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.

What You Should Know About Fluoride

News Feed
Wednesday, April 9, 2025

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced on Monday that he will direct the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to stop recommending water fluoridation nationwide “It makes no sense to have [fluoride] in our water supply,” Kennedy told reporters during a visit to Utah. “I’m very, very proud of this state for being the first state to ban it, and I hope many more will come.”But what exactly is fluoride? What does it do? And why are people like Kennedy calling for its removal from public water systems? We asked experts to break down the debate. What is fluoride? Why is it in drinking water?“Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral that belongs to a group of chemical compounds containing the element fluorine,” said Dr. Jarrett L. Manning, a dentist and founder of JLM Dental Studio. “It exists in various forms: sodium fluoride, stannous fluoride and sodium monofluorophosphate.”Small amounts of fluoride are naturally present in soil, plants, water and certain foods, but it’s also added to drinking water and dental products due to its ability to strengthen tooth enamel and prevent cavities.“Many communities add fluoride to public water supplies, a process known as water fluoridation, to improve oral health and help prevent tooth decay on a population level,” Manning explained.Basically, acid-producing bacteria grows in the mouth, which dissolves minerals on the surface of teeth and can lead to tooth decay, or cavities. Fluoride prevents and stops that bacterial growth and can even reverse early tooth decay, thus reducing the need for treatments, which can be painful and expensive.“Research over many years has shown that water fluoridation can significantly reduce the incidence of cavities in both children and adults, regardless of access to dental care,” said Dr. Cheryline Pezzullo, a clinical associate professor and director of community-based programs at New York University’s College of Dentistry. “By adding small, safe amounts of fluoride to the water supply, communities can reduce tooth decay across the board, particularly benefiting those who may not have regular access to dental care.”Grand Rapids, Michigan, became the first city to fluoridate its public water supply, in 1945, and a decade later, the rate of cavities in local children had fallen 60% to 65%. Researchers reported similar findings among both kids and adults as more communities adopted fluoridation in the subsequent decades.Today, more than 60% of the U.S. population receives fluoridated water.“The American Dental Association has long been a proponent of water fluoridation since its introduction and study,” said cosmetic dentist Dr. Amanda Lewis. Other public health groups, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), similarly support this practice due to its benefits to oral and overall health. Preventing tooth decay lowers the need for treatments such as tooth extractions and fillings, and if left untreated, cavities can lead to serious abscesses, infections and even sepsis.The Public Health Service recommends a concentration of 0.7 milligram of fluoride per liter of water in community systems, which the CDC equates to about three drops of water in a 55-gallon barrel. Communities that already have naturally higher levels of fluoride do not need fluoridation.What’s the controversy?“The controversy around fluoride in water often centers on questions about health risks, personal choice and concerns about overexposure,” Pezzullo said. “Although I do not agree, some argue that fluoride ― even in small amounts ― could have potential health risks and question the ethics of adding it to public water supplies.”In recent years, communities across the U.S. have voted to stop fluoridating their water systems. Many experts believe that the anti-fluoridation movement gained more traction amid the growing mistrust of public health authorities and government overall during the COVID-19 pandemic. “Some people feel that adding fluoride to public water supplies violates their right to choose what goes into their bodies,” Manning noted.In September, a federal judge in California ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency must strengthen regulations around water fluoridation to address concerns about potential health risks, particularly with regard to children’s cognitive development. “There’s skepticism from certain groups about the long-term effects, despite decades of research showing its safety and effectiveness when used correctly,” Pezzullo said. “Additionally, misinformation and conflicting studies have created more confusion and lead to more public debate.”Many skeptics point to a review from the National Toxicology Program, which concluded “with moderate confidence” that there is an association between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in children.But that analysis is primarily based on studies conducted in other countries and involving fluoride concentrations of 1.5 milligrams per liter of water and above ― which is more than double the recommended limit for drinking water in the U.S.“More studies are needed to fully understand the potential for lower fluoride exposure to affect children’s IQ,” the organization stated in its report.The AAP has also expressed concerns about the limitations of the NTP’s review, including the high fluoride levels but also the geographic heterogeneity of the study populations, which hinders the ability to account for other factors that might affect IQ and assess whether the data is “accurate, comparable, or generalizable.” The organization noted that similar reviews from other groups have reached different conclusions and that the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine rejected two earlier drafts of the report.Nico De Pasquale Photography via Getty ImagesTewodros R. Godebo, an assistant professor at the Tulane University Celia Scott Weatherhead School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine who studies fluoride, told HuffPost there’s still a shortage of research on public water fluoridation in the U.S.“Before we make a policy decision to remove fluoride from U.S. public water supply systems, we need to get some questions answered,” he said. “We need more studies in the U.S. if we are going to make policy here, and the science is not yet consistent enough to make a decision.”He pointed to the lack of data on fluoridation’s effect on adults and the inconsistent conclusions about any potential association between fluoride in developed countries’ community water systems and children’s cognitive development. “If we find there is some association between IQ points and low fluoride exposure, then the next critical step would be to do a risk-benefit analysis because there is a benefit to water fluoridation in terms of dental health,” Godebo said.