The Circle’s Quori-Tyler Bullock on Whether the Most Threatening Players Can Ever Win

One of the joys of watching reality competition shows is seeing how they evolve over time, adding new dimensions to the game and offering avenues for new ways of playing. Sometimes, that means new twists: Survivor introduced Hidden Immunity Idols in Season 11 and the “Shot in the Dark” mechanic in Season 41, and both have totally shifted the way players vote during tribal council. Other times, individual players provide new models for intricate strategy: Big Brother’s Nakomis Dedmon pioneered the “backdoor” strategy that became commonplace after its first use in Season 5.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

While Netflix’s social media competition series The Circle might not feel as strategy-intensive as those longer-running series, it has undergone its own evolution since its first season in 2020, retaining its relaxed hang-out feel while featuring much more deliberate strategizing. In the show’s sixth season, former NBA and NFL dancer Quori-Tyler (QT) Bullock became the latest player to push that envelope: by consciously manipulating her fellow players, even during seemingly trivial icebreaker games, she carefully maneuvered her way to the end. From forming the Tres Fuego alliance to shutting down secret Influencer Jordan Staff by refusing to block who he wanted to block, Bullock is unquestionably one of the series’ most powerful puppet masters—a phrase she has used to describe herself since the first episode. It’s no wonder her threat level prevented her from clinching the win, ending in third place.

TIME spoke with Bullock about the show’s evolving strategy, what it’s like to watch your experience play out on-screen, and hopes for her next foray into reality TV.

Read more: The Circle Season 6 Gave The Traitors a Run for Its Money

TIME: How have you been feeling since the finale dropped on Wednesday?

Bullock: I’m feeling really good, even though I didn’t win. I went in as a super-fan, and I did the show justice. I did exactly what I wanted to go in there and do. I checked everything off my Circle bucket list. I wouldn’t have changed anything that I did.

What has the response been like over the course of the season?

The response to me has been a little bit mixed. I think a lot of people who like strategy and that cutthroat kind of play really like how I played the game, so I’m getting a lot of love in that respect. But The Circle is so many different things to different people. The show started out as this popularity contest, but also a chance for different personalities and people who would’ve never gotten together to become friends. But I went in with a game plan and didn’t care about all of that. It’s definitely been the most strategic season, from what everyone’s saying. In my eyes, that’s a good thing, but some people like the OG friendship kind of vibe.

It’s always interesting to see how the strategy evolves in any reality competition show like this. Where do you think the show can go next? Are there untapped sources of strategy?

I like when people have a different perspective of the game. That’s kind of what I brought to it. I thought about some things a little differently. During the game where we had to make paintings, I was like, “Well, I need to make a painting and frame someone else”—using the tools that you have in The Circle to navigate the game in a way that’s going to get you to the top. I’m interested to see if the next players use any of this stuff in their strategy. Hopefully people will prep even more going into it, watching these past seasons and getting an idea of how they can use things that other people have done.

During the final ranking, you can clearly see that everyone really respected your consistent control of the game, and most voted you lower as a result. Is there any way to avoid your fate when you’re already perceived as a big threat?

That’s the hardest part about The Circle. I had a really strong hold on the game the entire time until I got that second Influencer position at the very end when I was No. 1. I felt like there was no way I could win the game anymore. I was too much of a threat, too much of a target. I know how the final ratings always go: the people that have been at the top the whole time end up being at the bottom in the final rankings. I was way too far in front the whole game. That’s something interesting that I would like to see a player do in seasons to come: to be on top at the same game and still manage to win. We haven’t really seen that—maybe [Season 2 winner] DeLeesa [St. Agathe]. It rarely happens.

I wanted to be out in front the whole time in the beginning. I wanted to be Influencer, I wanted to be making the decisions of who goes home so that it would create a path for me to get to the end. But then when you’re doing that, how do you fall back down to the middle? I tried to do that by not having as many conversations as I was in the beginning. But when people feel comfortable with you, they feel comfortable with you. It’s a double-edged sword. And at this point, no one is ever going to really rate the person that actually is the most popular to win at the end.

What was it like to watch yourself back on screen?

