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.

Scientists find 'forever chemicals' lurking in certain smartwatch wristbands

News Feed
Wednesday, December 18, 2024

Certain pricier styles of smartwatch wristband may not just be helping Americans stay fit — they may be exposing unsuspecting wearers to a hefty dose of "forever chemicals," a new study has found. More expensive wristbands made from fluorinated synthetic rubber tend to contain high amounts of one such compound, called perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), according to research, published Wednesday in Environmental Science & Technology Letters. “This discovery stands out because of the very high concentrations of one type of forever chemical found in items that are in prolonged contact with our skin,” corresponding author Graham Peaslee, a University of Notre Dame PFAS expert and nuclear physicist, said in a statement. PFHxA is one of thousands of types of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a group of manmade compounds known for their ability to persist in the human body and in nature. Found in various kinds of household products, certain firefighting foams and industrial waste, some types of PFAS have been linked to cancer and other serious illnesses. Because of the ability of PFAS to repel water, sweat and oil, manufacturers have long included these compounds in items like stain-resistant textiles, menstrual products and fitness wear, the authors noted. The wristbands in question contain what's known as "fluoroelastomers," synthetic rubbers made from chains of PFAS — which are highly durable during sweaty workouts and help avoid discoloration. But the researchers warned that because the bands are so durable, they might provide easy access for forever chemicals to enter the wearer's skin. Meanwhile, prior research has shown that more than a fifth of Americans wear a smartwatch or a fitness tracker — and they do so for extended periods of time, the authors noted. The scientists ended up screening 22 wristbands from a range of brands and price points, looking for both fluorine — which indicates the possible presence of PFAS — and 20 individual types of PFAS. They found that not only did all 13 bands advertised as being made from fluoroelastomers contain the element fluorine, so too did two of the nine bands that were not marketed as such.  Of all the wristbands sampled, the researchers observed that those that cost more than $30 contained more fluorine than those priced under $15. When they checked all the wristbands for 20 different types of PFAS, they found that PFHxA was the most prevalent — popping up in nine out of 22 wristbands tested. The median PFHxA concentration was nearly 800 parts per billion (ppb), with one sample surpassing 16,000 ppb, according to the study. As a basis of comparison, a 2023 cosmetics study conducted by team found a median concentration of around 200 ppb of PFAS. To date, there are no federal regulatory limits that dictate safety levels for PFAS exposure through the skin. Currently, the Environmental Protection Agency only has set exposure thresholds for drinking water — and for six types of PFAS alone. That said, Peaslee stressed that he and his colleagues "have never seen extractable concentrations in the part-per-million range (>1000 ppb) for any wearable consumer product applied to the skin." The scientists acknowledged that they do not currently understand how readily PFHxA can transfer into the skin or whether the compound poses a health risk upon entry. Nonetheless, the study's lead author, Notre Dame graduate student Alyssa Wicks, recommended opting for lower-cost wristbands made from silicone. “If the consumer wishes to purchase a higher-priced band, we suggest that they read the product descriptions and avoid any that are listed as containing fluoroelastomers," Wicks said.

Certain pricier styles of smartwatch wristband may not just be helping Americans stay fit — they may be exposing unsuspecting wearers to a hefty dose of "forever chemicals," a new study has found. More expensive wristbands made from fluorinated synthetic rubber tend to contain high amounts of one such compound, called perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), according...

Certain pricier styles of smartwatch wristband may not just be helping Americans stay fit — they may be exposing unsuspecting wearers to a hefty dose of "forever chemicals," a new study has found.

More expensive wristbands made from fluorinated synthetic rubber tend to contain high amounts of one such compound, called perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), according to research, published Wednesday in Environmental Science & Technology Letters.

“This discovery stands out because of the very high concentrations of one type of forever chemical found in items that are in prolonged contact with our skin,” corresponding author Graham Peaslee, a University of Notre Dame PFAS expert and nuclear physicist, said in a statement.

PFHxA is one of thousands of types of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a group of manmade compounds known for their ability to persist in the human body and in nature. Found in various kinds of household products, certain firefighting foams and industrial waste, some types of PFAS have been linked to cancer and other serious illnesses.

Because of the ability of PFAS to repel water, sweat and oil, manufacturers have long included these compounds in items like stain-resistant textiles, menstrual products and fitness wear, the authors noted.

The wristbands in question contain what's known as "fluoroelastomers," synthetic rubbers made from chains of PFAS — which are highly durable during sweaty workouts and help avoid discoloration.

