The Jack Benny program, transcribed and presented by Lucky Strike. The cigarette that's toasted to taste better. If you want better taste from your cigarette, Lucky Strike is the brand to get. It's toasted to give you the best taste. Yes, it's the toasted cigarette. They taste fine. Tobacco is light. Tobacco is mild. Tobacco too. And it's toasted, yes, it's toasted. Because the toasting brings the flavor right through. So to get better taste from your cigarette, Lucky Strike is the brand to get. It's toasted to give you the best taste. Yes, it's the toasted cigarette. Friends, this is Don Wilson. If you're not getting all the enjoyment you should be getting from your present cigarette, switch to Lucky Strike and see for yourself how much more real deep down smoking enjoyment you get from Lucky's better taste. Lucky taste better because it's the cigarette of fine tobacco and it's toasted to taste better. It's toasted as the famous Lucky Strike process that tones up Lucky's fine naturally good tasting tobacco to make it taste even better, cleaner, fresher, smoother. Yes, find out for yourself. Buy a carton of better tasting Lucky Strike. If you want better taste from your cigarette, Lucky Strike is the brand to get. It's toasted to give you the best taste. Yes, it's the toasted cigarette. The Lucky Strike program starring Jack Belly with Mary Livingston Rochester, Dennis Day, Bob Crosby, the sponsor of Quartet and yours truly, Don Wilson. Ladies and gentlemen, tonight Jack Belly does another television program, but in the meantime, let's go back to this morning in Beverly Hills. As we look in on the Belly household, we find Jack just entering the kitchen. Hmm, Rochester must have overslept again. I'll go wake him up and have him fix my breakfast. I don't know why it is, but every time I give him a day off, the next morning he oversleaps. It's the second time that's happened this year. Oh, well, I might as well let him sleep and fix breakfast myself. Now let's see, where does Rochester keep the coffee? I'll try this cupboard here. No, it's filled with ideal dog food. I'll try this one. No, this one's filled with ideal dog food too. Maybe it's in this cupboard. Hmm, more ideal dog food. There's no doubt about it.  Well, I can't find the coffee. I'll just have to wake Rochester. Rochester, it's time to get up. Rochester, Rochester to get up. I'll take this feather duster and tickle his chin. Honey, you showed that long eye, ladies. Rochester, get up. Huh? What? Oh, it's you, Mr. Betty. Yes, it's me, honey, and I want my breakfast. Guys, boss, I'm sorry you woke me up when you did. I was having the most wonderful dream. I know. You were dreaming about a girl. Yeah, we were going to get married. You offered me a $50 raise. I offered you a $50 raise?  It's the third time it's happened. I know. I know you told me. Once I dream you were cutting my cellar and you let me sleep till four in the afternoon. It was just a coincidence. Anyway, I'll answer the door, Rochester. You get dressed to make my breakfast. Yes, sir. Hello, Polly. Oh, you're still sulking, huh, Polly? I'm coming. Hello, Jack. Oh, Mary, come on in. I was just talking to your neighbors, the Coleman's. Oh, Ronnie and Bonita? Yes, I passed their house. Bonita was sweeping the porch and Ronnie was cleaning the windows. Bonita and Ronnie were doing their own housework? Yes, they told me their butler quit. Their butler quit? Why? They said they have to live next to you. He doesn't. He'll be back. He's run away before, you know. Oh, hello, Polly. Hi, Polly. Speak. Feeding this bird. It wasn't my fault, Mary. She happened to find a can opener. What? Nothing, nothing. Come in. Oh, hello, Dennis. Oh, hello, Mr. Benny. Hello, Mary. Hi, Dennis. What are you doing around here? Oh, I'm thinking of moving. I've been looking at houses all day. Oh, you want to buy a house? Yeah. How much would you take for this one?  My house isn't for sale. I know, but if it were for sale, how much would you take? Well, hey, let me see. He's in the best part of Beverly Hills, and I have an acre of land, 12 rooms, a swimming pool. Oh, I'd ask about $100,000. I wouldn't have this dump if you gave it to me. Look, Dennis, I don't want any trouble with you. You asked me how much my house is worth. I told you $100,000. Does the price include the Venetian blinds? Yes. Also the grapes and the carpets. Anyway, Dennis, what's wrong with the house you're living in now? You just moved in. I know, but it's too inconvenient. Inconvenient? Yeah, in order to get to the bedroom, you have to go through the furnace. Well, Dad, I don't understand at all. Dennis, what kind of a house are you looking for? Oh, sort of a ranch house. You know, everything on one floor. How many rooms? Well, I'd like two bedrooms, a den, a living room, and a kitchen. How about a bath? No thanks. I had one this morning. Why do I always get trapped into these things? Mary talks to him, she gets a sensible answer. I ask a sensible question. What do I get? Abbott and Costello. Dennis, let me hear the song you're going to do on this week's program. Yes, sir. Very good, Dennis. I know it's going to sound beautiful when you sing it on the show. Don't be so sure. Why not? I'm having my tonsils out tonight. Tonight? Dennis, are your tonsils infected? No. Well, is your throat been sore? No. Have you been catching colds? No. Then why are you having your tonsils out? A doctor friend of mine is coming over and I don't know how else to entertain him. What? Last time he took out my appendix. Dennis. If he keeps coming over, there won't be anything left. Dennis. Well, I got to go look for a house now. Goodbye, Mary. Bye. Goodbye, Mr. Benny. Goodbye, Dennis. I got to be running along, too. I'll see you tomorrow. Okay, goodbye, Mary. Bye. Hello? Hi, Jack. Who's this? Bob Crosby. Oh, hello, Bob. I didn't recognize your boys. What is it? Well, I'm having a few of the boys over for a friendly game of poker tonight and I thought maybe you'd like to join us. Well, what stakes do you play for? Five and ten. Five and ten? That's a little too steep for me. Oh, no, no, Jack. Not five and ten dollars. Five and ten cents. Well, that's what I thought you meant. Well, Bob, who's going to be in the game? Well, just some of the musicians, Jack. We've got Bagby, Fletcher, Remly, Sammy the drummer, Kimmick, and Arturo Toscanini. Arturo Toscanini? You mean... Oh, no, this is another one. He slaps a bass for Wingy Mino. It confuses everybody. Well, I should imagine, huh? Well, how about it, Jack? Could you come on over tonight? Well, I don't know, Bob. I might drop around for some laughs, you know. Oh, that's well. We'll be playing out by the pool. We'll all be in our swimming trunks. Wait a minute, Bob. Won't the boys be cold and nothing but trunks? Yeah, but they won't play cards with each other wearing anything that has pockets or sleeves. Well, Bob, maybe I'll drop over, even if it's just for a laugh. Okay, I'll see you later. Bye. So long, Bob. Oh, say, Jack, what goes with Dennis Day? What do you mean? Well, he was over to see me last night. He wants to buy my house. Did he offer you a good price? Yeah, but I don't know. Why? Well, he wanted me to include my Venetian blinds, vapes, and children. What a kid. So long, Bob. Bye, Jack.  Say, boss, I've got your breakfast ready. Bring it in the den. I might sit around for a while and read. Okay. I'll get it, Rochester. Everybody's calling today. I wonder who it can be. Hello? Hello, Mr. Benny. Mr. Benny, guess who is this? Now, let's see. Sir Cedric Hardwick? No, guess again. Barry Fitzgerald? You're getting close. I'm getting close. Well, who is it? Mr. Titzel. Mr. Kid, how come you said I was close when I said Barry Fitzgerald? He lives next door to me. Well, it's nice of you to call, Mr. Kitzel. How are you? Currently, I'm out of danger. Out of danger? What was wrong? Nobody told you? No. Did I hear the sea? Really? Yeah. First my rheumatism started acting up. Then I contracted a sciatica condition which had a voice effect on my envericose veins. And simultaneously you hear I suffered from a streptococcal throat. Well, I'm sorry to hear that. The blue cross is sorry. I can imagine. Mr. Benny, the reason I called is my brother-in-law, Benny, is visiting me and I wondered if you could get him tickets to your television show. For your brother-in-law? Yes, I believe I can. Can you also get him tickets for Benny, Thomas, Bones and Ellen, Groucho, Marks, and Miss Nandy? Let me see who else. Mr. Kitzel, you're certainly nice to your brother-in-law. It's a pleasure to get him out of the house. Oh. Also, could you get him tickets to Jackie Gleason's show? But that's in New York. Bless you, sir. I'll see what I can do, Mr. Kitzel. Goodbye. Goodbye, Mr. Benny. Goodbye. You know, these