“What would be the cost in terms of treating dental decay and associated diseases because it’s linked to our overall health and things like heart disease. What would the total IQ loss be in a child ― would it be one point? Then is our first step to reduce water fluoridation? Do we cut that 0.7 in half? This decision has to be based on strong science.”These decisions might also have to vary on the local level in accordance with area-based data, which will likely differ across the U.S. Many fluoride studies are also limited by the challenge of accounting for other sources of fluoride exposure beyond water supply systems.Critics have argued that adding fluoride to drinking water may no longer be as effective as it was when the practice first began due to the increased use of fluoride toothpaste over time. Some point to the large number of countries that do not fluoridate their public water but have still seen reductions in tooth decay. Future data from the American communities that have removed fluoride from their systems will presumably provide more clarity.Meanwhile, misleading claims about fluoride’s potential harms have gained momentum. On Nov. 2, Kennedy asserted in a social media post that the mineral is associated with thyroid disease, arthritis and bone-related issues such as bone cancer and bone fractures.Medical experts have responded by emphasizing the lack of rigorous U.S.-based research linking fluoride to thyroid disease and arthritis. As for bone health, repeated fluoride exposure above the recommended level can lead to skeletal fluorosis, which causes weakened bones, joint pain and stiffness, but that condition is extremely rare in the U.S.Excessive fluoride exposure in children whose permanent teeth are still developing (usually up to the age of 8) can result in a cosmetic condition called dental fluorosis, which gives the teeth white spots, flecks or lines but does not cause pain or impair tooth function.To address concerns about dental fluorosis, the U.S. government amended its recommendations on public water fluoridation in 2015. Though the previous guidance recommended 0.7 milligram per liter in warmer climates and 1.2 milligrams in cooler places, the standard became 0.7 everywhere.Similarly, the ADA recommends very small amounts of fluoride toothpaste for young children to limit excess ingestion and prevent dental fluorosis. Here’s what you should know if you’re concerned about fluoride in water.Headlines can be alarming, so if you’re feeling overwhelmed by the fluoride debate taking place online and in the news, talk to your doctor, your dentist or your child’s pediatrician.“For those who are new to the topic, it’s helpful to know that fluoride has been safely added to water supplies across many parts of the world since the 1940s, with a significant decrease in cavities as a result,” Pezzullo said.She emphasized that fluoride levels in public drinking water are carefully regulated and monitored.“While it’s good to be cautious, substantial amounts of scientific research have shown that fluoride at these regulated levels is safe and does not cause harm,” Pezzullo explained. “I give fluoridated water to my own toddler and brush his teeth with fluoridated toothpaste! I can always tell when a child is not exposed to fluoride when they sit in my chair as they always have more cavities than they should.”Water fluoridation is a “simple but powerful health measure” that has been particularly beneficial for children and communities with limited access to dental care, she added. “As a dentist, I see the difference fluoride makes every day, especially in vulnerable populations.”Assessing the relative benefits and risks of water fluoridation is crucial for making policy decisions at the government level and personal choices on an individual level.Although the data has not been conclusive, preliminary research suggests that fluoride exposure during pregnancy could potentially lead to neurobehavioral issues in children. Experts who have studied this possible link are notably not calling for an end to water fluoridation, but they have suggested that pregnant women might want to opt for filtered water.“Those who prefer to avoid fluoride can choose to use fluoride-free dental products or install home water filters that remove fluoride,” Manning said. “There are alternatives to fluoride and complementary approaches for maintaining strong teeth and good oral health. Some of those alternatives are xylitol, hydroxyapatite and recaldent, just to name a few.”Lewis similarly advised reading the labels on your dental products if you want to cut down on your fluoride intake while opting for toothpastes and mouth rinses with other decay-preventing ingredients. She noted that the time and manner in which we eat, sleep and breath can also affect our oral health and thus overall health and wellness.“If you live in a city with fluoride, exposure will be inevitable,” Lewis said, listing sources like washed produce, showers and restaurant coffee, tea and water. “You can filter your water at home or purchase filtered water from a number of locations, but it is unlikely that you can completely eliminate your exposure.”It’s worth reiterating, however, that there has not been sufficient data to determine if the 0.7 milligram fluoride standard in the U.S. is linked to the health concerns critics have raised.And although Kennedy has promised to “advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” the federal government ultimately cannot decide whether a community fluoridates its water supply. That decision remains at the state and local level. We Don't Work For Billionaires. We Work For You.Big money interests are running the government — and influencing the news you read. While other outlets are retreating behind paywalls and bending the knee to political pressure, HuffPost is proud to be unbought and unfiltered. Will you help us keep it that way? You can even access our stories ad-free.You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again. We won't back down from our mission of providing free, fair news during this critical moment. But we can't do it without you.For the first time, we're offering an ad-free experience to qualifying contributors who support our fearless journalism. We hope you'll join us.You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again. We won't back down from our mission of providing free, fair news during this critical moment. But we can't do it without you.For the first time, we're offering an ad-free experience to qualifying contributors who support our fearless journalism. We hope you'll join us.Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.This story has been updated to reflect new announcements from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Here's what medical and public health experts are saying about the debate around fluoridation of drinking water.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced on Monday that he will direct the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to stop recommending water fluoridation nationwide

