Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

In the shadow of the world’s worst nuclear disaster, thousands of feral dogs roam the eerie quiet of the <keyword id="24385385" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Chernobyl-Exclusion-Zone" source="keywords">Chernobyl Exclusion Zone</keyword> (CEZ), a 1,000-square-mile area abandoned by humans since 1986. These dogs, descendants of pets left behind during the hurried evacuation, are now the focus of a fascinating new study. Scientists are diving deep into their DNA to explore how decades of exposure to radiation might have shaped their genomes — and possibly even sped up evolution. The research analysed the DNA of 302 feral dogs living at the nuclear power plant and compared them to their counterparts just 10 miles away in Chernobyl City. The findings revealed significant genetic differences between the two groups. While this doesn’t definitively prove that radiation is the culprit, it offers tantalising clues about the long-term effects of living in a radioactive environment. So, why study these dogs? According to Elaine Ostrander, a dog genomics expert involved in the research, the goal is to unravel how these animals have genetically adapted to survive and reproduce in such a harsh environment. Ostrander wonders if they possess mutations that allow them to live and breed successfully in this region. However this isn’t the first time scientists have wondered whether radiation could drive evolution. Back in 2016, researchers observed that Eastern tree frogs within the CEZ were more commonly black instead of their usual green. They theorised that the darker pigmentation, linked to a mutation in melanin, helped neutralise radiation. Could the same be true for Chernobyl’s dogs? While the study offers a starting point, proving a direct link between radiation and genetic changes is no easy task. Other factors, like inbreeding or environmental stress, might also explain the differences. As one environmental scientist noted, isolating radiation’s impact from everything else is “incredibly difficult.” Still, the implications of this research stretch far beyond the CEZ. Understanding how organisms adapt to extreme environments could shed light on the impacts of radiation, help refine evolutionary theories, and even inspire new approaches to tackling challenges like climate change. For now, Chernobyl’s wild dogs remain a living puzzle, their resilience offering a unique window into the interplay of genetics, environment, and survival in one of the planet’s most hostile landscapes. The findings of this research have been published in Science Advances.

Could radiation really be making Chernobyl’s wild dogs evolve? A new study suggests so!

More than a decade after the <keyword id="19965654" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="fukushima" source="keywords">Fukushima</keyword> Daiichi disaster sent shockwaves around the world, a new milestone has emerged from the rubble — Tokyo Electric Power Company’s (<keyword id="19965656" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="tepco" source="keywords">TEPCO</keyword>) groundbreaking robot successfully grabbed a tiny piece of melted nuclear fuel, a small but significant step in the colossal task of decommissioning the plant. <h2>The 2011 <keyword id="700300" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="fukushima-disaster" source="Orion">Fukushima disaster</keyword>: What happened?</h2>On March 11, 2011, a powerful 9.0-magnitude <keyword id="6362774" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="earthquake" source="Orion">earthquake</keyword> struck off the coast of Japan, triggering a massive <keyword id="42570" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="tsunami" source="Orion">tsunami</keyword> that swept over the northeastern coast of the country. The <keyword id="23791543" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-power-plant" source="keywords">Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant</keyword>, located in this area, was hit hard by the tsunami. This disaster caused the plant’s critical cooling systems to fail, leading to a series of <keyword id="23791545" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="meltdowns" source="keywords">meltdowns</keyword> in three of its reactors. The meltdown resulted in the release of hazardous radioactive materials into the air and surrounding environment, forcing the evacuation of nearby residents and creating a serious health and environmental crisis. The accident left an estimated 880 tons of radioactive fuel debris inside the plant’s damaged reactors. This highly radioactive material solidified into a dangerously unstable mixture, requiring years of preparation and research to safely begin removal. <h2>The role of the ‘Telesco’ robot</h2>For the first time since the disaster, TEPCO has successfully extracted a sample of this molten fuel using a specialised robot called "Telesco." Shaped somewhat like a fishing rod, Telesco was equipped with tongs at its end to grip a piece of debris no larger than a granola bit. Despite being only about 5 millimetres in size, this small piece represents a significant achievement, as it marks the first physical retrieval of melted fuel from the reactor since 2011. This mission wasn’t without its challenges. Initially planned to take only two weeks, the operation faced several delays. Early on, a procedural mistake paused the mission for nearly three weeks. Later, the robot’s cameras — which operators relied on for navigation — failed, forcing the robot to be removed from the reactor for repairs. Once these technical issues were resolved, Telesco was able to carefully clip a small piece of the fuel from a mound of molten debris on the bottom of the Unit 2 reactor. <h2>Why this small sample matters</h2>TEPCO officials emphasise that even this tiny piece of fuel debris could provide crucial data to help refine the decommissioning strategy for the plant. Testing the radioactivity levels of the sample will help researchers understand the current condition of the melted fuel. By studying it, scientists hope to improve robotic technology and techniques for dealing with radioactive material and gain insights into the meltdown’s progress, making future retrieval operations safer and more effective. This success may also boost confidence in TEPCO’s long-term decommissioning plans, though experts caution that the target timeline of 30-40 years might be overly optimistic given the scale of the remaining work. TEPCO has not yet outlined a concrete plan for the complete removal or disposal of the fuel debris, but ongoing technological advances may soon bring a clearer path to resolution.<h2>Challenges and the road ahead</h2>The Fukushima cleanup effort is one of the most complex nuclear decommissioning projects in history, requiring significant innovation. Robots like Telesco are vital, as high <keyword id="31246" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="radiation" source="Orion">radiation</keyword> levels prevent human workers from entering the reactors directly. However, each small success comes with a new set of challenges, including handling the radioactive material and finding safe, long-term storage solutions. In the future, TEPCO plans to continue developing and deploying robotic technologies to safely retrieve and manage the remaining fuel. While full decommissioning might take longer than initially projected, the commitment to advancing nuclear safety and managing past mistakes remains strong.

