If you’re on Face­book, you can watch a rather dra­ma­tic mobi­le pho­ne video of a clo­se encoun­ter with a polar bear in Pyra­mi­den. No fur­ther details are known, the per­son was able to jump onto a snow­mo­bi­le at the last moment and dri­ve away. This link leads to the short video on Face­book, the video is cir­cu­la­ting wide­ly.

Clo­se encoun­ter with a polar bear in Pyra­mi­den.
Screen­shot of a video by Rebec­ca Baack.

After the equal­ly dra­ma­tic clo­se encoun­ter bet­ween a group of tou­rists and a polar bear near Fred­heim in Tem­pel­fjord, this is the second encoun­ter bet­ween humans and polar bears this year, which only by luck escaped wit­hout serious con­se­quen­ces.

Too long to read? The key mes­sa­ge: in Ny-Åle­sund you can make mobi­le pho­ne calls, but you can­not use Blue­tooth or WLAN. It is important that all con­nec­tions on ALL rele­vant devices are deac­ti­va­ted!

Ny-Åle­sund.

In more detail

Ny-Åle­sund has had a mobi­le net­work sin­ce Novem­ber 2023. It was intro­du­ced becau­se many of the sci­en­tists and employees in the small town in Kongsfjord had expres­sed the cor­re­spon­ding wish, for their work, for safe­ty in the field and for pri­va­te use.

The pro­blem

Howe­ver, one man’s joy is ano­ther man’s sor­row: the sen­si­ti­ve mea­su­ring instru­ments at the geo­de­tic sta­ti­on of the Nor­we­gi­an Geo­de­tic Insti­tu­te (Kart­ver­ket) can be dis­tur­bed by elec­tro­ma­gne­tic waves emit­ted by mobi­le devices. For this reason, the use of the pro­ble­ma­tic fre­quen­ci­es bet­ween 2.1 and 2.5 GHz is also pro­hi­bi­ted in Ny-Åle­sund.

The geo­de­tic sta­ti­on near Ny-Åle­sund.

The 5G mobi­le net­work can use fre­quen­ci­es in this ran­ge, but does not have to. Due to a lack of tech­ni­cal exper­ti­se, I can only assu­me that the trans­mit­ter mast in Ny-Åle­sund uses fre­quen­ci­es out­side the inter­fe­rence ran­ge.

Fre­quen­ci­es

In any case, Blue­tooth (2.402 GHz and 2.480 GHz) and WLAN (inclu­ding 2.412 to 2.472 GHz) are ful­ly within the spec­trum that is gene­ral­ly used, but inter­fe­res with devices in Ny-Åle­sund and is the­r­e­fo­re pro­hi­bi­ted. Howe­ver, the devices, which include mobi­le pho­nes, came­ras, smart­wat­ches, head­pho­nes, com­pu­ters, prin­ters, etc., do not know this, nor do their users.

As the Norsk Kart­ver­ket is repea­ted­ly expe­ri­en­cing mal­func­tions in the ope­ra­ti­on of the geo­de­tic station’s mea­su­ring equip­ment, the pro­blem is curr­ent­ly back in the public eye – and not for the first time. In addi­ti­on to Sval­bard­pos­ten, the Ger­man tech­no­lo­gy web­site Hei­se also recent­ly published an artic­le on the sub­ject.

The solu­ti­on

Even if – it should be noted at this point – the mobi­le net­work in Ny-Åle­sund was not set up for tou­rists but for the town, tou­rists visi­ting the town by boat appear to be respon­si­ble for a signi­fi­cant part of the pro­blem. As is so often the case, the solu­ti­on could actual­ly be quite simp­le: Mobi­le pho­nes can be used, but all Blue­tooth and WLAN con­nec­tions must be deac­ti­va­ted. If this is not pos­si­ble, for exam­p­le with wire­less head­pho­nes or smart­wat­ches, the devices may not be used in Ny-Åle­sund. If you have them with you any­way, for exam­p­le on a ship, they must remain on board, as low down as pos­si­ble, in the hope that the metal hull will help to shield them.

Important­ly, this appli­es not only in Ny-Åle­sund, but within a radi­us of 20 kilo­me­t­res around the town, i.e. in the enti­re Kongsfjord.

Online in Ny-Åle­sund? Sure – but only via mobi­le net­work or wired,
not via WLAN.

Black sheep

It is pro­ba­b­ly fea­si­ble to com­mu­ni­ca­te the­se fair­ly simp­le mea­su­res to rese­ar­chers and employees who are stay­ing in Ny-Åle­sund for a lon­ger peri­od of time, but it is a dif­fe­rent mat­ter for tou­rists who only visit for a short time. Unof­fi­ci­al­ly, it is known that ope­ra­tors of the lar­ger ships that sail the­re regu­lar­ly some­ti­mes show indif­fe­rence, igno­re all calls and do not even switch off the WLAN net­works on board when their ships are in har­bour. Whe­ther pas­sen­gers on board are made awa­re of the ban and the mea­su­res descri­bed cle­ar­ly and in good time is at least doubtful.

Regu­la­ti­on?

