Okay, so we're going to continue. Dr Park will now join me up here. He's going to present on the political economy of military first politics under Kim Jong-il. A topic very close to my heart. I, I think he has slides. So now Dr Park will present for between 20 and 25 minutes if he runs over time. John will bang his show on the table again. And then we will, we'll have our discussion and and questions from the audience. Take it away, Dr Park. My name is parking. I work at Korean Institute for National Unification Unification and my presentation is based on only my personal analysis. And my topic is North Korean political economy of military first politics. I start with conclusion. The military first politics between 1995 and 2011 was a unique period in North Korean, North Korean history, a most decentralized and most liberal period. The economy under the military first politics remained still the war making economy, taking advantage of increasing market transactions. And the necessity for mobilizing the bulk of resources for the military sector remained the highest purpose of managing the economy by the leader, albeit with different means and methods. Through weekend that weekend, the regime was powerful enough to be able to take care of directing directing the economy activities and financial flows to support the military sector. In tune with this purpose, the leader distributed rent opportunities among regime agencies, collected loyalty donations from them and made a revolutionary fund for investments in the regime's pivotal projects. And while the military sector was still under the control of the plans and principles, other parts of the economy were allowed or accepted to take advantage of commercial activities. In this regard, the foreign trading companies operated by the regime agencies have played a pivotal role in the expansion of neo-patrimonial rent capitalism, rigged with corruption, bribery and extortion and rent competition. The trading companies organized the vertical chains of entrepreneurial business for the production, collection, transport and export of the primary goods. And thereby open the protection from business opportunities for the semi-private entrepreneurs at the mid-low level hierarchy. The regime's internal security has taken care of any extravagance from spontaneity and bottom-up in contradiction to war-making and protection. This is my conclusion and I'll explain what this means. And my presentation is just rather more theoretical and conceptual. And I cannot read all the things and I cannot efficiently communicate with you, so you must rapidly scan its PPT. Yeah, historical institutionalism. I have said that the period of military first parties was a special period in North Korean history. And I can conceive North Korean history as a succession of several periods, several phases. And each phase is in a phase, a path-dependent logic of positive feedback applies. A phase is made of sub- phases of integration, consolidation, internal contradiction, critical juncture and replacement. The phase of military first politics between 1995 and 2011 replaced the preceding one of Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il cold reign between 1974 and 1995 and was superseded by the one of party-centered rule under Kim Jong-un from the chair. Kim Jong-un's structure is different from Kim Jong-il's rule. Kim Jong-un's party-centered rule is different from military-centered rule during the Kim Jong-il period. We must differentiate. And yes, the periods of 1989, 1995 and 2009, 2011 can be regarded as intervening ones between phases or critical junctures. And outside-in approach. Outside-in approach means the geopolitical approach attaches great importance to the international system as the shape of states within North Korean states has been shaped by international relations around North Korea. Don't forget, North Korea is not a militarily weak but a small power surrounded by a middle, South Korea, and great powers, the United States and China, in a restrictive security condition. Yes, it's very important, restrictive security and condition. And North Korea must in general react and adjust itself externally, not only externally but also internally to serious security challenges. They are failed to reform, reorganize internal structure to be capable of react to outside security challenges North Korea would have disappeared. This is outside-in. Yes, the most important outside-in condition is inter-Korean enduring rivalry. The most important characteristic of this rivalry is that the impossibility of simultaneous security of the two Koreas. There are several reasons why the simultaneous mutual security impossible in the Korean peninsula. There are several problems. The desire to expansion and revisionism has been much stronger on the North Korean side. There is North Korea's small power and if current structure continues, as you see now, South Korea has risen, North Korea has declined. North Korea must not survive, crush this current status quo in the Korean peninsula. And the feeling of fear and vulnerability has been much stronger on the North Korean side. I just take notice that the desire to expansion and feeling of fear and vulnerability both are very, very strong in case of North Korea. Though the Iraq-U.S. coalition has been status quo oriented and security seeking, it had to like aggressor to deter and balance the aggression of North Korea. Top-down, outside-in and top-down, outside-in calls for top-down because the international relations could not determine the organization of internal state. The protection and the regime supporters' privilege demands top-down. The more the internal structure of inequality is rigid, extreme, politically determined, and defended at any cost, the greater the demand for top-down coerced intervention from the top. The economy in North Korea has been structured and operated in such ways as to serve these two purposes. Market expansion did not notify these two rules. And permanent preparation for war. Open is formation through revolution from outside by Soviet occupation and top-down also by Soviet occupation. North Korean state was more than fully mobilized for the impending war of aggression to the south in 1950. The three important years between 48 to 50, North Korean state was mobilized. North Korean state and society was mobilized and when a war structure, war-making structure is fixed, then this war-making structure will not change or decrease after the war. The inter-Korean rivalry after the Korean war played the same role of war in its impact on the subsequent state development in North Korea. The North Korean state has been permanently in preparation for war in peacetime and logically its economy was a permanently war-preparing, mobilizing economy. We should not forget this point. The North Korean economy has been a war economy and also during the period of Militia first politics. Extraction. The state-making can only be appropriately understood in this trillion connection between war-making, extraction, and state-making. And you understand then the dominance of hard-liner in North Korean history. The purge does always the soft-liner was purged because it is structurally determined, we can say, and the advancement of a leader-centric political system. In order to mobilize more than your capability, a centric system should be constructed, a quasi-totalitarian control of the society and individual by state, extremity in mobilization and ideology, the overblown party-state bureaucratic structure. These abnormalities or peculiarities could be explained by this logic of war-making, state-making, extraction, and protection of the supporters' privilege. The Songkwon system, Songkwon's principle applies not only to individuals but also any party-state unit in the party-state institutions. In North Korean, yes, we live in the, you can say, horizontal society. Any individual, any organization are pushing to be the same rights provided by the law. In North Korea, any unit is placed in a ladder of hierarchy, and there is a special unit of regime agencies. The party, the ministry of people forces the ministry of state security, the ministry of public security. They are the core class in the regime, among the regime agencies, and they are provided with a special rights. The Kingdom of Special Units, major regime agencies have their own group of enterprises and economic businesses. There were given permission to be organized under the three pretexts of self-support and self-financing for the regime's monumental projects and revenue creation for loyalty donation to the leader. The government's conglomerate of each special unit made itself an independent kingdom. These are core class in comparison to individual Songkwon and military first politics. The military first politics was inaugurated and carried out under simultaneous advance of three, as for North Korea, extraordinary conditions. First, external tension reduction under the condition of most disadvantages, relative power relations. Second, the weakening of the relative power of the leader and the center, how this elites and periphery. Third, the regime's grip on the population has been the weakest in this period in the history of North Korea. Only when we consider these three conditions, we can understand what has happened during this period. And the State Defense Commission, controlled by the leader, rose in his prestige, a lot of power and wealth opportunities above all the regime agencies, such as the Central Party, the Ministry of State Security, the Minister of Public Security and the Cabinet. The purpose was to implement the principle of priority resource provision to the military and defense research. This was the meaning of the economic policy during the military first politics. This is the highest purpose when Kim Jong-il managed economy during this period. This was the highest purpose. And the market in military first politics was hierarchically structured. It was a four-tier economy on the top, Kim Jong-il, on the second tier, trading companies. On the third tier, middle-level local business offices and private entrepreneurs. And the fourth tier, the producers. There is a very important Kim Jong-il's role to preside over the whole politically dominated business-like system and to assure its direction for regime preservation, to distribute business licenses while earning opportunities and to manage economic competition among regime agencies. Yes. The trading companies affiliated to regime agencies competed among themselves to obtain monopoly trade licenses from Kim Jong-il and concomitant political cover and protection from him. And for snatching export goods production businesses from other companies, they're under different regime agencies. There's a strong competition among regime agencies to get more rent opportunities from Kim Jong-il and to snatch other agencies from businesses. And the local business offices and producers. The backbone of the trading companies were the middle-level offices and semi-private merchants. They were an amalgamation of official protection and private capital and commercial talent. The local business were given official status such as the local office of the central trading companies and the private managers were given job titles of administrative or military ranks, depending upon the size of the business and the higher organization. The local business company is actually privately owned and privately managed, but they were given actual status by the higher organization and neo-patrimonial rent capitalism. The leader managed the rent opportunities are semi-privately. The major regime agencies were allotted monopolies and licenses for rents, which were to be realized through politically structured market mechanisms. The party-state units and officials were quasi-bestowed with quasi-licenses for rent. Yes, it will be corruption.  