Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

How Gas Stoves Are Silently Polluting Our Homes

News Feed
Friday, May 3, 2024

A study has revealed that households using gas or propane stoves face significant exposure to nitrogen dioxide (NO2), which can lead to health issues like asthma and even premature death. The study conducted by researchers from various institutions, including Stanford, showed that NO2 levels in homes can remain elevated for hours after stove use, affecting even those not directly in the kitchen.People with gas and propane stoves breathe more unhealthy nitrogen dioxide.Households with gas or propane stoves regularly breathe unhealthy levels of nitrogen dioxide, a study of air pollution in U.S. homes found.“I didn’t expect to see pollutant concentrations breach health benchmarks in bedrooms within an hour of gas stove use, and stay there for hours after the stove is turned off,” said Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability Professor Rob Jackson, senior author of the May 3 study in Science Advances. Pollution from gas and propane stoves isn’t just an issue for cooks or people in the kitchen, he said. “It’s the whole family’s problem.”Among other negative health effects, breathing high levels of nitrogen dioxide, or NO2, over time can intensify asthma attacks and has been linked to decreased lung development in children and early deaths. Although most exposure to NO2 is caused by cars and trucks burning fossil fuels, the researchers estimate that the mix of pollutants coming from gas and propane stoves overall may be responsible for as many as 200,000 current childhood asthma cases. One quarter of these can be attributed to nitrogen dioxide alone, according to the paper’s authors, who include scientists from Central California Asthma Collaborative, PSE Healthy Energy, and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.“We found that just how much gas you burn in your stove is by far the biggest factor affecting how much you’re exposed. And then, after that, do you have an effective range hood – and do you use it?” said lead study author Yannai Kashtan, a PhD student in Earth system science.Stanford PhD student Metta Nicholson observes a gas burner in a home where scientists measured air pollution as part of their data collection in California, Texas, Colorado, New York, and Washington, D.C.. Credit: Rob Jackson, Stanford Doerr School of SustainabilityLittle Room for Additional ExposureBeyond asthma cases, the long-term exposure to NO2 in American households with gas stoves is high enough to cause thousands of deaths each year – possibly as many as 19,000 or 40% of the number of deaths linked annually to secondhand smoke. This estimate is based on the researchers’ new measurements and calculations of how much nitrogen dioxide people breathe at home because of gas stoves and the best available data on deaths from long-term exposure to outdoor NO2, which is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.The death toll estimate is approximate in part because it does not factor in the harmful effects of repeated exposure to extremely high levels of nitrogen dioxide in short bursts, as occurs in homes with gas stoves. It also relies on past studies of health impacts from nitrogen dioxide encountered outdoors, where additional pollutants from vehicles and power plants are present.Colin Finnegan of the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability checks a simmering pot on a gas stove that does not have a range hood. Using a range hood that vents air to the outdoors can dramatically influence how much nitrogen dioxide fills the air in a home. Credit: Rob Jackson, Stanford Doerr School of SustainabilityThe researchers used sensors to measure concentrations of NO2 throughout more than 100 homes of various sizes, layouts, and ventilation methods, before, during, and after stove use. They incorporated these measurements and other data into a model powered by National Institutes for Standards and Technology (NIST) software known as CONTAM for simulating airflow, contaminant transport, and room-by-room occupant exposure in buildings. This allowed them to estimate nationwide averages and short-term exposures under a range of realistic conditions and behaviors, and cross-check model outputs against their home measurements.The results show that nationwide, typical use of a gas or propane stove increases exposure to nitrogen dioxide by an estimated 4 parts per billion, averaged over a year. That’s three quarters of the way to the nitrogen dioxide exposure level that the World Health Organization recognizes as unsafe in outdoor air. “That’s excluding all outdoor sources combined, so it makes it much more likely you’re going to exceed the limit,” said Kashtan.Understanding How Gas Stoves Affect HealthThe study is the latest in a series from Jackson’s group at Stanford looking at indoor air pollution from gas stoves. Earlier studies documented the rate at which gas stoves emit other pollutants, including the greenhouse gas methane and the carcinogen benzene. But to understand the implications of stove emissions for human health, the researchers needed to find out how much pollutants spread through a home, build up, and eventually dissipate. “We’re moving from measuring how much pollution comes from stoves to how much pollution people actually breathe,” said Jackson, who is the Michelle and Kevin Douglas Provostial Professor in Earth System Science.With any fuel source, particle pollution can rise from food cooking in a hot pan. The new research confirms that food emits little or no nitrogen dioxide as it cooks, however, and electric stoves produce no NO2. “It’s the fuel, not the food,” said Jackson. “Electric stoves emit no nitrogen dioxide or benzene. If you own a gas or propane stove, you need to reduce pollutant exposures using ventilation.”Home Size MattersEven in larger homes, concentrations of nitrogen dioxide routinely spiked to unhealthy levels during and after cooking even if a range hood was on and venting air outdoors. But people who live in homes smaller than 800 square feet – about the size of a small two-bedroom apartment – are exposed to twice as much nitrogen dioxide over the course of a year compared to the national average, and four times more compared to those living in the largest homes, upwards of 3,000 square feet.Because home size makes such a difference, there are also differences in exposure across racial, ethnic, and income groups. Compared to the national average, the researchers found long-term NO2 exposure is 60% higher among American Indian and Alaska Native households, and 20% higher among Black and Hispanic or Latino households. This exposure to indoor air pollution from gas stoves compounds the fact that exposure to outdoor sources of nitrogen dioxide pollution, such as vehicle exhaust, is also typically higher among people in poorer, often minority, communities.“People in poorer communities can’t always afford to change their appliances, or perhaps they rent and can’t replace appliances because they don’t own them,” Jackson said. “People in smaller homes are also breathing more pollution for the same stove use.”Reference: “Nitrogen dioxide exposure, health outcomes, and associated demographic disparities 3 due to gas and propane combustion by U.S. stoves” 3 May 2024, Science Advances.Jackson is also a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and Precourt Institute for Energy. Additional Stanford co-authors include Metta Nicholson, a PhD student in the Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER); Colin Finnegan, a laboratory manager in the Department of Earth System Science; and Earth system science postdoctoral scholars Zutao Ouyang and Anchal Garg.This research was supported by HT, LLC.

