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.

Efforts to decrease wood burning in Portland not exactly catching fire

News Feed
Wednesday, March 5, 2025

Efforts to decrease wood burning in Portland not exactly catching fireThey produce more harmful particulate matter than diesel trucks and cigarette smoke. They release carbon dioxide and other toxic chemicals that can lead to dire health and climate outcomes. Yet efforts to decrease the use of wood stoves and wood-burning fireplaces in Portland seem to have had little effect. Preliminary results from a new state survey show more people across the state burned wood as compared to a 2021 survey. The wood-burning increase is especially pronounced in urban areas where people are using more wood fireplaces, fireplace inserts, wood stoves and pellet stoves in single-family detached homes. There’s also a smaller increase in the use of wood stoves in single-family detached homes in rural areas, according to the data, obtained by The Oregonian/OregonLive from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. The reasons for the rise in burning could be many, state officials say, from the climbing costs of electricity and an increase in power outages to Oregon’s deep ties to the timber industry and easy-to-get and relatively cheap wood. Plus, people simply like the look and feel of fireplaces and wood stoves. The upturn is disheartening to public health officials in Multnomah County who for nearly six years have regulated wood burning, educated residents about its dangers and, more recently, have spent more than $1 million to help swap stoves and fireplaces for heat pumps. Wood burning is one of the leading sources of air pollution in Multnomah County during the winter heating season, said John Wasiutynski, the county’s Office of Sustainability director. “People don’t smell poison, they smell nostalgia,” Wasiutynski said. “But we can’t have clean air if we have wood burning.” Clearly, it’s hard to part people from the tradition, he said. An estimated 1% of Multnomah County’s 343,370 homes – or 3,434 households – use wood as their primary heat source, according to the DEQ.But that number doesn’t include the countless households that use wood as a secondary heat source or for pleasure, ambiance or aesthetic purposes, Wasiutynski said. The wood combustion survey, conducted every three years by Oregon State University in conjunction with the DEQ, offers a more complex picture of wood-burning trends. The survey asks a sampling of state residents whether they use wood-burning devices, what type and how much wood they burn. The data was collected last summer. Survey results are used to help develop a statewide emissions inventory of air pollutants, which the state submits to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a part of the National Emissions Inventory. WORSE THAN TRUCKS, CARS COMBINEDThere are compelling reasons to ditch heating with wood, public health officials say. The EPA says residential wood smoke emits more fine particulate matter – also called PM2.5 – than cars, diesel trucks, tractors and bulldozers combined and five times more than petroleum refineries, cement manufacturers and pulp and paper plants combined. The tiny airborne particles, which can be inhaled deep into the lungs, can cause or exacerbate serious health problems, including asthma, severe bronchitis, heart and lung disease and can lead to premature death, according to the American Lung Association. People over 65, children, pregnant women and those with existing lung or heart conditions are most at risk. Burning wood also releases volatile organic compounds – toxic gases that vaporize into the air – that can cause cancer and other adverse health effects, nitrogen oxides and cancer-causing benzene and formaldehyde, according to the EPA. The chemicals and the particulate matter degrade indoor air quality for the families that burn wood and also make the air outside sooty and stinky for countless neighbors. It’s especially dire on days with air stagnation and temperature inversions when warm air sits on top of cold air, causing pollution from the wood devices to stick close to the ground, Wasiutynski said.“If I had to choose, would I rather my neighbor idle a modern diesel truck in his yard or fire up his fireplace? I’m going to choose the diesel truck because it’s actually going to be less polluting,” he said. Though the EPA in 2018 declared that wood burning is “carbon neutral” – because trees die naturally and can be replanted to reabsorb carbon – that declaration was focused on the biomass industry that burns wood products for energy, including to produce wood pellets for stoves. Environmental groups have pushed back, saying wood smoke adds carbon dioxide, black carbon and methane to the air, pollutants that contribute significantly to climate change. Data from the state Department of Environmental Quality also shows that residential wood burning has a disproportionately harmful impact on Latino and Black residents in Oregon, Wasiutynski said. And newer or “eco-friendly” stoves, fireplaces and inserts certified to comply with higher emission standards aren’t necessarily that much cleaner. 10 states sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, alleging its testing and certification program for home wood heaters is ineffective. APIn 2023, Oregon and nine other states sued the EPA, alleging both that the federal agency’s current standards aren’t good enough and that its wood-stove testing and certification program fails to ensure that new wood-burning stoves actually comply with the emission limits. In October, the EPA and the states reached a settlement, with the agency agreeing to reassess how it tests wood stoves and to propose new standards within a reasonable timeframe. Given the Trump administration’s priorities, it’s unlikely new standards will be proposed anytime soon, Wasiutynski said. RISE IN URBAN BURNINGThe increase in urban wood burning in the state survey indicates people may not know or care about the controversies over certified stoves. Chris Varley, a spokesperson with the DEQ’s air quality division, said the state agency is still analyzing the reasons behind the increase, including looking at whether the 2023-2024 winter just before data was collected was particularly cold and whether the rapid rise in electricity costs could have influenced the type of fuel people use to heat their homes. Varley said the state will continue to focus on educating residents about wood burning’s health impacts and helping them choose more efficient stoves or switching to heat pumps. “Awareness about the harms of wood burning is still just really slow to take hold in our consciousness,” he said. “We know wood smoke is bad and we want to do everything we can to help residents transition to cleaner alternatives.” Johnny Chen, the director of Oregon State’s Center for Marketing & Consumer Insights, said the survey has undergone some changes to make it more accurate and would need to be replicated in three years to more conclusively address whether Oregonians are burning more wood. Chen also said because the survey’s sampling procedure did a better job of capturing respondents from eastern Oregon than the previous survey, this could account for some of the rise in the number of people having a fireplace, a fireplace insert or a wood stove, as homes in that part of the state are more likely to have wood-burning heat sources. Additionally, said Chen, the 2021 survey was likely affected by COVID-19, as people spending more time at home may have altered their heating choices. The survey findings don’t come as a surprise to Wasiutynski, who attributes the rise in urban wood burning to more affluent people buying wood fireplaces and wood stoves. For some, the fire crackling and smell of wood burning seem to hold an almost primordial attraction. For others, it’s a way to recreate a cozy or romantic feel, he said.Then there’s also a new trend, driven by extreme weather – the ice storms in recent years – of wood burning increasingly used as an emergency backup, a way to keep the house warm during power outages, he said. For survey respondents who indicated they had an alternative heating option, wood was the most common source. That may not be a bad thing, Wasiutynski said, as long as people are using the wood-burning devices once or twice a year, that they’re using them properly and that they’re aware their fireplaces and stoves – no matter how modern or efficient – are still polluting and harmful to their and their neighbors’ health. “People have a perception that wood burning is green,” Wasiutynski said. “It’s not. That’s a bitter pill for Oregonians to swallow.” SPREADING THE WORDThe county has been trying to spread that message since 2018 when it passed an ordinance to prevent wood burning on the worst air quality days. Multnomah County issues mandatory wood burning restrictionsThe measure exempts low-income households and those using wood burning as their primary source of heat, for food preparation, for ceremonial reasons or for emergencies such as power outages.In November 2022, the county launched a wood-burning exchange pilot program to replace wood-burning devices with energy-efficient heat pumps. The program focused on neighborhoods most affected by wood smoke and residents with limited means to change their home heating systems.Over the past two years, the program replaced 127 wood-burning devices in 115 homes (some homes had more than one wood-burning source) at a cost of $1.4 million. A crew from Advance Design Build installs heat pump infrastructure at the home of a Southeast Portland family that has burned wood for heat for decades. The heat pump came courtesy of Multnomah County's wood stove exchange program. Austin De Dios The Oregonian/OregonLiveThe funding came via Oregon’s Community Heat Pump Deployment Program, a $500,000 federal grant through the American Rescue Plan Act and additional grants from the state Department of Environmental Quality. The county funded a position that administered the program. But the state and federal money are drying up. Given the county’s fiscal woes, it’s likely the wood stove exchange program will be discontinued, Wasiutynski said. Portland nonprofits may be able to continue the work, though the details are yet to be finalized and other cities in Multnomah County won’t be able to participate, he said. Wasiutynski said he hopes the county and the state will continue to educate residents about the harms of wood burning. “The climate crisis is making exposure to smoke from wood, due to forest fires, more common in the summer and fall, making reductions in wintertime emissions associated with residential wood burning all the more important,” he said. — Gosia Wozniacka covers environmental justice, climate change, the clean energy transition and other environmental issues. Reach her at gwozniacka@oregonian.com or 971-421-3154.Our journalism needs your support. Subscribe today to OregonLive.com.