Obviously I did NBA, I did NFL cheerleading, so I’ve been on TV before in the dance aspect. It used to feel like Hannah Montana moments. When I was in uniform, everybody wants to take my picture and cares about me. As soon as I take that uniform off, no one cares about me. I become invisible. But now it’s actually who I am, Quori-Tyler, on screen. It makes me feel vulnerable. I know so many people are watching it and seeing me, so it’s a little bit weird, but I think I love it, as a fan of it all.

It must be interesting to see what was happening in the other apartments while you were there. Is there anything new or surprising you learned?

That was my favorite part of watching it back. When you’re in there, you feel like the main character, and you think everything you’re doing will be shown on TV. Something random I was really shocked about: when I said the “abs by AI” thing about Kyle, I was saying it as a joke. “His abs look so good, they must be fake.” Seeing everyone’s reaction to it—everyone was like, “Oh my gosh, QT, how could you say that?” Whenever you’re texting anyone, you don’t know the tone they’re reading it in. That was a great example of how things can be misconstrued depending on how you read it in someone else’s voice.

What did you make of Jordan’s gameplay? It’s kind of wild to see the lengths he went in his obsession with getting Myles out.

It was so wild to watch. In the game, I clocked Jordan’s game the most out of everyone that was there. I saw what he was doing, I saw that we played very similarly. I had a feeling he was also a fan of these shows, and I respected it. “He’s doing exactly what he needs to do.” When he came for me and Myles, I was like, “Makes sense. He should.” But watching it now, he was like a dog with a bone. He would not let go of the Myles thing. There was a chance for him to pivot once he saw that Myles wasn’t becoming Influencer again. Myles wasn’t as on top as Jordan thought he was, which, I don’t even know why he thought he was so on top. It was an interesting take. It would’ve been smarter if Jordan did what he did to Myles to me.

Especially since he had Myles’s trust already.

Exactly. Even within Tres Fuego, it’s interesting he went for Myles when Myles was the one protecting him the most. It’s crazy to watch now, but I think when you’re in that game, especially in Jordan’s position, it’s really hard to figure out what you need to do to get yourself to the end and win. He probably just got set on one thing. I think as soon as he thought that was what he needed to do, he was not letting go of it.

Did you have any inspirations for your gameplay, either on previous seasons of The Circle or other reality shows?

Circle specifically, I think DeLeesa played an amazing game. Chaz from last season is one of my favorite players to ever play. He didn’t play with that much strategy—it was more heart—but he did a good job of getting close to as many people as he could while keeping some people at a distance so that when he had to make decisions, he was able to without people feeling betrayed by him. That’s kind of what I tried to do, in a sense. Outside of The Circle, there’s a plethora of people. Dan Gheesling from Big Brother, of course. I love Tyson on Survivor. I love players that are really in there to play the game and don’t play with emotion at all. Janelle in Big Brother, she’s No. 1.

What’s next for you? What other competition shows would you be interested in doing?

I don’t know what’s next. I’m saying this in every interview because I want them to bring me back: I would love to do The Circle again. There’s so much more that I want to show that I can do. I’d love to maybe play a catfish; I don’t think I could ever go in as myself again. But literally any opportunity that comes my way for a show like this. The Traitors—oh my gosh, I would die.

source https://time.com/6976757/quori-tyler-bullock-interview-the-circle/

The Controversy Over a New Population Study From India

A working paper from an independent body that gives economic advice to the Indian government has published controversial findings that critics say could sow communal discord between Hindus and Muslims during the ongoing parliamentary elections.

The paper, titled “Share of religious minorities: A cross-country analysis,” was published on May 7 by the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister (EAC-PM). It found that between 1950 and 2015, India’s Hindu population declined by 7.82%, while the Muslim population increased by 43.15% at the same time. Currently, Hindus make up nearly 80% of India’s 1.4 billion population, while Muslims make up 14%, according to Pew Research Center data from 2021.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Read More: How India’s Record-Breaking Population Will Shape the World

The EAC-PM paper also found that the share of other religious minorities like Christians and Buddhists (but excluding Parsis and Jains) rose by up to 6.58% in the 65-year timeframe.