Breakthrough at Fukushima: Robot retrieves melted nuclear fuel fragment 13 years after tsunami disaster

Over the next week, super heavy showers are set to hit the Indian subcontinent, especially in the states of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, South Interior Karnataka, Konkan and Goa, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Arunachal Pradesh, and Gujarat, the IMD (<keyword id="19963725" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Indian-Meteorological-Department" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Indian Meteorological Department" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Indian Meteorological Department">Indian Meteorological Department</keyword>) has predicted. Yesterday, India's financial capital, Mumbai was hit by a surprise, albeit hefty deluge of rain. Consequently, a yellow alert was issued for Thane, Pune, Palghar and other areas near to Mumbai. Between October 13-16, very heavy rainfalls are also expected in Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh. It's no secret that incessant rains also bring about significant economic damages. As seen very often in the past, a constant barrage of torrential rains can also quickly create a flood-like situation, which can wipe away houses, vehicles and everything that comes in its way. Per media reports, the average economic impact on India due to <keyword id="19912527" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="floods" source="keywords">floods</keyword> between 2011 and 2021 has been a staggering Rs 25,805 crore. Imagine this-your entire se is flooded. Water has seeped into everything—your walls, furniture, and even the plumbing. Without a <keyword id="22058670" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="home-insurance" source="keywords">home insurance</keyword>, you'll have to spend a hefty amount towards repairs and to get your life and home back on track. <h2>Getting your home insured</h2>So, if you are wondering how to protect your hard earned material but immovable assets like house, the answer is right in front of you- Home Insurance. Says Dilip Baba, Head of Commercial and Speciality Underwriting, Go Digit General Insurance, "People usually spend their entire life savings on purchasing a home. However, people rarely think about how to protect their investment. By investing in the safety of home insurance, you can enjoy peace of mind knowing that your property is covered in case of unforeseen events. With home insurance, you can opt for three types of coverage-structure, content and comprehensive. While structure simply insures the physical, immovable formation of your house (walls, roofs), content coverage goes a step ahead and takes care of damage caused to your movable items like furniture, electronics and other items due to natural calamities, theft and more, up to a certain limit. This can also include any valuable artwork or antiques, or additional installation like solar panels you might have at your home. A comprehensive home insurance brings together both structure and contents in its insurance ambit. Having a home insurance can not just protect you from natural calamities like floods, but also from unforeseen events like theft, fire and more. The annual premium of a home insurance policy can range between Rs 2,000 to Rs 10,000 depending on the type and extent of coverage taken. Before buying a policy, be sure to clarify whether it offers actual cash value, which considers depreciation, or replacement/reinstatement cost, which covers the full replacement without depreciation deductions. To be on the safe side, you can also choose additional covers like accidental death insurance, or rent coverage, if you lose out on rental income due to damage caused to your property. You can use the carpet area of your house to get a sense of your home insurance requirements. Other covers you can opt for include valuable contents (on agreed value basis under home contents cover), additional living expense cover, tenant liability insurance, among others. Says Amit Bhandari, Chief Technical Officer at Magma HDI General Insurance, "When selecting a policy, it’s crucial to assess the unique risks that your home may face, particularly if you live in an area susceptible to <keyword id="19922196" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="natural-disasters" source="keywords">natural disasters</keyword>. You should tailor your coverage to address these risks while considering premium reduction strategies, such as excluding unnecessary coverages".

Heavy rains to lash across the country between Oct 12-16, here's how you can insure your home from rain's fury

