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.

RFK Jr. is wrecking public health — but we can (and will) survive this

News Feed
Sunday, April 13, 2025

The greatest invention of the Industrial Age isn’t the iPhone or lithium-ion batteries or even the internal combustion engine — it’s public health. Unfortunately for our “see it to believe it” culture, public health works best when it’s practically invisible, just humming along in the background. Thus, there are few things Westerners take for granted more than reduced child mortality, reduced death in child birth and the eradication of history’s most brutal diseases like polio and smallpox. Thankfully, very few of us know what it’s like to grow up with half our siblings dying from relatively minor infections or experiencing life-long disability from surviving an epidemic. Those days are behind us — or so some of us thought. For anyone paying the slightest attention, it’s clear our global society is quickly devolving, reverting back to a time before antibiotics and widespread sanitation. It sounds extreme, but little else would explain the fixation on raw milk, for example. A combination of engrained ignorance and political interests is eroding the foundation of something that made our capitalist society possible in the first place. It’s hard to build an international trade empire if your customers are too sick to work or die often.  Because we are so many generations removed from the people who coughed up bloody bits of the Black Death, it’s understandable human nature why so many of us refuse to acknowledge COVID-19 is a serious illness or think ditching vaccination is wise. Naïvety is intoxicating and no one likes confronting their own ableism or mortality. It’s these forces that are allowing us to grind basic tenets like germ theory and fluoridation into the woodchipper. It’s an astonishing level of reckless stupidity that we will be contending with for generations. But let’s not get too sentimental about public health either. It’s far from a perfect system. We can think of it like a great oak, with many branches and deep roots. There’s no denying this tree has been poisoned by profit-seeking incentives that have produced giant, twisted branches like Big Pharma or health care insurance middlemen that profit from denying claims. In spite of this, it has helped people live longer, healthier lives compared to those over a century ago — and to fix the issues that plague it, we need to fertilize it, not chainsaw it down. But that’s exactly what we’re doing. “Public health — and trust in public health — is being eroded in the U.S.,” Dr. Andrea Love, an immunologist and microbiologist, told Salon by email. “We are seeing rejection (and in some instances, legal action) against long-supported and evidence-based public health measures: vaccinations, pasteurization and food safety, water fluoridation. We are also seeing an erasure of investment and funding in research and health care infrastructure that focus on understanding and improving public health. It has been difficult as a scientist, science communicator, and member of this country to see this occurring when we have the most scientific knowledge we have ever had in human history.” This is the kind of leadership at HHS these days: wasting resources attacking established science while dismantling the systems that protect against epidemics and research treatments. It’s bad enough that the public is being gaslit about an ongoing measles outbreak that has so far spread across 25 states, infecting more than 700 people, with more than 540 in Texas alone. This epidemic, caused by a virus that was once eliminated in the U.S. in 2000, has claimed at least two lives: two children, one eight-years old and the other only six. The death of a New Mexico man who had measles is still under investigation.  Despite a recent New York Times headline that suggests this is the "new normal," the resurgence of preventable disease is not a law of nature — it's literally a choice we, as a society, are making. And so much more illness is on the rise, from Victorian-era diseases like tuberculosis to novel tropical diseases like “sloth fever.” The threat of another pandemic, be it bird flu or another COVID-19 surge are always present. But now Republican leadership wants us to pretend like none of this is happening while firing the people who track these sorts of things and gutting social safety nets like Social Security and Medicaid. Last month, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced “a major restructuring” of the Health and Human Services Department, which has so far resulted in the mass layoff of about 10,000 federal health workers. At least eight top-level managers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have resigned in recent weeks, all while the agency has clawed back $11.4 billion in COVID-19 research dollars and suppressed a report on measles suggesting that individuals get vaccinated. Most recently, the Trump administration forced out Peter Marks, the nation’s top vaccine regulator at the