days with radio and television, I haven't been reading very much. A lot of good books here, too. The High and the Mighty by Ernest Gann. Look who's abroad now by Earl Wilson. I read them both are good books. Let's see what else. The Sea Around Us, Battle Cry. Here's a copy of The Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein. Oh, I read that. I remember it has 496 pages. Those numbers were the only thing I understood. Could you hear the book I haven't read? The Purple Pirate. See, that ought to be good. So many pirate pictures out now. I think I'll read this one. The Purple Pirate, Chapter 1. I am a pirate. My name is Captain Morgan. As my story opens, we had been at sea almost a year. My ship had just captured a rich prize, a schooner, homeward bound from the Orient, and laden with cargo. We transferred our cargo to our hold, and the crew lined the rail and watched as we prepared to send the captured vessel to the bottom. All right, gunners. We've got a sinker. Player! See sinkin' fast, Captain. Good. Tell me, Red Robert, did we get much booty? What's a rich haul, Captain? A hundred bolts of silk, 50 barrels of rare spices, 10 sacks filled with gold, and four cases of ideal dog poo. Fine, my supply was running low. That is not all the loot, sir. We found a small sack of diamonds from rubies, and best of all, a woman's dress. A woman's dress? What's so wonderful about that? Oh, you ought to see what's in it. You mean we've captured a woman? Yes, sir, and we also captured the captain of that ship. Good. Bring him to me. Aye-aye, sir. In a few minutes, both the captain and the girl were standing before me. I looked them over very carefully for a long time. Finally, I spoke. Which one of you is the captain? He is, of course. There was no doubt about it. I'd been away from land too long. As I stood there, the schooner's gruff captain turned to me and spoke. Are you the captain of these pirates? Yes. Are you responsible for blowing my ship to bits? Yes. Did you make some of my men walk the plank? Yes. Did you hang all the rest of them? Yes. Do you think that was nice? No. I sent him below, then I turned my attention to the girl. She was wearing a tight skirt, a yellow sweater, and a large button that said, I like Louis the Fourteen. She stood before me, the superstition of the sea. A woman aboard a pirate ship is an omen of bad luck. I was in a predicament. Should I keep her aboard and risk mutiny or make her walk the plank? I decided to flip a coin. Head she stays, tail she walks the plank. We were so happy over the rich prize we had captured, they didn't mind a woman being aboard. In that evening as we sailed the tropical sea near the full moon, they even gathered around the quarter-deck and began to sing. Lucky strike is wild, very tasty, that's true. Lucky strike is round and it's only tattoo. Oh, but even if a lucky strike is true, a treasure only L-A-L-L-L-M-N-T will do. Oh, it's L-A-L-L-L-L-L-L-M-N-T, L-A-L-L-L-L-L-L-L-M-N-T. Yes, it's L-L-L-L-L-L-L-L-L-M-N-T. Oh, it's L-L-L-L-L-L-L-L-L-M-N-T. L-L-L-L-L-L-L-L-L-L-L-M-N-T. Get the tell-a-tella, tell-a-tella, tell-a-tella, them empty Light up the lucky spark! We continued scarring the sea, and then our luck went bad. We sighted no more ships. Our supplies ran low. The men were in a mutinous mood. They became surly and refused to obey orders. And then, suddenly, packed by the most ruthless of all French pirates, Dennis Lafite. Red Robert, get the men to their battle station. Aye-aye, sir! Bagby, Remlee, Fletcher, Kimiq, man your gun! It's no use, Captain. It's no use. The men are revolting. Would you repeat that? The men are revolting. You've caught on to these guys already, haven't you? The battle went badly, and we suffered heavy casualties. Finally to save lives, I decided to surrender. I grabbed a white flag and started a wave. I'm sorry, miss, but there's no time to be doing your laundry. We were taken prisoner and immediately locked in the dark hold of the ship. For three days we didn't see our cruel captor. Dennis Lafitte didn't kill his prisoners by making them walk the plank. Oh, no. He was too cruel for that.  This wasn't so bad, but the men behind you with those darts were murdered. Finally, on the fourth day, he ordered me and the girl to be brought to him. As we stood trembling before Lafitte, the terror of the seven seas, he said... Huh? You are in the presence of the great Lafitte. Kneel, you pig. Yes, sir. Good. Now you kneel, too. Yes, sir. How I love to play as a leapfrog. What are your plans for us, Lafitte?  Well, I'll join you. Do I still retain my rank as captain? Captain. You fool, you'd be my slave. A slave? I'd rather die first. You don't know us Englishmen very well. All right, you died. What about the girl?  You don't know us Frenchmen very well. What? I should marry the girl and make her the pirate's queen. She would be my wife, my sweetheart. And now I kiss her. She'd rather die first. You keep out of it. I was in a predicament. Either I became Lafitte's slave or I walked the plank. I didn't know what. I didn't know what. Here's the door, buzzer. Right in the most interesting part. I can't even read a book around here. Rochester. Oh, darn it. Coming. Coming. Middle of a book. Mr. Benny. Yes? I'm from Beacon's Van and Storage Company. We got two truckloads to unload here. Furniture? No, I deal dog food. What in the swimming pool? The garage is full. Friends, every minute, day and night, a destructive fire starts. And in nine out of ten cases, most fires start because someone is careless. Don't let that someone be you. Be sure your electrical wiring is properly installed. Put cigarettes and matches out before you discard them. Be on guard constantly against fire. Remember, only you can prevent fires. Jack will be back in a minute to tell you about his television program, which goes on at 7 p.m. tonight over the CBS television network. But first, here's a word for anyone who enjoys a good cigarette. If you want better taste from your cigarette, Lucky Strike is the brand to get. It's toasted to give you the best taste, yet it's the toasted. Cigarettes, they taste fine. Tobacco is light. Tobacco is mild. Tobacco too. And it's toasted, yes, it's toasted. Because the toasting brings the flavor right through. So to get better taste from your cigarette, Lucky Strike is the brand to get. It's toasted to give you the best taste, yet it's the toasted. Cigarette. All you have to do is look at a pack of Lucky's friends and you'll see the reasons for Lucky's better taste printed right on the pack. LS MFT. Lucky Strike means fine tobacco. Light, naturally mild, good tasting tobacco. And it's toasted. It's toasted to taste better. It's toasted is the famous Lucky Strike process that tones up Lucky's fine tobacco, bringing it to its peak of flavor, making it taste even better, cleaner, fresher, smoother. So be happy. Go Lucky. Make your next carton of cigarettes better tasting Lucky Strike. If you want better taste from your cigarette, Lucky Strike is the brand to get. It's toasted to give you the best taste, yet it's the toasted. Cigarette. Ladies and gentlemen, I was going to tell you about my television show, but we're a little late, so tune in and watch it. Good night, folks. The Jack Benny show tonight was written by Milk Josephsburg, John Takkeberry, Al Goldman, Al Gordon, and produced and transcribed by Hilliard Mark. The Jack Benny program is brought to you by Lucky Strike, product of the American Tobacco Company, America's leading manufacturer of cigarettes. Thank you.


The formation of the tar sands of the early Permian Age in Russia is a unique example of polygenetic sand deposition. A combination of Aeolian processes and sea regression resulted in the formation of two distinct layers of sand and clay. The upper layer of sand was formed by wind erosion of the underlying clay, while the lower layer represents the former seabed. This provides a useful reference point for geologists studying the area. This article was authored by A.I. Malikiev and R.R. Kosanov.


Russian drones struck Ukraine's southern Odessa region early on Wednesday, April 19, and caused a fire at an infrastructure facility. The head of the military command of the Odessa region, Yuri Kruk, said on Wednesday. Ukraine's operational command south released a video showing firefighters working on site of damaged building and what appears to be drone part with a sign reading Do Not Touch in Russian. Reuters was able to confirm the location from the building structures and cartoons seen outside the complex, which matched the file imagery of the area. Reuters was not able to independently confirm the date the footage was taken. No casualties have been reported and firefighters were working at the scene, according to officials.


