Category Archives: Life Extension

The South Korean government finalized its ninth national power supply plan on Dec. 28. According to it, half of coal-fired power plants in South Korea will be shut down within 15 years for the purpose of carbon reduction, 11 old nuclear power plants will be shut down at the ends of their service lives without any service life extension, and LNG- and renewable energy-based power generation will be expanded to offset the resultant decrease in power supply.

At present, a total of 60 coal-fired power stations are in operation in South Korea. Half of them that have a combined capacity of 15.3 GW and have been in operation for more than 30 years will be shut down by 2034. Still, seven new coal-fired power stations with a capacity of 7.3 GW will be built as planned. As a whole, the capacity of such facilities will be reduced from 35.8 GW to 29 GW from this year to 2034.

When it comes to nuclear power plants, the government is planning to increase the number from 24 to 26 from this year to 2024 and then decrease it to 17 by 2034. The capacity of the plants will be reduced from 23.3 GW to 19.4 GW from this year to 2034.

LNG and renewable energy sources are supposed to take the place of coal and nuclear power. Specifically, 24 out of the 30 coal-fired power stations with a combined capacity of 12.8 GW will be replaced by LNG power plants. The total LNG power generation capacity will be increased from 41.3 GW to 59.1 GW in 14 years by new LNG power plants being added to the replacements.

The capacity of renewable energy-based power generation will be raised from 20.1 GW to 77.8 GW during the same period. At present, South Koreas power generation is divided into 32.3 percent by LNG, 28.1 percent by coal, 18.2 percent by nuclear power and 15.8 percent by renewable sources. The government is planning to adjust the ratios to 30.6, 15, 10.1 and 40.3.

See more here:

Government to Cut Coal-fired and Nuclear Power Generation - BusinessKorea

Two new clinical trials in the UK are examining whether administering an antibody combination after someone has already been exposed to the novel coronavirus could protect them from developing COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus.

The University College London Hospitals (UCLH) NHS Trust announced on Friday that it is running the trials at a new vaccine research center.

Both trials are examining AZD7442, a long-acting antibody (LAAB) combination developed by AstraZeneca.

The first study, called STORM CHASER, is examining whether the antibody can provide immediate and long-term protection to people recently exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

We know that this antibody combination can neutralize the virus, so we hope to find that giving this treatment via injection can lead to immediate protection against the development of COVID-19 in people who have been exposed when it would be too late to offer a vaccine, said study leader UCLH virologist Dr. Catherine Houlihan in a press release from the hospital.

STORM CHASER had recruited 10 people as of Friday. Key participants will include healthcare workers, students in group housing, patients exposed to anyone with the virus, residents of long-term care facilities and those in industrial or military settings.

THE SECOND study, called PROVENT, is examining whether people who may not respond to the vaccine, including immuno-compromised people, or at-risk groups, such as the elderly or those with preexisting conditions, may be helped by AZD7442, even prior to exposure.

cnxps.cmd.push(function () { cnxps({ playerId: '36af7c51-0caf-4741-9824-2c941fc6c17b' }).render('4c4d856e0e6f4e3d808bbc1715e132f6'); });

We will be recruiting people who are older or in long-term care, and who have conditions such as cancer and HIV, which may affect the ability of their immune system to respond to a vaccine," said UCLH infectious diseases consultant Dr. Nicky Longley, the head of the study. "We want to reassure anyone for whom a vaccine may not work that we can offer an alternative, which is just as protective.

Both UCLH studies will examine whether AZD7442 reduces the risk of developing COVID-19 and/or reduces the severity of the infection compared to a placebo.

Trial participants will be able to safely leave the study in order to get licensed vaccines if it is deemed medically beneficial, according to UCLH.

Antibodies are produced by the body to help fight infections. Monoclonal antibodies are artificially produced in laboratories for possible medical treatments in patients already infected with the virus and could provide protection before exposure as well.

While vaccines train the body over a matter of weeks to produce its own antibodies, antibody injections skip that step, aiming to provide immediate protection against viruses.

AZD7442 is a combination of two LAABs derived from recovering patients that were discovered by Vanderbilt University Medical Center and then licensed to AstraZeneca, according to the company, which then optimized the LAABs with half-life extension in order to increase the durability of the therapy for six to 12 months. The combination is also designed to reduce the risk of resistance developed by the virus.

In pre-clinical experiments published in Nature, the LAABs in AZD7442 were shown to block the novel coronavirus from binding with host cells, protecting against infection.

UCLH'S NEW Vaccine Research Center, which opened in December, is operating under the patronage of the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) UCLH Biomedical Research Center and the UCLH Research Directorate, and represents an extension of the NIHR UCLH Clinical Research Facility led by Prof. Vincenzo Libri.

Libri is also a principal investigator on the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine trial and provides oversight of all COVID-19 vaccine/preventative treatment trials.

Mene Pangalos, AstraZeneca's executive vice president of BioPharmaceuticals Research & Development, stated in the UCLH release that AZD7442 has the potential to be an important preventative and therapeutic medicine against COVID-19, focusing on the most vulnerable patients."

"The STORM CHASER trial in particular is a unique approach, with enrollment initiated on site following the identification of a confirmed case to halt the spread of COVID-19 in the facility or community," Pangalos said. "We offer our appreciation and gratitude to everyone involved in these trials from the scientists, researchers and clinicians, to the trial participants and study sites as we all work together to help end this pandemic.

Antibody treatments have been evaluated since nearly the beginning of the pandemic.

In May, the Israel Institute for Biological Research (IIBR) completed a groundbreaking scientific development, identifying an antibody that neutralizes the coronavirus.

Maayan Jaffe-Hoffman, Anna Ahronheim and Idan Zonshine contributed to this report.

Original post:

Antibody study aims to protect those exposed to coronavirus from illness - The Jerusalem Post

Prince Harry and Meghan Markles royal exit deal is believed to expire next year, but now some have suggested that the couple are looking for an extension.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex stepped down as senior royals earlier this year, with an agreement of terms with the Royal Family. It is understood that the couples royal exit deal is set to expire in March 2021, with some predicting that it is quite likely they will lose their HRH titles.

Now some sources have claimed that the couple are reportedly preparing to enter discussions regarding a possible extension to their royal exit deal.

