Jennifer Horney, University of Delaware

Hurricane Helene’s flooding has subsided, but health risks are growing in hard-hit regions of the North Carolina mountains, where many people lost access to power and clean water.

More than 150 deaths across the Southeast had been attributed to Hurricane Helene within days of the late September 2024 storm, according to The Associated Press, and hundreds of people remained unaccounted for. In many areas hit by flooding, homes were left isolated by damaged roads and bridges. Phone service was down. And electricity was likely to be out for weeks.

As a disaster epidemiologist and a native North Carolinian, I have been hearing stories from the region that are devastating. Contaminated water is one of the leading health risks, but residents also face harm to mental health, stress that exacerbates chronic diseases and several other threats.

Water risks: What you can’t see can hurt you

Access to clean water is one of the most urgent health concerns after a flood. People need water for drinking, preparing food, cleaning, bathing, even flushing toilets. Contact with contaminated water can cause serious illnesses.

Floodwater with sewage or other harmful contaminants in it can lead to infectious diseases, particularly among people who are already ill, immunocompromised or have open wounds. Even after the water recedes, residents may underestimate the potential for contamination by unseen bacteria such as fecal coliform, heavy metals such as lead, and organic and inorganic contaminants such as pesticides.

In Asheville, the flooding caused so much damage to water treatment facilities and pipes that officials warned the city could be without running water for potentially weeks. Most private wells also require electricity to pump and filter the water, and many people in surrounding areas could be without power for weeks.

State and federal agencies began delivering extra bottled water to the region shortly after the storm, but supplies were limited, and it’s likely that a number of people won’t be able to reach the distribution sites soon. Access to fresh food is another concern for many areas with roads and bridges washed out.

Inside homes, floodwater can create more health risks, particularly if mold grows on wet fabrics and wallboard. Standing water outside also increases the risk of exposure to mosquitoes carrying diseases such as West Nile virus. Mosquitoes are still active in much of the region in the fall.

Inundation, isolation and access to health care

Many of the images in the news after the hurricane hit showed roads, hospitals and entire towns inundated by floodwaters. In North Carolina, more than 400 roads were closed, blocking access to the major regional health care hub of Asheville, as well as many smaller communities.

While supplies can be airlifted to clinics, residents needing urgent access to treatments such as dialysis or daily medications for substance use disorders may have been cut off. Health care workers may be unable to access their clinics as well.

Cuts and other injuries are common in the aftermath of storms, as people clean up debris, and even small wounds can become infected. The stress, exertion and exposure to heat can also exacerbate chronic conditions such as cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.

Mental health and long-term effects

Beyond the risks to physical health, the fear, stress and losses can affect mental health.

Research has consistently shown that emergency responders’ mental health can suffer in widespread disasters, particularly when they know disaster victims, deal with severe injuries or feel helpless. All of those conditions were present as Hurricane Helene’s floodwaters swept away dozens of people, with many more still listed as missing.

Stigma, cost and a lack of mental health care providers all add to the ongoing challenges to mental health after disasters. Research shows that a large percentage of people face mental health challenges after disasters.

According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, two federal grant programs provide mental health services support to individuals and communities after disasters. However, one of those sources of funding ends after 60 days, the other after one year. Given the decades of recovery facing western North Carolina after Hurricane Helene, I believe these programs are woefully inadequate to meet the mental health needs of the populations affected by the storm.

Flooded regions will need long-term help

Western North Carolina is often described as a “climate refuge” because of its cooler summers. And Asheville in particular has become a popular place for retirees and new residents. Recent data shows the city has the second highest migration rate in the nation.

But Helene and other extreme storms that have flooded the region make its vulnerabilities clear.

In the aftermath of the flooding, newcomers unfamiliar with the risks and longtime residents alike will be dealing with ongoing health concerns as they try to clean up and rebuild from the storm. Even as attention shifts to other disasters, the people in this region will still need help to recover for months and years to come.

Jennifer Horney, Professor of Epidemiology and Core Faculty of Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Alan Veliz-Cuba, University of Dayton

You can probably think of a time when you’ve used math to solve an everyday problem, such as calculating a tip at a restaurant or determining the square footage of a room. But what role does math play in solving complex problems such as curing a disease?