Authored by experts Shamika Ravi, Abraham Jose, and Apurv Kumar Mishra, the paper aimed to look at how religious composition has evolved across the globe over the past several decades. Using population data from 167 countries, it concluded that there was a dip in the majority religious population not only across India but also notably in Europe. Within South Asia—in countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, and the Maldives—it found that the share of the majority religious denomination had decreased in four countries and increased in five.

The study also stated that it was “agnostic to the underlying causes of such demographic change,” concluding that “minorities are not just protected but thriving in India”—an observation that stands in stark contrast to concerns raised over India’s religious freedom in recent years by international human rights groups and the U.S. Department of Justice.

Many Indian news outlets have reported the study’s findings verbatim: “Study Shows India’s Hindu Population Shrank By 7.8%, Busts 3 Liberal Lies,” stated one report by News18. Members of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party have also been quick to link its claims to the Congress Party, which ruled over India for nearly 50 years following its independence from British rule in 1947, by accusing the opposition of appeasing minorities. “Share of Hindus shrunk 7.8% between 1950 and 2015. The Muslim population grew by 43%. This is what decades of Congress rule did to us. Left to them, there would be no country for Hindus,” Amit Malviya, a prominent BJP member, posted on X. Other BJP members and ministers have also raised concerns about the Muslim community in India allegedly increasing its population to “alter” the demography of India.

In response to the study, the Population Foundation of India (PFI), an independent think tank working on population trends, released a statement on Friday, May 10, calling the EAC-PM findings misleading and alarmist, adding that it was “deeply concerned about the recent media reports that are misreporting the findings…to spread alarm regarding the growth of the Muslim population.” 

PFI pointed to the findings from the last nationwide Census in India, conducted in 2011, which found that the decadal growth rate for Muslims had declined over the past three decades, decreasing from 32.9% in 1981-1991 to 24.6% in 2001-2011. In contrast, the growth rate for Hindus fell from 22.7% to 16.8% over the same period​​.

“Such interpretations are not only inaccurate but also misleading and baseless,” the PFI said of the EAC-PM report.

Read More: What to Know About India’s 2024 Election

As India wraps up the third phase of a grueling six-week election, the timing of the study’s publication has raised eyebrows among critics and demographic experts at a time when the BJP is seen to be openly campaigning on anti-Muslim rhetoric. During a public rally on April 21, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi referred to Muslims as “infiltrators” and “those who have more children.” On another occasion, he warned that the opposition would redistribute the property, land, and gold belonging to Hindus among Muslims. 

Referring to these instances, the Independent Panel for Monitoring Indian Elections, made up of international experts from India, Europe, and Bangladesh to monitor India’s elections, said that senior BJP leaders were “systematically seeking votes in the name of religion” and “often inciting hate against minorities” in an election bulletin published last month.

source https://time.com/6976854/india-population-study-controversy/

What’s the Best Kind of Sunscreen?

Sunscreen is a $10 billion business, with a seemingly endless array of products available for sale. Walk into your local drugstore and you’ll find chemical and mineral formulas in virtually every SPF count and format imaginable, from creams to sprays to sticks.

So which one should you throw in your beach bag this summer? Here’s how to choose the right sunscreen, according to dermatologists.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

What’s the difference between chemical and mineral sunscreens?

There are two major types of sunscreen: chemical and mineral (also known as physical) formulas. They serve the same purpose—preventing sunburns and other skin damage from the sun’s UV radiation—but they do so in different ways.

Sunscreens made from the minerals titanium dioxide and zinc oxide create a physical barrier atop the skin that reflects UV light. Chemical sunscreens, meanwhile, feature active ingredients that sink into the skin and absorb UV rays “like a sponge,” explains Dr. Raman Madan, chief of dermatology at Glen Cove Hospital in New York. In the U.S., these include chemicals such as homosalate, oxybenzone, avobenzone, octinoxate, octisalate, and octocrylene.

Is chemical or mineral sunscreen better?