“It makes no sense to have [fluoride] in our water supply,” Kennedy told reporters during a visit to Utah. “I’m very, very proud of this state for being the first state to ban it, and I hope many more will come.”

But what exactly is fluoride? What does it do? And why are people like Kennedy calling for its removal from public water systems? We asked experts to break down the debate.

What is fluoride? Why is it in drinking water?

“Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral that belongs to a group of chemical compounds containing the element fluorine,” said Dr. Jarrett L. Manning, a dentist and founder of JLM Dental Studio. “It exists in various forms: sodium fluoride, stannous fluoride and sodium monofluorophosphate.”

Small amounts of fluoride are naturally present in soil, plants, water and certain foods, but it’s also added to drinking water and dental products due to its ability to strengthen tooth enamel and prevent cavities.

“Many communities add fluoride to public water supplies, a process known as water fluoridation, to improve oral health and help prevent tooth decay on a population level,” Manning explained.

Basically, acid-producing bacteria grows in the mouth, which dissolves minerals on the surface of teeth and can lead to tooth decay, or cavities. Fluoride prevents and stops that bacterial growth and can even reverse early tooth decay, thus reducing the need for treatments, which can be painful and expensive.

“Research over many years has shown that water fluoridation can significantly reduce the incidence of cavities in both children and adults, regardless of access to dental care,” said Dr. Cheryline Pezzullo, a clinical associate professor and director of community-based programs at New York University’s College of Dentistry. “By adding small, safe amounts of fluoride to the water supply, communities can reduce tooth decay across the board, particularly benefiting those who may not have regular access to dental care.”

Grand Rapids, Michigan, became the first city to fluoridate its public water supply, in 1945, and a decade later, the rate of cavities in local children had fallen 60% to 65%. Researchers reported similar findings among both kids and adults as more communities adopted fluoridation in the subsequent decades.

Today, more than 60% of the U.S. population receives fluoridated water.

The American Dental Association has long been a proponent of water fluoridation since its introduction and study,” said cosmetic dentist Dr. Amanda Lewis.

Other public health groups, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), similarly support this practice due to its benefits to oral and overall health. Preventing tooth decay lowers the need for treatments such as tooth extractions and fillings, and if left untreated, cavities can lead to serious abscesses, infections and even sepsis.

The Public Health Service recommends a concentration of 0.7 milligram of fluoride per liter of water in community systems, which the CDC equates to about three drops of water in a 55-gallon barrel. Communities that already have naturally higher levels of fluoride do not need fluoridation.

What’s the controversy?

“The controversy around fluoride in water often centers on questions about health risks, personal choice and concerns about overexposure,” Pezzullo said. “Although I do not agree, some argue that fluoride ― even in small amounts ― could have potential health risks and question the ethics of adding it to public water supplies.”

In recent years, communities across the U.S. have voted to stop fluoridating their water systems. Many experts believe that the anti-fluoridation movement gained more traction amid the growing mistrust of public health authorities and government overall during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Some people feel that adding fluoride to public water supplies violates their right to choose what goes into their bodies,” Manning noted.

In September, a federal judge in California ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency must strengthen regulations around water fluoridation to address concerns about potential health risks, particularly with regard to children’s cognitive development.

