But I don't think you can understand Israel. I don't think you can understand the attitude of Israelis from really from the founding, from before the founding of Israel, certainly all the way to today. I don't think you can really understand without understanding this history. So I thought it would be valuable. And then I wanted to, in that context, look at the Palestinians and look at their attitudes and why they can't succeed. They can't win. So we're going to delve into a little bit of the history of anti-Semitism. Now, for most people, anti-Semitism is kind of this vague notion of, yeah, there was persecution of the Jews for thousands of years and then there was the Holocaust and the Holocaust is the main event, if you will. And it is really the motivation behind the creation of state of Israel, the argument is, and it is the ultimate expression of anti-Semitism. But it's kind of viewed as, in some sense, this aberration, this almost came out of nowhere and suddenly 6 million Jews were slaughtered. And the other association of the Holocaust is very much that this is Germany. The Germans did this and the Germans are responsible. The Germans killed 6 million Jews and it's all on Germany. So I want to challenge those assumptions and kind of give a broader history of anti-Semitism, at least in the 20th century. And then talk about it in the context of the creation and establishment of the state of Israel because I don't think you can understand the creation of state of Israel. I don't think you can comprehend what Zionism means. I mean, and the source of Zionism without understanding this anti-Semitic history. Now, I have said often that the Zionism's the core basis for Zionism and the only rational basis for Zionism as a movement of self-defense and what I found interesting in Javier Redingour's analysis is he basically 100% concurs with that and he puts it in slightly different language. Basically, that's what he's saying. And yeah, so it was nice to get affirmation, but he gave it a historical context that I think you guys will find interesting and I hope you guys will find interesting. So to understand modern anti-Semitism, to understand the creation of the state of Israel, to understand what happened in Europe in the 20th century, you have to go back really to 1881. 1881 was the year in which the Tsar of Russia, the Tsar of Russia was murdered, murdered by anarchists and, you know, we don't need to get into Russian history, but the point is that following the murder of the Tsar, a series of what has come to be known as pogroms occurred in Russia. Primarily in the south, primarily in what today is Ukraine, Poland and to some extent in the northwest in Latvia and Lithuania, but certainly the bulk of it was in Ukraine. To a large extent, the reason for this is the Jews were just not allowed to live in what we would consider today Russia proper. They weren't allowed to live in kind of the eastern parts of Russia. Russia had inherited many of these Jews from, in their conquests, they'd inherited them when they conquered the Lithuanian Polish Empire that existed in Ukraine and Poland and Lithuania, and they'd inherited these Jews. They didn't really want them, they didn't really like them, but they stuck with them and they basically had laws that said you just can't go to certain places. This is where you need to be. Anyway, in 1981, an anarchist group assassinated the Tsar of Russia. Tsar Alexander, I think it's exactly the second, was replaced by a son, Alexander the third, and where as Alexander the first, Alexander the second was relatively liberal for west, Alexander the third was a conservative, really Russian Orthodox, religious, uninterested in any kind of reforms to the system, and ultimately blamed the fact that his father was pro-reform for the fact that he was dead. But part of this, part of the murder is that Jews were somehow blamed for the murder of the Tsar. Not so much for the Russian authorities, but by local administrators, by local people in various areas within Russia, again primarily in what is today Ukraine, the Odessa area, and generally the southern Russian Empire. They blamed the Jews for this, and they started a series of pogroms against the Jews. What are pogroms?  They would do something similar to what Hamas did on smaller local scale in a variety of different towns and cities all over the western part of the Russian Empire. And this started a real series of these, and if you think about what was going on in Russia at the time and kind of the social pressures and the kind of the sociological reasons for this, it had very little to do at the end of the day with the Tsar dying and any issue regarding the Tsar. It primarily was a consequence of the fact that there was a lot of change. The industrial revolution is starting to come to Russia towards the end of the 19th century. Industrialization is happening, urbanization is happening. There's just a lot of angst, a lot of changes, a lot of people losing their jobs, and people are looking to blame somebody for this social upheaval. And the other, we've talked about this many, many times in the Iran book show, the other is always a good target to blame for what you cannot understand, for what you cannot explain. And the other in this case were the Jews. The Jews who lived in small towns, the Jews who lived sometimes in the larger cities, and as a consequence, throughout Russia there were these pogroms. Thousands of Jews were killed.  All over Russia this was going on. And as a consequence of this, Russian Jews started leaving. Three million Jews left Russia during this period. They started moving west. The vast majority of them landed up getting on boats out of Lithuania, Latvia, out of Poland, out of Germany, getting on boats and sailing to the United States. Two and a half million Jews escaped Europe and came to the United States during the end of the 19th century. Two and a half million. The other half a million settled in different parts of Western Europe, including places like Germany where they were not exactly welcome. They were not wanted. Between 1880 and 1921, the two and a half million moved to Europe. Now, you have to understand the difference. And this is, again, a lot of this material is from, I don't want to be accused of plagiarism, right? A lot of this material is from this interview with an article that Javier Rettingo wrote and from this interview. But the Jewish immigration to the United States is very different than the Irish, Italian, German, Polish, non-Jewish immigration. Most of these other immigrants sent the young men to America. And if the young men arriving in America settled and could get a job and create some wealth and create an environment, they would then bring their families. And their families would join them in America, whether that is the German migrants who settled in the Midwest. I mean, there's so many German migrants in America. We don't even think of a German, you know, a subculture. They're just everywhere, particularly in the Midwest, all the way down to Texas. Texas is predominantly German, all the way up to Wisconsin and Minnesota. Young men would come and then the family would follow once they got established. And many of these young men actually went back to Europe. You know, depending on the particular migrant group, many of these migrants up to sometimes half of them didn't make it in America and actually got on a boat and went back to Europe. When the Jews came to America, they were running away. When the Jews came to America, the whole family came. Everybody came. Nobody was left behind. Nobody was left behind. And they came here as whole groups, as families. And almost nobody went back. Less than 5% of Jews went back to Europe because they didn't make it. And it's not because they were more successful than other immigrants. It's because they literally had nowhere to go back to. Now, if you've ever seen Fiddler on the Roof, it's definitely worth seeing. There's a movie of the musical, it's a musical. And if Fiddler on the Roof, I mean, the reason they leave is because their place is burnt down. They're hounded. They're persecuted. Once they come to America, they cannot go back. There's no way for them to go back to. And you have to understand this. This is a crucial point about Jewish migration. Jewish migrants went to where they thought anti-Semitism would be less, where they thought they would be safe, and they knew they could never go back to where they came from. There is one particular program that I think has a lasting, I don't know, cultural weight in Israel and among Jews that still know anything about the history. And that is the program in Kishinev. This is, when was this? I had this a minute ago. And the program in Kishinev, Kishinev is not far from Odessa. It's southern Ukraine. And let me just do this. Sorry. Slightly wandering around here and did not, it was not completely piped. Okay. So, Kishinev happens in 1903. It is this town in southern Ukraine, not far from Odessa. And the Jews are attacked, again, no particular reason, but they are attacked.  