People with gas and propane stoves breathe more unhealthy nitrogen dioxide. Households with gas or propane stoves regularly breathe unhealthy levels of nitrogen dioxide, a...

Kitchen Stove

A study has revealed that households using gas or propane stoves face significant exposure to nitrogen dioxide (NO2), which can lead to health issues like asthma and even premature death. The study conducted by researchers from various institutions, including Stanford, showed that NO2 levels in homes can remain elevated for hours after stove use, affecting even those not directly in the kitchen.

People with gas and propane stoves breathe more unhealthy nitrogen dioxide.

Households with gas or propane stoves regularly breathe unhealthy levels of nitrogen dioxide, a study of air pollution in U.S. homes found.

“I didn’t expect to see pollutant concentrations breach health benchmarks in bedrooms within an hour of gas stove use, and stay there for hours after the stove is turned off,” said Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability Professor Rob Jackson, senior author of the May 3 study in Science Advances. Pollution from gas and propane stoves isn’t just an issue for cooks or people in the kitchen, he said. “It’s the whole family’s problem.”

Among other negative health effects, breathing high levels of nitrogen dioxide, or NO2, over time can intensify asthma attacks and has been linked to decreased lung development in children and early deaths.

Although most exposure to NO2 is caused by cars and trucks burning fossil fuels, the researchers estimate that the mix of pollutants coming from gas and propane stoves overall may be responsible for as many as 200,000 current childhood asthma cases. One quarter of these can be attributed to nitrogen dioxide alone, according to the paper’s authors, who include scientists from Central California Asthma Collaborative, PSE Healthy Energy, and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

“We found that just how much gas you burn in your stove is by far the biggest factor affecting how much you’re exposed. And then, after that, do you have an effective range hood – and do you use it?” said lead study author Yannai Kashtan, a PhD student in Earth system science.