And as is so often the case, one or two black sheep are enough to bring a who­le herd into dis­re­pu­te, and the call for ‘regu­la­ti­on’ of ship­ping traf­fic in the Kongsfjord is alre­a­dy loud. It doesn’t take much ima­gi­na­ti­on to visua­li­se that this could quick­ly turn into a clo­sure of the enti­re fjord to the public – after all, respon­si­ble poli­ti­ci­ans in the Nor­we­gi­an govern­ment imme­dia­te­ly rejec­ted poli­ti­cal mea­su­res and cal­led on tho­se invol­ved to find a solu­ti­on.

On SV Anti­gua, ever­yo­ne was cer­tain­ly asked to switch off Blue­tooth and WLAN. But what about the big one and the smal­ler sai­ling boats?

Com­ment and pro­po­sal

Do we have to go for maxi­mum con­flict and demand that Ny-Åle­sund ‘choo­se bet­ween mass tou­rism and rese­arch’ and call for govern­ment regu­la­ti­on, as John­ny Wel­le, direc­tor of Kart­ver­ket, did in Sval­bard­pos­ten?

It could be so easy if ever­yo­ne joi­n­ed in and imple­men­ted the mea­su­res men­tio­ned, it real­ly isn’t that much to ask. Most of the ships that visit Ny-Åle­sund show that this is pos­si­ble.

And Kings Bay, as the owner and ope­ra­tor of the town and har­bour, could put pres­su­re on the ships that don’t feel the need to play in the rain. The elec­tro­ma­gne­tic spec­trum is recor­ded, inter­fe­rence quick­ly beco­mes visi­ble and, in case of doubt, the har­bour mas­ter can acti­va­te the WLAN and Blue­tooth func­tion on his mobi­le pho­ne to see whe­ther a ship pre­sent has set up cor­re­spon­ding net­works. And pen­al­ties for the moorer and, if neces­sa­ry, a moo­ring ban are cer­tain­ly within the scope of King’s Bay’s opti­ons, wit­hout the need for legis­la­ti­on. This should get the mes­sa­ge across, and anyo­ne who is still stub­born will be ban­ned.

Kings Bay, what are you wai­ting for?

A pho­to and a report have been doing the rounds on social media for days: Joshua Hol­ko from Aus­tra­lia, owner of Wild Natu­re Pho­to Tra­vel, was tra­vel­ling with a group of pho­to­graph­ers on the small (12-pas­sen­ger) MS Freya in the Van Mijenfjord when they obser­ved a heli­c­op­ter from the rese­arch ves­sel Kron­prins Haa­kon cha­sing a polar bear at a distance of around three kilo­me­t­res. This is a com­mon pro­ce­du­re used by sci­en­tists to get within shoo­ting ran­ge to tran­qui­li­se, exami­ne and tag polar bears.

Hol­ko descri­bes the pro­cess as fol­lows (the ori­gi­nal text from 20 April can be found on Holko’s Face­book pro­fi­le): “I docu­men­ted this dis­gus­ting sce­ne of so cal­led ‘rese­ar­chers’ har­ras­sing, and cha­sing a Polar Bear with their heli­c­op­ter. This bear we had obser­ved from more than 3 km away res­t­ing peaceful­ly and wal­king on the ice. When the heli­c­op­ter came, they pani­cked the bear. They then cha­sed it inces­sant­ly at low alti­tu­de for more than thir­ty minu­tes befo­re suc­cessful­ly dart­ing the now utter­ly exhaus­ted bear. This bear was ter­ri­fied, run­ning for its life.”

Polar bear and heli­c­op­ter, pho­to­gra­phed by Joshua Hol­ko during the descri­bed inci­dent in Van Mijenfjord from a distance of about three kilo­me­t­res.

Fur­ther comm­ents fol­low in the ori­gi­nal artic­le.

The prac­ti­ce of cha­sing and stun­ning polar bears with heli­c­op­ters for sci­en­ti­fic pur­po­ses has been cri­ti­cis­ed many times over the years, but so far wit­hout any con­se­quen­ces. The cur­rent case is now attrac­ting wide­spread media atten­ti­on, inclu­ding in the edi­to­ri­al media, such as NRK and, of cour­se, Sval­bard­pos­ten.

Inci­dents of this kind are rare­ly publi­cis­ed as they take place in very remo­te regi­ons and are the­r­e­fo­re rare­ly obser­ved by bystan­ders. Holko’s descrip­ti­on and pic­tu­re would have attrac­ted a lot of atten­ti­on also years ago. Howe­ver, the inci­dent now seems all the more stran­ge as the very strict distancing rules from polar bears that other­wi­se app­ly to ever­yo­ne (500 met­res from Febru­ary to June, other­wi­se 300 met­res) were intro­du­ced in Sval­bard this year. Hol­ko hims­elf explai­ned in a later artic­le that his aim was not to use one grie­van­ce to cla­im the right to ano­ther grie­van­ce, but that the aim must always be to ensu­re the pro­tec­tion of and respect for the polar bear, for which the new rules for the gene­ral public would not have been neces­sa­ry. Howe­ver, one can cer­tain­ly ask cri­ti­cal ques­ti­ons about sci­en­ti­fic prac­ti­ce. The aut­hor of this artic­le agrees.