But the researchers warned that because the bands are so durable, they might provide easy access for forever chemicals to enter the wearer's skin.

Meanwhile, prior research has shown that more than a fifth of Americans wear a smartwatch or a fitness tracker — and they do so for extended periods of time, the authors noted.

The scientists ended up screening 22 wristbands from a range of brands and price points, looking for both fluorine — which indicates the possible presence of PFAS — and 20 individual types of PFAS. They found that not only did all 13 bands advertised as being made from fluoroelastomers contain the element fluorine, so too did two of the nine bands that were not marketed as such. 

Of all the wristbands sampled, the researchers observed that those that cost more than $30 contained more fluorine than those priced under $15.

When they checked all the wristbands for 20 different types of PFAS, they found that PFHxA was the most prevalent — popping up in nine out of 22 wristbands tested.

The median PFHxA concentration was nearly 800 parts per billion (ppb), with one sample surpassing 16,000 ppb, according to the study. As a basis of comparison, a 2023 cosmetics study conducted by team found a median concentration of around 200 ppb of PFAS.

To date, there are no federal regulatory limits that dictate safety levels for PFAS exposure through the skin. Currently, the Environmental Protection Agency only has set exposure thresholds for drinking water — and for six types of PFAS alone.

That said, Peaslee stressed that he and his colleagues "have never seen extractable concentrations in the part-per-million range (>1000 ppb) for any wearable consumer product applied to the skin."

The scientists acknowledged that they do not currently understand how readily PFHxA can transfer into the skin or whether the compound poses a health risk upon entry.

Nonetheless, the study's lead author, Notre Dame graduate student Alyssa Wicks, recommended opting for lower-cost wristbands made from silicone.

“If the consumer wishes to purchase a higher-priced band, we suggest that they read the product descriptions and avoid any that are listed as containing fluoroelastomers," Wicks said.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Ohio vineyard owner relied on toxic weed killer. Now facing Parkinson’s, he wants it banned

Dave Jilbert was diagnosed with Parkinson's after he used a paraquat product at his Ohio vineyard. He's now suing the pesticide manufacturer and trying to get paraquat banned.