In the early 2000s, the business of for-profit college was booming. After the University of Phoenix's parent company, the Apollo Group, went public in 1994, others were close on its heels: Corinthian, ITT Tech, and Kaplan each had IPOs in the 1990s, netting tens of millions of dollars and setting off tremendous periods of growth.Soon, private equity firms caught wind of the opportunity. In 2003, there were just 18 for-profits owned by private equity firms; less than a decade later, that number had more than tripled, to 61. For-profit enrollments were also exploding, from a little more than 425,000 in 2000 to 1.7 million in 2012 — an increase of more than 300%. By contrast, public colleges had grown by just 31%.Increasingly the boom could be characterized as a Wall Street versus Main Street match-up. Even in the 1980s, the majority of for-profit programs were still mom-and-pop affairs: short-term certificate courses in subjects like cosmetology and truck driving. By the early years of the new millennium, students were attending Fortune 500 chain schools for full-fledged degrees in teaching, medical assisting, business, and psychology. In 2012 there were 21 publicly traded for-profit colleges, and less than a quarter of for-profit college students attended a mom-and-pop operation; the other 1.3 million went to publicly traded or private-equity-owned schools.The profits in this new world were beyond belief. One study found that the for-profit industry netted 55% profit margins between 2000 and 2012. In other words, for every dollar they took from students, 55 cents went to shareholders, with overall profits peaking in 2011 at $5 billion. Within a decade of Apollo's IPO, Phoenix's student body had grown tenfold, and thanks to students' easy federal money, the company was bringing in more than $1 billion a year.It was a win-win for just about everyone involved. The schools' profits came almost exclusively from federal grant and loan moneys. The federal government was bankrolling not only their and their investors' windfalls but also those of the financial institutions and guarantee agencies that did the lending and collecting under the Federal Family Education Loan program.But there were two groups left out of the bonanza: the public at large, whose tax dollars kept the machine running, and the students who got sacked with the bill.Then the evidence started coming in, yet again, that the for-profit corporate darlings of the '90s and aughts were no more sophisticated — certainly no more beneficial — than the shady computer schools that had preceded them. In 1970 there had been only 18,333 students enrolled at degree-granting for-profit schools, less than a quarter of a percent of the total number of college students. By 2009 there were 1.85 million — almost 10% of the total. The grift had grown a hundredfold."I had worked in the sales industry for many years," the admissions supervisor stated. "But Ashford [University] had the most aggressive sales floor I have ever seen." The supervisor's employer was putatively an accredited institution that offered a wide variety of bachelor's and advanced degrees; in reality it was effectively a money-printing operation.The school's many sordid practices were revealed in a 2017 lawsuit filed against the institution by the attorney general of California. Among them were the tales of Ashford's salespeople — aka "admissions counselors" — who made hundreds, sometimes even a thousand, cold calls a week. Still their managers berated and taunted them, forcing underperformers to stand all day, jangling keyrings with the ID cards of their fired former colleagues in their faces. Some of them cried; some had mental breakdowns; eventually most quit or were fired. Managers created "lowest performer lists" and then fired the bottom 10th of recruiters. When the salespeople did manage to land a mark, they celebrated by ringing cowbells or flapping plastic hand clappers. "The sales floor had a true boiler room atmosphere," said the supervisor, not unlike that "portrayed in the movie The Wolf of Wall Street." And if they all misled some naive fools in the process, say, a few hundred a month, well, that was just the cost of doing business. It wasn't like they were going to get fired for calling loans "grants" or promising a program would lead to high-paying jobs or guaranteeing that if things didn't work out at the school, any credits earned there would transfer elsewhere (as they almost certainly would not). One Ashford admissions counselor got 25 violations in eight months and the managers dished out only a slap on the wrist. The risk of punishment by the company's Compliance Department was low, but the reward was irresistibly high: admissions counselors got paid by the sale, and the best of them made in the six figures. Recruiters preyed on their marks' naiveté about higher education, convincing them that they couldn't receive their financial aid until well into the semester (when it would be too late to get a refund), lying about what their degrees would qualify them to do, and encouraging them to spend their federal aid funds on things like cars or expensive vacations (against federal law).Ashford University was owned by Bridgepoint Education, which was backed by Warburg Pincus, a private equity firm. And the secret to its success was a foolproof tactic that for-profit financiers had discovered for getting their business off the ground and gaining access to the all-important stream of federal aid money. The trick was to gobble up existing mom-and-pop proprietary schools — as well as small, financially struggling nonprofits — and to acquire their accreditations, assets as valuable as New York City taxi medallions.But for students, the business model was a bust — at Bridgepoint, just as at any number of for-profit giants. With only seven full-time faculty for almost 74,000 students, Bridgepoint, like many of its competitors, spent way more on recruiting than it did on instruction. And it showed: Only about a quarter of students in any given year went on to get their "diplomas" within six years (public and nonprofit schools consistently graduated about two-thirds of students in that timeframe). Those who did graduate tended to leave with a hefty amount of debt — nearly $35,000 on average. By 2017 almost 20% of alumni were unemployed, and almost half didn't do anything related to their degree.Five years after California filed suit against Ashford, a state superior court judge found that the company had engaged in widespread deception — estimating that over an 11-year period, its recruiters had spread misinformation in more than 1.2 million calls — and issued more than $22 million in penalties. (In 2024, an appeals court reduced the penalty by nearly $1 million).The beneficiaries of Bridgepoint's grift were its shareholders and managing partners. The losers were everybody else. And if theirs wasn't a particularly victimless crime, so what? Nobody cared much about students anyway. "You stop thinking of these students as people," said one recruiting manager.In 2010, Tom Harkin, chair of the Senate's education committee, began a two-year investigation into for-profit schools. Harkin's assessment of the sector was scathing. He declared for-profits expensive, exploitative, and concerned only with their own profits. "They are not focused on the success of their students," Harkin declared.A number of these schools were held by private equity firms like Goldman Sachs. In 2011, one Goldman-backed chain took in more than $350 million in Pell Grant funds and made a little more than that in profit. At a time when the federal government was refusing to help unemployed, down-on-their-luck, and defrauded borrowers, it was bailing out banks like Goldman Sachs twice over: They had already benefited from billions of dollars in Great Recession recovery funds, and now they were scooping up ill-begotten federal student aid via failing for-profit colleges. Fifteen of the schools Harkin's team investigated were publicly traded. These schools received, on average, 86% of their revenues from federal sources, right up to the line of what was legal. One of the ways they did this, Harkin found, was by recruiting veterans. In the years after World War II, legislators reinvented the GI Bill several times to reward veterans of later conflicts, like the Vietnam and Iraq wars, and to adapt to the evolving military, which had become an all-volunteer force in the 1970s. A loophole allowed them to count Defense Department moneys, including GI Bill funds, as non-federal money. In 2009, a Bloomberg News reporter uncovered a tactic used by Ashford University recruiters. They were targeting a wounded warriors unit at Camp Lejeune, signing up veterans with brain injuries who couldn't remember which classes they were taking. Each veteran was a lucrative prospect, allowing schools to gobble up yet more federal funds.And gobble they did. By 2010, Harkin found, for-profits were taking in a third of all GI Bill education funds. But even more shocking, federal money flowing to for-profit schools accounted for 25% of all federal student aid and 47% of eventual loan defaults. This, in spite of the fact that the schools enrolled little more than 10% of all American college students.So what happened to all the extra money for-profits took in? Harkin's investigation found that for-profits spent nearly a quarter of all revenues on marketing and recruiting and often paid their executives multimillion-dollar salaries, far above the average rates for public- or nonprofit-university presidents. Students' money enriched every corner of the for-profit industry except one: quality of instruction.<div type="image" title="Cover image of Burdened: Student Debt and the Making of an American Crisis by Ryann Liebenthal" height="2775" width="1838" msid="113224481" hostid="261" sizebytes="715136"></div>Economist Stephanie Riegg Cellini co-authored a sweeping study of for-profits, which found that students of for-profit certificate programs were slightly less likely to hold a job than their counterparts in public programs. In 2015, a separate study found that job applicants got just as many call-backs by listing no educational experience on their résumés as they did by listing for-profit credentials.When for-profit grads did find employment, Cellini found, they earned about a 10th less than the public program certificate holders. In fact, these for-profit students were actually worse off than if they hadn't gone to school at all. When taking into account their debt loads, for-profit graduates were projected to lose about $1,200 on their educational "investments" over the course of their lifetimes.In short, a simple equation summed up the for-profit ethos at this time: charge as much as federal student aid will supply, and cut costs to the bone. Everything in the middle could be harvested as profit. For-profit education was an industry on the dole.<a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/author/ryann-liebenthal">Ryann Liebenthal</a> is a writer and editor living in Oakland, California, who has reported extensively on the student loan crisis. She is the author of "BURDENED: Student Debt and the Making of an American Crisis."Excerpted from the book "<a target="_blank" href="https://www.harpercollins.com/products/burdened-ryann-liebenthal?variant=41472117669922">BURDENED: Student Debt and the Making of an American Crisis</a>." Copyright © 2024 by Ryann Liebenthal. From Dey Street Books, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers. Reprinted by permission.

