Access to clean water can be challenging in isolated areas
Kornienko Alexander/Alamy
A hand-cranked bottle could transform the availability of safe drinking water in areas affected by disasters and in off-grid communities.
Xudeng professors at the University of Electronic Science and Technology of China in Chengdu are committed to developing a straightforward approach to eliminate bacterial, viral, and fungal pathogens, as well as parasites from water.
“We often faced the same challenges in decentralized water treatment,” says Deng. “Most point-of-source (POS) solutions need electricity or ample sunlight and are labor-intensive.”
In areas without grid access and during emergencies when standard systems fail, an invention was required to disinfect water using a simple one-minute manual action.
Their method utilizes spherical silica nanoparticles coated with amine-based compounds that acquire a positive charge in water, along with gold nanoparticles that become negatively charged when agitated.
“Imagine a hand-cranked bottle filled with a small quantity of a synthetically made sand-like powder,” Deng explains. “A few turns of the handle induce a gentle shear in the water, activating the nanoparticles.”
As water flows over the gold and amine nanoparticles, it generates an electric charge that produces oxidizing agents known as reactive oxygen species.
“These reactive oxygen species puncture the membranes of microorganisms, rendering the pathogens incapable of survival or reproduction,” Deng states. “When agitation ceases, the powder naturally separates from the water, allowing clean water to flow out of the outlet.”
The research team evaluated the device against 16 highly infectious pathogens known to pose significant public health threats, achieving a reduction rate of 99.9999%. A similar level of reduction was noted for Escherichia coli in just 15 seconds of stirring at 50°C and for cholera bacteria in one minute. In total, it inactivated over 95 percent of all tested microorganisms.
Deng mentioned that the device is still in the proof-of-concept phase, so researchers haven’t yet established how many liters of water it can purify.
“What we do know is that after each cycle, the same set of particles can be collected and reused,” he adds. “Moreover, once charged, this system provides prolonged defense against recontamination for several hours.”
Since the quantity of gold nanoparticles used is minimal, their expense is negligible, with the primary cost attributed to the silica powder and plastic casing.
Chiara Neto from the University of Sydney in Australia expressed her admiration for the scientific advancement and novel applications of nanoparticles in disrupting pathogen cell membranes. “It’s a brilliant and impressive piece of work.”
As opponents of US water fluoridation voice their concerns, scientists warn that eliminating fluoride may lead to a significant rise in dental decay, potentially costing states billions and disproportionately impacting lower-income communities.
Statements from states like Nebraska, Kentucky, and Louisiana indicate their intentions to remove fluoride from water supplies, raising questions about how quickly these changes will affect Americans.
Fluoride Variation
Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral found in freshwater, initially added to community drinking water in the United States in a controlled manner in 1945. Effective methods to prevent dental decay.
According to the CDC, community water fluoridation was reported in 1999, promoting the development of baby teeth and safeguarding them through adulthood. This initiative is recognized as one of the 20th century’s greatest public health achievements.
Recently, however, concerns have emerged that adding fluoride through foods, milk, toothpaste, and dental care products could lead to total fluoride intake surpassing safe levels.
Nevertheless, the NTP noted that there was insufficient data to establish whether the lower US fluoride level of 0.7 mg/L negatively impacts children’s IQ, admitting that out of 74 international studies evaluated, “52 were deemed low quality (high risk of bias).”
Vida Zohoori, a public health and nutrition professor at Teesside University in the UK, is known for her research on fluoride. She asserts that the studies available do not provide enough data to reach definitive conclusions.
“Most research occurs in regions with fluoride concentrations significantly exceeding US standards, limiting the relevance to community water fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L,” she explains. “Most studies are cross-sectional, not longitudinal or randomized, making it impossible to establish causal links. Furthermore, many did not control for key variables like iodine or lead exposure, malnutrition, and socioeconomic status.
Children’s teeth are particularly prone to decay
Conversely, there is substantial evidence supporting the addition of safe fluoride levels to drinking water. Based on a systematic Cochrane Review from 2015 (updated in 2024), Zohoori anticipates a notable rise in pediatric decay, known as early childhood tooth decay (ECC), if fluoride is removed from public water supplies. This primarily affects children aged 1-5 and the permanent teeth of those aged 6-12, who are extremely susceptible to damage.
This perspective is echoed by Dr. James Becker, an associate professor specializing in pediatric dentistry at the University of Utah. “No scientifically credible research has demonstrated harmful effects from fluoride when administered at safe doses,” he remarks.
Bekker explains that while toothpaste fluoride provides a topical effect during brushing, small amounts in drinking water and supplements deliver continuous systemic exposure, which reinforces tooth enamel and enhances its resistance to acid.
“Many children lack access to fluoride supplements,” Bekker noted, emphasizing that fluoridation was only present in half of Utah prior to the ban.
“We’ve observed a significant increase in tooth decay in communities without fluoridated water compared to those with it. If left untreated, cavities can enlarge and eventually reach the tooth’s nerves, leading to infections and the loss of teeth.”
If all 50 US states discontinue community water fluoridation programs, it is projected that children and adolescents aged 0 to 19 will incur 25.4 million cavities in the next five years, equating to one new cavity for every three children in America. A recent report indicated this would result in an estimated cost of $9.8 billion (£7.2 billion). Jama Health Forum in May.
“We specifically quantified the increase in dental cavities that could necessitate interventions ranging from fillings to root canals and even extractions,” stated Dr. Lisa Simon, a PhD fellow in Oral Health and Medicine Integration at Harvard Dental School and co-author of the study.
“We accounted for decay in both baby teeth and adult teeth, which began to escalate when the children were around six years old.”
Lessons Learned
With the fluoride ban in Utah now in effect, Bekker anticipates it could take five years to observe its full impact. However, the effects were evident even sooner in Calgary, Canada, which removed fluoride from its drinking water in 2011; three years later, children’s dental decay surged.