Hol­ko for­mu­la­ted this as fol­lows in ano­ther artic­le on Face­book from 24 April: “Wild­life pho­to­gra­phy of Polar Bears doesn’t need a wide ang­le lens to be powerful, emo­ti­ve and dra­ma­tic. What is requi­red is an under­stan­ding and respect for the wild­life. Wild­life FIRST. Pho­to­gra­phy second. This is not a com­pa­ri­son bet­ween Sci­ence and Tou­rism. That is not the intent. This is a com­pa­ri­son bet­ween metho­do­lo­gies. How Polar Bears can be enga­ged with, with respect, or as in the case of the recent heli­c­op­ter inci­dent by rese­ar­chers, wit­hout respect that undu­ly stres­ses the ani­mal. I am not against the Sci­ence of Polar Bears. I am against inva­si­ve, stressful methods such as cha­sing bears from heli­c­op­ter.”

The distance rules app­ly to ever­yo­ne and this is unli­kely to chan­ge any time soon, nor is a more ethi­cal­ly based approach to rese­arch in sight. But the deba­te about this is once again in the world, and anyo­ne who wants to help make it effec­ti­ve can now even sign a peti­ti­on at Change.org that was star­ted after the cur­rent case.

Sta­tis­tics Nor­way (Sta­tis­tisk Sen­tral­by­rå) recent­ly published new figu­res on the popu­la­ti­on of Sval­bard. Accor­ding to the­se figu­res, 2556 peo­p­le were offi­ci­al­ly living in the Nor­we­gi­an sett­le­ments (Lon­gye­ar­by­en, Ny-Åle­sund) on 1 Janu­ary 2025, a decrease of 61 peo­p­le com­pared to the pre­vious year’s figu­res.

The Nor­we­gi­an govern­ment will hard­ly be plea­sed that Nor­we­gi­ans are over-repre­sen­ted among tho­se who have left: A full 50 out of 61 (around 82%) have a Nor­we­gi­an pass­port. Accor­ding to the latest figu­res, the popu­la­ti­on in Lon­gye­ar­by­en and Ny-Åle­sund, total­ling 2556 peo­p­le, includes 1626 Nor­we­gi­ans (63.6 %). And the Nor­we­gi­an share of the popu­la­ti­on is likely to decrease even fur­ther when mine 7, the last Nor­we­gi­an coal mine in Spits­ber­gen, clo­ses in the sum­mer, as Nor­we­gi­ans are also dis­pro­por­tio­na­te­ly repre­sen­ted among the miners. The govern­ment will not be hap­py with this, as a hig­her pro­por­ti­on of Nor­we­gi­ans on Sval­bard is an expli­cit poli­ti­cal goal.

The­re were offi­ci­al­ly 2556 peo­p­le living in Lon­gye­ar­by­en and Ny-Åle­sund on 1 Janu­ary 2025.

An inte­res­t­ing deve­lo­p­ment can also be seen in the non-Nor­we­gi­an popu­la­ti­on: while Thais (curr­ent­ly 113) were in second place after Nor­we­gi­ans for many years, they have now been over­ta­ken by Fili­pi­nos (127). In fourth place are Ger­mans (94) and in fifth place Rus­si­ans (67).

Spea­king of Rus­si­ans: 297 peo­p­le lived in Barents­burg and Pyra­mi­den in Janu­ary, the lowest num­ber sin­ce popu­la­ti­on sta­tis­tics began in 2013. Among the­se 297 are also a num­ber of Ukrai­ni­ans.

The­re were offi­ci­al­ly 2556 peo­p­le living in Lon­gye­ar­by­en and Ny-Åle­sund on 1 Janu­ary 2025

The news of mine 7’s future as a muse­um was an April Fool’s joke (and cle­ar­ly reco­g­nisable as such, I hope, isn’t it?) – this pro­ba­b­ly sounds like an even more absurd April Fool’s joke, but it’s not: the tariffs that the US govern­ment is said to have intro­du­ced also affect Sval­bard and Jan May­en.

But not becau­se they auto­ma­ti­cal­ly fall under the tariffs becau­se they belong to Nor­way, but becau­se they have their own tariffs. While Nor­way is sub­ject to a 15% tariff, exports from Sval­bard and Jan May­en to the US are sub­ject to a 10% tariff, accor­ding to NRK.

The good news is that, com­pared to many other count­ries, the export eco­no­my in Lon­gye­ar­by­en and Olon­kin­by­en (the sta­ti­on on Jan May­en) gets off rela­tively light­ly.

The­re is sim­ply no export eco­no­my in the­se or other places on the islands. Svalbard’s only export so far has been coal, which has not been sold to the US in recent histo­ry. And the­re is no civi­li­an popu­la­ti­on on Jan May­en any­way, just a sta­ti­on, and the­r­e­fo­re no eco­no­my at all.

On Jan May­en the­re is just as much export eco­no­my as you can see in this pic­tu­re: none at all.

Sval­bard and Jan May­en are not the only remo­te islands wit­hout an export eco­no­my that the US govern­ment has impo­sed tariffs on. Accor­ding to Spie­gel online, they include the sub-Ant­ar­c­tic islands of Heard and McDo­nald, as well as Nor­folk Island near Aus­tra­lia.

Com­ment

If anyo­ne has an expl­ana­ti­on as to why this might make sen­se (lea­ving asi­de the fun­da­men­tal sen­se or non­sen­se of tariffs), I would be inte­res­ted to hear it. I have no idea.

Just a few impres­si­ons of the beau­tiful arc­tic win­ter, wit­hout many words.

A trip to Dunérbuk­ta on the east coast. Icy cold, about -25 degrees. And a litt­le remin­der of why you should always have a sho­vel with you in the snow (the second reason being the dan­ger of ava­lan­ches, of cour­se).