Wall Street tried getting into higher education. Disaster ensued. 

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The US considered invading Japanese-occupied Taiwan in World War II.</li><li>Top US commanders decided it would be a high-casualty nightmare.</li></ul>The US once planned an invasion and seizure of Taiwan that would have been as big as <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-it-took-to-pull-of-d-day-invasion-2019-5">D-Day</a>.Operation Causeway would send hundreds of thousands of troops, supported by thousands of ships and aircraft, to storm the beaches of the Japanese-occupied territory in 1945."Almost certainly, the invasion would have been a horrific spectacle and nightmarish ordeal," said Ian Easton, an analyst who authored a new <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cmsi-maritime-reports/42/">study</a> on the invasion for the China Maritime Studies Institute. "Far worse than any battle that was actually fought in the Pacific. The campaign would have been protracted and might have taken six months or even a year."The CMSI study makes clear that a US invasion of Taiwan in 1945 — or a Chinese invasion today — would be difficult and risky.Like many years ago, today's Taiwan would likely wield Japanese fortifications and tactics to defeat a large Chinese amphibious assault — illustrating the risks and dangers of any attempt to seize the island that Beijing <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/xi-claim-us-trying-trick-china-invaded-taiwan-divide-allies-experts-2024-6">views</a> as a breakaway province.<div type="image" title="Battleship USS Tennessee bombards Okinawa while tracked landing vehicles carry troops to the invasion beaches." height="1290" width="1632" msid="114911578" hostid="261" sizebytes="94232"></div><h2 id="07f9280d-ef96-4980-878b-f2f80d092ff7">'A long, drawn-out fight'</h2>The genesis of the planned American invasion — eventually codenamed Operation Causeway — began in the late 1920s as the US Navy and Army crafted a strategy for a potential war with Japan. War Plan Orange envisaged an advance across the Pacific that would culminate with an assault on Taiwan — then called Formosa — which the Japanese Empire <a target="_blank" href="https://pacificaffairs.ubc.ca/book-reviews/imperial-gateway-colonial-taiwan-and-japans-expansion-in-south-china-and-southeast-asia-1895-1945-by-seiji-shirane/">annexed</a> from China in 1895 after the First Sino-Japanese War. The plan called for 90,000 Army and Marine personnel to capture Taiwan, which would turn the island into a staging point for an invasion of Japan. By the 1930s, Taiwan was discarded in favor of seizing Okinawa, a smaller objective closer to the four largest Japanese islands.In 1944, with Japan crumbling and an invasion of the Japanese mainland appearing likely, American planners again eyed Taiwan as an amphibious staging point and a base for B-29 Superfortress strategic bombers. Navy Chief Adm. Ernest King favored the Taiwan option, while Gen. Douglas MacArthur lobbied for an invasion of the Philippines. For a time, "General MacArthur's return to the Philippines was viewed as a secondary and supporting campaign," the CMSI study said.Initial plans called for a 12-division assault in early 1945. But with the European theater receiving priority for American forces, this was scaled down to six divisions (about the size of the initial assault force in the Normandy invasion). The objective would be to occupy southern Taiwan and the mainland Chinese port of Xiamen across the Taiwan Strait.But this meant subduing a heavily defended island of 14,000 square miles studded with cities, mountains, and forests. The more they studied the challenges, the more worried some senior officers became. Just finding sufficient forces would be a nightmare. "In total, it was believed that a force of 776,913 would be needed for Causeway, including all six divisions of the US Marine Corps, 20 B-29 bomber groups, 41 miscellaneous bomber squadrons, 40 fighter squadrons, and large numbers of naval engineers and logistics support units," explained the CMSI report.The biggest flaw in Operation Causeway was an underestimation of Japanese defenses. Intelligence assessments expected a garrison of 90,000 to 170,000 troops. In fact, the Japanese had 275,000 troops, including <a target="_blank" href="https://www.nippon.com/en/features/c03305/">conscripted Taiwanese natives</a>. They were backed by 20 squadrons of kamikaze aircraft and 600 suicide boats.The Japanese had anticipated the landings would be in southern Taiwan. They planted 10,000 sea mines, including 5,200 in the Taiwan Strait alone. Mindful of overwhelming American firepower, they built elaborate systems of trenches, bunkers, and tunnels above the beaches and across the island."Imperial Japanese and Formosan troops would have conducted a long, drawn-out fight in the cities and mountains," said Easton. "A guerilla warfare campaign was planned for after the conventional fighting came to an end. Taiwan's defenders were determined to fight to the bitter end, and the defensive geography, stockpiles, and underground bunkers they had were extraordinary."How would a US invasion of Taiwan fare? Other Pacific War battles offer grim clues. When American troops landed in the Philippines in October 1944, they slogged through jungles and mountains in a campaign that still hadn't ended when Japan surrendered in August 1945. In the April 1945 <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/wwii-battle-of-okinawa-may-have-prevented-invasion-of-japan-2020-6">invasion</a> of the island of Okinawa, US forces suffered 50,000 casualties in two months, as they confronted dense fortifications in hilly terrain, as well as 2,000 kamikaze aircraft attacks that sunk or damaged hundreds of Navy ships.In the end, the Taiwan idea was abandoned. "From the military view, it was absolutely the right decision," Easton said. "Professional war planners detested the idea of having to fight on Taiwan, and with good reason."<div type="image" title="US troops suffered 50,000 casualties in two months of hard fighting in the Okinawa invasion." height="1333" width="2000" msid="114911577" hostid="261" sizebytes="346978"></div><h2 id="33797d97-f032-4e79-af9f-e1d15b1b8089">Lessons for China</h2>Even eight decades after the Japanese occupation ended, Taiwan's military is still influenced by Japanese doctrine, such as the importance of hardening airbases, and how to confront an amphibious invader armed with massive air and naval firepower.Taiwanese forces still use Japanese-built facilities, including some bunker complexes. Some Taiwanese officers advocate renovating old beach defenses, and preparing for protracted guerilla war as the Japanese did.China would face these challenges and more in trying to seize Taiwan today."Taiwanese military officers pay close attention to history, and especially the history of island warfare, urban warfare, and amphibious warfare," said Easton. "They have all the defensive benefits that the Imperial Japanese enjoyed and more, thanks to modern weaponry and strong American support."Michael Peck is a defense writer whose work has appeared in Forbes, Defense News, Foreign Policy magazine, and other publications. He holds an MA in political science from Rutgers Univ. Follow him on <a target="_blank" href="https://www.twitter.com/@mipeck1">Twitter</a> and <a target="_blank" href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/mipeck/">LinkedIn</a>.