Dave Jilbert always wanted to be a farmer. He went to agricultural school, moved to a homestead, started a winery and eventually purchased 16 acres of farmland in the central Ohio valley. He grew grapes for about five years, until he felt himself slowing down. It wasn’t long before the tremors started. Jilbert, at the age of 61, was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in 2021. “I’m not a doctor,” he said, “but all I know is I used paraquat and I got Parkinson’s.” There’s no definitive cause of Parkinson’s, a brain disease with no cure that gets worse over time, but researchers have found a majority of cases are environmental. Now Jilbert is suing. He argues that spraying a toxic pesticide called paraquat is to blame. And now he’s trying to get it banned. “I’m trying to keep people from doing what I did,” said Jilbert, now 66. “I don’t want people to be damaged like me.” With evidence of its harms stacking up, paraquat has already been banned in dozens of countries all over the world, including the United Kingdom and China, where it’s made. Yet last year, its manufacturer Syngenta, a subsidiary of a company owned by the Chinese government, continued selling paraquat in the United States and other nations that haven’t banned it. Paraquat is highly toxic, but one of the biggest concerns are the mounting allegations that low-level that exposure over a long period of time could be linked to Parkinson’s disease. Thousands of U.S. farmers have made this claim in court, but the cases are still pending.  Ramsey Archibald | rarchibald@al.com‘It’s degenerative’ When Jilbert started growing grapes, he did his research on weed control. He needed to contain suckers, shoots that quickly sprout at the base of the vine, strangling the fruit. It would either take weeks to clip the suckers by hand, or Jilbert could spend a couple of days spraying Gramoxone, a paraquat product manufactured by Syngenta. “It was a great herbicide,” he said. From 2014 through 2018, Jilbert loaded Gramoxone into a 50-gallon sprayer on the back of his tractor and wound through the vineyard, misting the seed bed of the vines. He needed a license to buy it from a farming co-op. But at the time, the only precautions involved wearing rubber gloves, a heavy shirt and goggles. Now, the regulators require respirators, enclosed cabs, among other safety measures. By 2020, Jilbert felt his hands stiffen as he changed the oil on his tractor. He chalked it up to getting older. When the tremors started, a doctor diagnosed Jilbert with Parkinson’s, telling him the brain disease is degenerative. Parkinson’s occurs when the brain cells that make dopamine, a chemical that controls movement, stop working or die. It’s the fastest growing neurodegenerative disease in the world with Parkinson’s Foundation research showing U.S. cases have risen by 50%. Ray Dorsey, a neurologist, says Parkinson’s disease is “largely preventable” with research showing that 87% of those with the disease do not have any genetic risk factors, or in other words, the cause “lies not within us but outside of us.” “If we clean up our environment, we get rid of Parkinson’s disease,” he said. Ohio farmer fights to ban pesticide after Parkinson's diagnosisBefore taking medication, Jilbert couldn’t fasten buttons, tuck in his shirt or tie his shoes. The next step was getting a DaTscan of his brain for a research trial. During that trial, a doctor explained that a healthy brain scan will light up with two bright commas. A brain scan with Parkinson’s will illuminate two periods. Jilbert walked out and looked at his scan results: two periods. “It’s degenerative,” he said. “That’s what keeps ringing back in my mind.” Almost five years in, Jilbert now takes 11 pills a day. His movements have improved, but his head bobs. He has off days and on days. “I’ve got a farm. I’ve got 26 acres. I’ve got the homestead,” Jilbert said. “It looks beautiful. The roads are straight and weeds in check. I followed all the labels. And then I get Parkinson’s.” Mass litigation After learning more about paraquat, Jilbert joined the mass action lawsuit against Syngenta and Chevron USA in 2021. He’s one of thousands of people who claim the chemical manufacturers knew about the dangers of paraquat but sold it anyway. The manufacturers “should have known that paraquat was a highly toxic substance that can cause severe neurological injuries,” the lawsuit argues, and should have taken steps “to ensure that people would not be harmed” by paraquat use. Jilbert’s suit argues he was exposed when mixing, loading and spraying paraquat on his vineyard. During that time, the lawsuit says he breathed in small droplets of the pesticide. “Once absorbed, the paraquat entered his bloodstream, attacked his nervous system and was a substantial factor in causing him to suffer Parkinson’s disease,” the suit claims. Jilbert did not comment on the lawsuit while it’s pending. Dave Jilbert bought a vineyard to grow grapes for his winery, Jilbert Winery, in Valley City, Ohio. After about five years, he felt himself starting to slow down. By 2021, Jilbert was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. He has since retired from farming and winemaking, but he's now suing the manufacturer of a pesticide called Gramoxone, a paraquat product.  David Petkiewicz | cleveland.comA settlement agreement was reached earlier this year, which would resolve thousands of cases in Illinois, but the negotiations are still being worked out. Without a settlement, it could go to trial in 2026. Syngenta says settling does not imply paraquat causes Parkinson’s disease, but litigation can be costly and distracting. “We stand by the safety of paraquat,” a statement said. Syngenta has also rejected the claims, saying “despite decades of investigation and more than 1,200 epidemiological and laboratory studies of paraquat, no scientist or doctor has ever concluded in a peer-reviewed scientific analysis that paraquat causes Parkinson’s disease.” Chevron, which has never manufactured paraquat and has not sold it since 1986, also disputes the claims. Growing effort to ban In recent decades, more than 70 countries have banned paraquat because of its risks to human health. But it’s still allowed, and widely used, in the United States after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency re-registered paraquat for another 15 years because it did not find a clear link between paraquat and Parkinson’s disease. “I’m not a doctor, but all I know is I used paraquat and I got Parkinson’s.”Dave Jilbert, an Ohio farmer Several advocacy groups sued the EPA over this decision. Jilbert, since getting diagnosed with Parkinson’s, has joined a growing movement to get paraquat banned. He’s been to Washington D.C. twice to lobby lawmakers. “I didn’t ask for this, so that’s what makes me mad,” he said. “I wanted to tell my story and maybe I can keep it off the market. Do my part to stop the nonsense.” A coalition of Democratic U.S. lawmakers, expressing “grave concern,” also urged the EPA last year to ban paraquat. And legislation has been floated in California and Pennsylvania that would prohibit it on a state level. In the meantime, Jilbert retired from making wine this summer. His future with Parkinson’s feels uncertain. But he knows he wants to spend his remaining time with his wife of 37 years. “I’m reinventing my future philosophy for what’s to come,” he said. “Because I don’t know what’s going to come.”

