Best overall		Breezome 60Oz. Dehumidifier		SEE IT	This is a surprisingly powerful and convenient dehumidifier for the price.
Best splurge		Tenergi Sorbi		SEE IT	This small dehumidifier completes the package and offers built-in air filtration as well.
Best Budget		Tabyik 42oz. Dehumidifier		SEE IT	You won’t find a cheaper reliably operational dehumidifier.

While larger dehumidifiers bring the power, intensity, and awe to get a large room under control, for small jobs in cramped spaces, you’ll do much better using small dehumidifiers. These machines can help take the damp edge off a room, generally don’t require piping or tubes to use effectively, and are much quieter than their bigger cousins. And with the benefits of dehumidifiers being so plentiful as to reduce allergens, help with asthma, and even reduce snoring, you deserve to have one in your room even if you don’t have a ton of space. With all that in mind, these are the best small dehumidifiers for any situation.

• Best overall: Breezome 60Oz. Dehumidifier
• Best splurge: Tenergi Sorbi
• Best design: Posdry 27 Oz. Dehumidifier
• Most eco-friendly: ProBreeze Mini
• Best budget: Tabyik 42oz. Dehumidifier

How we chose the best small dehumidifiers

Our investigation of the best dehumidifiers for basements focused on the power and intensity of the dehumidifier. In other words, our selections were highly skewed toward dehumidifiers that could suck the most moisture out of the air in the quickest, most convenient, most comprehensive manner.

The best small dehumidifiers will also, naturally, have the capacity to suck a decent amount of moisture out of the air. That’s why we want dehumidifiers in the first place. But they’ll also be able to be lived around. This means quiet dehumidifiers that aren’t space hogs will rule the day. Bonus features promoting healthy air, like air filters for allergens, are also highly sought after, so long as an undue price increase doesn’t come alongside them.

The best small dehumidifiers: Reviews & Recommendations

The following dehumidifiers are small dehumidifiers—emphasis on the small. If you want a slightly larger one, check out our more expansive guide to the best dehumidifiers. Likewise, for the biggest, most powerful dehumidifiers, check out the aforementioned guide to dehumidifiers for the basement. But if you’re looking for a dehumidifier for crawl spaces or one that isn’t so large you have to crawl over it, we’ve got you.

Best overall: Breezome 60Oz. Dehumidifier

SEE IT

Specs

• Size: 6.26 x 8.62 x 11.34 inches
• Water removal capacity: 750ml per day
• Drainage: 1800ml reservoir
• Loudness control: 35dB Sleep Mode

Pros

• Giant reservoir
• Has timer and Sleep Mode
• Includes water nightlight
• Dual semiconductor technology

Cons

• Pricier than most small dehumidifiers

Breezome’s dehumidifier has more power and capabilities than nearly any other dehumidifier of its price and size. Plus, it runs consistently well, utilizing dual semiconductor tech to pull more water out of the air despite the unit’s small size. Customers rave about the consistency of the product in small bedrooms.

A perfect sleep companion, the Breezome has a rectangular, boxy shape for stable placement on a bedside table. Its large, 1,800ml reservoir can even be lit up on demand for a liquidy bedside lamp or nightlight. When you’re ready to sleep, you can set the Breezome to Night Mode at the touch of a single button, reducing the fan speed. This will grant you a comfortable 35dB operating volume, enough to sleep by.

You’ll also find that the Breezome has features outside of its size bracket. While you’ll see the near-ubiquitous auto shut-off feature, there is also an automatic defrost mode as well. Very rare for even the absolute best small dehumidifiers, the Breezome includes a timer, allowing you to set the device to operate for 12, 24, 36, or 48 hours before shutting off. This can save you energy in the long run if you know when you’d prefer to use a dehumidifier but aren’t always around to operate it.

Best splurge: Tenergi Sorbi

SEE IT

Specs

• Size: 8 x 8 x 12 inches
• Water removal capacity: 750ml per day
• Drainage: 1,000 ml reservoir
• Loudness control: 35-42dB

Pros

• Great water removal ability with decent reservoir size
• Comes with HEPA filter for increased air quality
• ETL plus CARB certified
• Aesthetically pleasing

Cons

• Replacement filters don’t come cheap

Air quality and health benefits. To so many people, these are the reasons it makes sense to get a dehumidifier, small or otherwise. The Tenergi Sorbi has a quality combination of providing drier and cleaner air through its system, so while it may be more expensive than the average small dehumidifier, it also does more work.

Depending on your fan speed setting, low or high, the machine will run between 35 and 42 dB and deliver 22 or 38 cubic feet of clean air per hour. In addition to being drier, this air is rated as clean due to the HEPA filter you can install inside. It sorts out 99.7% of particulate matter in the air that passes through it. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has certified this machine’s capabilities.

Best design: Posdry 27 Oz. Dehumidifier

SEE IT

Specs

• Size: 5.7″D x 6.3″W x 9″H
• Water removal capacity: Up to 350ml/day
• Drainage: 800ml storage tank or 3.28ft drain tube
• Loudness control: 30 – 40dB

Pros

• Great for any room
• Bright light reminds you when tank is full (if not auto-dumped)
• Cost-effective

Cons

• Might be too lightweight

If you want to drain the excess humidity from your bathroom, kitchen, or RV effectively, check out this model from Posdry. It provides the standard features of a small dehumidifier but also has a quality drainage tube for effortless reservoir clearing. This means you can place it on a shelf and weave the 3.28-foot (1 meter) tube to the side of your sink or into your toilet’s reservoir tank.

Note that we don’t recommend placing this next to your tub for safety reasons. You may also find that the machine’s body is a bit too light, weighing in at just under three pounds. This means that you might pull it off the shelf accidentally when adjusting the tube, or a pesky cat might easily tip it off the shelf. If you plan to use this technique for effort-free dumping, secure your dehumidifier in place.

Most eco-friendly: ProBreeze Mini

SEE IT

Specs

• Size: 6.2 x 8.6 x 11.8 inches
• Water removal capacity: 18 oz. per day (~540 ml)
• Drainage: 52 oz. tank
• Loudness control: “Whisper quiet”

Pros

• Operating cost of just 12 cents a day
• Pulls good moisture from air for its size
• Wide, flat bottom
• Includes handle

Cons

• No sound guarantees

For a powerful small dehumidifier for consistent, around-the-clock use, consider the ProBreeze Mini. Rated to cost less than $4 a month during usage, you can feel comfortable using it for your 250 sq. foot room or crawl space that is getting too much humidity. Its wide, flat bottom will sit well on shelves and tables and isn’t prone to knocking over even when the surface it is on gets knocked.

