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.

Obama, the Protagonist

News Feed
Tuesday, March 26, 2024

Like so many others, I first watched him speak on the night of the 2004 Democratic convention, the year John Kerry became the nominee. He was still a state senator then, his face unlined, his head full of dark-brown hair. He humbly told the audience that his presence there was “pretty unlikely.” His Kenyan father had grown up herding goats; his paternal grandfather cooked for a British soldier. In a Baptist cadence, he quoted from the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson’s words are stirring on their own, but when a certain kind of orator gets hold of them, the effect can feel like thunder, or the Spirit. The country had tumbled into a new century after a contested election and the start of a war in Iraq. Barack Obama spun a convincing vision of the nation as “one people,” in which our ethnic, religious, and ideological differences mattered little.When I think about what Obama meant to me at the time, my eyes pool with water. I was fresh out of college, taken by the force of his intellect and the way his ideas seemed to cohere and hum. His ear for language was evident in his oratory and in his prose. Dreams From My Father, his first memoir, drew from a humanist tradition of American autobiography laid down by Frederick Douglass, Harriet Jacobs, Malcolm X, and James Baldwin. Toni Morrison’s eulogy of Baldwin in 1987 seemed to foreshadow what many would feel about Obama in 2008: “You made American English honest … You exposed its secrets and reshaped it until it was truly modern dialogic, representative, humane.”And yet, it wasn’t enough; the reverie wouldn’t, couldn’t last. In Great Expectations, Vinson Cunningham’s debut novel, the New Yorker writer and critic assesses the hope and disillusionment of the Obama years in a thinly veiled political satire-cum-bildungsroman featuring an Obama-like junior senator as “the candidate,” as well as a multifarious cast of supporting characters who employ their savvy, money, and connections to get him elected as president. Cunningham takes the reader back to a time when many thought Obama had an answer for every American ailment: He would usher the country into a post-race era, offering white people grace and absolution while assuring Black people that they would hereafter get a fair shake.The novel is a keen look back at the failed promise of those early years, during which the country’s lofty expectations left little room for the candidate’s human fallibility—and obscured the reality of American politics. In this country, progress has usually happened in complicated, nonlinear ways: Hard-won advances are generally followed by forceful backlash and heartbreaking setbacks. Advances in civil rights, economic equality, health-care access, or environmental policy have often triggered reactionary codas; since at least the end of Reconstruction, momentum toward multiracial democracy has inflamed particularly vitriolic responses. Ultimately, Cunningham’s novel reminds the reader that simple solutions—the passage of one just law, the election of a single great leader—are seldom a match for American problems.[Read: The political novel gets very, very specific]The narrator—based on the author himself, who worked on Obama’s 2008 campaign and in his White House—is David Hammond, a 22-year-old single father from uptown Manhattan. Floundering after dropping out of college, he joins the campaign as a fundraising assistant on the recommendation of the well-heeled mother of a teen boy he tutors. As the novel roves from Manhattan to Manchester, New Hampshire; from Los Angeles to Chicago, David, whose true ambition is to be a writer, uses his new role to sharpen his ear and eye. He’s middling at the minutiae of the job but great at interacting with people. He makes friends with his co-workers and stumbles into a tender love affair with another staffer named Regina. Along the way, he loses slivers of his innocence as he sees what lies beneath the campaign’s shimmering exterior: the candidate’s aloofness when he is offstage, the financial improprieties of a few wealthy patrons. Eventually, the blind allegiance of the candidate’s supporters—their belief that the campaign is a “move of God”—begins to feel foreboding.David often invokes the ecstatic mysticism of religious devotion as a metaphor for the candidate’s hold on his supporters. The senator “reminded me of my pastor,” David says early on, his regal posture bringing to mind a “talismanic maneuver meant to send forth subliminal messages about confidence and power.” One night, on the trail in New Hampshire, David tells Regina about a magic trick he’d witnessed as a teenager: While waiting outside of church with his friends, he’d watched as a magician performed a standard sleight of hand, then levitated a few inches off the city pavement. “Everybody screamed. It was mayhem,” David remembers. “Black people love magic,” Regina rejoins, through laughter. It is a detour in a novel of detours and roundabouts, and also a parable that smartly explains how the candidate’s fervent admirers could be so awed by his charisma that they missed the signs of trouble to come.Sometimes David allows himself to get carried away like everyone else. He thinks about how the candidate and his family had begun to embody some kind of national fantasy of a Black Camelot. “Maybe there was the hope that black, that portentous designation, could finally be subsumed into the mainstream in the way that Kennedy had helped Irish to be. That some long passage of travel was almost done,” he thinks at one point. In that same stream of thought, David suggests that the public’s belief in the candidate’s ability to dismantle the racial hierarchy is largely thanks to his symbolic appeal: It was, he observes, “mostly the look” of the candidate and his glamorous family—an elegant wife and two small daughters—that made supporters believe he could overcome racism. Who wouldn’t want to accept them?[Read: Our new postracial myth]Privy to the campaign’s disappointments and its weaknesses, David is clear-eyed where others are credulous. With the benefit of hindsight, the reader knows his skepticism would eventually be validated. In the years since Obama’s election, America has seen the birtherism movement, the rise of the Tea Party, Trump’s presidency, and the dismantling of cornerstone civil-rights victories, including key portions of the Voting Rights Act. Then, of course, there were Obama’s own shortcomings during his presidency, namely his capitulation to forces opposed to his most idealistic visions. He would pass a new health-care bill, but fall short of the goal of universal coverage he campaigned on. He would withdraw troops from Afghanistan but begin a series of what the political scientist Michael J. Boyle called “shadow wars,” which were “fought by Special Forces, proxy armies, drones, and other covert means.” According to the Council on Foreign Relations, drone strikes authorized by President Obama led to the deaths of nearly 4,000 people in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia; more than 300 of them were civilians.When Cunningham’s novel closes on that fateful night in November, the night of the candidate’s victory, it’s an ending for David, a graduation, even. The book implies that he will go on to work for the new president, but unlike everyone else in that ecstatic moment, he looks to the coming years soberly, acknowledging that the campaign had spoken “a language of signs,” wherein the symbolism of the moment overwhelmed all else. Already, he seems to know that the country will see no grand, lasting transformation. For many Americans, who felt on a similar, actual night, that the world seemed on the precipice of change, the lessons would take much longer to learn.