A US invasion of Taiwan in WWII would have been a disaster. A Chinese operation faces similar dangers.

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Neither Harris nor Trump outline specific disaster-relief policies on their website.</li><li>Their records, however, offer clues into how they'd deal with natural disasters as president.</li></ul>As another <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/hurricane-milton-evacuation-empty-gas-station-full-hotels-gridlock-traffic-2024-10">hurricane</a> threatens to devastate swaths of the Southeast, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump are under new scrutiny about their disaster response strategies. And though neither have specifically addressed how they'd approach disaster relief on their campaign websites, their environmental records offer clues into how they might deal with similar crises in the future.When Hurricane Helene bore down on six states, and with particular force in North Carolina and Georgia, both Harris and Trump said that the focus should be on providing aid, not politics. But the storm, which has killed more than 230 people and destroyed entire towns, has already crept into the presidential race. <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/hurricane-helene-milton-tampa-florida-desantis-clean-disaster-dangerous-2024-10">Hurricane Milton is expected to hit Florida</a> on Wednesday night, only exacerbating the focus on environmental devastation."Disasters are always political," Thomas Birkland, a political scientist at North Carolina State University who studies the politics of national disasters, told Business Insider. He said that disaster relief is not, however, usually <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/hurricane-milton-category-five-threatens-florida-fema-funding-2024-10">discussed during campaigns</a>.Timothy Kneeland, a professor at Nazareth University who studies politics and natural disasters, thinks that as hurricanes become more common, candidates should address them more explicitly."Having a short but clear statement on disasters should be part of any campaigner's policy," he wrote in a statement to BI.Both candidates have visited impacted areas, with Trump visiting Georgia on September 30 and <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/kamala-harris-donald-trump-crises-middle-east-strike-hurricane-election-2024-10">Harris on October 2</a>. Republicans criticized Harris for attending a fundraising event in California when Helene struck, while she maintained that politicians should stay out of the most devastated areas as first responders begin their early work.In the days since Hurricane Helene, Trump has spread misinformation about the storm and response efforts, prompting the Federal Emergency Management Agency to publish a fact-checking page. <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/hurricane-helene-relief-disinformation-misinformation-north-carolina-democrats-republicans-2024-10">Democrats and Republicans alike</a> say that the baseless claims are complicating <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-elon-musk-starlink-hurricane-helene-fema-2024-9">clean-up efforts</a>, and Harris has put out a digital ad slamming his former disaster relief. When he was president, Trump responded to several hurricanes. As with Hurricane Helene, he <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.vox.com/politics/376982/trump-hurricane-helene-fema-lies-debunked">publicized</a> misinformation. When Hurricane Dorian threatened Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, he incorrectly said that its path included Alabama as well. During a briefing in the Oval Office, he showed a map of the hurricane's path that included a Sharpie mark extending the storm's reach to Alabama. Trump also falsely claimed that the death toll from Hurricane Maria in 2017 was overblown, the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/08/trump-hurricane-helene-natural-disasters/">Washington Post reported</a>.The former president occasionally threatened to hold back disaster funding over political spats. In 2020, for example, he floated withholding money from flood-ravaged Michigan because he was frustrated with absentee voting procedures in the state."A charitable interpretation would be mixed on crisis management," Birkland told BI about Trump's past responses to natural disasters. Kneeland said that storm victims and disaster experts largely criticized his handling of Hurricane Maria.During his time in office, Trump's administration rolled back more than 125 environmental rules, the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html">Washington Post</a> found, with a big focus on deregulating the fossil fuel industry. Trump's campaign has, according to Birkland, "been pretty clear that it disdains alternative fuels."Harris doesn't have a presidential record to back up her approach to disaster relief, but Birkland anticipates she'd take a relatively similar approach to President Joe Biden.As attorney general, Harris prosecuted oil companies that broke environmental rules. During her tenure as vice president, she voted for the Inflation Reduction Act, which devoted $370 billion to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.But both Birkland and Kneeland told BI that Harris has become less aggressive about addressing climate change this election, likely in an attempt to court more moderate voters."Harris' position is a little murkier," Birkland said. "Harris has been clear that we should be doing things like alternative energy, but also supports, as of recent months, continued fossil fuel production. So it's kind of a both-and strategy."Presidents are somewhat limited in their disaster responses — both Kneeland and Birkland told BI that states and local governments lead disaster responses, with the federal government's assistance."Even when FEMA is on the ground they must work within the structure of existing state and local government," Kneeland said in his written statement. The responsibility is, he said, layered throughout the government.Regardless, all eyes are on how Harris and Trump respond to the twin storms — and the outcome of the election could theoretically hang in the balance. Kneeland said that disaster response can either greatly boost or doom an incumbent, pointing to instances as varied as Hurricane Betsey in 1965, Hurricane Andrew in 1992, and Hurricane Katrina in 2005.Though Birkland doesn't anticipate that the hurricanes will sway many voters, he said that even a small impact in swing states could matter."I think most people's minds are made up. I think that you're really dealing with the margins," he said. "On the other hand, this election is going to be won or lost on the margins, so that matters."

