Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.
Category: consciousness
The role of the planet today!
From that post: Venus, named for the Roman goddess of love, reaches its greatest brilliancy on Valentine’s Day, February 14. Venus is currently blazing, low in the west after sunset, with Saturn below.
Wherever you are, try spotting Venus.
An article on educating us on avoiding misinformation.
Many articles on nutrition are full of errors and for the lay person there’s no easy way to understand what is correct, or not.
That’s why a recent article appealed to me and I thought it worth sharing.
ooOOoo
Aimee Pugh Bernard, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus
The COVID-19 pandemic illuminated a vast landscape of misinformation about many topics, science and health chief among them.
Since then, information overload continues unabated, and many people are rightfully confused by an onslaught of conflicting health information. Even expert advice is often contradictory.
On top of that, people sometimes deliberately distort research findings to promote a certain agenda. For example, trisodium phosphate is a common food additive in cakes and cookies that is used to improve texture and prevent spoilage, but wellness influencers exploit the fact that a similarly named substance is used in paint and cleaning products to suggest it’s dangerous to your health.
Such claims can proliferate quickly, creating widespread misconceptions and undermining trust in legitimate scientific research and medical advice. Social media’s rise as a news and information source further fuels the spread of pseudoscientific views.
Misinformation is rampant in the realm of health and nutrition. Findings from nutrition research is rarely clear-cut because diet is just one of many behaviors and lifestyle factors affecting health, but the simplicity of using food and supplements as a cure-all is especially seductive.
I am an assistant professor specializing in medical education and science communication. I also train scientists and future health care professionals how to communicate their science to the general public.
In my view, countering the voices of social media influencers and health activists promoting pseudoscientific health claims requires leaning into the science of disease prevention. Extensive research has produced a body of evidence-based practices and public health measures that have consistently been shown to improve the health of millions of people around the world. Evaluating popular health claims against the yardstick of this work can help distinguish which ones are based on sound science.
Conflicting information can be found on just about everything we eat and drink.
That’s because a food or beverage is rarely just good or bad. Instead, its health effects can depend on everything from the quantity a person consumes to their genetic makeup. Hundreds of scientific studies describe coffee’s health benefits and, on the flip side, its health risks. A bird’s-eye view can point in one direction or another, but news articles and social media posts often make claims based on a single study.
Things can get even more confusing with dietary supplements because people who promote them often make big claims about their health benefits. Take apple cider vinegar, for example – or ACV, if you’re in the know.
Apple cider vinegar has been touted as an all-natural remedy for a variety of ailments, including digestive issues, urinary health and weight management. Indeed, some studies have shown that it might help lower cholesterol, in addition to having other health benefits, but overall those studies have small sample sizes and are inconclusive.
Advocates of this substance often claim that one particular component of it – the cloudy sediment at the bottom of the bottle termed “the mother” – is especially beneficial because of the bacteria and yeast it contains. But there is no research that backs the claim that it offers any health benefits.
One good rule of thumb is that health hacks that promise quick fixes are almost always too good to be true. And even when supplements do offer some health benefits under specific circumstances, it’s important to remember that they are largely exempt from Food and Drug Administration regulations. That means the ingredients on their labels might contain more or less of the ingredients promised or other ingredients not listed, which can potentially cause harms such as liver toxicity.
It’s also important to keep in mind that the global dietary supplements industry is worth more than US$150 billion per year, so companies – and wellness influencers – selling supplements have a financial stake in convincing the public of their value.
Misinformation about nutrition is nothing new, but that doesn’t make it any less confusing.
There’s no doubt that good nutrition is fundamental for your health. Studies consistently show that a balanced diet containing a variety of essential nutrients can help prevent chronic diseases and promote overall well-being.
For instance, minerals such as calcium and iron support bone health and oxygen circulation in the blood, respectively. Proteins are essential for muscle repair and growth, and healthy fats, like those found in avocados and nuts, are vital for brain health.