The only detractor for this small dehumidifier is that the company offers no set decibel guarantee as to its volume, but merely states that it is “whisper quiet.” While this might indicate some variability in volume across units, there are few to any customer complaints about this issue. This is likely due to its use of Peltier dehumidification technology and 40-watt operation.

Best budget: Tabyik 42oz. Dehumidifier

SEE IT

Specs

• Size: 5.6 x 6.37 x 11 inches
• Water removal capacity: Unspecified (suitable for 320 sq. foot room)
• Drainage: 42oz. (1200ml) reservoir
• Loudness control: Runs at ~30dB

Pros

• Great low price
• Surprisingly fully-featured
• Large reservoir
• 5-foot power cord

Cons

• Signifies it is full in an annoying way

It is hard to get a dehumidifier under $45, barring sales. Oftentimes, you’ll think you’ve found one, only to realize you’ve only found a storage container for silica packets. Tabyik, however, provides a quality dehumidifier (including all the features you want, like auto shut-off and even defrosting) that we feel comfortable calling your best value pick.

You might be concerned that the Tabyik does not specify the maximum water removal per day and only gives a recommended room size. However, do note that water removal ratings are only for “ideal” room humidity and temperature conditions, and most dehumidifiers will not always reach them. In practice, we find that this dehumidifier works to fill up its large 1,200ml reservoir within just a few days. That’s more than enough to get the edge off of a room, which is the traditional usage for small dehumidifiers.

What we do find somewhat annoying about this dehumidifier is how it lets you know its reservoir is full and ready to dump. Where most small dehumidifiers will have a small LED light that will brighten to let you know they are full, the Tabyik makes its entire reservoir a bright red. This amount of light could potentially disturb your sleep if it happens to go full in the middle of the night.

What to consider before buying small dehumidifiers

It goes without saying that you should pay a lot of attention to a dehumidifier’s (small or otherwise) ability to remove water from the air. When choosing a small dehumidifier, especially for usage in a bedroom or bathroom, other particulars become more critical and can quickly be overlooked in the search for more power.

Water drainage ease

While larger dehumidifiers are usually both manually and automatically (via a tube system) dumpable, small dehumidifiers are more likely to be hand-dumped only. This means that when the reservoir gets full, you must manually dump it down the drain or on your plants.

This may seem minor, but you can expect to do it relatively often. Spilled water is worth no tears, but it can be rather annoying. Look for handles, wave-breakers, and automatic shut-off features that turn the dehumidifier off before it gets to the brim to make your manual dumping easier.

Since even the best small dehumidifiers tend to be cheap, you’ll want to be especially careful of any drainage system (whereby the dehumidifier will dump directly into a sink or other drainage port) carefully. Ensure the water out fittings are solid and take any customer reports of leaks seriously.

Loudness

Many of our small dehumidifiers live in our bedrooms with us, especially if we seek to use a small dehumidifier for health benefits. As such, be wary of loud dehumidifiers for bedroom use.

Many manufacturers will list a maximum loudness in decibels (dB) that the dehumidifier is intended to go at, and we will report that to you. Others, however, are variable or utilize other sound-dampening mechanisms.

For example, some dehumidifiers will engage in ‘night mode.’ While the specifics differ from product to product, this sort of mode usually means that the dehumidifier will trade water-removal power for a reduction in operation volume for set periods of time. Other times, however, it means that the dehumidifier will turn off completely during the night, reducing benefits.

Additional features

In general, even the best small dehumidifiers are going to be feature-light. Small dehumidifiers are purchased for their small size and added convenience, not to be multifaceted smart machines.

However, you will see an air purifier on the most premium of small dehumidifiers, such as a HEPA filter. This makes logical sense due to the fact that dehumidifiers are processing and filtering air, in a sense, by default. It’s just normal for them to be filtering the water out of the air. Particulate matter filtration is just one added step along the way.

Don’t, however, come to think that small dehumidifiers are meant to be completely featureless. Important features like automatic shut-off (turning off automatically when the reservoir gets full) are so ubiquitous that it would only be noteworthy if a dehumidifier (of any size) didn’t have such a feature. Auto defrost is also quite common.

What you’re unlikely to see on small dehumidifiers that is quite common on medium and large dehumidifiers is smart-home support or companion apps. And, frankly, you’re unlikely to want or use them. The best small dehumidifiers are used as needed, quietly in the corner.

FAQs

Final thoughts on the best small dehumidifiers

• Best overall: Breezome 60Oz. Dehumidifier
• Best splurge: Tenergi Sorbi
• Best design: Posdry 27 Oz. Dehumidifier
• Most eco-friendly: ProBreeze Mini
• Best budget: Tabyik 42oz. Dehumidifier

The preceding small dehumidifiers represent your best options for getting a dehumidifier at an affordable price for your small room. They all emphasize affordability, tolerability, and everyday function over intensity and power. Remember, the best small dehumidifiers—if placed in typical locations for them—are objects to be lived around and should have the same feeling to be around as fans and other moving objects that are in our rooms but don’t affect our other activities greatly.

Why trust us

Popular Science started writing about technology more than 150 years ago. There was no such thing as “gadget writing” when we published our first issue in 1872, but if there was, our mission to demystify the world of innovation for everyday readers means we would have been all over it. Here in the present, PopSci is fully committed to helping readers navigate the increasingly intimidating array of devices on the market right now.

Our writers and editors have combined decades of experience covering and reviewing consumer electronics. We each have our own obsessive specialties—from high-end audio to video games to cameras and beyond—but when we’re reviewing devices outside of our immediate wheelhouses, we do our best to seek out trustworthy voices and opinions to help guide people to the very best recommendations. We know we don’t know everything, but we’re excited to live through the analysis paralysis that internet shopping can spur so readers don’t have to.

The post The best small dehumidifiers for 2024 appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Unlike some pretty metal plants that thrive in the darkness, yeast generally doesn’t function well in the light. This fungi turns carbohydrates into ingredients for beer or bread when left to ferment in the dark. It must be stored in dark dry places, as exposure to light can keep fermentation from happening all together. However, a group of scientists have engineered a strain of yeast that may actually work better with light that could give these fungi an evolutionary boost in a simple way. The findings are described in a study published January 12 in the journal Current Biology.

[Related: The key to tastier beer might be mutant yeast—with notes of banana.]

“We were frankly shocked by how simple it was to turn the yeast into phototrophs (organisms that can harness and use energy from light),” study co-author and Georgia Institute of Technology cellular biologist Anthony Burnetti said in a statement. “All we needed to do was move a single gene, and they grew 2 percent faster in the light than in the dark. Without any fine-tuning or careful coaxing, it just worked.”

