May 2017, for example, a suicide bomber attacked an Ariana Grande concert in Taylor's home city: Manchester. A total of 22 people were killed and more than a thousand were injured. Despite the ongoing risk to survivors, however, the Kerslake Report, an independent review into the atrocity, highlighted "hundreds if not thousands of acts of individual bravery and selflessness". Similar cases of heroic altruism have been documented during 9/11 and the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks. There are evolutionary reasons for human altruism, Taylor says. For most of our history, we have lived in tribes as hunter-gatherers – highly cooperative groups. "There's no reason why early human beings should be competitive or individualistic," says Taylor. "That would not have helped our survival at all. It would have actually endangered our survival." Some anthropological studies suggest that groups who still live in a similar way to our early ancestors remain egalitarian in how they share resources. Research in children also suggests that we are "born altruistic", says Ching-Yu Huang, director of the Cambridge Alliance of Legal Psychology, a private company, in the UK and chief executive of National Taiwan University Children & Family Research Center. Some studies have found that even 14- to 18-month-old infants will go out of their way to help others and cooperate in order to achieve a shared goal – specifically by handing over objects others couldn't reach. And young children will do this even if there's no reward on offer. A 2013 review of similar studies, for example, suggested that young children's prosocial behaviour is "intrinsically motivated by concern for others' welfare". Being kind also makes us feel good. Volunteering, for example, has been linked to improved mental health, self-esteem and self-efficacy, and reduced feelings of loneliness. And there are physical benefits, too. Regular volunteers who were assessed as part of a study published in 2013 were 40% less likely to develop high blood pressure than those who didn't frequently volunteer. Altruism of this kind has even been associated with a reduced risk of mortality, though it's not yet clear why. "There's such a strong association between wellbeing and altruism that it would be foolish not to live altruistically," argues Taylor. The very structure of our brains might help dictate our predisposition towards altruism. Abigail Marsh, a neuroscientist at Georgetown University in the US, and her team have used brain scans to look for differences between people who had donated a kidney to a stranger and those who hadn't. The organ-donating altruists had larger right amygdalae (brain regions associated with emotion), than the non-donor control group. The donors also showed increased activity in this region when viewing pictures of fearful facial expressions, perhaps making them more perceptive of and responsive to others' feelings. Indeed, the results from the donor group were the opposite of what you'd expect to see in psychopathic individuals. Science suggests that most of us have the hardware to be selfless, often extraordinarily so. But that doesn't mean we can – or should – be selfless all the time. Whether we prioritise ourselves or others depends partly on circumstances, our prior experience and our culture. Tony Milligan is a research fellow in the philosophy of ethics at King's College London. People should acknowledge that the vast majority of us are "morally mediocre", he says. But this isn't as uninspiring as it sounds. Milligan argues that people tend to overestimate their own moral goodness. And this may have a particular impact when we are making deliberative, rather than automatic, decisions about our priorities. "Almost everyone we know is morally mediocre," he says, adding that it's unrealistic for most of us to try and copy the lives of extremely altruistic figures such as Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, Jesus or Buddha. "We can act in the light of them, but if you're not one of those statistical anomalies, we need to recognise that we really are in the middle." According to Milligan, overestimating our moral goodness can leave us feeling guilty and disappointed when we inevitably fail to live up to overinflated standards. "The question you need to ask yourself is not 'What would Buddha do?'," he says, "But, 'What am I capable of? Is this within my reach?'." This, he adds, requires some humility and self-knowledge. Because if we have a realistic appraisal of what we're capable of, we will be better able to consider others when we make decisions. "You shouldn't be thinking of this in terms of developing something you can show off to other people, as something that will make you admired," says Milligan. "Think of it more as developing a skill. A skill is something that you slowly, incrementally work on improving." People's altruistic tendencies are likely also greatly influenced by their experiences and culture. Some countries, such as the UK and US, are more individualistic than others, such as many Asian countries, which are generally considered more collectivistic, where people prioritise the good of the wider group over themselves. This impacts not only how selfish or altruistic people tend to be but also the degree to which selfless acts are viewed as being either a choice, or a responsibility. During the Covid-19 pandemic, for example, researchers found that people living in collectivistic cultures were more likely to wear masks than those in individualistic ones. The former group were more inclined to try and protect others. This difference between East and West is one that Huang has experienced personally. She spent her childhood in Taiwan, which she describes as collectivistic, before settling for extended periods in the comparatively individualistic US and UK. "I was brought up to really put everybody else first," says Huang. "If you're a woman, particularly a young woman, who wants to put yourself first and show your ability, this is actually really looked down on in this culture. They would call you a 'female tiger', the implication being that you're aggressive." When Huang moved to the US and later the UK, she found it was more acceptable to prioritise herself – but initially held herself back because of her upbringing. Gradually, she found herself able to express her confidence and abilities: "I learned that, actually, I do sometimes need to be a female tiger, especially in the career sense." Such cultural differences are captured in Huang's own research. She has explored two forms of compliance – "committed compliance" (in which you happily comply with instructions) and "situational compliance" (in which you comply even though you're reluctant to do so) – within three groups: young children from Taiwan; non-immigrant, white English families in the UK; and Chinese immigrant families in the UK. While all groups showed the same level of committed compliance, the Taiwanese children demonstrated much greater situational compliance because they were more likely to prioritise their parents' instructions over their own desires versus the white English and Chinese immigrant children who had grown up in the more individualistic UK. In collectivistic cultures "we're more likely to comply even if we don't really want to", says Huang. That doesn't mean there's one right way to do things. While altruism can benefit both ourselves and others, we do need to be mindful of our own needs and how past experiences, context and culture influence our behaviour. More like this:• Why being kind to others is good for your health• Should you ever cut ties with your parents?• Why you feel lonely even when surrounded by people "Things become hard in cultures where the expectation always to be altruistic is supercharged," says Huang, "such as in Taiwan when you're a young woman." Essentially, the responsibility to always prioritise others can become overwhelming. Most of us are capable of extraordinary selflessness and altruism appears to be something that does us good. It has even helped our species to become uniquely successful. But our decisions and behaviours are also influenced by a wide range of factors, from culture to our own "moral mediocrity". In other words, helping others is great – but recognise that it's okay to look after yourself too. -- For more science, technology, environment and health stories from the BBC, follow us on Facebook and Instagram.