Many people prefer chemical formulas because they sink into the skin well, whereas mineral sunscreens can leave a chalky white residue. But that residue is a visible signal of these products’ staying power; mineral formulas tend to last longer than chemical sunscreens, says Dr. Abel Torres, chair of the University of Florida College of Medicine’s dermatology department. “If you know you’re going to be on the beach for a long time, mineral may be a better choice because you won’t have to worry about having to reapply it as much,” he says.

People with acne-prone skin may also benefit from a mineral sunscreen, since research suggests zinc can help clear blemishes, Torres notes. Those with sensitive skin may also do better with a mineral formula, Madan says, because—unlike chemical sunscreens—these products don’t sink deep into the skin, so “it’s almost impossible to be allergic” to them.

For the same reason, people who are skittish about product safety may want a mineral formula. Recent research shows that ingredients used in chemical sunscreens enter the bloodstream after soaking into the skin, and other studies (some conducted in animals) suggest sunscreen chemicals like oxybenzone may be linked to hormone disruption and increased risks of certain cancers. It’s too soon to say exactly if or how absorption of these chemicals affects health, Madan says, but people who are concerned may find peace of mind in mineral formulas.

Read More: Backward Walking Is the Best Workout You’re Not Doing

There’s broad support for that idea. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has said titanium dioxide and zinc oxide can be generally considered safe and effective, but that there’s not enough data to say the same for chemicals used in sunscreens. (The agency has asked manufacturers to submit additional safety information for analysis.) And all 83 sunscreens verified by the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit that performs independent analysis of sunscreen safety, are mineral formulas.

Still, Torres emphasizes that studies have not proven that chemical formulas are dangerous; they’ve only hinted at potential risks. And there are plenty of known benefits to wearing sunscreen, whether chemical or mineral—most importantly, reducing the risk of skin cancer. So if chemical formulas are the ones you’ll actually use, it’s better to choose those than to go out unprotected.

Which SPF is best?

Sun protection factor, or SPF, is a measure of how much UV radiation it will take to burn your skin while wearing sunscreen versus while going without. The higher the SPF, the more robust the protection.

The FDA recommends choosing a product with an SPF of at least 15, and the American Academy of Dermatology says it’s better to shoot for an SPF of 30 or above. People with fair skin may want to go even higher than that, Madan says—but after a certain point, SPF values offer diminishing returns. An SPF-50 formula offers such strong protection that upgrading to, say, SPF 100 offers only a tiny amount of additional benefit, he says.

Read More: The Unsettled—and Unsettling—Science of Lawn Chemicals

Just remember that regardless of which SPF you choose, you should reapply after a couple hours in the sun, especially if you’re swimming or sweating heavily. And, in addition to checking the SPF value, the Skin Cancer Foundation recommends choosing a sunscreen that is labeled with the phrase “broad-spectrum protection,” which means it protects against both UVA and UVB rays. UVA rays are responsible for wrinkles and skin aging, while UVB rays are the main cause of sunburns—but both are associated with skin cancer.

Is sunscreen best as a spray, lotion, or stick?

Sprays, sticks, and other formats are convenient, but Madan recommends a good old-fashioned cream if you have the choice. “It goes onto the skin a little bit thicker, so patients get more coverage out of a lotion,” he says. 

Research backs up that point. Studies have shown that people often don’t apply enough sunscreen when they use aerosol products, since the spray can be easily carried away by the wind and many formulas are diluted by propellants and other ingredients. Using a spray also introduces the possibility of inhaling potentially harmful substances, particularly if applied directly to the face.

But something is always better than nothing, Madan says—so if a spray is all you have, use that. The one exception? The FDA has said it needs more data to prove that sunscreen powder is effective, so Madan typically recommends patients steer clear of those products in favor of tried-and-true formulations.

source https://time.com/6976377/best-sunscreen-mineral-or-chemical/

Biden Said Rafah Was a ‘Red Line.’ Now What?

When Israeli tanks rolled into Gaza’s southernmost city of Rafah this week, seizing control of its vital border crossing with neighboring Egypt, they appeared to be edging dangerously close to President Joe Biden’s red line. For months, the American president voiced his opposition to an Israeli invasion of the densely-populated city absent a clear and credible plan to safeguard the more than 1 million people sheltering there. But he never articulated exactly what price the Israeli government would pay if it went ahead with the offensive anyway, as it repeatedly said it would. 