In one year, 32 out of Calgary’s 10,000 children underwent general anesthesia for dental treatments, whereas only 17 did so in Edmonton, another city within the same province. Subsequently, Calgary voted to reinstate fluoride.
The leading reason for children aged 5 to 9 being admitted to hospitals is treatment for tooth decay.
“Recent studies indicate the benefits of water fluoridation are less pronounced than in the past, particularly since fluoride has become a common ingredient in toothpaste since the 1970s.”
“However, rates of tooth decay are rising, and increased education on dental care is essential. The frequency of sugar intake is key to prevention, which supports water fluoridation initiatives in the UK.”
Dr. Scott Tomar, a professor and associate dean of Prevention and Public Health Sciences at the University of Illinois, Chicago, and spokesperson for the American Dental Association, commends the UK’s fluoridation expansion.
He expresses concern that misinformation about fluoride in the US could induce fear surrounding other sources of minerals, including toothpaste, leading to more bans across various states and communities.
Tomar highlights the overwhelming support for fluoride within the dental community as indicative of its safety and effectiveness, countering any narratives that oppose it driven by the economic interests of dentists.
“So, why do we advocate for this type of water fluoridation?” he inquires. “I’m genuinely worried because there are no alternatives to fluoride, and we can no longer rely on the federal government for guidance.”
In light of this, dentists and industry groups are joining forces to advocate for their cause.
“This appears to be primarily a political issue,” comments Lorna Kosi, chair of the coalition in Davis and program director for a dental clinic serving vulnerable communities. “We firmly believe that water fluoridation is safe. It remains the most effective and cost-efficient method to combat decay.”
In Sydney, Australia, Okkatoo has mastered the use of public water fountains by turning the handle, a feat not easy for birds. It appears they are imitating one another’s actions.
The Occato, or Kakatua Gallerita, engages in an intellectual competition, as some individuals have figured out how to open waste bins in eastern Sydney. In response, humans devise ways to keep these bins locked while continuing to find methods to open them.
Following reports of similar occurrences with Okkatoos using drinking fountains in western Sydney, Lucy Aplin from the Australian National University and her team temporarily marked 24 Occatos, accounting for a fifth of the local population. They documented the interactions at various drinking fountains, known as Bubblers in Australia.
Okkatoo using Sydney drinking fountain
Klump et al. 2025
During a 44-day observation, Cockatoos made 525 attempts to use a particularly popular fountain. Out of these, 105 attempts were made by 17 of the 24 marked birds. This indicates that about 70% of the more than 100 local birds attempted to use the fountain, according to researchers.
In their natural habitats, these birds typically drink from ponds or water stored in tree hollows near their roosts. However, Aplin notes they seem to prefer using the fountains instead, especially in the morning and evening, which are their regular drinking times before resting.
Researchers even observed more than 10 birds waiting for their turn at one bubbler, but the more dominant birds would often jump the queue.
Despite only 41% of the observed attempts being successful, the act of drinking from the fountain is certainly not a trivial task for these birds, according to Aplin.
“Birds must navigate their bodies through complicated movements,” she explains. “They often place one foot on the drinking fountain’s base and twist the handle with the other foot while leaning in to leverage their weight.”
She suspects that once an individual learns the technique, others follow suit by mimicking the actions.
“This serves as a clear example of culture—newly socially transmitted behaviors—which might surprise those who view culture as solely a human trait,” says Christina Zdenek from the University of Queensland, Australia. “Their innovative abilities in accessing new food and water sources are remarkable across the Tree of Life.”
Why are the Okkatoos doing this? Aplin posits that the water may taste superior to muddy pond water, or perhaps the bubbler offers a safer alternative from predators. It could also be a trend fueled by their thirst for innovation.
New research suggests that consuming sweet beverages poses a greater risk of type 2 diabetes compared to eating foods that contain sugar.
The study from Brigham Young University (BYU) in the US found that sugary drinks, such as sodas and fruit juices, are linked to an increased likelihood of developing the disease, whereas no similar connection was found with sugar intake from solid foods.
Dr. Karen Dela Corte, the lead author of the study and a professor of nutrition sciences at BYU, stated that the findings highlight why consuming sugar in the form of beverages like soda and juice is more detrimental to health than ingesting it through food.
Researchers analyzed data from 29 studies involving over half a million individuals across Europe, the Americas, Asia, and Oceania to identify which sources of sugar are most closely associated with the onset of type 2 diabetes.
The analysis revealed that a 340ml (12oz) serving of sugary drinks (including soft drinks, energy drinks, and sports drinks) increases the risk of type 2 diabetes by 25%.
Fruit juices, such as pure fruit juice and various juice drinks, exhibited similar effects, even when consumed in moderation. An additional 226ml (8 oz) serving per day raised the risk by 5%.
These risks are relative; for instance, if an individual has a baseline risk of 10% for developing type 2 diabetes, consuming four sodas daily could elevate that risk to around 20%.
Conversely, dietary sugars derived from fruit, table sugar, and general sugar content were not linked to a higher risk of type 2 diabetes and may even be associated with a lower risk in some cases.
While a good source of nutrients, certain fruit juices can contain sugar levels comparable to those in sweet sodas. – Credit: dmitriy83 via Getty
As this study is observational, it cannot definitively establish a direct cause-and-effect relationship between sugary drinks and type 2 diabetes. It’s possible that individuals who consume more sugary beverages are more likely to develop the condition.
The researchers adjusted their analyses to account for calorie intake, obesity, and other lifestyle factors, allowing them to isolate the impact of sugar itself instead of focusing on overall caloric consumption.
Nevertheless, Dela Corte emphasized that the findings highlight the necessity for more stringent nutritional guidelines regarding liquid sugars, including fruit juices, in relation to health. “Future dietary recommendations may need to differentiate the health impacts of sugar based on its source and form,” she said.
On Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled plans to roll back restrictions on harmful “forever chemicals” in drinking water, roughly a year after the Biden administration implemented its first-ever national standards.
Last year, the Biden administration introduced regulations that could reduce PFA exposure for millions. This initiative was part of a broader effort to enhance drinking water quality by creating rules to mandate the removal of toxic lead pipes and tackle the forever chemical issue following years of activism.
During President Donald Trump’s administration, there were fewer environmental regulations and increased development in the oil and gas sectors. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has actioned the agenda by announcing a significant rollback of regulations.
We have learned about plans to eliminate certain PFA restrictions and extend deadlines for two of the most prevalent types. Here are some key points about PFAS chemicals and the EPA’s role.
What is PFA?
PFAS, or Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl substances, have existed for decades and are a group of chemicals that have contaminated the air, water, and soil across the country.
Manufactured by companies like 3M and Chemours, they have made eggs slide out of non-stick pans, helped firefighting foams extinguish flames, and allowed textiles to repel water.
However, these chemicals do not break down easily, leading to enduring environmental presence.
Why are they harmful to humans?
Activists have long warned about the health risks associated with PFAS before the dangers were acknowledged publicly. The same properties that make PFAS valuable—such as their resistance to degradation—pose significant health risks.
PFAS can accumulate in the human body. Consequently, the Biden administration has established limits on two common types, PFOA and PFOS, which continue to be found in the environment despite being phased out of production.
Exposure to certain PFAS has been linked to various health issues, including kidney disease, low birth weight, elevated cholesterol levels, and even certain cancers, according to the EPA.
Guidelines for PFOA and PFOS have significantly evolved in recent years, reflecting new scientific discoveries. For instance, the 2016 EPA recommended that combined levels of these two substances should not exceed 70 parts per trillion, while the Biden administration later deemed this amount unsafe.
Understanding the EPA’s actions
The EPA is planning to roll back restrictions on three types of PFAS, including less commonly known substances like GenX found predominantly in North Carolina, as well as PFHXS and PFNA. Furthermore, limits regarding PFAS mixtures are also set to be withdrawn.
Few utilities currently would be impacted by the easing of restrictions on these specific types of PFAS. Recent sampling showed that nearly 12% of U.S. water utilities exceed the Biden administration’s limits. However, many utilities are still addressing PFOA and PFOS challenges.
For the more commonly found types, PFOA and PFOS, the EPA will maintain existing restrictions but will provide an additional two years—until 2031—for utilities to comply.
Reactions to the announcement
Environmental groups argue that the EPA’s move to weaken regulations may be illegal. The Safe Drinking Water Act empowers the EPA to limit water contaminants and ensures that new rules do not loosen previous standards.
“The law clearly states that the EPA cannot abolish or weaken drinking water standards,” noted Eric Olson, a senior strategist with the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council.
Activists are largely critical of the EPA for not upholding Biden-era standards, warning that this could worsen public health issues.
Industry responses have varied. The American Chemistry Council questioned the scientific foundation of the Biden administration’s stricter rules, asserting that the Trump administration had prioritized cost considerations and scientific foundations.
“EPA actions only partially address this issue and are necessary to prevent significant community impacts and unintended consequences,” the industry group stated.
The American Water Works Association, representing two major utility industry groups, expressed support for the EPA’s decision to withdraw the new approach to limiting chemical mixtures, though they cautioned that this change would not significantly alleviate compliance costs associated with PFAS regulations.
Some utilities expressed a desire for stricter PFOA and PFOS limits, according to Mark White, a drinking water expert at engineering firm CDM Smith.
However, they received the extension instead.
“This will require additional time to handle the current knowledge, demanding more resources. Some utilities are still determining their existing situation.”
The mayor of Miami-Dade County announced on Friday that she opposes the removal of fluoride from drinking water in Florida’s largest county. This decision goes against a growing movement that aims to eliminate minerals used for preventing tooth decay.
This veto by Mayor Daniela Levine Cava, a Democrat, comes as critics advocate for the addition of fluoride to water supplies. Recently, Utah became the first state to prohibit the addition of fluoride to public water, and other states, including Florida, are contemplating similar actions.
“The science is crystal clear,” Levine Kava stated during a press conference on Friday. She emphasized, “Ending fluoridation could cause real and lasting harm, especially to children and families who cannot afford regular dental care.”
On April 1, the Miami-Dade Commission, a nonpartisan body of county commissioners, passed a measure to ban fluoride, with some commissioners absent. A total of nine votes are needed to override the mayor’s veto if all 13 commissioners are present, and it remains uncertain whether there is enough support for this. The next scheduled board meeting is on May 6th.
The majority of commissioners in Miami-Dade are Republicans, and Kevin Marino Cabrera, a Trump ally, is set to become the ambassador of Panama. Levine Cava is currently the highest elected Democrat in the state, with Republicans having claimed victory in all other county elected offices in Miami-Dade last year, including sheriffs and election supervisors.
During a press conference last Friday, Levine Caba referenced a study to support her decision, standing alongside dentists and doctors wearing white coats.
“I do what I believe is best for the health of my community. I stand with dental and medical professionals,” she affirmed.
Commissioner Roberto J. Gonzalez, the sponsor of the law, criticized Levine Hippo for “behaving like a typical politician, relying on tired partisan narratives to jeopardize public health.” In a statement on Friday, he called on his fellow committee members to override the veto.
Many experts caution against the removal of fluoride from drinking water, especially for oral health and cavity prevention. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention deem Fluoridation as one of the “10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.”
However, concerns about fluoride have gained momentum in recent years, particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic undermined trust in public health interventions. Opponents argue that they aim to safeguard bodily autonomy and raise worries about potential cognitive effects in children.
They reference a Recent Review Papers which analyzed 74 studies and suggested a link between decreased IQ scores in children with high fluoride exposure during childhood or prenatal periods. (The levels studied were double the CDC’s recommended level. One study found no association.)