Giving yeast such an evolutionarily important trait may help us understand how phototropism originated and how it can be used to study evolution and biofuel production, as well as how cells age. 

Give it some energy

Previous work on the evolution of multicellular life by this research group inspired the new study. In 2023, the group uncovered how a single-celled model organism called snowflake yeast could evolve multicellularity over 3,000 generations. However, one of the major limitations to their evolution experiments was a lack of energy.

“Oxygen has a hard time diffusing deep into tissues, and you get tissues without the ability to get energy as a result,” said Burnetti. “I was looking for ways to get around this oxygen-based energy limitation.”

Light is one of the ways organisms can get an energy boost without oxygen. However, from an evolutionary standpoint, an organism’s ability to turn light into usable energy can be complicated. The molecular machinery that allows plants to use light for energy requires numerous proteins and genes that are difficult to synthesize and transfer into other organisms. This is difficult in the lab and through natural processes like evolution. 

A simple rhodopsin

Plants are not the only organisms that can convert light into energy. Some on-plant organisms can also use this light with the help of rhodopsins. These proteins can convert light into energy without any extra cellular machinery.

“Rhodopsins are found all over the tree of life and apparently are acquired by organisms obtaining genes from each other over evolutionary time,” study co-author and Georgia Tech Ph.D. student Autumn Peterson said in a statement. 

[Related: Scientists create a small, allegedly delicious piece of yeast-free pizza dough.]

A genetic exchange like this is called a horizontal gene transfer, where genetic information is shared between organisms that are not closely related. A horizontal gene transfer can cause large evolutionary leaps in a short period of time. One example of this is how bacteria can quickly develop resistance to certain antibiotics. This can happen with all kinds of genetic information and is particularly common with rhodopsin proteins.

“In the process of figuring out a way to get rhodopsins into multi-celled yeast,” said Burnetti, “we found we could learn about horizontal transfer of rhodopsins that has occurred across evolution in the past by transferring it into regular, single-celled yeast where it has never been before.”

Under the spotlight

To see if they could give a single-celled organism a solar-powered rhodopsin, the team added a rhodopsin gene synthesized from a parasitic fungus to common baker’s yeast. This individual gene is coded for a form of rhodopsin that would be inserted into the cell’s vacuole. This is a part of the cell that can turn chemical gradients made by proteins like rhodopsin into needed energy. 

With this vacuolar rhodopsin, the yeast grew roughly 2 percent faster when it was exposed to light. According to the team, this is a major evolutionary benefit and the ease that the rhodopsins can spread across multiple lineages might be key. 

“Here we have a single gene, and we’re just yanking it across contexts into a lineage that’s never been a phototroph before, and it just works,” said Burnetti. “This says that it really is that easy for this kind of a system, at least sometimes, to do its job in a new organism.”

Yeasts that function better in the light could also increase its shelf life. Vacuolar function may also contribute to cellular aging, so this group has started collaborating with other teams to study how rhodopsins may reduce aging effects in the yeast. Similar solar-powered yeast is also being studied to advance biofuels. The team also hopes to study how phototrophy changes yeast’s evolutionary journey to a multicellular organism. 

The post This yeast loves light appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Meta announced plans to implement new privacy safeguards specifically aimed at better shielding teens and minors from online content related to graphic violence, eating disorders, and self-harm. The new policy update for both Instagram and Facebook “in line with expert guidance” begins rolling out today and will be “fully in place… in the coming months,” according to the tech company.

[Related: Social media drama can hit teens hard at different ages.]

All teen users’ account settings—categorized as “Sensitive Content Control” on Instagram and “Reduce” on Facebook—will automatically enroll in the new protections, while the same settings will be applied going forward on any newly created accounts of underage users. All accounts of users 18 and under will be unable to opt out of the content restrictions. Teens will soon also begin receiving semiregular notification prompts recommending additional privacy settings. Enabling these recommendations using a single opt-in toggle will automatically curtail who can repost the minor’s content, as well as restrict who is able to tag or mention them in their own posts.

“While we allow people to share content discussing their own struggles with suicide, self-harm and eating disorders, our policy is not to recommend this content and we have been focused on ways to make it harder to find,” Meta explained in Tuesday’s announcement. Now, search results related to eating disorders, self-harm, and suicide will be hidden for teens, with “expert resources” offered in their place. A screenshot provided by Meta in its newsroom post, for example, shows links offering a contact helpline, messaging a friend, as well as “see suggestions from professionals outside of Meta.”

[Related: Default end-to-end encryption is finally coming to Messenger and Facebook.]

Users currently must be a minimum of 13-years-old to sign up for Facebook and Instagram. In a 2021 explainer, the company states it relies on a number of verification methods, including AI analysis and secure video selfie verification partnerships.

Meta’s expanded content moderation policies arrive almost exactly one year after Seattle’s public school district filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against major social media companies including Meta, Google, TikTok, ByteDance, and Snap. School officials argued at the time that such platforms put profitability over their students’ mental wellbeing by fostering unhealthy online environments and addictive usage habits. As Engadget noted on Tuesday, 41 states including Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, and Delaware filed a similar joint complaint against Meta in October 2023.

“Meta has been harming our children and teens, cultivating addiction to boost corporate profits,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said at the time.”

The post Meta begins automatically restricting teen users to more ‘age-appropriate’ content appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally published on KFF Health News.

It’s winter, that cozy season that brings crackling fireplaces, indoor gatherings—and a wave of respiratory illness. Nearly four years since the pandemic emerged, people are growing weary of dealing with it, but the virus is not done with us.

Nationally, a sharp uptick in emergency room visits and hospitalizations for covid-19, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, began in mid-December and appears to be gaining momentum.

Here are a few things to know this time around:

What’s circulating now?

The covid virus is continually changing, and a recent version is rapidly climbing the charts. Even though it appeared only in September, the variant known as JN.1, a descendant of omicron, is rapidly spreading, representing between 39% to half of the cases, according to pre-holiday stats from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Lab data indicates that the updated vaccines, as well as existing covid rapid tests and medical treatments, are effective with this latest iteration. More good news is that it “does not appear to pose additional risks to public health beyond that of other recent variants,” according to the CDC. Even so, new covid hospitalizations—34,798 for the week that ended Dec. 30—are trending upward, although rates are still substantially lower than last December’s tally. It’s early in the season, though. Levels of virus in wastewater—one indicator of how infections are spreading—are “very high,” exceeding the levels seen this time last year.