Food and Drug Administration, who wrote in his resignation letter “It is unconscionable with measles outbreaks to not have a full-throated endorsement of measles vaccinations.” Though Kennedy has recently said that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine is the best way to prevent infection and spread, this is in sharp contrast to his previous statements denying vaccine efficacy, including last week when he incorrectly stated that some vaccines “never worked.” Maybe Kennedy wants to give lip service to the MMR shot after attending the funeral of an unvaccinated victim of the Texas measles outbreak, but actions speak louder than words: earlier this month, dozens of free measles vaccine clinics were shuttered in Texas due to federal funding cuts. And Kennedy still won’t let go of this ridiculous notion — debunked again and again — that vaccines are a cause of autism. That hasn’t stopped Health and Human Services from recently appointing a discredited vaccine skeptic to investigate this link. On April 10, Kennedy said we’d “know by September” what has “caused the autism epidemic.” In a statement, Christopher Banks, CEO and president of the Autism Society of America, responded that Kennedy’s remarks are “both unrealistic and misleading,” adding that such efforts “risk undermining decades of progress and causing real harm to the autism community.” Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes. But this is the kind of leadership at HHS these days: wasting resources attacking established science while dismantling the systems that protect against epidemics and research treatments, not to mention denying people access to health care. The institutions monitoring, treating, researching and informing us about disease are now either broken, underfunded or pushing misinformation. It begs the question: is public health even a thing in this country anymore? “As it currently stands, public health no longer exists at the federal level,” Dr. Ryan Marino, an emergency medicine physician at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, told Salon by email. “It’s still to be seen if this very intentional gutting of our public health institutions, infrastructure and funding will decimate state and regional public health but these ‘cuts’ in spending are likely to mean less services everywhere and for everyone.” To illustrate how far back this trend goes, professor Sean Valles, director of the Center for Bioethics at Michigan State University, pointed to a 2013 report by the U.S. National Research Council and the U.S. Institute of Medicine, which summarizes the situation in its title: “Shorter Lives, Poorer Health.” Since then, average life expectancy in the U.S. has only dropped further. “There is some good news, including that drug overdose deaths are finally falling,” Valles told Salon by email. “But the overall picture is dire. As a Commonwealth Fund report puts it, compared to other high-income countries, ‘The U.S. has the lowest life expectancy at birth, the highest death rates for avoidable or treatable conditions, the highest maternal and infant mortality, and among the highest suicide rates.’” None of this started with the Trump administration, not even the first one, though the decline has clearly accelerated in just a few months. As Daniella Barreto, host and producer of the podcast “Public Health is Dead,” explained, “The Biden administration paved the way for the further destruction of public health when they decided, in a feat of circular logic, that the COVID pandemic was over because they said so. People latched on to that because they wanted it to be true.” Barreto gave numerous examples, from how testing was severely limited under Biden, which meant less data to track the SARS-CoV-2 virus, to how in 2021 the CDC was lobbied by airline business interests to shorten COVID isolation guidelines or how the agency’s then director, Rochelle Walensky, said that masks were a “scarlet letter.” “The push for ‘back to normal’ and short-term profits for corporations have come at the expense of everyone’s long-term health, including children’s,” Barreto told Salon by email. Congress also bears a lot of responsibility for how public health has been starved, Love said. “Simply because Biden was President did not give him ultimate authority to repair a lot of infrastructure that had been eroded,” Love explained. “For example, the USDA/FDA budget and personnel cuts from Trump's first term have led to reduction in workforce to conduct food safety inspections that aren’t able to be corrected quickly — especially when the Congress did not allocate more funding to these agencies. RFK Jr’s claims that his gutting of health agencies will improve public health are objectively false — we know that things that will improve public health, and halting funding for critical interventions, research, community outreach/education, and global health will do the opposite.” Love said that by rejecting public health and defunding the scientific research that is its foundation, “we are all going to become less safe, less