Levine Cava’s veto contrasts with the stance of fluoride skeptics like the Trump administration’s Kennedy and Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, along with his appointed surgeon general, Dr. Joseph A. Radapop, who advocates for fluoridated water.
Recently, DeSantis expressed, “Do we want forced medication or do we want people to have a choice? When you’re adding it to water, you’re not really giving people a choice.”
Before the mayor’s announcement, Dr. Radapop called for a halt to Covid vaccine use and urged Miami-Dade residents to petition the mayor to support the fluoride ban. “It’s difficult to comprehend how someone feels entitled to add drugs to the water people drink,” he remarked.
Fluoride was first introduced in city water supplies in 1945 and became a common practice across the country in the ensuing decades. Studies have shown a direct correlation between fluoridation and improved oral hygiene.
“There’s a growing distrust in reliable, evidence-based science,” remarked Dr. Brett Kessler, president of the American Dental Association, in a statement this week. “When government officials, like Secretary Kennedy, perpetuate misinformation and mistrust in research, it harms public health.”
The debate over fluoridated water has raged for years as experts warn against excessive long-term fluoride exposure due to potential health issues. The federally mandated level has decreased over the years, including after a recent court order.
On Monday, Environmental Protection Agency director Lee Zeldin announced the decision to “expeditiously review new scientific information on the potential health risks of fluoride in drinking water.”
“If this evaluation is conducted without bias, it will provide a modern and comprehensive scientific assessment,” stated Zeldin. He lauded Kennedy’s longstanding involvement in this issue. Most individuals who spoke during the public comments section at the April Miami-Dade Committee meeting opposed fluoridation. A few days post-meeting, Levine Hippo hosted a Roundtable Discussion, focusing on the benefits with community healthcare professionals.
Since the November election, Florida’s 20 other cities and county governments have voted to eliminate fluoride from their water supplies. Miami-Dade County, with a population of around 2.7 million, is significantly larger. There are ongoing discussions in the Florida Legislature regarding a bill that would prevent local municipalities from adding fluoride to water.
Miami-Dade politics have shifted markedly to the right in recent years, mirroring Florida’s political landscape from a battleground state to one that is increasingly leaning Republican. In November, Trump became the first Republican presidential candidate to win the county since 1988.
Since it was discovered during the excavation of Heinrich Schlimann in the legendary fortress city of Troy, Depas Amphikypellon – The cylindrical goblet with two curved handles, considered to be the goblet mentioned in Homer’s epic, is considered a potential drinking container for wine. New research by archaeologists at the University of Tübingen, Bonn and Jena University confirms this hypothesis by identifying high concentrations of fruit acids that exhibit regular use exclusively for wine, but these same acids were also found in Troy cups and beakers. This raises questions about the social and cultural significance of beverages. Although previously recognized as the exclusive coat of arms of the early Bronze Age, wine consumption may have been more widespread than previously assumed.
Height 15 cm Depas Amphikypellon It was excavated by Heinrich Schlimann of Troy. Image credit: Valentin Marcard / University of Tübingen.
‘Hefaestus spoke, then rose to his feet and handed the double goblet to his beloved mother.” says the first book iliadtells us how fire gods, metalworking and volcanoes encourage mothers.
‘As he spoke, the white goddess Hera smiled. She reached for her son’s goblet.‘
‘He pulled out the sweet nectar from the mixing bowl, right to left to left for all the other gods.‘
This drinking container Depas Amphikypellonwell known to archaeologists.
The object is a thin clay goblet with two handles narrowed to a pointed base.
Over 100 ships have been previously discovered in Troy from 2500 to 2000 BC.
They are also scattered from the Aegean Sea to Asia and Mesopotamia, and can hold between 0.25 and 1 liter.
“Heinrich Schlimann has already speculated that Depas’ goblet was handed over to celebrate. iliadsaid Dr. Stephen Blum, an archaeologist at the University of Tubingen.
“The classic archaeological collection at the University of Tübingen has two fragments and depas goblets from the Schliman terrorist attack.”
In the new study, researchers heated 2 grams of samples from two fragments and studied the resulting mixture using Gas Chromatography (GC) and mass spectrometry (GC-MS).
“The evidence for succinic acid and pyruvate was conclusive. It only occurs when grape juices ferment,” said Dr. Maxim Reigeot, a researcher at the University of Bonn.
“So now we can confidently state that the wine is actually drunk not only from grape juice but also from DePas’ goblet.”
Wine was the most expensive drink of the Bronze Age, and DePas’ goblets were the most precious ship. DePas’ goblets have been found in a temple and palace complex.
Therefore, scientists speculated that wine drinking took place on special occasions in elite circles.
But did the lower classes of Troy drink wine as everyday food and luxury?
“We also studied ordinary cups where chemicals were found in the outer settlements of Troy.
“So it’s clear that wine was a daily drink for the public as well.”
Team’s paper It was published in American Journal of Archeology.
____
Stephen We are Bram et al. 2025. Wine consumption problems in Troy in the early Bronze Age: organic residue analysis and Depas Amphikypellon. American Journal of Archeology 129(2); doi:10.1086/734061
Drinking coffee in the morning may be more strongly associated with a lower risk of death than drinking coffee later in the day, according to a new study led by scientists at Tulane University.
king others. This study highlights the importance of considering timing in the relationship between coffee intake and health outcomes. Image credit: Sci.News.
“Previous studies have shown that drinking coffee does not increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, but does increase the risk of some chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes,” said Lu Qi, a professor at Tulane University and lead author of the study. appears to be declining.”
“Given the effects of caffeine on our bodies, we wanted to know whether the time of day you drink coffee affects your heart health.”
The study included 40,725 adults who participated in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 1999 and 2018.
As part of the study, participants were asked about all the food and drinks they consumed in at least one day, including whether they drank coffee, when and how much they drank it.
