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.

The perfect humidifier doesn’t exist

News Feed
Friday, December 20, 2024

The hunt for the least-annoying humidifier can lead to contentious debates online. | Elena Bondarenko/Getty Images It’s winter, which means it’s humidifier season. If you struggle with dry skin, allergies, or you’re currently dealing with a cold, you might be leaving yours on all the time — or you’re scrolling through yet another humidifier review roundup to choose a model to purchase. Should you buy an ultrasonic or evaporative? Warm mist or cool? Should it be a top-fill design? Are all the parts dishwasher safe? How big of a tank should you look for? In a marketplace full of new-fangled, hyperspecific home gadgets, the humidifier is a classic appliance with modern(ish) incarnations available since the 1960s. Over 20 million were sold in the US in 2019, according to Statista, but they’ve only grown more popular and sleeker in the last few years, as people have become more concerned with the quality of the air in their homes. According to Amazon, over 100,000 units of this popular humidifier were purchased in the past month. But while most of the sleek gizmos we love to buy during Black Friday sales exist to, in theory, optimize our lives, the humidifier adds a bunch of hassle — taking care of it becomes another irritating chore in the never-ending wrangling of your household, requiring a thorough scouring every few days to ensure no mold or bacteria is growing. There’s no shortage of humidifier models on the market, but you might be hard-pressed to find one you genuinely love rather than merely tolerate. Those looking for buying advice online often qualify their query: How do I not only wade through the options to find a humidifier that works well for my space, but also one that isn’t a complete pain to clean? The short answer is that there isn’t a magical way to avoid humidifier maintenance. A humidifier is supposed to be full of liquid, and where there’s moisture, mold and bacteria will grow. What’s more, there are real dangers to misusing a humidifier. More research is needed on the long-term health impacts of using them, which is a little disturbing considering how commonplace it is as a household object. The worst mishap that might occur with a robot vacuum is that it runs over an unpleasant surprise your dog left on the floor. With humidifiers, you could be breathing in particulate matter that causes more serious health issues than the device purports to solve. Yet for how risky and frustrating they are, consumers remain obsessed with looking for, testing out, and debating what the least worst humidifiers on the market.  Why we love to hate humidifiers The humidifier, in its basic form, is extremely simple — you can increase humidity simply by setting out a bowl of water near a radiator. (Whether this will make a meaningful difference is another matter.) Dry air can worsen any congestion you’re dealing with, sap moisture from your skin, exacerbate your asthma, and even hurt your house plants. Humidity falls in the winter because the colder the air, the less water vapor it can hold. But it’s not just the frigid conditions outside that contribute to unbearably dry air in the winter. “It’s the heat that you’re using in your domicile that ends up often reducing the humidity,” says Allen St. John, senior tech editor at Consumer Reports, noting that he sometimes turns down the heat to bump up the humidity rather than using a separate machine to do so. (If you don’t control your own heat, this may not be an option.) Older humidifiers often looked like terrifying contraptions and were used mostly in hospital settings to help people with respiratory conditions. In the latter half of the 20th century, they started being advertised as consumer-grade products to use at home. Today there are three types available: the ultrasonic, which uses vibrations to turn water into mist; evaporative, which uses a fan to help evaporate water into the air; and the warm mist humidifier, which boils water to produce steam.  “Most of the stuff that’s on the market tends to be ultrasonic at this point,” St. John says. They’re generally easier to use, and typically quieter. But all kinds of humidifiers come with trade-offs. Ultrasonics appear to emit a lot more particulate matter than evaporatives do (more on that later); evaporatives can not only be louder, but might also require you to buy and replace a filter or wick. With warm mist models, you run the risk of scalding yourself (or a pet or child in the house) if you knock over the humidifier. None are particularly easy to maintain: The Environmental Protection Agency advises cleaning a humidifier every three days, which requires taking it apart and getting into every little crevice to remove grime, and emptying the tank daily to reduce the growth of microorganisms. “You don’t want to leave a humidifier around that’s just kind of wet,” St. John says. The area around the machine should be wiped down if there’s moisture around it. It’s also important, though, to be careful about what cleaning agents you use and how well you rinse the humidifier before turning it on again — you don’t want to inhale any harmful chemicals. In South Korea, humidifier disinfectants that were widely available until 2011 have been linked to the deaths of over 1,800 people. Given how frustrating they can be to own, people often have impassioned opinions on humidifiers, according to Thom Dunn, who writes Wirecutter’s humidifier guide. “It’s a perennial thing — I’m always hearing reader feedback about it,” he tells Vox.  