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.

Why Early Prostate Cancer Screening Matters for Black Men

News Feed
Wednesday, September 18, 2024

This episode is part of “Health Equity Heroes,” an editorially independent special project that was produced with financial support from Takeda Pharmaceuticals.Rachel Feltman: September is Prostate Cancer Awareness Month, so here’s something you should be aware of: earlier this year the Prostate Cancer Foundation issued new screening guidelines encouraging Black men to start getting baseline blood tests for prostate cancer as early as age 40. That’s because, according to the American Cancer Society, Black men are [about] 70 percent more likely than white men to develop prostate cancer in their lifetime and twice as likely to die from the disease.For Scientific American’s Science Quickly, I’m Rachel Feltman. Today I’m joined by Dr. Alfred Winkler, chief of urology at NewYork-Presbyterian Lower Manhattan Hospital. He’s here to tell us more about how folks can protect themselves from prostate cancer.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Dr. Winkler, thanks so much for joining us. It’s great to have you on the show.Dr. Alfred Winkler: I welcome the opportunity. Thank you.Feltman: So why don’t we start by just talking a little bit about the prostate? You know, where is it, and what does it do?Winkler: Sure, happy to. So very, very important starting point because people really don’t know what—where the prostate is or what it does.So the prostate sits deep in the male pelvis—only men [meaning people assigned male at birth] have prostates—and it sits below the bladder. The urethra, the urine tube that drains the bladder, runs through the middle of the prostate.The prostate’s main job is to produce the fluid in which sperm are transported. It’s also thought to perhaps produce some antibacterial factors, but its main job is to produce transport fluid.Feltman: So earlier this year the Prostate Cancer Foundation updated its screening guidelines. Could you walk us through what changed and why?Winkler: I think there are two points of emphasis, and, and I’ll start with the one that really has made the biggest difference, and that is the fact that rectal exams, or physical exams, are no longer part of primary screening for prostate cancer. Frankly, that is really what deterred a lot of men from getting screened or even talking about it. So that’s a huge, huge victory in terms of getting more men to come in and be evaluated.Also, there’s a lot more emphasis on shared decision-making. We don’t want this to be a test that your primary care provider orders blindly. There needs to be at least some discussion of why it’s a possible test for you to be ordered. And really, is it a test that’s right for you? And that’s multifactorial.Feltman: Yeah, and so what’s replaced the rectal exam that deterred so many people?Winkler: So over many, many years we’ve just seen that the positive predictive value of doing a rectal exam just isn’t there. It really does not help us diagnose prostate cancer. And what’s more, as I mentioned just now, it’s actually a deterrent for men seeking evaluation.Feltman: And so I assume there are blood tests or other diagnostics that can help detect prostate cancer?Winkler: So primary screening really is only going to consist of the blood test: PSA, or prostatic-specific antigen.Feltman: Got it. And so I believe that the new guidelines also change some of the, the recommendations for the age of first screening. Is that correct?Winkler: Sure, they did, and again, there’s more emphasis on shared decision-making and really fitting whether or not a patient should be screened or even have a test to their particular medical circumstance. So that includes ethnicity or race, it includes family history, and it includes age.And some of those factors even affect the interval of screening. We’ve said, “Well, maybe in certain age groups, we don’t have to screen every year, maybe every two or four years within a certain age band, depending on the patient’s family history.”Feltman: So tell me more about groups that are higher risk. What do we know about those disparities?Winkler: So we look, really, at two primary groups: those folks who have a family history of prostate cancer in a primary male relative, so that’s a father, brother; and also people who have a family history of hereditary breast or ovarian cancer. So it’s very important not only to know the—your own medical history, but it’s important to know your family’s medical history. Not always a favorite topic at family reunions, but it’s an opportunity to just learn more about your family and thereby more about yourself.The other group that continues to be at very high risk are African Americans. African Americans have among the highest rates of prostate cancer in the world. And that’s thought to be multifactorial, so a lot of effort is made towards reaching out to those groups and talking to them about whether or not they should be screened.Feltman: Well, and, you know, you said that that’s thought to be multifactorial, but do we have any idea what those factors might be?Winkler: We do. So some of these factors we can control, and some of these factors are really beyond our control.So the one that’s really—is beyond our control, most obviously, is genetics. Your family history is your family history; your genetics are your genetics. That’s why it’s important to really understand your family history and are there certain diseases that it’s important for you to be screened for, prostate cancer among them.But for most cancers, or at least many cancers, there’s thought to be an environmental factor, and that you can