However, pseudoscientific claims often twist such basic facts to promote the idea that specific diets or supplements can prevent or treat illness. For example, vitamin C is known to play a role in supporting the immune system and can help reduce the duration and severity of colds.
But despite assertions to the contrary, consuming large quantities of vitamin C does not prevent colds. In fact, the body needs only a certain amount of vitamin C to function properly, and any excess is simply excreted.
Companies sometimes claim their supplement is “scientifically proven” to cure illness or boost brain function, with no credible research to back it up.
Some companies overstate the benefits while underplaying the hazards.
For example, wellness influencers have promoted raw milk over pasteurized milk as a more natural and nutritious choice, but consuming it is risky. Unpasteurized milk can contain harmful bacteria that leads to gastrointestinal illness and, in some cases, much more serious and potentially life-threatening diseases such as avian influenza, or bird flu.
Such dietary myths aren’t harmless. Reliance on nutrition alone can lead to neglecting other critical aspects of health, such as regular medical checkups and lifesaving vaccinations.
The lure of dietary myths has led people with cancer to replace proven science-backed treatments, such as chemotherapy or radiation, with unproven and misleading nutrition programs.
Pseudoscience exploits your insecurities and emotions, taking advantage of your desire to live the healthiest life possible.
While the world around you may be uncertain and out of your control, you want to believe that at the very least, you have control over your own health. This is where the wellness industry steps in.
What makes pseudoscientific claims so confusing is that they use just enough scientific jargon to sound believable. Supplements or powders that claim to “boost immunity” often list ingredients such as adaptogens and superfoods. While these words sound real and convincing, they actually don’t mean anything in science. They are terms created by the wellness industry to sell products.
I’ve researched and written about reliable ways to distinguish science facts from false health claims. To stay alert and find credible information, I’d suggest you follow a few key steps.
First, check your emotions – strong emotional reactions, such as fear and anger, can be a red flag.
Next, check that the author has experience or expertise in the field of the topic. If they’re not an expert, they might not know what they are talking about. It’s always a good idea to make sure the source is reputable – ask yourself, would this source be trusted by scientists?
Finally, search for references that back up the information. If very little or nothing else exists in the science world to back up the claims, you may want to put your trust in a different source.
Following these steps will separate the facts from fake news and empower you to make evidence-based decisions.
Aimee Pugh Bernard, Assistant Professor of Immunology and Microbiology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
ooOOoo
Sound advice for the majority of us!
The following is more than fascinating; it is an example of how far science has reached; both figuratively and literally.
ooOOoo
Chris Impey, University of Arizona
A hundred years ago, astronomer Edwin Hubble dramatically expanded the size of the known universe. At a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in January 1925, a paper read by one of his colleagues on his behalf reported that the Andromeda nebula, also called M31, was nearly a million light years away – too remote to be a part of the Milky Way.
Hubble’s work opened the door to the study of the universe beyond our galaxy. In the century since Hubble’s pioneering work, astronomers like me have learned that the universe is vast and contains trillions of galaxies.
In 1610, astronomer Galileo Galilei used the newly invented telescope to show that the Milky Way was composed of a huge number of faint stars. For the next 300 years, astronomers assumed that the Milky Way was the entire universe.
As astronomers scanned the night sky with larger telescopes, they were intrigued by fuzzy patches of light called nebulae. Toward the end of the 18th century, astronomer William Herschel used star counts to map out the Milky Way. He cataloged a thousand new nebulae and clusters of stars. He believed that the nebulae were objects within the Milky Way.
Charles Messier also produced a catalog of over 100 prominent nebulae in 1781. Messier was interested in comets, so his list was a set of fuzzy objects that might be mistaken for comets. He intended for comet hunters to avoid them since they did not move across the sky.
As more data piled up, 19th century astronomers started to see that the nebulae were a mixed bag. Some were gaseous, star-forming regions, such as the Orion nebula, or M42 – the 42nd object in Messier’s catalog – while others were star clusters such as the Pleiades, or M45.