healthy, and less secure.” Indeed, many people are at greater risk of disability or death from these policies — not just at home, but across the globe. Trump’s decision to withdraw from the WHO and the dismantling of USAID and other essential programs will have ripple effects. As the CDC puts in their guide to global health security, “In today's interconnected world, a disease threat anywhere is a threat everywhere – and outbreaks can disrupt American lives and livelihoods even if they never reach America's shores.” Which makes a recent finding by the World Health Organization — that almost 75% of U.N. countries have experienced severe disruptions to health services — somewhat rattling. “The rhetoric from this administration takes the mentality that health is an 'individual' issue, and not shaped by social determinants of health and societal initiatives,” Love said. “Health issues do not adhere to country boundaries, especially when we are talking about infectious diseases. I do worry that this damage will cause generational, perhaps irreparable harm, as the U.S. erasing its own scientific institutions but also the collaborative ecosystem globally will have far reaching effects.” In Barreto’s opinion, that’s precisely the point. “The extreme cuts at HHS also impact environmental health, sexual health, and sexual violence prevention programs as well as health and safety regulatory bodies,” Barreto said. “I believe this administration is not unaware that the people who will bear the brunt of this are racialized, disabled, trans and otherwise marginalized.” If top-level public health basically doesn’t function anymore, where does that leave the public? At least 23 states and the District of Columbia are currently suing Kennedy and the HHS, The Guardian reported, “alleging the abrupt terminations of $11bn in public health funding were ‘harmful’ and 'unlawful.’” A judge later blocked these cuts. But more than staunching the bleeding is necessary, as Valles explained that public health improvements take hard work and investment. “Today, we need to be a period for rebuilding the public health workforce, so that we have the next generation of public health workers of all sorts, from community health workers who help people to sign up for benefits like food assistance for their children, to CDC researchers vigilantly watching for the next pandemic,” Valles said. “Instead, the federal government is now trying to lay off hundreds of probationary employees at the CDC, rescinding some of the layoffs, and now many of them are caught in legal limbo as courts decide whether their layoffs were illegal. Meanwhile, federal grants that support the work of public health around the US are being haphazardly canceled. This is not how to rebuild or reform an effective public health workforce, it is how to destroy one.” Love said we need to reclaim the importance of science, which “requires a systemic mindset shift that won’t happen until the misinformation spread by wellness profiteers is clamped down on.” She also emphasized the role of Congress, universities and the media to “push back” on these attacks. “It needs to be common knowledge what the consequences of these actions will be, even for people who think they aren’t going to be impacted,” Love said. “Without our government supporting these initiatives, we may need to turn to other sources of support. Other countries, philanthropic organizations. But that isn’t a substitute. It’s a band-aid on a broken bone.” As long as there is a public, there will be public health, Valles said. What shape it takes depends on a lot of things we can’t always control — social determinants of health like income and zip code — so without clear direction on the federal level, we have to begin more locally. “As a first step, I encourage U.S. readers to learn more about the health of their own communities,” Valles said. “Look up your county in the database of county-level health measures to how your county compares to state and national averages in things like percent of children experiencing poverty, access to opportunities for exercise, and breast cancer mammogram screening rates. If you enter your address on this website, you can see the life expectancy of people living in your neighborhood … Or go to this website to see a map of that data for neighborhoods across the U.S.” Ultimately, to slow the erosion of public health, it needs to be something that people generally value. It may seem insurmountable to get the Trump administration to reverse course, but it will only be possible if people demand it. “It’s easy to see what’s happening and feel defeated; it’s objectively awful,” Marino said. “But public health has always been fighting uphill battles without enough resources. And perhaps the hardest part has always been convincing the public to care about public health. I hope that people do not have to suffer and die for people to realize the value that public health provides, even when programs seem so distant. I guess we will see whether people care or not.” Read more about public health