And it's a mechanism for redistribute surpluses so that this distribution of surpluses could be in tune with political hierarchies. If we are on the top of the system, then you get more revenues and you are on the bottom, then you must pay, always pay. So corruption is a mechanism of redistribute economic surpluses to the political hierarchy. The priority of political connection of productivity. The market is in this neo-patrimonial capitalism was a political market dominated by rent seeking pursuits. In this market, not productivity, but political connection determined who and which group owns money. The regime has been able to manipulate the market expansion, its structure and contents, and the level of its maturation. Yes, we arrived again. Perfect timing. Thank you very much, Dr. Park. Perfect timing, of course, and fascinating, absolutely fascinating. And Professor Gray, who is en route, will now act as discussant.  Professor Gray, your 10 minutes starts now. Okay, thank you very much and thank you Dr. Park for that. Really interesting paper now I do. Of course I've read the paper and I and I and just to be clear, and you are quite upfront that it's a work in progress still. So, my comments won't be too harsh and I think what I'll do is just try to give you a few indicators where I think you might sort of like to develop the paper or improve the paper so it's in that spirit. I mean, I should just say, first of all, I think it's an ambitious paper, extremely ambitious actually, I think, and because I mean my summary of it is you're using historical institutionalism, you're using neo realist international relations as a theory and you're also using this kind of new for Barry and Charles to the end, war making and state making kind of argument. And that's that's a lot in itself, and then you're also explaining the history of North Korean state formation, and the, the nature of the political economy under the Kims on the era, which I think all those things together maybe feel that I mean that's really ambitious my liking is perhaps a bit, maybe you're trying to do too much in one paper and this could be actually be maybe two separate papers I think and that might sort of sort of make it a little bit easier to digest in one go so that's that's just a general suggestion. I mean for me I think, you know I was trying to sort of think well what is, what is the main argument here. What, you know what what what should I take away from this paper for me what I found most interesting I think was the, the application of Charles to these sort of war making state, state formation argument to the Kims on the era that I thought that was good and you're doing something very distinctive I mean I like the way that you do separate the North Korean economy into sort of three different sectors, the military security sector, which performs the function of war making and war making, and then you say there's the, there's the dictator and his supporter sector which performs the function of protection, you know using tillies concepts. And then there's the production sector but I wonder if that that separation of sectors in those way that way that is a bit, a little bit too simple and and I wonder if Charles to the himself would sort of accept that you could you could apportion these different sort of functions of the state to these different sectors because I think you know one of the important things is the sort of mutual dependencies between different sectors so you know for example you say the production sector is about extraction okay but that's also very much a part of the war making kind of function so I did sort of. I guess I was a little bit skeptical about this kind of separation of compartmentalizing of the North Korean economy and those in that way but you know that maybe that's that maybe that's. I mean that's that's maybe that's an interesting distinctive feature of the North Korean political economy but then I was thinking well could you do that with other states with the United States could you take the military industrial complex for example and say, well that's that's the war making part of the state and then divide it so but I'll come back in a moment to what I think is interesting about what you could draw out of the North Korean case that's actually could speak back to the theories that you're using. So there's that so there's that. I would have found it a lot more, but easier to digest if you've been a bit more clear about what the state of the literature is on the Kim Jong-il political economy era, okay the the existing research, and then what you find to be problematic you did have one in your paper where you say that the North Korean economy has been analyzed as a relatively independent and autonomous entity from a pure economic perspective but I was quite surprised to read that because I mean, most works that look at the sort of the North Korean economy and by the nature of its economy you have to think about political economy right so I wasn't quite sure where that that pure economic perspective was. And, and it's it's an again I mean, of course, a lot of works on political economy use a perspective of methodological nationalism and take the nation state mainly as the container but when we look at North Korea of course we have to think about other other things the role of foreign aid in the 1950s, the impact of the collapse of the Soviet Union. The impact of the rise of China so again I wasn't, I felt that that your statement there was perhaps not entirely fair to the existing research on this era so I'd like to hear a little bit more about being the shortcomings of the existing literature on the North Korean economy and then how you're contributing to that. And I also, I mean the paper itself is, I mean it's kind of two thirds theory, I think you have a really huge theoretical intersection now that that imbalance maybe because, as you said it's a bit incomplete it's but it means that you know I can't not talk about the theoretical contribution but I, but I, but I. I think there was a more general question that it gave rise to in my mind in the sense that I mean, historiography or something else but if you look at social science, studies of North Korea. It usually takes the form of, you know, we are sort of North Korean specialists, and we're interested in the empirics of what is happening in North Korea so, but then we go and we find some sort of Western social theory that we can use to shed I mean I think your paper was the same and you use that to shed light on the North Korean case. But I think there's another step that you can take is that what can you then take back from North Korea and to come back to the theory and then maybe sort of theoretical expectations, and I was just thinking, so for example in your paper you use a sort of near realist, you know, sort of Miersheimer kind of, you know, strategic dilemma kind of framework to explain inter Korean relations. So the theory is based on sort of the European North American experience right and it's near realism is understood to be this sort of timeless logic that dates back to the time of Thucydides and this kind of thing but when you look at the inter Korean relations it's quite, I think it's something else it's, it's, it is two states formally, but it's also two divided parts of a single nation. And so you might look at it from a say I'm not a constructivist but you might look at it and say well this actually shows quite different aspects because say for example South Koreans, they do look as not at North Korea as an enemy state but they also look at it as a kind of a kind of problematic long lost brother as well right you know I mean it depends where you are on the political spectrum in South Korea so I think in some sense when we look at the case of Korea, it also can sort of problematize these kind of ban theories that are derived in a completely different context to describe something quite else so I was a bit sort of sort of. Yeah, I was interested in that about what the case of North Korea or Korea can tell us about those original theories. So, I mean I have to say, you know, just by way of explanation you didn't focus on on that part in your presentation so but but I'm sort of speaking to the paper here just just by way of explanation. Now to get on to the, the details of your empirical sort of case study about military first politics. I was a little bit in your presentation but I was just kind of. I was a bit unsure what exactly your definition of military first politics is because that in itself is contested you can look at it as, you know, in line with North Korean discourse that it was about the increased influence of the military in the 1990s and actually play you know it's prestige got greater, or it could be much more kind of window dressing as a way to keep the military on the side but it was still basically a, a sort of Leninist party state or it remained so. I wasn't. What I guess what confused me is that a lot of the feet, I mean I really like your explanation of, I forget your term what was a neo patrimonial capitalism I thought that was a really great way of sort of capturing the nature of the North Korean political economy. But that it came into existence after the collapse of the economy in the early 1990s, but it's not the case that that's kind of continued now, but we've kind of moved on from military first politics in a way because when Kim Jong-un came to power. Because you know people talked about a return to the party right the party is being the, the, the, the sort of lead leading institution and now you hear about the sort of the negative, the