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

That is, until this week. On Wednesday, President Biden confirmed reports that Washington had paused a shipment of bombs to Israel amid concerns that the weapons could be used in Rafah—and threatened to withhold further arms supplies should a major ground invasion of the city go ahead. “I made it clear that if they go into Rafah—they haven’t gone into Rafah yet—I’m not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities,” Biden told CNN, noting that this would not apply to defensive weapons, including ammunition for Israel’s Iron Dome. “We’re not going to supply the weapons and artillery shells.”

The move marks a major turning point for Biden, who until this point had refused to put any conditions on U.S. military aid amid ever-growing concerns over Israel’s conduct in Gaza, where nearly 35,000 have been killed. While the Biden administration has yet to make a public determination on whether it believes Israel has violated U.S. or international law in Gaza, Biden acknowledged in an apparent first that U.S. weapons have been used in the killing of civilians.

“The fact that he is now openly and explicitly threatening this consequence after months of no consequences, apart from perhaps the U.N. [ceasefire] resolution abstention, is a big deal,” Matt Duss, the executive vice president of the Center for International Policy and a former chief foreign policy advisor to Sen. Bernie Sanders, tells TIME. “It’s a departure from the president’s long-standing view of how the U.S-Israel relationship should work, and it’s also a sign I think of the absolutely dire situation in Rafah.”

While the Biden administration contends that Israel has yet to cross its red line on Rafah, noting that Israel’s seizure of the Rafah border crossing constituted “an operation of limited scale and duration,” those on the ground say that there is nothing limited about what is currently taking place in the city. On Monday, the Israeli military ordered the evacuation of some 100,000 people from nine area blocks on the southeastern part of the city, urging them to relocate to purported safe zones in the north, from which many were told to flee in the first place. That same day, Israel began conducting airstrikes on the city. By Tuesday morning, at least 23 people were killed, according to hospital records, among them at least six children.

“The media and analysts are understandably referring to this renewed offensive on Rafah as one that is limited, but I can’t say that that’s a word that resonates with people in Rafah,” says Suze van Meegen, the Norwegian Refugee Council’s head of operations in Palestine, who is currently based in Rafah. Between those fleeing the city in panic and fuel shortages that threaten to shut down the enclave’s remaining hospitals, bakeries, and water pumps, “it’s the most bleak picture I can imagine,” van Meegen says. “But the worst of it is the fear that we see.”

While Israeli officials were quick to condemn Biden’s decision, with the country’s far-right national security minister even going so far as to declare that “Hamas ❤️Biden,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has remained conspicuously silent. He did, however, post a video to X on Thursday from a speech he made days earlier on Holocaust Remembrance Day, during which he stated that “if Israel is forced to stand alone, Israel will stand alone.” (Israel’s Prime Minister’s Office offered no further comment.)

The ball is now in Netanyahu’s court. But should the Israeli prime minister opt to call Biden’s bluff with a large-scale invasion, or choose to creep forward into Rafah more incrementally, the pressure will fall on Biden to back up his words with actions.

“This action by President Biden is welcome. We need to continue using our leverage in support of protecting innocent lives in Gaza,” Sen. Peter Welch, who has helped lead calls in Congress for the U.S. to consistently apply the Leahy Law to Israel, tells TIME.

“My hope is that this sends a clear message that the Netanyahu government hears.”

source https://time.com/6976393/biden-israel-rafah-netanyahu/

Valuing Free Speech Doesn’t Mean Accepting Antisemitism

I can still remember the feeling of standing on the Beacon Theater stage in front of 3,000 people. As I delivered the NYU Law convocation speech, my classmates, gathered together in the name of “violet pride,” smiled and waved excitedly from the crowd. Dressed in festive academic regalia and accompanied by sounds of bagpipes and overly emotional family members, we reached a personal and professional peak. Christians, Muslims, Jews, and members of other religions trusted me, an Israeli Jew, to serve as their voice. That was the summer of 2015.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Next week, the class of 2024 will experience the same. For one special day, they will feel part of something greater than themselves. But while less than 10 years have passed, so much has changed. Given the antisemitic discourse on U.S. campuses since the fall, and particularly in the past month, the notion of an Israeli Jew representing his class amid a war in Gaza seems less of an image taken from law school and more from the Department of Science Fiction.