In my job as an applied mathematician, I use mathematical tools to study and solve complex problems in biology. I have worked on problems involving gene and neural networks such as interactions between cells and decision-making. To do this, I create descriptions of a real-world situation in mathematical language. The act of turning a situation into a mathematical representation is called modeling.

Translating real situations into mathematical terms

If you ever solved an arithmetic problem about the speed of trains or cost of groceries, that’s an example of mathematical modeling. But for more difficult questions, even just writing the real-world scenario as a math problem can be complicated. This process requires a lot of creativity and understanding of the problem at hand and is often the result of applied mathematicians working with scientists in other disciplines.

As an example, we could represent a game of Sudoku as a mathematical model. In Sudoku, the player fills empty boxes in a puzzle with numbers between 1 and 9 subject to some rules, such as no repeated numbers in any row or column.

The puzzle begins with some prefilled boxes, and the goal is to figure out which numbers go in the rest of the boxes.

Imagine that a variable, say x, represents the number that goes in one of those empty boxes. We can guarantee that x is between 1 and 9 by saying that x solves the equation (x-1)(x-2) … (x-9)=0. This equation is true only when one of the factors on the left side is zero. Each of the factors on the left side is zero only when x is a number between 1 and 9; for example, (x-1)=0 when x=1. This equation encodes a fact about our game of Sudoku, and we can encode the other features of the game similarly. The resulting model of Sudoku will be a set of equations with 81 variables, one for each box in the puzzle.

Another situation we might model is the concentration of a drug, say aspirin, in a person’s bloodstream. In this case, we would be interested in how the concentration changes as we ingest aspirin and the body metabolizes it. Just like with Sudoku, one can create a set of equations that describe how the concentration of aspirin evolves over time and how additional ingestion affects the dynamics of this medication. In contrast to Sudoku, however, the variables that represent concentrations are not static but rather change over time.

But the act of modeling is not always so straightforward. How would we model diseases such as cancer? Is it enough to model the size and shape of a tumor, or do we need to model every single blood vessel inside the tumor? Every single cell? Every single chemical in each cell? There is much that is unknown about cancer, so how can we model such unknown features? Is it even possible?

Applied mathematicians have to find a balance between models that are realistic enough to be useful and simple enough to be implemented. Building these models may take several years, but in collaboration with experimental scientists, the act of trying to find a model often provides novel insight into the real-world problem.

Mathematical models help find real solutions

After writing a mathematical problem to represent a situation, the second step in the modeling process is to solve the problem.

For Sudoku, we need to solve a collection of equations with 81 variables. For the aspirin example, we need to solve an equation that describes the rate of change of concentrations. This is where all the math that has been and is still being invented comes into play. Areas of pure math such as algebra, analysis, combinatorics and many others can be used – in some cases combined – to solve the complex math problems arising from applications of math to the real world.

The third step of the modeling process consists of translating the mathematical solution into the solution to the applied problem. In the case of Sudoku, the solution to the equations tells us which number should go in each box to solve the puzzle. In the case of aspirin, the solution would be a set of curves that tell us the aspirin concentration in the digestive system and bloodstream. This is how applied mathematics works.

When creating a model isn’t enough

Or is it? While this three-step process is the ideal process of applied math, reality is more complicated. Once I reach the second step where I want the solution of the math problem, very often, if not most of the time, it turns out that no one knows how to solve the math problem in the model. In some cases, the math to study the problem doesn’t even exist.

For example, it is difficult to analyze models of cancer because the interactions between genes, proteins and chemicals are not as straightforward as the relationships between boxes in a game of Sudoku. The main difficulty is that these interactions are “nonlinear,” meaning that the effect of two inputs is not simply the sum of the individual effects. To address this, I have been working on novel ways to study nonlinear systems, such as Boolean network theory and polynomial algebra. With this and traditional approaches, my colleagues and I have studied questions in areas such as
decision-making,
gene networks,
cellular differentiation and
limb regeneration.

When approaching unsolved applied math problems, the distinction between applied and pure mathematics often vanishes. Areas that were considered at one time too abstract have been exactly what is needed for modern problems. This highlights the importance of math for all of us; current areas of pure mathematics can become the applied mathematics of tomorrow and be the tools needed for complex, real-world problems.

Alan Veliz-Cuba, Associate Professor of Mathematics, University of Dayton

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Filomena Nunes, Michigan State University

Out of 225 people awarded the Nobel Prize in physics, only five have been women. This is a very small number, and certainly smaller than 50% – the percent of women in the human population.