So today, I'm going to try to illustrate how everything we've been doing for the last four fifths of the class comes together and can give us an explanation of the nature of light. Light is a ubiquitous phenomenon. It is certainly one of the first things that we become acquainted with when we start to see color, shape, depth, facial recognition through pattern recognition in our brains. Light is invaluable to most of us to making it through the course of a normal day. But really, to begin a discussion of light, one has to start asking questions like, well, what is light exactly? So you tell me, what do you think light is? Okay. So you've been exposed to the idea that it's waves and that those waves. So what do the waves do? Travel. Travel. Yeah. It's some kind of phenomenon. It's kind of the wave nature in a bit, and how exactly that came to be understood. But now the modern understanding is that, yes, light is some kind of wave, and that most fundamentally is a phenomenon which departs some other location, arrives at our eyes, and our brain has mechanisms in it that have evolved to convert that light into information that tells us about depth, distribution, color. Our eyes, however, are very narrowly sensitive. There's so much more light out there in the cosmos than our eyes can show us. And so a lot of the last 50 to 70 years of human technology have been to open up our eyes to wavelengths that we were never sensitive to before, and in doing so reveal the universe we didn't even know existed because we couldn't see it. So yeah, most basically light is a phenomenon. We now understand it to be a wave phenomenon, although I'll come back to that a little bit at the end. But most basically it is something that travels from a source to us and we can interpret it. In the same way that sound is something that travels from my hands through a medium, which we now understand it's basically its displacement of air molecules in a wave, a pressure wave. The wave travels across the room, strikes Lashley's ear drums, which then vibrate in response to the pressure wave, and the mechanisms in her ear and the electrical connections from the ear to the brain then convert that into something your brain recognizes as sound. So sound is also a phenomenon that travels from one location to another. Does sound travel through empty space? If I take all the air out of the room so there's no way to create a displacement of air molecules, can I still make a sound? I know. All right, so if you're on the moon and you clap your hands, there's really not a whole lot of stuff for a pressure wave to travel through on the moon, so you wouldn't hear anything. I wouldn't expose my ears to the vacuum, that would be bad for other reasons, your blood would boil. But if you could do that, you wouldn't hear anything. Water waves. Water waves are another excellent example of a phenomenon that starts at a source. There's a displacement in a medium, it's a pressure wave again in the water molecules, and that transmits energy in some cases, as we saw with the Japanese tsunami, over vast distances and can carry all that energy back into the form of mechanical energy. So it can build things, it can pull people out to sea, these things are very destructive. Loud sound waves are also very destructive, you know, you can blow out your ear drums by being exposed to extremely loud sounds, either over a long period of time or so loud that they just shatter your ear drums.  Let's talk a little bit about light and some of the characters that were involved in the history of light. So I would argue that up until this person, Galileo Galilei, the understanding of light that people had was pretty much a bunch of myths and misconception and made up stuff. In fact this idea that you can do an experiment and reveal the character of the natural world really first was articulated by Galileo Galilei. So he is considered to be the very first modern scientist, somebody who articulated a version of the scientific method as a means to make statements and predictions about the natural world. So he was a brilliant mathematician and he combined his understanding of mathematics with keen observation and argued that this was the way to understand the natural world. So mathematics, prediction, observation, measurement, and combined the two to come to some narrative about the world that can be consistently arrived at by anybody else that applies the same techniques. Now his big claim to fame early in his life was that he perfected the telescope. So like any good scientist, he took something that already existed. The telescope was not his invention, but he improved on the lens making process of the telescopes and made them into a military weapon. So like any good scientist, he weaponized it and sold it to the government. And he made a ton of money and got a lot of fame off of it. Basically he gave the Italian government the ability to spot ships coming in from the Mediterranean long before the ships knew that they had been spotted. Support cities could prepare for attack or send out a force to retaliate before they even reached the shore. Being able to see your enemies at a great distance when they can't see you was a strong military advantage and enable an enable society. And so he got very famous and made a lot of money off of this and basically got to do whatever he wanted. And so he was taken on as a court scientist by a very powerful family in Italy. And they just gave him money and freedom. He had to teach and of course he had to serve the family's needs as a naturalist. But basically he got to build his own experiments at that point. So what he did was he took his invention, which essentially now had been weaponized and he said, nah, not interesting. And he turned it to the sky. Now there were a lot of ideas about the sky and its perfection and about the nature of the earth and its role in the cosmos. It was a very popular belief that the earth was the center of the universe and all things went around the earth. Now, prior to Galileo, the notion that the sun is probably really more likely the center of the universe was posited. But it was Galileo that really cemented observationally that the idea that everything goes around the earth was a false idea. Because he turned his telescope to Jupiter and he realized that there were tiny little, he called them wandering stars that seemed to orbit only Jupiter. They didn't go around the earth, they went around Jupiter. And that broke immediately the idea that everything in the heavens goes around only the earth. So he published his book on these wandering stars and he became very famous as a result of these observations. He was the first to observe that the sun has spots. The sun was believed to be unblemished and perfect. This seeing spots on the surface flew in the face of biblical interpretation at the time. He got into a little trouble, but other people confirmed his observation. Galileo had quite a mouth. He wouldn't shut up and he really believed that he was right and he got himself into a lot of trouble because he collected all of his observations into a great work. And that work he published in the form of basically a conversation amongst three friends. One who mediated the discussion of the other two, one that mouthed his observations and the other named Simplicio, that mouthed the positions of the Roman Catholic Church. The pope, who was a friend of Galileo's, wasn't too keen on the idea of the mouthpiece of the church being named Simplicio and the simpleton, which is what that means. And so he was dragged before the inquisition, the inquisition. He was condemned as a heretic and asked to repent or face death.  But when he was under house arrest while he was ill, he had a lot more free time again. And he started exploring motion and space and time in ways that when he was younger, he just hadn't bothered to spend the time exploring. And he came up with some interesting ideas about what space was and what time was as a result of that. He died a year before Isaac Newton. Perhaps one of the greatest scientific minds in human history was born, which I think is just very interesting, okay? Now Galileo was very interested in light and he wanted to know if light was an instantaneous phenomenon, that is that from the time it's emitted to the time it's received is zero time. He wanted to know if light travels at a finite speed. So he proposed an experiment and that experiment is something that the physics of musical instruments class here at SMU does, but they do it with sound. He proposed that he sit on a hill with a lantern that is covered and he has an assistant, probably the equivalent of a graduate student these days. Go to a very distant hill that's still visible with another lantern that's also covered. Galileo had built very sensitive water clocks that he could precisely do timing with and he proposed that he uncover his lantern. Now the light is free to travel to the other hill. When the assistant sees the light from his hill, he uncovers his lantern and when Galileo sees the light from the other lantern make the return trip, he times it. So he starts his clock when he uncovers his lantern, he stops his timing when he sees the light from the other lantern. That distance is far too short on the surface of the earth to make a measurement of the speed of light to even say whether or not it is finite. The furthest you can see because of the curvature of the earth is roughly 60 miles depending on whether it's a clear day and whether you're up high and things like that. Sound on the other hand travels about 300 meters a second as opposed to light which travels extraordinarily much faster. So you can actually go to the steps of Dallas Hall and Professor Fred Oleis has marked out the distance to the flagpole and to a point further down the boulevard here. And he knows that this is almost exactly 100 meters and then you go and go another 100 meters down this way. So you have a team of students here with an air horn, a team of students here at the flag with another air horn and somebody in the first team with a stopwatch. So the first team fires their air horn and the stopwatch starts at the same time. When the team at the flag hears the first air horn they fire theirs in return and then the first team when they hear the return horn they stop timing. And you can do that measurement and then do it 200 meters away to take out human reaction time as an uncertainty for about 0.2 seconds. And you can get a very precise, maybe 5% or so uncertainty measurement of the speed of sound over just 100 meter and 200 meter distance. I want to do this in Fort Stadium someday. I think that would be a lot of fun.  One of our very enthusiastic new graduate students last year was in charge of this lab and he had them firing the air horns a little bit too much and he was standing here with a little pink card which he would hold up to signal the first team should fire their air horns. And I was standing here taking pictures of some students that had won some honors so we could put them shamelessly up on our webpage and three police vehicles pulled up around that graduate student in a circle. And they told them that you shouldn't be making noise on a college campus in a post 9-11 world. Go figure. Now, Ol Romer. Ol Romer in 1676. So I should say if we go back here to Galileo so he died in 1642. So just about 30 years later Ol Romer was the first person to measure that the speed of light was at least finite. Didn't quite get it right and actually if you re-look at his data now he misinterpreted his data a little bit but you can definitely no matter what from his data you can conclude that the speed of light is not infinite. It doesn't go instantaneously from source to receiver. And he did this by being here on Earth and in fact in a sort of beautiful twist of science he looked at Io which had been discovered by Galileo as a moon of Jupiter in 1610 and he measured the orbital period of Io around Jupiter at different times of year for our orbital period around the sun. And at different times of year we're at different distances from Io so light has to travel further or shorter in order to get to us so we can make the measurements. And by looking at the variation in the measurements he was able to place a bound on the speed of light. He bounded it at, he estimated it to be about 220,000 kilometers a second which actually isn't too far off the mark. That's pretty good. All right. So what is actually the speed of light? Anyone know? Three times second to eight meters per second. 