“There’s skepticism from certain groups about the long-term effects, despite decades of research showing its safety and effectiveness when used correctly,” Pezzullo said. “Additionally, misinformation and conflicting studies have created more confusion and lead to more public debate.”

Many skeptics point to a review from the National Toxicology Program, which concluded “with moderate confidence” that there is an association between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in children.

But that analysis is primarily based on studies conducted in other countries and involving fluoride concentrations of 1.5 milligrams per liter of water and above ― which is more than double the recommended limit for drinking water in the U.S.

“More studies are needed to fully understand the potential for lower fluoride exposure to affect children’s IQ,” the organization stated in its report.

The AAP has also expressed concerns about the limitations of the NTP’s review, including the high fluoride levels but also the geographic heterogeneity of the study populations, which hinders the ability to account for other factors that might affect IQ and assess whether the data is “accurate, comparable, or generalizable.” The organization noted that similar reviews from other groups have reached different conclusions and that the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine rejected two earlier drafts of the report.

Nico De Pasquale Photography via Getty Images

Tewodros R. Godebo, an assistant professor at the Tulane University Celia Scott Weatherhead School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine who studies fluoride, told HuffPost there’s still a shortage of research on public water fluoridation in the U.S.

“Before we make a policy decision to remove fluoride from U.S. public water supply systems, we need to get some questions answered,” he said. “We need more studies in the U.S. if we are going to make policy here, and the science is not yet consistent enough to make a decision.”

He pointed to the lack of data on fluoridation’s effect on adults and the inconsistent conclusions about any potential association between fluoride in developed countries’ community water systems and children’s cognitive development.

“If we find there is some association between IQ points and low fluoride exposure, then the next critical step would be to do a risk-benefit analysis because there is a benefit to water fluoridation in terms of dental health,” Godebo said.

“What would be the cost in terms of treating dental decay and associated diseases because it’s linked to our overall health and things like heart disease. What would the total IQ loss be in a child ― would it be one point? Then is our first step to reduce water fluoridation? Do we cut that 0.7 in half? This decision has to be based on strong science.”

These decisions might also have to vary on the local level in accordance with area-based data, which will likely differ across the U.S. Many fluoride studies are also limited by the challenge of accounting for other sources of fluoride exposure beyond water supply systems.

Critics have argued that adding fluoride to drinking water may no longer be as effective as it was when the practice first began due to the increased use of fluoride toothpaste over time. Some point to the large number of countries that do not fluoridate their public water but have still seen reductions in tooth decay. Future data from the American communities that have removed fluoride from their systems will presumably provide more clarity.

Meanwhile, misleading claims about fluoride’s potential harms have gained momentum. On Nov. 2, Kennedy asserted in a social media post that the mineral is associated with thyroid disease, arthritis and bone-related issues such as bone cancer and bone fractures.

Medical experts have responded by emphasizing the lack of rigorous U.S.-based research linking fluoride to thyroid disease and arthritis. As for bone health, repeated fluoride exposure above the recommended level can lead to skeletal fluorosis, which causes weakened bones, joint pain and stiffness, but that condition is extremely rare in the U.S.

Excessive fluoride exposure in children whose permanent teeth are still developing (usually up to the age of 8) can result in a cosmetic condition called dental fluorosis, which gives the teeth white spots, flecks or lines but does not cause pain or impair tooth function.

To address concerns about dental fluorosis, the U.S. government amended its recommendations on public water fluoridation in 2015. Though the previous guidance recommended 0.7 milligram per liter in warmer climates and 1.2 milligrams in cooler places, the standard became 0.7 everywhere.

Similarly, the ADA recommends very small amounts of fluoride toothpaste for young children to limit excess ingestion and prevent dental fluorosis.

Here’s what you should know if you’re concerned about fluoride in water.

Headlines can be alarming, so if you’re feeling overwhelmed by the fluoride debate taking place online and in the news, talk to your doctor, your dentist or your child’s pediatrician.

“For those who are new to the topic, it’s helpful to know that fluoride has been safely added to water supplies across many parts of the world since the 1940s, with a significant decrease in cavities as a result,” Pezzullo said.

She emphasized that fluoride levels in public drinking water are carefully regulated and monitored.

“While it’s good to be cautious, substantial amounts of scientific research have shown that fluoride at these regulated levels is safe and does not cause harm,” Pezzullo explained. “I give fluoridated water to my own toddler and brush his teeth with fluoridated toothpaste! I can always tell when a child is not exposed to fluoride when they sit in my chair as they always have more cavities than they should.”