Efforts to decrease the use of wood stoves and wood-burning fireplaces in Portland seem to have had little effect, according to preliminary results from a new state survey.

Efforts to decrease wood burning in Portland not exactly catching fire

They produce more harmful particulate matter than diesel trucks and cigarette smoke. They release carbon dioxide and other toxic chemicals that can lead to dire health and climate outcomes. Yet efforts to decrease the use of wood stoves and wood-burning fireplaces in Portland seem to have had little effect.

Preliminary results from a new state survey show more people across the state burned wood as compared to a 2021 survey.

The wood-burning increase is especially pronounced in urban areas where people are using more wood fireplaces, fireplace inserts, wood stoves and pellet stoves in single-family detached homes.

There’s also a smaller increase in the use of wood stoves in single-family detached homes in rural areas, according to the data, obtained by The Oregonian/OregonLive from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

The reasons for the rise in burning could be many, state officials say, from the climbing costs of electricity and an increase in power outages to Oregon’s deep ties to the timber industry and easy-to-get and relatively cheap wood. Plus, people simply like the look and feel of fireplaces and wood stoves.

The upturn is disheartening to public health officials in Multnomah County who for nearly six years have regulated wood burning, educated residents about its dangers and, more recently, have spent more than $1 million to help swap stoves and fireplaces for heat pumps.

Wood burning is one of the leading sources of air pollution in Multnomah County during the winter heating season, said John Wasiutynski, the county’s Office of Sustainability director.

“People don’t smell poison, they smell nostalgia,” Wasiutynski said. “But we can’t have clean air if we have wood burning.”

Clearly, it’s hard to part people from the tradition, he said.

An estimated 1% of Multnomah County’s 343,370 homes – or 3,434 households – use wood as their primary heat source, according to the DEQ.

But that number doesn’t include the countless households that use wood as a secondary heat source or for pleasure, ambiance or aesthetic purposes, Wasiutynski said.

The wood combustion survey, conducted every three years by Oregon State University in conjunction with the DEQ, offers a more complex picture of wood-burning trends.

The survey asks a sampling of state residents whether they use wood-burning devices, what type and how much wood they burn. The data was collected last summer.

Survey results are used to help develop a statewide emissions inventory of air pollutants, which the state submits to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a part of the National Emissions Inventory.

WORSE THAN TRUCKS, CARS COMBINED

There are compelling reasons to ditch heating with wood, public health officials say.

The EPA says residential wood smoke emits more fine particulate matter – also called PM2.5 – than cars, diesel trucks, tractors and bulldozers combined and five times more than petroleum refineries, cement manufacturers and pulp and paper plants combined.

The tiny airborne particles, which can be inhaled deep into the lungs, can cause or exacerbate serious health problems, including asthma, severe bronchitis, heart and lung disease and can lead to premature death, according to the American Lung Association. People over 65, children, pregnant women and those with existing lung or heart conditions are most at risk.