Like Many Holiday Traditions, Lighting Candles and Fireplaces Is Best Done in Moderation

The warm scents of gingerbread and pine are holiday favorites, but experts warn they can affect indoor air quality

The warm spices in gingerbread, the woodsy aroma of pine and fir trees, and the fruity tang of mulled wine are smells synonymous with the holiday season. Many people enjoy lighting candles, incense and fireplaces in their homes to evoke the moods associated with these festive fragrances.Burning scented products may create a cozy ambiance, and in the case of fireplaces, provide light and heat, but some experts want people to consider how doing so contributes to the quality of the air indoors. All flames release chemicals that may cause allergy-like symptoms or contribute to long-term respiratory problems if they are inhaled in sufficient quantities.However, people don't have to stop sitting by the hearth or get rid of products like perfumed candles and essential oil diffusers, said Dr. Meredith McCormack, director of the pulmonary and critical care medicine division at John Hopkins University’s medical school. Instead, she recommends taking precautions to control the pollutants in their homes.“Clean air is fragrance free,” said McCormack, who has studied air quality and lung health for more than 20 years. “If having seasonal scents is part of your tradition or evokes feelings of nostalgia, maybe think about it in moderation.” What to know about indoor air quality People in the Northern Hemisphere tend to spend more time indoors during the end-of-year holidays, when temperatures are colder. Indoor air can be significantly more polluted than outdoor air because pollutants get trapped inside and concentrated without proper ventilation or filtration, according to the American Lung Association.For example, active fireplaces and gas appliances release tiny airborne particles that can get into the lungs and chemicals like nitrogen dioxide, a major component of smog, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cleaning products, air fresheners and candles also emit air pollutants at varying concentrations.The risk fragrances and other air pollutants may pose to respiratory health depends on the source, the length and intensity of a person’s exposure, and individual health, McCormack said.It is also important to note that some pollutants have no smell, so unscented products still can affect indoor air quality, experts say. Some people are more vulnerable Polluted air affects everyone but not equally. Children, older adults, minority populations and people of low socioeconomic status are more likely to be affected by poor air quality because of either physiological vulnerabilities or higher exposure, according to the environmental agency.Children are more susceptible to air pollution because of their lung size, which means they get a greater dose of exposure relative to their body size, McCormack said. Pollutants inside the home also post a greater hazard to people with heart or lung conditions, including asthma, she said.Signs of respiratory irritation include coughing, shortness of breath, headaches, a runny nose and sneezing. Experts advise stopping use of pollutant-releasing products or immediately ventilating rooms if symptoms occur.“The more risk factors you have, the more harmful air pollution or poor air quality indoors can be,” McCormack said. Practical precautions to take Ellen Wilkowe burns candles with scents like vanilla and cinnamon when she does yoga, writes or when she is showering at her home in New Jersey. Her teenage daughter, on the other hand, likes more seasonally scented candles like gingerbread.“The candle has a calming presence. They are also very symbolic and used in rituals and many religions,” she said.Wilkowe said she leans toward candles made with soy-based waxes instead of petroleum-based paraffin. Experts note that all lit candles give off air pollutants regardless of what they are made of.Buying products with fewer ingredients, opening windows if the temperatures allow, and using air purifiers with HEPA filters are ways to reduce exposure to any pollutants from indoor fireplaces, appliances and candle displays, McCormack said. She also recommends switching on kitchen exhaust fans before starting a gas-powered stovetop and using the back burners so the vent can more easily suck up pollutants.Setting polite boundaries with guests who smoke cigarettes or other tobacco products is also a good idea, she said.“Small improvements in air quality can have measurable health benefits," McCormack said. "Similarly to if we exercise and eat a little better, we can be healthier.”Rachael Lewis-Abbott, a member of the Indoor Air Quality Association, an organization for professionals who identify and address air quality problems, said people don't usually notice what they are breathing in until problems like gas leaks or mold develop.“It is out of sight, out of mind,” she said.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

This moss survived in space for 9 months

In an experiment on the outside of the International Space Station, a species of moss survived in space for 9 months. And it could have lasted much longer. The post This moss survived in space for 9 months first appeared on EarthSky.