And what makes Kishinev, what kind of makes it, what made it stick in the imagination, because, of course, there were lots of programs like this, is that a young Jewish journalist was asked to go and report on Kishinev, His name was Nachman Bialik. He became the kind of the poet, you know, basically the main Zionist poet. And he wrote a famous poem about the Apogrom called the City of Slot. And part of what makes the poem powerful, I mean, he describes what happens. He describes the way the pillage and just out of nowhere, he describes the murder, the blood. It's a long poem. It's an incredibly powerful poem. But the thing that made this poem unique is not the description of that, but it was the description of the men of Kishinev, of the Jewish men, who watched as their wives and daughters were raped and slaughtered and did nothing. Not clear, they could have done anything, but they did nothing. I want to read you a bit of this. I mean, it's moving, it's powerful. I don't know, hopefully you get something out of this. It's just a section of the poem. It's a, as I said, it's a very long poem. You can look it up, City of Slotta by Bialik spelled the way it sounds. So this is from somewhere in the middle of the poem. Crushed in their shame, they saw it all. They did not stir, no move. They did not pluck their eyes out. They beat not their brains against the wall. Perhaps, perhaps each watcher had it in his heart to pray, and miracle, O Lord, and spare my skin this day. Those who survived this foulness, who from their blood awoke, beheld their life polluted the light of their world gone out. How did their menfolk bear it? How did they bear their yoke? They crawled, crawled forth from their holes. They fled to the house of the Lord. They offered him thanks to him. The sweet, benedictory word. The kohanim, the priest, sallied forth to the rabbi's house they flitted.  The matter ends and nothing more and all is as it was before. You know, there's another line here that is, that is powerful. Concealed and cowered the sons of the makhabi's. Right? So the makhabi's are the ones that are celebrated in Hanukkah, who were belled against the Greeks and won and established a kingdom in Israel way back. The point of the poem is this. These men were powerless. They did nothing. Maybe they were cowards. They cowered. They hid. They did nothing. When you hear Israelis and Jews generally talk about never again, they're not just talking about the Holocaust. They're talking about Kishinev. They're talking about never will we cower. Never will we hide. Never will we just turn our backs. You can't understand the response in Israeli society to October 7th. Without understanding this commitment that so many Jews, particularly those in Israel have, towards never being cowards again, towards never watching their women raped and doing nothing about it. The whole essence of Israel is a country in which Jews will not watch their families moated, not watch their women raped.  The Jews flee Russia and again, two and a half emigrate to the U.S., two and a half million. But then in 1921, and by the way, the American administrations never really like this, right? They're not exactly excited about the fact that millions of Jews are coming into the country.  This is not good. This riffraff of Europe is coming here. We need to do something about it. And, you know, there's a lot of this in the air. And then finally in 1921, a Congress passes something called the Emergency Quota Act. Now, they've been trying for 11 years to slow Jewish immigration. But more and more Jews are coming. And then, you know, Russia has a civil war. Remember the communists, the communists 1918 to 1921, and more and more Jews are coming. They're fleeing because during the civil war, about 100,000 Jews are killed, right? Maybe more, maybe 150,000 are killed. So America says, wait a minute, we can't take all these Jews. Maybe it sounds familiar.  So Congress decides to act. It passes the Emergency Quota Act, imposes quotas by nationality. The Jews have no nationality in the American definition of the time. They'd be the Poles or Russians or something like that. But it's clearly engineered to make sure Jews don't come. And it works. Three years later, the number of Jews entering the United States have gone from 120,000 to 140,000 a year down to 10,000 a year. And by 1934, right, Nazis are already in power. And after this 1921 Quota Act is actually replaced by 1924 Act that is more permanent, only 2,700 Jews managed to make it into the United States. So Jews are locked out. They're locked out of the U.S. They're locked out of much of Latin America. They're locked out of much of Western Europe. Nobody really wants them. The UK doesn't take them in. And there's a real problem in Europe. You can't understand the Balfour Declaration. You can't understand the eagerness of the British to form a Jewish country without understanding that there are hundreds of thousands of refugees in Europe escaping pogroms, escaping being killed. Romania at some point in the 1920s expels its Jews.  But there's no way for the Jews to go. They're stuck. They can't go to America, can't go to Canada, can't go to Britain. France is not allowing them in. Argentina is not allowing them in. Not Brazil, not Australia. They've got nowhere to go. And you know, even though the Balfour Declaration has passed before Balfour Declaration is towards the end of World War I, maybe it's 1919 or 18, by then it's obvious that America is shutting down. From 1910 on, the Americans are talking about eliminating and restricting Jewish immigration to the United States. So you've got a real refugee problem. And the one-imagined solution for it is to allow Jews to emigrate to what is then, at least post-1921, British mandate over territory they had captured from the Ottoman Empire. And a few Jews and some Jews do that. Some Jews emigrate to what's called Palestine under the British occupation. They by-land the wealthy Western European Jews eager to help their fellow Jews from Eastern Europe settle in Palestine, the Rothschilds, other Jewish bankers, by-land they subsidize agriculture and they basically help establish this settlements of Jews in this area. Now, I've talked about this before, but the fact is that as Jews are settling in this area, they're creating industry, they're creating agriculture, they're actually creating jobs, creating industry. And a lot of Arabs move into what is called Palestine in order to take those jobs. Very few Arabs lived in what is today Israel pre-the Jews arriving there.  