There really is a way to make America healthy again. It's just not Kennedy's way

The greatest invention of the Industrial Age isn’t the iPhone or lithium-ion batteries or even the internal combustion engine — it’s public health. Unfortunately for our “see it to believe it” culture, public health works best when it’s practically invisible, just humming along in the background. Thus, there are few things Westerners take for granted more than reduced child mortality, reduced death in child birth and the eradication of history’s most brutal diseases like polio and smallpox.

Thankfully, very few of us know what it’s like to grow up with half our siblings dying from relatively minor infections or experiencing life-long disability from surviving an epidemic. Those days are behind us — or so some of us thought.

For anyone paying the slightest attention, it’s clear our global society is quickly devolving, reverting back to a time before antibiotics and widespread sanitation. It sounds extreme, but little else would explain the fixation on raw milk, for example. A combination of engrained ignorance and political interests is eroding the foundation of something that made our capitalist society possible in the first place. It’s hard to build an international trade empire if your customers are too sick to work or die often. 

Because we are so many generations removed from the people who coughed up bloody bits of the Black Death, it’s understandable human nature why so many of us refuse to acknowledge COVID-19 is a serious illness or think ditching vaccination is wise. Naïvety is intoxicating and no one likes confronting their own ableism or mortality. It’s these forces that are allowing us to grind basic tenets like germ theory and fluoridation into the woodchipper. It’s an astonishing level of reckless stupidity that we will be contending with for generations.

But let’s not get too sentimental about public health either. It’s far from a perfect system. We can think of it like a great oak, with many branches and deep roots. There’s no denying this tree has been poisoned by profit-seeking incentives that have produced giant, twisted branches like Big Pharma or health care insurance middlemen that profit from denying claims. In spite of this, it has helped people live longer, healthier lives compared to those over a century ago — and to fix the issues that plague it, we need to fertilize it, not chainsaw it down. But that’s exactly what we’re doing.

“Public health — and trust in public health — is being eroded in the U.S.,” Dr. Andrea Love, an immunologist and microbiologist, told Salon by email. “We are seeing rejection (and in some instances, legal action) against long-supported and evidence-based public health measures: vaccinations, pasteurization and food safety, water fluoridation. We are also seeing an erasure of investment and funding in research and health care infrastructure that focus on understanding and improving public health. It has been difficult as a scientist, science communicator, and member of this country to see this occurring when we have the most scientific knowledge we have ever had in human history.”

This is the kind of leadership at HHS these days: wasting resources attacking established science while dismantling the systems that protect against epidemics and research treatments.

It’s bad enough that the public is being gaslit about an ongoing measles outbreak that has so far spread across 25 states, infecting more than 700 people, with more than 540 in Texas alone. This epidemic, caused by a virus that was once eliminated in the U.S. in 2000, has claimed at least two lives: two children, one eight-years old and the other only six. The death of a New Mexico man who had measles is still under investigation. 

Despite a recent New York Times headline that suggests this is the "new normal," the resurgence of preventable disease is not a law of nature — it's literally a choice we, as a society, are making.

And so much more illness is on the rise, from Victorian-era diseases like tuberculosis to novel tropical diseases like “sloth fever.” The threat of another pandemic, be it bird flu or another COVID-19 surge are always present. But now Republican leadership wants us to pretend like none of this is happening while firing the people who track these sorts of things and gutting social safety nets like Social Security and Medicaid.

Last month, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced “a major restructuring” of the Health and Human Services Department, which has so far resulted in the mass layoff of about 10,000 federal health workers. At least eight top-level managers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have resigned in recent weeks, all while the agency has clawed back $11.4 billion in COVID-19 research dollars and suppressed a report on measles suggesting that individuals get vaccinated. Most recently, the Trump administration forced out Peter Marks, the nation’s top vaccine regulator at the Food and Drug Administration, who wrote in his resignation letter “It is unconscionable with measles outbreaks to not have a full-throated endorsement of measles vaccinations.”

Though Kennedy has recently said that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine is the best way to prevent infection and spread, this is in sharp contrast to his previous statements denying vaccine efficacy, including last week when he incorrectly stated that some vaccines “never worked.”

Maybe Kennedy wants to give lip service to the MMR shot after attending the funeral of an unvaccinated victim of the Texas measles outbreak, but actions speak louder than words: earlier this month, dozens of free measles vaccine clinics were shuttered in Texas due to federal funding cuts. And Kennedy still won’t let go of this ridiculous notion — debunked again and again — that vaccines are a cause of autism. That hasn’t stopped Health and Human Services from recently appointing a discredited vaccine skeptic to investigate this link. On April 10, Kennedy said we’d “know by September” what has “caused the autism epidemic.”