Meet a spreading earthmoss known as Physcomitrella patens. It’s frequently used as a model organism for studies on plant evolution, development, and physiology. In this image, a reddish-brown sporophyte sits at the top center of a leafy gametophore. This capsule contains numerous spores inside. Scientists tested samples like these on the outside of the International Space Station (ISS) to see if they could tolerate the extreme airless environment. And they did. The moss survived in space for 9 months and could have lasted even longer. Image via Tomomichi Fujita/ EurekAlert! (CC BY-SA). Space is a deadly environment, with no air, extreme temperature swings and harsh radiation. Could any life survive there? Reasearchers in Japan tested a type of moss called spreading earthmoss on the exterior of the International Space Station. The moss survived for nine months, and the spores were still able to reproduce when brought back to Earth. Moss survived in space for 9 months Can life exist in space? Not simply on other planets or moons, but in the cold, dark, airless void of space itself? Most organisms would perish almost immediately, to be sure. But researchers in Japan recently experimented with moss, with surprising results. They said on November 20, 2025, that more than 80% of their moss spores survived nine months on the outside of the International Space Station. Not only that, but when brought back to Earth, they were still capable of reproducing. Nature, it seems, is even tougher than we thought! Amazingly, the results show that some primitive plants – not even just microorganisms – can survive long-term exposure to the extreme space environment. The researchers published their peer-reviewed findings in the journal iScience on November 20, 2025. A deadly environment for life Space is a horrible place for life. The lack of air, radiation and extreme cold make it pretty much unsurvivable for life as we know it. As lead author Tomomichi Fujita at Hokkaido University in Japan stated: Most living organisms, including humans, cannot survive even briefly in the vacuum of space. However, the moss spores retained their vitality after nine months of direct exposure. This provides striking evidence that the life that has evolved on Earth possesses, at the cellular level, intrinsic mechanisms to endure the conditions of space. This #moss survived 9 months directly exposed to the vacuum space and could still reproduce after returning to Earth. ? ? spkl.io/63322AdFrpTomomichi Fujita & colleagues@cp-iscience.bsky.social — Cell Press (@cellpress.bsky.social) 2025-11-24T16:00:02.992Z What about moss? Researchers wanted to see if any Earthly life could survive in space’s deadly environment for the long term. To find out, they decided to do some experiments with a type of moss called spreading earthmoss, or Physcomitrium patens. The researchers sent hundreds of sporophytes – encapsulated moss spores – to the International Space Station in March 2022, aboard the Cygnus NG-17 spacecraft. They attached the sporophyte samples to the outside of the ISS, where they were exposed to the vacuum of space for 283 days. By doing so, the samples were subjected to high levels of UV (ultraviolet) radiation and extreme swings of temperature. The samples later returned to Earth in January 2023. The researchers tested three parts of the moss. These were the protonemata, or juvenile moss; brood cells, or specialized stem cells that emerge under stress conditions; and the sporophytes. Fujita said: We anticipated that the combined stresses of space, including vacuum, cosmic radiation, extreme temperature fluctuations and microgravity, would cause far greater damage than any single stress alone. Astronauts placed the moss samples on the outside of the International Space Station for the 9-month-long experiment. Incredibly, more than 80% of the the encapsulated spores survived the trip to space and back to Earth. Image via NASA/ Roscosmos. The moss survived! So, how did the moss do? The results were mixed, but overall showed that the moss could survive in space. The radiation was the most difficult aspect of the space environment to withstand. The sporophytes were the most resilient. Incredibly, they were able to survive and germinate after being exposed to -196 degrees Celsius (-320 degrees Fahrenheit) for more than a week. At the other extreme, they also survived in 55° degrees C (131 degrees F) heat for a month. Some brood cells survived as well, but the encased spores were about 1,000 times more tolerant to the UV radiation. On the other hand, none of the juvenile moss survived the high UV levels or the extreme temperatures. Samples of moss spores that germinated after their 9-month exposure to space. Image via Dr. Chang-hyun Maeng/ Maika Kobayashi/ EurekAlert!. (CC BY-SA). How did the spores survive? So why did the encapsulated spores do so well? The researchers said the natural structure surrounding the spore itself helps to protect the spore. Essentially, it absorbs the UV radiation and surrounds the inner spore both physically and chemically to prevent damage. As it turns out, this might be associated with the evolution of mosses. This is an adaptation that helped bryophytes – the group of plants to which mosses belong – to make the transition from aquatic to terrestrial plants 500 million years ago. Overall, more than 80% of the spores survived the journey to space and then back to Earth. And only 11% were unable to germinate after being brought back to the lab on Earth. That’s impressive! In addition, the researchers also tested the levels of chlorophyll in the spores. After the exposure to space, the spores still had normal amounts of chlorophyll, except for chlorophyll a specifically. In that case, there was a 20% reduction. Chlorophyll a is used in oxygenic photosynthesis. It absorbs the most energy from wavelengths of violet-blue and orange-red light. Tomomichi Fujita at Hokkaido University in Japan is the lead author of the new study about moss in space. Image via Hokkaido University. Spores could have survived for 15 years The time available for the experiment was limited to the several months. However, the researchers wondered if the moss spores could have survived even longer. And using mathematical models, they determined the spores would likely have continued to live in space for about 15 years, or 5,600 days, altogether. The researchers note this prediction is a rough estimate. More data would still be needed to make that assessment even more accurate. So the results show just how resilient moss is, and perhaps some other kinds of life, too. Fujita said: This study demonstrates the astonishing resilience of life that originated on Earth. Ultimately, we hope this work opens a new frontier toward constructing ecosystems in extraterrestrial environments such as the moon and Mars. I hope that our moss research will serve as a starting point. Bottom line: In an experiment on the outside of the International Space Station, a species of moss survived in space for nine months. And it could have lasted much longer. Source: Extreme environmental tolerance and space survivability of the moss, Physcomitrium patens Via EurekAlert! Read more: This desert moss could grow on Mars, no greenhouse needed Read more: Colorful life on exoplanets might be lurking in cloudsThe post This moss survived in space for 9 months first appeared on EarthSky.