control. So that is the environment in which you live and how you participate in that environment, and the biggest example of that is diet.Feltman: Yeah, that makes sense.So what are the age ranges where people should start thinking about screening, and, you know, how is that different if you are in one of these higher-risk categories?Winkler: Sure, so higher-risk patients should consider getting screened at age 45—and actually, in fact, some people we start screening at age 40. And that screening really consists of the PSA blood test. We essentially have never found value in screening people younger than age 40, regardless of their family history.We really, really try to screen people with the model of shared decision-making, in terms of speaking to your primary care provider and deciding the interval in the context with your family history.We typically do not screen people above the age of 75. The thought process of that is when we discover or diagnose prostate cancer beyond age 75, it tends to be a slower-growing cancer. But again, I think we still need to apply the rule that everyone’s an individual, and if you’re 76, and you’re in great health, and you have a family history, be an advocate for yourself and ask the question, “Is this a good test for me?”The key is early diagnosis. A really wonderful thing that we’re seeing in prostate cancer is that we’re diagnosing more and more people at an earlier stage, where, in fact, they undergo what we call active surveillance, which means that they require no treatment and they require a close follow-up. And that close follow-up is essentially periodic blood tests over the course of two years; some imaging with an MRI of the prostate, which has been a huge difference maker in terms of determining who does and doesn’t need a prostate biopsy. Even folks who are diagnosed with cancer that’s a little bit more aggressive, there are tons of options that include surgery, focal therapy, radiation therapy, and the cure rate of those are easily in the mid-90s.But again, the earlier you diagnose, the more choices you have and the higher your survival rate is. So again, all the more reason to ask about this test so that you can have more information about your risk.Feltman: So if someone is listening to this episode, and they’ve been avoiding getting screened for prostate cancer or talking to their doctor about it, what steps would you recommend that they take?Winkler: Well, I want them to realize that, really, the evaluation is first a discussion ...Feltman: Mm-hmm.Winkler: And then a blood test, and that’s it.Really everyone, to the best of, of their ability, should be seen by a primary care provider on a yearly basis. And for most of us that’s going to involve some questions and a questionnaire and some blood work. So this is just another disease that you are just trying to gauge your risk for.So I think it starts with asking about the test in the first place. I’m very sympathetic to my primary care colleagues. They’re overwhelmed. There’re not enough of them. They’re trying to squeeze a tremendous amount of information and detective work into a short visit, and we sort of have to be our own advocates in that realm.So I think it starts with simply asking your primary care provider, “Do I need this test?” And the conversation may surprise you. You may not actually need that test. Or maybe it’s been a test that you’ve gotten in recently enough that you can skip this year.I think the other thing that’s important for people to realize is when a problem is discovered early there tends to be many, many more choices you have to deal with that problem. And chances are, the more choices there are, the more likely you are to find one that you like. And I think prostate cancer is a great, great example of that.By asking the question you’re only being an advocate for yourself—you really, really have to be an advocate for yourself in all things that have to do with your health. I think there are many things in our lives that we do a better job of taking care of or keeping appointments for way over our health. And it really, really shouldn’t be that way.And to just remember your health is just not you; it’s the people who are around you, who love you, who depend on you and want you here. And they would want you to be an advocate.One idea I, I have that I wish people would do is almost have in your life a “bring a loved one to the doctors” day. When you make your appointment for yourself, maybe make an appointment for your significant other and bring them along. I think that way you’re taking care of two people instead of one, and maybe you’re breaking down some barriers for someone who is not seeking out care just because they’re afraid.Feltman: Yeah, that’s great advice. Thank you so much for joining us, Dr. Winkler. I think this is gonna be really helpful for a lot of our listeners.Winkler: Thank you for the opportunity.Feltman: That’s all for today’s episode. We’ll be back on Friday with part one of our latest Friday Fascination miniseries. This one is all about the beauty and mystery of math, and I promise it’s a surprisingly wild ride.In the meantime, do us a favor and leave a quick rating or a review wherever you listen to this podcast. You can also send us any questions or comments at ScienceQuickly@sciam.com.Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Kelso Harper, Madison Goldberg and Jeff DelViscio. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news.For Scientific American, this is Rachel Feltman. See you next time!This episode is part of “Health Equity Heroes,” an editorially independent special project that was produced with financial support from Takeda Pharmaceuticals.