Burning wood also releases volatile organic compounds – toxic gases that vaporize into the air – that can cause cancer and other adverse health effects, nitrogen oxides and cancer-causing benzene and formaldehyde, according to the EPA.

The chemicals and the particulate matter degrade indoor air quality for the families that burn wood and also make the air outside sooty and stinky for countless neighbors. It’s especially dire on days with air stagnation and temperature inversions when warm air sits on top of cold air, causing pollution from the wood devices to stick close to the ground, Wasiutynski said.

“If I had to choose, would I rather my neighbor idle a modern diesel truck in his yard or fire up his fireplace? I’m going to choose the diesel truck because it’s actually going to be less polluting,” he said.

Though the EPA in 2018 declared that wood burning is “carbon neutral” – because trees die naturally and can be replanted to reabsorb carbon – that declaration was focused on the biomass industry that burns wood products for energy, including to produce wood pellets for stoves. Environmental groups have pushed back, saying wood smoke adds carbon dioxide, black carbon and methane to the air, pollutants that contribute significantly to climate change.

Data from the state Department of Environmental Quality also shows that residential wood burning has a disproportionately harmful impact on Latino and Black residents in Oregon, Wasiutynski said.

And newer or “eco-friendly” stoves, fireplaces and inserts certified to comply with higher emission standards aren’t necessarily that much cleaner.

wood-burning stove

10 states sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, alleging its testing and certification program for home wood heaters is ineffective. AP

In 2023, Oregon and nine other states sued the EPA, alleging both that the federal agency’s current standards aren’t good enough and that its wood-stove testing and certification program fails to ensure that new wood-burning stoves actually comply with the emission limits.

In October, the EPA and the states reached a settlement, with the agency agreeing to reassess how it tests wood stoves and to propose new standards within a reasonable timeframe.

Given the Trump administration’s priorities, it’s unlikely new standards will be proposed anytime soon, Wasiutynski said.

RISE IN URBAN BURNING

The increase in urban wood burning in the state survey indicates people may not know or care about the controversies over certified stoves.

Chris Varley, a spokesperson with the DEQ’s air quality division, said the state agency is still analyzing the reasons behind the increase, including looking at whether the 2023-2024 winter just before data was collected was particularly cold and whether the rapid rise in electricity costs could have influenced the type of fuel people use to heat their homes.

Varley said the state will continue to focus on educating residents about wood burning’s health impacts and helping them choose more efficient stoves or switching to heat pumps.

“Awareness about the harms of wood burning is still just really slow to take hold in our consciousness,” he said. “We know wood smoke is bad and we want to do everything we can to help residents transition to cleaner alternatives.”

Johnny Chen, the director of Oregon State’s Center for Marketing & Consumer Insights, said the survey has undergone some changes to make it more accurate and would need to be replicated in three years to more conclusively address whether Oregonians are burning more wood.

Chen also said because the survey’s sampling procedure did a better job of capturing respondents from eastern Oregon than the previous survey, this could account for some of the rise in the number of people having a fireplace, a fireplace insert or a wood stove, as homes in that part of the state are more likely to have wood-burning heat sources.

Additionally, said Chen, the 2021 survey was likely affected by COVID-19, as people spending more time at home may have altered their heating choices.

The survey findings don’t come as a surprise to Wasiutynski, who attributes the rise in urban wood burning to more affluent people buying wood fireplaces and wood stoves.

For some, the fire crackling and smell of wood burning seem to hold an almost primordial attraction. For others, it’s a way to recreate a cozy or romantic feel, he said.

Then there’s also a new trend, driven by extreme weather – the ice storms in recent years – of wood burning increasingly used as an emergency backup, a way to keep the house warm during power outages, he said. For survey respondents who indicated they had an alternative heating option, wood was the most common source.

That may not be a bad thing, Wasiutynski said, as long as people are using the wood-burning devices once or twice a year, that they’re using them properly and that they’re aware their fireplaces and stoves – no matter how modern or efficient – are still polluting and harmful to their and their neighbors’ health.

“People have a perception that wood burning is green,” Wasiutynski said. “It’s not. That’s a bitter pill for Oregonians to swallow.”

SPREADING THE WORD

The county has been trying to spread that message since 2018 when it passed an ordinance to prevent wood burning on the worst air quality days.

Burn ban Multnomah County

Multnomah County issues mandatory wood burning restrictions

The measure exempts low-income households and those using wood burning as their primary source of heat, for food preparation, for ceremonial reasons or for emergencies such as power outages.

In November 2022, the county launched a wood-burning exchange pilot program to replace wood-burning devices with energy-efficient heat pumps. The program focused on neighborhoods most affected by wood smoke and residents with limited means to change their home heating systems.

Over the past two years, the program replaced 127 wood-burning devices in 115 homes (some homes had more than one wood-burning source) at a cost of $1.4 million.

Multnomah County Wood Burn Exchange

A crew from Advance Design Build installs heat pump infrastructure at the home of a Southeast Portland family that has burned wood for heat for decades. The heat pump came courtesy of Multnomah County's wood stove exchange program. Austin De Dios The Oregonian/OregonLive

The funding came via Oregon’s Community Heat Pump Deployment Program, a $500,000 federal grant through the American Rescue Plan Act and additional grants from the state Department of Environmental Quality. The county funded a position that administered the program.

But the state and federal money are drying up. Given the county’s fiscal woes, it’s likely the wood stove exchange program will be discontinued, Wasiutynski said. Portland nonprofits may be able to continue the work, though the details are yet to be finalized and other cities in Multnomah County won’t be able to participate, he said.

Wasiutynski said he hopes the county and the state will continue to educate residents about the harms of wood burning.

“The climate crisis is making exposure to smoke from wood, due to forest fires, more common in the summer and fall, making reductions in wintertime emissions associated with residential wood burning all the more important,” he said.

— Gosia Wozniacka covers environmental justice, climate change, the clean energy transition and other environmental issues. Reach her at gwozniacka@oregonian.com or 971-421-3154.