According to The Sun, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex are expected to make friendly video calls to senior royals next month before Prince Harry flies back to the UK (covid-19 travel restrictions permitting) for face-to-face talks.

It's been reported that talks are said to be less confrontational than at the family summit that took place at Sandringham in January 2020.

(Image credit: Photo by Phil Harris - WPA Pool/Getty Images)

The Sun reports that the Duke and Duchess are said to be keen to keep their royal patronages. Alongside this, Prince Harrys sadness at the loss of military titles as part of the royal exit deal has been widely reported.

These military roles are believed to have been kept vacant since his and Meghans exit and it is thought that they will remain unfilled until next summer at the earliest.

This then leaves open the possibility at least that Prince Harry could perhaps try and get some of his military titles back.

The Sun reports that an insider has supposedly revealed how: Harry regrets losing those titles and keeping them open for as long as possible keeps that olive branch out.

They added: Dont be surprised if they are not filled even after March 31.

Whilst some have suggested that there has been a so-called rift between Prince Harry and his older brother Prince William, others now believe that Harrys relationship with his family has grown closer in recent months.

Royal biographer Andrew Morton has been reported as suggesting that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle would like to return to the UK for several upcoming significant royal events, if covid-19 travel restrictions allow it.

These occasions supposedly include the Queens 95th birthday on April 21, Prince Philips 100th birthday on June 10 and also the unveiling of a statue of Prince Harrys late mother, Princess Diana, in July.

(Image credit: Photo by Anwar Hussein/Getty Images)

According to The Sun, Morton said: "Although they will do some of it by Zoom, Harry wants to meet face to face to tie it all up."

He added: "Things seem to have calmed down. Harry has been in contact with the Queen more often than you would think.

Diana: Her True Story - In Her Own Words by Andrew Morton

This Sunday Times Number-One Bestseller was first published in 1992 and helped change the way the public viewed the British monarchy. Today Princess Diana continues to fascinate so many people across the globe and here, readers can gain new insights into her life.View Deal

Morton also reportedly explained that: certain things you need to be there in person to sort. They will need a few weeks. That could be done after April, depending on covid."

As 2021 approaches, it remains to be seen what kind of decisions might be made regarding Prince Harry and Meghan Markles royal exit deal.

Excerpt from:

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are reportedly looking for an extension to their royal exit deal - woman&home

Unarmed Minuteman III ICBM Test Launch 2020

Since the 1960s, the nuclear triad has served as the bedrock of American national security. The triad represents nuclear deterrence in-depth for the nation: intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear-equipped bomber aircraft and sea-launched ballistic missiles. Yet, over the last 30 years, U.S. nuclear modernization programs were truncated, deferred, or outright canceled in favor of other priorities. Now, having put off modernization for decades, nearly every part of our nuclear triad is serving well beyond its original service life.

That might be bad enough, but the circumstances today are dire. Russia is pursuing multiple nuclear weapon modernization programs. China is developing its own nuclear triad. And North Korea and Iran continue to pursue their own destabilizing nuclear programs. The U.S. must stop any further delays in modernizing our geriatric nuclear forces in order to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent strategy in the face of these threats.

The good news is that senior U.S. military leaders and civilian defense officials have grown more forceful in recent years in designating nuclear force modernization a top priority. As Lieutenant General Frank Klotz, USAF (Ret.), former Under Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Security and former Commander of Air Force Global Strike Command, recently remarked: It's time to bite the bullet and to finally stop admiring the problem and start solving the problem.

The bad news is the same cast of critics that argued against modernization in the past are now using the upcoming change in administration to rehash the need to modernize Americas nuclear enterprise. The focus of much of their criticism is the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) program, which will recapitalize the Minuteman III missile force that was first fielded 50 years ago. As in the past, their arguments gravitate around five key misconceptions about ICBMs that merit correction.

Misconception No. 1: A land-based ICBM force is superfluous since a dyad of nuclear-capable bombers and ballistic missile-launching submarines are sufficient for deterrence.

Arguments based on this misconception overlook the fact that a land-based ICBM force has unique attributes that significantly strengthen nuclear deterrence. As Admiral Charles Richard, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) put it, If you take away the ICBM leg, in fact, if you take away any leg, you just took away a stack of attributes that we have found useful in the past and see being useful in the future which means you just narrowed the range of situations that we were able to effectively deter.

An important characteristic that the other two legs of the triad do not provide is that the ICBM force is widely dispersed across a huge swath of the country and as a result establishes a very highand likely prohibitivethreshold for an adversary to launch a nuclear attack against the U.S. homeland. A preemptive, counterforce strike against the U.S. ICBM force requires an enemy to attack 495 hardened and dispersed ICBM facilities450 silos and 45 launch control centers spread across five states. To strike those with a moderate to a high degree of confidence, an adversary would have to launch 900 to 1,000 nuclear warheads.

This would be a massive and unambiguous nuclear ballistic missile attack guaranteeing an overwhelming U.S. response from the other two legs of the triadAir Force bombers and Navy submarines. This reality significantly complicatesand detersa potential aggressors attack.

As Admiral Richard points out: We have a triadin part because of the flexibility it provides, the ability to hedge inside of itwhat it also enables you to do is address the threat or the risks you didn't see coming. We always built margin into our strategic forces to make sure that we could account for the unknown risks that may be out there alongside the risk that we could reasonably see.

Misconception No. 2: ICBMs are inherently destabilizing because they increase the risk of our possibly stumbling into a nuclear war.

Do ICBMs significantly increase the risk of a mistaken or accidental launch in comparison to the other two legs of the triad? No. As noted above, unlike an enemy's targeting of the other legs of our triad, neutralizing our ICBM force would require a massive and unambiguous nuclear strike on the U.S. homeland. Furthermore, the United States maintains an overlapping network of multi-domain, multi-phenomenology sensors that jointly validate indications of a hostile missile launch to ensure that timely missile attack warning and assessment information is not susceptible to a single point of failure. Additional political-military levels of scrutiny and confirmation are also in place to prevent misidentification.

A U.S. ICBM launch can only occur after an essential series of extremely deliberate, disciplined and cooperative actions are undertaken in proper sequence by many personnel ranging from the National Command Authority to individual ICBM launch crews. As retired Gen. Kevin Chilton, former Commander of USSTRATCOM, explains, People who describe our ICBMs as being on hair-trigger alert either do not know what they are talking about or are intentionally attempting to frighten the uninformed.