A few years ago, there was a considerable amount of reader complaints and discourse around the fact that Wirecutter had named the Honeywell HCM-350 humidifier, currently $67.99 on Amazon at time of publication, their top pick for several years. The humidifier guide is “easily one of the most volatile reader comment sections,” Dunn says. The team eventually removed the HCM-350 from their recommendations. The top pick now is the $109.99 Levoit LV600S. Unsurprisingly, several recent comments disagree with the choice. One of the latest comment reads: “I think it’s crazy the Honeywell HCM 350 is no longer the top pick.” (McSweeney’s even lampooned how even the most recommended humidifier will inevitably disappoint.) This constant debate about the least-annoying humidifier may also be fueled by the fact that it’s a product some replace every few years. Many models are relatively inexpensive, and “it’s easy to get to the point of, ‘I didn’t really clean it, now this thing looks like a science experiment,’” St. John says. In the “introvert economy,” humidifiers are becoming more popular (and slightly less ugly) There’s another obvious reason humidifiers cause so much consumer disdain: Many of them are big, clunky, and frankly, ugly. The good news is that the age of marginally more attractive design may be upon us. We’ve already seen the premiumization of kitchen gadgets, from toaster ovens to espresso machines, and a few years back, window air conditioners started getting the minimalist edit too. Now, more brands are giving the humidifier the millennial-sleek update thanks to a broader “air care” wellness trend — which includes not just humidifiers, but candles, diffusers, air purifiers — that’s turning anything that treats your indoor air into a premium product that should also blend into your home decor. “It does go along with a certain influencer wellness aesthetic.”Thom Dunn, Wirecutter writer Some consumers are shelling out a lot of money for these prettier, more expensive models that can cost upward of $150 while not holding as much water or humidifying as well as experts’ recommended picks. “It does go along with a certain influencer wellness aesthetic,” Dunn says. Consumers with discretionary income are investing more money into creature comforts for the home in general. “One of the things we’ve seen that sort of started with the pandemic — and that I don’t think has completely disappeared — is something we refer to as the introvert economy,” says Amy Eisinger, head of content at the wellness digital publication Well+Good. People are “investing in really making their space feel like a sanctuary.” Some are even installing infrared saunas in their homes, Eisinger notes.  Even if you’re not quite bed rotting, chances are you’re spending more time at home these days than, say, a decade ago — and what we spend money on may be shifting alongside that fact. There’s a whole TikTok genre advertisements featuring a woman coming home from work and embarking on a convoluted ritual using niche smart home gadgets: She sanitizes her clothes with a UV light wand in the foyer, runs her earrings through a jewelry cleaner, washes vegetables for dinner with some kind of ultrasonic device, gives herself a foot bath while watching a show on her phone, and pours herself a glass of something stiff from a rotating decanter. Everything is clean and nothing hurts. Presumably, in such a world of ultra-modern optimization, your indoor air is always the perfect humidity, too. The potential danger of humidifiers may not outweigh its benefits The real issue with humidifiers isn’t just the annoyance of taking care of them, though, it’s that they can be a serious health hazard. “What most people don’t know about ultrasonic humidifiers is that they will create a lot of small particulate matter,” says Jonathan Jarry, a science communicator at McGill University’s Office for Science and Society. They “aerosolize minerals that are present in the water,” which means the purity of the water you’re using in a humidifier can drastically impact your home’s air quality. A few years ago, University of Alberta scientists published research showing that ultrasonic humidifiers using both filtered and unfiltered tap water released high concentrations of particulate matter seen “during extreme air pollution events in major metropolises.” A 2023 paper published in the journal Science of the Total Environment found that safe-to-drink tap water used in ultrasonic humidifiers could spew out dangerous levels of metals that are more harmful inhaled than when ingested, such as manganese. In short, using anything but distilled water in your humidifier means you could be inhaling a lot of stuff you probably don’t want in your lungs. (Evaporative humidifiers can also emit particulate matter, but to a lesser extent.) The EPA recommends using only distilled water in humidifiers, but acquiring large enough quantities of it cheaply is easier said than done. To be clear, boiling water is not the same as distilling it, and bottled drinking water isn’t usually distilled either. Distillation requires boiling water “into a vapor and leaving behind any impurities, and then taking that vapor and recondensing it back into a liquid,” Jarry says. How much distilled water you’ll need depends on how dry the air currently is and the size of the room you’re humidifying: A small space under 400 square feet might need a machine with a 1.5 gallon tank, according to CNET, while a bigger space over 1,000 square feet could require a 3-gallon one. Two five-gallon barrels of distilled water sell for $42.99 on Amazon at time of publication; a much cheaper option might be to buy a water distiller for your home, or signing up for a distilled water delivery service, but that still adds another step and expense to using your humidifier. It’s unclear how much public awareness there is about the harm of particulates released by humidifiers. According to a recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report, many Americans have misperceptions about the purity of tap water. A third of respondents to a survey thought that tap water was sterile, and a quarter said they used it for humidifiers. (An unscientific Reddit poll on r/NewParents a few years ago shows the majority of 228 respondents saying they used tap water in humidifiers as well.) The big question mark around the safety of these popular products adds yet another hurdle for consumers half-heartedly trawling the market for a humidifier that won’t make them miserable. The perfect all-in-one portable humidifier that distills water for you, cleans itself, and sings a lullaby for you at night does not yet exist. (The Dyson air purifier and humidifier combo does, but its regular price is $999.) If you’re not prepared for the commitment of bringing a humidifier into your home, the healthiest option — for both your lungs and your sanity — might just be to opt out.