Metta Nicholson Observes Gas Burner

Stanford PhD student Metta Nicholson observes a gas burner in a home where scientists measured air pollution as part of their data collection in California, Texas, Colorado, New York, and Washington, D.C.. Credit: Rob Jackson, Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability

Little Room for Additional Exposure

Beyond asthma cases, the long-term exposure to NO2 in American households with gas stoves is high enough to cause thousands of deaths each year – possibly as many as 19,000 or 40% of the number of deaths linked annually to secondhand smoke. This estimate is based on the researchers’ new measurements and calculations of how much nitrogen dioxide people breathe at home because of gas stoves and the best available data on deaths from long-term exposure to outdoor NO2, which is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The death toll estimate is approximate in part because it does not factor in the harmful effects of repeated exposure to extremely high levels of nitrogen dioxide in short bursts, as occurs in homes with gas stoves. It also relies on past studies of health impacts from nitrogen dioxide encountered outdoors, where additional pollutants from vehicles and power plants are present.

Stove Without Range Hood

Colin Finnegan of the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability checks a simmering pot on a gas stove that does not have a range hood. Using a range hood that vents air to the outdoors can dramatically influence how much nitrogen dioxide fills the air in a home. Credit: Rob Jackson, Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability

The researchers used sensors to measure concentrations of NO2 throughout more than 100 homes of various sizes, layouts, and ventilation methods, before, during, and after stove use. They incorporated these measurements and other data into a model powered by National Institutes for Standards and Technology (NIST) software known as CONTAM for simulating airflow, contaminant transport, and room-by-room occupant exposure in buildings. This allowed them to estimate nationwide averages and short-term exposures under a range of realistic conditions and behaviors, and cross-check model outputs against their home measurements.

The results show that nationwide, typical use of a gas or propane stove increases exposure to nitrogen dioxide by an estimated 4 parts per billion, averaged over a year. That’s three quarters of the way to the nitrogen dioxide exposure level that the World Health Organization recognizes as unsafe in outdoor air. “That’s excluding all outdoor sources combined, so it makes it much more likely you’re going to exceed the limit,” said Kashtan.

Understanding How Gas Stoves Affect Health

The study is the latest in a series from Jackson’s group at Stanford looking at indoor air pollution from gas stoves. Earlier studies documented the rate at which gas stoves emit other pollutants, including the greenhouse gas methane and the carcinogen benzene. But to understand the implications of stove emissions for human health, the researchers needed to find out how much pollutants spread through a home, build up, and eventually dissipate. “We’re moving from measuring how much pollution comes from stoves to how much pollution people actually breathe,” said Jackson, who is the Michelle and Kevin Douglas Provostial Professor in Earth System Science.

With any fuel source, particle pollution can rise from food cooking in a hot pan. The new research confirms that food emits little or no nitrogen dioxide as it cooks, however, and electric stoves produce no NO2. “It’s the fuel, not the food,” said Jackson. “Electric stoves emit no nitrogen dioxide or benzene. If you own a gas or propane stove, you need to reduce pollutant exposures using ventilation.”

Home Size Matters

Even in larger homes, concentrations of nitrogen dioxide routinely spiked to unhealthy levels during and after cooking even if a range hood was on and venting air outdoors. But people who live in homes smaller than 800 square feet – about the size of a small two-bedroom apartment – are exposed to twice as much nitrogen dioxide over the course of a year compared to the national average, and four times more compared to those living in the largest homes, upwards of 3,000 square feet.

Because home size makes such a difference, there are also differences in exposure across racial, ethnic, and income groups. Compared to the national average, the researchers found long-term NO2 exposure is 60% higher among American Indian and Alaska Native households, and 20% higher among Black and Hispanic or Latino households. This exposure to indoor air pollution from gas stoves compounds the fact that exposure to outdoor sources of nitrogen dioxide pollution, such as vehicle exhaust, is also typically higher among people in poorer, often minority, communities.

“People in poorer communities can’t always afford to change their appliances, or perhaps they rent and can’t replace appliances because they don’t own them,” Jackson said. “People in smaller homes are also breathing more pollution for the same stove use.”

Reference: “Nitrogen dioxide exposure, health outcomes, and associated demographic disparities 3 due to gas and propane combustion by U.S. stoves” 3 May 2024, Science Advances.

Jackson is also a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and Precourt Institute for Energy. Additional Stanford co-authors include Metta Nicholson, a PhD student in the Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER); Colin Finnegan, a laboratory manager in the Department of Earth System Science; and Earth system science postdoctoral scholars Zutao Ouyang and Anchal Garg.