So Israel absorbs some of these people in Europe, but very few for a lot of reasons. One is it's a relatively uncivilized place. It's relatively undeveloped. It's very difficult to go there. E. Jones corrects me. The Balfour Declaration was November 1917, relatively early in the war. But again, the writing was on the wall, at least in terms of the United States. It had been on the wall for 1910. So some Jews go there, but it's a very tough place to go. And the British don't want them there. Not really. Once the British, when World War I, and they've signed a lot of, they've cut a lot of deals with the Arabs. And look, the Arabs have oil. The Arabs, you know, a lot of Arabs, they were ready. The British are not really committed to this idea of a Jewish state. So they allow some immigration in, but not a lot, into this territory. In 1936, in Palestine, there was an Arab uprising, both against the Jews and against the British, to try to kick the British out, and to try to kick the Jews out. And... But the Jews keep coming. Again, they've got nobody else to go. After, you know, the Holocaust. And it's really important to note about the Holocaust. You know, again, people perceive the Holocaust as this German thing. Germans did it. But the reality of the Holocaust is that the Germans could have never killed as many Jews as they did, without the cooperation of people in the various countries, all over Europe. Indeed, in countries where there was little cooperation, fewer Jews died. Denmark actually saved almost all of its Jews. It refused to cooperate with the Nazis, and it allowed the Jews to escape. Belgium's cities, where they cooperated with the Nazis, about 70% of the Jews were captured. Belgium's cities that did not cooperate with the Nazis, only between 30% to 40% of the Jews were captured. In Hungary, the Nazis wanted the Jews of Hungary, so they could slaughter them. The Hungarian authorities decided, okay, and they basically shipped 470,000 Jews to Germany, to Auschwitz. But they only took the rural Jews, the Jews who lived in a lot of villages, the Jews who had not assimilated. The Jews in Budapest that behaved like them, that lived amongst them, they refused to turn over to the Germans. And indeed, almost all of the Jews of Budapest were saved. In Poland, there were programs, killing of Jews, before the Nazis arrived. In many cases, the Poles cooperated with the Nazis in killing the Jews. And little known in history, there were programs of Jews returning to their villages after the concentration camps, after they'd been liberated by the Americans or the Russians, returning to their villages in Poland, only to encounter local Poles, refusing to accept them, refusing to give them their homes back, refusing to allow them to settle back in their homes, and kicking them out, sending them back to where they came from.  Paris, again, the Nazis could have never done this by themselves. Just once enough Germans, they were fighting a war, they were busy. Without the cooperation of people in these countries, there could have not been the scale achieved in the Holocaust. It just never would have happened. Italian Jews were rounded up, not everywhere, not in all of Italy. I remember Selene resisted in the beginning, but at some point they were rounded up. Jews were rounded up everywhere. If you've read Anna Frank Diary, you know that she, they hid, her family hid, and they could have gotten away with it hiding, if not for somebody in the community, in the Netherlands, in Holland, in Amsterdam, ratting them out, as happened all over the place. Sure, there were some people, some places, some individuals who did not work with the Nazis, who helped protect Jews, but the vast majority did not. So when the war ends, and the Americans liberate the camps, and the camps are liberated elsewhere, many of the people in those camps, the non-Jews go home. They go back to where they came from. Many of them are in much better physical condition than the Jews. The Jews were uniquely treated by the Nazis with the idea of working them to their death. So when the camps were opened up, the Jews were in particularly horrible physical shape. The Jews tried to go back to places like Poland, and the Poles turned them around and sent them away. They refused to let them back. And indeed, a couple of hundred thousand Jews, Holocaust survivors, spent two years after the war in the concentration camps that they had been liberated from as refugees without a home waiting to figure out what their fate was. In the United States, the Truman administration tried to get Congress to pass some kind of bill to allow these Jews to come to the United States. Congress refused. A combination of Midwestern Republicans and Southern Democrats claimed that they did not want these Jews. And there were these hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees roaming around Europe in the mid-1940s, post-war, without anywhere to go. Some of them tried to make it to a pre-Israel-British mandate. And the British caught the ships, turned them around, built a camp in Cyprus and held them there behind barbed wire. These, again, people who had survived Auschwitz, people who survived the concentration camps were now being held behind barbed wire in Cyprus. So when Israel declared its independence in May of 1945, there is a flood of these Jews into Israel. And these Jews are committed to one thing. This, they're going to make this their home. And as I said before, they're not going to tolerate being bullied. They're not going to tolerate being slaughtered. They're not going to tolerate being raped. There will be no more pogroms. They're committed to defending themselves. The 1948 War of Independence is a war of motivated individuals. They've just been slaughtered in Europe. There's nowhere else they can go. America won't take them. South America won't take them. Indeed, when the camps opened up after, you know, when the camps are liberated at the end of World War II, there are lots of people in these camps who are not Jews. And they don't want to go back to Russia. They don't want to go back to communism. Or they can't go. They'll be killed. All of those are invited to emigrate to Latin America, to other countries, all over the place. They all find a home somewhere. The one group that nobody wants, even after the Holocaust, even knowing exactly what happened in the Holocaust, the one group that nobody wants are the Jews. There's nowhere to go. Literally, there's nowhere to go. I mind you that my claim is that Zionism is a movement of self-defense. It's the movement of people who are being oppressed, being killed, being murdered, all over the world. They have nowhere else to go. And they build a civilized country. They build a home. They create it. They make it. They don't take it from anybody. They make it and create it. And, you know, Hudson, when he establishes the Zionist movement, 1897 is the first meeting of the Zionist movement, he says, look, he says during this period, he said, Europe is going to get rid of us. Europe does not want us.  And there's no guarantee that won't happen anywhere we go if we leave Europe. The only way we can survive as individuals, the only way we can survive is by establishing our own state. He says the Germans, this is the age of nationalism, the Germans are Germans. They will not tolerate Jews who are both Jews and German. You're either German or you're not. He says this is a movement moving throughout Europe, this nationalism. They will not tolerate the outsiders with split loyalties. The, you know, the Dreyfus argument. The Dreyfus had split loyalties between his Jewishness and his Frenchness. And it's what Tucker Carlson said the other day about Ben Shapiro. He has split loyalties between his Jewish loyalty to Israel and between being an American. The Jews have no way to go. And then in 1950s, once Israel is established, the Muslim and Arab world decide to get rid of their Jews. You know, some of the richest people, I can't remember if 25% or a third of the real estate in Baghdad was owned by Jews. Jews were incredibly wealthy, successful in Iraq. The Iraqis expelled all their Jews. They weren't allowed to take their wealth with them. They left with whatever they could put in a suitcase and they were kicked out. Most of them went to Israel. A few of them who maybe had foreign passports who could get in, went to France, Europe, maybe America, very few. But most of them, over one majority, went to Israel. Moroccan Jews, they literally rounded up all the Moroccan Jews, hundreds of thousands of them, put them in planes and sent them to Israel. Some of them were wealthy and educated, again had foreign passports, went to France, but almost all of them landed up in Israel. The Yemenite Jews, Yemenite, where the Houthis are today, were going to be slaughtered and killed, evacuated to Israel, Egypt expelled its Jews, Syria expelled its Jews, Lebanon expelled its Jews, and most of them made it to Israel. Committed to what? These are refugees. And indeed, they lived in conditions of refugee-type camps for many years in Israel. But they were committed to building a home. They were committed never to be at somebody else's behest, never to be dependent on the whims of someone else. They were committed to fighting for themselves, to securing their own independence.