Misconception No. 3: Extending the Minuteman III's service life would be more cost-effective.

The most common argument voiced by critics against the GBSD program is that it would cost less to extend the current ICBM force through a service life extension program (SLEP) that would give the Minuteman IIIs propellant stages new fuel cores, modernize its guidance systems, and upgrade is ground support facilities.

Yet the U.S. Air Forces analysis of alternatives conducted in 2014 determined that the total lifecycle cost of the Minuteman III force, including the SLEP, would exceed the cost to procure and sustain the GBSD over its projected 60-year service life. Critics took issue with the Air Forces methodology because it included the cost of building new replacement missiles as part of its cost estimate. However, doing so was sensible because of the four to five live-fire tests conducted annually to ensure the missiles remain viable and safe. Considering this test rate, the refurbished Minuteman III missile inventory would fall below the Department of Defense (DOD) required force of 400 operationally deployed ICBMs by the year 2040. By contrast, the GBSD missile inventory would remain above 400 through 2075. Hence, new Minuteman III missiles had to be included in any honest cost assessment.

Most importantly, the U.S. needs a viable threat to be effective. As General Chilton has pointed out, for deterrence to be effective both capability and the will to use it must be made believable in the mind of the adversary. The 1970s-era Minuteman IIIs were not designed for todays operating environments that now include electronic warfare, cybernetic countermeasures, and advanced missile interceptor threats. A retaliatory weaponwhether nuclear or conventional, ballistic or otherwisemust be able to reach its designated target to be a credible, effective deterrent. If it cannot, it is useless.

Further Minuteman III life extension is not cost-effective nor will it provide a weapon system capable of adapting to advancing technology and changing adversary threats, said then-Commander of USSTRATCOM, Gen. John Hyten in testimony before the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee in 2019. Only GBSD is the right choice because it would answer current and expected threats and cost about the same as extending the life of the Minuteman III.

Misconception No. 4: There is no rush for a Minuteman III replacement.

It is foolhardy to believe there is no urgency to this requirement. The GBSD is literally a just-in-time replacement for the Minuteman III; there is no margin remaining for further delay.

Elements of the guidance system, solid rocket motor, and propulsion system rocket engine in the current Minuteman III inventory cannot be refurbished nor easily replaced. As a result, the U.S. may not be able to support the required ICBM force of 400 operationally deployed missiles very far beyond 2030. Delaying the GBSD by just a couple of years would force the Air Force to develop, manufacture, test, and certify replacements for some critical Minuteman III components resulting in new costs estimated between $6 billion to $8 billion.

Alternatively, the Air Force could simply accept an ICBM inventory shortfall or keep existing Minuteman III missiles beyond their expiration date or by bridging the gap by means of a heavier reliance on the airborne and submarine legs of the triad. All of these options increase risks to the security of the nation. The former option increases the probability of failure during launch and the latter would require placing a number of bombers on nuclear alert status, incurring significant financial and opportunity costs, since missiles are less costly to maintain and assigning more bombers to the nuclear alert mission means they are no longer available for other critical missions.

Adding risk, raising costs, and reducing reliability do not improve national security.

Misconception No. 5: The GBSD award was non-competitive.

Some critics have faulted the GBSD acquisition process, arguing that because Northrop Grumman NOC was the only company to ultimately bid for the contract, the government went into negotiations in a weak position.

This is incorrect. The GBSD acquisition process was competitive. Although the Air Force received only one final proposal, Boeing BA had every opportunity to compete. Controversy over this issue is rooted in the fact that both Boeing and Northrop selected Orbital ATK to produce the solid rocket motors for their GBSD designs. When Northrop acquired Orbital ATK in 2018, Boeing notified the Air Force it would not respond to its request for proposal. The Air Force was willing to modify its GBSD competition process, but when no mutually satisfactory agreement could be reached, it chose not to delay the program further.

Northrop, meanwhile, could not be sure Boeing would not come through with a competitive bid at the last moment and had to make a competitive offer. And because only one company bid, standard government audit procedures took effect to ensure pricing was fair. Single-bid contract awards are not that unusual: About 15 percent of all DOD competitive acquisitions have just a single bidder.

The deterrent power of Americas nuclear triad is the foundation of our national defense. Preserving it is essential to securing our future.

Should we, as a nation, fail to modernize the ICBM force in a timely manner with GBSD, we would be choosing to diminish our national security and nuclear deterrence posture at the very moment when the international security environment is growing more dangerous, when Russia and China are growing more aggressive and assertive and when rogue powers are investing heavily to acquire nuclear arms.

When the Minuteman III entered service, I was in seventh grade. I am now 61, Gen. John Hyten, now Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted recently. It must be replaced...and we must continue to invest substantially to ensure that all three legs of the nuclear triad stand strong.

Awarding the GBSD contract was a crucial milestone toward modernizing the missile force, Hyten added. Given the critical role the GBSD will play in deterring China and Russia, we can't rest until we deliver this capability to the field.

See more here:

Five Persistent Misconceptions About Modernizing The US ICBM Force - Forbes

ABU DHABI, 28th December, 2020 (WAM) -- The UAE-led humanitarian initiative, 20by2020, continues to extend sustainable solutions to various parts of the world with the latest deployment in Pulau Laut Selatan - South Kalimantan, Indonesia.

The objective of this deployment is to provide 20,700 people from a large fishermen community with improved energy access through off-grid solar lighting.

Pulau Laut Selatan is in the Kota Baru Regency (Borneo), where a quarter of the population still live in the dark, and most households earn their living by fishing. 3,600 solar lanterns and 1,000 mobile-charging solar lanterns will be distributed to fishermen living without access to electricity to help them with household lighting and income generation, enabling greater economic activities by fishing early in the morning and at night.

This deployment represents a collaboration between two leading Zayed Sustainability Prize winners. The first, D.light which is a 2013 Prize winner and a US-based pioneer in delivering affordable solar-powered solutions for households and small businesses that have been commissioned to provide the technology for 20by2020.

Secondly, Kopernik, an Indonesian non-profit organisation and the 2016 Zayed Sustainability Prize winner, which specialises in sustainable energy. Its mandate is to reduce poverty in last mile communities. Kopernik was in charge of implementing the project in the field.