It’s winter, which means it’s humidifier season. If you struggle with dry skin, allergies, or you’re currently dealing with a cold, you might be leaving yours on all the time — or you’re scrolling through yet another humidifier review roundup to choose a model to purchase. Should you buy an ultrasonic or evaporative? Warm mist […]

The hunt for the least-annoying humidifier can lead to contentious debates online. | Elena Bondarenko/Getty Images

It’s winter, which means it’s humidifier season. If you struggle with dry skin, allergies, or you’re currently dealing with a cold, you might be leaving yours on all the time — or you’re scrolling through yet another humidifier review roundup to choose a model to purchase. Should you buy an ultrasonic or evaporative? Warm mist or cool? Should it be a top-fill design? Are all the parts dishwasher safe? How big of a tank should you look for?

In a marketplace full of new-fangled, hyperspecific home gadgets, the humidifier is a classic appliance with modern(ish) incarnations available since the 1960s. Over 20 million were sold in the US in 2019, according to Statista, but they’ve only grown more popular and sleeker in the last few years, as people have become more concerned with the quality of the air in their homes. According to Amazon, over 100,000 units of this popular humidifier were purchased in the past month.

But while most of the sleek gizmos we love to buy during Black Friday sales exist to, in theory, optimize our lives, the humidifier adds a bunch of hassle — taking care of it becomes another irritating chore in the never-ending wrangling of your household, requiring a thorough scouring every few days to ensure no mold or bacteria is growing. There’s no shortage of humidifier models on the market, but you might be hard-pressed to find one you genuinely love rather than merely tolerate. Those looking for buying advice online often qualify their query: How do I not only wade through the options to find a humidifier that works well for my space, but also one that isn’t a complete pain to clean?

The short answer is that there isn’t a magical way to avoid humidifier maintenance. A humidifier is supposed to be full of liquid, and where there’s moisture, mold and bacteria will grow.

What’s more, there are real dangers to misusing a humidifier. More research is needed on the long-term health impacts of using them, which is a little disturbing considering how commonplace it is as a household object. The worst mishap that might occur with a robot vacuum is that it runs over an unpleasant surprise your dog left on the floor. With humidifiers, you could be breathing in particulate matter that causes more serious health issues than the device purports to solve. Yet for how risky and frustrating they are, consumers remain obsessed with looking for, testing out, and debating what the least worst humidifiers on the market. 

Why we love to hate humidifiers

The humidifier, in its basic form, is extremely simple — you can increase humidity simply by setting out a bowl of water near a radiator. (Whether this will make a meaningful difference is another matter.) Dry air can worsen any congestion you’re dealing with, sap moisture from your skin, exacerbate your asthma, and even hurt your house plants. Humidity falls in the winter because the colder the air, the less water vapor it can hold. But it’s not just the frigid conditions outside that contribute to unbearably dry air in the winter. “It’s the heat that you’re using in your domicile that ends up often reducing the humidity,” says Allen St. John, senior tech editor at Consumer Reports, noting that he sometimes turns down the heat to bump up the humidity rather than using a separate machine to do so. (If you don’t control your own heat, this may not be an option.)

Older humidifiers often looked like terrifying contraptions and were used mostly in hospital settings to help people with respiratory conditions. In the latter half of the 20th century, they started being advertised as consumer-grade products to use at home. Today there are three types available: the ultrasonic, which uses vibrations to turn water into mist; evaporative, which uses a fan to help evaporate water into the air; and the warm mist humidifier, which boils water to produce steam. 

“Most of the stuff that’s on the market tends to be ultrasonic at this point,” St. John says. They’re generally easier to use, and typically quieter.

But all kinds of humidifiers come with trade-offs. Ultrasonics appear to emit a lot more particulate matter than evaporatives do (more on that later); evaporatives can not only be louder, but might also require you to buy and replace a filter or wick. With warm mist models, you run the risk of scalding yourself (or a pet or child in the house) if you knock over the humidifier. None are particularly easy to maintain: The Environmental Protection Agency advises cleaning a humidifier every three days, which requires taking it apart and getting into every little crevice to remove grime, and emptying the tank daily to reduce the growth of microorganisms.

“You don’t want to leave a humidifier around that’s just kind of wet,” St. John says. The area around the machine should be wiped down if there’s moisture around it. It’s also important, though, to be careful about what cleaning agents you use and how well you rinse the humidifier before turning it on again — you don’t want to inhale any harmful chemicals. In South Korea, humidifier disinfectants that were widely available until 2011 have been linked to the deaths of over 1,800 people.