In a statement, Christopher Banks, CEO and president of the Autism Society of America, responded that Kennedy’s remarks are “both unrealistic and misleading,” adding that such efforts “risk undermining decades of progress and causing real harm to the autism community.”


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes.


But this is the kind of leadership at HHS these days: wasting resources attacking established science while dismantling the systems that protect against epidemics and research treatments, not to mention denying people access to health care. The institutions monitoring, treating, researching and informing us about disease are now either broken, underfunded or pushing misinformation. It begs the question: is public health even a thing in this country anymore?

“As it currently stands, public health no longer exists at the federal level,” Dr. Ryan Marino, an emergency medicine physician at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, told Salon by email. “It’s still to be seen if this very intentional gutting of our public health institutions, infrastructure and funding will decimate state and regional public health but these ‘cuts’ in spending are likely to mean less services everywhere and for everyone.”

To illustrate how far back this trend goes, professor Sean Valles, director of the Center for Bioethics at Michigan State University, pointed to a 2013 report by the U.S. National Research Council and the U.S. Institute of Medicine, which summarizes the situation in its title: “Shorter Lives, Poorer Health.” Since then, average life expectancy in the U.S. has only dropped further.

“There is some good news, including that drug overdose deaths are finally falling,” Valles told Salon by email. “But the overall picture is dire. As a Commonwealth Fund report puts it, compared to other high-income countries, ‘The U.S. has the lowest life expectancy at birth, the highest death rates for avoidable or treatable conditions, the highest maternal and infant mortality, and among the highest suicide rates.’”

None of this started with the Trump administration, not even the first one, though the decline has clearly accelerated in just a few months. As Daniella Barreto, host and producer of the podcast “Public Health is Dead,” explained, “The Biden administration paved the way for the further destruction of public health when they decided, in a feat of circular logic, that the COVID pandemic was over because they said so. People latched on to that because they wanted it to be true.”

Barreto gave numerous examples, from how testing was severely limited under Biden, which meant less data to track the SARS-CoV-2 virus, to how in 2021 the CDC was lobbied by airline business interests to shorten COVID isolation guidelines or how the agency’s then director, Rochelle Walensky, said that masks were a “scarlet letter.”

“The push for ‘back to normal’ and short-term profits for corporations have come at the expense of everyone’s long-term health, including children’s,” Barreto told Salon by email.

Congress also bears a lot of responsibility for how public health has been starved, Love said.

“Simply because Biden was President did not give him ultimate authority to repair a lot of infrastructure that had been eroded,” Love explained. “For example, the USDA/FDA budget and personnel cuts from Trump's first term have led to reduction in workforce to conduct food safety inspections that aren’t able to be corrected quickly — especially when the Congress did not allocate more funding to these agencies. RFK Jr’s claims that his gutting of health agencies will improve public health are objectively false — we know that things that will improve public health, and halting funding for critical interventions, research, community outreach/education, and global health will do the opposite.”

Love said that by rejecting public health and defunding the scientific research that is its foundation, “we are all going to become less safe, less healthy, and less secure.”

Indeed, many people are at greater risk of disability or death from these policies — not just at home, but across the globe. Trump’s decision to withdraw from the WHO and the dismantling of USAID and other essential programs will have ripple effects. As the CDC puts in their guide to global health security, “In today's interconnected world, a disease threat anywhere is a threat everywhere – and outbreaks can disrupt American lives and livelihoods even if they never reach America's shores.” Which makes a recent finding by the World Health Organization — that almost 75% of U.N. countries have experienced severe disruptions to health services — somewhat rattling.

“The rhetoric from this administration takes the mentality that health is an 'individual' issue, and not shaped by social determinants of health and societal initiatives,” Love said. “Health issues do not adhere to country boundaries, especially when we are talking about infectious diseases. I do worry that this damage will cause generational, perhaps irreparable harm, as the U.S. erasing its own scientific institutions but also the collaborative ecosystem globally will have far reaching effects.”

In Barreto’s opinion, that’s precisely the point. “The extreme cuts at HHS also impact environmental health, sexual health, and sexual violence prevention programs as well as health and safety regulatory bodies,” Barreto said. “I believe this administration is not unaware that the people who will bear the brunt of this are racialized, disabled, trans and otherwise marginalized.”