Ahmed Ali Al Sayegh, Minister of State and Chairman of Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM), a founding partner of the 20by2020 initiative, said, "The UAE and Indonesia are aligned with the UN 2030 agenda and share a common focus on building sustainable cities and communities and supporting vital growth sectors."

He added, "Over the years, both countries have embarked on several joint sustainability projects that are designed to build resilient societies and economies. The latest 20by2020 deployment of environmentally friendly solar solutions in Indonesias South Kalimantan region aims to enhance the quality of life for local residents and will also help to connect unelectrified populations to the grid. We are glad to be part of this meaningful initiative and outreach. "

In turn, Arifin Tasrif, Indonesian Minister for Energy and Mineral Resources, said, "We strongly believe that this donation will effectively support the Indonesian Government to achieve our target of 23% new and renewable energy in the energy mix and help lead the countrys transition to a cleaner energy future. We would like to extend our appreciation to the UAE and we hope that we can continue to work closely together in the field of new and renewable energy to achieve our shared vision of a sustainable future."

Established in December 2019, 20by2020 is a natural extension of the Zayed Sustainability Prizes commitment to work with its winners and finalists by continuing to support their goals and allowing their solutions to reach a much wider number of people around the globe.

Mubadala Petroleum has also been engaging with local fishermen in West Sulawesi since 2014 to support the deployment of artificial fish aggregating devices (rumpon) in the Makassar Strait and fishing lighting technology opening new fishing grounds and additional income sources.

In 2018, Mubadala funded a skills empowerment training programme for fishermens wives in this coastal area, in addition to implementing a Waste Management project which saw the introduction of a waste bank and reuse-recycle waste activities.

Dr. Bakheet Al Katheeri, CEO of Mubadala Petroleum, a founding partner of the initiative, commented, "This deployment in South Kalimantan in Indonesia will harness the power of innovative technologies to enable sustainable solutions for the local fishing community. Since 2014, we have been involved in empowering this community through a range of well-established projects designed to enhance education, environmental and development goals. Our involvement in the 20by2020 initiative complements these efforts and we look forward to seeing the real-world impact on local communities as these schemes progress."

Eight deployments have been rolled out to date, including energy, health, water and food solutions in Cambodia, Madagascar, Egypt, Jordan, Nepal, Tanzania, and Uganda. 20by2020 will conclude its 1st phase with a project in Costa Rica and additional solutions will be deployed in another 10 countries as part of phase two.

WAM/Rola Alghoul/MOHD AAMIR

More:

'20by2020' improves lives of thousands of fishermen and their families in Indonesia - Indonesia - ReliefWeb

Open Orphan (LSE: ORPH) subsidiary Venn Life Sciences has extended a consulting contract with a global pharma firm to support two vaccine development programmes.

Venns Breda office in the Netherlands will handle chemistry, manufacturing and control duties for the client.

The unnamed buyer is one of the three largest pharmaceutical companies on the planet, Open Orphan said in an announcement on Tuesday.

The 12-month extension takes the Venn contract to December 2021.

Open Orphans executive chairman Cathal Friel told the market:

This contract renewal underpins our confidence in delivering against ambitious growth targets for 2021 and securing strong revenue visibility moving forward. As we remain on target to be operationally profitable in the final quarter of this year, we also expect to see a significant impact on next years earnings from this revenue growth.

The update marks the third contract win for Venn announced in December 2020 alone. The companys Paris branch won a contract to support a European pharma firms phase 2 clinical trial on Covid-19 to evaluate the safety of two drugs to treat patients with moderate and severe Covid in hospitals, while its Breda office signed an extended 12 month contract for a second Euro pharma player.

Work on both contracts starts immediately and runs to December 2021. Both would bring in significant revenues for Venn, Open Orphan said.

Many pharmaceutical companies are substantially increasing their vaccine development spend and we expect that to continue in the months and years ahead as big pharma and governments rush to catch up on decades of extreme under-expenditure,

This reaffirms our belief that we are entering a period of exponential vaccine development globally and thus, exponential opportunity for the Open Orphan group, including Venn and hVIVO to support pharma companies in the space.

Market analysts suggest that FY2021 revenues for the group are expected to hit 38 million, with net profits of around 7m.

Friel has said the group will end 2020 with more than 20 million in cash on its balance sheet.

Open Orphan took over Venn Life Sciences in a reverse takeover in June 2019, before merging with world-leading vaccine and antiviral testing firm hVIVO in January 2020.

Elsewhere, in a release on Wednesday, Open Orphan announced that drug development company PrEP Biopharm had successfully completed a 12-week toxicology study for its novel pan-viral prophylactic asset PrEP-001.

PrEP, which is 62.6% owned by ORPH, said the animal model study provides safety data needed to move PrEP-001 into longer duration dosing in clinical trials.

The company intends to move forward with a real-world, field trial to validate the efficacy of PrEP-001 against all circulating respiratory viruses, including COVID-19, influenza and the common cold.

PrEP-001 is neither a vaccine nor an antiviral but a synthetic RNA viral mimic that stimulates the bodys pan-viral innate immune response locally in the upper respiratory tract.

It is administered via a once-daily nasal spray and leverages the innate immune system to create an all-encompassing antiviral environment.

Read the original:

Open Orphan wins vaccine contract extension and announces toxicology study completion - Value The Markets

Linda Chamberlain works just down the hallway from her husband. She walks past him every day. Occasionally she'll stop by to check in on him and say hello.

The only problem is, Fred Chamberlain has been dead for eight years. Shortly after he was pronounced legally dead from prostate cancer, Fred was cryopreserved -- his body was filled with a medical-grade antifreeze, cooled to minus 196 degrees Celsius and carefully lowered into a giant vat of liquid nitrogen.

So when Linda visits Fred, she talks to him through the insulated, stainless-steel wall of a 10-foot-tall preservation chamber. And he's not alone in there. Eight people reside in that massive cylinder along with him, and more than 170 are preserved in similar chambers in the same room. All of them elected to have their bodies stored in subzero temperatures, to await a future when they could be brought back to life. Cryonically preserved in the middle of the Arizona desert.

This story is part of Hacking the Apocalypse, CNET's documentary series on the tech saving us from the end of the world.

Linda Chamberlain is cheerful as she shows me her husband's perhaps-not-final resting place. She places her hand on the cool steel and gives it a loving pat. Being in a room with 170 dead people isn't morbid to her.