This research was supported by HT, LLC.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Ignore the Influencers: Simple Showers Are Still Best

By Carole Tanzer Miller HealthDay ReporterSATURDAY, Dec. 13, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Listen to the influencers, skin-care specialists say, and your...

By Carole Tanzer Miller HealthDay ReporterSATURDAY, Dec. 13, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Listen to the influencers, skin-care specialists say, and your daily shower could do more harm than good."Your skin is a barrier," said Dr. Nicole Negbenebor, a dermatologic surgeon at University of Iowa Health Care, told The Associated Press. "So you want to treat it right, and then sometimes there can be too much of a good thing."If you’re double-cleansing, exfoliating, piling on scented body rubs and shower oils and spending a lot of time in the water, you’re probably going overboard, she and other skin-care experts agree.A daily shower with lukewarm water and hypoallergenic cleanser — preferably one that’s fragrance-free, and a slather of lotion or oil afterward are all you need, they say.Here’s a guide from dermatologists to sudsing up without getting carried away:Pay attention to time and temperature. Staying in the shower too long or cranking the temperature up too high can strip away natural oils your skin needs. The upshot: You’ll be dry and irritated.Pick the right soap. Choose one, dermatologists suggest, for sensitive skin and avoid antibacterial soaps, which can cause dryness. (Antibacterial soaps can, however, be beneficial for folks with hidradenitis suppurativa, an autoimmune condition that causes abscesses and boils on the skin, they point out.)Despite the influencers, double-cleansing isn’t necessary. No need, doctors say, to use oil-based cleansers to break down makeup and excess oil and then a water-based cleanser to remove any residue. And, they add, you sure don’t need to do that to your whole body."People overuse soap all the time," Dr. Olga Bunimovich, an assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pittsburgh, told The AP. "You should not be soaping up all of your skin period." Instead, she advised, use soap to wash skin folds and your privates.Oil up. Once you’re out of the shower but still damp, an oil will lock in moisture that hydrates the skin, Negbenebor said. Just remember: Oil itself is a sealant, not a moisturizer.Don’t go overboard with exfoliating. Using a body scrub or loofah to remove dead cells is good for the skin, but not every day, especially if you have dry skin, acne or eczema. Using products that contain lactic or glycolic acid is a gentler way to exfoliate — but not all the time.While you’re being kind to your skin, think about the environment, too. Nearly 17% of U.S. indoor water use is in the shower, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Shorter showers are good for the earth — and a lukewarm one that lasts long enough to clean your body should be sufficient most of the time.The University of Nebraska-Lincoln has more about showering.SOURCE: The Associated Press, July 10, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Health
Water

New method improves the reliability of statistical estimations

The technique can help scientists in economics, public health, and other fields understand whether to trust the results of their experiments.