According to the American Cancer Society, Black men are about 70 percent more likely than white men to develop prostate cancer in their lifetime and twice as likely to die from the disease.

This episode is part of “Health Equity Heroes,” an editorially independent special project that was produced with financial support from Takeda Pharmaceuticals.

Rachel Feltman: September is Prostate Cancer Awareness Month, so here’s something you should be aware of: earlier this year the Prostate Cancer Foundation issued new screening guidelines encouraging Black men to start getting baseline blood tests for prostate cancer as early as age 40. That’s because, according to the American Cancer Society, Black men are [about] 70 percent more likely than white men to develop prostate cancer in their lifetime and twice as likely to die from the disease.

For Scientific American’s Science Quickly, I’m Rachel Feltman. Today I’m joined by Dr. Alfred Winkler, chief of urology at NewYork-Presbyterian Lower Manhattan Hospital. He’s here to tell us more about how folks can protect themselves from prostate cancer.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Dr. Winkler, thanks so much for joining us. It’s great to have you on the show.

Dr. Alfred Winkler: I welcome the opportunity. Thank you.

Feltman: So why don’t we start by just talking a little bit about the prostate? You know, where is it, and what does it do?

Winkler: Sure, happy to. So very, very important starting point because people really don’t know what—where the prostate is or what it does.

So the prostate sits deep in the male pelvis—only men [meaning people assigned male at birth] have prostates—and it sits below the bladder. The urethra, the urine tube that drains the bladder, runs through the middle of the prostate.

The prostate’s main job is to produce the fluid in which sperm are transported. It’s also thought to perhaps produce some antibacterial factors, but its main job is to produce transport fluid.

Feltman: So earlier this year the Prostate Cancer Foundation updated its screening guidelines. Could you walk us through what changed and why?

Winkler: I think there are two points of emphasis, and, and I’ll start with the one that really has made the biggest difference, and that is the fact that rectal exams, or physical exams, are no longer part of primary screening for prostate cancer. Frankly, that is really what deterred a lot of men from getting screened or even talking about it. So that’s a huge, huge victory in terms of getting more men to come in and be evaluated.

Also, there’s a lot more emphasis on shared decision-making. We don’t want this to be a test that your primary care provider orders blindly. There needs to be at least some discussion of why it’s a possible test for you to be ordered. And really, is it a test that’s right for you? And that’s multifactorial.

Feltman: Yeah, and so what’s replaced the rectal exam that deterred so many people?

Winkler: So over many, many years we’ve just seen that the positive predictive value of doing a rectal exam just isn’t there. It really does not help us diagnose prostate cancer. And what’s more, as I mentioned just now, it’s actually a deterrent for men seeking evaluation.

Feltman: And so I assume there are blood tests or other diagnostics that can help detect prostate cancer?

Winkler: So primary screening really is only going to consist of the blood test: PSA, or prostatic-specific antigen.

Feltman: Got it. And so I believe that the new guidelines also change some of the, the recommendations for the age of first screening. Is that correct?

Winkler: Sure, they did, and again, there’s more emphasis on shared decision-making and really fitting whether or not a patient should be screened or even have a test to their particular medical circumstance. So that includes ethnicity or race, it includes family history, and it includes age.

And some of those factors even affect the interval of screening. We’ve said, “Well, maybe in certain age groups, we don’t have to screen every year, maybe every two or four years within a certain age band, depending on the patient’s family history.”

Feltman: So tell me more about groups that are higher risk. What do we know about those disparities?

Winkler: So we look, really, at two primary groups: those folks who have a family history of prostate cancer in a primary male relative, so that’s a father, brother; and also people who have a family history of hereditary breast or ovarian cancer. So it’s very important not only to know the—your own medical history, but it’s important to know your family’s medical history. Not always a favorite topic at family reunions, but it’s an opportunity to just learn more about your family and thereby more about yourself.