"It makes me feel happy," she says. "Because I know that they have the potential to be restored to life and health. And I have the potential of being with them again."

Alcor proclaims itself a world leader in cryonics, offering customers the chance to preserve their bodies indefinitely, until they can be restored to full health and function through medical discoveries that have yet to be made. For the low price of $220,000, Alcor is selling the chance to live a second life.

It's a slim chance.

Critics say cryonics is a pipe dream, no different from age-old chimeras like the fountain of youth. Scientists say there's no way to adequately preserve a human body or brain, and that the promise of bringing a dead brain back to life is thousands of years away.

But Alcor is still selling that chance. And ever since Linda and Fred Chamberlain founded the Alcor Life Extension Foundation back in 1972, Linda has watched Alcor's membership swell with more people wanting to take that chance. More than 1,300 people have now signed up to have their bodies sent to Alcor instead of the graveyard.

And when her time is up, Linda Chamberlain plans to join them.

Photographs of "patients" line the walls of Alcor's offices.

From the outside, Alcor's facilities don't look like the kind of place you'd come to live forever.

When I arrived at the company's headquarters, a nondescript office block in Scottsdale, Arizona, a short drive out of Phoenix, I expected something grander. After all, this is a place that's attempting to answer the question at the heart of human existence: Can we cheat death?

I've come here to find out why someone would choose cryonics. What drives someone to reject the natural order of life and death, and embrace an end that's seen by many, scientists and lay people alike, as the stuff of science fiction?

But after a short time at Alcor, I realize the true believers here don't see cryonics as a way to cheat death. They don't even see death as the end.

"Legal death only really means that your heart and your lungs have stopped functioning without intervention," Linda Chamberlain tells me. "It doesn't mean your cells are dead, it doesn't mean even your organs are dead."

Alcor refers to the people preserved in its facilities as "patients" for that very reason -- it doesn't consider them to be dead.

In Chamberlain's view, the idea of death as an "on-off switch" is outdated. People that died 100 years ago could well have been saved by modern medical interventions that we take for granted in the 21st century. So what about 100 years from now? Alcor hopes that by pressing pause on life, its patients might be revived when medical technology has improved.

"Our best estimates are that within 50 to 100 years, we will have the medical technologies needed to restore our patients to health and function," says Chamberlain.

We're killing people who could potentially be preserved. We're just throwing them in the ground so they can be eaten by worms and bacteria.

Alcor CEO Max More

Alcor CEO Max More agrees. In his view, cryonics is about giving people who die today a second chance. And he says our current views about death and burial are robbing people of a potential future.

"We're killing people who could potentially be preserved," More says. "We're just throwing them in the ground so they can be eaten by worms and bacteria, or we're burning them up. And to me, that's kind of crazy when we could give them a chance if they want it.

"If you think about life insurance, it's actually death insurance -- it pays out on death. This really is life insurance. It's a backup plan."

An early copy of Cryonics magazine sits in Alcor's offices, showing the inside of one of its preservation chambers.

Alcor hasn't exactly mapped out how its patients will be brought back to full function and health, or what revival technologies the future will bring. Its website speaks about the possibility of molecular nanotechnology -- that is, using microscopic nano-robots to "replace old damaged chromosomes with new ones in every cell."

But that level of cellular regeneration isn't something Alcor is working on. The company is in the business of selling preservation, but it's not developing the technologies for restoration. In fact, no one currently working at Alcor is likely to be responsible for reviving patients. That responsibility will be handed on to the next generation (and potentially many more generations after that) -- scientists of some undetermined time in the future, who will have developed the technology necessary to reverse the work that Alcor is doing now. It seems like a convenient gap for cryonics: Sell the promise in the present without the burden of proving the end result.

Our goal is to have reversible suspended animation, just like in the movies. We want it to be that perfect.

Alcor founder Linda Chamberlain

Chamberlain herself admits the future is ultimately unclear and that they "don't know how powerful the revival technologies are going to be." But she does know the end result Alcor is aiming for.

"Our goal is to have reversible suspended animation, just like in the movies," she says. "We want it to be that perfect. We're not there yet, but we're always working on improving our techniques."

The science behind cryonics is unproven. The procedures are highly experimental. No human -- specifically, no human brain -- has been brought back from death or from a state of postmortem preservation. Alcor points to research in worms and the organs of small mammals that it says indicates the potential for cryonics. There are famous names associated with the movement (Alcor admits famed baseballer Ted Williams is a patient), but there aren't exactly any human success stories who've awoken from cryonic preservation to hit the motivational speaking circuit.

James Bedford, the first man to enter cryonic suspension, according to Alcor. Bedford was preserved in a "cryocapsule" in 1967 (five years before Alcor was founded), before being transferred into Alcor's facilities in 1991.

Even More isn't making any promises. He acknowledges that the company may not even exist when it comes time for its patients to wake up.

"There are no guarantees," he says. "We're not promising to bring you back on May 27th, 2082, or whatever. We don't know officially this will work. We don't know for sure that the organization [Alcor] will survive... We don't know if an asteroid will land on us. There's no guarantees. But it's a shot. It's an opportunity. And it just seems to be better than the alternative."

The way the Alcor team sees it, you have a better chance of waking up from here than you do if you're sent to the crematorium.

One of the central questions of cryonics is how you preserve a dead body if you hope to revive it.

Even if they don't know exactly when or how patients will be brought back, the team at Alcor knows one thing is vital: They need to preserve as much of the brain and body as perfectly as possible.

While they may be clinically dead when they arrive in the operating room, Alcor's "patients" are intubated and kept on ice while a mechanical thumper (shown here on a dummy) keeps blood flowing around the body, all in a bid to preserve the body as thoroughly as possible.

That life-saving mortuary practice takes place inside Alcor's operating room -- a sort of hospital-meets-morgue where the organization prepares bodies for "long-term care."

When patients come through the doors at Alcor, they've already been pronounced legally dead. Ideally, they haven't had to travel far to get here and they've had their body put on ice as soon as possible after clinical death. According to Chamberlain, that hypothermia is vital for "slowing down the dying process." I didn't think I'd hear someone say that about a dead person.

During the first stages of cryonic preservation, bodies are "perfused" with a medical-grade antifreeze, all in a bid to prevent ice crystals forming. From here, the body vitrifies, rather than freezing.