3.0 times 10 to the eighth meters per second. I'm gonna go one further and say it's like 2.998 times 10 to the eighth meters per second. So I know I'm not too bad for good old Romer here. He did pretty good getting close to that. Okay. Let's go back and talk about what we've been doing for this whole semester. There are four fundamental laws of what's called, of electricity and magnetism which are collectively known as the laws of electromagnetism, okay? And that name is not an accident. It's not just for convenience. We now consider these to be a single phenomenon, okay? Faraday's law which we've just learned that a changing magnetic flux induces an electric potential difference in a conductor. Now I showed you an alternative form of this. I substituted with electric field in for the potential. And you can actually write Faraday's law in what's considered a much more fundamental form. A changing magnetic flux induces an electric field. And after all, an electric potential is just an electric field over a displacement, okay? So when you say a changing flux induces a voltage, what you're really saying is it induces an electric field. So changing magnetic flux can cause electric fields to occur. We also have Ampere's law. And Ampere's law is really just the B.O. Savart law in another piece of clothing, okay? But it's a simpler, more compact form and it's traditionally the form in which this law is written. Ampere's law tells us that electric current is the source of magnetic field. Moving electric charge, I, is the source of magnetic field, B. Now, way back in the beginning of this class, we have this thing called Coulomb's law, which was similar to Ampere's law in that it says that electric charge is the source of electric field, okay? So Q is the source of E. Now I skipped this chapter, but this law, much like the B.O. Savart law can really be couched in this thing called Ampere's law. There's a more simple and fundamental equation than Coulomb's law and it is known as Gauss's law for electric fields. And all Gauss's law says is that if I take a region of space and I enclose it in an imaginary three-dimensional surface like a sphere, that if I take the dot product of the electric field penetrating a little piece of the area of that sphere and I sum up all of those dot products across the surface of the sphere, if I find that that integral, that sum is zero, no charge is enclosed. If I find that that integral is non-zero, then there is electric charge enclosed. This is just another way of saying electric charge is the source of electric field, okay? It just says the same thing in a different mathematical form, okay? And finally, there's also a version of Gauss's law for magnetic fields. Gauss's law for magnetic fields says that as far as we know, there are no individual north and south poles, there are no individual magnetic charges. And therefore, if I take and do the same integral for a magnetic field, penetrating an enclosed three-dimensional surface, I will always find it to be zero because there are no magnetic charges enclosed. I can never enclose a bare magnetic charge. So this integral will always be zero. That's a really nice law. That's a nice, easy one, okay? We'll be on to us if we ever find out where magnetic monopoles, because that's gonna make this equation look like this, basically, but with some other constant numerator. Okay, these are the laws, as they were essentially understood before a man named James Clerk Maxwell came along and tried to understand what these four laws were actually describing. If you recall, it was Michael Faraday that initiated this concept of the field as a force per unit charge that reaches out from one charge to another charge and communicates a change in energy or an acceleration, a change in spatial position to the other charge and causes it to move. So that Faraday's concept of the field is beautifully embedded in all four of these equations, two of them for E, two of them for B, okay? Now B also appears up here. We'll come back to that in a bit. This is the, on the right-hand side, this is the one equation where one of these fields, B is buried in the magnetic flux, B dot A. Okay, that's magnetic flux, B dot A. So B is buried in that right-hand side. Now, Maxwell, among others, considered the following question. So what if I take these equations that I just written down and I consider them in a region where there are no charges and there are no currents? This is called free space. So picture the empty vacuum of space with no matter anywhere presence in the region that you're looking at. So you make a volume, like a imaginary box in space and you say, okay, any atoms, no atoms, any electrons, no electrons, this is free space. There's no matter in here whatsoever. In that case, Q is zero and I is zero. And these equations beautifully simplify. These are the four laws of electricity and magnetism in free space. These are really nice, right? You've got B dot D equals zero, E dot D equals zero integral. B dot DS is zero. Yay, Ampere's law is easy. Ah, okay, well, let's see, this is just changing flux. Flux is just magnetic field penetrating an area. That doesn't require that there be charges or currents inside my volume, so that flux may not be zero. I have to leave that there, okay? And what Maxwell kind of recognized as he looked at this was something's amiss. There's something wrong about these equations. Somebody who listens to the language of mathematics too long looks at these four equations and thinks, well, these make sense. These are nice and symmetric in empty space, E dot DA, that integral is zero, B dot DA, that integral is zero, that's nice. But here, this path integral of E dot DS is something that may be non-zero. And this path integral of B dot DS, well, it's always zero. This sort of breaks a lovely symmetry in these equations. So Maxwell, who was this brilliant scientist working in Britain, how to hypothesis. He hypothesized that actually this equation is incomplete, that there's a piece missing from the right-hand side that nobody had observed before, and that it is related to a changing electric flux. So he hypothesized that a changing electric flux induces a magnetic field in the same way that a changing magnetic flux induces an electric field. He envisioned that symmetry may be required, and he made a prediction. He predicted that a changing magnetic, changing electric flux would induce a magnetic field. So that was a prediction that he made based on looking at these equations and saying something doesn't feel quite right. Among his many accomplishments, he lived from 1831 to 1879. He, well, as you'll see in a moment, he united electricity and magnetism into a single force. He developed the theory of how large numbers of particles will behave. He was very interested in thermodynamics and the study of large systems of gas particles and things like that. He made the very first true color photograph. This is him actually holding a color wheel. And in 1864, he published what was perhaps the most important paper in the 1800s to set the stage for everything that followed. And it was entitled, A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field. And dynamical meaning time-changing, okay? And that is what he essentially insisted had to be over here, a time-changing electric flux inducing a magnetic field. That piece is missing because we haven't observed it. Let's predict that it exists and go see if it exists, okay? And so experiments were essentially done to do that. So for instance, you could take a capacitor and you could change the strength of the electric field inside a capacitor over time. That changes the electric flux penetrating an area inside the capacitor. And you could look for the creation of a magnetic field. And in fact, this was observed. In fact, after working through the math a little bit to see how one would relate this path integral to this time-changing electric flux, okay? That these in fact were the four equations of electricity and magnetism in free space. A time-changing magnetic flux induces an electric field. A time-changing electric flux induces a magnetic field. And in free space, there is no source of these electric fields, but you can still have time-changing electric and magnetic field passing through that region of space. That's what these two equations tell you, okay? So what you notice is that here you have these lovely constants again, the permeability of free space and the permittivity of free space, mu naught and epsilon naught. These are just numbers we've been using so far. They were empirically determined by experiment, but they're just things that we've been writing down, right? So epsilon naught is 8.85 times 10 to the negative 12, and that's Coulomb squared over Newton meter squared. Okay, and mu naught is a little bit easier to remember. It's four times pi times 10 to the minus seven, and that's going to be Tesla meter squared per amp, thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, very good. All right, so those are these numbers. We've been throwing them around just as constants, but it was through this work of Maxwell that we finally understood what these were. So Maxwell said, well, okay, I have some differential equations. Maxwell recognized this and he solved these equations. What are the functions that solve these differential equations? Here's what we have. We have some magnitude, some constant, some maximum strength of the electric field, some maximum strength of the magnetic field. This is the electric field as a function of both space, x and time, t, same here. The magnetic field is a function of both space, x and time, t. What is the time relationship? Well, he found that it was sinusoidal. This is the sine function. It acts on both space, x and time. This number here, k, is called the wave number. It basically tells you the number of waves per unit meter. Okay, so the number of crests in a sine wave per unit meter. All right, so that's a counted. All right, so if I have a wave and I have a meter, I count one, two, three, four, five. Okay, there are five crests per meter. That's the wave number. Omega is the frequency. It's the rate at which crests pass you as you're standing there, okay? So if I count one, two, three, four in four seconds, then I know that the frequency with which crests of the wave pass me is about a hertz or one per second. That's the unit of frequency, the hertz. And you'll see why that is in a moment. Now, what he found was that these solutions have direction. The electric field points, for instance, in the y direction. The magnetic field points in the k direction, but the wave propagates along x. So the wave is propagating in a direction perpendicular to both e and b. So what do these equations describe? They describe waves, as I just said. So this is a generic equation for a wave. The wave number, k, is two pi over lambda. Lambda is the wavelength. Okay, so that's actually the wavelength of this wave. All right, so here it's, actually it's about, from crest to crest, about two meters, probably on the screen, to a little bit over two meters. So this is, let's see here. This is about a meter, from here to here. Okay, so a little over two, maybe two and a half meters is the crest to crest distance on this wave. F is the frequency, and again, that's in hertz. So we have, we'll start counting here. So one one thousand, two one thousand, so about two seconds, all right? So that's one wave going by every two seconds or half a hertz, okay? One over two, half, half a hertz. Okay, so this just illustrates what I was saying. These are the crests of the wave. These are the troughs of the wave. The distance between peaks and the crests is the wavelength, and the frequency that crests past you is the, is this frequency F. These are electromagnetic waves with an electric field in one direction, a magnetic field orthogonal to that and the direction of travel perpendicular to both. And you have this self-propagating, self-contained disturbance that once created can travel until it's received. So what is electricity and magnetism describing? It's really describing the motion and behavior of electromagnetic waves from one place to another. And those four equations together tell you that that's the picture that's really going on. Electric fields and magnetic fields all individually play a role in this, but it should be possible to create a self-sustaining propagating wave that can be sent out from one location and then received at another by some kind of electromagnetic device. Timerick Hertz, as in the Hertz, was the first to satisfactorily demonstrate the existence of electromagnetic waves. He basically took an inductor capacitor circuit so that what he could do was create a time-changing magnetic field by charging up the inductor and then the capacitor would cause a discharge which would drain the inductor. And then he had a coil someplace else and he could show that the time-changing magnetic field on one side of the room induced a response in the coil on the other side of the room. It was Marconi, Guiano Marconi, who lived from 1874 to 1937. He was an Italian inventor and he developed the very first radio telegraph system which he demonstrated in 1894. Wireless transmission of information which is the foundation of our entire society. Now look at what it's done to the internet. Robert Hire, he lived from 1860 to 1929. He was a physicist. How many of you knew that? Yeah, I didn't think so. Yeah, that's not something they just go around selling at SMU, right? He was a physicist and he was actually the first American to communicate using electromagnetic waves. Oh, look at that, it was in 1894, the same year that Marconi demonstrated the wireless telegraph system. Hire attended a lecture by Hertz. I believe it was Harvard. Got the idea that, oh, well, I should build a device and use it to transmit a signal. And so if I remember the story correctly, he transmitted a signal from his laboratory at Southwestern University in Georgetown, Texas to the nearby jail. So that was the first wireless transmission in the United States. This is a picture of him. Here's Hire demonstrating to other faculty at Southwestern University the use of X-rays. Okay, so he was a real practicing physicist before he became a founder and first president of Southern Methodist University. Now, like any good wave, these waves travel at a speed. What is that speed? Well, Maxwell could figure that out. He could ask his equation, well, how fast are these waves traveling? And the answer he got was that the speed of an electromagnetic wave is always the same speed, no matter what, in free space, regardless of how you were moving relative to it or not. And this was the answer. So what's the number of the speed of light? And it was at this time that people realized what light was. Light is an electromagnetic wave that travels from the source to the receiver at a fixed speed of 2.998 times 10 to the 8 meters per second. And Maxwell's equations, oddly enough, said it doesn't matter how fast you are traveling relative to the source, if you will always measure the speed of light to be 2.998 times 10 to the 8 meters per second. And that's weird. That's what initiated the following revolutions. So this is just to illustrate the wave nature of light. So this is a very simple experiment that was done by Newton originally, right? This was Newton who originally developed these optics and put it around a split light into its spectrum.  