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

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

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

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

Wildfire Smoke Might Damage Male Fertility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seasonal Allergies Might Increase Suicide Rate, Study Says

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterMONDAY, Oct. 6, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Seasonal allergies are considered an annoyance to most, and maddening...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterMONDAY, Oct. 6, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Seasonal allergies are considered an annoyance to most, and maddening to some.Few think of seasonal sniffles and sneezes as potentially fatal — but we might be overlooking the danger they pose, a new study warns.High pollen counts are linked to a significant increase in suicide risk, according to findings published in the December issue of the Journal of Health Economics as the U.S. enters fall allergy season.Further, suicide risk increases as airborne levels of pollen rise, researchers found.The physical misery caused by seasonal allergies likely contributes to this increase, by wrecking people’s sleep and increasing mental distress, researchers speculated."During our study period, there were nearly 500,000 suicides in the U.S.," said lead researcher Joelle Abramowitz, an associate research scientist at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research."Based on our incremental data, we estimate that pollen may have been a contributing factor in up to 12,000 of those deaths over the period, or roughly 900 to 1,200 deaths per year,” she said in a news release.For the study, researchers compared suicides reported between 2006 and 2018 with daily pollen counts from 186 counties in 34 metropolitan areas across the United States.Results showed an association between suicide and pollen counts that increases in strength, after the research team divided pollen levels into four tiers.Suicide risk jumped 7.4% at the worst pollen counts; 5.5% higher at the third-highest level; and 4.5% at the second level, all compared to the lowest level of airborne pollen.People with known mental health problems were more vulnerable, experiencing a nearly 9% increase in their risk of suicide on days with the highest pollen counts, results showed.“A small shock could have a big effect if you're already in a vulnerable state," Abramowitz said.The results indicate that seasonal allergies should be taken more seriously, and not seen as a mere nuisance, researchers said.More accurate pollen forecasting and better public communication on the mental health impact of seasonal allergies could save lives, by providing people the opportunity to protect themselves, researchers said.This will become even more important as climate change progresses, extending and intensifying pollen seasons, researchers said."We should be more conscious of our responsiveness to small environmental changes, such as pollen, and our mental health in general," Abramowitz said."Given our findings, I believe medical providers should be aware of a patient's allergy history, as other research has also established a connection between allergies and a higher risk for suicide,” she added. “I hope this research can lead to more tailored care and, ultimately, save lives."SOURCE: University of Michigan, news release, Sept. 29, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

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

CONTACT US

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

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