Medical Imaging Contributing To Water Pollution, Experts Say

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Dec. 11, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Contrast chemicals injected into people for medical imaging scans...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Dec. 11, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Contrast chemicals injected into people for medical imaging scans are likely contributing to water pollution, a new study says.Medicare patients alone received 13.5 billion milliliters of contrast media between 2011 and 2024, and those chemicals wound up in waterways after people excreted them, researchers recently reported in JAMA Network Open.“Contrast agents are necessary for effective imaging, but they don’t disappear after use,” said lead researcher Dr. Florence Doo, an assistant professor at the University of Maryland Medical Intelligent Imaging Center in Baltimore.“Iodine and gadolinium are non-renewable resources that can enter wastewater and accumulate in rivers, oceans and even drinking water,” Doo said in a news release.People undergoing X-ray or CT scans are sometimes given iodine or barium-sulfate compounds that cause certain tissues, blood vessels or organs to light up, allowing radiologists a better look at potential health problems.For MRI scans, radiologists use gadolinium, a substance that alters the magnetic properties of water molecules in the human body.These are critical for diagnosing disease, but they are also persistent pollutants, researchers said in background notes. They aren’t biodegradable, and conventional wastewater treatment doesn’t fully remove them.For the new study, researchers analyzed 169 million contrast-enhanced imaging procedures that Medicare covered over 13 years.Iodine-based contrast agents accounted for more than 95% of the total volume, or nearly 12.9 billion milliliters. Of those, agents used in CT scans of the abdomen and pelvis alone contributed 4.4 billion milliliters.Gadolinium agents were less frequently used, but still contributed nearly 600 million milliliters, researchers said. Brain MRIs were the most common scan using these contrast materials.Overall, just a handful of procedures accounted for 80% of all contrast use, researchers concluded.“Our study shows that a small number of imaging procedures drive the majority of contrast use. Focusing on those highest-use imaging types make meaningful changes tractable and could significantly reduce health care’s environmental footprint,” researcher Elizabeth Rula, executive director of the Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute in Reston, Va., said in a news release.Doctors can help by making sure their imaging orders are necessary, while radiologists can lower the doses of contrast agents by basing them on a patient’s weight, researchers said.Biodegradable contrast media are under development, researchers noted. Another solution could involve AI, which might be able to accurately analyze medical imaging scans even if less contrast media is used.“We can’t ignore the environmental consequences of medical imaging,” Doo said. “Stewardship of contrast agents is a measurable and impactful way to align patient care with planetary health and should be an important part of broader health care sustainability efforts.”SOURCES: Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute, news release, Dec. 4, 2025; JAMA Network Open, Dec. 5, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Cars to AI: How new tech drives demand for specialized materials