The question is why.

Read More: The New Antisemitism

One of the things I tried to stress in my speech back then was that despite our diverse backgrounds, our common denominator as humans is quite similar. A 10-month Master of Law program with people from over 60 different nationalities taught me that, as individuals, we all want the same basic things at the end of the day: health, happiness, and self-fulfillment. Omitted from my speech was a core condition for pursuing these goals: constantly using one’s inner compass to identify how our words and deeds affect a given community. Mentioning this stipulation felt unnecessary in 2015. Indeed, as most of us have recognized, with great power comes great responsibility. Today, it seems, a different standard governs some of America’s top academic institutions.

The NYU I experienced was filled with wisdom, excellent teachers, and intelligent classmates. Time and again, we were encouraged to debate and discuss sensitive topics with respect and honesty. This kind of environment is uncultivable for hate. It doesn’t mean everyone agrees, nor does it suggest one cannot challenge the other. But it does mean considering that free speech is not without consequence.

Read More: What America’s Student Photojournalists Saw at the Campus Protests

Today under the guise of finding “meaning,” pursuing a “cause,” or simply finding joy by belonging to a larger group, a significant number of students are exhibiting not intellectual decency but terrorism sympathy. Some are chanting genocidal slogans or expressing antisemitic hate, even waving flags of terrorist organizations while ignoring their lethal agendas and atrocities. It’s not only immoral and wrong, but it is also dangerous. The result is an atmosphere that romanticizes horrendous crimes against humanity and enables public humiliation of Jews just because of their religion and ethnicity.

The numbers tell the story. According to a recent Harvard CAPS-Harris poll, 37% of Americans ages 18 to 24 support Hamas – a terror organization that attacked Israel on Oct. 7, killing about 1,200 people and taking more than 200 hostage – more than Israel. A majority of that age group (57%) favors an unconditional ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that “would leave everyone in place,” meaning abandoning more than 130 Israelis, Jews, and Muslims, including women and children, in hell. Radical and lethal antisemitic ideology, it seems, invaded America’s elite institutions without even firing one bullet.

Read More: The Most Influential People of 2024: Rachel Goldberg-Polin

This is how it is with the antisemitic monster. It’s not always visible, tangible, or blatantly brutal. Sometimes, it’s right before you, stretching your boundaries and abusing sacred civil rights. Occasionally, it makes you uncomfortable, but you keep telling yourself that a democracy should tolerate almost anything and that the threshold hasn’t yet crossed. Slowly, it marks a new line in the sand of your tolerance while you keep convincing yourself that it will go away. But then it blows up in your face. And when it does, you realize something deeper is going on. The worst, of course, is when it’s too late.

But it is not necessarily the case here. A safe and thriving academic environment is achievable with concrete actions promoting freedom of expression, not freedom of self-destruction. These actions should be part of a larger plan involving academic leadership and moderate religious figures from all walks of life. Such a plan must ban antisemitic chants on campus, enforce regulations and laws that ought to protect students’ safety, oversee the impact of foreign funding and interference in academic curricula , and encourage constructive and educative dialogue regarding the need to counter antisemitism and other discriminatory practices against people based on their skin color or religion.

The critical point is that this is no longer an Israeli issue. It’s not even a Jewish issue. It’s an American issue. While tax dollars were generous enough to help democracies such as Israel or Ukraine protect themselves against anti-democratic enemies, they could fail to protect America from the spread of terrorist ideology back home. When something like that happens in the most charitable educational beacons of knowledge and free mind, this means that what is at stake is not America’s soil but its destiny.