Water fluoridation is a “simple but powerful health measure” that has been particularly beneficial for children and communities with limited access to dental care, she added. “As a dentist, I see the difference fluoride makes every day, especially in vulnerable populations.”

Assessing the relative benefits and risks of water fluoridation is crucial for making policy decisions at the government level and personal choices on an individual level.

Although the data has not been conclusive, preliminary research suggests that fluoride exposure during pregnancy could potentially lead to neurobehavioral issues in children. Experts who have studied this possible link are notably not calling for an end to water fluoridation, but they have suggested that pregnant women might want to opt for filtered water.

“Those who prefer to avoid fluoride can choose to use fluoride-free dental products or install home water filters that remove fluoride,” Manning said. “There are alternatives to fluoride and complementary approaches for maintaining strong teeth and good oral health. Some of those alternatives are xylitol, hydroxyapatite and recaldent, just to name a few.”

Lewis similarly advised reading the labels on your dental products if you want to cut down on your fluoride intake while opting for toothpastes and mouth rinses with other decay-preventing ingredients. She noted that the time and manner in which we eat, sleep and breath can also affect our oral health and thus overall health and wellness.

“If you live in a city with fluoride, exposure will be inevitable,” Lewis said, listing sources like washed produce, showers and restaurant coffee, tea and water. “You can filter your water at home or purchase filtered water from a number of locations, but it is unlikely that you can completely eliminate your exposure.”

It’s worth reiterating, however, that there has not been sufficient data to determine if the 0.7 milligram fluoride standard in the U.S. is linked to the health concerns critics have raised.

And although Kennedy has promised to “advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” the federal government ultimately cannot decide whether a community fluoridates its water supply. That decision remains at the state and local level.

We Don't Work For Billionaires. We Work For You.

Big money interests are running the government — and influencing the news you read. While other outlets are retreating behind paywalls and bending the knee to political pressure, HuffPost is proud to be unbought and unfiltered. Will you help us keep it that way? You can even access our stories ad-free.

You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again. We won't back down from our mission of providing free, fair news during this critical moment. But we can't do it without you.

For the first time, we're offering an ad-free experience to qualifying contributors who support our fearless journalism. We hope you'll join us.

You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again. We won't back down from our mission of providing free, fair news during this critical moment. But we can't do it without you.

For the first time, we're offering an ad-free experience to qualifying contributors who support our fearless journalism. We hope you'll join us.

Support HuffPost

Already contributed? Log in to hide these messages.

This story has been updated to reflect new announcements from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Wildfire Smoke Now Kills 41,000 Americans a Year, Study Finds

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterFRIDAY, Sept. 19, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Every summer, hazy skies and the smell of burning wood remind Americans...

FRIDAY, Sept. 19, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Every summer, hazy skies and the smell of burning wood remind Americans that wildfires affect far more than just the communities where they ignite.Their smoke drifts for hundreds, even thousands of miles, darkening the air in cities across the nation. But the health impact goes far beyond watery eyes and coughs.A new study shows wildfire smoke is now responsible for more than 41,000 deaths in the United States every year.And by 2050? Researchers warn that smoke could become the deadliest climate-driven threat to Americans, claiming tens of thousands more lives each year.Further, by midcentury, smoke-related deaths are expected to climb by another 26,500 to 30,000 per year, making wildfire smoke the deadliest climate-driven health threat for Americans, more dangerous than extreme heat, crop losses or rising energy costs, according to the study published Sept. 18 in the journal Nature.“Wildfire smoke is a much larger health risk than we might have understood previously,” study author Marshall Burke, a professor of environmental social sciences at Stanford University, said in a news report published by NBC News.The research estimated deaths by combining data with satellite smoke tracking and climate models. The results suggest wildfire smoke is erasing decades of clean air progress from the Clean Air Act, especially in western states and places such as New York.Experts warn that tiny particles in smoke can lodge deep in the lungs and enter the bloodstream, raising the risk of asthma, lung cancer, preterm birth, miscarriage and heart disease.And when wildfires burn buildings and plastics and not just trees, the mix of chemicals may be even more toxic.Dr. Joel Kaufman of the University of Washington, who studies air pollution, said, “These results imply, if anything, wildfire smoke may be more toxic” than other common forms of pollution.The study projects that the annual death toll tied to wildfire smoke will rise 64% to 73% by 2050.While the findings rely on models rather than individual death tracking, health leaders say, this shows why it’s urgent to act on climate change and protect the air we breathe.“It strengthens what we are saying about wildfires being connected to climate change and subsequent public health impacts,” said Dr. John Balmes of the American Lung Association.SOURCE: NBC News, Sept. 18, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Gas stove makers quietly delete air pollution warnings as they fight mandatory health labels

Manufacturers sued to stop a Colorado law requiring air quality warnings, arguing gas stoves are safe. Some of their websites once said the opposite.

