US Air Force tests exoskeleton to give cargo-loading porters a boost

The Forge System exoskeleton is designed to augment the leg strength of aerial porters, who are in charge of managing and loading passengers and cargo on and off mobility aircraft, with pneumatically-powered leg braces and a backpack.

They might not be as elaborate as the exosuit Sigourney Weaver used in the classic movie “Aliens,” but the overall concept — using tech to give human muscles and bones a boost during strenuous labor — is not far off.

Aerial porters’ cargo-loading duties are physically demanding, and they often suffer injuries to their muscles and bones from overuse.

The cargo that aerial porters push and pull onto planes can range from pallets of equipment, gear and food weighing thousands of pounds to drones to even more massive tanks or High Mobility Artillery Rocket System trucks. A 2019 Transportation Department study found disability benefits for aerial porters cost the government $31 million each year. 

Last year, the Air Force said that 2019 study prompted it to start looking at exoskeleton technology that could cut down on porters’ injuries. A previous exoskeleton developedby Arizona State University, Air Mobility Command and the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, dubbed the Aerial Port Exoskeleton, was tested at Travis Air Force Base in California last year.

The Army has also developed various models of exoskeletons to lessen soldiers’ injuries from lifting ammunition or moving other heavy loads. And U.S. Special Operations Command has experimented with an Iron Man-like armored tactical exoskeleton for special operators, though making that concept a reality has proven challenging.

The Forge System, the latest version of the exoskeleton, was developed by California-based Roam Robotics as part of a Direct to Phase II Small Business Innovation Research grant, with the help of the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Center for Rapid Innovation.

Read More

Who’s responsible for roadside rubbish?

Source:

University of California - Riverside

New research reveals that items in litter typically originate less than two miles from where they're found -- and unless humans remove them, most of these items will never leave the environment.                        

For the study, researchers from the University of California, Riverside spent a month collecting trash from seven sites across the Inland Empire. They examined its composition, discerned the manufacturers of many items, and thanks to receipts, were also able to determine where the items were purchased.

Most trash items end up on streets only a short distance from where someone bought them. In other words, the majority of litter comes from local sources. This finding could help cities prevent plastic litter that will eventually taint water and air.

"A lot of people say, 'it's not my trash,'" said Win Cowger, a UCR environmental scientist and first author on the study. "I want to dispel that notion with the evidence we have, at least here in the Inland Empire."

Some people have theorized that wind, water or other factors are responsible for moving litter through urban areas. This study, published in the journal Environmental Research, was the first of its kind to study local litter in such close detail and identified that humans were the primary means by which it moves from sellers to streets.

To reach these conclusions, 18 undergraduate and graduate students trained in data collection surveyed up to 3,280 feet of roadside several times a week in Riverside, Moreno Valley, Loma Linda, San Dimas and Palm Desert.  

Nearly 60 percent of the materials they found were plastic. Most were food related, followed by tobacco products. Correspondingly, the top producers of these items, when they were identifiable, were Philip Morris, Mars Incorporated, RJ Reynolds and Jack in the Box.

Because people are responsible for the flow of items from stores onto streets, it can be tempting to blame bad behavior for litter. However, the researchers feel individuals, policy makers, and manufacturers must all work together to solve the problem.

"There has been a lot of emphasis on individual human behavior as the way to decrease rates of littering," said Andrew Gray, a UCR environmental scientist and study author. "In reality, it's just as easy or even more accurate to say that if we didn't produce the stuff in the first place, it wouldn't get into the environment."

On the local level, the researchers conclude that cities have a variety of tools to address the issue. These could include bans on items that frequently end up outside, or an increase in the frequency of street sweeping.

Bans and other preventative measures are suggested because the study also determined that cleaning up litter does not prevent it from reoccurring. Every time researchers came to survey, they also cleaned the sites up, only to find a similar volume of trash when they returned.

There's a broken window theory some people subscribe to, that trash begets trash. However, we find even if you keep a place clean the accumulation is really consistent so other actions to prevent litter in the first place are needed," Cowger said.

To further understand how trash moves onto roadsides and how to clean it up, the researchers are planning additional studies in Long Beach, California and in Oregon. In addition, Cowger is working on a universal index of trash survey terminology to help connect this study with others like it.

One of the issues with connecting similar trash data sets is the difference in language used to describe garbage. For example, 'sachet' is the term East Asian countries use for what Americans refer to as wrappers -- an item frequently represented in litter piles. Cowger's index would help unify the terms, so the worldwide causes and impacts of litter could be better understood.

