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

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.

Disposable Vapes Release Toxic Metals, Lab Study Says

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterFRIDAY, July 11, 2025 (HealthDay News) — People using cheap disposable vape devices are likely inhaling high...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterFRIDAY, July 11, 2025 (HealthDay News) — People using cheap disposable vape devices are likely inhaling high levels of toxic metals with every puff, a recent study says.After a few hundred puffs, some disposable vapes start releasing levels of toxic metals higher than found in either last-generation refillable e-cigarettes or traditional tobacco smokes, researchers reported in the journal ACS Central Science.These metals can increase a person’s risk of cancer, lung disease and nerve damage, researchers said.“Our study highlights the hidden risk of these new and popular disposable electronic cigarettes — with hazardous levels of neurotoxic lead and carcinogenic nickel and antimony — which stresses the need for urgency in enforcement,” senior researcher Brett Poulin, an assistant professor of environmental toxicology at the University of California-Davis, said in a news release.Earlier studies found that the heating elements of refillable vapes could release metals like chromium and nickel into the vapor people breathe.For this study, researchers analyzed seven disposable devices from three well-known vape brands: ELF Bars, Flum Pebbles and Esco Bar.Before they were even used, some of the devices had surprisingly high levels of lead and antimony, researchers reported. The lead appears to have come from leaded copper alloys used in the devices, which leach into the e-liquid.The team then activated the disposable vapes, creating between 500 and 1,500 puffs for each device, to see whether their heating elements would release more metals.Analysis of the vapor revealed that:Levels of metals like chromium, nickel and antimony increased as the number of puffs increased, while concentrations of zinc, copper and lead were elevated at the start. Most of the tested disposables released higher amounts of metals than older refillable vapes. One disposable released more lead during a day’s use than one would get from nearly 20 packs of tobacco cigarettes. Nickel in three devices and antimony in two devices exceeded cancer risk limits. Four devices had nickel and lead emissions that surpassed health risk thresholds for diseases other than cancer. These results reflect only three of the nearly 100 disposable vape brands now available on store shelves, researchers noted.“Coupling the high element exposures and health risks associated with these devices and their prevalent use among the underage population, there is an urgent need for regulators to investigate this issue further and exercise regulatory enforcement accordingly,” researchers wrote.SOURCES: American Chemical Society, news release, June 20, 2025; ACS Central Science, June 25, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Trying to Quit Smoking? These Expert-Backed Tips Can Help

By David Hill, MD, Chair, Board of Directors, American Lung Association HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, July 10, 2025 (HealthDay News) — According to...