(I also didn't expect to see a dead person in the operating room. At least, that's what I thought when I saw a human dummy waiting in the ice bath by the door. One of Alcor's employees picked up the dummy's hand to wave at me and I genuinely think that moment shortened my life span by two years.)

The ice bath is the first step in the preservation process, and it's here where the patient is placed in a kind of post-death life support. Drugs are administered to slow down metabolic processes, the body is intubated to maintain oxygen levels, and a mechanical thumper pumps the heart to ensure blood keeps flowing around the body.

The team then prepares the body to be cooled down to its permanent storage temperature. The blood is replaced with cryoprotectant (think of it like medical-grade antifreeze), which is pumped through the veins, all in a bid to (surprisingly) prevent the body freezing.

Freezing might sound like the natural end goal of cryopreservation, but it's actually incredibly damaging. Our bodies are made up of about 50 to 60% water, and when this water starts to freeze, it forms ice crystals which damage the body's organs and veins.

But if that water is replaced with cryoprotectant, Alcor says it can slowly reduce temperatures so the body vitrifies -- turning into a kind of glass-like state, rather than freezing. From here, the body is placed in a giant stainless steel chamber, known as a dewar. And Alcor says a cryopreserved body can be stored in this "long-term care" for decades.

I missed something when I first walked into the operating room. At the back, behind the ice bath and medical instruments (including surgical scissors and, chillingly, unexplained saws), there's a clear box, about the size of a milk crate, with a circular metal ring clamped inside.

It's a box for human heads.

This is designed for patients who've elected to preserve their head only, removed from the body from the collarbone up. These preserved heads are referred to as "neuro patients."

This small perspex box in the Alcor operating room is used to clamp human heads in place for cryopreservation.

If putting my whole body on ice was a bridge too far, then cutting off and preserving my head is beyond anything I can fathom. But it's a choice some of Alcor's patients make. The neuro patients are stored in small, barrel-sized vats while they wait for long-term care. The moment I lifted the lid on one of these vats -- nitrogen gas billowing out, human head obscured just inches below -- will stay with me forever.

Each preservation chamber can hold four bodies (positioned with the head at the bottom, to keep the brain as cool as possible) and five "neuro patients" stacked down the center.

It's cheaper if you elect to preserve just your head. Alcor charges only $80,000 for the head, compared with $220,000 for the full body. But there are also pragmatic reasons for choosing this more selective form of cryonic preservation.

When Alcor cryopreserves a body, the main priority is to preserve the brain and cause as little damage as possible. After all, the brain is not only the center of cognitive function, but also long-term memory. Essentially everything that makes you who you are.

You might be attached to your body now (both figuratively and literally), but many people at Alcor believe that, by the time medical science has advanced enough to bring a person back to life, their full body won't be needed. Whether you're regenerating a human body from DNA found in the head or uploading a person's consciousness to a new physical body, if we reach a point where cryonic preservation can be reversed, potentially hundreds of years in the future, your 20th or 21st century body will be outdated hardware.

That's certainly a view Linda Chamberlain takes. When she goes, only her head will stay.

"There's a lot of DNA in all that tissue and material," she says of the human head. "A new body can be grown for you from your own DNA. It's just a new, beautiful body that hasn't aged and hasn't had damage from disease."

In fact, when Chamberlain thinks of her future body, she doesn't want to limit herself to the kind of human form she has now.

"I hope that I won't have a biological body, but I'll have a body made out of nanobots," she tells me. "I can be as beautiful as I want to be. I won't be old anymore."

I hope that I won't have a biological body, but I'll have a body made out of nanobots.

Alcor founder Linda Chamberlain

I tell her she's already beautiful. She laughs.

"But if you have a nanobot swarm, it can reconfigure itself any way you want!" she replies, completely serious. "If I want to go swimming in the ocean, I have to worry about sharks. But after I have my nanobots body, if I want to go swimming in the ocean, I can just reconfigure myself to be like an orca, a killer whale. And then the sharks have to look out for me."

Waking up 100 years from now as a fully reconfigurable, shark-hunting nanobot orca sounds like fun.

But this kind of future is possible only if the process of going into cryonic preservation doesn't damage your brain. The brain is a staggeringly complex organ, and storing it at subzero temperatures for decades at a time has the potential to cause serious cellular damage.

And according to some scientists, that's the main issue with cryonics. Before you even get to the issue of reanimation, they say, cryonics doesn't come close to delivering on the promise of preservation.

Surgical instruments in Alcor's operating room.

Neuroscientist Ken Hayworth is one expert who's highly skeptical. Hayworth isn't opposed to preservation -- he was a member of Alcor before he left to found the Brain Preservation Foundation with the goal of building dialogue between cryonicists and the broader scientific community. He wants brain preservation to be a respected field of scientific study. And in 2010, he laid down a challenge to help build that credibility.

"[We] put out a very concrete challenge that said, 'Hey, cryonics community, prove to us that you can at least preserve those structures of the brain that neuroscience knows are critical to long-term memory, meaning the synaptic connectivity of the brain," he says.

"The cryonics community, unfortunately, has not met the bare minimum requirements of that prize."

Hayworth says he's seen examples of animal brains preserved using techniques very similar to what cryonics companies say they use, but the samples showed a significant number of dead cells.

"I take that to mean that there was probably a lot of damage to those structures that encode memory," he says. "It was like, 'We're looking at something that doesn't look right at all.'"

We're looking at something that doesn't look right at all.

Ken Hayworth

However, Hayworth has seen a technique that successfully preserved a brain so well that it was awarded the Brain Preservation Prizeby his foundation. This prize recognized a team of researchers for preserving synapses across the whole brain of a pig. But the technique, known as "aldehyde stabilized cryopreservation," has two limitations that differ from the promise of cryonics. Firstly, it requires the brain to be filled with gluteraldehyde, a kind of embalming fluid, which means the brain can never be revived. And secondly? It's a lethal process that needs to be conducted while a mammal is living.

"It almost instantly glues together all the proteins in the brain," says Hayworth. "Now you're as dead as a rock at that point. You ain't coming back. But the advantage of that is it glues all of them in position, it doesn't destroy information."

Retaining that information is vital because, according to Hayworth, it could allow you to re-create a person's mind in the future. Forget transplanting your head onto a new body. Hayworth says the information from a preserved brain could potentially be scanned and uploaded into another space, such as a computer, allowing you to live on as a simulation.