The home appliance industry would like you to believe that gas-burning stoves are not a risk to your health — and several companies that make the devices are scrambling to erase their prior acknowledgements that they are.  That claim is at the heart of a lawsuit the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers has filed against the state of Colorado to stop it from requiring natural gas stoves, which burn methane, to carry health labels not unlike those on every pack of cigarettes. “Understand the air quality implications of having an indoor gas stove,” the warning would read. The law was to take effect August 5 but is now on hold, and state officials did not respond to a request for comment. In its federal lawsuit, the Association — whose board includes representatives of LG Electronics, BSH Home Appliance Corp. (which makes Bosch appliances), Whirlpool, and Samsung Electronics — asserts that the labeling requirement is “unconstitutional compelled speech” and illegal under the First Amendment. It calls the legislation a climate law disguised as a health law and, most strikingly, it claims there is “no association between gas stoves and adverse health outcomes.”  Yet LG, BSH, Whirlpool, and Samsung have published information on their websites directly contradicting that claim and lauded the health benefits of electric and induction stoves.  “Traditional gas appliances can emit harmful pollutants, which can compromise indoor air quality and pose health risks,” reads a blog post, titled “Life’s Good When It’s Electrified,” that LG published in May of 2024. “By switching to electric appliances, these risks are substantially reduced, ensuring a cleaner and safer home environment.”  Another LG page noted that “induction surfaces remain cool to the touch and unlike gas, is better for kitchen air quality” as recently as May 25, according to an archived version of the site maintained by Wayback Machine. It was later revised to eliminate mention of gas, reading “Surfaces remain cool to the touch — no open flames or hot coils. No fumes, either, so it’s [sic] air quality-friendly.” BSH’s page on Bosch induction cooktops notes that the devices are “safer to use because unlike other types of cooktops, they do not release indoor air pollutants during cooking.” Whirlpool wrote that induction cooktops might help “reduce indoor air pollutants.”  And until last week, a page on Samsung’s U.S. website said “induction cooktops can … help remove concerns over indoor air pollution, creating a sustainable and healthier home environment. The page’s source code did not appear to have been updated since 2022. Samsung did not respond to multiple requests for comment, but the page was taken down shortly after Grist reached out to the company.  Itai Vardi, a researcher with the Energy and Policy Institute, was the first to notice the discrepancies between what the Association said in its lawsuit and what some of its manufacturers have said in the past. “The statements coming from them directly contradict the very strong language in this lawsuit,” Vardi said. “And that, I think, deserves some scrutiny.” Scientific evidence that gas stoves pollute by releasing dangerous concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, benzene, and methane has accumulated since 1970. Justin Paget / Getty Images In its lawsuit, the Association argues that “the potential health risks of cooking with gas are no different than cooking with electricity” and acknowledging the ways gas-burning appliances can harm respiratory health promotes “non-consensus, scientifically controversial, and factually misleading” messages. It adds that “there is scant scientific support” for disclosing health risks associated with gas appliances.  Asked for comment, the organization referred to a statement it issued August 6 saying “no study has found that gas stoves cause respiratory health issues.”  When reached for comment, a BSH representative stated that the company is as of now “in complete alignment” with the Association’s position. An LG representative noted that the most pollution-acknowledging statements on their website were in fact made by the company’s UK branch, but did not respond to a follow-up question about whether the UK and US divisions disagree on the risks of LG products. “This is a troubling attempt by these companies’ to quickly erase their own public acknowledgement of the dangers of gas stoves,” said Vardi. “But you can scrub your website, not the fact of gas stove pollution.”  Scientific evidence that gas stoves pollute by releasing dangerous concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, benzene, and methane has piled up for the past half-century. In 1970, scientist Carl Shy showed that families exposed to high levels of nitrogen dioxide indoors are at greater risk of asthma and other respiratory illnesses than those who are not. Nine years later, scientist Bernard Goldstein identified the fuel as the likely source of all that nitrogen. A bevy of studies and papers in the decades since came to similar conclusions. One 2022 study estimated that 12 percent of American children with asthma develop that respiratory condition solely due to living in homes with gas stoves.  Appliance manufacturers and the natural gas industry are no stranger to promoting their products regardless of known health risks. “There’s been a campaign by industry to keep the science under wraps or to confuse it, deny it,” said Abe Scarr of the consumer-protection nonprofit Public Interest Working Group.  The lobbyists at the American Gas Association have worked hard to popularize gas stoves: At one point, the organization even provided the stoves Julia Child used in her popular cooking show. The campaign went beyond product placement: When information on the health risks of gas stoves began to emerge in the mid-1970s, industry lobbyists launched “Operation Attack,” a million-dollar marketing campaign to bring the stoves into even more kitchens. This worked: today, about 40% of Americans cook with gas. They also funded their own research, which cast doubt on independent findings on the health risks of gas stoves.  Environmental health sciences professor Misbath Daouda of the University of California, Berkeley, was recently part of a pilot study replacing gas stoves in low-income New York City apartments with induction stoves. Nitrogen dioxide concentrations in those apartments, she said, dropped by over 50 percent within months – and the families who lived there liked their new cooktops better than the old ones, she said.  The association between gas stoves and adverse health outcomes, Daouda said, “is clear.”  “I’m not sure who they are referring to when they say the majority of studies” don’t support that conclusion, she said. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Gas stove makers quietly delete air pollution warnings as they fight mandatory health labels on Sep 17, 2025.