THURSDAY, July 10, 2025 (HealthDay News) — According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2022, the majority of the 28.8 million U.S. adults who smoked cigarettes wanted to quit; approximately half had tried to quit, but fewer than 10% were successful.Many folks say quitting smoking was the hardest thing they have ever done. This includes people who have climbed mountains, corporate ladders, tackled childbirth and raised families.Successfully overcoming tobacco addiction is a process, and it takes time. It can’t be done at once. Individuals taught themselves how to smoke, vape or chew tobacco products and practiced for so long that the behavior became as automatic as breathing, eating or sleeping.Quitting, then, is a process of overcoming addiction and learned behaviors. Individuals must learn to manage nicotine addiction, unlearn their automatic behavior of tobacco use, and replace it with healthy new alternatives.Because tobacco dependence is a chronic relapsing condition, Freedom From Smoking® identifies quitting tobacco use and maintaining abstinence as a process in which a person may cycle through multiple periods of relapse and remission before experiencing long-term lifestyle and behavior change.The CDC suggests that it takes eight to 11 attempts before quitting permanently.It’s essential to understand three challenges associated with quitting and create a plan to address each with proven-effective strategies:1. Psychological Link of Nicotine Addiction Over time, using tobacco products becomes an automatic behavior that needs to be unlearned.  After quitting, emotions can overwhelm a person.  Grief can also play an important role in the quitting process.  Create support systems through counseling classes, and among family, friends and co-workers. Mark a calendar for every day you are tobacco-free and reward yourself for days you avoid use. Use positive self-talk when cravings arise, such as “the urge will pass whether I smoke or not” or “smoking is not an option for me.”2. Sociocultural Link of Nicotine AddictionCertain activities and environmental cues can trigger the urge to smoke. As people mature, social factors or cues play a role in continuing use.  People who use tobacco may be reluctant to give up those connections or routines.  Identify your triggers and use replacements such as cinnamon sticks, doodling on a notepad or finding another activity to keep your hands busy. Create change and break routine by using the 3 A’s — AVOID (the situation), ALTER (the situation) or ALTERNATIVE (substitute something else). Keep a quit kit/survival kit with you at all times with items you can use to replace tobacco product use when the urge comes.3. Biological (Physical) Link of Nicotine AddictionAddiction occurs when a substance — like nicotine, alcohol or cocaine — enters the brain and activates the brain’s receptors for that substance, producing pleasure.  When a person quits, the brain’s nicotine receptors activate, creating cravings and withdrawal symptoms.  Over time, the receptors become inactive, and the withdrawal symptoms and urges to use fade away. Use cessation medications approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (prescription or over-the-counter) in the proper doses for the full time period recommended by a clinician. Do not stop treatment early. Exercise alternative ways to release dopamine such as physical activity or listening to music.  Use stress management techniques, including deep breathing and relaxation exercises, daily if possible.Nearly 2 in 3 adults who have ever smoked cigarettes have successfully quit, according to the CDC You can, too! To learn more about strategies for countering the challenges associated with the three-link chain of nicotine addiction, visit Quit Smoking & Vaping | American Lung Association.Dr. David Hill is a member of the Lung Association's National Board of Directors and is the immediate past chair of the Northeast Regional Board of the American Lung Association. He serves on the Leadership Board of the American Lung Association in Connecticut and is a former chair of that board. He is a practicing pulmonary and critical care physician with Waterbury Pulmonary Associates and serves as their director of clinical research. He is an assistant clinical professor of medicine at the Yale University School of Medicine, an assistant clinical professor at the Frank Netter School of Medicine at Quinnipiac University, and a clinical instructor at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine.Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Lead Exposure Can Harm Kids' Memory, Study Says

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, July 10, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Even low levels of lead exposure can harm kids' working memory,...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, July 10, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Even low levels of lead exposure can harm kids' working memory, potentially affecting their education and development, according to a new study.Exposure to lead in the womb or during early childhood appears to increase kids' risk of memory decay, accelerating the rate at which they forget information, researchers reported July 9 in the journal Science Advances.“There may be no more important a trait than the ability to form memories. Memories define who we are and how we learn,” said senior researcher Dr. Robert Wright, chair of environmental medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City.“This paper breaks new ground by showing how environmental chemicals can interfere with the rate of memory formation,” Wright said in a news release.For the study, researchers took blood lead measurements from the mothers of 576 children in Mexico during the second and third trimester of pregnancy. Later, the team took samples directly from the kids themselves, at ages 4 to 6.Between 6 and 8 years of age, the kids took a test called the delayed matching-to-sample task, or DMST, to measure their rate of forgetting.In the test, kids had to remember a simple shape for up to 32 seconds after it had been briefly shown to them, and then choose it from three offered options.The test lasted for 15 minutes, with correct responses rewarding the child with tokens that could be exchanged for a toy at the end of the experiment.“Children with higher levels of blood lead forgot the test stimulus faster than those with low blood lead levels,” Wright said.Researchers noted that the Mexican children in the study had higher median blood lead levels than those typically found in U.S. kids 6 to 10 years old – 1.7 Ug/dL versus 0.5 Ug/dL. (Median means half were higher, half were lower.)Children in Mexico are exposed to lead through commonly used lead-glazed ceramics used to cook, store and serve food, researchers said.However, the Mexican kids’ blood lead levels were still lower than the 3.5 Ug/dL level used by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to identify kids in the United States with more lead exposure than others, researchers added.“In the U.S., the reduction of environmental exposures to lead, such as lead-based paint in homes, lead pipes, and lead in foods such as spices, is still of continued importance as even low levels of lead can have detrimental effects on children’s cognitive function and development,” researchers wrote in their paper.This study also shows that the DMST test can be used to help test the effect of other environmental hazards on kids’ memory, researchers said.“Children are exposed to many environmental chemicals, and this model provides a validated method to further assess the effect of additional environmental exposures, such as heavy metals, air pollution, or endocrine disruptors, on children’s working memory,” co-lead researcher Katherine Svensson, a postdoctoral fellow in environmental medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, said in a news release.SOURCES: Mount Sinai, news release, July 9, 2025; Science Advances, July 9, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Nearly Half of Americans Still Live With High Levels of Air Pollution, Posing Serious Health Risks, Report Finds