And different bands of color will appear on the other side. And this is because the white light is made of a series of frequencies of light and each frequency corresponds to the color and those colors can be separated in the glass. We now understand that that's because different frequencies travel at different speeds inside the glass. So in material, the speed of light has changed. It's slower than it is in free space, but it can be calculated and that's sort of the basis of geometric optics, which is what we're going to do next. So this picture summarizes the things that you're gonna be doing next. Light comes in, it reflects, some of it refracts, passes through the surface of the glass and then hits the other surface. And when it comes out, you can have these effects where you split the bands of color. These kinds of effects are really unfortunate in camera lenses. You get things like chromatic aberrations where if your lens is not properly corrected, it will split the colors before sending them to the film and you'll get all kinds of distortions in your picture as a result. So understanding optics, it not only gives you an understanding, for instance, of a human eye, which is essentially a lens system, but also how one builds a better camera, how one builds a better laser, things like that. Now, I mentioned earlier that humans are sensitive to what we call color. We refer to color. Color is here, it's visible wavelengths. Different colors of light, different frequencies, different wavelengths correspond to different energies in the electromagnetic spectrum. We're sensitive to light that's between 700 nanometers, which we call red, to 440 nanometers, which we call purple or violet. That visible spectrum is compressed here, right here. That's what we are exposed to as organic creatures from our particular species. There are creatures that can see infrared. Infrared are subred wavelengths. We use infrared, for instance, for, well, this is actually wireless transmission, but for TV remotes, TV remotes using infrared. If you, fun fact, your most cameras, the charge-coupled devices, CCDs, that make up the camera sensor, are sensitive to the infrared. So you can take a webcam, aim your TV remote at it, push the button, and you'll see the light come on in the infrared remote. Your eyes can't see if the camera can, and the camera converts it into visible wavelengths for you. Okay.  So pretty harmless. Your phones give out microwaves. You put food with microwaves at the right frequency and make water molecules vibrate. That's not the frequency your phones use. And you have, and yeah, the TSA loves this now. So they can see metal on your body. Down here, we have the broadcast and wireless spectrum. Okay, so radio. Nice radio with an antenna. Okay, that's long wavelengths, long antenna. Those are used to receive music, audio broadcast propaganda, you name it, okay? Ultraviolet, now we're getting into higher energies. We can't see ultraviolet, all right? But this is high-energy stuff. This is the stuff that the, there are bands of ultraviolet that penetrate the Earth's atmosphere, make it down here, and tan your skin. They also, interestingly, break chemical bonds and cause cancer. So these are high-energy nasties. You wanna be careful of ultraviolet. X-ray, you don't wanna mess with X-ray. Okay, yeah, it's great for seeing bones and getting through skin and stuff. There's soft X-ray and hard X-ray. Those are nice ways of saying they're both bad for you. There's just lower-energy X-rays and higher-energy X-rays. You really don't wanna get hit too much by either of those. And then up here, you have gamma rays, which are just the do not disturb of the electromagnetic radiation. That's bad stuff. But there's all kinds of stuff in the universe that makes gamma rays. And PET imaging, actually, where you use matter and anti-matter in the body, this creates a pair of gamma rays. And you can look at the pair of gamma rays and figure out where in the body it came from. So gamma rays are our friends, too. You just have to be careful of how much you get, all right? All right, so that's what we see. And this is what the universe is made of. There's a lot more going on in the universe than our eyes, and certainly our ears and sun waves can tell us. And we've learned over the last century or so to begin to listen to this stuff, listen in the sense that we are looking at the universe in electromagnetic radiation. All right, so here's a question. If water travels, if water waves travel in water, that is that they're a displacement of a medium, and sound waves travel in air, that is they're a displacement of a medium, air, then what the heck does light travel in? Because Maxwell's equations describe in free space, free space, there's no matter there, no charge, no electrons, there's nothing. So what the heck are the electromagnetic rays waves traveling through to propagate from point A to point B? This was a question that really bugged people about the laws of electromagnetism. They didn't seem to require a medium for these waves to travel, and that flew in the face of all understanding of the mechanical universe. So it was proposed that there was in fact a medium, and it just wasn't in Maxwell's equations, and Maxwell's equations were the new kids on the block and they're probably incomplete and wrong, okay? They called this medium the ether, and physicists set out to find it, and they did very sensitive experiments that absolutely was going to detect the existence of the ether causing light to slow down in some directions versus others as we moved through the ether, and they saw nothing, they saw absolutely nothing. So there was actually an experiment to see if the ether is, if the earth is moving through the ether in the universe, there was a prediction about how that would affect light waves, and they did the measurement. It's called the Michelson-Morley experiment. They did it over and over and over again, and they never saw anything. They went well beyond the sensitivity required to see this ether. And then I thought, okay, well what if the earth, as it's rotating, is dragging the ether with it? So then people used telescopes to see how light would be deviated depending on how the ether is dragging the light with it as it's on nothing, it's on none of this. So there were repeated ways of testing for the presence of the ether, and none of them ever observed it. And so if Maxwell's equations require no medium for the propagation of this electromagnetic wave, and yet all the laws of Newton and all the greats that came before Maxwell and Faraday and Ampere and all these people required a medium, who's wrong? And it was this guy, Albert Einstein, who lived from 1879 to 1955, who in 1905 published three papers, one on the theory of atoms, the atomic theory, one on the nature of light, and one reinterpreting space and time based on the theory of electromagnetism. So Einstein took the radical idea that electromagnetism has the correct description of space and time and motion, and that it's Newton's laws that are incomplete. That is not what most people were doing, okay? So he ran with that. He said, okay, well look, the laws of electromagnetism don't require a medium, and if you observe that the speed of light is the same regardless of your state of motion, well then maybe that's the way the universe really is, and all this business about if I travel, if I run at light according to Newton, I should see light speed up as it runs toward me in the same way that when you're heading toward a car at 60 miles an hour and you speed up to 75 to go at it faster, it appears to be moving at you much faster than it was before. Light doesn't do that. Light always travels relative to you and that 2.998 times 10 to the 8th meters per second regardless of your state of motion, and that is a weird truth, but it is the truth. So Newton had it wrong. Galileo and his understanding of space and time was incorrect according to Einstein. Electromagnetism has the correct description of space and time, and he ran with it. And so as a result of this, we have a completely reimagined universe which is observation we've been held up for a century. Einstein reimagined space and time. Newton and Galileo and all their colleagues and people that built on their work, they just assumed the space and time were a fixed frame of reference in which all events happen. Imagine an invisible grid that fills the universe and for all observers that grid is the same. Space and time are the same for all observers. Einstein said, well, no, Maxwell's equations tell us that all observers definitely agree on events happening in space and time, but they disagree on why they happen. Some people will think they happen because space is contracted. Some people will think that they happen because clocks are running slowly for some observers and not others. Space and time are different for different observers moving at different speeds. That is a radical idea that has also been held up experimentally over and over and over again. Einstein also recognized that there were some experiments that suggested that, yes, lights a wave, but you can't explain the outcome of some experiments by assuming it is only a wave.  The laws of electromagnetism describe light as a wave, not a particle. Einstein proposed, however, that under certain conditions, light may have a particle behavior as well and that's culminating this experiment called the photoelectric effect. And these concepts launched twin revolutions relativity, which was a general theory of space and time and quantum physics, a general theory of matter and forces.  But that, when you put these two together, at least special relativity, motion, space and time and quantum physics, you get the thing that we're testing at the Large Hadron Collider to see if we can make it great for a change. Okay? So if you'd like more, I encourage you to go watch the first two episodes of the fabric of the cosmos, which is hosted by physicist Brian Green from Columbia University. You see here the idea that time is relative. It can be warped and stretched like a fabric. The first episode is when is space and the second episode is the illusion of time. You can kind of see where these are going, right? All right, so if you were interested in this topic, go check these out. They're each about an hour. They're on public television. Enjoy. And then the last thing I just, yeah, pbs.org. And then the last thing I wanted to show you is this. I love this because it culminates everything that we've been doing for the whole semester. So if I turn this on to dynamo, okay, so no power, right? No sound coming out of this. All right. Probably sort of tuned to the station. That actually comes in. There we go. The little pig yellow from one hour. Heat and then burn. Perfect. So I can use mechanical work to induce a electromagnetic field that charges the EMF device, the battery that's in the back of this. And then once that battery is a little bit charged, it can now receive and amplify electromagnetic waves coming in from this antenna. So electricity, magnetism, magnetic induction, inducing electromagnetic radiation and receiving electromagnetic radiation all nicely held in this tiny little plastic box.