The other group that continues to be at very high risk are African Americans. African Americans have among the highest rates of prostate cancer in the world. And that’s thought to be multifactorial, so a lot of effort is made towards reaching out to those groups and talking to them about whether or not they should be screened.

Feltman: Well, and, you know, you said that that’s thought to be multifactorial, but do we have any idea what those factors might be?

Winkler: We do. So some of these factors we can control, and some of these factors are really beyond our control.

So the one that’s really—is beyond our control, most obviously, is genetics. Your family history is your family history; your genetics are your genetics. That’s why it’s important to really understand your family history and are there certain diseases that it’s important for you to be screened for, prostate cancer among them.

But for most cancers, or at least many cancers, there’s thought to be an environmental factor, and that you can control. So that is the environment in which you live and how you participate in that environment, and the biggest example of that is diet.

Feltman: Yeah, that makes sense.

So what are the age ranges where people should start thinking about screening, and, you know, how is that different if you are in one of these higher-risk categories?

Winkler: Sure, so higher-risk patients should consider getting screened at age 45—and actually, in fact, some people we start screening at age 40. And that screening really consists of the PSA blood test. We essentially have never found value in screening people younger than age 40, regardless of their family history.

We really, really try to screen people with the model of shared decision-making, in terms of speaking to your primary care provider and deciding the interval in the context with your family history.

We typically do not screen people above the age of 75. The thought process of that is when we discover or diagnose prostate cancer beyond age 75, it tends to be a slower-growing cancer. But again, I think we still need to apply the rule that everyone’s an individual, and if you’re 76, and you’re in great health, and you have a family history, be an advocate for yourself and ask the question, “Is this a good test for me?”

The key is early diagnosis. A really wonderful thing that we’re seeing in prostate cancer is that we’re diagnosing more and more people at an earlier stage, where, in fact, they undergo what we call active surveillance, which means that they require no treatment and they require a close follow-up. And that close follow-up is essentially periodic blood tests over the course of two years; some imaging with an MRI of the prostate, which has been a huge difference maker in terms of determining who does and doesn’t need a prostate biopsy. 

Even folks who are diagnosed with cancer that’s a little bit more aggressive, there are tons of options that include surgery, focal therapy, radiation therapy, and the cure rate of those are easily in the mid-90s.

But again, the earlier you diagnose, the more choices you have and the higher your survival rate is. So again, all the more reason to ask about this test so that you can have more information about your risk.

Feltman: So if someone is listening to this episode, and they’ve been avoiding getting screened for prostate cancer or talking to their doctor about it, what steps would you recommend that they take?

Winkler: Well, I want them to realize that, really, the evaluation is first a discussion ...

Feltman: Mm-hmm.

Winkler: And then a blood test, and that’s it.

Really everyone, to the best of, of their ability, should be seen by a primary care provider on a yearly basis. And for most of us that’s going to involve some questions and a questionnaire and some blood work. So this is just another disease that you are just trying to gauge your risk for.

So I think it starts with asking about the test in the first place. I’m very sympathetic to my primary care colleagues. They’re overwhelmed. There’re not enough of them. They’re trying to squeeze a tremendous amount of information and detective work into a short visit, and we sort of have to be our own advocates in that realm.

So I think it starts with simply asking your primary care provider, “Do I need this test?” And the conversation may surprise you. You may not actually need that test. Or maybe it’s been a test that you’ve gotten in recently enough that you can skip this year.

I think the other thing that’s important for people to realize is when a problem is discovered early there tends to be many, many more choices you have to deal with that problem. And chances are, the more choices there are, the more likely you are to find one that you like. And I think prostate cancer is a great, great example of that.

By asking the question you’re only being an advocate for yourself—you really, really have to be an advocate for yourself in all things that have to do with your health. I think there are many things in our lives that we do a better job of taking care of or keeping appointments for way over our health. And it really, really shouldn’t be that way.

And to just remember your health is just not you; it’s the people who are around you, who love you, who depend on you and want you here. And they would want you to be an advocate.

