For some people, October is October. On October 5, Katmai National Park and Preserve in southern Alaska kicked off Fat Bear Week, when fans compare before and after photos of bears to vote for the one they think has gained the most weight before they bed down for the long freezing winter. Bear 747, also known as "Bear Force One", took the first-place spot with 68,105 votes. It weighed around 1,400 pounds.

Fat Bear Week started in 2014. At first, it was just Fat Bear Tuesday. Mike Fitz, a former park keeper at Katmai, noticed that live webcams showing the bears generated a lot of online comments, so he let people vote for their favorite fat bear on the Internet. The one-day event attracted 1,700 votes. In 2015, it was extended to a week. Last year, nearly 800,000 people got involved, turning it into a global campaign.

The contest serves two main purposes. First, some of America's national parks are in remote and undeveloped areas, which are difficult or costly to reach. Fat Bear Week brings Alaska's wilderness to fans' computer screens." It's not limited to the fortunate few who can go to the river anymore." Fitz said.

Second, Fat Bear Week brings attention to the bears and the ecosystems they live in. The 2,200 bears of Katmai are strong for feeding on some of the healthiest salmon (三文鱼) in the world，said Sara Wolman, a former park keeper. Salmon in the Pacific Northwest are suffering from overfishing, dam construction and warming rivers due to climate change. Luckily, Brooks River, which Katmai's bears like to fish in, has been free from these threats so far.

Fat Bear Week has spread like viruses. Fans and creators say it's because it shows a conservation success story. For one week, people don't have to focus on climate change or habitat loss. "Maybe things aren't super great all the time in the world," said Felicia Jimenez, who is a current Katmai keeper. "But there are some really fat bears in Alaska."

Beginning 2020, the fifth generation of wireless technology is expected to be widely used throughout the world. The new network, called 5G, promises to give faster speeds and a higher capacity for the use of more devices. However, while some companies are competing to be the first to deliver 5G to the consumer, the environmental influences of the new network are being overlooked.

There is some evidence that the new devices and technologies associated with 5G will be harmful to ecosystems. The main component of the 5G network that will affect the earth's ecosystems is the millimeter waves. The millimeter waves that are being used in developing the 5G network have never been used at such scale(规模) before. Studies have found that there are some harms caused by these new technologies.

The millimeter waves, specifically, had a detrimental effect on birds. In a study, researchers observed that after exposure to radiation from a cell tower for just 5~30 minutes, the eggs of sparrows were disfigured. The disfiguration of birds exposed for such a short amount of time to these frequencies(频率) is significant considering that the new 5G network will have a much higher density(浓度) of base stations(small cells) throughout areas needing connection. The potential dangers of having so many small cells all over areas where birds live could threaten their population's survival.

Additionally, it was found that cellular devices were linked to many disturbances in the ecosystems of bees. In this study, beehives exposed for just ten minutes to 900MHz waves fell victim to colony collapse disorder(蜂群崩坏症候群). Bees are an incredibly important part of the earth's ecosystem. Around one-third of the food produced today is dependent on bees for pollination(授粉), making bees are a vital part of the agricultural system.

The impact that the cell towers have on birds and bees is important to understand, because all ecosystems of the earth are interconnected. If one component of an ecosystem is disrupted the whole system will be affected.

Science reporting on climate change does lead Americans to adopt more accurate beliefs and support government action on the issue, but these gains are fragile, a new study suggests. Researchers found that these accurate beliefs fade quickly when people are exposed to coverage skeptical of climate change.

"It is not the case that the American public does not respond to scientifically informed reporting when they are exposed to it, " said Thomas Wood, associate professor of political science at the Ohio State University. "But even truly accurate science reporting recedes from people's frame of reference very quickly."

Results showed that accurate science reporting didn't persuade only politicians and people who initially rejected human-caused climate change also had their opinions shifted by reading accurate articles. The study involved 2, 898 online participants who participated in four waves of the experiment during the fall of 2020.

In the first wave, they all read authentic articles in the popular media that provided information reflecting the seientifie views on climate change. In the second and third waves, they read either another scientific article, an opinion article that was skeptical of climate science, or an article on an unrelated subjeet. In the fourth wave, the participants simply were asked their beliefs about the science of climate change and their policy attitudes.

To rate participants' scientific understanding. the researchers asked after each wave if they believed that climate change is happening and has a human cause. To measure their attitudes, researchers asked participants if they favored government action on climate change and if they favored renewable energy.

"What we found suggests that people need to hear the same accurate messages about climate change again and again. If they only hear it once, it recedes very quickly, " Wood said. It was significant that accurate reporting had positive effects on all groups, including those who originally rejected climate change. But it was even more encouraging that it affected attitudes.