Let’s say an environmental scientist is studying whether exposure to air pollution is associated with lower birth weights in a particular county.They might train a machine-learning model to estimate the magnitude of this association, since machine-learning methods are especially good at learning complex relationships.Standard machine-learning methods excel at making predictions and sometimes provide uncertainties, like confidence intervals, for these predictions. However, they generally don’t provide estimates or confidence intervals when determining whether two variables are related. Other methods have been developed specifically to address this association problem and provide confidence intervals. But, in spatial settings, MIT researchers found these confidence intervals can be completely off the mark.When variables like air pollution levels or precipitation change across different locations, common methods for generating confidence intervals may claim a high level of confidence when, in fact, the estimation completely failed to capture the actual value. These faulty confidence intervals can mislead the user into trusting a model that failed.After identifying this shortfall, the researchers developed a new method designed to generate valid confidence intervals for problems involving data that vary across space. In simulations and experiments with real data, their method was the only technique that consistently generated accurate confidence intervals.This work could help researchers in fields like environmental science, economics, and epidemiology better understand when to trust the results of certain experiments.“There are so many problems where people are interested in understanding phenomena over space, like weather or forest management. We’ve shown that, for this broad class of problems, there are more appropriate methods that can get us better performance, a better understanding of what is going on, and results that are more trustworthy,” says Tamara Broderick, an associate professor in MIT’s Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS), a member of the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS) and the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society, an affiliate of the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), and senior author of this study.Broderick is joined on the paper by co-lead authors David R. Burt, a postdoc, and Renato Berlinghieri, an EECS graduate student; and Stephen Bates an assistant professor in EECS and member of LIDS. The research was recently presented at the Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems.Invalid assumptionsSpatial association involves studying how a variable and a certain outcome are related over a geographic area. For instance, one might want to study how tree cover in the United States relates to elevation.To solve this type of problem, a scientist could gather observational data from many locations and use it to estimate the association at a different location where they do not have data.The MIT researchers realized that, in this case, existing methods often generate confidence intervals that are completely wrong. A model might say it is 95 percent confident its estimation captures the true relationship between tree cover and elevation, when it didn’t capture that relationship at all.After exploring this problem, the researchers determined that the assumptions these confidence interval methods rely on don’t hold up when data vary spatially.Assumptions are like rules that must be followed to ensure results of a statistical analysis are valid. Common methods for generating confidence intervals operate under various assumptions.First, they assume that the source data, which is the observational data one gathered to train the model, is independent and identically distributed. This assumption implies that the chance of including one location in the data has no bearing on whether another is included. But, for example, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) air sensors are placed with other air sensor locations in mind.Second, existing methods often assume that the model is perfectly correct, but this assumption is never true in practice. Finally, they assume the source data are similar to the target data where one wants to estimate.But in spatial settings, the source data can be fundamentally different from the target data because the target data are in a different location than where the source data were gathered.For instance, a scientist might use data from EPA pollution monitors to train a machine-learning model that can predict health outcomes in a rural area where there are no monitors. But the EPA pollution monitors are likely placed in urban areas, where there is more traffic and heavy industry, so the air quality data will be much different than the air quality data in the rural area.In this case, estimates of association using the urban data suffer from bias because the target data are systematically different from the source data.A smooth solutionThe new method for generating confidence intervals explicitly accounts for this potential bias.Instead of assuming the source and target data are similar, the researchers assume the data vary smoothly over space.For instance, with fine particulate air pollution, one wouldn’t expect the pollution level on one city block to be starkly different than the pollution level on the next city block. Instead, pollution levels would smoothly taper off as one moves away from a pollution source.“For these types of problems, this spatial smoothness assumption is more appropriate. It is a better match for what is actually going on in the data,” Broderick says.When they compared their method to other common techniques, they found it was the only one that could consistently produce reliable confidence intervals for spatial analyses. In addition, their method remains reliable even when the observational data are distorted by random errors.In the future, the researchers want to apply this analysis to different types of variables and explore other applications where it could provide more reliable results.This research was funded, in part, by an MIT Social and Ethical Responsibilities of Computing (SERC) seed grant, the Office of Naval Research, Generali, Microsoft, and the National Science Foundation (NSF).

Health
Forests
Science

Gas Stoves Are Poisoning Americans by Releasing Toxic Fumes Associated With Asthma and Lung Cancer

In the United States, gas stoves are the main source of indoor nitrogen dioxide—a toxic gas tied to many health problems—according to a new study