One idea I, I have that I wish people would do is almost have in your life a “bring a loved one to the doctors” day. When you make your appointment for yourself, maybe make an appointment for your significant other and bring them along. I think that way you’re taking care of two people instead of one, and maybe you’re breaking down some barriers for someone who is not seeking out care just because they’re afraid.

Feltman: Yeah, that’s great advice. Thank you so much for joining us, Dr. Winkler. I think this is gonna be really helpful for a lot of our listeners.

Winkler: Thank you for the opportunity.

Feltman: That’s all for today’s episode. We’ll be back on Friday with part one of our latest Friday Fascination miniseries. This one is all about the beauty and mystery of math, and I promise it’s a surprisingly wild ride.

In the meantime, do us a favor and leave a quick rating or a review wherever you listen to this podcast. You can also send us any questions or comments at ScienceQuickly@sciam.com.

Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Kelso Harper, Madison Goldberg and Jeff DelViscio. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news.

For Scientific American, this is Rachel Feltman. See you next time!

This episode is part of “Health Equity Heroes,” an editorially independent special project that was produced with financial support from Takeda Pharmaceuticals.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

New method improves the reliability of statistical estimations

The technique can help scientists in economics, public health, and other fields understand whether to trust the results of their experiments.

Let’s say an environmental scientist is studying whether exposure to air pollution is associated with lower birth weights in a particular county.They might train a machine-learning model to estimate the magnitude of this association, since machine-learning methods are especially good at learning complex relationships.Standard machine-learning methods excel at making predictions and sometimes provide uncertainties, like confidence intervals, for these predictions. However, they generally don’t provide estimates or confidence intervals when determining whether two variables are related. Other methods have been developed specifically to address this association problem and provide confidence intervals. But, in spatial settings, MIT researchers found these confidence intervals can be completely off the mark.When variables like air pollution levels or precipitation change across different locations, common methods for generating confidence intervals may claim a high level of confidence when, in fact, the estimation completely failed to capture the actual value. These faulty confidence intervals can mislead the user into trusting a model that failed.After identifying this shortfall, the researchers developed a new method designed to generate valid confidence intervals for problems involving data that vary across space. In simulations and experiments with real data, their method was the only technique that consistently generated accurate confidence intervals.This work could help researchers in fields like environmental science, economics, and epidemiology better understand when to trust the results of certain experiments.“There are so many problems where people are interested in understanding phenomena over space, like weather or forest management. We’ve shown that, for this broad class of problems, there are more appropriate methods that can get us better performance, a better understanding of what is going on, and results that are more trustworthy,” says Tamara Broderick, an associate professor in MIT’s Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS), a member of the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS) and the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society, an affiliate of the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), and senior author of this study.Broderick is joined on the paper by co-lead authors David R. Burt, a postdoc, and Renato Berlinghieri, an EECS graduate student; and Stephen Bates an assistant professor in EECS and member of LIDS. The research was recently presented at the Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems.Invalid assumptionsSpatial association involves studying how a variable and a certain outcome are related over a geographic area. For instance, one might want to study how tree cover in the United States relates to elevation.To solve this type of problem, a scientist could gather observational data from many locations and use it to estimate the association at a different location where they do not have data.The MIT researchers realized that, in this case, existing methods often generate confidence intervals that are completely wrong. A model might say it is 95 percent confident its estimation captures the true relationship between tree cover and elevation, when it didn’t capture that relationship at all.After exploring this problem, the researchers determined that the assumptions these confidence interval methods rely on don’t hold up when data vary spatially.Assumptions are like rules that must be followed to ensure results of a statistical analysis are valid. Common methods for generating confidence intervals operate under various assumptions.First, they assume that the source data, which is the observational data one gathered to train the model, is independent and identically distributed. This assumption implies that the chance of including one location in the data has no bearing on whether another is included. But, for example, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) air sensors are placed with other air sensor locations in mind.Second, existing methods often assume that the model is perfectly correct, but this assumption is never true in practice. Finally, they assume the source data are similar to the target data where one wants to estimate.But in spatial settings, the source data can be fundamentally different from the target data because the target data are in a different location than where the source data were gathered.For instance, a scientist might use data from EPA pollution monitors to train a machine-learning model that can predict health outcomes in a rural area where there are no monitors. But the EPA pollution monitors are likely placed in urban areas, where there is more traffic and heavy industry, so the air quality data will be much different than the air quality data in the rural area.In this case, estimates of association using the urban data suffer from bias because the target data are systematically different from the source data.A smooth solutionThe new method for generating confidence intervals explicitly accounts for this potential bias.Instead of assuming the source and target data are similar, the researchers assume the data vary smoothly over space.For instance, with fine particulate air pollution, one wouldn’t expect the pollution level on one city block to be starkly different than the pollution level on the next city block. Instead, pollution levels would smoothly taper off as one moves away from a pollution source.“For these types of problems, this spatial smoothness assumption is more appropriate. It is a better match for what is actually going on in the data,” Broderick says.When they compared their method to other common techniques, they found it was the only one that could consistently produce reliable confidence intervals for spatial analyses. In addition, their method remains reliable even when the observational data are distorted by random errors.In the future, the researchers want to apply this analysis to different types of variables and explore other applications where it could provide more reliable results.This research was funded, in part, by an MIT Social and Ethical Responsibilities of Computing (SERC) seed grant, the Office of Naval Research, Generali, Microsoft, and the National Science Foundation (NSF).