Hurricanes are taking the election by storm. Here's where Harris and Trump stand on natural disaster policies.

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Owning a home in high-climate risk states like Florida is becoming tougher amid rising costs.</li><li>Still, owning may be preferable as renters have significantly less policy support than homeowners.</li></ul>In states at high risk of climate-related events, both homeowners and renters face difficulties in the wake of natural disasters, but there are important things to consider in each case.On the one hand, buyers are facing rising costs as insurance premiums skyrocket. Renters could bear some of that burden, too, as rental properties face rising property insurance costs that could drive up rents in the future.But when a natural disaster hits, like this week's Hurricane Milton, the stakes are different.Both renters and homebuyers face an immense loss of stability if their homes are damaged or destroyed, but homebuyers lose a huge investment.Here are key factors at play when deciding to rent or to own a home in a state where climate risks are rising and natural disasters are becoming more frequent and destructive.<h3 id="fb983509-a634-4c57-8ea5-a41d41e6da00">Both renters and buyers face rising costs</h3>The costs associated with owning a home are becoming more volatile as insurance costs rise due to climate risks."Those dynamics really play more of a role in why you're seeing weaker markets right now in places like Texas and Florida, which see more severe storms and generally different forms of climate risk, and where homeowners are seeing greater increases in insurance premiums, which doesn't affect renters as much," Redfin's head economist, Chen Zhao, told Business Insider.Average insurance premiums have increased sharply in the last few years, up 33% from 2020 to 2023, but that trend is uneven depending on a state's natural disaster risk, a <a target="_blank" href="https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w32579/w32579.pdf">June study</a> found.Even in regions in different states with similar climate risks, those in states with overall higher risks often bear a higher cost burden as insurers pay to transfer more risk to reinsurance companies.Florida, which has a reinsurance exposure of almost 40% due to high hurricane risk across the state, saw annual insurance premiums increase by about $1,000 in zip codes close to its border with Georgia, even though areas on both sides of the border are similarly at risk.Georgia, on the other hand, has less than 10% exposure to reinsurers, and its zip codes close to the border saw increases of less than $500 in the last few years.Overall, rising disaster risk will raise annual premiums for climate-exposed households in the US by $700 by 2053, the study says."The cost of owning a home also has been more volatile over time because of the rising insurance costs and the climate change impact, and also because home prices are going up so fast," Jung Hyun Choi, a researcher at the Urban Institute's Housing Finance Policy Center, told Business Insider.Still, a big advantage to owning a home is the ability to lock in housing costs."Home ownership is still one of the most important ways of building wealth in this country," Choi said, adding that not only do homeowners build equity over time, but their costs are often fixed via the 30-year mortgage, which is the most popular home loan in the US.Renters, on the other hand, are subject to unpredictable price increases year-to-year. That's especially true after climate disasters, according to <a target="_blank" href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.14224">one study</a> that looked at rent prices following hurricanes in US coastal states.In extreme disasters, median rents rise due to reduced housing supply. In less severe scenarios, rents may rise because building owners are trying to offset losses from property damage, or possibly take advantage of higher demand from displaced homeowners.<h3 id="ccd2411a-bab0-4107-bf3e-4c9ccc85ffbc">Policy favors homeowners</h3>While it may be tough to know whether costs for renters or buyers are more directly impacted after climate disasters, public policy is clearly skewed in favor of buyers, Choi says. She pointed to forbearance and loss mitigation policies that are meant to help buyers keep their homes.After Hurricane Katrina, 29% of homes in Louisiana were damaged, compared with 35% of rental housing units — but 62% of damaged homes and only 18% of damaged rental units received disaster recovery assistance, according to a <a target="_blank" href="https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-10-17">federal study</a>.In places where federal funding was implemented for renters after Hurricane Katrina, though, rents appreciated at a much slower rate, one <a target="_blank" href="https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Disasters-and-the-Rental-Housing_final.pdf">study</a> found, pointing to the potential for future policy to address renters' vulnerability to climate events.Zhao points out, though, that renters generally have more flexibility to move and are less tied down when disasters strike."For renters, it's a different story. You don't own the financial risk of living in Florida if a hurricane comes through," Zhao said, adding, "I think that's the other thing that kind of drives a wedge between these regions and other places in the country, and also drives a wedge between homeowners and renters."Zhao acknowledges that renters still "certainly own the personal risk" of a hurricane. Renters lose their housing stability personal property the same as homeowners.Whether renting or buying is more advantageous amid climate change will be determined by policy solutions implemented in the next few years. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of clarity yet, Choi says.She adds there's a chance that renting has the upper hand in high climate-risk areas."If we kind of leave it like this, it could be actually better to just rent because you don't really have to worry about your properties being severely damaged and you're not getting any insurance coverage," Choi said.