Kindergarteners at Harrison Elementary School and Brainerd celebrated Thanksgiving in a unique way. Reporter Rachel Johnson has this week's Golden Apple. The gym at Harrison Elementary School was packed yesterday as kindergarteners, teachers and family joined together for a Thanksgiving meal. We've invited their parents or grandparents or their special guests to come for the day and enjoy Thanksgiving together. They work so hard all year long and our school is just like a great family. So we want to invite their parents to come for this special day. The tradition started around 10 years ago when two teachers, Miss Vots and Miss Roberts started working at Harrison together. As long as we're doing teaching together, I'm sure we'll do this every year. So it's a great fun. The turkeys were donated by the school and then each child is asked to bring a side dish or something to contribute to the feast. Pickles and olives and cheese and stuff and it's just an opportunity for the kindergarten kids to feast with their families. So it's a great thing. We love it every year. It's one of our favorite days. Leading up to the feast, the students decorate the gym and get it ready for their parents. They made all these great turkeys. They made a bag turkey. They made a little table topper turkey and a little pattern turkey and their little poster of their whole family and what they're thankful for. The staff at Harrison look forward to the tradition every year. We're a family here at Harrison. So as many opportunities as we can to get families in to do these things. You know, we do all these academics and all these other things, but we just have to take care of our families here.  The kindergarten teachers believe it is important to step outside of the usual routine to celebrate Thanksgiving. This is just a great way to show that schools about celebrating our family and our friends. And when we work hard, we also get to have some little playtime too. So this is just a great way to kick off the Thanksgiving break. The teachers hope to keep the tradition of the Thanksgiving feast alive for years to come. Reporting from Brainerbitt this week's Golden Apple, Rachel Johnson, Lakeland News. If you enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to Lakeland PBS.


So, Excellencies, Distinguished Delegates, Participants and Dear Colleagues, I would like to welcome you to this virtual lunch of the FAO's State of Food and Agriculture, SOFA, organized in collaboration with the FAO's Agri-Food Economics Division. I would also like to thank you for taking the time to attend today's session, given your busy schedules. We appreciate your support and interest in FAO's work. My name is Delphine Badam-Peliard. I am Senior Liaison Officer at the FAO Liaison Office in Geneva and I will moderate today's session. As you may already know, FAO supports its members' efforts to formulate policies conducive to improve food security by strengthening evidence and analysis, providing capacity development and facilitating a not-hold dialogue away from the negotiating table. With today's session, we will have the opportunity to elaborate on the theme of the 2023 edition of the SOFA on revealing the true cost of food to transform agri-food systems. This event since 1947, FAO's State of Food and Agriculture is launched with a different theme. This year, for the first time, the 2023 and 2024 edition of the SOFA will continue with the same theme to be further developed in the 2024 edition. This year's SOFA is focussing to consider the hidden impact of producing the food units. True cost accounting allows estimating the cost and benefits of agri-food systems, providing decision makers with the evidence needed for their transformation. Indeed, agri-food systems have become increasingly unsustainable, contributing to climate change and natural resource degradation, while failing to provide healthy diets for all. Yet many such impacts, both positive and negative, are now reflected in the market prices of agricultural products. Within agri-food systems, these hidden costs are not known and so go unconsidered in the day-to-day decisions that agri-food actors make regarding what to produce, how to produce, how to process, store, or market produce, or how to manage new unused produce. The report SOFA 2023 makes the case for more regular and detailed analysis by government and the private sector of the hidden or true costs of food systems followed by action to mitigate these harms. Next year's report will assess the best ways to mitigate them. Last week, our colleagues organized a roundtable discussion on the same topic in Rome. The report was very much appreciated and the 2024 report, which will target the measures that could be taken, is eagerly awaited. I believe today's discussion will also help inform the preparation of SOFA 2024. Now let me introduce our speakers. First, Mr. Andrea Cataneu, Senior Economist at Agri-Food Economics, Division of FAO, and Mr. Alvin Cox, Deputy Assistant Director General at the Swiss Federal Office for Agriculture. Before giving the floor to Andrea, I would like to share some details regarding housekeeping. So this is a virtual event where virtual participation is possible through the Zoom platform and the event will be in English only with no interpretation. We have reserved some time at the end of the session for questions and we would kindly request you to submit your question in the Q&A module. While posting your questions, please kindly state your name and organization or institution and we will try to accommodate as many requests as possible as the time permits. After the session, we will share the presentation and recording as well as relevant sources with all participants. That's all for housekeeping issues. So now I would like to give the floor to Andrea. Andrea will present the SOFA 2023. Please, Andrea, the floor is yours. Thank you. Let me share my screen to show the presentation. You should be seeing my presentation right now. So let me just start by saying that we're very excited about presenting the SOFA report. As if you mentioned, this will be ongoing work into next year, so we're eager to get feedback. The theme of this year's SOFA is revealing the true cost of food to transform every food system. So it's going towards action, understanding the costs to go towards action. This is a particularly relevant theme because many of the impacts of every food systems, both positive and negative, are not included in the market prices, which really shape incentives to produce, process, distribute, consume, and dispose of every food product. So they are in and generally not considered in the day-to-day decisions of every food actives. That is the challenge. And this gives rise to consequences, both good and bad, that are not always visible. So that's why we find it vital that the impacts of our actions within our food systems are made transparent. So the objective of this year's SOFA is to uncover these impacts and contribute to improve their environmental, social, and economic sustainability. As such, this report adopts an approach, which is true cost accounting, also known as TCA, to assess the impact. Using this approach, the report presents a preliminary quantification of the hidden costs of every food systems for 154 countries. So we stress that these results are preliminary, but we think it's important to put them out there. The report uses global sources with country-level and annual data, and it recognizes the level of uncertainty in these estimates, but it also provides ranges for this uncertainty. So we think that's also quite valuable. It then moves to provide guidance on how to conduct more targeted every food system assessments that go beyond the nationwide national levels that are presented in this report, but how we wouldn't go about it to inform action. And it discusses the role of these assessments in implementing levers for transforming every food system. So I will touch on these different elements here. So next year's report, as we mentioned, will be on the same topic. It will focus more on the empirical applications of TCA through case studies around the world. The case studies will include targeted country-specific analysis that will help guide decision makers to prioritize actions. So specifically, it's about identifying trade-offs and synergies among possible interventions and policy options, having a more kind of systemic perspective. And so by having both conditions dedicated to this topic, FAO is hoping to pave the way for kind of broader average food system assessments to be part and parcel to decision-making. Why? Well, because average food systems touch our lives in so many ways that we can't really ignore these hidden impacts. So, you know, let's be clear. The value of average food systems is not in doubt. Average food systems bring great benefits to us through jobs, food, and culture. But they also generate significant human costs that impact the environment, society, and health, as I mentioned, and negatively affect all countries. This is across the board. The essential of these human costs are assessed in values through rigorous accounting, and then this information is used to reduce them. So, true cost accounting is a systemic approach, but it brings together the environmental, social, health, and economic dimensions, and its objective is to improve decision-making. So, but before diving into the estimation of these human costs, it's important to understand why these exist to begin with. In most cases, these are caused by market, institutional, and policy failures, whereby resources either are not allocated efficiently or opportunities for sustainable development are not seized, taken advantage of. So, these failures generate losses to society that are not reflected in market prices. And so, that's why we call them hidden costs. Examples, water pollution from fertilizers. Although it can be reduced with the right practices, it may come at a private cost to farmers for which they have no incentive. So, this reduces the quantity of safe water with negative consequences for human health and the environment. Another example from a distributional perspective is how many every food system workers are poor despite an abundance of profits downstream in food supply chains. That is another human impact of how every food systems function. To complete this picture are the hidden costs associated with unhealthy dietary patterns that can arise from the lack of information about the impact of consuming highly processed foods of low nutritional value or simply stated preferences. So, these are how do these different impacts compare and stack up? And how do we look at them in this overarching broad aspects? So, this is what this report does. It goes, we examine the hidden costs along the value chains from inputs and primary production to consumers. So, all along that arrow. And the model used in the analysis was paired with power stat data and other global sources that contain data from multiple countries and time periods on greenhouse gas emissions, nitrogen emissions, land use change, blue water use. So, these constitute the environmental hidden costs in green. Next, as a poverty and undernourishment are social hidden costs that come about higher productivity losses because of undernourishment or because poverty in within every food systems, people who work within every food systems who cannot make a living and therefore what would be the cost to society to bring them above the moderate poverty line. And finally, the burden of disease from dietary patterns which is in blue. So, the new thing about this report is that unlike previous estimates that did exist on the true costs of every food systems, this analysis were estimated, I mean, is done at the national every food system level for 154 countries. So, this is the first time it has been done for so many countries in a way that is comparable. However, because estimates were all monetized, they enable aggregation comparison on different dimensions and geographical scales. So, in this exercise, both kind of hidden costs and benefits are factored in as much as possible. However, hidden benefits such as return ecosystem services from grassland recovery into forestry, for example, are expressed as negative hidden costs. For that reason, we say hidden costs as a simplification. We also acknowledge that some benefits cannot be monetized such as cultural identity and our bus excluded from this analysis. So, this analysis has some some of the costs, but not all of them. This is for this reason that we call these estimates preliminary and we look forward to improving them and do country level studies that are more in depth. So, we find that aggregate systems generated an expected value of 12.7 trillion dollars in hidden costs in 2020. So, environmental hidden costs amount to about 2.9 trillion, which corresponds to about 20 percent of total quantified hidden costs caused by average food systems and social hidden costs to 571 billion and pelting costs account for the majority of these hidden costs and being more than 9 trillion. So, this is equivalent to about 10 percent of global GDP per day. These costs are equivalent to 35 billion dollars or about 4.5 dollars per person every day. So, these are, you know, we find that essentially these costs cannot be ignored. I mean, even account especially accounted for the fact that they're likely in