Our journalism needs your support. Subscribe today to OregonLive.com.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Why Lung Cancer Is Increasing among Nonsmoking Women Under Age 65

Thoracic surgeon Jonathan Villena explains why early screening for lung cancer is critical—even for those without symptoms.

Rachel Feltman: For Scientific American’s Science Quickly, I’m Rachel Feltman.Lung cancer is the deadliest cancer among women in the United States, surpassing the mortality numbers of breast and ovarian cancer combined. And surprisingly, younger women who have never smoked are increasingly being diagnosed with the disease.Here to explain what could be driving this trend—and why early screening can make all the difference—is Johnathan Villena, a thoracic surgeon at NewYork-Presbyterian and Weill Cornell.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Thank you so much for joining us.Johnathan Villena: Thank you for having me.Feltman: So our viewers and listeners might be surprised to hear that lung cancer [deaths] in women now tops breast cancer, ovarian cancer combined. Can you tell us more about what’s going on there?Villena: Yeah, definitely. So in general lung cancer is the number-one cancer [killing]people in the U.S., both men and women. If you look at the American Cancer Society, around 226 new—226,000 new cases of lung cancer are projected to be diagnosed in 2025. Of those about 50 percent are cancer-related deaths, meaning [roughly] 120,000 people die every year from lung cancer. Now, what’s—the good news is that the incidence has actually been decreasing in the last few years.Feltman: Mm.Villena: If you look at the American Cancer Society’s statistics, in the last 10 years [ of data, which goes through 2021], the, the incidence of lung cancer has decreased in men around 3 percent per year. And it’s about half of that in women, meaning it’s decreasing [roughly] 1.5 percent per year. So one of the reasons that they think that this might be happening is that there was an uptick in smoking in women around the ’60s and ’70s, and that’s why we’re seeing a slight, you know, decrease in the incidence in men but not so much in the women.What’s more interesting and very surprising is the fact that when you look at younger people, meaning less than 65 years old—especially younger never-smoking people—there’s actually an increase of women in that subgroup. They’re overrepresented, and that’s something very surprising.Feltman: Does the research offer us any clues about what’s going on in this demographic of younger women?Villena: Yeah, so there’s been a lot of research. So, you know, in general—and something that people don’t know is that about 20 percent of lung cancers actually occur in people that have never smoked in their entire lives.Feltman: Mm.Villena: This is something that we don’t really understand why this happens to this one in five people, but there are some risk factors associated with it. Number one is exposure to radon, which is a natural gas that sometimes people are exposed to for a prolonged time. Number two is secondhand smoking ...Feltman: Mm.Villena: So they don’t smoke directly, but they live in a household where they smoke. And number three are kind of other environmental factors, things such as working in a specific, you know, manufacturing plant that deals with specific chemicals. And then lastly, the one that has had, actually, had a lot of research into it are genetic factors. There’s definitely a preponderance of certain mutations in somebody’s genes that can cause lung cancer, and that is overrepresented in women.Feltman: Do women face any unique challenges in getting diagnosed or treated when it comes to lung cancer?Villena: So, yes. First of all, you know, how do we treat or catch lung cancer? So the newest and, and latest way of catching this disease is actually through lung cancer screening.That’s something that’s relatively new; it’s only happened in the last 10 years. And that’s in certain demographics, meaning that if someone is over 50 years old and they have smoked more than one pack per day for 20 years, they meet the criteria for lung cancer screening, which is basically a radiograph or a CAT scan of their lungs. That’s the way that we pick up lung cancer.That’s the—almost the exact same thing that people have for breast cancer, such as mammography, or colonoscopy. So that’s before any symptoms come in. That’s really just to try to capture it when it’s in very nascent stages, right?Feltman: Mm-hmm.Villena: Where it’s very small or not symptomatic. And that’s the way we diagnose a, a lot of lung cancer.Now, that being said, there’s a couple of things. So first of all, [roughly] 60 to 70 percent of people, like, in general get mammographies.Feltman: Mm-hmm.Villena: [About] 60 to 70 percent of people get colonoscopies. Only 6 percent of people actually get lung cancer screening. So it’s dismally low.Feltman: Yeah.Villena: The reason being that sometimes people don’t know about it; it’s relatively new. Sometimes even doctors don’t know about it. There’s also a little bit of guilt involved, where people, you know, they think they did it to themselves by smoking ...Feltman: Hmm.Villena: So they don’t wanna go do it. The second thing is that, as you could imagine, this is only for high-risk individuals or people that have a history of smoking, all right? So it misses these never-smoking one in five patients. So that’s one of the things that we’re actively working on.Feltman: Yeah, how else does the, you know, the stigma associated with lung cancer because of its association with smoking, how does that impact people’s ability to get diagnosed and treated?Villena: I think there’s a lot of hesitancy between patients. There’s, you know, a recent study that showed that people are more—have more tendency to downplay their smoking history, meaning that if they quit, let’s say 10 years ago, you tell your doctor that you never smoked.Feltman: Mm.Villena: And that’s something very common. Or if you smoked, you know, one pack a day, maybe you say you smoked half a pack a day because you feel that guilt. So then you don’t give your doctor or your caretaker the full picture. And sometimes that prevents you from getting these tests, right? So there’s definitely that attitude.There’s also a bit of a fatalistic attitude, sort of like, “I did it to myself. I’d rather not know. You know, this is something that—you know, I made that choice, and if I get cancer, that’s my choice.” Right? So that’s, that’s also another attitude that we’re constantly trying to change in patients. You know, the treatment, once you capture it, is all the same, but really it’s about getting screening and it’s about finding the lung cancer.Feltman: So with smoking no longer necessarily being the driving factor, at least in this younger demographic, what kinds of risk factors should we be talking about more?Villena: So I think, you know—so smoking is always number one.Feltman: Sure.Villena: In the never-smoking people it’s either radon, secondhand smoking or environmental factors, and then a little bit of genetics plays, plays a part.Radon is something that people can test for in their homes. It’s something that people should read up on. So that’s number one: if you have exposure to that, to get rid of that.If you are in, in an environment, let’s say you work with chemicals that you think, you know, are astringent or have caused—causes you to have coughs or, you know, affects you in any sort of way, to kind of try to talk to your employer to work in a more ventilated setting.Really