Click on thumb­nail to open an enlar­ged ver­si­on of the spe­ci­fic pho­to.

And ano­ther trip to beau­tiful Elve­ne­set in Sas­senfjord. You don’t always have to go far…

Click on thumb­nail to open an enlar­ged ver­si­on of the spe­ci­fic pho­to.

Make this page nicer

And more news from the ‘Make this page nicer’ sec­tion:

• Faks­evå­gen in Lom­fjord: the beau­tiful moun­tain hike on the edge of Hin­lo­pen Strait.
• Hingst­s­let­ta, also in Lom­fjord. It used to be a polar bear para­di­se a while ago, as the pic­tures will show.
• Sig­rid­hol­men, a litt­le pearl of natu­re in Kongsfjord.

And what else

And what else? Oh yes, the stocks are being rep­le­nis­hed. The enti­re sel­ec­tion of Sval­bard kit­chen slats from Lon­gye­ar­by­en is now back in stock.

Kit­chen boards from Lon­gye­ar­by­en:
now all available again in the spitsbergen-svalbard.com shop 🙂

Just last week, the clo­sure of mine 7, Norway’s last coal mine on Spits­ber­gen, which was ori­gi­nal­ly plan­ned for next sum­mer, was the sub­ject of dis­cus­sion not only in Lon­gye­ar­by­en, but also in poli­ti­cal cir­cles in Oslo.

After geo­lo­gists recent­ly dis­co­ver­ed the foot­prints of a pan­t­o­don in the mine, the aut­ho­ri­ties reac­ted quick­ly to the sen­sa­ti­on: they plan to app­ly for mine 7 to be lis­ted as a UNESCO World Heri­ta­ge Site and to turn the mine into a muse­um so that the sen­sa­tio­nal find can be per­ma­nent­ly dis­play­ed to the public.

Incon­spi­cuous at first glan­ce, but a sen­sa­ti­on for geo­lo­gists:
Traces of a Pan­t­o­don in mine 7.

The pan­t­o­don, a mammal from the Palaeo­ge­ne (ear­ly Ter­tia­ry), the coal age of cen­tral Spits­ber­gen, is the oldest evi­dence of a mammal in this part of the Arc­tic. Remains of tree trunks, roots and bran­ches can also be seen in the area.

Wea­ve of bran­ches and roots in mine 7.

So mine 7 has a future bey­ond this sum­mer that ever­yo­ne, inclu­ding oppon­ents of coal mining, can look for­ward to.

Fos­si­li­sed tree trunk from the Palaeo­ge­ne era.

Coal is still mined at Mine 7 in Advent­da­len, near Lon­gye­ar­by­en. Mine 7 is the last Nor­we­gi­an coal mine in Sval­bard still in ope­ra­ti­on.

But not for much lon­ger: the mine is due to clo­se this sum­mer, with pro­duc­tion due to cea­se towards the end of June.

Many in Lon­gye­ar­by­en are not hap­py about this, and wha­te­ver one’s views on coal mining in gene­ral, the­re is no doubt that the loss of seve­ral dozen well-paid indus­tri­al jobs is signi­fi­cant for a town of around 2500 inha­bi­tants. Various sup­pli­ers are also expec­ting a loss of busi­ness.

Sur­face instal­la­ti­ons of mine 7.

The “news” has now rea­ched the poli­ti­cal are­na in Oslo. Even Emi­lie Enger Mehl, who as Minis­ter of Jus­ti­ce and and such respon­si­ble for Norway’s Sval­bard poli­cy play­ed a decisi­ve role in the decis­i­on to clo­se Mine 7, has now spo­ken out accor­din­gly, accor­ding to Sval­bard­pos­ten. The only pro­blem is that Mehl is no lon­ger a minis­ter. The loss of office obvious­ly led to a chan­ge of opi­ni­on in Mehl’s case.

The end of mine 7 is not just a poli­ti­cal issue, howe­ver: the coal reser­ves will soon be exhaus­ted and the mine would not be able to ope­ra­te for much lon­ger. If Nor­way wants to con­ti­nue coal mining in Sval­bard, a com­ple­te­ly new mine would have to be deve­lo­ped, which would also mean exten­ding the road into so far untouch­ed are­as. Years ago, coal depo­sits were explo­red on the moun­tain Bas­sen on the north side of Advent­da­len (Bas­sen is part of Ope­raf­jel­let) with the idea of deve­lo­ping “Mine 8” the­re.

The moun­tain Bas­sen in Ope­raf­jel­let was once inten­ded to beco­me “Mine 8”.

Howe­ver, this never mate­ria­li­sed and it seems poli­ti­cal­ly unli­kely that it will ever hap­pen. And so Nor­we­gi­an coal mining in Spits­ber­gen will pro­ba­b­ly be histo­ry by the end of this sum­mer.

A win­dy ride Satur­day after­noon in Advent­da­len.

Wea­ther is always good, you always have some. Lon­gye­ar­by­en often has a lot of it, and the last few days have been no excep­ti­on. During the night from Thurs­day to Fri­day, the­re was a seve­re storm over parts of Spits­ber­gen, which cau­sed con­sidera­ble dama­ge to the tem­po­ra­ry faci­li­ties in the field.