A third category – nebulae with spiral structure – particularly intrigued astronomers. The Andromeda nebula, M31, was a prominent example. It’s visible to the naked eye from a dark site.
The Andromeda galaxy, then known as the Andromeda nebula, is a bright spot in the sky that intrigued early astronomers.
Astronomers as far back as the mid-18th century had speculated that some nebulae might be remote systems of stars or “island universes,” but there was no data to support this hypothesis. Island universes referred to the idea that there could be enormous stellar systems outside the Milky Way – but astronomers now just call these systems galaxies.
In 1920, astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis held a Great Debate. Shapley argued that the spiral nebulae were small and in the Milky Way, while Curtis took a more radical position that they were independent galaxies, extremely large and distant.
At the time, the debate was inconclusive. Astronomers now know that galaxies are isolated systems of stars, much smaller than the space between them.
Edwin Hubble was young and ambitious. At the of age 30, he arrived at Mount Wilson Observatory in Southern California just in time to use the new Hooker 100-inch telescope, at the time the largest in the world.
He began taking photographic plates of the spiral nebulae. These glass plates recorded images of the night sky using a light-sensitive emulsion covering their surface. The telescope’s size let it make images of very faint objects, and its high-quality mirror allowed it to distinguish individual stars in some of the nebulae.
Estimating distances in astronomy is challenging. Think of how hard it is to estimate the distance of someone pointing a flashlight at you on a dark night. Galaxies come in a very wide range of sizes and masses. Measuring a galaxy’s brightness or apparent size is not a good guide to its distance.
Hubble leveraged a discovery made by Henrietta Swan Leavitt 10 years earlier. She worked at the Harvard College Observatory as a “human computer,” laboriously measuring the positions and brightness of thousands of stars on photographic plates.
She was particularly interested in Cepheid variables, which are stars whose brightness pulses regularly, so they get brighter and dimmer with a particular period. She found a relationship between their variation period, or pulse, and their intrinsic brightness or luminosity.
Once you measure a Cepheid’s period, you can calculate its distance from how bright it appears using the inverse square law. The more distant the star is, the fainter it appears.
Hubble worked hard, taking images of spiral nebulae every clear night and looking for the telltale variations of Cepheid variables. By the end of 1924, he had found 12 Cepheids in M31. He calculated M31’s distance as a prodigious 900,000 light years away, though he underestimated its true distance – about 2.5 million light years – by not realizing there were two different types of Cepheid variables.
His measurements marked the end of the Great Debate about the Milky Way’s size and the nature of the nebulae. Hubble wrote about his discovery to Harlow Shapley, who had argued that the Milky Way encompassed the entire universe.
“Here is the letter that destroyed my universe,” Shapley remarked.
Always eager for publicity, Hubble leaked his discovery to The New York Times five weeks before a colleague presented his paper at the astronomers’ annual meeting in Washington, D.C.
But Hubble wasn’t done. His second major discovery also transformed astronomers’ understanding of the universe. As he dispersed the light from dozens of galaxies into a spectrum, which recorded the amount of light at each wavelength, he noticed that the light was always shifted to longer or redder wavelengths.
Light from the galaxy passes through a prism or reflects off a diffraction grating in a telescope, which captures the intensity of light from blue to red.
Astronomers call a shift to longer wavelengths a redshift.
It seemed that these redshifted galaxies were all moving away from the Milky Way.
Hubble’s results suggested the farther away a galaxy was, the faster it was moving away from Earth. Hubble got the lion’s share of the credit for this discovery, but Lowell Observatory astronomer Vesto Slipher, who noticed the same phenomenon but didn’t publish his data, also anticipated that result.
Hubble referred to galaxies having recession velocities, or speeds of moving away from the Earth, but he never figured out that they were moving away from Earth because the universe is getting bigger.