The most recent State of the Air report by the American Lung Association found that more than 150 million Americans breathe air with unhealthy levels of ozone or particle pollution

Nearly Half of Americans Still Live With High Levels of Air Pollution, Posing Serious Health Risks, Report Finds The most recent State of the Air report by the American Lung Association found that more than 150 million Americans breathe air with unhealthy levels of ozone or particle pollution Lillian Ali - Staff Contributor April 25, 2025 12:50 p.m. For 25 of the 26 years the American Lung Association has reported State of the Air, Los Angeles—pictured here in smog—has been declared the city with the worst ozone pollution in the United States. David Iliff via Wikimedia Commons under CC BY-SA 3.0 Since 2000, the American Lung Association has released an annual State of the Air report analyzing air quality data across the United States. This year’s report, released on Wednesday, found the highest number of people exposed to unhealthy levels of air pollution in a decade. According to the findings, 156 million Americans—or 46 percent of the U.S. population—live with levels of particle or ozone pollution that received a failing grade. “Both these types of pollution cause people to die,” Mary Rice, a pulmonologist at Harvard University, tells NPR’s Alejandra Borunda. “They shorten life expectancy and drive increases in asthma rates.” Particle pollution, also called soot pollution, is made up of minuscule solid and liquid particles that hang in the air. They’re often emitted by fuel combustion, like diesel- and gasoline-powered cars or the burning of wood. Ozone pollution occurs when polluting gases are hit by sunlight, leading to a reaction that forms ozone smog. Breathing in ozone can irritate your lungs, causing shortness of breath, coughing or asthma attacks. The 2025 State of the Air report, which analyzed air quality data from 2021 to 2023, found 25 million more people breathing polluted air compared to the 2024 report. The authors link this rise to climate change. “There’s definitely a worsening trend that’s driven largely by climate change,” Katherine Pruitt, the lead author of the report and national senior director for policy at the American Lung Association, tells USA Today’s Ignacio Calderon. “Every year seems to be a bit hotter globally, resulting in more extreme weather events, more droughts, more extreme heat and more wildfires.” Those wildfires produce the sooty particles that contribute to particulate pollution, while extreme heat creates more favorable conditions for ozone formation, producing smog. While climate change is contributing to heavy air pollution, it used to be much worse. Smog has covered cities like Los Angeles since the early 20th century. At one point, these “hellish clouds” of smog were so thick that, in the middle of World War II, residents thought the city was under attack. The Optimist Club of Highland Park, a neighborhood in northeast Los Angleles, wore gas masks at a 1954 banquet to highlight air pollution in the city. Los Angeles Daily News via Wikimedia Commons under CC-BY 4.0 The passage of the Clean Air Act and the creation of the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970 marked a turning point in air quality, empowering the government to regulate pollution and promote public health. Now, six key air pollutants have dropped by about 80 percent since the law’s passage, according to this year’s report. But some researchers see climate change as halting—or even reversing—this improvement. “Since the act passed, the air pollution has gone down overall,” Laura Kate Bender, an assistant vice president at the American Lung Association, tells CBS News’ Kiki Intarasuwan. “The challenge is that over the last few years, we’re starting to see it tick back up again, and that’s because of climate change, in part.” At the same time, federal action against climate change appears to be slowing. On March 12, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin announced significant rollbacks and re-evaluations, declaring it “the greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen.” Zeldin argued that his deregulation will drive “a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion.” Included in Zeldin’s push for deregulation is a re-evaluation of Biden-era air quality standards, including those for particulate pollution and greenhouse gases. The EPA provided a list of 31 regulations it plans to scale back or eliminate, including limits on air pollution, mercury emissions and vehicles. This week, the EPA sent termination notices to nearly 200 employees at the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights. “Unfortunately, we see that everything that makes our air quality better is at risk,” Kate Bender tells CBS News, citing the regulation rollbacks and cuts to staff and funding at the EPA. “If we see all those cuts become reality, it’s gonna have a real impact on people’s health by making the air they breathe dirtier.” Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

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.