Gas Stoves Are Poisoning Americans by Releasing Toxic Fumes Associated With Asthma and Lung Cancer

In the United States, gas stoves are the main source of indoor nitrogen dioxide—a toxic gas tied to many health problems—according to a new study

Gas Stoves Are Poisoning Americans by Releasing Toxic Fumes Associated With Asthma and Lung Cancer In the United States, gas stoves are the main source of indoor nitrogen dioxide—a toxic gas tied to many health problems—according to a new study Sarah Kuta - Daily Correspondent December 11, 2025 9:13 a.m. Gas stoves are responsible for more than half of some Americans’ total exposure to toxic nitrogen dioxide, a new study suggests. Pexels A hidden danger may be lurking in your kitchen. Many Americans are breathing in nitrogen dioxide—a harmful pollutant that’s been linked with asthma and lung cancer—from fumes emitted by their gas stoves. A new study, published this month in the journal PNAS Nexus, suggests that gas stoves are the main source of indoor nitrogen dioxide pollution in the United States, responsible for more than half of some Americans’ total exposure to the gas. “We’ve spent billions of dollars cleaning up our air outdoors and nothing to clean up our air indoors,” study co-author Robert Jackson, an environmental scientist at Stanford University, tells SFGATE’s Anna FitzGerald Guth. “As our air outdoors gets cleaner and cleaner, a higher proportion of the pollution we breathe comes from indoor sources.” Scientists and public health experts have long known that nitrogen dioxide is bad for human health. The reddish-brown gas can irritate airways and worsen or even contribute to the development of respiratory diseases like asthma. Children and older individuals are particularly susceptible to its effects. Nitrogen dioxide is a byproduct of burning fuel, so most emissions come from vehicles, power plants and off-road equipment. However, indoors, the primary culprit is the gas stove, the household appliance that burns natural gas or propane to produce controlled flames under individual burners. It’s relatively easy to keep tabs on outdoor nitrogen dioxide concentrations and estimate their corresponding exposure risks, thanks to satellites and ground-level stations located across the country. By contrast, however, indoor sources are “neither systematically monitored nor estimated,” the researchers write in the paper. Did you know? Bans on gas Berkeley, California, became the first city to prohibit gas hookups in most new buildings in 2019, although the ordinance was halted in 2024 after the California Restaurant Association sued. Still, 130 local governments have now implemented zero-emission building ordinances, according to the Building Decarbonization Coalition. For the study, Jackson and his colleagues performed a ZIP-code-level estimate of how much total nitrogen dioxide communities are exposed to. Information came from two databases tracking outdoor nitrogen dioxide concentrations and a building energy use database, which helped the team construct characteristics of 133 million residential dwellings across the country, along with their home appliances. Among individuals who use gas stoves, the appliances are responsible for roughly a quarter of their overall nitrogen dioxide exposure on average, the team found. For those who cook more frequently or for longer durations, gas stoves can be responsible for as much as 57 percent of their total exposure. “Our research shows that if you use a gas stove, you’re often breathing as much nitrogen dioxide pollution indoors from your stove as you are from all outdoor sources combined,” says Jackson in a Stanford statement. Individuals who use gas stoves are exposed to roughly 25 percent more total residential nitrogen dioxide over the long term than those who use electric stoves, which do not emit the gas. Total exposure tends to be highest in big cities, where people often have small living spaces and outdoor levels are also high. Switching from a gas to an electric stove would help roughly 22 million Americans dip below the maximum nitrogen dioxide exposure levels recommended by the World Health Organization, the analyses suggest. The authors recommend replacing gas stoves with electric models whenever possible. “You would never willingly stand over the tailpipe of your car, breathing in pollution,” Jackson tells Women’s Health’s Korin Miller. “Why breathe the same toxins every day in your kitchen?” Dylan Plummer, acting deputy director for building electrification for the Sierra Club, a nonprofit environmental organization, agrees. Plummer, who was not involved with the research, tells Inside Climate News’ Phil McKenna that “years from now, we will look back at the common practice of burning fossil fuels in our homes with horror.” If swapping stoves is not possible, experts have some other tips for reducing nitrogen dioxide exposure. “One thing people could do is to minimize the time the stoves are on,” Jamie Alan, a toxicologist at Michigan State University who was not involved with the research, tells Women’s Health. “Another suggestion would be to increase ventilation,” such as by turning on the range hood and opening a window. Other suggestions by the New York Times’ Rachel Wharton include using a portable induction countertop unit or electric kitchen gadgets like tea kettles, toaster ovens and slow cookers. Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Parents Might Pass Depression Down To Kids Through One Specific Symptom, Experts Say