important with genetic factors is understanding your family history.Feltman: Mm.Villena: If you have a mother, a grandmother, a grandfather who died of cancer or you have a lot of cancer in your family, sometimes understanding that and knowing that from your, you know, from your family perspective will actually clue a doctor in to doing further tests, to looking into that further, ’cause that sometimes is passed down and you can have the same genes.Feltman: Are there any big research questions that scientists need to answer about lung cancer, specifically in young women?Villena: So, you know, there’s so much to look at, all right? So if we think about just the genetic aspect of it, there’s one specific gene called the EGFR gene—or it’s a mutation that’s found in lung cancer that in, if you look at all people with lung cancer, it’s found in about 15 percent ...Feltman: Mm-hmm.Villena: Of the population with lung cancer. Now, if you look at never-smoking Asian women that get lung cancer, it’s about 60 percent of them ...Feltman: Mm.Villena: Have that mutation. So the important thing about that EGFR mutation is there’s a specific drug for that mutation, all right?So there’s definitely a lot of genetic kind of information that we’re still actively researching. But the important thing about this genetic information is that there’s drugs targeted specifically for those mutations. So the more we know, the more we understand, the better.Feltman: So for folks who are hearing this and are surprised and, and maybe concerned what is your advice for how they should proceed, how they should look into their risk factors?Villena: You know, I think one of the, the, the major aspects of health in general is understanding your own health.Feltman: Mm.Villena: I think that younger people tend to delay care, tend to not see their doctors, and because, one, they’re busy, right, at their very busy moment in their lives. But second is that, you know, you don’t wanna deal with it, and you think that you will not get cancer, that you will not get this disease because you’re young and you’ve never smoked and you’ve never done anything bad.Feltman: Mm.Villena: But, you know, you have to be very aware of your body, so what are the kind of top four symptoms? So number one, let’s say you have a cough, and that cough lasts for longer than two weeks, right?Feltman: Mm-hmm.Villena: A normal cold, things like that will go away after a couple of weeks. But if it’s there for a couple of months, and I’ve definitely seen patients that tell me in retrospect, you know, “I’ve had this cough for three months,” right, and it should have been checked up sooner. So understanding yourself, understanding your body, not, you know, waiting for things, not procrastinating, which is very hard to do, but you should definitely see your doctor ...Feltman: Yeah.Villena: Regularly.Second is, like I said before, understanding your family, right, and what your genetic makeup is, right? Knowing your family history, understanding if your parents, grandparents had cancer, etcetera, or other chronic diseases.Feltman: Mm-hmm.Villena: And that’s, that’s basically the, the major aspects of it. It’s really being in tune with yourself.Feltman: So once a patient is actually diagnosed, what does treatment look like?Villena: So treatment for lung cancer, actually, is heavily dependent on the stage. There’s everything from stage 1, in which it’s localized to one portion of a lung, to stage 4, where it actually has gone to other parts of the body.Now, stage 1 disease, you basically need a simple surgery, where that lung nodule, or that lung cancer, is surgically removed, and typically you don’t need any other treatments. So stage 1 is what we look for. Stage 1 is the reason that lung cancer screening works because stage 1 doesn’t really have any symptoms ...Feltman: Mm.Villena: So when you find it that early patients do very well.Stage 4, once it’s left the lung, you are no longer a surgical candidate, unless in, you know, sometimes very specific cases, but for the most part you’re no longer a surgical candidate. And there you need systemic treatments.Feltman: And how long does the treatment tend to take for a stage 1 patient, if it’s just a surgical procedure?Villena: So if it’s just a surgical procedure, look, I do these surgeries all the time: the patient comes in; we do the surgery; the patients usually go home the next day.Feltman: Wow.Villena: And then we follow the patient and get CAT scans every six months for a long time to make sure nothing comes back or nothing new comes. So it’s pretty straightforward, and we do this all the time. We do these surgeries robotically now. Patients recover incredibly well, and they’re out, you know, doing—living their lives in a couple of weeks. So it’s really something very, very, very efficient.Feltman: Yeah, so huge incentive to get checked early.Villena: Mm-hmm.Feltman: Are there any advances in treatment, you know, any new treatments that doctors are excited about?Villena: Yeah, so there’s two major steps forward that have changed lung cancer treatment. Number one is something called targeted therapy.Feltman: Mm-hmm.Villena: So that means that there’s a drug that targets a specific mutation. So just how I was speaking about earlier about the EGFR mutation in young, never-smoking Asian women, there is a drug that targets that mutation that has really shown amazing results at all stages now.And the second one is actually immunotherapy, which won the Nobel Prize, which is this idea that you can use your own body’s immune system to kill the cancer cell. So cancer is very smart—what it does is it evades your immune system; it pretends that it’s part of your own body. And what this drug does is that it basically reawakens your immune system to recognize that cancer again and kill it. And we’ve seen amazing results, even in the stage 4 patients, where they are potentially cured of cancer, which, which we’ve never seen before.Feltman: What motivated you to get into this specialty?Villena: You know, I do have a family history of this in an uncle that passed away from lung cancer ...Feltman: Mm.Villena: And he was a heavy smoker. And, you know, I saw how, basically, decimated his, he was—[his] life [was], basically. He was a very vibrant guy, he was very active, and in six months he was gone, right?And I think, you know, once I started getting into, you know, medical school and understanding things, one of the major things that I really got into was research. And I see that if my uncle had been treated 20 years ago, he potentially could have been saved ...Feltman: Mm.Villena: Because of these advances in research. And right now we are right at the cusp where we are learning all these new things, and we actually have the tools to change how patients are treated, you know? And this—every year there’s a new treatment, which prior to that, there was no new treatment; i t was basically just chemo, and that’s it, all right? So I think that that really motivated me—something that I can actually take part in and actually change the course for a lot of people.Feltman: Well, thank you so much for coming on to chat with us today. This has been great.Villena: Thank you.Feltman: That’s all for today’s episode. We’ll be back on Friday to unpack the shocking story of a missing meteorite.Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi and Jeff DelViscio. This episode was edited by Alex Sugiura and Kylie Murphy. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news.For Scientific American, this is Rachel Feltman. See you next time.