You might not be a walking, talking human like you once were. But, in Hayworth's view, that's not the only way to live again.

"I think there's plenty of reason to suspect that future technologies will be able to bring somebody back -- future technologies like brain scanning, and mind uploading and brain simulation."

Being preserved long enough (and well enough) that you can live on as a simulation may be one of the end goals that cryonicists hope to achieve.

But there are plenty of critics who say we won't reach that point anytime soon. They say there's no way to know whether cryonics adequately preserves the brain, because we don't fully understand how the mind works, let alone how to physically preserve its complexity.

Ken Miller is a professor of neuroscience and co-director of the Center for Theoretical Neuroscience at Columbia University in New York. He's spent his life trying to understand the complexity of the human brain.

"Some people say [the brain] is the most complicated thing in the universe," says Miller.

"The most basic answer to how the brain works is, we don't know. We know how a lot of pieces work ... but we're very far from understanding the system."

It's at least thousands of years before we would know and really understand how the brain works.

Ken Miller

According to Miller, while we know a lot about parts of the brain -- how the neurons function, how electrical signals travel to the brain -- the complete picture is still a mystery.

"In my opinion, it's at least thousands of years before we would know and really understand how the brain works to the point where you could take all the pieces ... and put it back together and make a mind out of it," says Miller.

"It's just the complexity. Levels and levels and levels and levels -- it's beyond the imagination."

And what if we reach that point? What if, a thousand years from now, science was capable of restoring my cryonically preserved brain and uploading it to some kind of simulator -- would I still be me?

Sitting in his office, I put the question to Miller. And in the kind of meta way that I've realized is normal when speaking to a professor of theoretical neuroscience, I see the cogs of his mind working. His brain, thinking about another brain, living on as a simulated brain. My brain is melting.

"I think so, but it's a funny question," he says. "Because of course, if it was all information that you got up into a computer... making something feel like Claire, we could have a million of them on a million different machines. And each of them would feel like Claire.

"But immediately, just like twins -- immediately, identical twins start having divergent experiences and becoming different people. And so all the different Claires would immediately start having different experiences and becoming different Claires."

Back in Arizona, with the vision of a million computerized versions of myself enslaving the human race far from my mind, the promise of cryonics still feels like a dream.

I'm walking through the long-term care room as waterfalls of fog cascade from the cryonic chambers. These dewars need to be regularly refilled with liquid nitrogen to make sure patients stay at the perfect temperature, and today's the day they're getting topped up.

As I slowly step through the fog, stainless steel chambers loom large around me. Visibility drops, so I can barely see my outstretched hand in front of my face. For just the tiniest moment, as my feet disappear beneath me and I'm surrounded by reflections on reflections of white vapor, I lose my bearings. I feel like I'm having an out-of-body experience.

Walking through Alcor's long-term preservation room is a surreal experience.

It lasts an instant and, just like that, I'm back in the room. Surrounded by 170 dead people.

Follow this link:

Cryonics, brain preservation and the weird science of cheating death - CNET

There is a lot of excitement around Nano One (TSX-V:NNO / NDQ:NNOMF) at the moment, thanks in large part to its recent announcement that the proprietary battery materials it is working on are demonstrating far more durability, when tested under laboratory conditions, than competitor solutions. Here we revisit some of Nano Ones core technologies in the light of recent developments at the company.

We would encourage readers to revisit our initial note which covers off the basics of Nano One which we wrote last December. This article is supplementary in that it revisits some of the core technology in light of developments in the last six months, since that note was written.

Nano Ones technology for making high nickel cathode materials is a one pot process, radically different in its chemistry, in that everything is added into a single pot, including nickel, manganese and lithium to produce one product: each individual crystal has its own coating, granting greater durability than uncoated material. It translates into better cycle life and less degradation.

The one pot process also has the advantage of not requiring a lot of different firing steps, which adds to expense. The process yields a more stable structure. The coating is also not damaged as it is the individual nano crystals which are coated. This translates into life extension as born out by recent results from the company which compared uncoated material with coated material. After a number of cycles, it degraded 4% and the uncoated material degraded 17%. This is based on lab results, but Nano One says it is scaling up the process and we could see this translating into much more durability for batteries.

Nano One is a play across a number of different battery materials, based on filed patents, including LFP (lithium iron phosphate) and high nickel NMC (lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide) battery technologies. CEO Dan Blondal says the company is also pursuing research into high voltage spinels, using a manganese-based battery that runs at very high voltage. Nano One is not a one tech play by any means and the research team is working to develop technology with more immediate commercial outputs while other projects could take more time to bear fruit.

Each one of them has pros and cons, says Blondal. Each one of them has properties which are beneficial to certain applications. There isnt going to be a winner, there is going to be a continuum of these materials. I think its important that were positioning our technology to be able to do any one of these things. The fact that we can use lithium carbonate as feedstock for high nickel materials is very unique.

LFP, he reckons, will soon have the capacity to power batteries that can sustain electric cars for 500-600km rather than 150km. That, he argues, is going to be a serious game changer. It actually starts to address the long range luxury vehicle market as well, he says.

The battery materials technology that is employed today requires hydroxide, but there is a way to eliminate the need for hydroxide. High nickel requires short firing processes to produce the battery crystals. If the crystals are fired at too high a heat or for too long, the battery performance is impinged, as the nickel and lithium change places.

By lowering the temperature, lithium carbonate ends up not decomposing or reacting. Lithium hydroxide addresses this. The Nano One process adds lithium carbonate into the one pot reactor, making it react in the reactor, not in the kiln. It is not carbonate when it enters the kiln.

Lithium hydroxide or lithium carbonate can therefore both be used as the product will end up being the same. Nano One can use either hydroxide or carbonate, giving it much more flexibility if lithium market prices change.

Fewer process steps also mean a higher yield and capex and opex will thus be lower. Significant amounts can be saved in the process costs. The material can be coated simultaneously, therefore avoiding subsequent steps to coat the material.

The elimination of a lot of the intermediate grinding steps typically used in battery material manufacturing also mean there will be fewer metallic impurities. The Nano One process does not require the removal of metallic impurities with magnets, again stripping out a more expensive part of the process.