Vinson Cunningham’s new novel takes the reader back to a time when many thought the nation’s first Black president had an answer for every American ailment.

Like so many others, I first watched him speak on the night of the 2004 Democratic convention, the year John Kerry became the nominee. He was still a state senator then, his face unlined, his head full of dark-brown hair. He humbly told the audience that his presence there was “pretty unlikely.” His Kenyan father had grown up herding goats; his paternal grandfather cooked for a British soldier. In a Baptist cadence, he quoted from the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson’s words are stirring on their own, but when a certain kind of orator gets hold of them, the effect can feel like thunder, or the Spirit. The country had tumbled into a new century after a contested election and the start of a war in Iraq. Barack Obama spun a convincing vision of the nation as “one people,” in which our ethnic, religious, and ideological differences mattered little.

When I think about what Obama meant to me at the time, my eyes pool with water. I was fresh out of college, taken by the force of his intellect and the way his ideas seemed to cohere and hum. His ear for language was evident in his oratory and in his prose. Dreams From My Father, his first memoir, drew from a humanist tradition of American autobiography laid down by Frederick Douglass, Harriet Jacobs, Malcolm X, and James Baldwin. Toni Morrison’s eulogy of Baldwin in 1987 seemed to foreshadow what many would feel about Obama in 2008: “You made American English honest … You exposed its secrets and reshaped it until it was truly modern dialogic, representative, humane.”

And yet, it wasn’t enough; the reverie wouldn’t, couldn’t last. In Great Expectations, Vinson Cunningham’s debut novel, the New Yorker writer and critic assesses the hope and disillusionment of the Obama years in a thinly veiled political satire-cum-bildungsroman featuring an Obama-like junior senator as “the candidate,” as well as a multifarious cast of supporting characters who employ their savvy, money, and connections to get him elected as president. Cunningham takes the reader back to a time when many thought Obama had an answer for every American ailment: He would usher the country into a post-race era, offering white people grace and absolution while assuring Black people that they would hereafter get a fair shake.