Generative artificial intelligence has become widely accepted as a tool that increases productivity. Yet the technology is far from mature. Large language models advance rapidly from one generation to the next, and experts can only speculate how AI will affect the workforce and people’s daily lives. As a materials scientist, I am interested in how materials and the technologies that derive from them affect society. AI is one example of a technology driving global change—particularly through its demand for materials and rare minerals. But before AI evolved to its current level, two other technologies exemplified the process created by the demand for specialized materials: cars and smartphones. Often, the mass adoption of a new invention changes human behavior, which leads to new technologies and infrastructures reliant upon the invention. In turn, these new technologies and infrastructures require new or improved materials—and these often contain critical minerals: those minerals that are both essential to the technology and strain the supply chain. The unequal distribution of these minerals gives leverage to the nations that produce them. The resulting power shifts strain geopolitical relations and drive the search for new mineral sources. New technology nurtures the mining industry. The car and the development of suburbs At the beginning of the 20th century, only 5 out of 1,000 people owned a car, with annual production around a few thousand. Workers commuted on foot or by tram. Within a 2-mile radius, many people had all they needed: from groceries to hardware, from school to church, and from shoemakers to doctors. Then, in 1913, Henry Ford transformed the industry by inventing the assembly line. Now, a middle class family could afford a car: Mass production cut the price of the Model T from US$850 in 1908 to $360 in 1916. While the Great Depression dampened the broad adoption of the car, sales began to increase again after the end of World War II. With cars came more mobility, and many people moved farther away from work. In the 1940s and 1950s, a powerful highway lobby that included oil, automobile, and construction interests promoted federal highway and transportation policies, which increased automobile dependence. These policies helped change the landscape: Houses were spaced farther apart, and located farther away from the urban centers where many people worked. By the 1960s, two-thirds of American workers commuted by car, and the average commute had increased to 10 miles. Public policy and investment favored suburbs, which meant less investment in city centers. The resulting decay made living in downtown areas of many cities undesirable and triggered urban renewal projects. Long commutes added to pollution and expenses, which created a demand for lighter, more fuel-efficient cars. But building these required better materials. In 1970, the entire frame and body of a car was made from one steel type, but by 2017, 10 different, highly specialized steels constituted a vehicle’s lightweight form. Each steel contains different chemical elements, such as molybdenum and vanadium, which are mined only in a few countries. While the car supply chain was mostly domestic until the 1970s, the car industry today relies heavily on imports. This dependence has created tension with international trade partners, as reflected by higher tariffs on steel. The cellphone and American life The cellphone presents another example of a technology creating a demand for minerals and affecting foreign policy. In 1983, Motorola released the DynaTAC, the first commercial cellular phone. It was heavy, expensive, and its battery lasted for only half an hour, so few people had one. Then in 1996, Motorola introduced the flip phone, which was cheaper, lighter, and more convenient to use. The flip phone initiated the mass adoption of cellphones. However, it was still just a phone: Unlike today’s smartphones, all it did was send and receive calls and texts. In 2007, Apple redefined communication with the iPhone, inventing the touchscreen and integrating an internet navigator. The phone became a digital hub for navigating, finding information, and building an online social identity. Before smartphones, mobile phones supplemented daily life. Now, they structure it. In 2000, fewer than half of American adults owned a cellphone, and nearly all who did used it only sporadically. In 2024, 98% of Americans over the age of 18 reported owning a cellphone, and over 90% owned a smartphone. Without the smartphone, most people cannot fulfill their daily tasks. Many individuals now experience nomophobia: They feel anxious without a cellphone. Around three-quarters of all stable elements are represented in the components of each smartphone. These elements are necessary for highly specialized materials that enable touchscreens, displays, batteries, speakers, microphones, and cameras. Many of these elements are essential for at least one function and have an unreliable supply chain, which makes them critical. Critical materials and AI Critical materials give leverage to countries that have a monopoly in mining and processing them. For example, China has gained increased power through its monopoly on rare earth elements. In April 2025, in response to U.S. tariffs, China stopped exporting rare earth magnets, which are used in cellphones. The geopolitical tensions that resulted demonstrate the power embodied in the control over critical minerals. The mass adoption of AI technology will likely change human behavior and bring forth new technologies, industries, and infrastructure on which the U.S. economy will depend. All of these technologies will require more optimized and specialized materials and create new material dependencies. By exacerbating material dependencies, AI could affect geopolitical relations and reorganize global power. America has rich deposits of many important minerals, but extraction of these minerals comes with challenges. Factors including slow and costly permitting, public opposition, environmental concerns, high investment costs, and an inadequate workforce all can prevent mining companies from accessing these resources. The mass adoption of AI is already adding pressure to overcome these factors and to increase responsible domestic mining. While the path from innovation to material dependence spanned a century for cars and a couple of decades for cellphones, the rapid advancement of large language models suggests that the scale will be measured in years for AI. The heat is already on. Peter Müllner is a distinguished professor in materials science and engineering at Boise State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Generative artificial