And don’t forget, other nasty bugs are going around. More than 20,000 people were hospitalized for influenza the week ending Dec. 30, and the CDC reports that RSV remains elevated in many areas.

“The numbers so far are definitely going in the not-so-good direction,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, the chief of the research and development service at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Healthcare System and a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis. “We’re likely to see a big uptick in January now that everyone is back home from the holidays.”

But no big deal, right?

Certainly, compared with the first covid winter, things are better now. Far fewer people are dying or becoming seriously ill, with vaccines and prior infections providing some immunity and reducing severity of illness. Even compared with last winter, when omicron was surging, the situation is better. New hospitalizations, for example, are about one-third of what they were around the 2022 holidays. Weekly deaths dropped slightly the last week of December to 839 and are also substantially below levels from a year ago.

“The ratio of mild disease to serious clearly has changed,” said William Schaffner, a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee.

Even so, the definition of “mild” is broad, basically referring to anything short of being sick enough to be hospitalized.

While some patients may have no more than the sniffles, others experiencing “mild” covid can be “miserable for three to five days,” Schaffner said.

How will this affect my day-to-day life?

“Am I going to be really sick? Do I have to mask up again?” It is important to know the basics.

For starters, symptoms of the covid variants currently circulating will likely be familiar — such as a runny nose, sore throat, cough, fatigue, fever, and muscle aches.

So if you feel ill, stay home, said Marcus Plescia, chief medical officer of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. “It can make a big difference.”

Dust off those at-home covid test kits, check the extended expiration dates on the FDA website, and throw away the ones that have aged out. Tests can be bought at most pharmacies and, if you haven’t ordered yours yet, free test kits are still available through a federal program at covid.gov.

Test more than once, especially if your symptoms are mild. The at-home rapid tests may not detect covid infection in the first couple of days, according to the FDA, which recommends using “multiple tests over a certain time period, such as two to three days.”

With all three viruses, those most at risk include the very young, older adults, pregnant people, and those with compromised immune systems or underlying diseases, including cancer or heart problems. But those without high-risk factors can also be adversely affected.

While mask-wearing has dropped in most places, you may start to see more people wearing them in public spaces, including stores, public transit, or entertainment venues.

Although a federal mask mandate is unlikely, health officials and hospitals in at least four states—California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York—have again told staff and patients to don masks. Such requirements were loosened last year when the public health emergency officially ended.

Such policies are advanced through county-level directives. The CDC data indicates that, nationally, about 46.7% of counties are seeing moderate to high hospital admission rates of covid.

“We are not going to see widespread mask mandates as our population will not find that acceptable,” Schaffner noted. “That said, on an individual basis, mask-wearing is a very intelligent and reasonable thing to do as an additional layer of protection.”

The N95, KN95, and KF94 masks are the most protective. Cloth and paper are not as effective.

And, finally, if you haven’t yet been vaccinated with an updated covid vaccine or gotten a flu shot, it’s not too late. There are also new vaccines and monoclonal antibodies to protect against RSV recommended for certain populations, which include older adults, pregnant people, and young children.

Generally, flu peaks in midwinter and runs into spring. Covid, while not technically seasonal, has higher rates in winter as people crowd together indoors.

“If you haven’t received vaccines,” Schaffner said, “we urge you to get them and don’t linger.”

Aren’t we all going to get it? What about repeat infections?

People who have dodged covid entirely are in the minority.

At the same time, repeat infections are common. Fifteen percent of respondents to a recent Yahoo News/YouGov poll said they’d had covid two or three times. A Canadian survey released in December found 1 in 5 residents said they had gotten covid more than once as of last June.

Aside from the drag of being sick and missing work or school for days, debate continues over whether repeat infections pose smaller or larger risks of serious health effects. There are no definitive answers, although experts continue to study the issue.

Two research efforts suggest repeat infections may increase a person’s chances of developing serious illness or even long covid—which is defined various ways but generally means having one or more effects lingering for a month or more following infection. The precise percentage of cases—and underlying factors—of long covid and why people get it are among the many unanswered questions about the condition. However, there is a growing consensus among researchers that vaccination is protective.

Still, the VA’s Al-Aly said a study he co-authored that was published in November 2022 found that getting covid more than once raises an “additional risk of problems in the acute phase, be it hospitalization or even dying,” and makes a person two times as likely to experience long covid symptoms.

The Canadian survey also found a higher risk of long covid among those who self-reported two or more infections. Both studies have their limitations: Most of the 6 million in the VA database were male and older, and the data studied came from the first two years of the pandemic, so some of it reflected illnesses from before vaccines became available. The Canadian survey, although more recent, relied on self-reporting of infections and conditions, which may not be accurate.

Still, Al-Aly and other experts say taking preventive steps, such as getting vaccinated and wearing a mask in higher-risk situations, can hedge your bets.

“Even if in a prior infection you dodged the bullet of long covid,” Al-Aly said, “it doesn’t’ mean you will dodge the bullet every single time.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

The post There’s a new Covid-19 variant and cases are ticking up. What do you need to know? appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Best NA beer sampler		Athletic Brewing Co. Craft Non-Alcoholic Beer		SEE IT	All the beer taste without the beer regret.
Best non-alcoholic aperitif		Ghia		SEE IT	Inspired by Mediterranean aperitivo culture, Ghia is herbaceous and perfectly bitter.
Best canned alternative cocktails		Flyers Cocktails		SEE IT	Cocktail mainstays are made with CBD to give you a relaxing buzz without any next-day remorse.

Between bottles at family dinner(s) or popping Champagne at New Year’s, it’s hard for someone looking for a little non-alcoholic fun to kick off a year of healthier habits. “Liquid courage” and social lubricant, alcohol tends to be everyone’s favorite coping mechanism during the holiday season and gatherings in general, whether when first introduced to the extended family, dealing with distant relatives you’d rather remain removed, or being surrounded by friends of friends. Hence, the growing popularity of Dry January and the opportunity to learn that there are better, healthier ways to cope. Moderation can improve your mental health, lower blood pressure, and, best of all, prevent a dreaded hangover and related hang-xiety … and maybe an argument or two with strangers. Instead of snagging another lazy, hazy IPA out of the fridge, consider an NA beer or alternative spirit. Even better, the best non-alcoholic drinks are proof of the deliciousness of zero-proof that can be enjoyed as new year’s recompense transitions into sober spring and beyond.

Note: If you have moderate to severe alcohol use disorder, please see a healthcare provider before withdrawing, as it can be quite dangerous to detox at home by yourself.