Belgian cosmologist and Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre made that connection by realizing that the theory of general relativity described an expanding universe. He recognized that space expanding in between the galaxies could cause the redshifts, making it seem like they were moving farther away from each other and from Earth.
Lemaitre was the first to argue that the expansion must have begun during the big bang.
NASA named its flagship space observatory after Hubble, and it has been used to study galaxies for 35 years. Astronomers routinely observe galaxies that are thousands of times fainter and more distant than galaxies observed in the 1920s. The James Webb Space Telescope has pushed the envelope even farther.
The current record holder is a galaxy a staggering 34 billion light years away, seen just 200 million years after the big bang, when the universe was 20 times smaller than it is now. Edwin Hubble would be amazed to see such progress.
Chris Impey, University Distinguished Professor of Astronomy, University of Arizona
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
ooOOoo
So wonderful that in this modern era we can read articles from distinguished scientists in the comfort of our own homes.
My son, Alex, took the following photographs of the Aurora..
oooo
oooo
oooo
They are fabulous. Especially so because as it happened we had mainly cloud cover here in Southern Oregon.
To close, here is an extract from yesterday’s BBC website:
On Thursday night, the stunning colours of the Northern Lights were visible once again even to the naked eye across much of the US.
Experts say the Northern Lights, or Aurora Borealis, are more visible right now due to the sun being at what astronomers call the “maximum” of its 11-year solar cycle.
What this means is that roughly every 11 years, at the peak of this cycle, the sun’s magnetic poles flip, and the sun transitions from sluggish to active and stormy. On Earth, that’d be like if the North and South Poles swapped places every decade.
“At its quietest, the sun is at solar minimum; during solar maximum, the sun blazes with bright flares and solar eruptions,” according to Nasa, the US space agency.
The current 11-year cycle, the 25th since records began in 1755, started in 2019 and is expected to peak next year.
This attracted me very much, and I wanted to share it with you.
The opening paragraph of this article caught my eye so I read it fully. As it was published in The Conversation then that meant I could republish it.
ooOOoo
James L. Fitzsimmons, Middlebury
The ancient Maya believed that everything in the universe, from the natural world to everyday experiences, was part of a single, powerful spiritual force. They were not polytheists who worshipped distinct gods but pantheists who believed that various gods were just manifestations of that force.
Some of the best evidence for this comes from the behavior of two of the most powerful beings of the Maya world: The first is a creator god whose name is still spoken by millions of people every fall – Huracán, or “Hurricane.” The second is a god of lightning, K’awiil, from the early first millennium C.E.
As a scholar of the Indigenous religions of the Americas, I recognize that these beings, though separated by over 1,000 years, are related and can teach us something about our relationship to the natural world.
Huracán was once a god of the K’iche’, one of the Maya peoples who today live in the southern highlands of Guatemala. He was one of the main characters of the Popol Vuh, a religious text from the 16th century. His name probably originated in the Caribbean, where other cultures used it to describe the destructive power of storms.
The K’iche’ associated Huracán, which means “one leg” in the K’iche’ language, with weather. He was also their primary god of creation and was responsible for all life on earth, including humans.
Because of this, he was sometimes known as U K’ux K’aj, or “Heart of Sky.” In the K’iche’ language, k’ux was not only the heart but also the spark of life, the source of all thought and imagination.
Yet, Huracán was not perfect. He made mistakes and occasionally destroyed his creations. He was also a jealous god who damaged humans so they would not be his equal. In one such episode, he is believed to have clouded their vision, thus preventing them from being able to see the universe as he saw it.
Huracán was one being who existed as three distinct persons: Thunderbolt Huracán, Youngest Thunderbolt and Sudden Thunderbolt. Each of them embodied different types of lightning, ranging from enormous bolts to small or sudden flashes of light.
Despite the fact that he was a god of lightning, there were no strict boundaries between his powers and the powers of other gods. Any of them might wield lightning, or create humanity, or destroy the Earth.