Here's how natural disasters are shaping the buy-versus-rent decision in vulnerable states like Florida

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Ukraine started this year on the back foot in its fightback against Russia's invasion.</li><li>But since the start of the year, it's switched things up, including by going on the offensive.</li></ul>After entering 2024 in a sorry state, Ukraine has notched up a series of notable achievements since the start of the year, giving fresh impetus to its fight back against Russia.After struggling with ammunition shortages, in February the US approved an urgently needed <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/house-republicans-plan-ukraine-israel-aid-explained-2024-4">$60 billion military aid package</a> for Ukraine after months of political wrangling and <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/which-house-republicans-voted-against-ukraine-russia-aid-2024-4">Republican blockade</a>.Western allies have let it use some of the missile systems they've supplied to hit targets inside Russia, with notable caveats, giving it a better chance to defend itself against incoming Russian attacks.And it also <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/kursk-battle-ukraine-russia-war-strategy-2024-8">regained</a> the initiative with its surprise incursion into the Russian region of Kursk in August, even while gradually <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-kursk-invasion-russia-hasnt-eased-pressure-off-front-line-2024-9">losing ground</a> in eastern Ukraine.Ukraine remains locked in a ground fight with a Russian army that's absorbing heavy losses and continuing to swell as it eyes a grinding victory. The greatest danger is this pressure collapses part of Ukraine's defenses in the east."What Ukraine has done in the past month, starting with Kursk, is not going to turn around the war by any means," Abishur Prakash, the founder of The Geopolitical Business, Inc., a strategy advisory firm in Toronto, told BI."But it's definitely changed the war," he added.<h2 id="3d77a8ff-5cba-455e-a24a-68cfdc483296">Getting F-16s and long-awaited weapons</h2>Delays in getting Western equipment have long been a source of frustration for Ukraine.In May, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the West always seems to provide weapons a year after it needs them."Every decision to which we, then later everyone together, comes to is late by around one year," Zelenskyy told <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/west-always-gives-ukraine-weapons-year-after-needs-them-zelenskyy-2024-5">Reuters</a>.But some long-awaited Western weapons have started to arrive.These include US-provided Army Tactical Missile Systems, or <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-longe-range-missiles-atacms-storm-shadow-russian-cant-hide-2024-5">ATACMS</a>, in April, and <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/missiles-on-ukraines-f-16s-hint-at-missions-against-russia-2024-8">F-16 fighter jets</a> last month.<div type="image" title="Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyi in front of the first F-16 fighter jets received by Ukraine on August 4, 2024." height="3333" width="5000" msid="113193883" hostid="261" sizebytes="445220"></div>According to Mark Temnycky, a nonresident fellow with the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center, F-16s will not immediately give Ukraine air superiority in the conflict — something neither side has managed to accomplish — but they will bolster Ukraine's ability to shoot down missiles and drones from the skies."Aside from the military capabilities of these aircraft, the arrival of these jets will provide a morale boost to Ukrainian soldiers and civilians," he said.But it's not all good news for Ukraine: Lithuania's foreign minister, Gabrielius Landsbergis, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-promised-aid-not-coming-until-2027-nato-state-says-2024-8">said</a> recently that some vital military equipment that had been pledged to Ukraine wouldn't arrive until 2027.<h2 id="345d72bd-b695-440e-b13c-68b8478ab7bb">Striking inside Russia</h2>From the start of Russia's full-scale invasion, allies, including the US, barred Ukraine from using advanced weapons they'd supplied to strike targets inside Russia like the air bases and resupply lines critical to its invasion.A Ukrainian commander operating in the Kharkiv region near the Russian border told <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-troops-in-sight-couldnt-attack-us-ban-ukraine-commander-2024-5">The Times of London</a> in May that his unit watched as Russia amassed a huge force but had to wait for the troops to cross the border into Ukraine to hit them.Western allies lifted some <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-using-allies-weapons-russia-soil-wont-change-war-experts-2024-5">restrictions</a> in May, allowing Ukraine to strike Russian troops building up at its borders.But Ukraine is still not allowed to use Western weapons to carry out <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/why-ukraine-is-striking-deep-inside-russian-territory-experts-2024-8">deep strikes</a> within Russia, despite the <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-missile-attack-shows-us-must-drop-weapon-restrictions-ukraine-2024-8">pleas</a> of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.There are 245 military targets in Russia within range of the ATACMS missiles Ukraine now has on hand, according to a <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/interactive-map-shows-russian-targets-ukraine-could-hit-with-atacms-2024-8">map</a> released last month by the Institute for the Study of War and the American Enterprise Institute's Critical Threats Project.