Action on this issue is of critical importance. Plastic can release harmful chemicals into the surrounding soil, which can make their way into ground water and surface water. While larger plastics harm animals and decrease the aesthetic appeal of the built and natural environment, microplastics also shed from larger items as they break down. These are emerging contaminants of concern with a wide range of potential adverse effects on human health.

"There's a more systematic approach we need to take as humans to decide what gets produced, because eventually, it all gets into the environment," Gray said.

Read More

Mechanical devices to clear the ocean of plastics may not be the answer

A new study suggests that while mechanical devices do remove plastics and other items of litter from marinas and harbors, the quantities of litter removed can be comparatively low and they can also trap marine organisms. 

The study was led by researchers from the International Marine Litter Research Unit at the University of Plymouth, who have been studying the issue of marine microplastics for more than two decades.

Their research was conducted in Plymouth (UK), and provides the first formal independent evaluation of the performance of a Seabin device.

The devices are designed to continuously suck water inwards using a submersible pump which is then filtered, and the cleaned water is returned to the surrounding area leaving the litter in the catch bag.

Hundreds have been installed globally and are reported to have captured over 2.5million kg of litter from calm sheltered environments such as marinas, ports, and yacht clubs. This study found that a total of 1,828 items, 0.18kg of litter, was retained by the Plymouth device during 750 hours of operation between April and June 2021. This was equivalent to 58 items a day, and was mainly comprised of plastic pellets, polystyrene balls and plastic fragments.

However, the Seabin also captured one marine organism for every 3.6 items of litter, around 13 organisms a day including species such as sandeels, brown shrimp and crabs. Around 60% of those organisms were found to be dead upon retrieval, and the study indicates some organisms died after entering the device.

During the deployment, five manual trawls were conducted at the same marina using nets from pontoons or vessels. Manual cleaning collected an average of 19.3g of litter during cleans of up to five minutes. By comparison, the Seabin only captured the equivalent of 0.0059g in a similar timeframe.

Writing in the study, the researchers say that -- based on their findings -- the device was of minimal benefit in terms of marine litter removal in this particular location.

They also warn that the presence of such devices could also precipitate techno-optimism, a reliance on technological innovations, rather than systemic changes in our production, use, and disposal of plastics.

The research was supported by the European Union INTERREG France (Channel) England funded project Preventing Plastic Pollution, co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund.

Florence Parker-Jurd, Research Assistant at the University of Plymouth and the study's lead author, said: "At its current state of development, this study suggests that manual cleaning of ports, harbours and marinas, is more efficient and cost-effective. Notably manual cleans are selective, and this could lessen any potential risk to marine life. Given the increasing reliance on technological innovations, formal evaluations are necessary to their efficiency as similar may apply to other types of device."

Professor Richard Thompson OBE, Head of the International Marine Litter Research Unit, added: "The UN Treaty to end plastic pollution presents an amazing opportunity to start to use plastics more responsibly, halting their accumulation in the environment. Ultimately, the best way to achieve that is by preventing the issue at its source rather than clean-up. However, The Treaty sets an urgent ambitious timeline and this could lead to increased investment in clean up as opposed to longer term systemic change. This study and others from my team highlight the critical importance of evidence to inform decisions about which type of intervention to invest in as we move to tackle this global environmental challenge.

Read More

Child poverty hit record low in 2021

 

Child poverty in America has dropped by more than 80% since 1993.

The child poverty rate was 27.9% in 1993, but fell to a record low of 5.2% in 2021, according to new census data. Growing up poor affects every facet of adult life, from health to wealth.

• "Fewer children growing up in poverty is good for the future," says Renee Ryberg, a co-author of a new report from Child Trends that digs into the data. "It's as simple as that."
• Not only are there immediate improvements to the well-being of kids and families, there are also long-term benefits for society, like lower rates of crime, lower health care costs and more tax revenue.
• Academics and advocates have raised concerns that some of those additional gains may be erased now that the expanded child tax credit has expired.

Still, many of the driving factors behind the drop in child poverty are longer term.

• They include lower unemployment, state-level minimum wage increases, a rise in single mothers' participation in the workforce, and expansions of the safety net, the New York Times reports.

The big picture: The reduction in child poverty has affected all poor kids in the U.S., per the Child Trends report.

• The child poverty rate has decreased in every state.
• And it's fallen by about the same amount for Black kids, white kids, Hispanic kids, Asian kids, immigrants, and kids in one- or two-parent households.

Read More