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

Light Pollution Harming Heart Health, Study Says

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

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

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

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

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

Wildfire Smoke Might Damage Male Fertility

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

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

AirPods Pro 3 review: better battery, better noise cancelling, better earbuds

Top Apple buds get upgraded sound, improved fit, live translation and built-in heart rate sensors, but are still unrepairableApple’s extremely popular AirPods Pro Bluetooth earbuds are back for their third generation with a better fit, longer battery life, built-in heart rate sensors and more effective noise cancelling, and look set to be just as ubiquitous as their predecessors.It has been three years since the last model, but the earbuds still come only in white and you really have to squint at the details to spot the difference from the previous two generations. Continue reading...

Apple’s extremely popular AirPods Pro Bluetooth earbuds are back for their third generation with a better fit, longer battery life, built-in heart rate sensors and more effective noise cancelling, and look set to be just as ubiquitous as their predecessors.The Guardian’s journalism is independent. We will earn a commission if you buy something through an affiliate link. Learn more.It has been three years since the last model, but the earbuds still come only in white and you really have to squint at the details to spot the difference from the previous two generations.The AirPods Pro 3 cost £219 (€249/$249/A$429), making them £30 cheaper in the UK than when their predecessors launched, and sit above the AirPods 4, which cost £169 with noise cancelling for those who don’t like silicone earbud tips.The shape of the earbuds has been tweaked, changing slightly the way you put them in and making them more comfortable than their predecessors for extended listening sessions of three hours or more. Five sizes of tips are included in the box, but if you didn’t get on with silicone earbuds before these won’t make a difference.The stalks are the same length as before, but the shape of the earbud has been changed to better align the tip with your ear canal. Photograph: Samuel Gibbs/The GuardianMost of the features are fairly standard for modern earbuds. Squeeze the stalks for playback controls, swipe for volume or take them out to pause the music. They support the same new features rolled out to Apple’s older earbuds, including the ability to use them as a shutter remote for the camera app and for live translation with the Translate app on the iPhone. The latter is limited to English, French, German, Portuguese and Spanish for now and isn’t available in the EU, but it works surprisingly well for casual conversations.The biggest problem is that the other person will have to rely on reading or hearing your translated speech from your iPhone. I can see it being most useful with announcements or audio guides – the kind you get on transport or in museums where you need only to translate language one way.The most interesting added hardware feature is heart rate monitoring via sensors on the side of the earbuds, similar to Apple’s Powerbeats Pro 2 fitness buds. They can be used with more than 50 workouts started in the Fitness app or a handful of third-party apps on the iPhone and proved to be roughly in line with readings from a Garmin Forerunner 970 or an Apple Watch during walks and runs. The earbuds are water-resistant to IP57 standards, which makes them much more robust against rain and sweat than before.The battery life has been increased by a third to at least eight hours of playback with noise cancelling for each charge, which is very competitive with some of the best rivals and long enough for most listening sessions.The compact flip-top case provides two full charges for a total playback time of 24 hours – six hours short of the previous generation, but five minutes in the case is enough for an hour of listening time. Photograph: Samuel Gibbs/The GuardianSpecifications Connectivity: Bluetooth 5.3, SBC, AAC, H2 chip, UWB Battery life: eight hours ANC playback (24 hours with case) Water resistance: IP57 (buds and case) Earbud dimensions: 30.9 x 19.2 x 27.0mm Earbud weight: 5.6g each Charging case dimensions: 47.2 x 62.2 x 21.8mm Charging case weight: 44g Case charging: USB-C, Qi wireless/MagSafe, Apple Watch Bigger sound and impressive noise cancellingThe silicone earbuds are infused with foam in the tips that expands slightly for a better seal for music