The novel is a keen look back at the failed promise of those early years, during which the country’s lofty expectations left little room for the candidate’s human fallibility—and obscured the reality of American politics. In this country, progress has usually happened in complicated, nonlinear ways: Hard-won advances are generally followed by forceful backlash and heartbreaking setbacks. Advances in civil rights, economic equality, health-care access, or environmental policy have often triggered reactionary codas; since at least the end of Reconstruction, momentum toward multiracial democracy has inflamed particularly vitriolic responses. Ultimately, Cunningham’s novel reminds the reader that simple solutions—the passage of one just law, the election of a single great leader—are seldom a match for American problems.

[Read: The political novel gets very, very specific]

The narrator—based on the author himself, who worked on Obama’s 2008 campaign and in his White House—is David Hammond, a 22-year-old single father from uptown Manhattan. Floundering after dropping out of college, he joins the campaign as a fundraising assistant on the recommendation of the well-heeled mother of a teen boy he tutors. As the novel roves from Manhattan to Manchester, New Hampshire; from Los Angeles to Chicago, David, whose true ambition is to be a writer, uses his new role to sharpen his ear and eye. He’s middling at the minutiae of the job but great at interacting with people. He makes friends with his co-workers and stumbles into a tender love affair with another staffer named Regina. Along the way, he loses slivers of his innocence as he sees what lies beneath the campaign’s shimmering exterior: the candidate’s aloofness when he is offstage, the financial improprieties of a few wealthy patrons. Eventually, the blind allegiance of the candidate’s supporters—their belief that the campaign is a “move of God”—begins to feel foreboding.

David often invokes the ecstatic mysticism of religious devotion as a metaphor for the candidate’s hold on his supporters. The senator “reminded me of my pastor,” David says early on, his regal posture bringing to mind a “talismanic maneuver meant to send forth subliminal messages about confidence and power.” One night, on the trail in New Hampshire, David tells Regina about a magic trick he’d witnessed as a teenager: While waiting outside of church with his friends, he’d watched as a magician performed a standard sleight of hand, then levitated a few inches off the city pavement. “Everybody screamed. It was mayhem,” David remembers. “Black people love magic,” Regina rejoins, through laughter. It is a detour in a novel of detours and roundabouts, and also a parable that smartly explains how the candidate’s fervent admirers could be so awed by his charisma that they missed the signs of trouble to come.

Sometimes David allows himself to get carried away like everyone else. He thinks about how the candidate and his family had begun to embody some kind of national fantasy of a Black Camelot. “Maybe there was the hope that black, that portentous designation, could finally be subsumed into the mainstream in the way that Kennedy had helped Irish to be. That some long passage of travel was almost done,” he thinks at one point. In that same stream of thought, David suggests that the public’s belief in the candidate’s ability to dismantle the racial hierarchy is largely thanks to his symbolic appeal: It was, he observes, “mostly the look” of the candidate and his glamorous family—an elegant wife and two small daughters—that made supporters believe he could overcome racism. Who wouldn’t want to accept them?

[Read: Our new postracial myth]

Privy to the campaign’s disappointments and its weaknesses, David is clear-eyed where others are credulous. With the benefit of hindsight, the reader knows his skepticism would eventually be validated. In the years since Obama’s election, America has seen the birtherism movement, the rise of the Tea Party, Trump’s presidency, and the dismantling of cornerstone civil-rights victories, including key portions of the Voting Rights Act. Then, of course, there were Obama’s own shortcomings during his presidency, namely his capitulation to forces opposed to his most idealistic visions. He would pass a new health-care bill, but fall short of the goal of universal coverage he campaigned on. He would withdraw troops from Afghanistan but begin a series of what the political scientist Michael J. Boyle called “shadow wars,” which were “fought by Special Forces, proxy armies, drones, and other covert means.” According to the Council on Foreign Relations, drone strikes authorized by President Obama led to the deaths of nearly 4,000 people in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia; more than 300 of them were civilians.