Newsom vetoes bill banning forever chemicals in cookware

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) vetoed a bill that would have banned the use of “forever chemicals” in cookware and other products in California. The bill became a source of controversy in the Golden State, with celebrity chefs among those who rallied against the cookware ban, while environmental and health activists have argued for it. It...

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) vetoed a bill that would have banned the use of “forever chemicals” in cookware and other products in California. The bill became a source of controversy in the Golden State, with celebrity chefs among those who rallied against the cookware ban, while environmental and health activists have argued for it. It would have blocked the sales of cleaning products, dental floss, children's products, food packaging and ski wax that contained such chemicals starting in 2028 and cookware with them starting in 2030. While the bans would have only applied in California, the state’s sheer size gives it significant influence over what gets manufactured for sale across the nation. Newsom, in his veto message Monday, raised concerns about the availability of affordable cookware if the ban were to be implemented. “The broad range of products that would be impacted by this bill would result in a sizable and rapid shift in cooking products available to Californians,” the likely 2028 presidential hopeful wrote. “I appreciate efforts to protect the health and safety of consumers, and while this bill is well-intentioned, I am deeply concerned about the impact this bill would have on the availability of affordable options,” he added. However, proponents of the bill say the veto will result in more exposure to toxic chemicals.  “By vetoing SB 682, Governor Newsom failed to protect Californians and our drinking water from toxic forever chemicals,” said Anna Reade, director of PFAS advocacy with the Natural Resources Defense Council, in a written statement.  “It’s unfortunate that misinformation and greed by some in the cookware industry tanked this policy,”  Reade added. Forever chemicals are the nickname of a group of chemicals called PFAS that have been used in a wide variety of everyday products, including those that are nonstick or waterproof. Exposure to them has been linked to prostate, kidney and testicular cancer, as well as immune system and fertility issues.  They can persist for decades in the environment instead of breaking down and have become pervasive in U.S. waterways, tap water and human beings. California has historically been a relatively aggressive state in terms of environmental and product regulations — for example, requiring that products containing certain chemicals contain warning labels. However, several other states have already banned PFAS in cookware and other products.

Costa Rica Pesticide Use Harms Soil Life, UNA Study Finds

Costa Rica is one of the countries that uses the most agrochemicals, which has a series of negative repercussions in various areas. A recent study revealed that the intensive use of agrochemicals in the horticultural region of Zarcero causes physiological stress in earthworms, leading them to flee from contaminated soils. This demonstrates the vulnerability of […] The post Costa Rica Pesticide Use Harms Soil Life, UNA Study Finds appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Costa Rica is one of the countries that uses the most agrochemicals, which has a series of negative repercussions in various areas. A recent study revealed that the intensive use of agrochemicals in the horticultural region of Zarcero causes physiological stress in earthworms, leading them to flee from contaminated soils. This demonstrates the vulnerability of these organisms to environmental alterations caused by such substances. The research was carried out by student Gabriel Brenes from the Regional Institute for Studies on Toxic Substances at the National University (Iret-UNA) as part of the requirements for a Master’s Degree in Tropical Ecotoxicology. Through both field and laboratory studies on earthworm species abundant in the area, the research determined a reduction in enzyme activity and defense mechanisms when the worms were exposed to soils containing agrochemicals or samples taken from them. After conducting behavioral tests, it was found that 90% of the worms avoided remaining in contaminated environments, moving instead to soils managed with organic practices or with lower agrochemical use. According to the study, this could have consequences for agricultural activity, as earthworms improve soil fertility, facilitate nutrient cycling and water movement, and contribute to the decomposition of organic matter. “The intensive use of agrochemicals induces physiological stress in earthworms and causes them to flee contaminated soils. This can have repercussions on the microfauna community and the ecosystem services that sustain agriculture,” explained Brenes. Evidence of reduced intestinal microbial diversity in soil worms exposed to agrochemicals indicates alterations that negatively affect soil health. “We found that the intestinal microbiome of earthworms functions as a sensitive bioindicator of soil health. A reduction in its diversity can affect not only the organisms themselves but also the ecological services they provide, such as fertility and nutrient recycling,” said the researcher. It also detected seasonal changes in microbial composition between the dry and rainy seasons on organic farms with good practices, demonstrating plasticity and adaptation to environmental conditions. For example, during the rainy season, there was an increase in the abundance of genera such as Lactobacillus and Acinetobacter, which were not dominant in the dry season. In contrast, worms from conventional soils showed no seasonal change in their intestinal communities, indicating a loss of ecological flexibility. The research showed that contamination is not limited to plots where agrochemicals are applied. Residues reach organic farms and nearby forest areas, confirming processes of drift and environmental transport. In Zarcero, a small area with intensive horticultural production, the presence of agrochemicals in untreated soils demonstrates that environmental exposure is widespread. The excessive use of agrochemicals in our country is aggravated by the fact that 93% of them are classified as highly hazardous. The post Costa Rica Pesticide Use Harms Soil Life, UNA Study Finds appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

More And More People Suffer From 'Chemophobia' — And MAHA Is Partly To Blame

The fear tactic strikes a nerve with both conservatives and liberals alike. Here’s what you need to know.