<h2 id="0f3992bf-25f4-4916-8ce1-7d9fb3971aee">Taking the war inside Russia</h2>The biggest change this year is that Ukraine altered the dynamics of the conflict by launching a surprise attack on Russia's Kursk region.The incursion — the <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-messy-response-ukraine-kursk-shows-weaknesses-still-plaguing-army-2024-8">first foreign military operation</a> on Russian soil since World War II — caught Russia and the West off guard.In just two weeks, starting on August 6, Ukraine <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-captured-more-territory-kursk-than-russia-seized-ukraine-year-2024-8">claims</a> its forces took more territory in Kursk than Russia had since the beginning of 2024.<div type="image" title="An aerial shot of Ukrainian forces fighting in&#xa0;Kursk with smoke everywhere" height="2130" width="3788" msid="113193887" hostid="261" sizebytes="118908"></div>Russia, meanwhile, has struggled to respond quickly and effectively, partly due to its <a target="_blank" rel="" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/kursk-ukraine-exploited-russias-dysfunctional-military-command-2024-8">complex military structures</a>, a lack of <a target="_blank" rel="" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-general-disbanded-group-meant-protect-kursk-border-ukraine-report-2024-8">contingency plans,</a> and <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-messy-response-ukraine-kursk-shows-weaknesses-still-plaguing-army-2024-8">poor command and control</a>.According to Mark Cancian, a retired US Marine Corps colonel and defense strategy expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, what Ukraine has done is show that it can shift to the attack.This is important "after eight months on the defensive and last year's failed counteroffensive," he told BI.However, "Ukraine is still in a precarious military situation," he said.<h2 id="1b65cfc1-284e-4507-958e-8f9afadf0397">Creating a winning strategy</h2>According to an <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-3-2024">update</a> from the Institute for the Study of War, the Kursk incursion has likely failed to change Putin's strategic thinking.Putin still believes Russia can slowly and indefinitely take over Ukraine through grinding advances and accomplish its objectives by fighting a war of attrition and outlasting Western support, it said. Ukraine's emphasis on regaining territory and reluctance to mobilize more soldiers may have complicated its defenses.Ukraine, meanwhile, is hoping its incursion will help it to achieve victory.During a <a target="_blank" rel=" nofollow" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfYXPOVCuWM">press conference</a> in Kyiv last month, Zelenskyy said Kursk was the first step in a four-part plan for victory, which he would present to President Joe Biden this month.The other steps include Ukraine's strategic place in the world's security infrastructure and a powerful package of diplomatic and economic pressures on Russia to end the war, per <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/27/americas/ukraine-zelensky-victory-plan-biden-unga-intl-latam/index.html">CNN</a>.Ukrainian officials seem focused on retaining the territory they hold and threatening more, which could affect the war's course or negotiations for its end. However, it's increasingly possible that the battle for Kursk fails to alter the difficult battle for the Donbas.Ukraine is "losing territory and may suffer a breakthrough," Benjamin Friedman, policy director at the Defense Priorities think tank, told BI."They need manpower most of all," he added.The Kursk offensive "has shifted the formerly gloomy narrative, at least for the moment, about the negative trajectory of the war," wrote Michael Kofman, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Rob Lee, a senior policy fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, in <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/ukraines-gamble">Foreign Affairs</a> last week.But they added: "But Kyiv must decide what to make of its initial win.""Kyiv will have to choose whether to hold what it has or to invest more scarce resources into the operation in an effort to force a much larger Russian effort to counter it," they wrote.However, this comes with risks, they said.In the worst-case scenario, this could mean losing substantial areas of land in its east and not holding territory in Kursk that could be used as leverage in peace negotiations.Ultimately, Ukraine may have to make some big decisions about its available resources.Prakash, the founder of The Geopolitical Business, Inc., asked, pointedly, what the next steps are for Kyiv, "because what happens if Ukrainian forces in Kursk are pushed back, and what happens if Russia starts making a big push in eastern Ukraine?"

You Searched For "disasters" and got 8 results

Could radiation really be making Chernobyl’s wild dogs evolve? A new study suggests so!

BI India Bureau

Breakthrough at Fukushima: Robot retrieves melted nuclear fuel fragment 13 years after tsunami disaster

BI India Bureau

Heavy rains to lash across the country between Oct 12-16, here's how you can insure your home from rain's fury

Ira Alok Puranik

Wall Street tried getting into higher education. Disaster ensued.

Ryann Liebenthal

A US invasion of Taiwan in WWII would have been a disaster. A Chinese operation faces similar dangers.

Michael Peck

Hurricanes are taking the election by storm. Here's where Harris and Trump stand on natural disaster policies.

Alice Tecotzky

Here's how natural disasters are shaping the buy-versus-rent decision in vulnerable states like Florida

Kelly Cloonan

Ukraine started this year on the brink of disaster. A lot has changed since.

Thibault Spirlet

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides