MARK RALSTON/AFP

In some parts of China and India, rodents are taking over.

In China, an estimated 2 billion field mice have been driven out of their nests by floodwaters from Dongting Lake. Swarms of the tiny critters are blanketing entire hillsides in black, eyewitnesses say. Meanwhile, residents are killing the ravenous crop-devouring rodents in just about anyway they can, with poison, traps, and good ol' shovel smacks. Local officials say more than 90 tons of rodent—which translates to 2.3 million mice—have been killed.

Meanwhile, Mumbai, India, has been dealing with an overpopulation of rats and a shortage of rat catchers. In this megacity of 17 million people, more than half live in shanties filled with trash—banana peels, coconut halves, butter wrappers—a veritable cornucopia if you're a rat.

Catching rats was a good gig 30 years ago when India had a more socialist economy and municipal jobs were relatively well paying and secure. Plus, Mumbai had fewer people, less trash, and therefore fewer rats back then. Now though, private-sector work at software companies and call centers tends to attract more people than the job of rat assassin, which pays one 33-year rat-catching veteran just $210 a month. And so, Mumbai's rat explosion may be just another unexpected consequence of globalization.

China Photos/Getty Images

We once thought of obesity as the quintessential symbol of wealth and decadence. A problem of the rich West. Not so anymore: Fat is taking over the developing world as well. Around the globe, 1.6 billion people are overweight, 400 million of whom are obese. In fact—along with bird flu and HIV/AIDS—fat is the next global health threat of the 21st century, according to the World Health Organization. The problem? Trans fats, sugars, and a sedentary lifestyle form an often lethal cocktail that can result in diabetes, heart disease, and certain types of cancer.

It's true, in countries where being able to stuff your belly is still a privilege (Mauritania, for instance), chubby is usually considered sexy. But the standards the WHO uses to measure obesity around the world have nothing to do with the Western notion that thin equals beautiful. This is science, and its verdict is clear: 30 percent of the population is overweight in India, Brazil, Thailand and Russia. China leads the rankings of child obesity. And according to the BBC, if we keep chowing down, by 2015 there will be 700 million obese people worldwide. My advice? Invest in Chinese fat camps now, while shares are still cheap.

iStockphoto.com

Relax, folks, you can all go back to brushing your teeth with Chinese toothpaste: The government in Beijing has just outlawed juicing the stuff with diethylene gylocol (DEG), an industrial solvent. DEG-laden toothpaste has yet to kill anybody, but the Chinese have been feeling cautious lately. In addition to the recent ban, Beijing is gearing up to institute national food safety checks, and just executed the former head of food and drug safety. You know, just to be on the safe side.

Just when I thought the coast was clear, however, I came across the disturbing news that two new phony products have cropped up in China: Dumplings stuffed with cardboard shavings, and bogus Rabies vaccines. Talk about putting the "dim" in dim sum.

But before anybody goes back to shrieking about how China is out to kill us all, take a look at this interesting report from the New York Times. It compares the number of food shipments the United States has turned away from various foreign countries over the past year, and it turns out that China is surpassed by both India and Mexico. And if you think Chinese seafood is bad (391 shipments rejected), you'd better stay away from Danish candy (520 rejections).

So if Beijing isn't all the devil incarnate, then what's behind the hype? Sure, China has exported a few particularly nasty products in the last few years, but the "ChiComs" are no worse than some of the other top U.S. trading partners. I'd say all this hullabaloo has a lot to do with the sad fact that Americans just love to hate China. It's not a new phenomenon, but it has been magnified by China's dramatic rise. At this point, Americans (and their congressmen) will take any shot they can get at Beijing. The ultimate goal? To control the Chinese while that's still even remotely possible.

When last year's UNAIDS report came out, India appeared to have overtaken South Africa as the country with the greatest number of HIV/AIDS cases—an incredible 5.7 million. But in new data released Friday, UNAIDS has more than halved that figure, to just 2.5 million Indians living with the virus.

AFP

The sharp revision has to do with a larger population sample and new methodology for data. Earlier estimates had tested blood from small samples of pregnant women and high-risk groups like prostitutes, and then extrapolated out to the general population. That method is widely accepted, but clearly problematic in determining nationwide infection levels. The new numbers put India behind South Africa, which has at least 5.5 million people living with HIV, and Nigeria, with 2.9 million.

The lower estimate is obviously great news for India. But there's a risk that Indian health officials, long accused of being in denial about the scale of the problem, might take these new results and use them as evidence that India's problem is confined to specific areas and high-risk populations. That would be a huge mistake—2.5 million infections is still nothing to sniff at, and studies have shown that the virus spreads rapidly once it gains a foothold in the general population.

So, what should Indian health officials do with these revised statistics? My advice: Breathe a sigh of relief, and then get back to work so that last year's overestimate never becomes a reality.

It's hard enough running a marathon when the air is cool, crisp, and pristine. Add coal smoke, ozone, and particulate matter to the mix, and you'll have runners wheezing their way to the finish line—if they even make it that far. Unfortunately, that's exactly the type of air that will clog the lungs of more than 10,000 athletes next year at the Olympics in Beijing.

On days when there is no rain or wind, ozone and fine dust are often two to three times the maximum levels suggested by the World Health Organization, making the Chinese capital one of the world's dirtiest cities. Endurance athletes such as marathoners and cyclists will have the toughest time—they inhale up to 150 liters of air per minute, more than 10 times what an office worker does. Spectators who are elderly, very young, or chronically ill may also encounter problems, including asthma, sore throats, and allergic reactions, all of which occur even among healthy visitors.

"I wouldn't expect a world record in the marathon in Beijing," says a physician who advises the British Olympic Committee.

The Beijing Olympics won't be the first time athletes will have to contend with poor air quality. More than 20 percent of U.S. athletes had breathing problems due to smog in Athens in 2004, says a manager of the U.S. Olympic team. British runner Steve Ovett said Los Angeles's air pollution made him collapse in the 1984 Olympics.

Beijing is committed to making its Olympics the "Green Games," and is investing more than $3 billion to clean the air, but it's unclear if it can succeed. Areas outside the city are responsible for a substantial amount of the pollution, and over 1,000 new cars hit the streets each day.

In the end, athletes may be left gasping for glory.

[Photo: PETER PARKS/AFP/Getty Images]

ADRIAN DENNIS/AFP

After tomorrow, Tony Blair is going to have a lot more time on his hands, especially if—as seems increasingly unlikely—he heeds the advice of Blake and the FT's Gideon Rachman and turns down the thankless job of Middle East envoy.

Here's an idea. Why not leverage his star power by taking on the world's most neglected causes?

Al Gore already has dibs on carbon emissions. Bill Clinton has taken on HIV/AIDS. And so, Passport humbly submits five other worthy causes that Tony Blair may want to make his own:

1. Keeping the taps running: Already, a third of the world's population endures some form of water scarcity. In addition to being a critical health and environmental issue, competition for fresh, clean water could also spiral into conflict. Blair's engagement would dramatically raise the profile of this unsexy but vital problem. (No offense, Jay-Z, but you're just not a big enough playa.) Broker a water-sharing agreement here, promote new technologies and conservation policies there and—boom! Nobel Peace Prize. 
2. Ending micronutrient deficiency: It sounds like a high school science project, but the lack of access to essential vitamins and minerals afflicts over 2 billion people worldwide, and can lead to serious health disabilities, if not death. But this problem is solvable: Just a few small steps, such as fortifying basic food items, can work wonders. Private-public partnerships are tackling this issue already, but they need widespread public support. Blair's involvement would be a game-changer.
3. Saving the fish: The world's oceans could be empty of commercial fish by 2048 if current trends continue. Only one-hundredth of one percent of the world's oceans is fully protected through marine reserves. Simple regulatory measures could do much to repopulate devastated areas. The European Union has been one of the major players obstructing greater ocean protection. Blair, no longer needing to appease Britain's fishing lobby, can ensure that Britons can enjoy a good old-fashioned English meal of fish n' chips for years to come.
4. Fighting for refugees: More than twenty million people around the world have been displaced from their homes by conflict, human rights abuses, and persecution. Millions languish in refugee camps while the developed world bickers about who's obliged to do what. While in office, Blair was generally supportive of economic migration to the UK, but his attitude toward asylum seekers was the opposite. Now that Blair is no longer beholden to a populist electorate, he has the perfect opportunity to demonstrate his humanitarian side. And with some 4 million Iraqis displaced by a war he whole-heartedly supported, he's got a good place to start.
5. Tackling child labor: More than 200 million children worldwide work under conditions that harm (pdf) their development—never mind that child labor is illegal under international law. Almost three quarters of these children are involved in the "worst forms of child labor," including slavery and sexual exploitation. Blair has already spoken out strongly against the practice of child labor and slavery. Now he's free of the diplomatic constraints that limit criticizing certain regimes too harshly. He's already proved that he can rally people and resources for an unpopular cause; imagine what he can do for a cause that few would oppose.

The president of Gambia can cure AIDS, but just on Thursdays, the only day when his healing powers work. The cure includes applying a green sludge to the skin of the patient, sprinkling a mystery liquid, having the patient swig a brown broth, and topping it all off with a banana snack. Whirling about the patient and uttering verses from the Koran are also part of the treatment.

President Yahya Jammeh says this treatment, with its seven secret herbs, can cure AIDS "with absolute certainty" if patients meet two requirements: 1) abstaining from alcohol, tea, coffee, sex, and theft during the multiweek course of treatment, and 2) ceasing to take antiviral medications.

Oh, the president also claims he can cure asthma and diabetes.

Speaking seriously, though, this "cure" for AIDS highlights the misinformation that surrounds the disease in many countries. In Africa, many aren't aware that condoms protect against HIV infection. Even if they are told, they also face anti-condom messages: Condoms are a conspiracy by whites to lower African birthrates; condoms are tainted with HIV to decrease the African population. On top of it all, traditional healers, tribal leaders, and the Catholic Church warn against using condoms. What is one to believe?

GEORGES GOBET/AFP

Democracy has proven tough enough for many African nations—poor, riddled with corruption, and bereft of functioning institutions as they are—to achieve. Now we can add one more inhibiting factor to the list: HIV/AIDS. Not only does AIDS leave voter rolls bloated with the names of people who have died, a recent study of six southern African countries found, but the disease robs political parties of their most able campaigners and deprives constituencies of their MPs. A BBC article summarizing the study reports:

In Zambia for example, in the first 20 years from 1964 to 1984 only 6% of by-elections were held as a result of death. But in the next 10 years, 60% of by-elections were because MPs had died. In Malawi, the speaker admitted that 28 deaths of MPs were Aids related.

The study, which was conducted by the Institute for Democracy in South Africa, points out that these vacancies sometimes stay open for a year, leaving parts of the population without a voice in government. And the unanticipated economic burden of special by-elections can be just as damaging—one by-election costs Zambia more than US$200,000—since the resources need to be reallocated from other parts of the national budget. Moreover, it's hard to mobilize apathetic voters during by-elections, so smaller parties with fewer resources end up losing out to the ruling party.

Most disturbingly, though, the study finds that the stigma attached to AIDS makes it extraordinarily difficult to get good data from political elites. How can you fix a problem if you can't measure it? Reporting these figures and calculating these costs is a vital first step towards greater openness and public disclosure about the disease. If African democracy is to avoid becoming the next victim of the AIDS pandemic, the conspiracy of silence among the continent's leaders will have to end.

Soviet Russia was never overly concerned with nuclear waste disposal. For decades, the Soviets simply dumped radioactive materials into the Arctic Ocean or erected temporary storage facilities for such materials. Those facilities are now beginning to age, and are becoming a serious environmental problem. Frighteningly, one of these facilities may even be in danger of exploding.

AFP

Norwegian researchers have obtained an alarming report from Rosatom, the Russian nuclear agency, about a site on the Kola Peninsula, an ore-rich area near the northern border with Norway. Since 1982, 21,000 spent uranium fuel assemblies have been stored there in three concrete tanks right next to the coast. Inside the tanks, large metal pipes contain the rods. Unfortunately, the concrete has begun to leak and allow sea water in, corroding the metal tubes.

Leakage is a problem because spent rods contain many types of fissile isotopes, and salt water could cause them to disintegrate relatively quickly. Essentially, those fissile isotopes will dissolve in the water, creating a radioactive slurry inside the tubes.

This could be dangerous because, in the right conditions, enough fissile material concentrated in a small space creates a lot of heat—the same principle we exploit for nuclear power generation. Uncontrolled, this heat could cause steam to build up in the tubes, eventually leading them to explode. If concentrations of fissile material are high enough, dangerous chain reactions could occur, releasing more intense (and potentially explosive) "bursts of radiation and heat." The risk of such explosions is small— both Russian and Norwegian nuclear officials have accordingly "downplayed the danger"—but still significant given the potential for widespread fallout.

And while an actual atomic explosion is probably impossible in this situation, even steam explosions could send huge quantities of dangerously radioactive material into the environment. Rosatom claims there is no danger of that happening, but given the Russian track record on waste disposal, we should watch sites like this very carefully.

Per-Anders Pettersson/Getty

In poor countries, lack of clean drinking water means that 1.6 million people, most young children, die of diarrhea. But adding a special bleach solution called Clorin to a jerrycan of water can make it safe to drink. This raises the controversial question: Should some of the poorest people in the world be charged for Clorin?

Many nongovernmental organizations argue that when you hand out something for free, it won't be valued or used. And recent research seems to validate this view. In the experiment, survey teams went door to door in Zambia. They offered Clorin at a random price to each household. Households that agreed to buy at that price were then offered a random discount.

When survey teams returned to the homes a couple of weeks later and tested water supplies, they discovered that people who had agreed to a higher original price were more likely to be actually using their Clorin. (The discounted price didn't have a meaningful effect on usage.) The conclusion: Higher prices channel the product to households more likely to use it in the first place, and screen out those who wouldn't be intensive, regular users.

Of course, one is left wondering, what about those people who turned down the original offer? What if some of them really wanted to use Clorin, but simply couldn't afford it? Perhaps any profit from selling it to the richest of the poor could be somehow used to subsidize it for the poorest of the poor. In all, it's a difficult ethical question that applies to everything from charging people school fees for their children's education to making them pay for antimalarial mosquito nets and antiretroviral drugs.

Roslan Rahman/AFP/Getty

A new study of the walking pace in 32 cities around the world has found that Singapore is the "fastest" city, with people taking 10.55 seconds on average to walk 60 feet. Copenhagen followed at 10.82 seconds, while Madrid came in third at 10.89 seconds. Surprisingly, New Yorkers only came in eighth with an average speed of 12 seconds across 60 feet, and London pedestrians didn't even make the top ten.

People all over the world have been walking an average of around ten percent faster than a decade ago, when the pace of city walkers was last measured, the study found. Does this mean that people are fitter and healthier on average? Definitely not, according to Professor Richard Wiseman of the University of Hartfordshire, which conducted the study along with the British Council. Wiseman explains:

At one level, walking quickly is good, but if it's a way of life - if you're doing it simply to get from A to B as quickly as possible - then it goes with a whole load of other behaviours which are not quite so good for you ... not eating properly, exercising or seeing friends and family. It can lead to all kinds of things, especially heart attacks."

Given that heart disease follows closely behind cancer as the leading cause of death in Singapore, is by far the leading cause of death in Denmark, and is a close second again in Spain, it may be time for walkers in those countries to start slowing down and smelling the roses.

ALFREDO ESTRELLA/AFP

Mexico City's legalization of first trimester abortions—carried out by a legislature, not a court—should serve as an instructive reminder of how things might have been in the United States had the Supreme Court not intervened in 1973. Supporters of the Mexico City legislation say they hope Mexico's states will follow suit with their own liberal abortion laws. It's safe to predict that five years from now, despite the Church's vigorous opposition, that is exactly what will happen.

So here's a thought experiment: Imagine Roe v. Wade never took place. The United States would be on Mexico's abortion trajectory, just 40 years earlier. As the National Abortion Federation explains, "[b]etween 1967 and 1973, two-thirds of the states liberalized or repealed their criminal abortion laws." First and even second trimester abortions would probably have been legal in most U.S. states by 1980.

Just what did Roe accomplish, then? Well, by circumventing what would have been a gradual and temperate evolution of abortion policy, buttressed by democratic consensus, the decision begot a politicized Christianity, the Right's fixation with social issues at the expense of policy, and decades of public acrimony. Your mileage may vary, but I think it's a shame that Mexico's example came too late.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Ethanol-fueled cars will create an equal or even greater risk to public health than those powered by gasoline, according to a new study. Gasoline emissions are estimated to cause at least 10,000 premature deaths in the United States alone every year. Yet ethanol is no panacea, says Mark Z. Jacobson, the Stanford University atmospheric scientist who conducted the study.

Using sophisticated computer modeling techniques to simulate air quality in the United States in 2020, Jacobson found that vehicles fueled by a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline (E85) increase atmospheric concentrations of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, canceling out the reduction of carcinogens that are prevalent in gasoline but not in ethanol. What's more, E85 can increase ozone in some areas. And that means ugly smog and the deaths associated with higher levels of ozone. Jacobson projects that widespread adoption of E85 would lead to slightly higher mortality rates in the United States (+4 percent) and especially smog-friendly Los Angeles (+9 percent).

And it doesn't matter, according to Jacobson, whether ethanol is made from corn, switchgrass or other plant products—the results remain the same. So we have yet another reason to be skeptical of the prevailing obsession with ethanol. Well, what should we do? Jacobson highlights alternatives such as battery-electric, plug-in-hybrid and hydrogen-fuel cell vehicles, which can derive energy from wind or solar power. He says, "These vehicles produce virtually no toxic emissions or greenhouse gases and cause very little disruption to the land." 

STR/AFP/Getty Images

Despite efforts to stem the global trade in narcotics—indeed, often because of them—new trade routes are emerging around the world, posing challenges to authorities and local populations alike. In this week's List, FP takes a look at the newest battlegrounds in the global war on drugs.

They include new transit points for cocaine bound for the United States and Europe, such as Venezuela and West Africa, new production locales for methamphetamines in Mexico, and a familiar foe that's using the heroin trade to regain a foothold in Afghanistan. All these new fronts are leaving a trail of addiction and violence in their wake. And all exemplify one of the most frustrating dilemmas of international counter-drug efforts: Just as one area seems safe from the cartels, another battle is always around the corner. Check it out.