If top-level public health basically doesn’t function anymore, where does that leave the public? At least 23 states and the District of Columbia are currently suing Kennedy and the HHS, The Guardian reported, “alleging the abrupt terminations of $11bn in public health funding were ‘harmful’ and 'unlawful.’” A judge later blocked these cuts. But more than staunching the bleeding is necessary, as Valles explained that public health improvements take hard work and investment.

“Today, we need to be a period for rebuilding the public health workforce, so that we have the next generation of public health workers of all sorts, from community health workers who help people to sign up for benefits like food assistance for their children, to CDC researchers vigilantly watching for the next pandemic,” Valles said. “Instead, the federal government is now trying to lay off hundreds of probationary employees at the CDC, rescinding some of the layoffs, and now many of them are caught in legal limbo as courts decide whether their layoffs were illegal. Meanwhile, federal grants that support the work of public health around the US are being haphazardly canceled. This is not how to rebuild or reform an effective public health workforce, it is how to destroy one.”

Love said we need to reclaim the importance of science, which “requires a systemic mindset shift that won’t happen until the misinformation spread by wellness profiteers is clamped down on.” She also emphasized the role of Congress, universities and the media to “push back” on these attacks.

“It needs to be common knowledge what the consequences of these actions will be, even for people who think they aren’t going to be impacted,” Love said. “Without our government supporting these initiatives, we may need to turn to other sources of support. Other countries, philanthropic organizations. But that isn’t a substitute. It’s a band-aid on a broken bone.”

As long as there is a public, there will be public health, Valles said. What shape it takes depends on a lot of things we can’t always control — social determinants of health like income and zip code — so without clear direction on the federal level, we have to begin more locally.

“As a first step, I encourage U.S. readers to learn more about the health of their own communities,” Valles said. “Look up your county in the database of county-level health measures to how your county compares to state and national averages in things like percent of children experiencing poverty, access to opportunities for exercise, and breast cancer mammogram screening rates. If you enter your address on this website, you can see the life expectancy of people living in your neighborhood … Or go to this website to see a map of that data for neighborhoods across the U.S.”

Ultimately, to slow the erosion of public health, it needs to be something that people generally value. It may seem insurmountable to get the Trump administration to reverse course, but it will only be possible if people demand it.

“It’s easy to see what’s happening and feel defeated; it’s objectively awful,” Marino said. “But public health has always been fighting uphill battles without enough resources. And perhaps the hardest part has always been convincing the public to care about public health. I hope that people do not have to suffer and die for people to realize the value that public health provides, even when programs seem so distant. I guess we will see whether people care or not.”

Read more

about public health

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

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

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

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

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

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

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

We may finally know what a healthy gut microbiome looks like

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

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

How eating oysters could help restore South Australia’s algal-bloom ravaged coast

South Australians are heartbroken about the state’s unprecedented algal bloom. But eating oysters, donating shells and restoring lost reefs will boost ocean health.