The Popol Vuh implies that gods could mix and match their powers at will, but other religious texts are more explicit. One thousand years before the Popol Vuh was written, there was a different version of Huracán called K’awiil. During the first millennium, people from southern Mexico to western Honduras venerated him as a god of agriculture, lightning and royalty.
Illustrations of K’awiil can be found everywhere on Maya pottery and sculpture. He is almost human in many depictions: He has two arms, two legs and a head. But his forehead is the spark of life – and so it usually has something that produces sparks sticking out of it, such as a flint ax or a flaming torch. And one of his legs does not end in a foot. In its place is a snake with an open mouth, from which another being often emerges.
Indeed, rulers, and even gods, once performed ceremonies to K’awiil in order to try and summon other supernatural beings. As personified lightning, he was believed to create portals to other worlds, through which ancestors and gods might travel.
For the ancient Maya, lightning was raw power. It was basic to all creation and destruction. Because of this, the ancient Maya carved and painted many images of K’awiil. Scribes wrote about him as a kind of energy – as a god with “many faces,” or even as part of a triad similar to Huracán.
He was everywhere in ancient Maya art. But he was also never the focus. As raw power, he was used by others to achieve their ends.
Rain gods, for example, wielded him like an ax, creating sparks in seeds for agriculture. Conjurers summoned him, but mostly because they believed he could help them communicate with other creatures from other worlds. Rulers even carried scepters fashioned in his image during dances and processions.
Moreover, Maya artists always had K’awiil doing something or being used to make something happen. They believed that power was something you did, not something you had. Like a bolt of lightning, power was always shifting, always in motion.
Because of this, the ancient Maya thought that reality was not static but ever-changing. There were no strict boundaries between space and time, the forces of nature or the animate and inanimate worlds.
Everything was malleable and interdependent. Theoretically, anything could become anything else – and everything was potentially a living being. Rulers could ritually turn themselves into gods. Sculptures could be hacked to death. Even natural features such as mountains were believed to be alive.
These ideas – common in pantheist societies – persist today in some communities in the Americas.
They were once mainstream, however, and were a part of K’iche’ religion 1,000 years later, in the time of Huracán. One of the lessons of the Popol Vuh, told during the episode where Huracán clouds human vision, is that the human perception of reality is an illusion.
The illusion is not that different things exist. Rather it is that they exist independent from one another. Huracán, in this sense, damaged himself by damaging his creations.
Hurricane season every year should remind us that human beings are not independent from nature but part of it. And like Hurácan, when we damage nature, we damage ourselves.
James L. Fitzsimmons, Professor of Anthropology, Middlebury
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
ooOOoo
It is such a powerful message, that when we damage nature, we damage ourselves.
But I am unaware, no we are both unaware of a solution, and there doesn’t appear to be a government desire to make this the number one topic.
Please, if there is anyone who reads this post and has a more positive message then we would be very keen to hear from you.
A few photographs from home.
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
The three deer photos show them feeding from me putting out COB (corn, oats, barley) each morning soon after it is light.
Of course, typically the morning I took my camera out there were just four deer. Usually there between seven and fifteen and a couple of months ago a friendly stag in getting to the COB as I was pouring it out rubbed his right antler on my right leg.
Feeding my friends!
I love this!
I am writing this having listened to a programme on BBC Radio 4. (Was broadcast on Radio 4 on Tuesday, August 13th.) It shows how many, many people can have a really positive response to a dastardly negative occurrence such as the Covid outbreak or a pandemic.
ooOOoo
Mark Honigsbaum, City, University of London
Every Friday, volunteers gather on the Albert Embankment at the River Thames in London to lovingly retouch thousands of red hearts inscribed on a Portland stone wall directly opposite the Houses of Parliament. Each heart is dedicated to a British victim of COVID. It is a deeply social space – a place where the COVID bereaved come together to honour their dead and share memories.
The so-called National Covid Memorial Wall is not, however, officially sanctioned. In fact, ever since activists from COVID-19 Bereaved Families for Justice (CBFFJ) daubed the first hearts on the wall in March 2021 it has been a thorn in the side of the authorities.
Featured in the media whenever there is a new revelation about partygate, the wall is a symbol of the government’s blundering response to the pandemic and an implicit rebuke to former prime minister Boris Johnson and other government staff who breached coronavirus restrictions.
As one writer put it, viewed from parliament the hearts resemble “a reproachful smear of blood”. Little wonder that the only time Johnson visited the wall was under the cover of darkness to avoid the TV cameras. His successor Rishi Sunak has been similarly reluctant to acknowledge the wall or say what might take its place as a more formal memorial to those lost in the pandemic.
Though in April the UK Commission on COVID Commemoration presented Sunak with a report on how the pandemic should be remembered, Sunak has yet to reveal the commission’s recommendations.
Lady Heather Hallett, the former high court judge who chairs the public inquiry into COVID, has attempted to acknowledge the trauma of the bereaved by commissioning a tapestry to capture the experiences of people who “suffered hardship and loss” during the pandemic. Yet such initiatives are no substitute for state-sponsored memorials.
This political vacuum is odd when you consider that the United Kingdom, like other countries, engages in many other commemorative activities central to national identity. The fallen of the first world war and other military conflicts are commemorated in a Remembrance Sunday ceremony held every November at the Cenotaph in London, for example.
But while wars lend themselves to compelling moral narratives, it is difficult to locate meaning in the random mutations of a virus. And while wars draw on a familiar repertoire of symbols and rituals, pandemics have few templates.
For instance, despite killing more than 50 million globally, there are virtually no memorials to the 1918-1919 “Spanish” influenza pandemic. Nor does the UK have a memorial to victims of HIV/AIDS. As the memory studies scholar Astrid Erll puts it, pandemics have not been sufficiently “mediated” in collective memory.
As a rule, they do not feature in famous paintings, novels or films or in the oral histories passed down as part of family lore. Nor are they able to draw on familiar cultural materials such as poppies, gun carriages, catafalques and royal salutes. Without such symbols and schemata, Erll argues, we struggle to incorporate pandemics into our collective remembering systems.
This lacuna was brought home to me last September when tens of thousands of Britons flocked to the south bank of the Thames to pay their respects to Britain’s longest serving monarch. By coincidence, the police directed the queue for the late Queen’s lying-in-state in Westminster Hall over Lambeth Bridge and along Albert Embankment.
But few of the people I spoke to in the queue seemed to realise what the hearts signified. It was as if the spectacle of a royal death had eclipsed the suffering of the COVID bereaved, rendering the wall all but invisible.
Another place where the pandemic could be embedded in collective memory is at the public inquiry. Opening the preliminary hearing last October into the UK’s resilience and preparedness for a pandemic, Lady Hallett promised to put the estimated 6.8 million Britons mourning the death of a family member or friend to COVID at the heart of the legal process. “I am listening to them; their loss will be recognised,” she said.
But though Lady Hallett has strategically placed photographs of the hearts throughout the inquiry’s offices in Bayswater and has invited the bereaved to relate their experiences to “Every Story Matters”, the hearing room is dominated by ranks of lawyers. And except when a prominent minister or official is called to testify, the proceedings rarely make the news.
This is partly the fault of the inquiry process itself. The hearings are due to last until 2025, with the report on the first stage of the process not expected until the summer of 2024. As Lucy Easthope, an emergency planner and veteran of several disasters, puts it: “one of the most painful frustrations of the inquiry will be temporal. It will simply take too long.”
The inquiry has also been beset by bureaucratic obfuscation, not least by the Cabinet Office which attempted (unsuccessfully in the end) to block the release of WhatsApp messages relating to discussions between ministers and Downing Street officials in the run-up to lockdown.