cabinet is being the kind of economic headquarters, but your explanation, based on this kind of political building, it doesn't really explain the specificity of that particular era from, from, from, from my understanding because that the nature of the kind of political economy has, I think that means I need to stop. Right. Okay. Yeah, yeah, okay. So, that's, that's, yeah, yeah, so so that's, that's kind of what I was interested in is, is then how to okay what, then what happened after the military first politics era. Because many of those features of the political economy still seem to be broadly similar. Okay, so some of that. And then the last thing. I just want to know a little bit about the, what do you think the policy of implications are of your analysis of North Korea, you know there's always this debate about, you know, you might come up with a peace agreement and then suddenly North Korea become a, you know, drop all its guns and become a peace loving nation and things like that right, which I guess in terms of the sort of tillion kind of war making state making I mean you could make a case for that. But nonetheless, you're also using different theoretical resources like near realism which would suggest that you know there's this strategic dilemma and we need to kind of sort of balance against North Korea and this kind of thing so yeah, maybe you could just speak about the policy implications, but I'll stop there have loads more questions but I think for the sake of everyone's patience and time and everything I'll stop. Thank you. Thank you very much for excellent discussion. And process gray, excellently summarized the problems, which I plan to sign. Yes, it's an excellent summary of what I think I should research in the future. But I have not yet all the answers. And I still searching for theories and empirical realities, how to formulate my thesis. It's not easy for all the theories combined to analyze to mobilize to analyze North Korea. Yes, but yes you have excellently summarized my problems. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. So the floor is is yours. Does anyone have any questions for Dr. Park. About the property through your presentation, when you are talking about the three factors of the measure first policy, you suggest that under in that period, but the regimes. I think you as well as grip or control of the population was weaker than any other time. I wonder about that point. I mean, do you think that the regimes grip was weaker than it is now present. Yes, I have said that Mr. First politics, the period of the first politics is special period in North Korea. And I named, I mentioned three conditions. The Kim Jong-un, the regime Kim Jong-un regime has been was strengthened because of the success of the military first politics. And during the military first politics, North Korea gained more stability internal stability and North Korea had by time to develop missile and nuclear technologies. And so Kim Jong-un could take one offensive against the United States and against the South Korea. The offensive has started in 2009. And one of the offense, the one of the fronts of offensive is internal enemies, internal enemies to reverse back the power relations between the regime and the population. And the meaning of party party based politics on the Kim Jong-un is to reverse the the weekend power relations between regime and population. And I suppose he has succeeded. Kim Jong-un has succeeded. Kim's open integration of period succession in 2009 under Kim Jong-un's direction, North Korea began to construct border wall, barbed wire border wall between China and North Korea. And now there is no, yes, virtually no defectors from North Korea. Yeah, especially the COVID-19 has intervened. But the border wall construction, barbed wire border wall construction has completed recently in 2011 and chair. And yes, one of the most important regimes internal policy is to strengthen party grip on the population. Okay. Any more questions. Oh, please. One analysis that focuses purely on the kind of internal apparatus. I would have thought it would be much more instructive for us to examine the kind of permutations in play that come from Geosphere. By Geosphere, you mean the regional context or sorry. Oh, I guess penetrates the political system, you know, I mean, it seems to me that if you're going to be looking at the kind of internal dynamics of North Korea or Soviet Union, any of those other kind of interior states, and we're using these kind of capitalist molding structures to analyze them whether in state markets or whatever it came to be. Equally dynamic in terms of defining their internal self-images in itself, I don't know, perpetuation would be the impact on, you know, the power elite surrounding. I would have thought that we need to be examining that as much as we should be depicting the models. Okay, yeah. That's a comment, right, so I'm fair enough. Any more questions. You want to. My question seemed it feels like a slightly trivial question, but it's something that raised in my mind is what some things you're saying about the intense nature of the rent competition between the special units under, the military or the Ministry of Public Security or so. It raised in my mind. Do we have evidence that there have been violent confrontations within North Korea over these, these kind of licenses or whatever to to to take rent. We're talking about the specific parts, the specific parts of the state which are engaged in these most lucrative activities are also the most well armed and most well trained in violence. Was there violence or do we have any evidence of such violence or was it all completely suppressed because they are all under the leader. Yes, the leaders grip on special units was weakened has been weakened during the military force politics. And one of the Kim Jong-un's purpose is to strengthen his grip on, on special units, the regime agencies and Kim Jong-un made a great push and demolish the power of the political power, the military, and he purged Jang Sung-taek, and he reorganized elite groups, what the, the, the relations between among regime agencies, the hierarchy of the regime agencies, usually the party, the parties on the top of the regime hierarchy. But during the military force politics, the military was on the top hierarchy. And Jang Sung-taek was purged because of this rent competition. Jang Sung-taek occupied a very lucrative C farm. And it is said that the, the rocket unit would like to take this C farm from Jang Sung-taek and the rocket unit talk to Kim Jong-un and Kim Jong-un alive. Okay, you can take this C farm from Jang Sung-taek and Jang Sung-taek rejected and Jang Sung-taek was charged with, we can say treason. So in a sense the conflicts are always mediated by the need. Yes, yes. Rather than direct. Yeah, I can just show you other cases, more than this case.  Any more questions. And in some ways it also relates to the paper that you and Dr. Lenkov gave which is about state capacity within the context of what, you know, global histories identified as a neoliberal period. And, you know, the story of neoliberalism is one, there's many versions of it right sometimes it's a story of kind of ideological emergence and sometimes it's a story just I am that intervention. But there's also stories that focus on state capacity through new modes of technological intervention with the everyday. And so I'm actually, I really enjoyed this talk and I really enjoyed sort of a non Kim centric story of how the North Korean state is operating. But one of the things I wonder about is just how new modes of sort of technological interfacing with the public is changing how the state is operating over the course of these past couple of decades. And I'm not sure me those can dig this. So the technical basis of state capacity and how is it going to be smart. Yeah, certainly. Yeah. Yeah. Between the United States and Soviet Union, they compete with their last day. They carry out ideological competition. They compete also positional competition in the in the in the international relations, but they are a part between great seas. And they are totally different country. They have two countries as a different history and ethnicity is very different. In the two Korean case, they are contiguous. And they are in the logical system competition, they are positional competition. And they are, they are compete with sub, sub, subversion, subversion is very, very effective, efficient in the two Korean cases. Technology, yes, increase the capability of subversion. It may not be consciously carried out by South Korea, but North Korea, because of these technological developments of subversion. More fear, more vulnerable. And now they close any contact with South Korea and, and also any contact with other countries. I think with respect to state capacity in North Korea, the resource shock of the late 1980s and early 1990s is really, really important. Right. So when we talk about the collapse of trade with the Soviet Union and I mean the South Korean scholars have talked about this I really actually like it. North Korea was once upon a time of directed its rent seeking outside and it in the fall of eight. So it was the first rental regime was just basically acquiring free stuff from the socialist block or subsidized prices and then, you know, engaging in the socialist world at very substantive rates that were very preferential to the Kim family as it were Kim family regime and then you have this transition to the 1990s where rent seeking is primarily directed inwards because there's, yeah, which I find rather interesting. But with respect to technical capacity, I think it's actually very important point but I think we should take more expansive view of technology to not only include phones and physical technology but also ideas. I understand you, you understand this better than I do but anyways, but ideas so the, the North Koreans have, shall we say, rather sketchy understanding of how reforms might work I think from reading their literature and reading what they say internally as well. And their idea about how to regulate the market I would say is quite primitive as well. Even you know I said I've looked at their tax system and how it deals with foreigners and it does it is a bit more sophisticated than their internal tax system for how they deal with markets, but it's still pretty primitive. They seem to lack some of the fundamental modern technologies of state capacity, modern state technologies as it were, and technologies in an expansive sense techniques ideas etc. That's kind of what I wanted to add. Sorry, this is not my time that's when I'm talking quickly. No questions. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Happy time.