Now, how to characterize this waste that is becoming a very big question because applications we have seen and two three applications I have talked about in today's class the issue is how to characterize the waste. So, the first characterization is that a waste can be defined based on its water content a sludge. How do you treat sludge? If you can filter out water you are recovering a precious material or resource. The moment water is reduced the volume gets reduced you can handle it better. So, water content is the most important parameter when we talk about characterization of the waste this is correct. Why do you do incineration? So, that the volume gets reduced density of the waste is very important again if you have waste like organic soil which is coming out of the dredging process. What you will do with this? It is of no use. So, density is very important a dredge material ideal dredge material should be dense it should be rock pieces or gravel pieces or sands. So, that they are more stable. So, density is a physical parameter which talks about the strength of the dredge material particularly for infrastructure project. You call it as particle size distribution we normally call it as granulometry. Particle size distribution has a limitation it talks about only components of the fractions of gravel, silt, stone, sand, clay and so on is it not. So, in what way granulometry is different than the particle size distribution characteristics. I was talking about the rheology how easily this materials will flow in water in a slurry form. So, this is where you have to define the you know complete morphology of the grains in the waste which will fall under the category of granulometry study. Ideally you should prefer a waste material which is rounded completely. So, that the rheology becomes very easy you do not require much of energy to push it in a stream. So, pumpability increases apart from these physical attributes what are the other constituents you are more interested in finding out the total carbon component why it is so. If more carbon is there what happens the water demand of the system is too much. If you have more carbon the carbon basically acts like a lubricant you agree you know you have carbon bushes electric motors why less friction less resistance. So, idea is if more carbon is present the water demand goes up that is why class of fly ashes with more carbon are not suitable for concrete the water retention capacity increases. So, you have to incinerate these ashes so that the carbon component is lost and then their reactivity becomes better. Second thing is as carbon is a lubricant you cannot compact a system where carbon is too much clear. So, that is another reason why you want to get rid of organic carbon and of course organic carbon is always easy to decompose over a period of time. So, you should understand a waste material or a byproduct how much carbon it has so that you can use it for a certain application. Carbonate content where do you use this concept of carbonate content that is in the water. If you have sands with more carbonate content what is going to happen you will prefer these type of sands or not why. In case of any contamination this carbonate is very vulnerable particularly acid contamination. See this type of situation occurred in your which project in the country. Bindiya I think you should be able to tell very famous project related to Indian Navy Seabird project at Mangalore Seabird is a very big navy base which has been developed some 5, 6 years back. So, there was a time when we used to save time lab analyze maybe 10,000 samples of the sand to check what is the carbonate content of these soils. Now, if you have more carbonate content in the sand whether it is a good material for construction or not you have no idea crushing strength of sand is more or carbonates is more this is a simple question sand is more. So, the moment more and more carbonates come into the sand the bearing capacity and the crushing strength of the deposit decreases. So, you should not construct anything you know on a system even on sands unless you know what is the carbonate content of this material. This is becoming a very big issue and you will not believe that because of this simple thing the project was on hold for a very long time. Comment of India was paying a very heavy penalty to the contractor and there was a very big mess all around. Well, when comes the third issue mercury arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, zinc, chromium, nickel, iron, manganese. So, whenever you are using this type of byproducts or the waste you should be sure what is the concentration of all these elements or the metals which can leach out very easily. So, the moment you lift it from the or from some source and you dump it somewhere the system is going to become again hyperactive. So, this is where you have to make it very sure that the leachability of the material happens to be very less. Have you heard of arginine, chlorines well this is a form of a contaminant which is becoming very common these days is a form of a chloride which is present too much in the sea and once you bring it on to the ground or on shore it becomes a secondary source of contamination of pollution. Total extractable hydrocarbons most of these places there could be oil slick, oil spill and so on. So, you would like to understand how much amount of hydrocarbons is associated with the waste or the soil or the geomaterial before you start using it. A heavily oil contaminated sand or geomaterial will show you very less shear strength all right. So, you should be careful while recommending the material for its application anywhere. Similarly, TBT and DBT that is tibutylene and dibutylene these are the compounds which are becoming very important to be ascertained in any project related to infrastructure. Design of a underwater underground petroleum tank, do you think that this is a structural engineering problem or geotechnical engineering problem? And let me add here suppose soil has lot of lead into it or mercury into it. So, the moment you construct a tank underground there could be a leaching of lead and mercury into oil reservoirs clear and the moment entry of these elements takes place into the hydrocarbons they are totally spoiled you cannot use them for any purpose. So, truly speaking this is a geo environmental engineering problem where later on structural engineer takes over polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons they are becoming very big bug on the entire construction industry. So, this is where you have to ascertain the properties in terms of toxicity test. I will be talking about these type of test later on where you do complete bio assay of the material. Bio assay is nothing, but understanding the material in totality that what are the contaminants or what are the elements which are present in it which may leach out into the environment and of course, thermal and chemical stability of the material whether it will remain stable or not. So, these are the things which you have to take into account when you are characterizing the waste. So, when we say characterization of the waste there is a need for complete characterization which includes physical, chemical and mineralogical properties and thermal properties and electrical properties. So, as you can guess very easily now this lecture onwards I will pick up characterization of the waste or the material, geomaterials. And then second issue associated with the characterization of the waste would be what is the basic objective of characterizing something you are trying to understand the behavior how it will behave and why do you want to understand the behavior. So, that you can recommend a proper utilization for this material is it not. So, this is a very big subject in our activity where most of the people are trying to spend lot of time, money and energy in understanding the material itself. Now, interesting thing here to understand is that when we say material the hidden you know communication is that no material is a waste material clear. So, idea is even if you are dealing with by products from the industry if you can utilize this for some good applications it becomes a manmade resource. So, this is where most of the efforts are diverted in understanding the behavior of the material and recommending its proper utilization scheme. There may slight gap between the moment I pick up characterization schemes because what is still pending is how we can use different energy field concepts in characterization of the material. So, I will take up that issue also side by side. So, that will tell you how the behavior can be mapped by doing simple test in the laboratory alright. I will finish my lecture here today, but I will like to show you one information which I received sometime back through email. So, this email was sent sometime back by one of my friends where the title says try to guess what the following images are you might have seen also I am sure no nobody in the class you have seen ok let us go for some quiz what is this TV screen sorry stones TV screen with can you guess now sorry bricks why not food grains this is the photograph of e-waste you should read this carefully 426,000 cell phones discarded daily. So, this is the magnitude of the problem like this bigger smoking, but the question is what is this figure earlier human being and today good good interpretation what it is now any guess pen 2 lakh cigarette packs the same number of Americans who die every 6 months due to smoking alright. So, if you retrace it this is how it looks like any good imagination I like this email. So, I thought I will share with you because the central theme of today's discussion was waste industrial waste what is this swimming pool or something else setup of thousands of small pictures showing the traces of 11,000 planes the number of commercial flights taking place in US every 8 hours the amount of pollution ok the emissions which are coming out of the planes and their numbers and the amount which is going to intoxicate the entire atmosphere. So, this is interesting message, but look at the next slide 170,000 batteries are produced every 15 minutes what is this it is difficult to guess I think it is becoming a bit clear now 65,000 cigarettes the number of Americans under 18 that start smoking every month what is this system wires some circuit 1 million of plastic cup flashed every 6 hours in commercial flights this is most interesting any guess I do not know guess seems to be correct now their bottles towels and required close 60,000 plastic bags discarded every 5 seconds what is this 2 million plastic bottles dumped every 5 minutes it is a beautiful painting, but it is not a picture any guess what it is see theme of the lecture is industrial waste minimum cans thrown into the garbage every 30 seconds. So, this is a way start these pictures are part of the exhibit running the numbers and American self-portrait of photographer Chris Jordan highlighting the millions of object that accumulated in the planet well beyond our sight. The numbers mentioned were obtained from the countries of waste discarded only in the United States imagine what world figures are. So, this fellow Durga he asked me to circulate this message environmental degradation is a cumulative effect of the actions each one of us takes. Therefore, the solution also lies within each one of us help our planet think before you use reduce reuse and recycle. So, with this I finish my today's talk I hope you enjoyed this.


Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you for the invitation and the to the urban age organization. It's my pleasure to be in this Ababa for the first time. I will explain to you some ideas of the process of the transformation of Medellin that has happened in the last 20 years. Maybe we could put the... okay. Medellin is located under those clouds in this narrow valley. I must say that many things happens under the clouds. Bad ones and good ones. Colombia is located in the northern part of South America and in it converge the most exceptional ecosystems. It connects the Caribbean, the Pacific, the Andean mountains and the Amazon, making it an exceptional spot of global biodiversity. At the same time Colombia is a country of cities. Today 78% of the population are living in our cities. Medellin has 2.4 million inhabitants and 3.5 millions in the metropolitan area. 70% of the current house in stock has informal origin. Medellin are 2 in 1. From above they see us and from below we see them. Medellin is one but with a broken spirit. This is the voice of Fernando Ajejo, one of our best writers. During the 80s and 90s we were the capital of the drugs cartels because of that we were living in 1991 in the most violent city on earth. On the map you see on the brown tones the slopes of the north the city that has informal origin and in yellow the formal city, the south, two different realities. The violence increases dramatically this separation. So the question was how to turn it around. I will, I will, I wanted to share with you some principles. Public spaces and infrastructure of inclusion. Intervening into urban borders, transforming into site of knowledge and exchange. Violence separate, exclusion separate. It's about where to act, for whom, about the quality and the beauty, about the meaning. The processes. Medellin transform municipal bureaucracy, bringing public design intelligence into city planning. Has the capacity to coordinate, be strategic. This is the most difficult challenge for politics and politicians. It means that you need to transform the traditional politicians and the coordination in the administration. So how to act and where? Interventions. Public spaces and infrastructure of inclusion. Intervening into urban borders, transforming into sites of knowledge and exchange. This is the historical Comuna 13 in Medellin, where the Orion battle happens in 2002. This is one of our historical borders. In the aerial view you see on the left the informal neighborhood and on the right the formal one. The yellow line marks the border. We located in this strategic yellow border the integration of the metro station with the teleferico, the new public transport system. Going up to the hill and the new library park, the new public for facilities close to the station, the public school is a confluence of new public spaces and programs. The idea of social urbanism looks for a converge of integral programs that combines infrastructure and social cohesion, education, culture and innovation. On the map on the right are six strategic sites of interventions. The city develops them between 2004 and 2012. In the image of the left is the plan of the first urban integral project connected with the first corridor of the cable car, the integral system of mobility, metro, cable car, trainway that connects those strategic areas. Politics has to change. The mathematician Sergio Fajardo won the most municipal election in 2003. His sketch, the idea to increase the door of opportunities and reduce the door of legality. This is the map of opportunities, the different programs of the government in this strategic zone. The urban design and architecture develop and connect a sequence of the new public spaces and the programs of education, culture and innovation. You see the station of the telephorical, the Rambla under the telephorical, the new bridge that connects the new housing program, the library in the upper part. A sequence of itineraries that improve the quality of life helps the people with the everyday life. But the innovation continues. The urban design and the following governments continue this narrative of innovation and social infrastructure, like the transformation of the network of more of the 30 water reservoirs into beautiful and cultural community centers. One of the best examples is the new north, the second strategic area. The Barrio Moravia in the 80s on the left was the municipal dump site. Today, one of the right, the confluence of new spaces, Explorer Science Museum, the public park on the Botanical Garden, the Carabobo Rambla and on the right out of the image, the metro station and the Desire Park. During the year, some of the most beautiful moments happen here, like the book fair, when all the places are open and connected for all. But is this transformation sustainable? This was the question that you wanted to finish. Is this transformation sustainable? The inequality is still there. We need at least 20 more years of the continuous policy to open the door of opportunities for the majority. But continuity is always fragile in our context. Every government wants to leave his signature, not talking about corruption. Even so, I am optimistic. There is a continuity with the bigger narrative in Medellin, the narrative of infrastructure of inclusion. The spaces of the city are more transparent, fluid, connected and less invisible. The ecosystem is more robust, solid and active. Today, there are a dynamic platform of partnerships. You see in the image, Fernando Zapata, that is one of the leaders in our communities. He was working with us and studying our master program in Urbama, our centre of urban and environmental studies. We are very proud of his initiative. He is starting a very powerful network for the community in the informal hills of Medellin. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks so much, Alejandro. And just to put a marker for all of us to think about, well, we move on. Thank you. And we, Heung Min goes up to speak. Just to put out there, Alejandro raised this question of the relationship between design, the wider urban management system and broader inequality. And I'd really like us to come back and think about which of those drives, which of those follows and the relationship between presence and the thinking about the city and about urban change.


Welcome back to our lecture series Math 4230, Abstract Algebra 2 for students at Southern Utah University. As usual, I'll be a professor today, Dr. Angea Missildine. Now in lecture 38, we want to continue to develop notions we have about lattices, ultimately building up to the most structured lattice possible, that is of a Boolean algebra. We're not going to define a Boolean algebra in this particular video, but we will do that by the end of lecture 38. I want us to remember what was the original goal of introducing lattice theory in the first place. We basically had two examples in mind. As we're developing lattice theory, we wanted to maximize the idea of set algebra. Set algebra here being that we have some set, some set called x, and then we look at the algebraic structure where we take the power set of x and equip that with unions and intersections. What type of algebraic structure is that? We mentioned how the power set with union intersection does form a lattice. But it turns out which of course a lattice means we have two associative commutative operations for which every element is ident potent with respect to both operations and the operations absorb each other. We also mentioned of course that with a lattice, the axiom of ident potency is actually redundant. You can prove that from associativity commutativity and absorption. But check out that other video if you want to see the details of that. Lattices are trying to generalize the idea of set algebra, this structure right here. But there's also a very important alternative that we're also trying to generalize. This actually suggests the name Boolean algebra, which we'll define at the end of this lecture right here. We want to actually maximize the notion of Boolean logic. Boole was one of the first people who tried to take the study of logic and study it algebraically. With Boolean logic, you do have a lattice structure. For what you have is you actually only have two elements inside your lattice there. You have true and false. Those are the two possible evaluations you can attach to a statement. A statement's either true or it's false. You have two operations. You have the operation of or and the operation of and. This forms a lattice structure also. Now typically these symbols or and and, we can write the words or or and, but we also sometimes use the symbol this for or and this for and. For which if you notice, those are exactly the two symbols we use for join and meet inside of our lattice theory. Because after all, we're trying to generalize this idea of Boolean logic in addition to set theory. These are both examples of lattices, but it turns out there's more structure there. These two objects set algebra for some power set and Boolean algebra, excuse me, Boolean logic. These are both examples of Boolean algebras. There's more structure just beyond what the lattice structure is. And so what are those missing pieces? We want to try to gather that in this lecture right here, lecture 38. So in this video, we want to talk about the idea of identities and particularly what does it mean for a lattice to be bounded? Now, before we do that, let me offer you an example of a semi lattice. So remember a semi lattice we're only considering one of the binary operations. And so for the sake of discussion, let us consider just the join, just the join operation there. So we have some set over here. We'll call this set S for semi lattice and we have the join operation here. So let's take some elements and I'll just call them by alphabetic letters, A, B, C, D. I'm gonna skip E for a moment for reasons that'll become clear in just a moment. I'm gonna come and call this element at the top theta. Again, for reasons that'll make more sense a little bit later on. But we have the semi lattice. I drew the semi lattice. So I actually drew it as a Hase diagram for which a Hase diagram gives us a semi lattice if and only if there is a least upper bound for each element. So when you look at like A and B, they do have a least upper bound. It's this element D right here. If you look at A and C, it's least upper bound is C because C is bigger than A. The least upper bound of A and D is D. The least upper bound of A and F actually would be theta in this situation. And then likewise, the least upper bound between A and theta is theta itself. So that gives you one example. You can do all the rest to verify that the semi lattice diagram does in fact give us a semi lattice structure, this S join structure right here. Now this set, I'm gonna move it up a little bit. This set doesn't have an identity element. That is, there is no element, there is no element we'll call it E, which is why I skipped it earlier. There's no element E inside of S such that for all X inside of S, we have that E join X is equal to X join E which is then equal to X. That's not true for a universal element. Now I want you to be aware here that if you take for example, the letter A, right? There is an element that kind of acts like an identity because notice if I take A join A, that does give you back A, right?  So A kind of acts like an identity, at least locally speaking, but there are some issues of course. If you take A join B, that's actually equal to D, which is not B, so A is not the identity for B. Same thing happens with F here. If you take A join F, that's gonna give you theta, which is not F. So A is not an identity for every element and that's what an identity has to be. An identity is a global element, not a local element. So A cannot be the identity for everything. B is also a contender, but the same thing happens. If you take A join B, you don't get back. A, you get back D, something else.  So this similatus, as we draw on it, has no identity element. Now the nice thing about similatus is it's very easy to define an identity. That is, you just throw in an extra point, connect it to all the bottom elements. That is the things at the very bottom of your lattice. You can join in this element, we call it E. And now with this structure now in mind, E is in fact the identity for the whole similatus. So if you take E join X, you always get back X. It doesn't matter what you choose. Because E by our construction is smaller than everything, you put on a minimal element to the similatus, that then becomes the identity with respect to the join operation. And so that's something I wanna mention here, that the join identity, if you have one, the join identity is equal to the minimum element of the similatus. Now by duality, if you wanted to do the same thing with a meat similatus, you'll have a meat join if you have a maximum element, right? So your meat, what did I say? Did I say meat join? The meat identity, that's what I should have said, the meat identity is gonna coincide with the maximum element. So that actually comes to this element theta we have before. Now without the E, we actually didn't have a lattice structure because A and B didn't have a greatest lower bound. They didn't have a lower bound at all, let alone a greatest one as well. So the inclusion of the identity for the join actually forms a lattice now, so that now when you look at this picture, this lattice, every pair has now a greatest lower bound. Because at the very least, you have the identity which is a lower bound for everything. This identity E is less than or equal to X for all elements X there, so it's a minimum element. Every element, since you have a join identity, then has a lower bound for which then we worry about is there a greatest lower bound? In fact, there is one here. Now conversely, this element theta, which is at the top of my lattice, it's gonna be greater than every element X and it's going to be the meat identity. Because if we look at something like you take any element X and you meet it with theta, since theta is bigger than X, this is going to equal X in that situation. And so the presence of identities inside of a lattice, whether you have a join identity or a meat identity, the presence of those has to do with the partial order. The join identity will be the minimal element of the lattice and the meat identity will be the maximum element of their lattice. And therefore, we say that a lattice is bounded if you have identities for both of your operations. So we say that a lattice is bounded above if we have a join, excuse me, a lattice is gonna be bounded below if it has a join identity because that gives you a minimal element. And so that would be something like this. Let's call that element zero here. So X join zero is equal to X, which is equal to zero join X. So this zero element is the join identity. And so you're gonna, in this case, you're gonna be bounded below, bounded below because that join identity is the minimum element of that lattice. And then conversely, we have some second element, we'll call it one, which is going to be the meat identity so that when you take X, meat one, that equals X, which equals one, meat X. Now, admittedly, since