The study also included a subgroup of 1,463 people who were asked to complete a detailed food and drink diary for one week.
Approximately 36% of the study participants were coffee drinkers in the morning (mostly coffee before noon), 16% were coffee drinkers throughout the day (morning, afternoon, and evening), and 48% were non-coffee drinkers.
Compared to non-coffee drinkers, those who drank coffee in the morning were 16% less likely to die from any cause and 31% less likely to die from cardiovascular disease.
However, the risk was not reduced for those who drank coffee throughout the day compared to those who did not drink coffee.
People who drank coffee in the morning, both moderate drinkers (2-3 cups) and heavy drinkers (more than 3 cups), benefited from a lower risk.
Those who drank less alcohol in the morning (one glass or less) benefited from a smaller risk reduction.
“This is the first study to test coffee drinking timing patterns and their health effects,” Professor Qi said.
“Our findings show that it’s not just whether or how much you drink coffee that matters, but the time of day you drink it.”
“We don’t usually give advice on timing in dietary guidance, but we might want to think about this in the future.”
“Further research is needed to validate the findings in other populations, and clinical trials are needed to test the potential effects of varying the times people drink coffee.”
of study Published today on european heart journal.
_____
Xuan Wang others. Timing of coffee drinking and mortality among U.S. adults. european heart journalpublished online on January 8, 2024. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehae871
Wastewater treatment facilities are a major source of PFAS contamination in U.S. drinking water, estimated to contain enough “forever chemicals” to raise concentrations above safe levels for more than 15 million people. is being discharged. It also has the potential to release long-lasting prescription drugs into the water supply.
Although these plants purify wastewater, they do not destroy all the contaminants added upstream, and the remaining chemicals are released into the same waterways that provide drinking water. “This is a funnel into the environment,” he says bridger lyle at New York University. “We capture different things from different places and release them all in one place.”
Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are of particular concern because they contain carbon-fluorine bonds and are highly persistent in the environment. Regular exposure to several types of PFAS is associated with an increased risk of many health problems, from liver damage to various forms of cancer. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently established strict drinking water limits for six of the most well-studied PFAS.
Wastewater treatment facilities are a known source of PFAS contamination worldwide. sewage sludge It is produced as a by-product and sometimes used as fertilizer. To determine whether similar contamination remained in treated water, Ruyle and his colleagues measured concentrations of PFAS and other molecules containing carbon-fluorine bonds in wastewater at eight large treatment facilities across the United States. .
Their findings suggest that wastewater treatment plants across the United States release tens of thousands of kilograms of fluorine-containing compounds into the environment each year, including significant amounts of PFAS. Once the treated wastewater leaves the facility, it mixes with natural water from rivers and lakes. “That would create downstream drinking water issues,” Lyle said.
Applying these numbers to a model of the U.S. drinking water system, the researchers estimated that wastewater could cause PFAS concentrations in the drinking water of approximately 15 million people to exceed EPA limits. In times of drought, as natural water for diluting wastewater decreases, models suggest that concentrations rise above the limit by up to 23 million people. And Ruyle says these may be conservative estimates. Their model assumes that natural water is already free of PFAS.
“This shows that wastewater treatment facilities are a very important source of these compounds,” he says. Carsten Plasse The professor at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland was not involved in the study. Although there are ways to remove or destroy PFAS in water, and more drinking water facilities are installing such systems, currently “our wastewater treatment plants are not set up to deal with this.” he says.
While chemicals alone will forever be a problem, researchers also found that PFAS only make up a small portion of the total amount of fluorinated chemicals emitted by facilities. Most were not PFAS, but other compounds used in common medications such as statins and SSRIs. These drugs are also a concern for ecosystems and people.
“Another person could be taking a cocktail of fluoridated prescription drugs,” Lyle says. But the effects of low doses and long-term exposure to such compounds are not well understood, he says.
“We need to start having a conversation about whether we should use more fluoride in medicines,” Ruiru says. Fluoridation is widely used in medicines to increase their effectiveness in the body, but “preventing widespread chemical contamination should also be important,” he says.
In a dry January of 2023, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued an alcohol statement pouring warm, stale lager, based on the idea that no matter how much alcohol you drink, it’s good for your health. There is no such thing as a safe drinkit was written.
Publication year lancet public healthThe statement states: “Alcohol is a toxic, psychoactive, and addictive substance; [was] It was classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer several decades ago.” It’s a sobering thought, and a surprise to those of us who celebrate our health with the occasional drink.
We all know that excessive drinking is associated with a variety of health problems, including damage to the liver, heart, mental health, and even increased risk of cancer. But most drinkers have also likely heard that small amounts of alcohol can have certain protective effects, such as reducing the risk of arteriosclerosis and lowering insulin resistance.
Of course, “moderate drinking” is a subjective measure. In the UK, this means between 7 and 14 units of alcohol per week (14 units is the equivalent of six pints of beer or one and a half bottles of wine). Belgian guidelines state that drinking 21 drinks a week for men and 14 drinks a week for women is “low risk”. So why did the WHO decide that consuming alcohol in any amount is bad?
Dry January was launched as a public health campaign in 2013 by Alcohol Change UK, a UK-based charity. – Photo credit: Getty
Well, the WHO statement was not issued in a vacuum. It explains that it partially arose from the debate over whether there is a “threshold” at which alcohol becomes carcinogenic. Dr. Jurgen Rehma PhD from the University of Toronto, researching the harms of alcohol and other drugs to public health.
“While being even, [the alcohol] “While the industry does not deny that alcohol is a carcinogen, there has been debate about potential thresholds,” he says.
“This led to a reassessment of the evidence and reiterated the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s statement that there is no lower limit.”
In other words, drinking just one drink a week increases your risk of cancer. This is consistent with what other researchers have found in recent years. “There’s a lot of research on breast cancer that shows that even drinking less than one drink a day can pose a risk,” Rehm says.