Alright, really excited to be able to talk to you all today about a topic that's near and dear not only to my heart but to my eyes. We're talking about the ocular hazards of trumpet playing and the reason I talk about this is, this is me as you can see here and before residency I was a pretty active musician of the community here. The clip you're hearing is an old jazz standard that I was playing at a club and I had a really good opportunity to be able to work with a lot of different musicians, record with a lot of different musicians without ever thinking about that there were ocular consequences to playing an instrument and I don't think most of the musicians know about that either. There we know about the musculoskeletal consequences, we know about the pulmonary consequences but actually thinking about the ocular consequences is something that is not very well known. So thinking about this, we have the good fortune to work with people here like Dr. Orozco who never fails to remind us to think about outside the box, think about other things when we're looking at patients who don't seem to be responding to things the way we want them to or who are progressing despite our best treatments. And so today we're going to take a look at kind of a deeper look into some of the ocular consequences of playing the trumpet and how those can manifest in musicians as we go. So it's important to talk first about how brass instruments work. This is an important concept in looking at why there might be ocular consequences.  It works to amplify what the musician puts into it. And what musicians put into it is vibrations and I'm going to show you just what those vibrations sound like here so you can see how we make sound on the trumpet. So you can see that the trumpet serves to amplify the vibrations that we make with our mouth. The way we make those vibrations has been such a bit of controversy in the literature here and it comes down to this idea of a valsalva. The valsalva is classically divided into four phases. I think we're all familiar with what a valsalva is. But a valsalva typically has a rise in blood pressure with inspiration due to compression of the thoracic aorta. It's subsequently followed by a fall in blood pressure with decreased venous return and closure of the glottis. When the glottis is released there's a drop in a thoracic pressure with restoration of venous return and there's subsequent increased cardiac output with reflex bradycardia. Graphically it looks like this. We can see as we go here we have that rise in blood pressure initially followed by the fall in blood pressure as the glottis opens. We see the change here with the subsequent rise in blood pressure, cardiac output and the subsequent reflex bradycardia. The reason why this is controversial in trumpet playing is because playing trumpet with a closed glottis results in poor tone, it results in decreased range, just poor sound overall. And so there's numerous articles, numerous books in the trumpet literature written about how to avoid playing with a closed glottis. And so when people would talk about that when you're playing a brass instrument that you're doing a valsalva, brass instrumentals don't really like to hear that because we don't like to think that we're playing with a closed glottis. It turns out though that when you actually look at the physiology of playing an instrument it seems that there probably is some physiology that's consistent with a valsalva when you're playing an instrument. So this is an article that took two of the players and had them play different tones and they looked at different hemodynamic properties that are shown here. I want to highlight just a few things here. You can see that when in the middle notes and higher notes these are very defined changes in blood pressure and heart rate. And when we compare it to our classic description of a valsalva we can see that the hemodynamics are actually very similar. And so while we may not be playing with a closed glottis the hemodynamics are very similar and there's likely some component of a valsalva when brass musicians are playing. And that's an important concept to understand here. Now we're going to talk about intraocular pressure changes in brass musicians because this isn't an important segue into what we need to know. So there have been multiple studies that have demonstrated increased intraocular pressure with valsalva maneuvers. But one of the first major studies to look at intraocular pressure changes in brass musicians was done in 2000 by Joel Schumann's group at Tufts. This is a multi-part study. We're going to talk about all the parts of the study as we go. But the first part of the study took three musicians with opening Google Oklahoma who underwent continuous intraocular pressure monitoring while playing as well as undergoing ultrasound to evaluate uveal thickness. Interocular pressure monitoring was done in both the supine and the sitting-up position. The patients were asked to play normally and then to play quite loud. You can see there's significant increase in intraocular pressure in all subjects actually quite dramatically. So you can see that in what they consider a high-resistance wind instrument, so the oboe and the trumpet, intraocular pressures rose into the 40s where in the clarinet and saxophone, some of the lower-resistance instruments, the intraocular pressure rose to a lesser degree. This is a tracing of the continuous pneumon tenometry that they did. And you can see here they asked the participants to begin playing here. There was a slow, kind of a very mild increase in pressure. And as we asked the participants to increase their volume in their pitch, we see a much greater increase to their maximum pressure here of around 40, okay? Now one of the critiques of this study was this. So this is how they tested the continuous pneumon tenometry. And this is not a physiologic way of playing. No one plays trumpet like this. And so the critique was that, well, we're not doing these measurements under normal conditions. We're changing the way the inner thoracic and the inner intradominal muscles work. We're probably increasing the back pressure because, I mean, it looks like he's working pretty hard here. And so, you know, these pressures may be falsely elevated in the setting of this kind of non-physiologic way of playing. So in 2010, a second study came out that looked to identify the pressure changes under more normal playing conditions. In this study, we took 37 professional brass players and 50 professional woodwind players and had them play under more normal conditions. So for the first part of this, we had them play tones of normal or low, middle, and high frequencies with increasing volumes. And then the second part, they played standard exercises, standard literature for 10 minutes followed by a high frequency note with maximal exertion. And what we see is this. So this bottom graph here shows the changes in intracular pressure, the mean changes in intracular pressure for each pitch that was played. Every pitch that was played showed an increase in about three to four millimeters of mercury for each pitch. And that was a significant difference. What's shown up top here, and I'm going to blow it up force right here, is the outliers. And so for each pitch that was played, they showed the maximum pressures for those different tones. And you can see that for these different pitches, even just playing a normal pitch at a normal frequency and a normal volume, this is a pretty significant increase in some of these participants, getting as high as 48 in playing a middle frequency note. You can see the percentage of participants who got into the ocular hypertension range raise these frequencies as well. Chris, how did they measure the pressure? So this was done with an eye care. This one with eye care. And one of the limitations here is that they didn't specify whether these participants for the different frequencies were the same participants who had these spikes or whether they were different participants, which would have been something good to know to analyze this data a little bit better. From the short-term playing results, when they had the participant play for 10 minutes, you can see a small increase in pressure with reduction in pressures as we continued. And then when they asked them to play with maximum adhesion after that 10 minutes, we saw a significant spike. And again, pretty significant spikes in these outliers here, going all the way up to nearly over 50. 50% of these musicians reached ocular hypertension level. One asked to play this high note here. They didn't see any difference in short-term playing versus high and low resistance instruments, but there was a significant difference for increases in intracular pressure in middle and high-frequency tones between higher resistance instruments and the lower resistance instruments. And so their conclusion was the sustained tones caused significant elevation and intracular pressure in brass players shown in this study. I want to mention one more study on intracular pressure. This was done in 2017. This is another two-part study. The first part, they evaluated intracular pressure after having musicians play for 20 minutes. They took 42 wind musicians, professional and amateur musicians, and nine subjects had existing diagnoses of glaucoma. The second part of their study looked at 24-hour intracular pressure monitoring with a trigger-fish contact lens. So we can see here the demographics of the professional and amateur musicians and the intracular pressure change 20 minutes after playing their instrument. Interestingly, there was a significant change with higher pressures noticed in professional musicians as opposed to amateurs. And there really wasn't a good explanation for why this happened. It's an interesting finding, and it needs to be looked at further, but just kind of something to note there. That was the only significant thing that they found here. Looking at differences between patients with glaucoma and no glaucoma, there wasn't any significant difference found in pressure changes between those two groups. And this brings up the question of auto-regulation. So the thought was that they measured intracular pressure after playing the instrument for 20 minutes. They didn't do any measurements during playing. And so the question was, as auto-regulation happens, is it bringing these pressures back down to the point where now we measure it after 20 minutes, the pressures are back to a more normal range. Falsely showing us that there wasn't any significant difference. Again, just something to think about there. The second part of their study had them use a trigger-fish contact lens in 24-hour intracular pressure monitoring in patients with glaucoma. And you can see that there are atomic history here in medications that a couple of these patients were on. Just as an aside, this is what the trigger-fish contact lens looks like here. This is oftentimes attached to a base station that records the intracular pressure monitoring data. And interestingly, the trigger-fish lens doesn't measure intracular pressure directly. It measures strain differences, is how they describe it. So it measures changes in intracular pressure, changes in intracular volume, and changes in ocular elasticity. And so the trace things that you'll see here don't correlate with the intracular pressure directly. This study, unfortunately, has some problems. There were recording difficulties with the contact lens and over half of the participants here, which makes the data a little bit difficult to interpret. Interestingly, though, in a couple of these participants, you can see spikes when the participants were playing. But even in some of these participants, you can see higher spikes even when they were sleeping as opposed to when they were playing their instruments. So I guess there were some problems with the data here as opposed to how they recorded it and the recording methods of the trigger-fish lens. But this would be another interesting thing to look at as the technology for 24-hour continuous monitoring improves, repeating something like this to see if there are significant alterations in participants as we go along. So we've seen, though, that there are increases in intracular pressure. But are these increases clinically significant, meaning do these changes in intracular pressure cause changes in visual fields or cause risk of progression of glaucoma? So the second part of Schumann's study looked at 46 volunteer musicians stratified in the high and low resistance and non-wind instruments. All of these musicians underwent comprehensive exams with gonioscopy, dilation, and visual fields. This is showing how they graded visual fields and they reported the presence of abnormal fields and they reported the presence of pattern standard deviation of these fields. The results showed no difference in optic nerve-head appearance based on a clinical exam, but three of nine high resistance wind instruments musicians had abnormal visual fields compared to one of 11 in two of 23 non-wind instruments. The participants with abnormal visual fields had significantly increased pattern standard deviation scores, which I've shown here almost double their correct pattern standard deviation. Now, unfortunately, they didn't specify what kind of visual field defects. They didn't really give any additional information, just that there was an increase in these high wind resistance instruments in their level of abnormal visual fields. They also found in a regression analysis that life hours of playing showed significant relation with the development of an abnormal visual field. You can see here that they showed significant increases in significant relations rather with abnormal visual fields. And the numbers that they gave were, for every 1,000 hours of playing a high resistance wind instrument, it predicted a 0.009 increase in pattern standard deviation for these musicians. So the limitations here, obviously, this is a small sample size. They didn't specify any visual field defects. And kind of a common theme in a lot of these studies is that they're not taking into account other comorbidizignally devalcometer standards, such as sleep apnea, hypertension, and those other things that we know can be pretty significant influencers now. A second study came out in 2018 looking at visual field changes in players in a Philadelphia orchestra. So 51 musicians from the Philadelphia Orchestra, 21 wind musicians, 39 wind musicians, and six patients in this group with either self-reported glaucoma or glaucoma suspect. They did baseline screening exams on all 51 musicians, which included visual acuity, intracular pressure measurements, and dilated or undilated fundus photography. Mass specialists reviewed the imaging classified. The optic nerve is either glaucoma suspect or normal based on the criteria listed here. And the optic nerves are also graded according to the disc damage likelihood scale, with scores assigned from one to 10 to raise their risk of having comorbidizign damage. They identified 17 musicians with suspicious optic nerves, nine wind instrumentalists, and eight nano-wind instrumentalists. And of those 17, 12 came back for more comprehensive exams, which included picimetry, visual fields, goniascopy, and an undilated fundus exam. And from here, patients were diagnosed as either having glaucoma, being a glaucoma suspect, having ocular hypertension, or having no glaucoma disfeatures on their exam. So this is a table from the chart, and I'm gonna highlight just a couple of things. Number one, we see that the age of the wind instrumentalists compared to the nano-wind instrumentalists were significantly different. Wind instrumentalists had it more significantly older. We also see that the visual field defects here were significantly greater in wind instrumentalists as opposed to nano-wind instrumentalists. There are many deviations here. None of the other things, central conial thickness, the damage likelihood score, a couple of disc ratios, none of these other things really had any significance aside from these two findings here. And what they did here was a multi-variable regression, similar to what Schumann did that showed a significant increase in practice time and a significant correlation with practice time and visual field defects. I've written it out here for us, but they showed that there's a 0.7, a 0.07 increase in visual field mean defect for an hour, a thousand hours increase in cumulative practice time. So it looks like there's something there. Again, this is a small sample size. There's no discussion over the medical comorbidities. Most of these participants were first-time visual fieldtakers, and there was really a lack of OCT data. They did clinical exams, but didn't look at any OCT data. So what are some possible mechanisms for visual field loss? Obviously, the easy answer is elevated intracular pressure. So there's multiple proposed mechanisms for elevated intracular pressure in musicians, and it all goes back to this idea of the Valsalva. Valsalva's cause elevated intracurricular pressure, which reduces venous return and increases venous backflow. This can cause elevated episcleral venous pressures and can lead to pervodal engorgement leading to expansion and subsequent rises in intracular pressure. And this was demonstrated in Schumann's study where they looked at the anterior uveal thickness in the musicians as they played. Prior to playing, you can see the anterior uveal thickness right here as 0.371 millimeters as they played that uveal thickness increased here. And the thought was due to engorgement of the uvea from elevated episcleral venous pressure. There's also the thought that intermittent angle closure may have a role in these changes as well. There were multiple studies that have showed reductions in anterior chamber depth and narrowing of the angles during Valsalva maneuvers. And this is an anterior segment OCT to show the different measurements that can be taken for these studies. Patal in 2016 published a study of 22 professional Indian wind musicians. They did comprehensive exams on all these patients with intracular pressure measurements and gonioscopy. And none of these patients had narrow angles. They all were documented as open. But what they found in these, what 72% of these wind musicians had pigment clumps and multiple pigment clumps in the angle compared to 9% of age match controls. And this picture doesn't project very well, but they're trying to demonstrate the pigment clumping that they found. And their conclusion was that these pigment clumps are records or evidence of prior episodes of intermittent angle closure. And the thought was that as these wind musicians are doing these Valsalvas, are they having increased episodes of intermittent angle closure leading to these elevated pressures? Elevated central retinal venous pressure is also something that needs to be considered. So CRVP has been shown to be elevated in patients with glaucoma. And this study that was done in 2014, 96% of normal controls showed spontaneous venous pulsations compared to 46% of early glaucoma and absent venous pulsations in those with advanced glaucoma. There is significantly elevated CRVP in these patients with glaucoma. Here they use contact dynamometry to determine the retinal venous pressure. And what they found was that in controls without glaucoma, their retinal venous pressure was around 14 millimeters of mercury as a mean value. In those with intermediate to advanced glaucoma, their retinal venous pressure was significantly elevated almost to 40 millimeters of mercury. And this resulted in significantly reduced ocular perfusion pressure with controls having ocular perfusion pressures right around 50 millimeters of mercury. And those with intermediate to advanced glaucoma having a nearly half reduction in their ocular perfusion pressure. In trumpet players, this is a study that just was published this year also showing that central retinal venous pressure can be elevated in trumpet playing. Here, they took 20 amateur trumpet players who underwent measurements of interocular pressure in retinal venous pressure with dynamometry while playing a standard kind of middle frequency tone in the trumpet. You can see their setup for what they did here. It looks a lot nicer, more physiologic than what the previous studies looked like. And this study actually did a really good job of taking out people with systemic comorbidities like sleep apnea, like hypertension and ocular comorbidities that could influence the results of the study. And so what they found was that central retinal venous pressure became significantly elevated during trumpet playing and became much more elevated than interocular pressure actually. So the baseline mean value for retinal venous pressure in these participants was around 21 millimeters of mercury. And when they played trumpet, retinal venous pressure increased to 56 millimeters of mercury with a max and one participant of 80 millimeters of mercury. This showed that again, that there's a decreased ocular perfusion pressure which can have impacts not only retinal circulation but also on the abdomen nerve as well. And this has been potentially implicated, elevated CRVP in brass playing associated recurrent CRVOs. There's a case report, literature of a 50 year old man who was a professional trombonist who suffered three retinal venous occlusions in a 10 month period after playing strenuous orchestral pieces. Systemic workouts were negative, there were no medical comorbidities and after he retired from playing, he had no recurrence of venous occlusions in 10 years, which suggests that potentially there is a role of elevated retinal venous pressure. So next steps, we've identified that there are pressure changes certainly in musicians who play brass instruments. We've shown that there appears at least to be some sort of association with visual field defense. And we've looked at mechanisms for why this might happen. So a couple questions that I think deserve a little bit of time. Number one, most studies showed no change in optical nerve head appearance, but are there differences that could be detected on OCT? This is a study that just hasn't been done yet and hasn't been performed in the literature. The second question is one that is a little bit tougher to answer and should we be pre-treating or treating rather, when musicians to prevent glaucoma and its damage? And it comes into the question of which musicians would be kind of our targets for therapy? Not every musician obviously who plays a brass instrument has glaucoma, but are there risk factors that can be identified that would warrant treatment? Perhaps those with more narrow angles if we're considering intermittent angle closure as a potential mechanism, or targeting those with systemic morbidities like hypertension, sleep apnea, and those things that could impact blood flow to the optic nerve in the red. Again, these are just foods for thought. These answers are not in the literature yet, but as we continue to look at this, hopefully we'll be able to identify and better able to target our therapy as we move forward in this arena. So, it's just some references here and hopefully you don't feel like this girl right here. But thanks again for your attention and happy to take any questions that might be. Yeah, Dr. Penny. First, I assume the Philadelphia study did numbers for the age difference and then also having the visual field difference in the comment on whether just the age difference a little bit. Yeah, that's a great question because we know glaucoma is more prevalent in older individuals and that can certainly be a contributing factor. That was one of the things that they said was something they had to take into account in their study and that is kind of a confounding factor to their study, absolutely. Thanks for bringing that up. Dr. St. Clair. Beautiful, Chris. There's a parallel here. Anesthesiologists are very concerned about cases now of reported monocular or binocular ischemic hoppy neuropathy immediately following anesthesia and it could even be local MAC but with additional ventilation for head down positioning for spinal surgery on the back when the patient is placed head down in a sling and what we have recorded back when I was in Philadelphia we recorded elevated central venous and cavernous sinus elevated pressure secondary. We only measured central venous pressures and so anesthesiologists are now starting to become very concerned about this and we thought about developing maybe a VEP binoculars that we would measure the patient while they were being anesthetized and doing surgery on so we could try to detect if this was starting and perhaps what was causing it that is suggested by your trumpet and high resistance playing instruments here when they're doing a modified valsalva it's the elevated perhaps central venous and secondary carotid cavernous sinus venous pressure is reducing the perfusion pressure to the sensitive optic nerve. The optic nerve is much more sensitive than the retina to these changes and maybe these are the cause of these visual field effects but the whole problem with this is if the anesthesiologist says, oh shit we're starting to see reduced function of the optic nerve, what do you do? Can you tell the spine surgeon, gotta quit, gotta stop? We're at an impasse here but this is a big concern now in the anesthesia world. Right, that's a great point. Did I just say?  No, actually, I don't think so just because there's definite changes that have been shown, there's definite increases in tracking the pressure but not everyone who plays a brass instrument has a glaucoma and until we know what the risk factors until we know what patients are more susceptible to developing complications it's not really gonna change the way that I play. So no, personally, it's not gonna, I'm not gonna stop playing because of this. Do you talk to your musician friends about it? I'm going to start I think, yeah, just because we know about the musculoskeletal complications, we know about the pulmonary complications but I'd never heard of ocular complications till I got to residency and I guarantee most people who play don't know that this is potentially a thing either and so just having regular exams and I think it hopefully prompt more people to just have regular routine exams because it seems like a risk factor for developing complications in the eye, yeah. Would you recommend woodwinds for your children then? No, no, I definitely wouldn't recommend woodwinds. Rass instruments are clearly superior. Woodwinds are superior. String instruments. String instruments, there we go, there we go. All right, thanks everybody, have a great day.


Hi everyone, Sean with jaspyscasebreaks.com here doing 2019 National Treasures football two box one half case break random team number four Where this isn't a rookie, but obviously we were looking for things like this rookie shield autos Kyla Murray All that other stuff. So maybe some Tom Brady. Let's see what we can find but 2019 National Treasures two box half case break This is the second half of a case that was started with random team number three 32 spots when gets a random team the NFL obviously our card ship on there Here is our list of customers. Thanks to everybody for getting in whether you one spots or bot spots straight up like Scott down to Matthew Shura people one spots there in mosaic 157 and people one spots here in mosaic 158 And then Andy there with last spot mojo times two as well Here is our list of teams from the Cardinals down to Washington and dice world randomized both lists and pair them up Five and a one six times Good luck guys first on the customers Six in final time Elliot Mendelowitz down to Sean medic six times on the Customers and six times on the teams Six in final time from the Eagles down to the Steelers So six times on the teams Six times on the customers and six times on the dice Elliot Mendelowitz Eagles William Susser Raiders Elliot Mendelowitz Jets Aaron Whittington chargers William Susser Packers Alan Matsui Lyons Sean Maddox Seahawks Scott Quinlan Jaguars Matthew Shura Ravens Andrew off Vikings Brian Frank Rams Sean Maddox Falcons John Kutcher Patriots Mark Rao Bears Aaron Whittington Texans Nicholas Losus Giants Brian Frank Colts CJ Monroe Cardinals Brian S. Cowboys Andrew Roth Bangles Brian S. Saints Will hash Broncos Sean Maddox with the Chiefs Brian Frank Washington Alan Matsui Dolphins Andrew Roth Panthers Brian Frank Bills CJ Monroe Browns William Susser Titans Jason Kutcher 49ers and Sean Maddox with Steelers to finish it off trade window is open Here's your chance if you've got the team that you didn't specifically want or somebody you want to aim more To try to trade with whoever has that team We put all the teams up on the screen for you. So there is your full list I'm gonna turn on the Nick cam real quick. You guys can see those are the two boxes there You can see these are the second half of a case like I said that was started with random team number three So really these were marked random team number four is these were not the boxes that we chose for when the dice roll While you guys are taking a look at potential trades are thinking now, I'm just gonna pop these open You've got the Nick cam on so you can see everything is On screen if there's no toxic trades that makes it easy As soon as I'm done, there's going to get going nice wooden boxes. This one's a little bit thicker We got here Doesn't look like there's any talks of potential trades So I guess when I get done popping these open we'll get ripping Okay, no talks of trades, so let's go ahead and print and rip So there's your two boxes. That's the thicker of the ones you can see the stack considerably bigger. I'm pretty sure that is a Booklet in the middle there Down on a thick one, but we'll find out There is the finalists. Thanks to everybody for getting in. Good luck. Here is the first box we popped open Starting off with Reggie White 69 out of 99 Philadelphia Eagles and Elliot Mendelowitz Chris Godwin 26 out of 35 10 big buckin ears and Steven Silvasi Nick Chubb three out of 99 century materials for the Cleveland Browns and see Jim Monroe Zach Martin two-color Relic six out of 49 for the Cowboys and Brian S You've got Damien Williams 33 out of 99. That's for the Chiefs and Sean Maddock little colossal relic and Another one for the Chiefs.  I think he's been the busy busier back The Patriots, but I think one thing were they mixing in Ramon Drey Stevenson also a lot of things have changed though because Rookie quarterback. You got Frank Gore treasured moments 21 out of 75 Buffalo Bills Brian Frank And Corey Davis 47 out of 84 for the Titans and William Susser now on the Jets With that young quarterback I think he's Obviously, they're still figured out. We got second game coming up this weekend That's two cards. We'll start with this one Peyton Manning 80 out of 99 That is relic for the cow. Sorry Broncos and we'll hash Central Florida's driving and a very nice patch of King Henry three-color patch 13 out of 25 Tennessee Titans William Susser That's a cool. This is like their gragers. He's I'm assuming Who nice pops there? You got a dual relic of DJ Chark. That's two out of 99 for the Jags and Scott Quinlan and Another dual relic TJ Hawkinson 78 out of 88 Detroit Lions And Alan Matsui Stuff you up one Central Florida another first down. Oh, no dropped it Another really nice patch four-color patch it's Jacobi Myers. I believe he's out of Florida. It's one out of five Rookie patch and auto for the Patriots again John Kutcher our booklet very nice patch One year a little bit earlier than we really want on the rookie quarterback for the Chargers. It's Easton stick four-color patch auto booklet For the Chargers and Aaron Whittington Signed Justin Herbler on there So Kamiano, how are you man? Easton stick He's still on team. I love the guy um I don't think he's gonna be that Herbert anytime soon And a very nice Barry Sanders two out of 10 Detroit Lions treasured moments autographs lions and Alan Matsui. It's just right Gotta love Barry And last Is Riley Ridley two-color rookie patch auto 58 out of 99 for the Chicago Bears and Mark Brown Hopefully he can Come back Team up with his brother do whatever He's gonna make him Be good again, and there you go guys. That is the break. That was the last two boxes from the case That is 2019 national treasures football two box one half case break random team number four from jaspyscasebreaks.com I'm Sean jaspyscasebreaks.com. Thanks for hanging out and we'll see you next time


Okay, Jim, do you have a short opening statement before we begin? Thanks for the opportunity. Welcome on board Columbia. We're just over the middle of the Atlantic Ocean headed toward Africa at this time. And as everybody knows by now, this is our next glass day in space. We'll be coming home early because of the fuel cell degradation. But I think the message that we want to leave everybody with from here on board Columbia is that in the short time that we've been here, thanks to the hard work of the people on board Columbia Plus at Huntsville, we've been able to put together a good science program that we're going to bring back some meaningful science in the short period that we have been here. It's true that everybody is disappointed that we are going to have to come home early, allowing the crew, but the investigators and the researchers who science that we were up here to accomplish. But still, I think we packed a lot into a short period of time. With that as our theme, I'd like to open up for questions at this time. Did the shuttle crew have any sort of a role or a voice in the decision that was made? And if you did, could you describe that please? Although we could tell from our information here that fuel cell 2 was suffering some degradation. And it's really based upon the greater level of understanding and information and expertise, to be honest with you, that the mission management team acted upon based on the input from the flight controllers and the engineers and the people who actually built the fuel cells at the decision to come home early was made. Okay, and from the ground, the perspective of course has been that this has been a really a pretty orderly event. It's unfolded with a lot of deliberation. I just wonder though, from your perspective, is there any sense of risk or danger added because of the fuel cell problem? So we're talking about the capacity for the airplane to fly. Therefore when you lose one third of your electrical producing capacity, you have to consider that. So as a result, after we had to save fuel cell 2, we had a little powwow here on the flight deck. We made sure we understood all the emergency procedures as modified by the fact that fuel cell 2 had been shut down. So I don't want to convey the opinion that we thought we were in imminent danger. Certainly not. We felt that the situation was well in hand. But on the other hand, we want to be prepared for the next possible failure and we feel like that's where we're at right now. This is Marsha Dunn of the Associated Press for the Commander. That same fuel had trouble during the countdown and the shuttle program manager now admits it should have been swapped out before flight. How unsettling is it for you to be in this situation now considering you could have had a full flight if that fuel cell had been replaced before flight? I'd say it's always going to be 2020. But this is a situation where with the best information that everybody had in hand at the time, the decision was made. I believe it was the correct one at the time to go ahead and launch. After the problems developed on orbit, the decision was made. Again, I believe the correct one based on additional information and also degradation of fuel cell to take the safe path and bring us home early. I think everybody's acted in the best interest of the crew and the best interest of the program. They've tried to make the right decisions based on the information that you had at that time. So we have no hesitation about the people who are helping us out on the ground. We had an exciting time yesterday going through all the procedures. But I felt we were in sync 100% with the ground. They were helping us out every step of the way. And we have total confidence in the people in mission control and in the mission management that are making these decisions. To Stephen Young with Reuters, I was just wondering what kind of extraordinary measures you've been taking to try and squeeze as much power out of those last two fuel cells to use for the science. I think I heard some references last night to people working by flashlight, for example. Yes, what we did was we powered down all non-essential equipment including most of the lighting on board and only turned things on as we needed it. This enabled us to continue powering experiments in the lab and staying under the required amount of power running only two fuel cells. Thank you, Ann, for whoever would like to take this. I'm just wondering if this incident gives any of you a heightened sense of vulnerability of spaceflight. I understand from the very beginning how complicated a piece of equipment this is and how many things have to be working just right. We also know simultaneously how many levels of redundancy and backup systems there are in order to keep us safe even