On Satur­day evening, the flight from Oslo to Lon­gye­ar­by­en was can­cel­led, and the night was so stor­my that it was dif­fi­cult or impos­si­ble to get from A to B, even within the town. Ava­lan­che-expo­sed are­as were clo­sed by the Sys­sel­mes­ter.

Sun­day mor­ning in Lon­gye­ar­by­en.

Under such con­di­ti­ons it is bet­ter to work on new edi­ti­ons of books and other pro­jects. The­re are curr­ent­ly visi­ble results in the ‘This page should be more beau­tiful’ sec­tion: Seve­ral pages have been enhan­ced with maps, pho­to gal­le­ries and pos­si­bly text. It’s worth taking a vir­tu­al look at the pla­ne wreck at Kapp Bor­then (the pla­ne from the war), Svens­khu­set at Kapp Thord­sen (the ‘ghost house’) or the old trapper’s hut on Lågøya. Enjoy!

As always I love to work on this web­site, making new pages or making old ones bet­ter. Today I have got three new ones:

The ‘old hos­pi­tal stair­ca­se’ in Lon­gye­ar­by­en. Not far away, but an inte­gral part of Longyearbyen’s annu­al cul­tu­ral calen­dar.

Far away and dif­fi­cult to reach are Depotod­den with the Oxford House in Bren­ne­vins­fjord and the small Jäder­in­fjord in Lady Fran­k­lin­fjord, both on Nord­aus­t­land.

The Oxford House at Depotod­den in Bren­ne­vins­fjord has a beau­tiful page of its own.

All three sites are worth a litt­le digi­tal visit – have fun and enjoy the weekend!

A week in Lon­gye­ar­by­en, part 1: The sun fes­ti­val

It’s alre­a­dy been a week. On the 8th of March, peo­p­le gather at the stairs of the old hos­pi­tal, clo­se to Sval­bard church, as the first rays of sun­light reach Lon­gye­ar­by­en – for the first time sin­ce the begin­ning of Octo­ber! Of cour­se the­re are pro­per cele­bra­ti­ons. A bit more about that and more pic­tures can also be found on the new page about the loca­ti­on of the event, the old hos­pi­tal stair­ca­se.

Click on thumb­nail to open an enlar­ged ver­si­on of the spe­ci­fic pho­to.

Last Mon­day (24 Febru­ary) the­re was an encoun­ter bet­ween a polar bear and a group of tou­rists near Fred­heim in Tem­pel­fjord. Details have now emer­ged in an artic­le in Sval­bard­pos­ten, making it clear that the inci­dent was dra­ma­tic and that it was only by luck that no one was inju­red and the polar bear was not.

Fred­heim two days after the dan­ge­rous encoun­ter.

The group had been on a day trip by snow­mo­bi­le from Lon­gye­ar­by­en and had rea­ched Fred­heim and were pre­pa­ring to stop for a meal. Accor­ding to one of the French tou­rists invol­ved, the polar bear sud­den­ly appeared within two or three met­res of the group.

The details of what hap­pen­ed next are not public know­ledge, but accor­ding to wit­nesses, one woman fell as she ran away, and short­ly after­wards the bear had rea­ched her and was stan­ding with one paw on her back. Howe­ver, it is said that the bear was not aggres­si­ve and did not try to attack the woman or anyo­ne else. Accor­ding to Sval­bard­pos­ten, French­man Antoine Ter­ro­n­es descri­bed the polar bear’s beha­viour as fol­lows: “I did not per­cei­ve it as an attack, it was not as if the bear was hun­gry and deter­mi­ned. It see­med rela­xed, rai­sed its head as if it was snif­fing, and wal­ked slow­ly towards us.”

But then the bear picked up speed and star­ted fol­lo­wing the woman, who was soon on the ground with a bear’s paw on her back.

At this point, the gui­des fired with signal pis­tols and rif­les to sca­re the bear away, which was suc­cessful. One gui­de was said to have been rea­dy with a rif­le to shoot the bear, but befo­re that point came, the ani­mal was dri­ven away by a shot from a signal pis­tol. The bear then moved away from the group as more shots were fired.

The­re was ano­ther group of tou­rists near­by and their gui­des had pre­pared with signal pis­tols and rif­les.

The who­le inci­dent hap­pen­ed in a mat­ter of moments.

As soon as the imme­dia­te dan­ger had pas­sed, the group retur­ned to Lon­gye­ar­by­en and infor­med the Sys­sel­mes­ter. All tho­se direct­ly invol­ved then met with a cri­sis team to deal with the shock. Accor­ding to eye­wit­ness Ter­ro­n­es, some of the peo­p­le invol­ved were quite affec­ted by what had hap­pen­ed, and the dis­cus­sions with the cri­sis team were very hel­pful in deal­ing with the situa­ti­on.

Fred­heim with polar bear (the pho­to was taken years ago).

The use of a cri­sis team after a polar bear encoun­ter whe­re the­re were no inju­ries or worse to humans or ani­mals is unu­su­al and alre­a­dy sug­gested that the inci­dent was dra­ma­tic.

Unfort­u­na­te­ly, not enough is known about the exact cour­se of events to real­ly under­stand what hap­pen­ed and how the polar bear was able to get so clo­se to the group unno­ti­ced. Accor­ding to eye­wit­nesses, one of the gui­des had gone out to check the area for polar bears. In gene­ral, the beha­viour of ever­yo­ne invol­ved in the inci­dent was prai­sed and descri­bed as impec­ca­ble, accor­ding to others who have recei­ved first-hand reports just minu­tes befo­re the inci­dent. Sval­bard­pos­ten quo­tes French­man Ter­ro­n­es as say­ing: “When the bear came, the gui­des reac­ted quick­ly and cor­rect­ly. I think they saved our lives. I have not­hing nega­ti­ve to say about their reac­tion. They did ever­y­thing they could in a dif­fi­cult situa­ti­on.”