and noise cancelling. Photograph: Samuel Gibbs/The GuardianThe sound of the third-generation AirPods Pro takes a great listen and makes it bigger. They have a wider soundscape that makes big tracks sound more expansive, while still maintaining strong but nicely controlled bass. They are detailed, well-balanced and do justice to different genres of music, with plenty of power and punch where needed. As with Apple’s other headphones, they sometimes sound a little too clinical, lacking a bit of warmth or rawness in some tracks, and they can’t quite hit the very deepest of notes for skull-rattling bass. However, few earbuds sound better at this price and size.Apple’s implementation of spatial audio for surround sound for movies remains best in class, adding to the immersion with compatible devices and services, even if spatial audio music remains a mixed bag.The AirPods Pro are the best combination of earbuds and compact case that you can easily fit in a pocket. Photograph: Samuel Gibbs/The GuardianThe improved noise cancelling is the best upgrade. Apple says it is twice as effective as the already good AirPods Pro 2, which sounds about right. In side-by-side comparisons, the AirPods Pro 3 handle street noise, including cars, horns and engines, almost as well as the class-leading Sony WH-1000XM6, which is thoroughly impressive given they are large over-ear headphones, not little earbuds.They also do a great job of dampening the troublesome higher tones such as keyboard clicks and speech, making the commute and office work more bearable.Apple’s class-leading transparency mode is just as good on the new earbuds, sounding natural as if you weren’t actually wearing the earbuds. It makes using them as hearing aids or out on the street with some dampening of sudden loud sounds very good indeed.Call quality is first-rate, and my voice sounded clear and natural in quiet or noisy environments with only a hint of road noise from some loud streets audible on the call.SustainabilityThe case charges via USB-C, MagSafe, Qi or Apple Watch charger, and has a new feature to limit charging of the earbuds to prolong their battery health. Photograph: Samuel Gibbs/The GuardianApple does not provide an expected lifespan for the batteries. Those in similar devices typically maintain at least 80% of their original capacity for 500 full charge cycles. The earbuds are not repairable, but Apple offers a battery service for £49 per earbud or case and offers replacements for those lost or damaged costing from £79 an item. The repair specialists iFixit rated the earbuds zero out of 10 for repairability.The AirPods and case contain 40% recycled material by weight including aluminium, cobalt, copper, gold, lithium, plastic, rare earth elements and tin. Apple offers trade-in and free recycling schemes and breaks down the environmental impact of the earbuds in its report.PriceThe AirPods Pro 3 cost £219 (€249/$249/A$429).For comparison, the AirPods 4 start at £119, the Beats Powerbeats Pro 2 cost £250, the Sennheiser Momentum TW4 cost £199, the Google Pixel Buds Pro 2 cost £219, the Sony WF-1000XM5 cost £219 and the Bose QuietComfort Ultra earbuds cost £300.VerdictThe AirPods Pro 3 take what was great about the ubiquitous second-generation models and improves almost everything.Longer battery life and a better, more comfortable fit for extended listening sessions are very welcome, as is the bigger, wider sound. Proper water resistance and built-in heart rate monitoring makes them useful for workouts, particularly those such as powerlifting that make wearing a watch difficult. The live translation feature worked better than expected, but has limitations that make it less useful for real-life conversations.The best bit is very effective noise cancelling that rivals some of the greatest over-ear headphones, but in a tiny set of earbuds that are much easier to carry around.Audiophiles will find they sound a little too clinical. While they work with any Bluetooth device, including Android phones, PCs and games consoles, they require an iPhone, iPad or Mac for full functionality. But the biggest letdown remains repairability, which remains a problem for most true wireless earbuds and loses them a star. Pros: very effective noise cancelling, great sound, best-in-class transparency, water resistance, built-in HR monitoring, great controls, advanced features with Apple devices including spatial audio, very comfortable, excellent case, top class call quality. Cons: extremely difficult to repair, expensive, no hi-res audio support, lack features when connected to Android/Windows, look the same as predecessors, only available in white. The AirPods Pro 3 are some of the very best earbuds you can buy, particularly if you use an iPhone. Photograph: Samuel Gibbs/The Guardian