Gas Stoves Are Poisoning Americans by Releasing Toxic Fumes Associated With Asthma and Lung Cancer In the United States, gas stoves are the main source of indoor nitrogen dioxide—a toxic gas tied to many health problems—according to a new study Sarah Kuta - Daily Correspondent December 11, 2025 9:13 a.m. Gas stoves are responsible for more than half of some Americans’ total exposure to toxic nitrogen dioxide, a new study suggests. Pexels A hidden danger may be lurking in your kitchen. Many Americans are breathing in nitrogen dioxide—a harmful pollutant that’s been linked with asthma and lung cancer—from fumes emitted by their gas stoves. A new study, published this month in the journal PNAS Nexus, suggests that gas stoves are the main source of indoor nitrogen dioxide pollution in the United States, responsible for more than half of some Americans’ total exposure to the gas. “We’ve spent billions of dollars cleaning up our air outdoors and nothing to clean up our air indoors,” study co-author Robert Jackson, an environmental scientist at Stanford University, tells SFGATE’s Anna FitzGerald Guth. “As our air outdoors gets cleaner and cleaner, a higher proportion of the pollution we breathe comes from indoor sources.” Scientists and public health experts have long known that nitrogen dioxide is bad for human health. The reddish-brown gas can irritate airways and worsen or even contribute to the development of respiratory diseases like asthma. Children and older individuals are particularly susceptible to its effects. Nitrogen dioxide is a byproduct of burning fuel, so most emissions come from vehicles, power plants and off-road equipment. However, indoors, the primary culprit is the gas stove, the household appliance that burns natural gas or propane to produce controlled flames under individual burners. It’s relatively easy to keep tabs on outdoor nitrogen dioxide concentrations and estimate their corresponding exposure risks, thanks to satellites and ground-level stations located across the country. By contrast, however, indoor sources are “neither systematically monitored nor estimated,” the researchers write in the paper. Did you know? Bans on gas Berkeley, California, became the first city to prohibit gas hookups in most new buildings in 2019, although the ordinance was halted in 2024 after the California Restaurant Association sued. Still, 130 local governments have now implemented zero-emission building ordinances, according to the Building Decarbonization Coalition. For the study, Jackson and his colleagues performed a ZIP-code-level estimate of how much total nitrogen dioxide communities are exposed to. Information came from two databases tracking outdoor nitrogen dioxide concentrations and a building energy use database, which helped the team construct characteristics of 133 million residential dwellings across the country, along with their home appliances. Among individuals who use gas stoves, the appliances are responsible for roughly a quarter of their overall nitrogen dioxide exposure on average, the team found. For those who cook more frequently or for longer durations, gas stoves can be responsible for as much as 57 percent of their total exposure. “Our research shows that if you use a gas stove, you’re often breathing as much nitrogen dioxide pollution indoors from your stove as you are from all outdoor sources combined,” says Jackson in a Stanford statement. Individuals who use gas stoves are exposed to roughly 25 percent more total residential nitrogen dioxide over the long term than those who use electric stoves, which do not emit the gas. Total exposure tends to be highest in big cities, where people often have small living spaces and outdoor levels are also high. Switching from a gas to an electric stove would help roughly 22 million Americans dip below the maximum nitrogen dioxide exposure levels recommended by the World Health Organization, the analyses suggest. The authors recommend replacing gas stoves with electric models whenever possible. “You would never willingly stand over the tailpipe of your car, breathing in pollution,” Jackson tells Women’s Health’s Korin Miller. “Why breathe the same toxins every day in your kitchen?” Dylan Plummer, acting deputy director for building electrification for the Sierra Club, a nonprofit environmental organization, agrees. Plummer, who was not involved with the research, tells Inside Climate News’ Phil McKenna that “years from now, we will look back at the common practice of burning fossil fuels in our homes with horror.” If swapping stoves is not possible, experts have some other tips for reducing nitrogen dioxide exposure. “One thing people could do is to minimize the time the stoves are on,” Jamie Alan, a toxicologist at Michigan State University who was not involved with the research, tells Women’s Health. “Another suggestion would be to increase ventilation,” such as by turning on the range hood and opening a window. Other suggestions by the New York Times’ Rachel Wharton include using a portable induction countertop unit or electric kitchen gadgets like tea kettles, toaster ovens and slow cookers. Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Health
Climate
Energy

Parents Might Pass Depression Down To Kids Through One Specific Symptom, Experts Say

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Dec. 11, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Children of depressed parents are more likely to develop depression...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Dec. 11, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Children of depressed parents are more likely to develop depression themselves, and a new study suggests this risk might be tied to one specific symptom of depression.It’s already known that depression in parents can affect how children’s brains respond to positive and negative feedback, researchers said.“If parents are experiencing forms of depression where they’re not enjoying things and aren’t interested in things, that seems to be impacting how their kids are responding to what’s going on around them,” senior researcher Brandon Gibb, director of the Mood Disorders Institute at Binghamton University, said in a news release.“They’re less reactive to positive things and negative things,” he continued. “It seems that parents’ experiences of anhedonia is the key feature of depression impacting how children’s brains are responding, at least in our study, rather than other common symptoms of depression.”For the new study, researchers performed a lab experiment involving more than 200 parents and children ages 7 to 11.The experiment was designed to see how parents’ anhedonic symptoms affect children’s brain responses to positive and negative feedback.“The idea is that if you have this risk factor of being less interested or less engaged or finding things less enjoyable, maybe that’s reflected in how your brain responds to environmental feedback,” said lead researcher Alana Israel, a doctoral student at Binghamton University, a branch of the State University of New York. “Children of parents who have higher levels of anhedonic depressive symptoms should show a reduced response while other depressive symptoms theoretically should not be as related to this specific brain response,” Israel explained in a news release.In the experiment, children were presented with two doors and asked to guess the one with a prize behind it. If they chose the right door, they won money; if they chose wrong, they lost money.Results showed that kids’ response to either winning or losing money was blunted if their parents had higher levels of anhedonic symptoms. “What that tells us is that there is something specific about parents’ anhedonia that may impact children’s neural responses,” Israel said. “It further specifies a group of children who might be at heightened risk for loss of interest or pleasure and lack of engagement, which is a core feature of depression.”Future research should investigate how family dynamics might change if parents with anhedonic symptoms receive treatment or start to feel better, the team said.Researchers said it’s also important to examine whether children’s responses to other sorts of feedback, like social feedback from peers, are also affected by parents’ depression.“There are researchers looking at interventions that are designed to increase positive mood, positive engagement and positive parent-child relationships,” Israel said. “It will be important to see if these findings can identify families who might be most likely to benefit from those types of interventions.”SOURCE: Binghamton University, news release, Dec. 4, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Health