• Best NA beer sampler: Athletic Brewing Co. Craft Non-Alcoholic Beer
• Best NA stout: Guinness Non-Alcoholic Draught Beer
• Best NA import beer: Peroni Nastro Azzurro 0.0
• Best with CBD: Day One Sparkling Water
• Best aperitif: Ghia 
• Best tequila alternative: Optimist Botanicals Smokey
• Best gin alternative: Abstinence Spirits Cape Citrus
• Best whiskey alternative: Ritual
• Best botanical spirit: Wilderton Botanical Spirit
• Best value: Dhōs
• Best celeb-made non-alcoholic botanical beverage: De Soi
• Best bundle: Seedslip
• Best mood lifter: Crisp & Crude
• Best canned alternative cocktails: Flyers Cocktails 
• Best bottled mocktails: DRY Botanical Bubbly Reserve
• Best NA wine: Surely Non-Alcoholic Sparkling Rose
• Best wine alternative: Proxies

How we chose the best non-alcoholic drinks

I had my own Dry January journey in 2021, after years of problematic college drinking habits and at-home COVID-19 happy hours. I ended up extending it until the middle of February. Instead of a month of regrets and voicing my displeasure of imposing a personal Prohibition—like some other “low to no” participants—I realized, simply put, that alcohol can be bad and getting drunk is dumb. Now, I am a self-proclaimed “beverage girlie” and lead a damp lifestyle: I don’t keep alcohol in my home but will enjoy a beer after improv. I also won’t shut up about how moderation is great. My partner doesn’t drink at all, so we’re always on the hunt for a bubbly, crisp, cold NA bev to sip on during dinners or concerts.

I’ve also reported on beverages in the past for Gear Patrol and have a fridge stocked with Diet Coke, Limoncello La Croix (the best flavor, fight me), and my favorite NA beers. We also consulted Dry Atlas, a non-alc database, for picks.

The best non-alcoholic beverages: Reviews & Recommendations

Going for an NA beer or alternative spirit is just like a vegetarian or vegan going for a meatless chik’n patty or Impossible Burger: you’re simply enjoying a just-as-tasty substitute for something you don’t want to ingest for personal or health reasons. One of these will level up your seltzer or become your innocuous favorite to enjoy while eating takeout and watching Love Island.

Best NA beer sampler: Athletic Brewing NA beer 

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: This NA beer tastes as nuanced as its boozy counterpart without post-six-pack regrets.

Specs

• Milliliters: 12 fluid ounces (or 355 ml) per can
• Spirit, beer, or wine: Beer
• Alcohol removed or zero alcohol: Alcohol removed
• Enhancements: N/A

Pros

• Tasty
• Gluten-free
• Made of clean and natural ingredients

Cons

• Might not be able to be consumed if you’re pregnant

If a fresh, cold one is more your style, Athletic Brewing has your back with its NA brews. They don’t have a bready aftertaste like other NAs; in fact, they are some of the best-tasting NAs you can buy, with the company racking up plenty of awards over the years. This 24-pack can fill the fridge so everyone can crack open one outside without the mood threatening to be cracked when too many full-strength brews make tongues loose.

Best NA stout: Guinness Non-Alcoholic Draught Beer

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: An Irish classic gets a non-boozy touch without sacrificing quality.

Specs

• Milliliters: 14.9 millimeters per can
• Spirit, beer, or wine: Beer
• Alcohol removed or zero alcohol: Alcohol removed
• Enhancements: N/A

Pros

• Guinness taste without the alcohol
• Pours like a real Guinness
• Tasty

Cons

• Heavy beer
• Might scare some who are sober because of the realistic taste

NA beer can sometimes taste like carbonated bread instead of a bodied, complete fizzy beverage. That is not the case with Guinness Non-Alcoholic Draught Beer, which tastes like its malty cousin. If you’re sober and in recovery, the realistic taste of NA Guinness might make you feel like you’ve seen an ex walk into a room—ignore this one if that would make you uncomfortable, which is what you would also do when seeing your ex walk into a room. This tasty, dark beverage is a reliable choice (unlike your ex!) if you’re looking for a stout without stout regrets.

Best NA import beer: Peroni Nastro Azzurro 0.0

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: Evoke the Amalfi Coast with a light Italian lager that’s refreshing and full-bodied.

Specs

• Milliliters: 330 ml
• Spirit, beer, or wine: Beer
• Alcohol removed or zero alcohol: Alcohol removed
• Enhancements: N/A

Pros

• Light and refreshing
• Full-bodied
• Tasty

Cons

• Potentially too-close to comfort beer taste

Sometimes you need a light international beer akin to a Stella or a Heineken. We’re personal fans of Peroni, a light Italian lager that screams “warm summer breeze and riding a Vespa.” However, maybe you’re the person driving the Vespa and can’t imbibe a lovely Peroni? Enter Peroni Nastro Azzurro 0.0, which, for an NA lager, is incredibly full-bodied (read: not watery). It tastes like its Peroni Nastro Azzurro boozy cousin, which might cause you to do a double-take at the label, but for those hoping to hop on a Vespa or behind the wheel of a Fiat, the Nastro Azzurro 0.0 is a solid choice.

Best with CBD: Day One Sparkling Water

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: This refreshing, no-cal beverage is infused with CBD to promote relaxation.

Specs

• Milliliters: 12 fluid ounces (355 milliliters)
• Spirit, beer, or wine: Canned sparkling water
• Alcohol removed or zero alcohol: Zero alcohol
• Enhancements: CBD

Pros

• Infused with 20 milligrams of CBD
• Comes in grapefruit, lemon, and lime flavors
• Zero calories
• Made with natural ingredients

Cons

• Pricey for sparkling water

Looking for a pick-me-up that doesn’t pack any calories? Consider Day One Sparkling Water. This canned beverage is infused with 20 milligrams of CBD, also known as cannabidiol, a chemical found in the Cannabis sativa plant known for its ability to promote relaxation without getting you high. Day One’s sparkling water is available in grapefruit, lemon, and lime flavors and doesn’t have any sugar or calories.

Best non-alcoholic aperitif: Ghia 

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: This twist on a traditional aperitif is tasty and can be consumed on its own or mixed.

Specs

• Milliliters: 500 ml
• Spirit, beer, or wine: Aperitif
• Alcohol removed or zero alcohol: Zero alcohol
• Enhancements: Some adaptogens (lemon balm; rosemary)

Pros

• Tasty
• Versatile
• Makes you feel sophisticated and fancy

Cons

• Small bottle compared to others on this list

Inspired by Mediterranean aperitivo culture—think Campari and Amaro over finger food before 9 p.m. dinner in a bustling Milanese café—Ghia is light, dry, and the right amount of bitter. Drink it on its own or combine it with a mixer of your choosing for a spritz or cocktail. If a bottle seems like too much of a commitment, check out Ghia’s transportable cans that add lime, salt, and ginger to the OG Ghia aperitif.