Despite several studies exposing the barriers for women in science and the many efforts to increase their representation, physics continues to be a male-dominated field. Only 1 in 5 physicists are women, a number that has not moved since 2010.

Three of the five Nobel Prizes in physics awarded to women have been in the past decade. As a woman physicist, seeing three women join the cadre of Nobel laureates in Physics in just a handful of years is beyond exciting.

Nobel Prize-winning work

The three woman physicists receiving Nobel Prize honors in the 21st century are Donna Strickland, who won in 2018, Andrea Ghez, who won in 2020, and Anne L’Huillier, who won in 2023. All three made important contributions to science.

Strickland, a physicist from the University of Waterloo, won the award for her work on lasers, implementing a method called chirped pulse amplification.

Ghez, an astrophysicist from UCLA, got the Nobel for her work observing stars, especially those near the center of the Milky Way.

L’Huillier, a physicist from the University of Lund, received the 2023 Nobel, also for her work with lasers.

What are some common threads in their lives?

Being a minority in a research field isn’t easy. Sticking with it long enough to have a storied career, as the three winners have, is a huge accomplishment. Since winning the prize, the three winners have recounted their research journeys and offered advice to the next generation of physicists in a variety of interviews. I’ve noticed a few common threads.

A career in academia is a long haul. All three women emphasize the timescale involved in going from first steps in their research to being recognized by the Nobel committee. L’Huillier refers to it as a long journey.

While winning a Nobel may come with some glamour and notoriety, if you are after a quick reward, this career may not be the right line of work. It now takes an average of 28 years between publishing a discovery and receiving a Nobel in physics.

You cannot predict which basic science topic is going to lead to a Nobel – nor, for that matter, which will end up having any kind of impact. The best an early-career physicist can do is to explore different topics, try new things, lean into discomfort and find something they’re passionate about.

All three women talk about how many times they ran into difficulties. Before she got the chirped pulse amplification method to work, Strickland had started to wonder whether she would ever get a Ph.D., having hit so many dead ends. The first time Ghez proposed the project that would lead to her celebrated work, she was turned down.

All three of them thought of quitting at some point. So don’t be discouraged if you are turned down or if others say you cannot do it.

“Keep going,” says L’Huillier. “You need to be obstinate.”

Ghez recommends seeing experiments that don’t work not as failures but as opportunities.

Movies and TV shows paint a picture of the scientist as a social misfit, an individual working alone in the laboratory. But that’s not how it works. All these women work in teams.

“Science is a team sport. You need to know what you don’t know and seek help for what is missing,” says Strickland.

Seeking help often leads to collaborations with other research groups. As Ghez puts it, “Science is a very social enterprise.”

And above all else, the three medalists referred to luck as an essential ingredient for success. The world is full of physicists just as dedicated and just as smart who don’t get the Nobel.

Themes specific to women

Strickland, Ghez and L’Huillier are always asked about their experiences being a woman in science and their views on diversity and equity in physics. All of them emphasize the importance of diversity.

The three laureates have recognized how critical female role models have been in their lives. To believe a physics career is even possible, you need to see people in the field who look like you.

They also mention the importance of a support network, especially for women. Having a group of people you trust to cheer you on can help when you feel discouraged.

The three women also talk about their experiences balancing work and life. It’s not always easy.

Strickland left the standard academic path after a postdoctoral fellowship to become a technician so she could be close to her husband and start her family. L’Huillier walked away from her job and moved from France to Sweden, where she was unemployed for a while. Ghez waited years to have kids. There is no single trajectory. But time away from research can give you fresh perspectives and inspiration to take the next steps.

They also talk about how diversity enriches the research itself. A team that is open to different points of view is more creative. It is also more fun to work in.

These women have pointed out that the culture for women in science has improved over their careers and they are optimistic about the future. If you calculate the percent of Nobel Prizes in physics awarded to women in the past decade alone, then about 1 in 10 Nobel recipients have been women. To me, this indicates that, indeed, things may be getting better.

And perhaps the Nobel committee is addressing, at least in part, possible gender inequities in their processes. For example, the lack of nominations of women and the influence that stereotypes could play in their evaluations. So it is with great expectation that I await this year’s announcement.

Filomena Nunes, Professor of Physics, Michigan State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.