When Cunningham’s novel closes on that fateful night in November, the night of the candidate’s victory, it’s an ending for David, a graduation, even. The book implies that he will go on to work for the new president, but unlike everyone else in that ecstatic moment, he looks to the coming years soberly, acknowledging that the campaign had spoken “a language of signs,” wherein the symbolism of the moment overwhelmed all else. Already, he seems to know that the country will see no grand, lasting transformation. For many Americans, who felt on a similar, actual night, that the world seemed on the precipice of change, the lessons would take much longer to learn.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Check Your City: Air Pollution Linked to Slower Marathon Times

By Deanna Neff HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Nov. 6, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Does the city you run in make a difference? Researchers say yes, it...

By Deanna Neff HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Nov. 6, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Does the city you run in make a difference? Researchers say yes, it does.When marathon runners hit the wall or fall behind their goal pace, they often blame fatigue, weather or nutrition. However, a study from Brown University published in Sports Medicine suggests a less obvious, environmental culprit: air pollution.Researchers analyzed a dataset of 2.6 million marathon finish times from major U.S. races, including those in Boston, New York City and Los Angeles, spanning 17 years and matched it to estimated pollution levels from weather stations. They found a direct link between slower average finish times and higher concentrations of fine particulate matter known as PM2.5.The data also showed that the fastest runners were more affected by this effect.PM2.5 refers to tiny pollutants smaller than 2.5 micrometers in diameter. These particles are often the focus of air-quality health advisories, because they can travel deep into the lungs and enter the bloodstream, causing inflammation and chest constriction, reports The New York Times.The study revealed a measurable slowdown tied to PM2.5 levels. For every increase of one microgram per cubic meter increase in these tiny particles, the average finish time for runners dropped.In other words, on a day with even moderately elevated pollution, a runner's time could be slower by several minutes.The Los Angeles Marathon generally had the highest estimated median pollution levels and the slowest median finish times among the races studied. While this could owe to other factors like warmer weather and a hillier course, the overall pattern of slower finishes in more polluted races held true across all cities, even when comparing different years within the same marathon city.Boston had the fastest average finish time and one of the cleanest air levels among the cities, along with Minneapolis/St. Paul and New York City.What makes this finding particularly notable is that it affects even the fittest individuals. “What’s notable is that we’re looking at people who are all incredibly healthy,” Joseph Braun, a professor of epidemiology at Brown, told The New York Times. “But even among really healthy people, air pollution is having an important, albeit subtle, effect on your physiology.”Surprisingly, the slowdown was more pronounced for faster-than-average runners. Researchers suspect this may be because elite and competitive marathoners breathe in more air — and do so more rapidly — inhaling a larger dose of the pollution over the 26.2-mile course.PM2.5 primarily comes from the burning of fossil fuels — such as from power plants, gasoline or diesel vehicles — as well as from forest fires and wood burning. While air quality has improved in many U.S. regions, short-term spikes from sources like wildfire smoke have become a growing concern, The Times said. SOURCE: The New York Times, Nov. 1, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

New Study Links Wildfire Smoke to Premature Births

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Nov. 5, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Wildfire smoke may do more than harm the lungs.New research shows it...

WEDNESDAY, Nov. 5, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Wildfire smoke may do more than harm the lungs.New research shows it could also raise the risk of premature birth.A large study from the University of Washington found that pregnant people exposed to wildfire smoke were more likely to deliver early.The findings, published Nov. 3 in The Lancet Planetary Health, are based on more than 20,000 births across the United States between 2006 and 2020.About 10% of babies in the U.S. are born early, which can lead to lifelong health problems. While air pollution has already been linked to preterm birth, this is one of the biggest studies so far to look specifically at wildfire smoke as a contributor, researchers said.“Preventing preterm birth really pays off with lasting benefits for future health,” said lead author Allison Sherris, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Washington in Seattle.“It’s also something of a mystery. We don’t always understand why babies are born preterm, but we know that air pollution contributes to preterm births, and it makes sense that wildfire smoke would as well," she added in a news release. "This study underscores that wildfire smoke is inseparable from maternal and infant health.”Researchers measured how often pregnant people were exposed to wildfire-related fine particle pollution, known as PM2.5, and how much they were exposed.The risk of preterm birth was higher when exposure happened in the second trimester, especially around week 21. Later in pregnancy, the biggest risk came from high levels of wildfire smoke, above 10 micrograms per cubic meter. The strongest link was seen in the Western U.S., where wildfire smoke has become more frequent and intense. “The second trimester is a period of pregnancy with the richest and most intense growth of the placenta, which itself is such an important part of fetal health, growth and development,” said co-author Dr. Catherine Karr, a professor of pediatrics and environmental health."So it may be that the wildfire smoke particles are really interfering with placental health," Karr added in a news release. "Some of them are so tiny that after inhalation they can actually get into the bloodstream and get delivered directly into the placenta or fetus.”Researchers say more work is needed to understand exactly how wildfire smoke affects pregnancy, but the evidence is now strong enough to take action for pregnant people."There’s an opportunity to work with clinicians to provide tools for pregnant people to protect themselves during smoke events," Sherris said. "Public health agencies’ messaging about wildfire smoke could also be tailored to pregnant people and highlight them as a vulnerable group."SOURCE: University of Washington, news release, Nov. 3, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Light Pollution Harming Heart Health, Study Says