New Biomarker Could Detect Alzheimer’s Years Before Symptoms Appear

TSPO levels rise early in Alzheimer’s and persist throughout disease. Targeting this biomarker could open new treatment options. TSPO, a major marker of brain inflammation, may offer a way to detect Alzheimer’s disease long before memory problems and other symptoms develop. Findings published in Acta Neuropathologica suggest it could transform both diagnosis and treatment strategies. [...]

A new study suggests that TSPO, a key biomarker of brain inflammation, may reveal the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s disease long before symptoms appear. Credit: StockTSPO levels rise early in Alzheimer’s and persist throughout disease. Targeting this biomarker could open new treatment options. TSPO, a major marker of brain inflammation, may offer a way to detect Alzheimer’s disease long before memory problems and other symptoms develop. Findings published in Acta Neuropathologica suggest it could transform both diagnosis and treatment strategies. “This is the first study to really examine how early this biomarker increases and where it begins rising in the brain,” said Tomás R. Guilarte, lead researcher and dean of FIU’s Robert Stempel College of Public Health & Social Work. “If we can use this information to help delay Alzheimer’s progression by even five years, it can drastically improve patients’ lives and reduce disease prevalence.” Longstanding research on TSPO Guilarte, a recognized authority on TSPO (translocator protein 18 kDa), has investigated the protein for more than 30 years. His research helped establish it as a dependable imaging marker for identifying neuroinflammation across multiple neurological, neurodegenerative, and psychiatric conditions. Researchers Daniel Martínez Pérez (L) and Dr. Tomás R. Guilarte (R) in the Brain, Behavior and the Environment Laboratory at Florida International University. Guilarte and Martínez Pérez published a study that found TSPO, a key biomarker of brain inflammation, could help detect Alzheimer’s disease years before memory loss and other symptoms set in. Credit: Chris Necuze, Florida International UniversityFor the current study, Guilarte and colleagues applied advanced imaging techniques to track TSPO activity in genetically engineered mouse models of familial Alzheimer’s. They then validated these results using donated brain tissue from members of the world’s largest community with early-onset familial Alzheimer’s, based in Antioquia, Colombia. These families carry the “paisa” mutation, first identified by the late Dr. Francisco Lopera, a co-author of the study who spent his career searching for ways to prevent Alzheimer’s. Individuals with this genetic variant often develop symptoms in their 30s or 40s and typically die in their 50s. L: The original cell image. R: The same cell image zoomed in and rendered in the special imaging software. Microglia (blue) signaling TSPO (red) are clustered around plaques (cyan). Researchers at Florida International University published a study that found TSPO, a key biomarker of brain inflammation, could help detect Alzheimer’s disease years before memory loss and other symptoms set in.  Credit: Chris Necuze, Florida International UniversityEarly changes in the hippocampus In the mouse model, researchers detected elevated TSPO levels in the subiculum – a critical part of the hippocampus – as early as six weeks of age, roughly equivalent to age 18–20 in humans. Microglia, the brain’s main immune cells, specifically those clustered around amyloid plaques, had the highest levels of TSPO. Notably, female mice had higher TSPO levels, mirroring real-world statistics: two-thirds of Alzheimer’s patients are women. Daniel Martínez Pérez holds tissue sample. Martínez Pérez, a researcher in Florida International University’s Robert Stempel College of Public Health & Social Work, is the first author of a study that found TSPO, a key biomarker of brain inflammation, could help detect Alzheimer’s disease years before memory loss and other symptoms set in. Credit: Chris Necuze, Florida International UniversityThe brain tissue samples from the Colombian patients with the paisa mutation showed the same pattern. Even in late-stage Alzheimer’s, TSPO remained high in microglia near plaques. These results raise new questions about TSPO’s function – whether it contributes to damage or protects the brain – and whether blocking or enhancing it could halt disease progression. Next steps in research The team is now working with a specially developed Alzheimer’s mouse model lacking TSPO to explore these questions further. They’re also expanding the study to include sporadic, late-onset Alzheimer’s cases, the form that accounts for over 90% of all diagnoses. Researchers Dr. Tomás R. Guilarte (L) and Daniel Martínez Pérez (R) in the Brain, Behavior and the Environment Laboratory at Florida International University. Guilarte and Martínez Pérez published a study that found TSPO, a key biomarker of brain inflammation, could help detect Alzheimer’s disease years before memory loss and other symptoms set in. Credit: Chris Necuze, Florida International University“The more we understand these processes,” said Daniel Martínez Pérez, first author and Ph.D. candidate in Guilarte’s lab, “the closer we get to tailoring treatments that can truly help – before it’s too late.” Reference: “Amyloid-β plaque-associated microglia drive TSPO upregulation in Alzheimer’s disease” by Daniel A. Martinez-Perez, Jennifer L. McGlothan, Alexander N. Rodichkin, Karam Abilmouna, Zoran Bursac, Francisco Lopera, Carlos Andres Villegas-Lanau and Tomás R. Guilarte, 17 July 2025, Acta Neuropathologica.DOI: 10.1007/s00401-025-02912-4 This work was supported by grants ES007062-24 to T.R.G. from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), ES007062-23S1 to T.R.G. from the National Institute on Aging, and T32-ES033955 to A.N.R. from the NIEHS. Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.