underestimates and some things are not included. So, we also looked at the uncertainty around these estimates, right? And we find with a very high degree of confidence that aggregate system generated over 10 trillion hidden costs highlighting that undeniably urgent need to factor these costs into decision making to transform average food systems. So, uncertainty is not really an excuse for an action. We, there is uncertainty there about the exact estimates, but even accounting for that uncertainty, you know that the costs are higher than 10 trillion for sure. So, we also break these down by subcategories. So, I'm not going to go into the details here, but the environmental category is the one that has the most, the most subcategories. And we see that the environmental costs about half are connected to nitrogen emissions, mostly from runoff to surface waters and pneumonia emissions into the air. And these are followed by contributions to greenhouse gas emissions to climate change for about 30 percent and land use change for 14 percent. So, social hidden costs are mostly due to poverty and a much smaller part to undernourishment. And these are more relevant in low income countries that we will see. And then health costs represent a large majority of hidden costs and are based on losses in productivity from unhealthy dietary patterns. So, the costs of treatment are already part of the economy and therefore are not included in these hidden costs. These are hidden costs that are losses in productivity. So, however, aggregating the hidden costs of a global level hides important variation across the income levels of countries. And these, the countries are key decision makers in reducing these costs. So, this figure breaks down the hidden costs by main category and country income group. And it shows how hidden costs differ not only in their magnitude, but also in their composition. So, the first observation is that most hidden costs are generated in upper middle income and high income countries. Those are the two lower bars. Second, at lower middle income countries, account for about 22 percent, while low income countries make up only 3 percent of those hidden costs. In all country groups, apart from the low income countries, productivity losses from dietary patterns are the most significant contributor to other food system damages. So, now, this might give the impression that hidden costs are a problem only in high income countries. However, the perspective changes if you look at hidden costs relative to GDP, which is where market transactions are included. And this is the second figure here, right? Comparing the cost to GDP gives a sense of a burden of these hidden costs placed on national economies. And the story is in burden. As a share of GDP, the costs are relatively much higher in low income countries at an average of 27 percent in large part, driven by poverty and entrepreneurship, which is that orange band in the upper bar. So, the ratio of hidden costs to GDP is 12 percent and 11 percent in lower and upper middle income countries. And social hidden costs are relevant still for lower middle income countries, not so much for upper middle income countries. And in high income countries, the ratio of all quantified hidden costs is about 8 percent, the majority of which are unhelpful dietary patterns. So, the narrative changes quite a bit, depending on where you look at absolute costs or relative to the size of the economy. And it shows that this is not just a high income, rich country problem, but that in low income countries, this is a big issue and it's very much linked to poverty and entrepreneurship. So, the national level estimates that we presented are preliminary and serve a purpose of really of awareness building, right? We can go a step further with TCA to carry out more targeted analysis, which can further help set priorities for change and going into the specifics of what should we change? So, the scope of TCA analysis can be adjusted based of the needs of the decision makers. So, they can be a unit of analysis of every food systems or dietary patterns focused on investments or organizations or specific products and value chains. So, these targeted TCA analysis also allow us to explore scenarios for change in doing so we can identify trade-offs and synergies among possible interventions and management options. So, targeted TCA analysis can really contribute to assess policies before and after they're put in place with SES. So, and here I'm approaching the end of the presentation. As I mentioned, this is geared towards favoring action and addressing these costs. So, the end goal is that it helps inform decisions. So, and decisions happen all across every food systems and we can consider these as levers for every food systems transformation. So, for example, every food supply chains are influenced by trade market interventions, fiscal subsidies, laws and regulations that we see there on the left and public and private capital. Likewise, food consumption is influenced by various labors including those that affect consumers' pocketbooks and those that influence food purchasing decisions. And finally, kind of the general services and support to public goods, such as public investments through research and development, R&D, infrastructure that affect the functioning of our food systems can also be influenced. So, these levers are not new, but could be differently employed or realigned to better support the transition to sustainable life of food systems. So, the actors involved in this transformation is really everyone, right? And you have government, you have research and civil society organizations, you have business and financial institutions. So, just for the sake of illustration, you can see that with the yellow dots, governments have a major role pretty much in all leaders through different mechanisms, right? But also with here the green dots that research and civil society organizations are also influential in terms of laws and regulations, consumer, influencing and advancing the kind of general services. And finally, the business and financial institutions have a very important role. I mean, agriculture systems are essentially a private sector enterprise of all along value chains. So, especially private capital is a very important element in terms of how investments are guided towards more sustainable life of food systems. So, what does addressing these hidden costs imply? Well, there is a concern among consumers and policymakers about what will happen to food prices. Now, we have just seen that there are many different levers that can affect change. So, this was meant to convey that addressing the root causes of hidden costs is more than simply passing these hidden costs on to either producers or consumers. It is part of a structural process of every food systems transformation that aims to reduce these costs in the long run. So, the point we need to make is that uncovering the true costs of food need not imply overall higher food prices. So, for certain foods, such as environmentally friendly or highly processed foods, prices might go up. Overs, prices might go down from nutritious and whole foods. So, the bottom line really is that better policies and investments in more sustainable life of food systems can reduce hidden costs without increasing families expenditure on food. So, we shouldn't be afraid of regressing hidden costs. So, and this is my last slide, taking into account hidden costs and benefits of agrofood systems is really critical to FAO's vision of transition to more efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrofood systems. The findings of the SOFA report are clear. I mean, the global cost of an action is very high. The fact that they are hidden does not make these costs any less real. And they are substantial in all countries. So, to build momentum for action, concrete examples of how assessments of impacts of agrofood systems can affect change are required, particularly in data and resource-constrained contexts. So, FAO aims to mobilize resources to scale up these type of assessments and build momentum and engagement among members and all stakeholders shaping future policy making. So, this commitment is expressed by these two consecutive editions of the State of Food and Agriculture Report, but also to other work that is ongoing inside FAO on the assessment of agrofood systems. So, the ambition of these parallel streams of work is to catalyze and action and transformation by providing concrete examples of how targeted assessments can affect transformational change. So, thank you for listening, and we hope that this report, which is just a starting point to look at these hidden costs and take action, starts to build this momentum and inspires all to take meaningful actions that will steer agrofood systems towards greater sustainability. Thank you. Thank you very much, Andrea. It was good to have you as the lead author of this report. And thank you for presenting the main messages, this new edition of the SOFA. In particular, you explained that many costs are not included in market prices and why this hidden cost exists throughout the value chain. You showed us also some of the results obtained at a global level and the different impacts on countries at different income levels and also the levels of influence. So, thank you very much. And now, we can move into more details on the Swiss case study, a way of addressing true costs in a recognized international methodology framework. And I would like to give the floor to Mr. Alvin Kops for his presentation. Please, Alvin, you have the floor. Thank you very much, Delphine. It's really a pleasure, to be with you today at the Geneva launch of this flagship report of FAO. I will probably talk a little bit about not so much about Swiss results, but about why SOFA 23 on true costs is important to my office. We all know there is a need to transform food systems in order to achieve a sustainable development goals to help keep a climate change within the limits of the Paris Agreement and to make our food systems more resilient. Current food systems do not adequately address the environmental and health costs related to food production or food consumption. These hidden costs need to be taken into account if you want to transform our food systems efficiently. Switzerland recognizes the need to accelerate food systems transformation towards sustainability. Both the legislature and the executive branch are working on it. Redesigning public policy and repurposing public support will be key to make the transformation happen. True cost accounting will be an important tool to get the repurposing right. We congratulate FAO for having taken up this important issue and lead the way towards how to deal with it. The Swiss Federal Council, which is our executive branch, issued a report last year on the future orientation of agriculture policy. The report provides a vision for 2050 and defines the most important steps for reforming our food system. It embraces a food systems approach and aims to create stronger links between food production and food consumption. The federal government proposes to work on true costs and use true costs analysis of food to increase transparency related to that. The parliament welcomed this strategy and requested that we develop a dispatch of law to be presented to parliament in 2027 to put the strategy of the federal council into place. So we have a very solid basis to work on true costs of food in Switzerland. This is important as a transforming food systems is a whole of society task and all branches and level of government but also industry, farming, research and civil society at large need to be on board. Limited market transparency and insufficient considerations of externalities are disincentives to sustainable, healthy and animal welfare friendly purchasing behavior. It is important to ensure that consumers have access to relevant information, consumers next to policy makers of course. Currently my colleagues here are in capital undertake in-depth work to better embrace hidden costs in our policy instruments. This starts by developing understanding of true cost of the Swiss food system and will lead into the development of appropriate policy tools such as fostering transparency throughout the supply chain, incentive mechanisms and the like. But we are only at the very beginning of this process. Switzerland imports about half of the food that is that its population consumes. Therefore true cost accounting has to take into account these cross border relations. We believe true cost accounting has to be done objectively and in a non-discriminatory manner as trade is concerned. This analysis is done best within an internationally recognized analytical framework. This is why the work of FAO is so important. It looks at the hidden costs across countries in a coherent and comparative manner. We are very much welcome there for SOFA 23. It provides such a wealth of insight and the many background papers add to this. The report forms an important foundation for future work and is a wonderful opportunity for further collaboration. Switzerland will base its true cost accounting on this report. We are proud to be collaborating with FAO in the framework of the next SOFA, SOFA 24 report. We work together on a country case study on hidden costs and benefits of the Swiss food system. For this case study FAO and