South Australians are suddenly hearing a lot about oyster reefs — from government, on the news and in conversations, both online and in person. It’s not accidental. Their state is grappling with an unprecedented and harmful algal bloom. The crisis has drawn attention to another, long-forgotten environmental disaster beneath the waves: the historical destruction of native shellfish reefs. Reefs formed by native oysters, mussels and other aquatic mollusks carpeted more than 1,500 kilometres of the state’s coastline, until 200 years ago. In fact, they went well beyond the state border, existing in sheltered waters of bays and estuaries from the southern Great Barrier Reef to Tasmania and all the way around to Perth. These vast communities of bivalves, which feed by drawing water over their gills, would have helped clean the ocean gulfs and supported a smorgasbord of marine life. Their destruction by colonial dredge fisheries — to feed the growing colony and supply lime for construction — has left our contemporary coastlines more vulnerable to events like this algal bloom. And their recovery is now a central part of South Australia’s algal bloom response. Dominic Mcafee snorkels over a restored oyster reef at Coffin Bay. Stefan Andrews, CC BY-ND Rebuilding reefs South Australia’s A$20.6 million plan aims to restore various marine ecosystems, with two approaches to restore shellfish reefs. The first is building large reefs with limestone boulders. These have been constructed over the past decade with some positive results. Four have been built in Gulf St Vincent near Adelaide. Boulder reefs provide hard, stable substrate for baby oysters to settle and grow on. When built at the right time in early summer, when oyster babies are abundant and searching for a home, oyster larvae can settle on them and begin growing. But these are large infrastructure projects – think cranes, barges and boulders – and therefore take years to plan and execute. So alongside these large reef builds, the public will have the chance to help construct 25 smaller community-based reefs over the next three years. From Kangaroo Island to the Eyre Peninsula, these reefs will use recycled shells collected from aquaculture farms, restaurants and households using dedicated shell recycling bins. There will soon be a dedicated website for the project. The donated shells will be cleaned, sterilised by months in the sun, and packaged into biodegradable mesh bags and degradable cages to provide many thousands of “reef units”. From these smaller units, big reefs can grow. This combined approach — industrial-scale reefs and grassroots restoration — reflects both the scale of the ecological problem and the appetite for public participation. A 3D model of a community-based reef underwater with panels to monitor oyster settlement. Manny Katz, EyreLab, CC BY-ND What about the algal bloom? Little can be done to disperse an algal bloom of this magnitude once it has taken root. Feeling like powerless witnesses to the disaster, the ecological grief and dismay among coastal communities is palpable. Naturally, attention turns to recovery – what can be done to repair the damage? This is where oysters come in. They cannot stop this bloom. And their restoration is not a silver bullet for addressing the many stressors facing the marine environment. But healthy ecosystems recover faster and are more resilient to future environmental shocks. For shellfish reefs, South Australia already has some impressive runs on the board. Over nearly a decade we have undertaken some of the largest shellfish restorations in the Southern Hemisphere. Millions of oysters have found a home on our extant reefs, providing filtration benefits and supporting diverse marine life. And although the algal bloom has decimated many bivalve communities, thankfully native oysters have been found to have a level of resilience. During a dive last week we witnessed new baby oysters that had recently settled on the reefs, seeding its recovery. In the past decade we have built a scientific evidence base, practical knowledge, and community enthusiasm for reef restorations that benefits the broader marine ecosystem. This is why shellfish reefs feature so prominently in the algal bloom response plan. A site of oyster reef restoration in South Australia. Stefan Andrews, CC BY-ND Where will these new reefs go? We need time to identify the best sites for big boulder reefs. For now, the priority is monitoring the ecological impacts and resilience to the ongoing algal bloom. But work on community-based reef projects has already begun . These reefs will broaden our scientific understanding of how underwater animals and plants find them. Sites will be chosen based on ecological knowledge and community interest in ongoing marine stewardship. There are many ways communities can take part. Community involvement and education is a cornerstone of the work, and individuals can recycle their oyster, scallop and mussel shells. The public can also volunteer time to join shell bagging and caging events, and even get involved building the reefs. In time, there will opportunities for the community to help with monitoring and counting the oysters and other critters settled on the recycled shell. A native oyster reef in Coffin Bay, South Australia. Stefan Andrews, CC BY-ND Future built from the past The impact of this harmful algal bloom is real and ongoing. But in responding to it, South Australians are rediscovering a forgotten marine ecosystem. Rebuilding shellfish reefs won’t fix it — but alongside catchment management, seagrass restoration, fisheries management and improved monitoring and climate action, it is a powerful tool. With the help of communities, reefs that were once broken, forgotten and functionally extinct, can be returned. It will take time for these reefs to support cleaner waters and richer marine life. But these community initiatives can show people that we all have a role to play in caring for coastlines. Dominic McAfee receives funding from the South Australian Department for Environment and Water. Sean Connell receives funding from The Australian Research Council and South Australian Department for Environment and Water. He is a Director of AusOcean, a non-profit organisation in South Australia that develops and deploys open-source, low-cost marine technology to help solve ocean science and conservation challenges.

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.