The bear can actual­ly be seen in a pho­to­graph taken befo­re it appeared, alt­hough it was not dis­co­ver­ed until later. When the pho­to was taken, the bear was on the shore of Tem­pel­fjord, about two or three kilo­me­t­res nor­the­ast of Fred­heim.

Com­men­ta­ry

So much for the infor­ma­ti­on actual­ly known in public. Bey­ond that, it would be inte­res­t­ing to know exact­ly how many peo­p­le were the­re in total, how many gui­des were the­re and, most important­ly, whe­re exact­ly the peo­p­le invol­ved were at the time in ques­ti­on. To be clear, this is not about poin­ting fin­gers, it is about try­ing to under­stand how a polar bear could get within a few met­res of a group of peo­p­le unno­ti­ced. But wit­hout real­ly accu­ra­te infor­ma­ti­on, we can only spe­cu­la­te.

Spe­cu­la­ti­on is never good, but not thin­king at all is even worse. So here is a bit of spe­cu­la­ti­on.

We know that the bear was on the shore north-east of Fred­heim befo­re the inci­dent. We also know that the group in ques­ti­on were pre­pa­ring their lunch at the Fred­heim huts when the bear sud­den­ly appeared next to them.

The Fred­heim huts are situa­ted on a ter­race a few met­res hig­her than the near­by shore. The slo­pe lea­ding down from the ter­race to the shore can only be seen if you are stan­ding clo­se to it; if you stand a litt­le fur­ther away, the­re is a blind spot. It is reasonable to assu­me that the bear was wal­king in this area when it approa­ched unno­ti­ced. This is also an obvious assump­ti­on as this is exact­ly the rou­te along the shore that bears often take.

Over­view pic­tu­re of Fred­heim and sur­roun­ding area with pos­si­ble posi­ti­ons to illus­tra­te the assu­med sequence of events. The bear was appro­xi­m­ate­ly at posi­ti­on 1 when it was pho­to­gra­phed but not seen (it was only dis­co­ver­ed later in the pho­to). If the bear was fol­lo­wing appro­xi­m­ate­ly the dot­ted rou­te, this could explain why it was not seen when – if – the group was at posi­ti­on 3. All posi­ti­ons are assu­med, espe­ci­al­ly posi­ti­on 3 is only assu­med based on the exis­ting descrip­ti­on and know­ledge of the ter­rain and the usu­al (but not the con­cre­te) pro­ce­du­res on site.

Assum­ing that this was the case (which is not a cer­tain­ty), the important takea­way would be to bear in mind that safe­ty always depends on the are­as of ter­rain that you can not see. It is not enough that the­re are no bears whe­re you can see them if they were the­re. The ques­ti­on is what is the­re whe­re the ter­rain obscu­res the view.

Con­stant vigi­lan­ce and ‘what-if’ thin­king, espe­ci­al­ly in rela­ti­on to are­as of ter­rain that can­not be seen, are and will remain key aspects of stay­ing as safe as pos­si­ble in polar bear coun­try.

The fact that the polar bear was visi­ble in a pho­to­graph taken pri­or to the inci­dent, but was not reco­g­nis­ed, is a point that may give pau­se to tho­se invol­ved.

The­se points should be taken into con­side­ra­ti­on, espe­ci­al­ly if you are one of tho­se respon­si­ble for others in the Arc­tic. But not only that, becau­se it is always the atten­ti­on of all tho­se pre­sent that can, should and must con­tri­bu­te to avo­i­ding dan­ge­rous situa­tions.

One final com­ment: If it were the case – and this is the impres­si­on given by the descrip­ti­ons available – that a woman was lying on the ground, the polar bear was stan­ding right next to her or even more or less on top of her, and a gui­de was stan­ding a few met­res away with a rif­le, rea­dy to shoot to kill, but did not do so, for exam­p­le in order not to end­an­ger peo­p­le in the con­fu­sed situa­ti­on with shots and/or to pro­tect the polar bear, as long as shoo­ting was not abso­lut­e­ly neces­sa­ry: hats off, you have to have the ner­ves to act like that!

For deca­des, most con­su­mers in Lon­gye­ar­by­en have pro­ba­b­ly not given much thought to their drin­king water. After all, it is drin­king water from the sur­roun­ding arc­tic natu­re, so sure­ly it should be clean? Even after inter­me­dia­te sto­rage in the arti­fi­ci­al lake Isdam­men in Advent­da­len or – depen­ding on the sea­son – in a drin­king water reser­voir on the out­skirts of Gru­ve­da­len. Of cour­se, the­re is also fil­te­ring and moni­to­ring.

The drin­king water lake ‘Isdam­men’ in Advent­da­len.

But the care­free tran­quil­li­ty around drin­king water has been over for a few months now: Legio­nella bac­te­ria have been detec­ted in drin­king water samples from Lon­gye­ar­by­en. This is initi­al­ly no reason to panic, as tap water that is com­ple­te­ly free of legio­nella is rather rare world­wi­de. It depends on the exact type of germ and its num­ber. Many Legio­nella types are harm­less to humans, and bac­te­ri­al counts below the per­mit­ted limits are almost always pre­sent, espe­ci­al­ly in older pipe net­works such as in Lon­gye­ar­by­en.