my office, the Federal Office for Agriculture, are working with elite scientists from the Research Institute FIBL. We will build on the results of SOFA 23 and drill further down in Switzerland's context by for example adding country specific data. The aim of the case study is to identify the most pressing challenges and opportunities for the Swiss agri-food system in terms of hidden costs. It will also provide recommendations for potential entry points for policy reform. An advisory group will support this work. This group is composed of scientists and experts from all different kinds of horizons and expertise such as public health, nutrition, agriculture, environment or modelling. Overall we aim to get a deeper understanding of the issues and we hope that the results will foster a fruitful dialogue among policymakers stakeholders and civil society which will eventually lead to the development of targeted policy instruments to transform our food systems towards more sustainability. We are very much looking forward to continuing our collaboration with FAO on this important and sometimes challenging topic. Again we congratulate FAO for the release of this report. Thank you. Thank you very much. Alvin for this very comprehensive and informative presentation. You showed us why SOFA is important for Switzerland and how it can help to accelerate the transformation of food systems and create better links between food production and food consumption and also how all stakeholders have to be on board. It's very important so we look forward to working with you in the perspective of the next SOFA 2024. Now we move to the Q&A session. So please submit your question in the Q&A module. So maybe first Andrea, we have a question on which reads as follows. So which hidden costs are included? Which are excluded and why? Maybe you can answer to this question. Sure. Actually before answering the question I would like to thank Alvin and the Swiss colleagues for the great support that they gave to SOFA 2023 but all in terms of rounding it. Because I think the report itself is a global report and if you don't bring it forward with country specific work I think it affects, it informs but I think it doesn't, it struggles to bring action. So I think what we hope to replicate more and more is this type of interaction that we've had with the Swiss Federation and with experts in the Swiss Federation to improve the results because these results and SOFA are preliminary. In terms of what is included and what is excluded. So as I mentioned greenhouse gas emissions are included, nitrogen emissions are included and as I said I mean there is, the report quantifies the level of uncertainty in different dimensions. So for example nitrogen emissions being incorporated in this type of analysis are quite new. There is also a considerable uncertainty that's why for example we see that the cost, the environmental cost that is reported in SOFA 2023 the bounds of uncertainty are quite high for the environmental side. Let's so for example for the social side that is quite well known in terms of because of measurement. And also some of these environmental costs are very localized so it's also more complicated to figure out what these old impacts are. So that's in terms of what's included and the fact that even in what's included there is some uncertainty that we try to take into account. We take into account water use and land use transitions. So deforestation comes as a biodiversity cost but reverting back from grassland to forest brings biodiversity benefits on average. And what is excluded we don't have a pesticide exposure. We don't have any impact on pollinators of pesticides. So there's both a health side and how an agri-food system functions because pollinators is a very important one. We don't look at specifically at land degradation. We don't have anything about antimicrobial resistance and the impact that has zoonotic diseases, consumption of unsafe food. So in these different dimensions there are a number of different costs. Even when we look at unhealthy dietary patterns that is specifically about non-communicable diseases linked to obesity. So for example if we don't look at the lack of micronutrients. So there are a number of elements that are missing there and therefore these estimates are to be considered conservative. And so there are also hidden benefits on cultural identity for example that we are unable to capture and monetize. And this is one thing that I think is interesting of going from this global perspective and tries to compare and monetize to going to national studies that true cost accounting doesn't require that you actually give a monetary value to everything. It is more of an approach to try and take into consideration what is important to the stakeholders. So it's useful if one can monetize it but there are things that one may be uncomfortable or not capable to monetize and they can still be taken into account in these more detailed studies where you're thinking about actions and what will be the impact looking at trade-offs in a way that is not necessarily in dollar terms. Thank you Andrea. And in the chat on the same topic we have a remark from Lorenza Yaquia who said that among the levels that are mentioned she suggests adding developing and implementing transparent and informative food standards particularly for normal products. I don't know if you want to if you have a short reaction on that. Well it is definitely an important lever. And I think depending on what is the objective by looking at food standards or voluntary guidelines so it ranges from the regulation to voluntary guidelines to labeling especially on the consumer side it can have a big impact potential. Because one of the things also we don't know is we have identified how big these costs are but not how much it would cost to reduce them. I mean if one moves to pay these costs between costs one has to take actions and some of these actions may be costly. So I think we hope in the next sofa to go into more detail on the different levers and so looking at food standards would definitely be something that is of interest in going forward. Thank you Andrea. An additional question. Could you provide examples of countries that have undertaken a true cost accounting analysis and what do you think stopping more governments and businesses from undertaking this TCA analysis? So countries that have done true cost accounting exercises it's mostly through the TIB and refood. TIB stands for the economics of environment and biodiversity. It's under unit that has a long pretty long tradition and it developed an average food component which is more recent right and they begun studies in Indonesia where the Ministry of National Development and Planning which is a button in Bapanas requested a science-based policy advice for food system policies looking at agroforestry and cocoa and that was kind of a you know it led to the inclusion of agroforestry for the first time in Indonesia's kind of mid-term national development plan. So that's the case of a targeted assessment which provided insight to policy makers and it made it into the mid-term national development plan. In Kenya there was a TCA analysis on traditional use of forests and food systems in the greater Mao catchment area and policy makers from the Ministry from the Ministry stated that the analysis will form kind of again the country development plan. So there is movement and it is it has been following kind of you know for having examples in Colombia, Thailand, in China, in India they will be focusing on organic farming in agroforestry. I think in Thailand we were looking at organic rice and how it would produce hidden costs and also on the business side there's a tea agrofood business element which tries to work with businesses and I think they're working in like seven countries Brazil, China, India, I think Indonesia, maybe Mexico, Thailand and so these are project agro business models by supporting them and understanding manage risks and dependencies on nature essentially. So there is these entry points that can be quite different. In terms of what is stopping governments from doing more TCA, I would break it into kind of two you know big things. One is evidence so you know there's a lack of kind of sufficient data information to really in a short manner to kind of prepare a true cost accounting analysis or at least that is the concern and there's also limited information on the cost of policy change so okay you find out what the hidden costs are or what's the cost of change so you have to go into scenario analysis so there's there's an element there that you need to invest some resources to do true cost accounting and also figuring out what indicators to use right and that's that's also on the evidence side and then I think there's a more kind of you know political and and the aspect which is you know resistance to change addressing hidden costs can require significant changes to current production and consumption practices and so adoption of these measures is not certain and they made me resistance from governments but also businesses from producers, consumers, consumers don't like to be told what they can or can't eat for example despite the health costs being very very high in middle income and high income countries so that's just one example but also tradeoffs right I mean I think it helps to figure out what the tradeoffs are but it doesn't resolve how to address those tradeoffs so using aerotemicals can improve increased production and reduced poverty but also mainly to ecological damages so it forces some choices that you want and then I think also concerned about distributional impacts they're concerned about prices but the most vulnerable being affected by any price increases now as I was pointing out our view is that it's a more structural process so it's not just about passing on these costs to somebody it's about changing how the systems function and so I think those are the two main things I mean one is kind of a the obstacle of kind of building that evidence that is you know because you are trying to look at these different dimensions in one go kind of the environmental, the health, the social and the other is kind of resistance to change and that's where we're hoping to just by familiarizing people with these same costs it becomes more of a norm to understand what they are and that we need to make decisions based on taking them into account. Thank you very much Andrea. Alvin I don't know if you want to provide some additional reflection if you want to react. Yeah happy to do so I think indeed at least what you can do with a true count analysis is to make hidden costs a transparent that doesn't yet give you a guarantee then what are you doing about this and I think that's what you're going to see also in Switzerland where if we go through this exercise now and provide more transparency it's then another a next step to say okay what kind of policy instruments do we develop or apply what are the changes based on that true cost accounting so I think these are these two steps but I think it's important to indeed look at these hidden costs if you want to stay within the limits of the Paris agreement and climate change there is no way around a transforming the food systems so and you try to better do it in a holistic in a systemic way because it's not everything that relates to hidden costs is actually doable or related to how you produce it is also related to the way how you consume I think you need to you need to get this broader picture and the framework that a FAO provides offers here it allows you to actually do that but then the big question for example you see in the Swiss hidden costs there is a huge a chunk on health costs related to food how do you change a consumer behavior and what is the role of government in that or of the private sector in that I think that all needs dialogue and true cost accounting can provide a good basis for these discussions that need to be that need to be had thank you very much I think if there is there are no additional questions or remark we are now approaching at the end of the session so I would like to close the Q&A session and so if there are any pending questions please send us an email and we will follow up on those questions and so now I would like to conclude the session so distinguished delegates participants and dear colleagues I would like to express our gratitude to the speakers who dedicated their time to be with us today as we are today this year's reports presents initial estimates while next year so far aims to focus on in-depth targeted assessments to identify potential path to mitigate them we have seen with the presentation of the Swiss states that governments can use different levels to affect the transformation of agri-food systems and improve the economic social and environmental sustainability of agri-food systems and with that I sincerely hope that this report will also serve as a call to action for all stakeholders from political decision makers to private sector players researchers and consumers and that it will inspire a collective commitment to transforming our agri-food system for the good of all I look forward to seeing you in 2024 for the next sofa on the same field and I would like to thank you all for your participation and wish you a very nice day thank you very much everyone bye bye thank you very much thank you