If you’ve ever muttered to yourself, “I should really get the organic peaches,” or “I need to replace my old makeup with ‘clean’ beauty products” or “I really want to buy the “non-toxic’ laundry detergent,” you may have fallen into the chemophobia trap, an almost inescapable phobia that’s infiltrating lots of homes. Chemophobia is complicated, but, in short, it’s a distrust or fear of chemicals and appears in many of aspects of life from “chemical-free” soaps and “natural” deodorants to vaccine distrust and fear-mongering about seed oils.But, unlike most things, it plays on the emotions of both conservative MAGA voters and liberal MAGA opposers, even though actual chemophobia-based thoughts vary significantly in each group.“Much of this started on the left-leaning side of the political aisle as a result of misunderstanding the difference between legitimate chemical industrial incidents and just chemicals more broadly,” said Andrea Love, an immunologist, microbiologist and founder of Immunologic, a health and science communication organization.Appealing to the left, it was seen as counter-culture and opposed the “evil market forces,” said Timothy Caulfield, the co-founder of ScienceUpFirst, an organization that combats misinformation, and author of “The Certainty Illusion.”“But now we’re seeing it shift to the right, and I think it’s almost now entirely on the right, or at least the loudest voices ... are on the right,” Caulfield noted. These are voices like Casey Means, a wellness influencer and surgeon general nominee, and even Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the Health and Human Services secretary.On the right-leaning side, chemophobia appears as a distrust and demonization of things like studied vaccines and medications and the pushing of “natural” interventions, “when those have no regulatory oversight compared to regulated medicines,” Love noted.“On the left-leaning [side], this gets a lot of attention because it plays into this fear of toxic exposures, and this ‘organic purity’ narrative ... ‘you have to eat organic food, and you can’t have GMOs,’” Love said.No matter your political party, chemophobia has infiltrated people’s homes, diets and minds, while also infiltrating brand slogans, marketing campaigns and political messaging (ahem, Make America Healthy Again). Here’s what to know:Chemophobia says you should avoid chemicals, but that’s impossible — water is a chemical and you are made up of chemicals.“First of all, everything is chemicals,” said Love. “Your body is a sack of chemicals. You would not exist if it were not for all these different chemical compounds.”Chemophobia leads people to believe that synthetic, lab-made substances are inherently bad while “natural substances” — things found in nature — are inherently good, and that is just not true, Love said.The current obsession with “all-natural” beef tallow as a replacement for “manufactured” seed oils is a prime example of this.“Your body ... has no idea if it’s a synthetic chemical, meaning it was synthesized in a lab using chemical reactions, or if it exists somewhere out on the planet,” Love added.Your body doesn’t know the difference between getting vitamin C from a lime and getting vitamin C that’s made in a lab, she explained. Your body only cares about the chemical structure (which is the same in synthetic chemicals and natural chemicals) and the dosage you’re being exposed to, Love noted. “This irrational fear of chemicals, just by and large, is antithetical to life because chemistry and chemicals are why everything exists,” Love said.Everything that is made up of matter is a network of chemicals, she explained. That goes for your body, your pets, your car, your TV, your home and the food you eat.“Everything is just these structures of chemicals linked together into physical objects ... so, there’s zero reason to be afraid of chemicals broadly,” said Love.Chemophobia was born from the ‘appeal to nature fallacy’ and a desire to ‘get back to ancestral living.’Chemophobia was born from the “appeal to nature fallacy,” said Love, which is “the false belief that natural substances ... are inherently safe, beneficial or superior, whereas synthetic substances are inherently bad, dangerous, harmful or worse than a natural counterpart.” There is nothing legitimate about this belief, she added. But both chemophobia and the appeal to nature fallacy are central to pseudoscience, the anti-vaccine movement and the MAHA wellness industry, Love noted.At the core of chemophobia and appeal to nature fallacy is also a “romanticization of ancestral living, when, in reality, we lived very poorly, we died very young and often suffering and in pain,” Love said.“Going back to simpler times” are talking points for both MAHA and MAGA, which, of course, stands for “Make America Great Again,” a slogan that alludes to the past. And, RFK Jr. has repeatedly claimed America was healthier when his uncle, John F. Kennedy, was president.This is complicated, but not true; two out of three adults died of chronic disease and life expectancy was almost 10 years less than it is now, according to NPR.Chemophobia is designed to elicit negative emotions such as anxiety and fear.Chemophobia is incredibly effective because it evokes people’s negative emotions, said Love. And it’s hard for most people to separate emotions from facts.If someone on social media says that a certain ingredient is harming your kids, you’ll be scared and want to make lifestyle changes. If someone claims your makeup is bad for you, you’ll also be scared and want to make changes.“Take, for example, fructose, since it’s having a moment,” said Andrea Hardy, a dietitian and owner of Ignite Nutrition, who is referring to a viral social media video about the “harms” of fructose.“An influencer online might say ‘fructose is bad, the liver can’t handle it, we shouldn’t be eating any fructose. I’ve cut all fructose from my diet and I’m the healthiest I’ve ever been.’ Then a mom, wanting to do the best for her children says, ‘I need to cut out all fructose’ and not only removes the ultra-processed foods like sweetened beverages, but also says no to fruit in her household because of this misinformation,” Hardy said.This has lots of consequences, including a lack of nutrition in the home (from missing out on the fiber and vitamins from fruit) and the encouragement of disordered eating in kids, who, from this elimination of fructose, will learn the false idea that “fruit is bad” or “fructose is bad,” explained Hardy.Illustration: HuffPost; Photos: GettyChemophobia makes products that claim to be "natural" or "clean" feel superior, even when that isn't the case.Our brains want clear, black-and-white information. Vilifying one product while celebrating another achieves that.Between social media and the internet, we live in a “chaotic information environment,” according to Caulfield. There’s seemingly factual information coming at you from everywhere, and it can be hard to know what to trust.