We may finally know what a healthy gut microbiome looks like

Our gut microbiome has a huge influence on our overall health, but we haven't been clear on the specific bacteria with good versus bad effects. Now, a study of more than 34,000 people is shedding light on what a healthy gut microbiome actually consists of

The trillions of microscopic bacteria that reside in our gut have an outsized role in our healthTHOM LEACH/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY We often hear talk of things being good for our microbiome, and in turn, good for our health. But it wasn’t entirely clear what a healthy gut microbiome consisted of. Now, a study of more than 34,000 people has edged us closer towards understanding the mixes of microbes that reliably signal we have low inflammation, good immunity and healthy cholesterol levels. Your gut microbiome can influence your immune system, rate of ageing and your risk of poor mental health. Despite a profusion of home tests promising to reveal the make-up of your gut community, their usefulness has been debated, because it is hard to pin down what defines a “good” microbial mix. Previous measures mainly looked at species diversity, with a greater array of bacteria being better. But it is difficult to identify particular communities of interacting organisms that are implicated in a specific aspect of our health, because microbiomes vary so much from person to person. “There is a very intricate relationship between the food we eat, the composition of our gut microbiome, and the effects the gut microbiome has on our health. The only way to try to map these connections is having large enough sample sizes,” says Nicola Segata at the University of Trento in Italy. To create such a map, Segata and his colleagues have assessed a dataset from more than 34,500 people who took part in the PREDICT programme in the UK and US, run by microbiome testing firm Zoe, and validated the results against data from 25 other cohorts from Western countries. Of the thousands of species that reside in the human gut, the researchers focused on 661 bacterial species that were found in more than 20 per cent of the Zoe participants. They used this to determine the 50 bacteria most associated with markers of good health – assessed via markers such as body mass index and blood glucose levels – and the 50 most linked to bad health. The 50 “good bug” species – 22 of which are new to science – seem to influence four key areas: heart and blood cholesterol levels; inflammation and immune health; body fat distribution; and blood sugar control. The participants who were deemed healthy, because they had no known medical conditions, had about 3.6 more of these species than people with a condition, while people at a healthy weight hosted about 5.2 more of them than those with obesity. The researchers suggest that good or bad health outcomes may come about due to the vital role the gut microbiome plays in releasing chemicals involved in cholesterol transport, inflammation reduction, fat metabolism and insulin sensitivity. As to the specific species that were present, most microbes in both the “good” and “bad” rankings belong to the Clostridia class. Within this class, species in the Lachnospiraceae family featured 40 times, with 13 seemingly having favourable effects and 27 unfavourable. “The study highlights bacterial groups that could be further investigated regarding their potential positive or negative impact [on] health conditions, such as high blood glucose levels or obesity,” says Ines Moura at the University of Leeds, UK. The link between these microbes and diet was assessed via food questionnaires and data logged on the Zoe app, where users are advised to aim for at least 30 different plants a week and at least three portions a day of fermented foods, with an emphasis on fibre and not too many ultra processed options. The researchers found that most of the microbes either aligned with a generally healthy diet and better health, or with a worse diet and poorer health. But 65 of the 661 microbes didn’t fit in. “These 65 bacteria are a testament to the fact that the picture is still more complex than what we saw,” says Segata, who also works as a consultant for Zoe. “The effects may depend on the other microbes that are there, or the specific strain of the bacterium or the specific diet.” This sorting of “good” versus “bad” bacteria has enabled the researchers to create a 0 to 1000 ranking scale for the overall health of someone’s gut microbiota, which is already used as part of Zoe’s gut health tests. “Think of a healthy gut microbiome as a community of chemical factories. We want large numbers of species, we want the good ones outnumbering the bad ones, and when you get that, then you’re producing really healthy chemicals, which have impacts across the body,” says team member Tim Spector at King’s College London and co-founder of Zoe. This doesn’t mean the ideal healthy gut microbiome has been pinned down, though. “Defining a healthy microbiome is a difficult task, as the gut microbiome composition is impacted by diet, but it can also change with environmental factors, age and health conditions that require long-term medication,” says Moura. “We really need to think about our body and our microbiome as two complex systems that together make one even more complex system,” says Segata. “When you change one thing, everything is modified a bit as a consequence. Understanding what is cause and effect in many cases can be very intricate.” Bigger studies are needed to tease out these links and cover more of the global population, says Segata. However, once we have established the baseline of your health and microbiome, it should become possible to recommend specific foods to tweak your gut bacteria, he says.