intelligence has become widely accepted as a tool that increases productivity. Yet the technology is far from mature. Large language models advance rapidly from one generation to the next, and experts can only speculate how AI will affect the workforce and people’s daily lives. As a materials scientist, I am interested in how materials and the technologies that derive from them affect society. AI is one example of a technology driving global change—particularly through its demand for materials and rare minerals. But before AI evolved to its current level, two other technologies exemplified the process created by the demand for specialized materials: cars and smartphones. Often, the mass adoption of a new invention changes human behavior, which leads to new technologies and infrastructures reliant upon the invention. In turn, these new technologies and infrastructures require new or improved materials—and these often contain critical minerals: those minerals that are both essential to the technology and strain the supply chain. The unequal distribution of these minerals gives leverage to the nations that produce them. The resulting power shifts strain geopolitical relations and drive the search for new mineral sources. New technology nurtures the mining industry. The car and the development of suburbs At the beginning of the 20th century, only 5 out of 1,000 people owned a car, with annual production around a few thousand. Workers commuted on foot or by tram. Within a 2-mile radius, many people had all they needed: from groceries to hardware, from school to church, and from shoemakers to doctors. Then, in 1913, Henry Ford transformed the industry by inventing the assembly line. Now, a middle class family could afford a car: Mass production cut the price of the Model T from US$850 in 1908 to $360 in 1916. While the Great Depression dampened the broad adoption of the car, sales began to increase again after the end of World War II. With cars came more mobility, and many people moved farther away from work. In the 1940s and 1950s, a powerful highway lobby that included oil, automobile, and construction interests promoted federal highway and transportation policies, which increased automobile dependence. These policies helped change the landscape: Houses were spaced farther apart, and located farther away from the urban centers where many people worked. By the 1960s, two-thirds of American workers commuted by car, and the average commute had increased to 10 miles. Public policy and investment favored suburbs, which meant less investment in city centers. The resulting decay made living in downtown areas of many cities undesirable and triggered urban renewal projects. Long commutes added to pollution and expenses, which created a demand for lighter, more fuel-efficient cars. But building these required better materials. In 1970, the entire frame and body of a car was made from one steel type, but by 2017, 10 different, highly specialized steels constituted a vehicle’s lightweight form. Each steel contains different chemical elements, such as molybdenum and vanadium, which are mined only in a few countries. While the car supply chain was mostly domestic until the 1970s, the car industry today relies heavily on imports. This dependence has created tension with international trade partners, as reflected by higher tariffs on steel. The cellphone and American life The cellphone presents another example of a technology creating a demand for minerals and affecting foreign policy. In 1983, Motorola released the DynaTAC, the first commercial cellular phone. It was heavy, expensive, and its battery lasted for only half an hour, so few people had one. Then in 1996, Motorola introduced the flip phone, which was cheaper, lighter, and more convenient to use. The flip phone initiated the mass adoption of cellphones. However, it was still just a phone: Unlike today’s smartphones, all it did was send and receive calls and texts. In 2007, Apple redefined communication with the iPhone, inventing the touchscreen and integrating an internet navigator. The phone became a digital hub for navigating, finding information, and building an online social identity. Before smartphones, mobile phones supplemented daily life. Now, they structure it. In 2000, fewer than half of American adults owned a cellphone, and nearly all who did used it only sporadically. In 2024, 98% of Americans over the age of 18 reported owning a cellphone, and over 90% owned a smartphone. Without the smartphone, most people cannot fulfill their daily tasks. Many individuals now experience nomophobia: They feel anxious without a cellphone. Around three-quarters of all stable elements are represented in the components of each smartphone. These elements are necessary for highly specialized materials that enable touchscreens, displays, batteries, speakers, microphones, and cameras. Many of these elements are essential for at least one function and have an unreliable supply chain, which makes them critical. Critical materials and AI Critical materials give leverage to countries that have a monopoly in mining and processing them. For example, China has gained increased power through its monopoly on rare earth elements. In April 2025, in response to U.S. tariffs, China stopped exporting rare earth magnets, which are used in cellphones. The geopolitical tensions that resulted demonstrate the power embodied in the control over critical minerals. The mass adoption of AI technology will likely change human behavior and bring forth new technologies, industries, and infrastructure on which the U.S. economy will depend. All of these technologies will require more optimized and specialized materials and create new material dependencies. By exacerbating material dependencies, AI could affect geopolitical relations and reorganize global power. America has rich deposits of many important minerals, but extraction of these minerals comes with challenges. Factors including slow and costly permitting, public opposition, environmental concerns, high investment costs, and an inadequate workforce all can prevent mining companies from accessing these resources. The mass adoption of AI is already adding pressure to overcome these factors and to increase responsible domestic mining. While the path from innovation to material dependence spanned a century for cars and a couple of decades for cellphones, the rapid advancement of large language models suggests that the scale will be measured in years for AI. The heat is already on. Peter Müllner is a distinguished professor in materials science and engineering at Boise State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

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.