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterMONDAY, Nov. 3, 2025 (HealthDay News) — The bright lights of the big city might seem dazzling, but they can be...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterMONDAY, Nov. 3, 2025 (HealthDay News) — The bright lights of the big city might seem dazzling, but they can be hard on your heart health, a new study says.People exposed to high levels of artificial light have an increasingly higher risk of heart disease, researchers are scheduled to report at a Nov. 10 meeting of the American Heart Association in New Orleans.Higher exposure to artificial light at night was associated with a 35% increased risk of heart disease within five years, and a 22% increased risk over 10 years, researchers found.“We found a nearly linear relationship between nighttime light and heart disease: the more night-light exposure, the higher the risk,” senior researcher Dr. Shady Abohashem, head of PET/CT cardiac imaging trials at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in a news release.For the new study, researchers analyzed the health of 466 adults with an average age of 55 who’d undergone a PET or CT scan at Massachusetts General Hospital between 2005 and 2008.The team compared the participants’ health and brain scans to their exposure to artificial light, based on their home address.Results showed that higher levels of artificial light caused brain stress activity and blood vessel inflammation.“Even modest increases in night-time light were linked with higher brain and artery stress,” Abohashem said. “When the brain perceives stress, it activates signals that can trigger an immune response and inflame the blood vessels. Over time, this process can contribute to hardening of the arteries and increase the risk of heart attack and stroke.”Over a decade, 17% of the people developed a major heart condition. Their light exposure was associated with risk of heart disease, even after accounting for other risk factors.Heart risks were even higher among people who lived in areas with high traffic noise, lower neighborhood income or other environmental factors that can add to stress, researchers said.To counter these ill effects, “people can limit indoor nighttime light, keeping bedrooms dark and avoiding screens such as TVs and personal electronic devices before bed,” Abohashem said.Cities also might improve folks’ health by reducing unnecessary outdoor lighting, shielding street lamps, or using motion-sensitive lights, researchers said.“These findings are novel and add to the evidence suggesting that reducing exposure to excessive artificial light at night is a public health concern,” Julio Fernandez-Mendoza, an American Heart Association spokesman, said in a news release.“We know too much exposure to artificial light at night can harm your health, particularly increasing the risk of heart disease. However, we did not know how this harm happened,” said Fernandez-Mendoza, director of behavioral sleep medicine at Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, who was not involved in the study.“This study has investigated one of several possible causes, which is how our brains respond to stress,” he explained. “This response seems to play a big role in linking artificial light at night to heart disease.”Researchers next plan to see whether reducing nighttime light exposure might improve people’s heart health.Findings presented at medical meetings should be considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.SOURCE: American Heart Association, news release, Nov. 3, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Turns Out, There Are 5 Sleep Styles — And Each Affects Your Brain Differently

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Oct. 9, 2025 (HealthDay News) — A new study suggests there’s more to sleep than how long you snooze each...