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Dec. 11, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Children of depressed parents are more likely to develop depression...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Dec. 11, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Children of depressed parents are more likely to develop depression themselves, and a new study suggests this risk might be tied to one specific symptom of depression.It’s already known that depression in parents can affect how children’s brains respond to positive and negative feedback, researchers said.“If parents are experiencing forms of depression where they’re not enjoying things and aren’t interested in things, that seems to be impacting how their kids are responding to what’s going on around them,” senior researcher Brandon Gibb, director of the Mood Disorders Institute at Binghamton University, said in a news release.“They’re less reactive to positive things and negative things,” he continued. “It seems that parents’ experiences of anhedonia is the key feature of depression impacting how children’s brains are responding, at least in our study, rather than other common symptoms of depression.”For the new study, researchers performed a lab experiment involving more than 200 parents and children ages 7 to 11.The experiment was designed to see how parents’ anhedonic symptoms affect children’s brain responses to positive and negative feedback.“The idea is that if you have this risk factor of being less interested or less engaged or finding things less enjoyable, maybe that’s reflected in how your brain responds to environmental feedback,” said lead researcher Alana Israel, a doctoral student at Binghamton University, a branch of the State University of New York. “Children of parents who have higher levels of anhedonic depressive symptoms should show a reduced response while other depressive symptoms theoretically should not be as related to this specific brain response,” Israel explained in a news release.In the experiment, children were presented with two doors and asked to guess the one with a prize behind it. If they chose the right door, they won money; if they chose wrong, they lost money.Results showed that kids’ response to either winning or losing money was blunted if their parents had higher levels of anhedonic symptoms. “What that tells us is that there is something specific about parents’ anhedonia that may impact children’s neural responses,” Israel said. “It further specifies a group of children who might be at heightened risk for loss of interest or pleasure and lack of engagement, which is a core feature of depression.”Future research should investigate how family dynamics might change if parents with anhedonic symptoms receive treatment or start to feel better, the team said.Researchers said it’s also important to examine whether children’s responses to other sorts of feedback, like social feedback from peers, are also affected by parents’ depression.“There are researchers looking at interventions that are designed to increase positive mood, positive engagement and positive parent-child relationships,” Israel said. “It will be important to see if these findings can identify families who might be most likely to benefit from those types of interventions.”SOURCE: Binghamton University, news release, Dec. 4, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

We may finally know what a healthy gut microbiome looks like

Our gut microbiome has a huge influence on our overall health, but we haven't been clear on the specific bacteria with good versus bad effects. Now, a study of more than 34,000 people is shedding light on what a healthy gut microbiome actually consists of