And it’s not just cancer. In 2021, scientists at the University of Oxford discovered that: No amount of alcohol is safe for brain functiontracks the loss of gray and white matter in the brain as alcohol intake increases.
They also found that while light drinkers appear to have a lower risk of heart disease than abstainers, it’s not vice that helps. Instead, the study found that light drinkers were more likely to engage in other healthy behaviors, such as exercising and quitting smoking. It was those, not the occasional shiraz, that were the beneficiary.
There is another interesting point that emerges from these and other studies. In most cases, the health risks from alcohol increase the more you drink.
“Many of the risk curves for alcohol are exponential,” Rehm says. “This means that the health benefits of reducing your daily drinks from four to two are much greater than reducing your daily drinks from two to zero.”
Nothing in life is without risk. So if you enjoy drinking occasionally, you may be able to tolerate the risk. “Personally, I don’t care about the risk of three glasses.” [a week]”Unless you’re genetically predisposed to cancer,” Rehm says.
For anyone cutting back after a very enjoyable Christmas, it’s natural to wonder whether Dry January should be a more permanent change. The evidence continues to mount and it is clear that less is more.
read more:
About our experts
Dr. Jurgen Rehm She studies addiction at the University of Toronto, focusing on how social factors and policies influence drug use. His work has been recognized with numerous awards, including the Jelinek Memorial Award and the European Addiction Research Award.
Atrial fibrillation is an independent risk factor for the development of cognitive impairment. Regular coffee consumption shows cognitive benefits in healthy people. Whether regular intake reduces cognitive decline in vulnerable patients is controversial. In a new study, scientists from Zurich University Hospital and elsewhere investigated the link with atrial fibrillation in older people.
Coffee consumption in patients with atrial fibrillation may be associated with improved cognitive performance and decreased inflammatory markers. Image credit: Sci.News.
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common type of cardiac arrhythmia, affecting 5% of the population over the age of 65 and increasing exponentially thereafter.
AF increases thromboembolic stroke risk fivefold. Moreover, it represents an independent risk factor for developing mild cognitive impairment and dementia, with odds ratios ranging from 2.3 to 5.8, respectively.
AF is associated with increased incidence of vascular cognitive impairment, increased size and number of strokes, as well as increased risk of Alzheimer's disease.
The 2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation states that abstaining from caffeine to prevent heart rhythm disturbances is not beneficial for AF patients.
The guidelines also suggest that for patients who report that caffeine causes or worsens symptoms of atrial fibrillation, including rapid heart rate, dizziness, and fatigue, cutting back on coffee may reduce symptoms. It is also pointed out that there is.
Dr. Massimo Barbagallo, a researcher at Zurich University Hospital, said: “Regular consumption of coffee is known to improve cognitive performance in healthy people.”
“Atrial fibrillation, the most frequently occurring arrhythmia, is known to increase the risk of dementia on its own.”
“The question, therefore, is whether coffee can offset the increased risk of cognitive impairment in patients with atrial fibrillation.”
The Swiss Atrial Fibrillation Cohort Study (Swiss-AF) is following over 2,400 people in Switzerland diagnosed with AF.
Patients were enrolled between 2014 and 2017, completed several cognitive tests, and asked how many cups of caffeinated coffee they had consumed in the past 12 months, regardless of added sweeteners, cream, or flavors. reported. Cup sizes were not standardized.
In a new study, Dr. Barbagallo and his colleagues analyzed these cognitive assessments to see whether drinking coffee can avoid cognitive decline, a known risk of atrial fibrillation.
Because Alzheimer's disease and atrial fibrillation are associated with systemic inflammation, the researchers also analyzed inflammatory markers.
Overall, higher scores on cognitive tests were associated with higher coffee intake. Specifically, scores for processing speed, visuomotor coordination, and attention were significantly improved by 11% in coffee consumers compared to non-consumers.
People who drank the most coffee were calculated to have a cognitive age 6.7 years younger than those who drank the least.
Participants who drank five drinks a day had more than 20% lower inflammatory markers than those who drank less than one drink a day.
“There was a very clear and consistent 'dose-response' association between drinking more coffee and performance on several advanced cognitive tests,” said Professor Jürg Biel of the University of Zurich. ” he said.
“Inflammatory markers decreased with increasing coffee intake. This association remained even after accounting for variables such as age, gender, BMI, smoking status, physical activity, and stroke history.”
“Previous studies have shown that the protective effect of regular coffee consumption against cognitive decline in older adults may be due to caffeine and other active ingredients such as magnesium and vitamin B3 (niacin). It has been suggested that this may be due to coffee's role in reducing chemicals that cause inflammation.
of findings Published in American Heart Association Journal.
_____
massimo barbagallo others. Coffee intake correlates with improved cognitive performance in patients with a high incidence of stroke. American Heart Association Journalpublished online on December 14, 2024. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.124.034365
in new research Published in a magazine frontiers of public healthScientists surveyed 69,705 participants (47.2% women) aged 45 to 83 from the Swedish Mammography Cohort and the Swedish Men's Cohort to assess their intake of added sugars and a variety of sugary foods and beverages. We investigated the association between this and the risk of seven cardiovascular diseases. Researchers have found that eating too much added sugar increases the risk of stroke and aneurysm, but eating small snacks lowers the risk of cardiovascular disease. On the other hand, drinking sugary drinks increases your risk of stroke, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation.
Although additional sugar intake was positively associated with ischemic stroke and abdominal aortic aneurysm, the lowest intake categories had the highest risk for most outcomes. Positive linear associations were found between topping intake and abdominal aortic aneurysm, and between sweetened beverage intake and ischemic stroke, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and abdominal aortic aneurysm. There is no relationship between snack intake (pastries, ice cream, chocolate, sweets) and all outcomes, and between topping intake (sugar, honey, jam, marmalade) and heart failure and aortic stenosis. , a negative linear correlation was found. Image credit: Ernesto Rodriguez.