“The reality is, our brains want simple. They want black and white,” said Hardy. We make choices all day long, which makes categorizing things, like food, as “good or bad” appealing to our minds, Hardy said.And, everyone wants to make the “good” choice, Caulfield added. “We want to do what’s best for ourselves and for the environment and for our community and our family,” he said.As a result, we look for “clear signals of goodness,” or “short cuts to making the right decision,” added Caulfield. We turn not only to words like “good” or “bad,” but also “toxin-free,” “natural” and “clean,” he said.Seeing these words slapped on a jar of nut butter, on a shampoo bottle, or on sunscreen makes making the “right choice” easier, he added — “even though the evidence does not support what’s implied by those words, those ‘health halos,’” noted Caulfield.These words are an “oversimplification,” Hardy said. “People now leverage their social media presence to share those oversimplified nutrition messages, most of which are at best, wrong, at worst, harmful.”Chemophobia is really hard to escape. It’s even built into marketing campaigns and product names.If you’ve ever fallen into the chemophobia trap without knowing, you aren’t alone. It’s complicated and nuanced, and the science is, at times, messy.Moreover, chemophobia is the inspiration behind brand names and entire product categorizations; “clean beauty” is one huge example.Fears of chemicals are now marketing ploys. “You’re going to find products that claim that they’re ‘chemical-free,’ and that doesn’t exist,” Love said, referring to the fact that, once again, everything is made up of chemicals.Market forces take over and cling to the chemophobia buzz words of the moment, whether that’s “clean” “gluten-free” or “non-GMO,” Caulfield said.Now, we have Triscuits labeled with non-GMO marketing, he said. We also have entire product lines at stores like Sephora that are categorized as “clean.”“It creates this perception [of] ‘if that one’s chemical-free, then the alternative that isn’t labeled as such must be dangerous, must be bad,’” Love said.Once again, making the “good” choice easy.This isn’t to say there isn’t room for improvement in the health and food space.“I work in the public health space. I don’t know a single public health researcher, a single agricultural researcher, a single biomedical researcher who doesn’t want to make our food environment safer for everyone,” said Caulfield.Just because Caulfield speaks out against chemophobia doesn’t mean he doesn’t want to make our food and health environment healthier, he stressed.“I do think we should always be challenging both industry and government to do exactly that, but at the same time, we have to be realistic and understand the nature of the risks and the magnitude of risks at play,” he said.Both our food environment and agricultural practices could be safer, “but those moves should be based on what the science says, and not on slogans,” Caulfield said.Corporate greed and capitalism hinder these safety changes.“The huge irony here ... the answer to all of these chemophobia concerns ... it’s more government regulation. It’s more robust, science-informed regulation. And in this political environment, that ain’t going to happen, That just simply isn’t going to happen, as we’ve already seen,” Caulfield said.The Trump administration wants to repeal environmental protections that help fight climate change (and the air we breathe has huge health implications) and has cut funding to departments that are in charge of food safety, which could jeopardize the items you buy at the grocery store.“So, it all just becomes slogans and wellness nonsense,” along with the peddling of unregulated, unproven supplements (that are basically just untested chemicals), Caulfield added.And, many of the people who claim to be so concerned about chemicals then profit from the sale of unregulated supplements, Caulfield said.Jeff Greenberg via Getty ImagesThe hyper-focus on things like food dyes and seed oils actually distracts from the true health — and healthy equity — issues in this country.Focusing on one ‘bad’ ingredient or so-called ‘natural’ alternatives won’t actually make you healthier.This fear of chemicals will have an enormous impact and is “something we won’t even realize and see the effects of for years to come,” Hardy said.“If we want to improve public health, focusing on a single ingredient in food or swapping seed oils for beef tallow isn’t the answer to our public health problems, it’s a distraction,” Hardy said.Food dyes, seed oils, “non-clean” beauty, whatever the item may be, become a common enemy, allowing folks to ignore the fact that this isn’t actually a problem that’s central to the country’s health outcomes, Love added.RFK Jr. has claimed that “Americans are getting sicker” and research does show that America has worse health outcomes while spending more on health care than other Western countries, but it’s too simple (and flat-out wrong) to blame any one makeup chemical or item in your pantry.“Instead of critically assessing and saying, ’Hey, we do have some health challenges, but what are the underlying factors to that? Maybe it’s housing inequity and lack of national health care and all of these societal, structural issues, and it’s not these singular food ingredients,” Love said.“These conversations distract us from the real things that we can do to make ourselves and our communities healthier, and I think that’s one of the biggest problems with MAHA,” said Caulfield.“No one’s a huge food dye fan. I’m not going to go to the mat for food dye [but] ... all these are distractions from the things that really matter to make us, to make our communities healthier — equity, justice, access to health care, education, gun laws — these are the things that, on a population level, are really going to make a difference,” Caulfield said.Whether someone has conservative or liberal views that fuel their chemophobia, the fear of chemicals is dangerous. And, it’s, sadly, more prevalent than ever, Caulfield said.It’s causing people to say no to necessary vaccines, not wear sunblock out of fears of “toxins,” avoid fruit because of fructose and more.YourSupportMakes The StoryYour SupportFuelsOur MissionYour SupportFuelsOur MissionJoin Those Who Make It PossibleHuffPost stands apart because we report for the people, not the powerful. Our journalism is fearless, inclusive, and unfiltered. Join the membership program and help strengthen news that puts people first.We remain committed to providing you with the unflinching, fact-based journalism everyone deserves.Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.We remain committed to providing you with the unflinching, fact-based journalism everyone deserves.Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.“This is going to kill people ... this is really serious stuff, and it’s an incredible time in human history in the worst possible way,” Caulfield said.

Suggested Viewing

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.