If you’re already a Ghia fan and looking for something in the same vein, try Figlia—both have similar ingredients (white grape juice, rosemary extract, and elderflower, for example), but we love this NA aperitif’s earthiness thanks to clove and chamomile extract. Figlia, like Ghia, also sells spritz-in-a-can for on-the-go sips.

Best tequila alternative: Optimist Botanicals Smokey

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: A mezcal-like sipper that is smokey and makes for a perfect mocktail margarita.

Specs

• Milliliters: 500 ml
• Spirit, beer, or wine: Spirit
• Alcohol removed or zero alcohol: Zero alcohol
• Enhancements: N/A

Pros

• Designed to use mixed like a premium spirit
• Lots of body
• Spicy

Cons

• Not that many fluid ounces compared to others on this list

This botanical spirit has woody, floral, and bitter notes, and is designed to be mixed like a premium spirit. This one specifically drinks like smooth tequila or mezcal. Mix it with your favorite ginger ale and garnish with a jalapeno slice or an orange peel for a scrumptious sipper sans alcohol. However, each bottle is only 16.9 fluid ounces, meaning you’ll have to be cognizant of how much you use before running out.

We also recommend Clean Co.’s CleanT—not only is it a lovely substitute in a margarita or paloma, it pairs lovely with Winderton Lustre (more on that later).

Best gin alternative: Abstinence Spirits Cape Citrus

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: You’ll feel good the next day after drinking this gin alternative, thanks to its lack of alcohol and the company’s dedication to protecting the South African Cape Floral Kingdom.

Specs

• Milliliters: 750 ml
• Spirit, beer, or wine: Spirit
• Alcohol removed or zero alcohol: Zero alcohol
• Enhancements: N/A

Pros

• Proceeds go to wildlife conservation
• No artificial flavors
• Feels sophisticated

Cons

• Those looking for an exact gin dupe will be disappointed

Skipping alcohol doesn’t mean you have to skip out on delicious flavor. Abstinence Spirits Cape Citrus is inspired by South Africa’s Floral Kingdom, one of the world’s most diverse habitats. It’s infused with familiar citrus flavors, like orange, grapefruit, and grapefruit along with ginger, fennel, and pepper that give this concoction a subtle savory kick. Other notes, such as the mandarin naartjie and bucchu, are native to South Africa. And with no sugar and zero calories, you can swirl this botanical gin substitute into your seltzer as a pick-me-up any time.

Best whiskey alternative: Ritual

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: Have a better boulevardier with this whiskey alternative that’s highly rated by restaurant professionals.

Specs

• Milliliters: 750 ml
• Spirit, beer, or wine: Spirit
• Alcohol or zero alcohol: Zero alcohol
• Enhancements: N/A

Pros

• Heat on the tail end—just like whiskey
• Rated highly by professionals
• Soft and round flavor profile

Cons

• Those looking for a straight whiskey dupe will be disappointed

This whiskey alternative is rated 85/100 Silver by the Beverage Testing Institute, a spirits research & review company. This makes it the highest-reviewed alcohol-free whiskey alternative. The numbers don’t lie! Vanilla and oak overtones mingle with notes of stone fruit and a little kick of heat at the end. Although it’s not meant to be sipped straight, you can use it to make an almost-NA Boulevardier or safer whiskey sour. We’re also fans of NKD LDY’s whiskey alternative, which is smoky and has the whiskey taste without the regret.

Best botanical spirit: Wilderton Botanical Spirit

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: Each flavor is unique and delicious—probably the best we’ve tasted.

Specs

• Milliliters: 750 ml.
• Spirit, beer, or wine: Spirit
• Alcohol removed or zero alcohol: Zero alcohol
• Enhancements: N/A

Pros

• Bittersweet Aperitivo a Campari dupe
• Unique in their own way
• Versatile

Cons

• Expensive
• Not a straight dupe for gin or whiskey

Wilderton’s line of botanicals is a loving homage to spirits like Campari, whiskey, and gin. In fact, their Bittersweet Aperitivo is a spot-on dupe, taste-wise, to Campari or Aperol, making it a great choice if you’d like to make your spritz even lower in ABV. Earthen—with cardamom, white peppercorn, and pine-smoked tea—is rich and spicy and even leaves a bit of heat when you’ve put down your glass and returned to the conversation. Lustre is a dreamy, citrusy blend of bitter orange peel, tarragon, lavender, and coriander that pairs great with tonic or soda water for a crisp mocktail in the garden.

Best value: Dhōs

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: Refresh your bar with spirits that contain organic ingredients.

Specs

• Milliliters: 750 ml.
• Spirit, beer, or wine: Spirit
• Alcohol removed or zero alcohol: Zero alcohol
• Enhancements: N/A

Pros

• Less than $80 for three bottles
• Made by a well-established distillery
• The cheapest bottle on this list

Cons

• Bundle subscription includes all three flavors—a bummer if you’re looking for multiples of the same flavor

Practicing moderation doesn’t mean sacrificing pleasure; distillers don’t have to forego flavor to achieve alcohol alternatives. These are the immediate takeaways after sampling the Dhōs non-alcoholic spirit/liqueur lineup—made in a three-step process using natural pesticide-free ingredients. Cooked up at an organic farm and distillery in Sheridan, Ore.—also home to Ransom Spirits, known for reviving Old Tom Gin and making whiskeys and vermouth—the mindful mixtures come in colorful stopper-topped bottles with small batch silhouettes and make for captivating (and keto-friendly) cocktail counterparts. Gin Free is savory, herbaceous, and refreshing—redolent of juniper and lime backed by a peppery note. It’s warm and spicy upon first sip, almost gingery, but turns cool thanks to a cilantro and peppermint component. Want to transition from gin & tonic to an NA Negroni? Mix Gin Free with Bittersweet, which carries over a hint of mint threaded through a sunset-colored elixir of rhubarb, pithy pink grapefruit, flamed citrus peel, and monk fruit. Or add it to soda water for a friendlier spritz. Orange, meanwhile, presents a melange of blood orange and vanilla with a dash of cayenne and coriander. It’s a great replacement for triple sec in off-dry “margaritas” but makes for a creamy, dreamy mocktail on its own with soda water, tonic, ginger ale, and more. Offered for $10 less than competitors on average, Dhōs is a premium product without a top-shelf price tag.

Best celeb-made non-alcoholic bubbly botanical: De Soi

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: Each flavor is fine, fresh, and fierce—this bubbly mocktail has it on lock.

Specs

• Milliliters: 750 ml
• Spirit, beer, or wine: Bubbly craft cocktail
• Alcohol or zero alcohol: Zero alcohol
• Enhancements: Adaptogens like reishi, ashwagandha, L-theanine

Pros

• Crisp and carbonated
• Darn tasty
• Adaptogenic for a little healthy buzz at the party

Cons

• Those who hate tart things may not enjoy these mocktails

Katy Perry is known for hits like “Teenage Dream” and “Hot N Cold,” but did you know she is also in the health and wellness biz? Not only is she an investor in apple cider vinegar giant Bragg Live Food Products, but she co-founded De Soi, an adaptogen aperitif company, in 2022. Golden Hour (shown here) is made with maca and L-theanine for relaxation and is great for making mocktail mules and a non-alcoholic spritz. Champignon Dreams is a bitter, earthy reishi and passion flower spirit for negroni or old-fashioned lovers. Purple Lune mixes ashwagandha, tart cherry, and botanicals to give the feel of a nightly glass of red. If bottles aren’t your style, De Soi also sells its three flavors in cans. All flavors have a tart bite—if that’s not your jam, stick to something sweeter.

Best bundle: Seedslip

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: A delicious bundle means you can experiment and explore, all while saving some cash.

Specs

• Milliliters: 700 ml
• Spirit, beer, or wine: Spirit
• Alcohol removed or zero alcohol: Zero alcohol
• Enhancements: N/A

Pros

• Allergy-friendly
• High-quality ingredients
• Versatile

Cons

• Expensive

If you’re looking for a bundle package, look no further than this one from Seedlip. It includes Seedlip Grove 43 (a citrusy, ginger, and lemongrass spirit), Seedlip Spice 94 (a waltz between allspice, cardamom, and grapefruit), and Seedlip Garden 108 (an herby promenade of peas, rosemary, and thyme). They are best served with ginger ale and a citrus peel garnish—perfect for breaking out the fancy glasses sans next-day guilt.

Best mood lifter: Crisp & Crude

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: These keto-friendly, gluten-free mocktails are infused with terpenes and safe to drink while pregnant.

Specs

• Milliliters: 8.45 fluid ounces per can (250 milliliters)
• Spirit, beer, or wine: Canned cocktail
• Alcohol removed or zero alcohol: Zero alcohol
• Enhancements: Botanical terpenes

Pros

• Tasty
• Dietary friendly
• Pre-mixed

Cons

• Expensive
• Only available in cans

These NA craft cocktails are made with botanical terpenes extracted from plants, fruits, and roots for calmness, creativity, and relaxation. You can purchase each flavor individually, but we’re fans of the variety pack that includes four cans of its three flavors: Paloma Daydream (a salty, woody grapefruit drink with Space Queen terpenes); Gold Fashioned (bitter orange, zesty dandelion, and Chocolate Thai terpenes); and Mellow Mule (ginger, citrus, and mint with Pineapple Express terpenes). Leave the joint at home and pass around a can of this instead.

Best canned alternative cocktails: Flyers Cocktails 

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: These canned mocktails are inspired by bar favorites and feel just as fancy to imbibe.

Specs

• Milliliters: 237 ml or 8 fluid ounces
• Spirit, beer, or wine: Canned cocktail
• Alcohol removed or zero alcohol: Zero alcohol
• Enhancements: 20 milligrams of CBD

Pros

• Pre-mixed
• Cocktail-inspired
• Feels fancy

Cons

• Only available in cans, which are small

These sparkling, non-alcoholic drinks are made with 20 milligrams of CBD and are inspired by cocktail menu mainstays. BKLN Gold is reminiscent of an American Bourbon cocktail thanks to its oakiness, spice, and smooth vanilla. Tokyo Marg is a citrusy Yuzu sparkler with a touch of heat. Our favorite, however, is the Sydney Spritz Highball: a bold, herbaceous blend of citrus zest, mandarin orange, and bitters.

Best bottled mocktails: DRY Botanical Bubbly Reserve

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: A fizzy mocktail is a screwcap undoing away with DRY Botanical Bubbly Reserve.

Specs

• Milliliters: 750 ml bottle
• Spirit, beer, or wine: N/A
• Alcohol removed or zero alcohol: Zero alcohol
• Enhancements: N/A

Pros

• Tasty
• Zero-effort
• Good for those with dietary needs

Cons

• Could use some more carbonation

If you’re looking for a not-so-stiff drink after work but don’t have the brainpower to create something new, take the guesswork out of mixology with these pre-mixed mocktails from DRY. They come in three flavors: Lavender 75, a botanical boozeless take on a French 75; Rose Soleil, a Provence Rose-style beverage with touches of strawberry, rose, and oak; and Spiced Pear, which blends ripe pears with vanilla and cardamom. We also love the company’s line of sparkling water that makes for a great mixer. Although the Botanical Bubbly Reserve flavors could use some more carbonation, they taste like a craft concoction you would find at the bar without the craft concoction price.

Best NA wine: Surely Non-Alcoholic Sparkling Rose

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: Get all the wine taste without the next-day regrets from drinking the entire bottle.

Specs

• Milliliters: 750 ml
• Spirit, beer, or wine: Wine
• Alcohol removed or zero alcohol: Alcohol removed
• Enhancements: N/A

Pros

• Delicate body
• Friendly to specialty diets
• Great dupe

Cons

• Pregnant people may not be able to drink it due to low alcohol content

Some NA wines include fruit juice, but if you’re looking for something that screams more wine glass and less Welch’s, Surely’s line of dealcoholized wines is for you. It’s aged in the barrel just like its boozy counterpart, but then the alcohol is removed. The final product is a dry, full-bodied sparkling rose that pairs well with seafood and dessert—just like what someone would find at a liquor store. Coupe glasses sadly not included.

In case you’re looking to expand your NA wine palate, we also are fans of Joyus. For those looking for something that’s on the floral side, look no further than Starla’s NA sparkling rose.

Best wine alternative: Proxies

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: As the name implies, Proxies is an homage to the wine experience while setting itself apart from its boozy cousin.