Howe­ver, due to the rather dribb­ling com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on stra­tegy of the local aut­ho­ri­ty (Lon­gye­ar­by­en Lokals­ty­re), the issue did beco­me, well, an issue. It was a bit like ‘we have legio­nella in our drin­king water, but don’t worry, ever­y­thing is fine’. More pre­cise details on the type and bac­te­ri­al count were not made public; accor­ding to offi­ci­al infor­ma­ti­on, the water was (and is, with one caveat, see below) still drinkable and safe for human health.

At the end of Febru­ary, Lokals­ty­re orga­nis­ed a resi­dents’ mee­ting to pro­vi­de infor­ma­ti­on on the cur­rent situa­ti­on regar­ding drin­king water (legio­nella and man­gane­se, see below), and the­re are now a num­ber of announce­ments and press releases on the Lokals­ty­re web­site as well as artic­les and let­ters to the edi­tor in the Sval­bard­pos­ten.

No health pro­blems due to Legio­nella are said to have occur­red so far. The­se could occur pri­ma­ri­ly by inha­ling germ-con­ta­mi­na­ted very small water dro­p­lets (aero­so­le) in the air, for exam­p­le when showe­ring. A poten­ti­al risk is said to exist abo­ve all for risk groups such as older or immu­n­o­com­pro­mi­sed peo­p­le.

Legio­nella noti­ce at the drin­king water tap in Lon­gye­ar­by­en har­bour.

A source for the germ could not be loca­li­sed; it is likely that lar­ge parts of the old pipe net­work and the bio­films con­tai­ned the­r­ein are the dif­fu­se source. The levels (bac­te­ri­al counts) were tem­po­r­a­ri­ly redu­ced by adding chlo­ri­ne and the pipes were flus­hed seve­ral times in sec­tions, but neither is a defi­ni­ti­ve solu­ti­on, at least not in the sen­se that Legio­nella will dis­ap­pear in the long term. At times, con­su­mers were advi­sed to take pre­cau­tio­na­ry mea­su­res, such as showe­ring wit­hout a show­er head to avo­id ato­mi­sing the water into fine dro­p­lets that could be inha­led. Sval­bard­hal­len (swim­ming and sports hall) was also clo­sed at times. All in all, the­re was quite a lot of fuss about a pro­blem that was actual­ly harm­less accor­ding to offi­ci­al infor­ma­ti­on, which led to a cer­tain amount of con­cern in town.

It will pro­ba­b­ly come down to the fact that chlo­ri­ne will have to be added to the drin­king water again and again in the long term in order to keep the bac­te­ri­al load within accep­ta­ble limits. The side effect is that the drin­king water tas­tes of chlo­ri­ne, just like in a swim­ming pool. It looks like you have to get used to it. The­re are also small, house­hold water fil­ters based on acti­va­ted car­bon that help the water regain its fresh fla­vour. Others have been buy­ing bot­t­led water from the Sval­bard­bu­tik­ken super­mar­ket for some time. The lar­ge (five lit­re) bot­t­les are now ratio­ned the­re: only three bot­t­les are sold per house­hold per day so that the­re is enough for ever­yo­ne.

Water bot­t­les in Sval­bard­bu­tik­ken.

But the­re is ano­ther pro­blem: man­gane­se, a metal (che­mi­cal­ly more pre­cise: tran­si­ti­on metal) that occurs fre­quent­ly in natu­re, inclu­ding in the sedi­men­ta­ry rocks around Lon­gye­ar­by­en. Man­gane­se is also pre­sent in pret­ty much every sip of drin­king water world­wi­de, but as always, the quan­ti­ty is the point.

The Nor­we­gi­an Health Aut­ho­ri­ty (FHI, Fol­ke­hels­e­insti­tutt), which was con­sul­ted, has now con­cluded that the man­gane­se levels in the drin­king water have been too high sin­ce Sep­tem­ber 2024 to sup­p­ly infants (0-12 months) with it. Affec­ted fami­lies can get free bot­t­led water at Sval­bard­bu­tik­ken. For ever­yo­ne else, howe­ver, the­re should be no health risk asso­cia­ted with the con­sump­ti­on of tap water; health-rele­vant expo­sure should only occur at hig­her con­cen­tra­ti­ons over lon­ger peri­ods of time (10 years and more). Acu­te poi­so­ning is only theo­re­ti­cal­ly pos­si­ble at extre­me­ly high con­cen­tra­ti­ons.

This is the offi­ci­al posi­ti­on. For adults (ever­y­bo­dy older than 12 months 😄), the fol­lo­wing the­r­e­fo­re still appli­es: rai­se your glas­ses and che­ers, it just some­ti­mes doesn’t tas­te quite fresh, but it doesn’t mat­ter.

I would like to express­ly point out that I am not an expert on drin­king water and Legio­nella and man­gane­se in it; I am sum­ma­ri­sing offi­ci­al reports to the best of my know­ledge, but not my own assess­ment or opi­ni­on.

One of the major annu­al events in Longyearbyen’s cul­tu­ral calen­dar is the “Arc­tic Cham­ber Music Fes­ti­val”, which this year is dedi­ca­ted to the art of sto­rytel­ling as well as music.