Given how frustrating they can be to own, people often have impassioned opinions on humidifiers, according to Thom Dunn, who writes Wirecutter’s humidifier guide. “It’s a perennial thing — I’m always hearing reader feedback about it,” he tells Vox. 

A few years ago, there was a considerable amount of reader complaints and discourse around the fact that Wirecutter had named the Honeywell HCM-350 humidifier, currently $67.99 on Amazon at time of publication, their top pick for several years. The humidifier guide is “easily one of the most volatile reader comment sections,” Dunn says. The team eventually removed the HCM-350 from their recommendations. The top pick now is the $109.99 Levoit LV600S. Unsurprisingly, several recent comments disagree with the choice. One of the latest comment reads: “I think it’s crazy the Honeywell HCM 350 is no longer the top pick.” (McSweeney’s even lampooned how even the most recommended humidifier will inevitably disappoint.)

This constant debate about the least-annoying humidifier may also be fueled by the fact that it’s a product some replace every few years. Many models are relatively inexpensive, and “it’s easy to get to the point of, ‘I didn’t really clean it, now this thing looks like a science experiment,’” St. John says.

In the “introvert economy,” humidifiers are becoming more popular (and slightly less ugly)

There’s another obvious reason humidifiers cause so much consumer disdain: Many of them are big, clunky, and frankly, ugly. The good news is that the age of marginally more attractive design may be upon us. We’ve already seen the premiumization of kitchen gadgets, from toaster ovens to espresso machines, and a few years back, window air conditioners started getting the minimalist edit too. Now, more brands are giving the humidifier the millennial-sleek update thanks to a broader “air care” wellness trend — which includes not just humidifiers, but candles, diffusers, air purifiers — that’s turning anything that treats your indoor air into a premium product that should also blend into your home decor.

“It does go along with a certain influencer wellness aesthetic.”

Thom Dunn, Wirecutter writer

Some consumers are shelling out a lot of money for these prettier, more expensive models that can cost upward of $150 while not holding as much water or humidifying as well as experts’ recommended picks. “It does go along with a certain influencer wellness aesthetic,” Dunn says.

Consumers with discretionary income are investing more money into creature comforts for the home in general. “One of the things we’ve seen that sort of started with the pandemic — and that I don’t think has completely disappeared — is something we refer to as the introvert economy,” says Amy Eisinger, head of content at the wellness digital publication Well+Good. People are “investing in really making their space feel like a sanctuary.” Some are even installing infrared saunas in their homes, Eisinger notes. 

Even if you’re not quite bed rotting, chances are you’re spending more time at home these days than, say, a decade ago — and what we spend money on may be shifting alongside that fact. There’s a whole TikTok genre advertisements featuring a woman coming home from work and embarking on a convoluted ritual using niche smart home gadgets: She sanitizes her clothes with a UV light wand in the foyer, runs her earrings through a jewelry cleaner, washes vegetables for dinner with some kind of ultrasonic device, gives herself a foot bath while watching a show on her phone, and pours herself a glass of something stiff from a rotating decanter. Everything is clean and nothing hurts. Presumably, in such a world of ultra-modern optimization, your indoor air is always the perfect humidity, too.

The potential danger of humidifiers may not outweigh its benefits

The real issue with humidifiers isn’t just the annoyance of taking care of them, though, it’s that they can be a serious health hazard.

“What most people don’t know about ultrasonic humidifiers is that they will create a lot of small particulate matter,” says Jonathan Jarry, a science communicator at McGill University’s Office for Science and Society. They “aerosolize minerals that are present in the water,” which means the purity of the water you’re using in a humidifier can drastically impact your home’s air quality.

A few years ago, University of Alberta scientists published research showing that ultrasonic humidifiers using both filtered and unfiltered tap water released high concentrations of particulate matter seen “during extreme air pollution events in major metropolises.” A 2023 paper published in the journal Science of the Total Environment found that safe-to-drink tap water used in ultrasonic humidifiers could spew out dangerous levels of metals that are more harmful inhaled than when ingested, such as manganese. In short, using anything but distilled water in your humidifier means you could be inhaling a lot of stuff you probably don’t want in your lungs. (Evaporative humidifiers can also emit particulate matter, but to a lesser extent.)

The EPA recommends using only distilled water in humidifiers, but acquiring large enough quantities of it cheaply is easier said than done. To be clear, boiling water is not the same as distilling it, and bottled drinking water isn’t usually distilled either. Distillation requires boiling water “into a vapor and leaving behind any impurities, and then taking that vapor and recondensing it back into a liquid,” Jarry says.

How much distilled water you’ll need depends on how dry the air currently is and the size of the room you’re humidifying: A small space under 400 square feet might need a machine with a 1.5 gallon tank, according to CNET, while a bigger space over 1,000 square feet could require a 3-gallon one. Two five-gallon barrels of distilled water sell for $42.99 on Amazon at time of publication; a much cheaper option might be to buy a water distiller for your home, or signing up for a distilled water delivery service, but that still adds another step and expense to using your humidifier.

It’s unclear how much public awareness there is about the harm of particulates released by humidifiers. According to a recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report, many Americans have misperceptions about the purity of tap water. A third of respondents to a survey thought that tap water was sterile, and a quarter said they used it for humidifiers. (An unscientific Reddit poll on r/NewParents a few years ago shows the majority of 228 respondents saying they used tap water in humidifiers as well.)

The big question mark around the safety of these popular products adds yet another hurdle for consumers half-heartedly trawling the market for a humidifier that won’t make them miserable. The perfect all-in-one portable humidifier that distills water for you, cleans itself, and sings a lullaby for you at night does not yet exist. (The Dyson air purifier and humidifier combo does, but its regular price is $999.) If you’re not prepared for the commitment of bringing a humidifier into your home, the healthiest option — for both your lungs and your sanity — might just be to opt out.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Study Finds Cancer-Linked Chemicals in Some Firefighter Gear

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterFRIDAY, Dec. 19, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Some protective gear worn by firefighters may contain chemicals linked to...

FRIDAY, Dec. 19, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Some protective gear worn by firefighters may contain chemicals linked to serious health risks, according to a new study.The research — published Dec. 16 in the journal Environmental Science & Technology Letters — found that certain firefighter turnout gear contains brominated flame retardants, or chemicals added to materials to slow flames, but also tied to cancer and hormone problems.This is one of the first in-depth studies to closely examine whether these chemicals are present in firefighter gear and how much could be released during use.Firefighters wear turnout gear made of three layers: An outer shell that resists flames, a middle moisture barrier that blocks germs and an inner lining that helps control body heat. To meet safety rules set by the National Fire Protection Association, manufacturers treat these layers with chemicals to reduce fire risk.For years, firefighters have raised concerns about PFAS, a group of chemicals once commonly used in turnout gear to repel water and oil. PFAS exposure has been linked to cancer and other health problems.Although PFAS-treated gear has not been directly tied to illness in firefighters, many states have passed laws banning the purchase of PFAS-treated gear starting in 2027. As a result, manufacturers have begun phasing those chemicals out.That raised a new question: What chemicals are being used instead?"There was a rumor that one of the turnout gear manufacturers might be using brominated flame retardants in the non-PFAS treated textiles," study leader Heather Stapleton, a professor at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment in Durham, N.C., said in a news release."Because some brominated flame retardants have known toxicity, I requested a sample of the gear in question to test," she added.Stapleton and her colleagues tested 12 sets of turnout gear, nine made between 2013 and 2020, and three made in 2024 that were marketed as PFAS-free.They tested each layer of the gear to see:PFAS showed up in all older gear, but 2024 gear had little to no extractable PFAS, supporting claims that newer gear avoids those chemicals.However, every single set of gear tested contained brominated flame retardants, and in many cases, levels were higher than PFAS.The highest levels of brominated flame retardants were found in gear labeled as non-PFAS, especially in the moisture barrier layer.This suggests that manufacturers may be intentionally adding brominated flame retardants to replace PFAS and still meet fire safety standards.One chemical, decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE), appeared most often. While it hasn’t been studied much in the U.S., a 2019 study in China linked DBDPE exposure to thyroid problems in manufacturing workers."I was really surprised that the manufacturers used DBDPE in turnout gear," Stapleton said. "It has similar properties as a toxic chemical called decaBDE that has been largely phased out globally, raising questions about its safety."In older gear, the outer shell had the highest chemical levels, most likely from smoke and soot during fires."When building materials burn, they can release brominated flame retardants into the air that stick to gear and don't wash out very well," Stapleton explained.But the presence of these chemicals inside the gear shows that manufacturing choices, and not just fire exposure, play a role.Researchers said they don’t know just yet how much of these chemicals firefighters absorb or what the long-term health effects may be.But the findings matter because turnout gear is expensive and often used for many years."Fire departments must consider both the financial and personal safety costs of keeping or replacing gear," said study co-author R. Bryan Ormond, an associate professor at N.C. State University’s Wilson College of Textiles in Raleigh, N.C.Stapleton said some companies now offer gear made without PFAS or brominated flame retardants, and she urged departments to demand more transparency in the equipment they use."We know firefighters receive higher exposure to multiple chemicals from all the hazards they face during their duty, and they shouldn't have to worry about receiving additional chemical exposures from their gear," Stapleton said.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has more on PFAS.SOURCE: Duke University, news release, Dec. 18, 2025 Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

New research affirms sustainable design principles can lead to safer chemical alternatives

A new commentary published in Nature Sustainability reflects on the results of a new study identifying a potentially less toxic bisphenol chemical as an example of the Safe and Sustainable by Design framework for creating a generation of safer chemical alternatives. In short: The Safe and Sustainable by Design framework, introduced by the European Commission in 2022, lays out principles for the redesign and assessment of industrial chemicals based on four considerations: hazard, worker’s exposure during production, exposure from use, and full life-cycle impacts. Using this framework, researchers identified a bisphenol chemical that does not have estrogenic properties, unlike toxic BPA. This new bisphenol also shows potential for high technical performance and is created from renewable materials. Key quote: “Importantly, this work signals a growing interest among chemists… to find safe substitutes for endocrine-disrupting commercial chemicals to enhance the welfare of the ecosphere and the sustainability of our civilization.” Why this matters: Existing bisphenol chemicals — including BPA and its common substitutes BPS and BPF — have well-established negative health consequences, particularly to metabolism and reproduction. While some countries have limited the use of BPA, the use of other estrogenic bisphenols has continued to increase, undermining regulations’ protective potential. This commentary emphasizes how critical it is that health and environmental impacts be prioritized as key considerations in the creation of new chemicals alongside economic potential and technical performance. Related EHN coverage: Op-ed: Building a safe and sustainable chemical enterpriseFDA’s current BPA safety standards are outdated, misguided and flawed, scientists sayMore resources: European Commission: Safe and Sustainable by Design frameworkTiered Protocol for Endocrine Disruption (TiPED), a tool used by the authors of this commentary to facilitate the early identification of potentially endocrine disrupting chemicals. Collins, Terrence et al. for Nature Sustainability. Dec. 4, 2025Margarita, Christiana et al. for Nature Sustainability. Dec. 4, 2025

A new commentary published in Nature Sustainability reflects on the results of a new study identifying a potentially less toxic bisphenol chemical as an example of the Safe and Sustainable by Design framework for creating a generation of safer chemical alternatives. In short: The Safe and Sustainable by Design framework, introduced by the European Commission in 2022, lays out principles for the redesign and assessment of industrial chemicals based on four considerations: hazard, worker’s exposure during production, exposure from use, and full life-cycle impacts. Using this framework, researchers identified a bisphenol chemical that does not have estrogenic properties, unlike toxic BPA. This new bisphenol also shows potential for high technical performance and is created from renewable materials. Key quote: “Importantly, this work signals a growing interest among chemists… to find safe substitutes for endocrine-disrupting commercial chemicals to enhance the welfare of the ecosphere and the sustainability of our civilization.” Why this matters: Existing bisphenol chemicals — including BPA and its common substitutes BPS and BPF — have well-established negative health consequences, particularly to metabolism and reproduction. While some countries have limited the use of BPA, the use of other estrogenic bisphenols has continued to increase, undermining regulations’ protective potential. This commentary emphasizes how critical it is that health and environmental impacts be prioritized as key considerations in the creation of new chemicals alongside economic potential and technical performance. Related EHN coverage: Op-ed: Building a safe and sustainable chemical enterpriseFDA’s current BPA safety standards are outdated, misguided and flawed, scientists sayMore resources: European Commission: Safe and Sustainable by Design frameworkTiered Protocol for Endocrine Disruption (TiPED), a tool used by the authors of this commentary to facilitate the early identification of potentially endocrine disrupting chemicals. Collins, Terrence et al. for Nature Sustainability. Dec. 4, 2025Margarita, Christiana et al. for Nature Sustainability. Dec. 4, 2025

Don’t talk – listen. Why communities affected by forever chemicals in water must be heard

When worried communities talk to authorities about forever chemicals, officials often seek to explain and clarify. But this isn’t what people actually want.

97s/Unsplash, CC BY-NC-NDUntil recently, Australia’s efforts to tackle “forever chemical” pollution focused on highly polluted firefighting and defence sites. But last year, elevated levels of some of these chemicals were detected in the untreated water supply for the Blue Mountains in New South Wales. Residents were understandably concerned. Community groups threatened to launch a class action, while residents sought to have their blood tested. NSW Water Minister Rose Jackson moved to reassure residents their “water is safe”, and a Sydney Morning Herald editorial said the state government was blind to the risks. Earlier this year, Australia banned three of these chemicals – PFOA, PFOS and PFHxS. PFOA is considered carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, while PFOS is considered possibly carcinogenic. But the environmental and health effects of forever chemical exposure remain a matter of debate, as the risk depends on concentration. In November, a Senate inquiry made dozens of recommendations to better regulate these chemicals. All too often, authorities respond to legitimate community concerns by pointing to the low level of risk. But as these chemicals build up in drinking water, wastewater and farming soils, this trust-the-experts approach isn’t going to work. Risks and concentration levels Forever chemicals are properly known as PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). They’re used in products such as carpets, clothes, food packaging and paper, as well as firefighting foams, pesticides and stain repellents. They don’t break down easily, and steadily accumulate in soil, surface water and groundwater. Around 15,000 PFAS chemicals are now ubiquitous in the environment. In highly contaminated sites such as firefighter training facilities or defence bases, the risk is clearer and responses can target specific facilities and geographic locations. But the question of what to do becomes much harder when forever chemicals become widely distributed in drinking water and wastewater systems, generally at levels well below thresholds considered dangerous according to Australian standards. In response to the Blue Mountains issue, Water NSW stopped two dams from supplying water as a precautionary measure. Sydney Water installed a new PFAS water treatment system. Community backlash Australian authorities began responding to PFAS contamination a decade ago. Since then, policymakers have restricted the import and manufacture of certain forever chemicals, banned some uses of PFAS-containing firefighting foams, developed a national plan to manage PFAS chemicals, officially set the levels of PFAS a person could safely consume in a day and developed guidelines for drinking water. Even with such actions, authorities have been subject to sustained public criticism from community groups and the media over the speed, adequacy and level of protections compared to the more restrictive thresholds set by the United States and European Union. At Williamtown in NSW, authorities were aware of the issue for three years before revealing it. Community groups lost faith in official responses, turning to external experts before ultimately launching a class action against the Department of Defence. Some compensation flowed from this based on financial losses. But researchers have found compensation does little to actually address residents’ health and environment concerns. Independent reviews have recommended official responses to PFAS should be more transparent. But little has changed. The same distrust is emerging in the Blue Mountains, while state and federal inquiries have raised questions over how PFAS risks are communicated and falling public trust in government agencies. Better communication misses the point Community backlash against issues such as PFAS contamination can often be framed as non-experts misunderstanding the science. Authorities often think the answer is to communicate better and more clearly to fix the deficit. For instance, the national PFAS policy describes communication as essential: if people affected by PFAS contamination cannot understand what governments are saying, they are more likely to view the information with scepticism or as a deliberate attempt to disguise the facts. The risk here is that focusing on better official communication is still about speaking, rather than listening. The community can become a noisy stakeholder to be managed rather than an active collaborator. But people in these communities are legitimately worried. They want to speak and be heard as equal partners. Is there a better way? PFAS contamination isn’t just a technological or legal issue. It’s also a social issue – it affects communities. When facing a pollution problem, affected communities often organise themselves and advocate for better outcomes. Community groups often commission independent research or conduct citizen science, while collaborating with scientists and engineers. Officials and residents should collectively work through the options and costs associated, as well as discussing what level of risk different communities are willing to accept. Public forums aren’t enough, as these tend to put experts at the centre, answering questions. The launch of the first community-based PFAS working group under the new PFAS National Coordinating Body is a positive initial step. Collaborative efforts like this are not easy. Authorities and community leaders can view each other with suspicion, and the unequal power dynamics play a role. As NSW Information Commissioner Rosalind Croucher recently pointed out, making contamination data easily available to communities helps ensure management is “transparent, evidence-based, and accountable to the communities it affects”. Hard but not impossible Like forever chemicals themselves, the issue of PFAS pollution isn’t going away. Finding better ways of responding will be essential, as the issue can’t be solved by scientists, engineers and policymakers in a top-down approach. Communities who have to drink the water must be given the right to speak – and be heard. Read more: Living with PFAS 'forever chemicals' can be distressing. Not knowing if they're making you sick is just the start Matthew Kearnes receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Australian government under the National Environmental Science Program, through the Sustainable Communities and Waste HubCameron Holley receives funding from an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant, partnering with the NSW Natural Resources Access Regulator. He is a Deputy Director of the UNSW Institute for Climate Risk and Response and a board member of the National Environmental Law Association (NELA). Carley Bartlett receives funding from an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant, partnering with the NSW Natural Resources Access Regulator. Her PhD research was supported by an Australian government Research Training Program scholarship.Patrick Bonney receives funding from an Australian Research Council Discovery Project on the governance of emerging contaminants.Denis O'Carroll does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Tunisians Revive Protests in Gabes Over Pollution From State Chemical Plant

By Tarek AmaraTUNIS, Dec 17 (Reuters) - Around 2,500 ‌Tunisians ​marched through the coastal city ‌of Gabes on Wednesday, reviving protests over...

TUNIS, Dec 17 (Reuters) - Around 2,500 ‌Tunisians ​marched through the coastal city ‌of Gabes on Wednesday, reviving protests over pollution from a ​state-owned phosphate complex amid rising anger over perceived failures to protect public health.People chanted ‍mainly "Gabes wants to live", on ​the 15th anniversary of the start of the 2011 pro-democracy uprising that sparked ​the Arab ⁠Spring movement against autocracy.The protest added to the pressure on President Kais Saied’s government, which is grappling with a deep financial crisis and growing street unrest, protests by doctors, journalists, banks and public transport systems. The powerful UGTT union has called ‌for a nationwide strike next month, signalling great tension in the country. The ​recent ‌protests are widely seen ‍as one ⁠of the biggest challenges facing Saied since he began ruling by decree in 2021.Protesters chanted slogans such as "We want to live" and "People want to dismantle polluting units", as they marched toward Chatt Essalam, a coastal suburb north of the city where the Chemical Group’s industrial units are located."The chemical plant is a fully fledged crime... We refuse to ​pass on an environmental disaster to our children, and we are determined to stick to our demand,” said Safouan Kbibieh, a local environmental activist.Residents say toxic emissions from the phosphate complex have led to higher rates of respiratory illnesses, osteoporosis and cancer, while industrial waste continues to be discharged into the sea, damaging marine life and livelihoods.The protests in Gabes were reignited after hundreds of schoolchildren suffered breathing difficulties in recent months, allegedly caused by toxic fumes from a plant converting phosphates into phosphoric ​acid and fertilisers.In October, Saied described the situation in Gabes as an “environmental assassination”, blaming policy choices made by previous governments, and has called for urgent maintenance to prevent toxic leaks.The protesters reject the temporary measures and ​are demanding the permanent closure and relocation of the plant.(Reporting by Tarek Amara, editing by Ed Osmond)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.Photos You Should See – December 2025

After the L.A. fires, heart attacks and strange blood test results spiked

A new study is the latest of several recent research papers documenting the physical toll of January's fires.

In the first 90 days after the Palisades and Eaton fires erupted in January, the caseload at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center’s emergency room looked different from the norm.There were 46% more visits for heart attacks than typically occured during the same time period over the previous seven years. Visits for respiratory illnesses increased 24%. And unusual blood test results increased 118%.These findings were reported in a new study published Wednesday in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. The study, part of a research project documenting the fires’ long-term health effects, joins several recent papers documenting the disasters’ physical toll.While other U.S. wildfires have consumed more acres or cost more lives, the Palisades and Eaton fires were uniquely dangerous to human health because they burned an unusual mix of materials: the trees, brush and organic material of a typical wildfire, along with a toxic stew of cars, batteries, plastics, electronics and other man-made materials.There’s no precedent for a situation that exposed this many people to this kind of smoke, the paper’s authors said.“Los Angeles has seen wildfires before, it will see wildfires again, but the Eaton fire and the Palisades fire were unique, both in their size, their scale and the sheer volume of material that burned,” said Dr. Joseph Ebinger, a Cedars-Sinai cardiologist and the paper’s first author. The team did not find a significant increase in the overall number of visits to the medical center’s emergency room between Jan. 7, the day the fires began, and April 7. The department recorded fewer in-person visits for mental health emergencies and chronic conditions during that time compared to the same time period in earlier years, said Dr. Susan Cheng, director of public health research at Cedars-Sinai and the study’s senior author.The increase in visits for acute cardiovascular problems and other serious sudden illnesses made up the difference. The study team also looked at results from blood tests drawn from patients visiting the ER for serious physical symptoms without immediate explanation — dizziness without dehydration, for example, or chest pains not caused by heart attacks.Their blood tests returned unusual results at a rate more than double that seen in previous years. These atypical numbers cut across the spectrum of the blood panel, Cheng said. “It could be electrolyte disorder, change in protein levels, change in markers of kidney or liver function.”The rate of unusual test results held steady through the three-month period, leading the team to conclude that exposure to the fires’ smoke “has led to some kind of biochemical metabolic stress in the body that likely affected not just one but many organ systems,” Cheng said. “That’s what led to a range of different types of symptoms affecting different people.”Joan Casey, an environmental epidemiologist at the University of Washington who was not part of the Cedars-Sinai team, noted that the study found health effects lasting over a longer period than similar studies have.Three months “is a substantial length of time to observe elevated visits, as most studies focused on acute care utilization following wildfire smoke exposure find increased visit counts over about a weeklong period,” Casey said. Her own research found a 27% increase in outpatient respiratory visits among Kaiser Permanente Southern California members living within 12.4 miles of the burn zones in the week following the fires.“The L.A. fires were such a severe event, including not only smoke, but also evacuation and substantial stress in the population, that effects may have lingered longer,” Casey said.Thirty-one people are known to have died as a direct result of injuries sustained in the fires. But researchers believe that when taking into account deaths from health conditions worsened by the smoke, the true toll is significantly higher.A research letter published earlier this year in the Journal of the American Medical Assn. calculated that there were 440 excess deaths in L.A. County between Jan. 5 and Feb. 1. That paper looked at deaths caused by a variety of factors, from exposure to air pollution to disrupted healthcare as a result of closures and evacuations.On Tuesday, a team from Stanford University published itsprojection that exposure to the fires’ smoke, specifically, led to 14 deaths otherwise unaccounted for.Wildfire is a major source of fine particulate pollution, bits measuring 2.5 microns or less in diameter that are small enough to cross the barriers that separate blood from the brain and the lungs’ outer branches.Compared with other sources, wildfire smoke contains a higher proportion of ultrafine particles miniscule enough to penetrate the brain after inhalation, Casey told The Times earlier this year. The smoke has been linked to a range of health problems, including dementia, cancer and cardiovascular failure.In the last decade, increasing numbers of wildfires in Western states have released enough fine particulate pollution to reverse years’ worth of improvements under the Clean Air Act and other antipollution measures.

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.