Health
Chemicals
Science

Suggested Viewing

The Rulindo Challenge

In May 2010, Rulindo, Rwanda launched an ambitious plan to bring access to water and sanitation services to the entire district population. This film explores the story, challenges and ultimate success for reaching over 330,000 people with safe water in the rural and mountainous Rulindo District, and how this project is inspiring sustainable water (infrastructure and sanitation) models around the world.

Sustainable
Business
Health

We Are Nature

We made this short film under lockdown conditions throughout the pandemic of Covid-19. The film argues that policies are not enough to prevent a future outbreak. We need a paradigm shift in how we view nature and the rest of life on this planet. The film was made remotely via zoom, a fact made clear in the style of the film. Our speakers appear on screens, which we filmed from inside our homes. Each speaker offers a different perspective on the origins of the pandemic in the ways we see and value nature. If humans can’t escape their connection to the natural world, it’s time for a better one. The health of us and the planet depends on it.

Health
Nature
Animals

In His Own Home

Heavily armed officers of the University of Florida police department in Gainesville, FL, responding to a 911 call from a neighbor who heard screams, break into the campus apartment of Ghanaian graduate student, Kofi Adu-Brempong. Clad in SWAT gear and ready to attack, they see the disabled doctoral student, sitting with a metal table leg in his hand and within a minute of entry, shoot the unarmed man in the face. Adu-Brempong, who because of childhood polio, needed a cane to walk, and had been suffering from mental illness, now has severe facial injuries, and is charged with resisting arrest. He is guarded outside his hospital door, his legs shackled together when going to the bathroom. The officer who shoots Kofi, and who had previously been caught cruising through town throwing eggs at residents of a Black neighborhood, is not suspended or fired. Student protests lead the administration to drop charges but calls for revoking SWAT-like teams on campus go unheard. Kofi’s shooting is not an isolated incident but part of an ongoing pattern of police brutality against Blacks and a stark reminder of the dangers of increasingly militarized campuses nationwide. In His Own Home came out of outrage by a small group of concerned community members committed to seeing social justice happen on a local level. This documentary is an educational and organizing tool, especially calling for our communities to be safe from violence by racist and over-armed police.

Social Justice
Health
Activism

The Connection Between Bats and Coronavirus: Wildlife is not to blame

What exactly is the connection between bats and coronavirus? And how has sheltering-in-place disrupted field research in California and beyond? State and local governments have set restrictions on bat research and rescue in an effort to curtail the spread of the coronavirus. Dr. Winifred Frick, chief scientist of Bat Conservation International, describes how the new restrictions have affected conservation efforts.

Animals
Science
Health

Unacceptable Risk: Dr. Margaret Kripke on Cancer and the Environment

Unacceptable Risk tells the story of a prominent cancer researcher who rethinks her assumptions about the causes of cancer and the true burden of environmentally-induced cancers.

Chemicals
Science
Health

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.