Cardiovascular disease comprises a variety of diseases of the heart and blood vessels and is currently the leading cause of death and disease burden in Europe, mainly due to stroke and ischemic heart disease.
Although diet is one of the main modifiable risk factors for many CVDs, evidence regarding added sugar intake and CVD risk is lacking and inconclusive.
Additionally, most studies have primarily focused on sugar-sweetened beverage consumption rather than total added sugar intake, even though sugar-sweetened beverages account for 14% of added sugar intake in Sweden and only 25% in the United States. I'm guessing.
“The most surprising finding of our study was the differential relationship between different sources of added sugar and CVD risk,” said Suzanne Junge, a PhD candidate at Lund University. That's what I mean.''
“This striking contrast highlights the importance of considering not only the amount of sugar consumed, but also its source and context.”
To understand how sugar intake affects cardiovascular disease risk and whether those risks change with intake of different types of sugar, Janzi et al. Data were collected from two major cohort studies: a cohort of men and a cohort of Swedish men.
These studies administered dietary questionnaires in 1997 and 2009, allowing scientists to monitor participants' diets over time.
Once exclusions were made to ensure the two cohorts shared the same inclusion criteria and remove independent risk factors for CVD, researchers were left with a sample of 69,705 participants .
They identified three classes of sugar intake: toppings such as honey, treats such as pastries, and sugary drinks such as soda, and two different types of stroke, heart attack, heart failure, aortic aneurysm, atrial fibrillation, and aortic stenosis. investigated seven CVDs. .
Participants were monitored until death, diagnosis of CVD, or end of follow-up in 2019.
During this period, 25,739 participants were diagnosed with CVD.
The scientists then used this data to analyze how different types of sugar intake affected the risk of various CVDs.
They found that consuming sugary drinks is worse for your health than any other form of sugar. Drinking more sugary drinks significantly increases your risk of ischemic stroke, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and abdominal aortic aneurysm.
“The liquid sugar found in sweetened beverages is typically less satiating than solid foods, which can lead to less satiety and overconsumption,” says Junge.
“Context is also important. Snacks are often enjoyed during social gatherings or special occasions, while sugary drinks may be consumed more regularly.”
Different types of CVD are affected differently by increased sugar intake. This is likely because added sugar intake has a different impact on participants' individual risk profiles.
Increased carbohydrate intake generally increased the risk of ischemic stroke and abdominal aortic aneurysm, and also increased the risk of heart failure in participants with a normal BMI.
However, the category with the lowest snack intake had the highest risk of negative health outcomes. Occasional snacking was associated with better outcomes than no snacking at all.
“This may reflect underlying dietary habits. People with very low sugar intake may have very restrictive diets, or may have low sugar intake due to pre-existing health conditions. may be limiting,” Junge said.
“Although our observational study cannot prove causation, these results suggest that extremely low carbohydrate intake may not be necessary or beneficial for cardiovascular health.”
_____
Suzanne Junge others. 2024. Added association between sugar intake and incidence of seven different cardiovascular diseases in 69,705 Swedish men and women. frontiers of public health 12;doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1452085
A recent study has identified a new chemical byproduct that may be present in the tap water of approximately one-third of U.S. households. The potential dangers of this byproduct are still unknown.
Researchers are currently investigating the toxicity of this newly discovered chemical due to its similarities to other concerning chemicals.
A study revealed that around one-third of U.S. residents are consuming tap water containing a previously unidentified chemical byproduct. Concerns about the potential toxicity of this chemical have led scientists to closely examine it.
The newly identified substance, known as ‘chloronitramid anion’, is created during the water treatment process involving chloramine, which is produced by combining chlorine and ammonia. Chloramines are commonly used in municipal water treatment to eliminate viruses and bacteria.
Although the existence of this byproduct was discovered four decades ago, recent advancements in analytical techniques have now enabled scientists to determine its structure. It has only recently been identified.
While it may take several years to ascertain the potential dangers of the chlornitramide anion, researchers from the study published their findings in the journal Science to prompt further research on its safety.
Researchers noted that there is currently no conclusive evidence indicating that the compound is harmful, but its widespread detection and structural similarities to other concerning chemicals warrant thorough investigation.
Research showed that the chlornitramide anion is a byproduct formed as chloramine deteriorates over time, indicating that it is likely present in all water treated using this method.
The discovery of potentially hazardous byproducts in tap water underscores the importance of understanding the health implications of water treatment chemicals. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the safety of these substances.
Regulations requiring the monitoring and control of disinfectant byproducts are prompting water utilities to shift towards using chloramines over chlorine, as some chlorine byproducts have been linked to health risks.
While conclusive findings on the toxicity of the newly identified chemical may take years, ongoing research aims to minimize public exposure to potential health risks associated with water treatment chemicals.
Many water utilities in the U.S. disclose information on their treatment processes and potential byproducts, suggesting the use of activated carbon filters in household purifiers to remove disinfectant byproducts.
In the UK, the NHS recommends 6 to 8 cupsThe Harvard Medical School recommends drinking 1.2 liters of fluid per day, and points out that you should also get some fluid from the food you eat. 4-6 cups per dayBut it's the more extreme advice – drinking two litres of water a day – that has taken off online.
In 2016, the idea that getting most of your hydration from water is beneficial was debunked by Dr Stuart Galloway, an associate professor of physiology, kinesiology, and nutrition at the University of Stirling. His research showed that a range of drinks, including diuretic drinks such as lager and instant coffee, It did not promote additional fluid loss compared to drinking normal amounts of water..
undefined
But because everyone has a different body type, diet, and activity level, and different environments (hot, dry, humid, etc.), it's impossible to really say how much everyone needs to drink. Most people can tell if they need more water by feeling thirsty, but this desire weakens as we age. If in doubt, for the majority of adults, the number of times you go to the bathroom can be a useful indicator of adequate hydration, says Galloway.