though things go wrong and things malfunction as they do on Earth. This is Seth Bornstein from the Orlando Center. We heard Commander Hossel's reaction yesterday when you were told the news about the shortened mission. Can the other three of you tell us what went through your mind when that was radioed up and who told the blue shift and what was their reaction? Training for this mission for over a year and a half or so, working hard on the science. The people on the ground at the Marshall Space Flight Center and the principal investigators all across the country and around the world, they've been working on this mission even longer, so it was a big disappointment to end the mission. But we've been working as hard as we can, working double time up here trying to make up for what we're losing by shortening the mission. And two of the crew members I told on the blue shift when they woke up and it was a shock and disbelief at first because nobody anticipated that we'd be coming home so soon. We thought we were going to go for the full 16 days. Of course I was disappointed as well that the mission was cut short, particularly from the perspective of the scientists who've been waiting and working so long to try and get these experiments in space. On the other hand, in just a few days that we've had, we've managed to get results that were described to me by the investigators. They told me before the mission, hey look, if we get a single data point, we'll be ecstatic because these experiments are so difficult to do and they've never been done before that that result in itself will make us very happy and we've gotten that many times over in just these four days. So on the one hand I'm disappointed, but on the other hand I'm very happy that in the short time we've had we've gotten them some good results that will move them on into the future. Bill Horowitz, CBS with I guess maybe another question for Dr. Wouteris along those same lines. I mean if that's the case, I mean you're only getting a four day flight, you would plan 16. I mean you can't call the flight, it's not a failure obviously, but it's not a success either. How do you characterize the results of this mission? Days of work into four days, but we're doing our best at it. One of the experiments that I've been working on is called CSLM, coarsening of solid liquid mixtures. And in this experiment in the glove box we've processed 72 of the 81 planned samples. In the large isothermal furnace, the Japanese facility, we processed I think it's six or seven of our plan 25 runs that we're doing. Phase, which is the physics of hard spheres, part of our express rack, we processed one sample successfully. And throughout the lab, most of the experiments have been able to get at least one or two runs in, so we're bringing some science back to almost all fields up here. Astro-PGBA, we're growing our plants, we've been growing the protein crystals up here, so we're hitting the full gamut of it, but for sure we're not bringing back 16 days worth of science, but we're really proud of what we do, what we are bringing back. This is Marsha Dunn of the Associated Press for Dr. Lynn Turris, please. We've just heard your blue team was shocked when they heard the news, and it's a non-career astronaut who may be making their one and only flight.  I think shock is not the right word. Certainly surprise and disappointment might be accurate. I certainly expected to go the full 16 days. I'd say the thing that I'm most troubled by is that after a few days of getting used to this new environment, I'll have to come home, and that's sort of saddening. But maybe there will be a second chance for me to fly, we'll see. Commander, this is Jay Barbary with NBC. I was wondering if you and Pilot still there, if you would have felt a little better if you could have come home today having a fly-by-wire spacecraft, you're down to two fuel cells, if you lose another one, you're really in trouble. Would you have liked to come home this afternoon instead of waiting until tomorrow? The people on the ground that made this decision followed through strongly, and what they were trying to do was give us enough time to make an orderly close-up of the lab and plan our deorbit and our landing accordingly. Had we tried to rush to come home today, things wouldn't have been as orderly, and so I think that they made the right decision in bringing us home on Tuesday so that we could have everything prepared for the re-entry and the landing. This is Bill Hubsher with WAAY-TV News in Huntsville. The question I have is pretty much for anyone who would like to answer it. You must be obviously pretty pleased with how the microgravity mission went thus far only after four days, but do you think this hurts the future of such missions, or do you think that all the rest of them that weren't quite completed will just be put towards Space Station? I think this mission is not over yet. These experiments will be re-flown sometime in the future. We have a facility on board called the Express Rack, and it's the expedited processing of experiments for Space Station, and the actual rack that we have on board today is scheduled to be on one of the first utilization flights for Space Station. So many of the facilities that you see here are going to continue flying up, both on the shuttle and space path, maybe orbit or mid-deck experiments, and for sure in the future on the International Space Station. This is Seth Bornstein from the Orlando Sentinel again. Also, can you tell us what instruments are going to be powered down that you wouldn't normally have powered down on landing? Tommy yesterday said there might be one or two things that might be reduced on entry. How's it going to make the entry different? Let me let you talk to my expert on the electrical system, Susan, stand by. Basically, most of our equipment will be running that we require for landing. What we'll be doing is turning them on later in the flight, perhaps turning them on sometime after the derogate run and just prior to coming down for the final part of the landing. Some of the environmental systems may be turned off, which might make it a little bit warmer once we land, but the crew should be comfortable throughout the re-entry and the landing phase. Bill Horowitz, CBS again for Dr. Lynn Terrace. Rent of the flight gets re-manifested or not is an unknown at this point, of course, and your NASA colleagues will look forward to other flights down the road before you and Dr. Crouch. This might be it for you. I was just wondering, I mean, in terms of the science aside, the experience of space flight and all of that, how disappointing is it to do all this work, get up there, and then have to turn right around and come home? From a science perspective, no doubt, but from a personal perspective, the experience of learning about the NASA training, the experience of going to space and experiencing this completely new environment with all it has to offer in terms of teaching us about our life down on Earth has been phenomenal and is something which I will treasure regardless of whether I fly again, regardless of whether it was five days instead of 16. Greg, that was the CM1-3 data cue card.


To attract the highest calibre of candidates into teaching, the Institute of Physics is offering teacher training scholarships to 100 outstanding individuals. As an IRP scholar, you will not only receive £20,000 of help through your training, you will also become part of a scholarship community, giving you endless opportunities to make a difference to the future of physics education. The biggest single influence on children's success in and enjoyment of physics is their classroom teacher, so we want to get more high quality classroom physics teachers into the profession. Therefore, we are saying to the top graduates in physics and engineering, this is a job for you. It's important, it's challenging, it's rewarding. We're saying teaching physics is doing physics. To be successful means your application clearly stood out from the crowd. You are shortlisted and invited to attend an assessment day at the IRP. So the assessment day arrives, you're probably a little nervous, eager to do well and ready to give your all in the attempt to become one of the 100 deserving scholars. It's a little daunting, isn't it? But what should you expect on an assessment day? On arrival, your photo will be taken and you'll receive your timetable for the day before moving in to meet other potential scholars over lunch. Here you've got the opportunity to do some networking and meet other potential new teachers. It also gives you the chance to chat with IRP staff, many of which were physics teachers in the past. What we're really trying to test for is the real understanding of physics at the school level. So there's 26 questions, takes them about 30 minutes. And then all the sort of questions where you have to do large numbers of calculations, what you really have to do is understand the physics at the appropriate level so that you can, if you can't understand it, you can't explain it. So to be a good teacher, you really have to understand it deeply. During the discussion, your communication skills and ability to interact with each other is being assessed. You'll select a topical educational issue out of a box and we'll have the opportunity to demonstrate your opinion on it by starting a group discussion. The interview is for some the most nerve-wracking part of the day, although he'll look like he's doing pretty good in there. There are two interviewers who ask a number of physics questions. Prior to the assessment day, you were given two of these questions and asked to prepare your answers. We're kind of looking for three things really. The first is a real enthusiasm for physics, but not just an enthusiasm, the ability to kind of explain it clearly. You can be fantastically enthusiastic, but if you can't actually explain it to pupils, that's not really going to work. So enthusiasm but clarity is kind of the first thing. The second thing really is they've got to be able to relate well to children, but we need the scholars to be a little bit special in terms of potential for real leadership. If you're not awarded an IOP scholarship, please don't give up on teaching. Although we only have a limited number of scholarships to award, there's still a huge demand for physics teachers. Make sure you've got some school experience under your belt. If you do a physics or physics with maths PGCE, you will still be entitled to some funding through government bursaries. And finally, there will be many different opportunities for you to get involved with the IOP. See you guys over the days.