The trillions of microscopic bacteria that reside in our gut have an outsized role in our healthTHOM LEACH/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY We often hear talk of things being good for our microbiome, and in turn, good for our health. But it wasn’t entirely clear what a healthy gut microbiome consisted of. Now, a study of more than 34,000 people has edged us closer towards understanding the mixes of microbes that reliably signal we have low inflammation, good immunity and healthy cholesterol levels. Your gut microbiome can influence your immune system, rate of ageing and your risk of poor mental health. Despite a profusion of home tests promising to reveal the make-up of your gut community, their usefulness has been debated, because it is hard to pin down what defines a “good” microbial mix. Previous measures mainly looked at species diversity, with a greater array of bacteria being better. But it is difficult to identify particular communities of interacting organisms that are implicated in a specific aspect of our health, because microbiomes vary so much from person to person. “There is a very intricate relationship between the food we eat, the composition of our gut microbiome, and the effects the gut microbiome has on our health. The only way to try to map these connections is having large enough sample sizes,” says Nicola Segata at the University of Trento in Italy. To create such a map, Segata and his colleagues have assessed a dataset from more than 34,500 people who took part in the PREDICT programme in the UK and US, run by microbiome testing firm Zoe, and validated the results against data from 25 other cohorts from Western countries. Of the thousands of species that reside in the human gut, the researchers focused on 661 bacterial species that were found in more than 20 per cent of the Zoe participants. They used this to determine the 50 bacteria most associated with markers of good health – assessed via markers such as body mass index and blood glucose levels – and the 50 most linked to bad health. The 50 “good bug” species – 22 of which are new to science – seem to influence four key areas: heart and blood cholesterol levels; inflammation and immune health; body fat distribution; and blood sugar control. The participants who were deemed healthy, because they had no known medical conditions, had about 3.6 more of these species than people with a condition, while people at a healthy weight hosted about 5.2 more of them than those with obesity. The researchers suggest that good or bad health outcomes may come about due to the vital role the gut microbiome plays in releasing chemicals involved in cholesterol transport, inflammation reduction, fat metabolism and insulin sensitivity. As to the specific species that were present, most microbes in both the “good” and “bad” rankings belong to the Clostridia class. Within this class, species in the Lachnospiraceae family featured 40 times, with 13 seemingly having favourable effects and 27 unfavourable. “The study highlights bacterial groups that could be further investigated regarding their potential positive or negative impact [on] health conditions, such as high blood glucose levels or obesity,” says Ines Moura at the University of Leeds, UK. The link between these microbes and diet was assessed via food questionnaires and data logged on the Zoe app, where users are advised to aim for at least 30 different plants a week and at least three portions a day of fermented foods, with an emphasis on fibre and not too many ultra processed options. The researchers found that most of the microbes either aligned with a generally healthy diet and better health, or with a worse diet and poorer health. But 65 of the 661 microbes didn’t fit in. “These 65 bacteria are a testament to the fact that the picture is still more complex than what we saw,” says Segata, who also works as a consultant for Zoe. “The effects may depend on the other microbes that are there, or the specific strain of the bacterium or the specific diet.” This sorting of “good” versus “bad” bacteria has enabled the researchers to create a 0 to 1000 ranking scale for the overall health of someone’s gut microbiota, which is already used as part of Zoe’s gut health tests. “Think of a healthy gut microbiome as a community of chemical factories. We want large numbers of species, we want the good ones outnumbering the bad ones, and when you get that, then you’re producing really healthy chemicals, which have impacts across the body,” says team member Tim Spector at King’s College London and co-founder of Zoe. This doesn’t mean the ideal healthy gut microbiome has been pinned down, though. “Defining a healthy microbiome is a difficult task, as the gut microbiome composition is impacted by diet, but it can also change with environmental factors, age and health conditions that require long-term medication,” says Moura. “We really need to think about our body and our microbiome as two complex systems that together make one even more complex system,” says Segata. “When you change one thing, everything is modified a bit as a consequence. Understanding what is cause and effect in many cases can be very intricate.” Bigger studies are needed to tease out these links and cover more of the global population, says Segata. However, once we have established the baseline of your health and microbiome, it should become possible to recommend specific foods to tweak your gut bacteria, he says.

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.