“It takes into account differences in fluid loss due to environment and activity level, as well as changes in fluid intake. A good rule of thumb is that if your fluid intake is adequate, you'll be going to the bathroom four to six times in a typical day.”
If you're peeing more than six times, you're overdoing it, if you're peeing less than four times, you probably need to drink more water.
“This method has some drawbacks, including influences such as changes in kidney function with age, certain medications, or ingredients in different drinks that can affect urine concentration and volume,” he warns. “So this is a rough rule of thumb rather than a precise guide.”
Urine color can also be helpful, he says, with a similar caveat: “For best results, don't rely on a single marker, but evaluate them in combination.”
About our expert, Dr Stuart Galloway
Dr Galloway is Professor of Exercise Physiology at the University of Stirling. He is also Group Leader of the University's Physiology, Exercise and Nutrition Research Group and has published over 90 peer-reviewed research articles, review articles, and book chapters. His research focuses on human nutrition and exercise metabolism, and fluid and electrolyte balance.
Credit rating agency Moody's has warned that water companies face a “high” risk from cyber-attacks targeting drinking water as they await approval from industry regulators to increase spending on digital security.
Hackers are increasingly targeting infrastructure companies such as water and wastewater treatment companies, and the use of artificial intelligence (AI) could accelerate this trend, Moody's said in a note to investors.
Southern Water, which serves 4.6 million customers in the south of England, claimed last month that the Black Basta ransomware group had accessed its systems and posted a “limited amount” of data to the dark web. announced. The same group hacked outsourcing company Capita last year.
Separately, South Staffordshire Water I apologized In 2022, after hackers steal customers' personal data.
Moody's warned that the increasing use of data logging equipment and digital smart meters to monitor water consumption is making businesses more vulnerable to attacks. Systems used at water treatment facilities are typically separated from a company’s other IT departments, including customer databases, but some systems are more closely integrated to improve efficiency, he said.
After a hack, companies typically have to hire specialized cybersecurity firms to repair systems and communicate with customers, and they can also face penalties from regulators. The UK's Information Commissioner's Office can fine companies up to 4% of group turnover or €20m (£17m), whichever is higher.
Moody's said the cost of system remediation, including re-securing and strengthening existing cyber defenses and paying potential fines, would typically result in only a “modest increase” in debt levels if the incident is short-lived.
But Moody's warned that “the greater risk to our industry and society is if malicious actors were able to gain access to operational technology systems and harm drinking water or wastewater treatment facilities.”
The agency said water suppliers, governments and regulators need to strengthen their cyber defenses “as attacks against critical infrastructure become more sophisticated and state-aligned actors are now increasingly becoming cyber attackers.” He said he was aware of his gender.
More about the digital security of Britain's infrastructure assets, including the £50bn project to build vast underground nuclear waste repositories and the Sellafield nuclear facility in Cumbria, where the Guardian revealed a series of cybersecurity issues. There is widespread concern.
Moody's report comes as water companies in England and Wales hope to receive allowances from Ofwat to increase spending on cyber defense. The regulator is assessing plans to raise the bill from 2025 to 2030 to cover investments.
Ofwat's decision, to be announced later this year, comes at a critical juncture for an industry that has come under fire for sewage dumping, inadequate leak records and high executive pay.
In October last year, companies announced that they would be required to fund a record £96bn investment in fixing raw sewage leaks, reducing leaks and building reservoirs. submitted a five-year business plan detailing price increases.
Moody's analysis shows that businesses want to increase their total spending on security from less than £100m to nearly £700m over the next five years. Increased scrutiny of the industry and the hack into Southern Water could strengthen its case, the credit agency said.
The department said costs to South Staffordshire Water related to the hack could reach £10 million, including potential civil action.
Moody's warning about the potential impact on water companies’ debt comes amid growing concerns over leverage in the water sector, where up to 28% of bill payments are used for debt servicing in regions of England. .
Industry body Water UK announced last week that average annual bills have risen by 6% since April, outpacing the current rate of inflation.
BIt's easy to feel a kinship with pop star Selena Gomez, considering her 430 million Instagram followers, reported net worth of $800 million, and close relationship with Taylor Swift. rare. However, 11 days have passed since the new year started, heading “Selena Gomez returns to Instagram, 18 hours after announcing social media hiatus.''
I feel extra conscious of my bad habits – probably due to my depressed body evidence suggests We usually give up on our New Year's resolutions by mid-January.
Info about Selena Gomez
It's not even noon yet and I've spent 45 minutes on Instagram today. She drank two cups of coffee, but I can't rule out the possibility of a third one. My mild headache is a solemn reminder that I ended up having three drinks last night after a sudden hinge date ruined my plans for a quiet evening. And I just took a small swig from her nearly empty vape, which I had vowed to buy one last time.
At least I'm not eating sugar yet.
As you can see, I'm ambivalent about what I consider to be my vices, and I'm more or less attached to them. Most of the time I can ignore them as reliable pleasures in life and they are reasonably tolerable.But peer pressure to be better is always insidious and becomes especially acute at the beginning of a new year..
My newsfeed is full of stories about financial goal setting, improving fitness, non-alcoholic drinks, and sugar substitutes.Friends are pledging to spend the month of dry January taking 10,000 steps a day and cutting out junk food. On the other hand, I think I may be missing out on the tricks of the trade by missing out on the opportunity for a fresh start.
“hand“At this time of year, the focus is on what to start doing and what to stop doing,” says the counselor. georgina starmer. She links it to the excesses of the just-past Christmas season: What do you change? ”
But the flip side of this focus on self-improvement is the need for self-monitoring. We become more aware of our supposed flaws and shortcomings, which may not be particularly harmful and may even bring us joy.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