THURSDAY, Oct. 9, 2025 (HealthDay News) — A new study suggests there’s more to sleep than how long you snooze each night. Your overall sleep pattern could shape your mood, brain function and even long-term health.Researchers from Concordia University in Montreal identified five distinct sleep profiles that may help explain why some people feel well-rested while others struggle with fatigue, poor focus or emotional ups and downs.The findings, published Oct. 7 in PLOS Biology, show that these “sleep-biopsychosocial profiles” reflect a mix of biological, mental and environmental factors — from stress and emotions to bedroom comfort — that all affect how well you sleep.“People should treat their sleep seriously,” study co-author Valeria Kebets, a manager at Concordia’s Applied AI Institute, told NBC News. “It affects everything in their daily functioning.”The researchers identified five sleep profiles:1. Poor sleep and mental healthPeople in this group reported the worst sleep quality and higher levels of stress, fear and anger. They also had a greater risk of anxiety and depression.These individuals had poor mental health or attention issues but said their sleep felt fine, suggesting “sleep misperception,” or being unaware of underlying sleep problems, researchers said.3. Sleep aids and sociabilityThis group used sleep aids, but also reported strong social support and fewer feelings of rejection. However, they showed lower emotional awareness and weaker memory.4. Sleep duration and cognitionPeople sleeping fewer than six to seven hours a night scored lower on tests measuring problem-solving and emotional processing. They also showed higher aggression and irritability.5. Sleep disturbances and mental healthThose with issues like frequent waking, pain or temperature imbalance had higher rates of anxiety, substance use and poor cognitive performance.The study analyzed data from 770 healthy adults aged 22 to 36, using MRI scans and questionnaires about sleep, lifestyle and mood.Experts say the profiles could help doctors tailor sleep treatments in the future.“We really need to consider multiple sleep profiles in our research and clinic — the value of a multidimensional approach to data,” Dr. Phyllis Zee, director of the Center for Circadian and Sleep Medicine at Northwestern University, who was not involved in the study, told NBC News.Sleep experts also say the research reinforces the importance of good rest for both mental and physical health.“Sleep is a more complex issue than just how much time you spend in bed,” Dr. Rafael Pelayo, a sleep medicine specialist at Stanford University, said in the NBC News report. “If I can improve your sleep, it has downwind effects on your overall health — not just your mental health, but your physical health.”SOURCE: NBC News, Oct. 8, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Wildfire Smoke Might Damage Male Fertility

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Oct. 9, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Wildfire smoke could be damaging men’s fertility, according to a new...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Oct. 9, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Wildfire smoke could be damaging men’s fertility, according to a new study.Key measures of sperm quality appeared to drop among dozens of men participating in fertility treatments, researchers recently reported in the journal Fertility and Sterility.“These results reinforce growing evidence that environmental exposures — specifically wildfire smoke — can affect reproductive health,” said senior researcher Dr. Tristan Nicholson, an assistant professor of urology in the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle.“As we see more frequent and intense wildfire events, understanding how smoke exposure impacts reproductive health is critical,” she added in a news release.For the study, researchers analyzed semen samples from 84 men taken as part of intrauterine insemination procedures in the Seattle area between 2018 and 2022.Major wildfire smoke events hit Seattle in 2018, 2020 and 2022, researchers noted. The team compared the men’s sperm quality during and between these events.“This study takes advantage of our institution’s location in the Puget Sound region, where wildfire smoke events create distinct pre- and post-exposure periods in a natural experiment to examine how a sudden, temporary decline in air quality influences semen parameters,” researchers wrote.Results showed consistent declines in sperm concentration, total sperm count and sperm movement during wildfire smoke exposures.Wildfire smoke contains particle pollution that can invade a person’s organs through their lungs and bloodstream, researchers said.This exposure has previously been linked to lung cancer, respiratory disease, heart attack, stroke and mental impairment, but its effect on male fertility has not been well-studied, researchers said.Overall, the pregnancy rate among the men’s partners was 11%, and the live birth rate 9% — both at the low end of the average range, researchers noted.However, the team added that the study was not designed to fully evaluate the direct impact of wildfire smoke on reproductive outcomes.Researchers next plan to see what happens after wildfire smoke has dented a man’s fertility.“We are very interested in how and when sperm counts recover after wildfire smoke exposure,” Nicholson said. “Currently we are conducting a prospective pilot study of men in the Seattle area to evaluate how wildfire smoke affects sperm quality.”SOURCE: University of Washington, news release, Oct. 1, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

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.