Living Near Polluted Missouri Creek as a Child Tied to Later Cancer Risk

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, July 17, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Folks who grew up near a polluted Missouri creek during the 1940s...

THURSDAY, July 17, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Folks who grew up near a polluted Missouri creek during the 1940s through 1960s may have higher odds for cancer now, new research shows.The study focused on Coldwater Creek in St. Louis County. The area was contaminated with radioactive waste from the U.S. government’s atomic bomb program during World War II.Back then, uranium was processed in St. Louis and nuclear waste was stored near the city’s airport. That waste leaked into Coldwater Creek, which runs through several residential neighborhoods.Researchers found that people who lived within one kilometer (0.62 miles) of the creek as kids had an 85% higher risk of developing certain cancers later in life compared to those who lived more than 20 kilometers (12.4 miles) away.Those cancers include leukemia, thyroid cancer and breast cancer, which are known to be linked to radiation exposure.“The closer the childhood residence got to Coldwater Creek, the risk of cancer went up, and pretty dramatically," lead researcher Marc Weisskopf, a professor of epidemiology at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told The Wall Street Journal.For the study, Weisskopf’s team surveyed more than 4,200 adults who lived in the St. Louis area as children between 1958 and 1970.These people had donated their baby teeth years ago for radiation research. The new survey asked about cancer and other health issues.About 1 in 4 participants said they had been diagnosed with cancer. Risk dropped the farther someone lived from the creek as a child.Outside experts who reviewed the findings described them as concerning.“It emphasizes the importance of appreciating that radioactive waste is carcinogenic, particularly to children, and that we have to ensure that we have to clean up any remaining waste that’s out there,” Dr. Rebecca Smith-Bindman, a radiation risk expert at the University of California, San Francisco, told The Journal.In 2024, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began placing warning signs along parts of the creek that still have radioactive waste, The Journal reported.The U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry reported in 2019 that contamination have raised the risk of leukemia and lung and bone cancer. Later exposures, starting in the 2000s, were linked to a slight increase in lung cancer for those who lived nearby.But the agency said it’s hard to link any one person’s cancer directly to radiation. Genetics, lifestyle and other factors could also play a role.In this study, radiation exposure wasn’t directly measured. Cancer cases were also self-reported, not confirmed by medical records. Weisskopf plans to measure radiation levels using the stored baby teeth in future research.Radiation exposure has long been tied to cancer, but this study is among the first to look at lower, long-term environmental exposure in the U.S., not just high levels from nuclear disasters or bombings."Radiation, when it’s given unnecessarily, only causes risk," Dr. Howard Sandler, chair of radiation oncology at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, told The Journal.SOURCE: The Wall Street Journal, July 16, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.