To the inquiry’s critics, the obvious parallel is with the Grenfell inquiry, which promised to “learn lessons” from the devastating fire that engulfed the west London tower in 2017 but has so far ended up blurring the lines of corporate responsibility and forestalling a political reckoning.
The real work of holding the government to account and making memories takes place every Friday at the wall and the other places where people come together to spontaneously mourn and remember absent loved ones. These are the lives that demand to be “seen”. They are the ghosts that haunt our amnesic political culture.
Mark Honigsbaum, Senior Lecturer in Journalism, City, University of London
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
plus Wikipedia have a long article on the National Covid Memorial Wall. That then takes us to the website for the wall.
ooOOoo
As was written in the last sentence of the article; ‘They are the ghosts that haunt our amnesic political culture.‘
Humans are a strange lot and I most certainly count myself in!
How The Dodo spoke of a dog and a wild shark bonding.
I do not know much about this story apart from the fact that it appeared in The Dodo recently and I took to it.
So please enjoy! (And that assumes you have not already seen the article!)
ooOOoo
Published on Aug 16, 2024
For most dogs, their friend groups usually consist of a mix of humans and other dogs. But Lili, a 3-year-old dog who lives on a French Polynesian atoll called Fakarava, isn’t like most other dogs. She prefers friends who have gills and fins. In fact, her very best friend is a shark.
Ever since Lili’s mom, Emmanuelle Larchet, adopted Lili, she’s known that her dog has an affinity for all things aquatic. She started swimming in the lagoon near Larchet’s house when she was only a month old.
“She’s really a water dog,” Larchet told The Dodo.
There are around 100 sharks who live in this lagoon near Larchet’s house. So when Lili swims in the water there, she’s surrounded by them. While many dog parents would be terrified to see their dog swimming amongst sharks, Larchet knows that the sharks Lili swims with are nurse sharks, who are actually very docile creatures.
“We call them sea puppies because [they’re] like dogs, actually … They are very nice,” Larchet said.
Larchet likes to joke that when Lili swims around with her shark friends, it’s sea puppies meeting earth puppies.
Over the years Lili has been swimming in the lagoon, there’s one shark in particular she’s grown especially close with. His name is Sharky, and he and Lili visit each other almost every day. Larchet and Lili are able to recognize Sharky because he has a special marking on one of his fins.
Lili and Sharky like to explore their lagoon together. They enjoy splashing around in the warm, clear water.
“He comes to say hello every time she sees him,” Larchet said.
Even though Lili and Larchet are best friends themselves, Larchet is more than happy to share her Lili with Sharky. And even though Larchet watches Lili hang out with her shark friends all the time, it never gets old seeing them spend time together.
“[When] I see her swimming with Sharky, [I’m] so happy,” Larchet said.
ooOOoo
It is a lovely story!
I’m speaking of a radio programme on BBC Radio 4.
Yesterday, we listened to a fabulous broadcast on the subject of Awe.
The programme was called ‘MORE WOW’ and the picture of the page from BBC Sounds follows:
It is available on BBC Sounds and the link is https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0022kt2
As I said to Jeannie the broadcast really spoke to me as each morning I am in awe of the black-tailed deer that I go down to feed near the old stables just outside the house.
Then I pause on my way back and look at Mount Sexton and the rising sun; again I am in awe.
Then at night, being a crystal-clear sky on many occasions, I am in awe at the heavens above.
The programme spoke of one being in awe of both the small and the large and I want to close with two of my photographs of me sensing awe in both scales.
oooo
That’s my story for today!
Now for a change!
Jess has sent me a great collection of dog pictures that she has found on Instagram and elsewhere and for a few weeks I am going to be sharing them with you.
oooo
oooo
This is a very touching photo. Dogs grieve about loss just as we do. Jess
oooo
oooo
oooo
More from Jess next Sunday.
Learning from Dogs 