lattices are commutative, you don't necessarily need these second statements here, but to make these actions independent of each other, we always require the identity to be two-sided. That way, if we wanna generalize to some type of non-commutative lattice, what have you. We aren't gonna do that in this lecture series, but it's just good practice to do so. Now, as we observed earlier, the meat identity is gonna be the maximum element of a lattice. So if you have a meat identity, that means your lattice is bounded above. If you have a join identity, your lattice is gonna be bounded below. If your set is bounded above and bounded below, we call it a bounded set. And therefore, a bounded lattice is a lattice with both a lower bound and an upper bound. And those lower bounds will have to be identities for the two operations since the operations are so closely related to the notions of order for this set. Now, why did we call them zero and one? Now, with my original semi-lattice, I called this element theta because theta kinda looks like a zero, but it's not quite a zero. So I didn't wanna tip my hat too quickly there, tip my hand, I should say. And why did I call this element E? Well, I called that element E because in group theory, it was very common for us to call the identity of the group E in that situation, you know, coming from the German tradition. So I was trying to be sort of foreshadowing that. Theta and E are symbols we often use for identities. And those are exactly the identities of the lattice, the maximum element and the small semi-lattice there. But why are we calling them zero and one? Well, it's actually a very common tradition that with lattice theory, since it kind of is an analog to ring theory, instead of using the symbols meet and join, they oftentimes use addition and multiplication for which join is sometimes denoted as addition. That is, instead of using the join symbol, you actually use a plus sign. And similarly, in lattice theory, meets are often identified using multiplication. This is particularly true when you look at bullied algeas, very, very common tradition. So that, okay, the meet actually can be written as multiplication or typically juxtaposition is how you denote meet in that situation. Now, that's very common practice. It's not universal practice. Many people do distinguished lattice operations from like a ring operation as we use strictly different symbols in that situation. But expect, particularly for a student's perspective that this lecture is at the very end of abstract algebra two for which we spent most of the semester, most of this lecture series studying rings, I would hate for us to get too confused. So we are gonna use different symbols in that situation. But because of this tradition, if you think of join actually with a plus sign, then the additive identity of addition is zero. And so it then is common tradition to denote the identity of the join operation as a zero element. Even if you write joins with join symbols and not with addition, it's still common tradition to write it using a zero there. And likewise, if you write meet instead of multiplication, then the multiplicative identity is one. And so by that tradition, one is the common symbol to represent the meet identity. So the meet identity is one, the join identity is zero. And that's gonna be common tradition. And we're gonna do that as well in this. And we'll do that in our discussion of lattices as well. So let us prove some statements about identities inside of a bounded lattice. Now, one thing I'm gonna comment without proof is uniqueness, right? Identities inside of identities are gonna be unique here. And this follows from the fact that we have a two-sided identity. The argument doesn't change. We did this back in group theory for math 42, 20 abstract algebra one. If you have two identities, right? So if you have some identities such that zero joined x is equal to x and you have some second identity. And so it's a two-sided identity x join zero right here. And if you have a second identity called theta, theta join x is equal to x, which is equal to x join theta, right? If you have a two-sided identity, then the thing is to consider what happens when you take the identities on each other. Well, since zero is an identity, when it acts on theta, you're gonna get back theta. But since theta is an identity and you act on zero, you're gonna get back zero. So zero and theta are one the same thing. You are using two-sided identities because you're using that zero as a left identity and theta is a right identity. Like so, I guess I said I wasn't gonna do it, but then whoopsie daisy, I just did it. So that's a result that's gonna be true for binary operations in general. If you have an identity, a two-sided identity, that identity has to be unique, all right? Because basically what we have here is every left identity has to equal the right identities if they're present. So we have uniqueness of identities. That's very nice. Same proof that we used in group theory here. Now, I actually wanna prove this, I wanna prove, I mean, I've stated it intuitively. Let's actually prove this statement about ordering. Let's prove that the join identity, let's prove that the, no, I'll write that out. Let's prove that the join identity, which of course is equal to zero, let's prove that this is equal to the maximum element of every lattice. And let's likewise prove that one which is the meat identity. Oh, I wrote that backwards, didn't I? Fix that one, sorry. The join identity is the minimal element. So it's at the bottom of the lattice. And then the meat identity, this element is at the top of the lattice. This is a maximum element in that situation. So zero is the minimum element, one is the maximum element. And so we wanna prove that. Now, to do that specifically, we wanna show that x join one is always equal to one and x meet zero is always equal to zero. So based upon how our partial order is defined, if x join one is equal to one, that means that x is less than or equal to one. So one would be a maximum element there. And if x meet zero is equal to zero, that means that x is greater than or equal to zero. That's true for every x. So that gives us the max of a minimum conditions. So we just need to prove these identities algebraically and these order theoretic consequences will then be immediate from them. All right, so how are we gonna do that? So note, if we take one join x, okay, that's the same thing as one join one meet x. And that's because this last one right here, one is the meat identity. So x, I can substitute x with one meet x like so. Then when you look at this statement right here, one join one meet x, the absorption axiom comes into play here. And so this simplifies just to be one in that situation. So we then get that one is in fact this maximum element. That gives you the first statement right here by commutivity, the other statement applies as well. And I'm not gonna prove the second one because the second one actually follows from duality. The dual argument where you interchange one with zero and you interchange all the meats with joins and the joins with meats will give you the exact same proof so the principle of duality works here now as well. So one and zero are now interchangeable when you make dual arguments. Now, let me mention a few examples here. Not all lattices are bounded. There do exist lattices that don't have identities. Now, I gave you a first an example of a semi lattice that didn't have an identity, but that wasn't a lattice. It turns out by adding the identity actually made it into a lattice. It is true that all finite lattices are bounded and the argument is basically the following. You're gonna take an element, we're gonna take as our element say one, we're gonna take the join of all elements inside of our lattice and we can define zero similarly. You can take the meat of every element in the lattice and that's gonna equal zero one in that situation. Well, why is that? Well, you're gonna take one in that situation. It's gonna be the maximal element, right? This has to be the maximum element because if I take X and I join it with everything inside of that, let's not use X that might give us the wrong impression there. Let's use some elements say Y. If you take Y join the join of everything in the group, in particular what's inside the lattice, excuse me. At some point there is gonna be an L, excuse me, there's a Y inside of the lattice there. So I can rewrite this thing as Y join, Y join everything else. And as your idempotent, I don't even have to remove it, Y from consideration. It's already in there. And so I'm basically utilizing the fact that big VX is equal to Y VX here because by the idempotency commutativity, associativity, it's all the same thing. So we can absorb the Y because of the idempotency condition. It's all in though, like when we look at this thing, this is gonna look like some X1, some X2, some X3 all the way through to some XN. We have everything in there. One of those elements is equal to Y. So by associativity, by commutativity, I can bring it up. You're gonna get at some point a Y join Y which is just equal to Y, you can put it back in. If you take the join of everything, when you join that anything else, since you already have it and since your idempotent, you don't change it. And so that's your maximum element. This right here is our maximum element. And so by the previous condition, the maximum elements are one and the same thing with these identities. So every finite lattice, because you can, since it's a finite lattice, it has to have a max, it has to have a min. If you had two different maxes, you could take their join together and that would give you a new max. If you had two different minns, you could take their meat and that would give you a new min. So a bounded lattice always has identities, but if, excuse me, a finite lattice always is bounded and hence always has identities. But you can have infinite lattices which that's not the case. Like for example, if you take the integers where your operations is the max and min, that's gonna give you a picture that basically looks like the following. You're gonna get this infinite chain of elements where you can think of like this is zero, this is one, this is two, this is negative one, like so.  So if we take the max of zero and one, we're gonna get back a one. If we take the min of zero and one, that's gonna give us back a zero. Now be aware, I'm using zero and one to represent the integer zero and one. I'm not representing the identities of this lattice. It is a lattice, but it doesn't have identities not built into it. So such an example can happen because it's infinite. Now, like we did with the Simi lattice at the very beginning of this video, we can always add in identities if we want to. Like we could throw in the identity for the minimum would be infinity and we could throw in the identity for the max operation which would be negative infinity. As we can always glue on top a maximum element, like a definite maximum element and a definite minimum element and those would be the identities. So every, every lattice can be extended into a bounded lattice by adjoining identities if they're not already there. And this really doesn't change the lattice that much. And so for the oftentimes we can assume lattices are bounded even when they're not because of this type of construction. Now the lattice that we were most interested in is the power set lattice with the unions and intersections. This lattice of course is always bounded. They always have identities there for which the zero element coincides with the empty set and the one element coincides with the whole set itself. All right. So the example we really cared about it has, it always has identities in that situation. And so notice and one more example here and we'll finish up this video here. We've mentioned this idea of bounded above and bounded below. You don't always have to have both lattice, both identities but you can come up with examples which have only one and not the other. So take for example, the positive integers. So, and we're gonna organize them this time by not min and max but by least common multiples and greatest common divisors. So in that situation, our picture would look something like the following. You have one on the bottom. Then you're gonna have basically every prime number. So you have like two, you have three, you have five, you have seven, et cetera. You have all the prime numbers. These are gonna be elements that are sitting above one in our partial order. Then we have other elements. We'll have things like four, which is two squared. We'll have, you know, nine, which is three squared. We'll also have things like two times three which is six. We'll have things like 10, which is two times five. And this thing starts to get messy very quickly. You'll have like a 25 in there, which is five squared. We would have a 15, which is three times five. So again, this picture gets messy very, very quickly. It's an infinite lattice. It's very difficult to draw it. But this infinite lattice, what type of identities do we have? We have a join identity. That is, our join operation is the least common multiple. There is an element. When you take the least common multiple of one with any other element, one is that element. The least common multiple of one and x is always equal to x, that number. And so we do have a join identity, which is one, which is kind of funny, because I said earlier that the join identity we always talk about as zero. So in this case, we have zero equals one. But we also have that there's no, there's, I mean, of course, I mean, that's a joke there. One is the join identity. It's the LCM identity for this structure. But there is no upper bound, right? There is no maximal element. There is no meet identity. So that if you take the GCD of two elements, there's no fixed element E, such that when you take it with x, you always get back x. You could always do something else. You don't have this maximum element in that situation. Now, if you wanted to, you could add a maximum element. You could. And in fact, if you look at the natural numbers with regard to LCM and GCDs, there actually is a maximum element in that situation in zero, believe it or not. So this is a really weird lattice because one is zero and zero is one in that situation. Cause remember zero is the join identity, which is actually the integer one. And one is the meet identity, which is in this case, the natural number zero. But you can do that. If you take the GCD of zero and x, this always gives you back x, the way that GCDs are defined. Cause honestly, zero is divisible by everything. In particular, it's divisible by x. The largest divisor of x is x itself. So you can always join in an identity if you want to. So be aware that if you take just the pods of integers with LCM and GCD, you are only bounded below. You can add in the maximum element to get the meet identity, like we did with the natural numbers. And by duality, if you take the dual lattice to what we just have here a moment ago, you can then give us an example of a lattice, which is bounded above, but not bounded below. But even if you're not bounded below, you can always add in that lower element and then give you an identity in that situation.


This is a fantastic family event because you've got it you know generations of folks who've been in the ranching business whose kids were raised to get into rodeo and their kids are into rodeo now. I mean it's just such a great family event. I started this morning with the Rotary Club. I was cooking breakfast for a thousand people with the pancake breakfast that we had going on and I mean that Rotary Club has been doing that for something like 40 years here. I'll talk about an example of community building and the work that service clubs do. I mean it was just fantastic and everybody came together and you know it's like a chance to get to know your neighbors and then after the pancake breakfast I was finished cooking we went in the parade and so we were in a wagon and just you know with Donna Barnett the local MLA here people were really welcoming us warmly and it was such a privilege to be a part of it and then I rode in on my horse into the into the stadium grounds here and and I got to open the stampede so that was really something it was just it's been a great day.


The study found that S-104, a protein family member, protects neurons in the injured brain and identified two sequence motifs in S-100A for mediating its neurotrophic effect. Synthetic peptids encompassing these motifs stimulated neurotogenesis and survival in vitro and mimic the S-100A for induced neuroprotection in brain trauma. The study then investigated a possible function of S-104 and its memetics in the pathologies of the peripheral nervous system, PNS. It found that S-100A for was expressed in the injured PNS and that its peptid memetic, H3, affected the regeneration and survival of myelinated axons. H3 accelerated electrophysiological, behavioral and morphological recovery after sciatic nerve crush while transiently delaying regeneration after sciatic nerve transaction and repair. The study attributed these effects to the modulatory effect of H3 on initial axonal sprouting. In contrast to the modest effect of H3 on the time course of regeneration, H3 had a long-term neuroprotective effect in the myelin protein P0-nol mice, a model of dismyelinating neuropathy, Chaco-Marie-Tooth type 1 disease, where the peptid attenuated the deterioration of nerve conduction, demyelination and axonal loss. The study suggests that S-10C proteins, sharing high homology in the H3 motif, may have important functions in PNS pathologies. This article was authored by Mihail Moldovan, Volodymy Pinchenko, Oksana Dmitrieva and others. We are article.tv, links in the description below.