This year’s mot­to of the ‘Arc­tic Cham­ber Music Fes­ti­val’: Sto­rytel­lers.

As with the Dark Sea­sons Blues Fes­ti­val and Polar Jazz, the­re is ple­nty on offer for the audi­ence. For exam­p­le, at noon on Satur­day at the Sval­bard Muse­um, the sto­ry of Wil­lem Barent­sz’ expe­di­ti­on, who famously dis­co­ver­ed Spits­ber­gen in 1596, was told in music …

Tor­un Tor­bo with the ‘Barent­sz flu­te’ and Sol­mund Nysta­bakk on the lute
at the Sval­bard Muse­um.

… with con­tem­po­ra­ry music play­ed on a flu­te that is an exact copy of the flu­te found in the remains of Barent­sz’ win­ter camp on Nova­ya Zem­lya, accom­pa­nied by a lute. The ori­gi­nal flu­te can be seen in the Rijks­mu­se­um in Ams­ter­dam.

Tor­un Tor­bo with the ‘Barent­sz flu­te’:
‘Tonen i isen’, the Barent­sz sto­ry told musi­cal­ly.

Pro­ba­b­ly the high­light of this year’s cham­ber music fes­ti­val in Lon­gye­ar­by­en was the Satur­day evening con­cert. Not only becau­se the high­lights are pre­sen­ted at this prime time, but also becau­se the venue had to be moved at short noti­ce for tech­ni­cal reasons – to the day faci­li­ties of Mine 7! The venue its­elf thus beca­me an event of exclu­si­ve value, as this last Nor­we­gi­an coal mine still in ope­ra­ti­on is not nor­mal­ly open to the public.

Mine 7: sud­den­ly the venue for the Arc­tic Cham­ber Music Fes­ti­val.

In pro­se and music, the­re was the sto­ry of one of the lone­liest theat­re and bal­let stages in the world, in California’s Death Val­ley:

Mis­sy Mar­zo­li from New York intro­du­ces Mar­ta Becket and her (Marta’s) lonely theat­re
in Death Val­ley Junc­tion …

… musi­cal­ly rea­li­sed by the NOVO Quar­tet from Den­mark.

This was fol­lo­wed by the life and work of the Vene­ti­an com­po­ser Bar­ba­ra Stroz­zi, impres­si­ve­ly per­for­med with sopra­no and lute.

Berit Nor­bak­ken (sopra­no) and Sol­mund Nysta­bakk (lute).
The some­what unhap­py loo­king lady abo­ve is Bar­ba­ra Stroz­zi (appro­xi­m­ate­ly 1619-1677)

And of cour­se that wasn’t all that was on offer at the Arc­tic Cham­ber Music Fes­ti­val. The­re was so much more, from ‘Peter und der Wolf’ to the ‘Four Sea­sons’.

Tilia-Ensem­ble in Lon­gye­ar­by­en and Trom­sø

If you are spon­ta­neous or hap­pen to be in the area any­way, you can enjoy ano­ther musi­cal high­light next week, when the Tilia Ensem­ble from Dres­den per­forms a pro­gram­me of music from the far north in the Sval­bard Church on Tues­day (25 Febru­ary) and the famous Tromsda­len Cathe­dral in Trom­sø on Fri­day.

Tilia Ensem­ble: 25th Feb in Lon­gye­ar­by­en, 28th Feb in Trom­sø.

New pages

Things are pro­gres­sing here too. One of the most beau­tiful places on Spits­ber­gen final­ly got the page it deser­ves, name­ly Kapp Lin­né. Be sure to check it out! And the page about Gjert­se­nod­den in St. Jons­fjord is not new, but it has been impro­ved. Others too, but that’s enough for now.

And what else?

As I wri­te this (on Sun­day, 23rd Febru­ary), a few kilo­me­t­res away, on the north side of Advent­fjord, a polar bear is wal­king around, and Sysselmester’s heli­c­op­ter is alre­a­dy in the air to cha­se it away from town. It is the first polar bear to come clo­se to Lon­gye­ar­by­en this year, as far as I have heard.

Let the­re be light! Today, 16 Febru­ary, the peo­p­le in and around Lon­gye­ar­by­en were able to enjoy the first sun­ri­se sin­ce 25 Octo­ber, at least in theo­ry. In bet­ween was the polar night, which has now come to an end.

Short­ly after noon, howe­ver, the sun bare­ly mana­ged to reach 0.16 degrees abo­ve the hori­zon, hiding behind the moun­ta­ins of Lon­gye­ar­by­en. It will only return to Lon­gye­ar­by­en on 8 March.

But on the heights around Lon­gye­ar­by­en it was pos­si­ble to catch a few rays at mid­day today, like here on the slo­pe of Hiorth­fjel­let on the north side of the Advent­fjord.

The first sun­ri­se of the year on 16 Febru­ary at mid­day over Advent­da­len.

A few clouds made sure you didn’t get an over­do­se of suns­hi­ne.

And if that was too much, you can always take refu­ge in the gla­cier cave at Lon­gye­ar­breen.

Gla­cier cave in Lon­gye­ar­breen.

The­re it is real­ly – REAL­LY! – dark wit­hout a lamp.

Gla­cier cave in Lon­gye­ar­breen wit­hout lamp 😄.