If You Want to Stay Healthy and Care About Humanity, Here’s What to Eat

This story was originally published by Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Adoption of a plant-rich “planetary health diet” could prevent 40,000 early deaths a day across the world, according to a landmark report. The diet—which allows moderate meat consumption—and related measures would also slash the food-related emissions driving global heating by […]

This story was originally published by Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Adoption of a plant-rich “planetary health diet” could prevent 40,000 early deaths a day across the world, according to a landmark report. The diet—which allows moderate meat consumption—and related measures would also slash the food-related emissions driving global heating by half by 2050. Today, a third of greenhouse gas emissions come from the global food system and taming the climate crisis is impossible without changing how the world eats, the researchers said. Food production is also the biggest cause of the destruction of wildlife and forests and the pollution of water. The planetary health diet (PHD) sets out how the world can simultaneously improve the health of people and the planet, and provide enough food for an expected global population of 9.6 billion people by 2050. “This is not a deprivation diet…” It “could be delicious, aspirational and healthy.” The diet is flexible, allowing it to be adapted to local tastes, and can include some animal products or be vegetarian or vegan. However, all versions advise eating more vegetables, fruits, nuts, legumes and whole grains than most people in the world currently eat. In many places, today’s diets are unhealthy and unsustainable due to too much meat, milk and cheese, animal fats and sugar. People in the US and Canada eat more than seven times the PHD’s recommended amount of red meat, while it is five times more in Europe and Latin America, and four times more in China. However, in some regions where people’s diets are heavily reliant on starchy foods, such as sub-Saharan Africa, a small increase in chicken, dairy and eggs would be beneficial to health, the report found. North American adult diets in 2020 versus planetary health recommendation, daily per capita intake in grammesGuardian Severe inequalities in the food system must also be ended to achieve healthy and sustainable diets, the researchers said. The wealthiest 30 percent of the world’s population generates more than 70 percent of food-related environmental damage, it found. Furthermore, 2.8 billion people cannot afford a healthy diet and 1 billion are undernourished, despite enough food being produced globally. The food system is also failing the 1 billion people living with obesity, the report said. The report recommends shifting taxes to make unhealthy food more costly and healthy food cheaper, regulating the advertising of unhealthy food and using warning labels, and the shifting of today’s massive agricultural subsidies to healthier and more sustainable foods. “What we put on our plates can save millions of lives, cut billions of tonnes of emissions, halt the loss of biodiversity, and create a fairer food system,” said Prof Johan Rockström, who co-chaired the EAT-Lancet Commission that produced the report. “The evidence is undeniable: transforming food systems is not only possible, it’s essential to securing a safe, just, and sustainable future for all.” “This is not a deprivation diet,” said Prof Walter Willett of the Harvard TH Chan school of public health, and another commission co-chair. “This is something that could be delicious, aspirational and healthy. It also allows for cultural diversity and individual preferences, providing flexibility.” “Our recommendations are grounded in scientific evidence and real-world experience.” The report, published in the Lancet, was produced by 70 leading experts from 35 countries and six continents. It builds on the 2019 report that introduced the PHD, but includes new evidence of the health benefits of the diet. “We have been able to look at this diet in relation to health outcomes such as total mortality, diabetes, respiratory diseases, heart disease, stroke, etc and we found very strong inverse relationships” said Willett. The diet was also linked to reduced cancer and neurodegenerative diseases. Overall, the researchers estimated global adoption of the PHD could prevent 15m early deaths a year in adults. The estimate did not include the impact of the diet reducing obesity, meaning it is probably an underestimate. The PHD recommends plant-rich, flexible diets, including: Fruits and vegetables—at least five portions a day Whole grains—three to four portions a day Nuts—one portion per day Legumes (beans, peas, lentils)—one portion per day Dairy—one serving of milk, yoghurt or cheese portions a day Eggs —three to four a week Chicken—two portions a week Fish—two portions a week Red meat—one portion a week Marco Springmann from UCL in the UK and an author of the report said the differences between the PHD and current diets vary: “What needs to be reduced differs a lot. In low income countries, it’s the starchy foods and grains, whereas in high income countries it is animal-sourced foods, sugar, saturated fats, and dairy. It’s insane how much dairy is consumed in Europe and North America.” The data underlying the report is available online and can be used to tailor different planetary health diets for the tastes of people in specific countries and of different ages. The website also shows how much the diets reduce deaths, improve nutrition, and cut environmental impacts. “Hopefully this will lead to more science-based policymaking,” said Springmann. The PHD is better than current average diets for many nutrients, including fatty acids, fibre, folate, magnesium and zinc. Adequate iron and vitamin B12 could be provided by green leafy vegetables, fermented soy foods and algae, the researchers said. Moving diets towards the PHD could be achieved by helping consumers make better everyday choices, said Line Gordon, director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre, for example by shifting taxes to make healthy foods cheaper, and putting warning labels on unhealthy foods. “But it is not just about getting prices lower, it’s also about bringing purchasing power up so that people can afford a healthier diet” she said. “Our recommendations are grounded in scientific evidence and real-world experience,” Gordon said. “Changes are already under way, from school meal programmes to regenerative agriculture and food waste reduction initiatives.” England banned price promotions on unhealthy foods on Wednesday and will ban advertising such foods online. The report estimates that food-related ill health and environmental damage costs society about $15 trillion a year. It said investments to transform the food system would cost $200 billion to $500 billion a year, but save $5 trillion. Alongside a shift in diets, the report calls for other changes to the food system, including cutting the loss and waste of food, greener farming practices, and decent working conditions, as a third of food workers earn below living wages. The launch of the PHD in 2019 led to attacks from meat industry interests. Rockström said: “The [new report] is a landmark achievement. It is a state-of-the-art scientific assessment that quantifies healthy diets for all human beings in the world and the environmental boundaries all food systems need to meet to stay safe. So we have a really rigorous foundation for our [results]. We are ready to meet that assault.”

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.