By and large we are there on LFP, says Blondal. We completed a relatively detailed engineering report in mid-June. That maps out a plan that is very cost effective. We have identified sources of iron and phosphorous that actually help drive down the cost of the cathode materials. But the biggest step is that you have to provide this stuff first of all. Were well along the way with lithium ion phosphate.

The key for future profitability of Nano One is proving the materials outperform other types of coated materials. LFP, in Blondals view, brings a significant cost advantage, NMC brings the durability advantages with the option to sacrifice durability for performance if that is the manufacturers priority.

The company is also working within a high voltage spinel ecosystem to develop a next generation battery. Blondel does not see these various technologies competing against each other.

LFP batteries look the closest to achieving some level of commercialisation, largely because much of the process of turning the technology into something that can be manufactured can already be readily implemented. NMC looks further off but Blondal says it has the scope to speed up significantly.

NMC remains challenging to make. Some of these issues are fundamental to the technology, but Blondal believes more durability will deliver some distinct advantages. NMC does not replace LFP as an industrial material and LFP will see wider use in the future, he says. But we are starting to see a battery pack design which packs cells much closer together, while still leveraging LFP technology. Performance has never been an issue for LFP, it has been range.

We found Nano Ones recent durability results very encouraging indeed, as did the market. Nano One shares are currently trading at CAD 1.54 in Toronto, up substantially from where they were in early December. We have seen considerable progress in the last few days, with shares up from the CAD 1.35-1.36 level seen last week.

The rest is here:

Nano One update: progress on battery technology - The Armchair Trader

LONGUEUIL, Quebec, July 06, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Highland Copper Company Inc. (TSXV: HI, OTCQB: HDRSF) (the Company) announced today that the deadline to complete the acquisition of the White Pine North Project from Copper Range Company (CRC), a wholly owned subsidiary of First Quantum Minerals Ltd., was extended to December 31, 2020. The final closing of the acquisition is subject to a number of conditions, including, without limitation, a release of CRC from certain environmental obligations associated with the remediation and closure plan of the historical White Pine mine site and replacing the related environmental bond.

About Highland

Highland Copper Company Inc. is a Canadian company focused on exploring and developing copper projects in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, U.S.A. Its Copperwood Project is a development stage copper project fully permitted to move into the construction stage with a projected payable production of approximately 30,000 tonnes of copper per year during an estimated mine life of 11 years (see news release of June 15, 2018 and technical report filed on SEDAR on July 31, 2018). A preliminary economic assessment and mineral resource estimate for the White Pine North Project was completed in September 2019 presenting a projected payable production of approximately 40,000 tonnes of copper per year during an estimated mine life of 24 years (see news release of September 23, 2019 and technical report filed on SEDAR on November 7, 2019). A preliminary economic assessment is considered preliminary in nature and includes inferred mineral resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves and there is no certainty that the preliminary economic assessment will be realized. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

The Companys common shares are listed on the TSX Venture Exchange under the symbol HI and trade on the OTCQB Venture Market under symbol HDRSF. More information about the Company is available on the Companys website at http://www.highlandcopper.com and on SEDAR at http://www.sedar.com.

Cautionary Note

This press release contains certain forward-looking information within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation. There can be no assurance that the Company will be able to meet the conditions to close the White Pine acquisition by December 31, 2020 or that the Company will, if required, be able to get a further extension from CRC. Risks, uncertainties and other factors which could have an impact includes the Companys financial condition, fluctuations of the price of copper, the effects of general economic conditions and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on potential transactions and on the Companys ability to raise funds, and other risks and uncertainties described in our most recently filed annual and interim financial statements and managements discussion and analysis, each of which are available at http://www.sedar.com. All forward-looking statements in this press release are based on information available to the Company as of the date hereof, and the Company undertakes no obligation to update forward-looking statements except as required by law.

Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

For further information, please contact:Denis Miville-Deschnes, President & CEOTel: +1.450.677.2455Email: info@highlandcopper.com

Go here to see the original:

Highland Copper Announces Further Extension of White Pine Closing - GlobeNewswire

The Supreme Court of India on Monday dismissed a petition filed by Advocate Reepak Kansal seeking direction to the registry of the court not to give preference to the cases filed by influential lawyers/ petitioners, law firms, etc. A bench of Justices Arun Mishra and S Abdul Nazeer also imposed cost of Rs.100/on the petitioner as a token to remind his responsibility towards noble profession and that he ought not to have preferred such a petition.

The staff of this Court is working despite danger to their life and safety caused due to pandemic, and several of the Dealing Staff, as well as Officers, have suffered due to Covid19. During such a hard time, it was not expected of the petitioner who is an officer of this Court to file such a petition to demoralize the Registry of this Court instead of recognizing the task undertaken by them even during pandemic and lockdown period, the court said.

The court added that it has become a widespread practice to blame the Registry for no good reasons. It further said to err is human, as many petitions are filed with defects, and defects are not cured for years together.

A large number of such cases were listed in the recent past before the Court for removal of defects which were pending for years. In such situation, when the pandemic is going on, baseless and reckless allegations are made against the Registry of this Court, which is part and parcel of the judicial system, said Justices Arun Mishra and Abdul Nazeer.

The court also took judicial notice of the fact that such evil is also spreading in the various High Courts, and Registry is blamed unnecessarily for no good reasons. It is to be remembered by worthy lawyers that they are the part of the judicial system; they are officers of the Court and are a class apart in the society, the bench said.

The Registry, according to the court, is nothing but an arm of this Court and an extension of its dignity. The court went on to state that Bar is equally respected and responsible part of the integral system, Registry is part and parcel of the system, and the system has to work in tandem and mutual reverence.

We also expect from the Registry to work efficiently and effectively. At the same time, it is expected of the lawyers also to remove the defects effectively and not to unnecessarily cast aspersions on the system, the court lamented.

Petitioner had alleged that the petition filed by Arnab Goswami at 08:07 pm was without annexure. The Registry, however, had chosen not to point out any defects, and a special supplementary list was uploaded on the same day. He added that the category was not specified in the notification to be heard during a nationwide lockdown. No procedure was followed by the Registry for urgent hearing during the lockdown.

He also alleged that despite the letter of urgency, the Registry failed to register and list the writ petition filed by him.

See the rest here:

Registry is an arm of the Court and an extension of its dignity, says SC - The Leaflet