The class of 2024, the future of the free world—dramatic as it may sound—will be in your hands one day, not too far away. As you all graduate, this is the time to stand on the right side of history. The great Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.” May your future and conduct be filled with love and light.

source https://time.com/6975988/free-speech-antisemitism-campus/

Boeing 737 Catches Fire and Skids Off Runway at a Senegal Airport, Injuring 10 People

DAKAR, Senegal — A Boeing 737 plane carrying 85 people skidded off a runway at the airport in Dakar, Senegal’s capital, injuring 10 people, according to the transport minister, an airline safety group and footage from a passenger that showed the aircraft on fire.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

“Our plane just caught fire,” wrote Malian musician Cheick Siriman Sissoko in a post on Facebook that showed passengers jumping down the emergency slides at night as flames engulfed one side of the aircraft. In the background, people can be heard screaming.

Transport Minister El Malick Ndiaye said the Air Sénégal flight operated by TransAir was headed to Bamako, in neighboring Mali, late Wednesday with 79 passengers, two pilots and four cabin crew.

The injured were being treated at a hospital, while the others were taken to a hotel to rest.

No other details were immediately available. Boeing did not respond to a request for comment.

The Aviation Safety Network, which tracks airline accidents, described the plane as a Boeing 737. The network published photos of the damaged plane in a grassy field, surrounded by fire suppressant foam, on X, formerly known as Twitter. One engine appeared to have broken apart and a wing was also damaged, according to the photos.

ASN is part of the Flight Safety Foundation, a nonprofit group that aims to promote safe air travel and tracks accidents.

source https://time.com/6976380/boeing-737-catches-fire-senegal-airport-runway-injuries/

New Rules for Dogs Entering U.S. to Help Prevent Spread of Rabies

(NEW YORK) — All dogs coming into the U.S. from other countries must be at least 6 months old and microchipped to help prevent the spread of rabies, according to new government rules published Wednesday.

The new rules require vaccination for dogs that have been in countries where rabies is common. The update applies to dogs brought in by breeders or rescue groups as well as pets traveling with their U.S. owners.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

“This new regulation is going to address the current challenges that we’re facing,” said Emily Pieracci, a rabies expert at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who was involved in drafting the updated regulations.

The CDC posted the new rules in the federal register on Wednesday. They take effect Aug. 1 when a temporary 2021 order expires. That order suspended bringing in dogs from more than 100 countries where rabies is still a problem.

The new rules require all dogs entering the U.S. to be at least 6 months, old enough to be vaccinated if required and for the shots to take effect; have a microchip placed under their skin with a code that can be used to verify rabies vaccination; and have completed a new CDC import form.

There may be additional restrictions and requirements based on where the dog was the previous six months, which may include blood testing from CDC-approved labs.

The CDC regulations were last updated in 1956, and a lot has changed, Pieracci said. More people travel internationally with their pets, and more rescue groups and breeders have set up overseas operations to meet the demand for pets, she said. Now, about 1 million dogs enter the U.S. each year.

Dogs were once common carriers of the rabies virus in the U.S. but the type that normally circulates in dogs was eliminated through vaccinations in the 1970s. The virus invades the central nervous system and is usually a fatal disease in animals and humans. It’s most commonly spread through a bite from an infected animal. There is no cure for it once symptoms begin.

Four rabid dogs have been identified entering the U.S. since 2015, and officials worried more might get through. CDC officials also were seeing an increase of incomplete or fraudulent rabies vaccination certificates and more puppies denied entry because they weren’t old enough to be fully vaccinated.

A draft version of the updated regulations last year drew a range of public comments.

Angela Passman, owner of a Dallas company that helps people move their pets internationally, supports the new rules. It can especially tricky for families that buy or adopt a dog while overseas and then try to bring it to the U.S., she said. The update means little change from how things have been handled in recent years, she said.

“It’s more work for the pet owner, but the end result is a good thing,” said Passman, who is a board member for the International Pet and Animal Transportation Association.

But Jennifer Skiff said some of the changes are unwarranted and too costly. She works for Animal Wellness Action, a Washington group focused on preventing animal cruelty that helps organizations import animals. She said those groups work with diplomats and military personnel who have had trouble meeting requirements, and was a reason some owners were forced to leave their dogs behind.

source https://time.com/6976083/6976083/