Specs

• Milliliters: 750 ml
• Spirit, beer, or wine: Wine
• Alcohol removed or zero alcohol: Zero alcohol
• Enhancements: N/A

Pros

• Tasty
• Has a similar look and mouthfeel to alcoholized wines
• Safe for pregnant people to drink

Cons

• Some flavors can come off as too juice-like

Wine alternatives tend to taste like fancy grape juice. Although that’s not a bad thing, sometimes it’s more enjoyable to drink something that tastes like it came from Napa Valley and not from a toddler’s sippy cup. Proxies—vinegar giant Acid League’s wine alternative brand—uses wine grapes, tea, vinegars, and other fruit for its enchanting wine-inspired blends. Blanc Slate is reminiscent of a Sauvignon Blanc, and Red Ember is all body without the bite. Red Clay is probably the most “wine-like,” with its velvety mouthfeel and lingering pucker. Although you can’t get single bottles, the company’s sets let you explore to find new favorites, then stock up on the ones you love.

What to consider when buying the best non-alcoholic beverages

Non-alcoholic beverages are a great way to get the ritual feel of making a cocktail or pouring a glass of wine sans alcohol. You can find them online or at your local liquor store—in my experience, NA beers have their small section in the beer aisle; NA wines are housed by the bartending accessory or mixer section. If you’re lucky, you might have an NA bottleshop in your neighborhood—like Spirited Away in NYC and The Open Road in Pittsburgh—that you can peruse IRL or that offers to ship and delivers right to your door. Here’s what you should know before making your pick.

NA vs. alternative spirit

NA is short for non-alcoholic. Most beverages with the NA moniker—like beer, wine, and liquor—are made like their alcoholic counterparts. However, they don’t ferment or go through a process that removes the alcohol from a finished, alcoholic product. The result is a beverage with less than .5% alcohol by volume (ABV), which can be labeled as “non-alcoholic” per the FDA. According to the FDA, those who are pregnant should go for a truly zero-alcohol beer or spirit to prevent birth defects, according to the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG).

This is where alternative spirits come in. They are made of herbs, vinegars, juices, and more to give off the vibe of a standard alcoholic spirit. An alternative wine will not taste exactly like Cabernet Sauvignon, but it will offer a similar mouthfeel and body. A botanical gin-like spirit will include juniper or pine to replicate the notes of its alcohol-included cousin.

Adaptogens, nootropics, and CBD

If you’d like a little extra jazz in your drink, consider ones with adaptogens or CBD. Adaptogens like ashwagandha and L-theanine are used in herbal medicine to help the body return to homeostasis, or the body’s state of natural balance. The science is a bit nebulous, so don’t expect them to fix your problems. Nootropics have a similar effect as adaptogens: they claim to boost mood and improve cognition but are scientifically hazy.

Animal studies, self-reports, and research in people suggest that CBD, or cannabidiol, can help with anxiety, insomnia, and chronic pain without the “high” from THC. If you’re looking for something to sip on to unwind after a long day, a CBD-infused beverage is perfect—just make sure it’s coming from a reputable source that posts third-party lab results on their site.

Storage

Unlike your typical bar cart, you’ll need to refrigerate most—if not all—non-alcoholic spirits since they don’t have the high-alcohol content to keep them shelf-stable. If you don’t have the refrigerator space for your bounty of friendly spirits, consider one of the best beverage coolers.

Mixers

You have your spirits and such to make a mocktail—but where do you start? Of course, you can always go for the classic tonic or soda water touch, but the world is your oyster when it comes to mixers. Try Tangerine La Croix with Abstinence Spirits’ Cape Citrus for a citrusy play on a gin soda; Blood Orange Carrot Ginger-flavored Health-Ade Kombucha mixes great with Wilderton’s Lustre; and doesn’t Waterloo’s blackberry lemonade seltzer sound heavenly with Ritual’s alternative whiskey? You can even opt for a pre-made drink mix—espresso martinis, anyone?

Safety

There are only two substances that you can die from unsafe withdrawal: barbituates and alcohol. Quitting cold turkey is OK if you or someone you know does not struggle with alcohol use disorder. Otherwise, supervised alcohol withdrawal is the safest since alcohol withdrawal can lead to seizures, delirium tremens, and death if untreated or improperly executed. Also, consult with a doctor before stopping use—they can help decide if you or someone you know should complete your withdrawal in an inpatient or outpatient setting.

FAQs

Final thoughts on the best non-alcoholic drinks

• Best NA beer sampler: Athletic Brewing Co. Craft Non-Alcoholic Beer
• Best NA stout: Guinness Non-Alcoholic Draught Beer
• Best NA import beer: Peroni Nastro Azzurro 0.0
• Best with CBD: Day One Sparkling Water
• Best aperitif: Ghia 
• Best tequila alternative: Optimist Botanicals Smokey
• Best gin alternative: Abstinence Spirits Cape Citrus
• Best whiskey alternative: Ritual
• Best botanical spirit: Wilderton Botanical Spirit
• Best value: Dhōs
• Best celeb-made non-alcoholic bubbly botanical: De Soi
• Best bundle: Seedslip
• Best mood lifter: Crisp & Crude
• Best canned alternative cocktails: Flyers Cocktails 
• Best bottled mocktails: DRY Botanical Bubbly Reserve
• Best wine: Surely Non-Alcoholic Sparkling Rose
• Best wine alternative: Proxies

Non-alcoholic beverages—including NA beer and wine, wine alternatives, botanical spirits, and more—are a great way to moderate your drinking during Dry January and beyond. Abstaining from drinking completely, cracking open a euphoric seltzer after drinking a Manhattan, or sticking to a mocktail during a pregame can help you re-evaluate your drinking habits. And let’s be real: the best non-alcoholic drinks are just plain tasty. Plus, your sober friends—weary from having soda, seltzers, and plain water as the only option at restaurants or functions—will appreciate that you have fun, craft non-alcoholic options available at your next backyard shindig.

Why trust us

Popular Science started writing about technology more than 150 years ago. There was no such thing as “gadget writing” when we published our first issue in 1872, but if there was, our mission to demystify the world of innovation for everyday readers means we would have been all over it. Here in the present, PopSci is fully committed to helping readers navigate the increasingly intimidating array of devices on the market right now.

Our writers and editors have combined decades of experience covering and reviewing consumer electronics. We each have our own obsessive specialties—from high-end audio to video games to cameras and beyond—but when we’re reviewing devices outside of our immediate wheelhouses, we do our best to seek out trustworthy voices and opinions to help guide people to the very best recommendations. We know we don’t know everything, but we’re excited to live through the analysis paralysis that internet shopping can spur so readers don’t have to.

The post The 17 best non-alcoholic drinks of 2024, tested and reviewed appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

According to a Forbes Health survey, improving fitness is one of the most common resolutions people make. Between unspoken gym rules and getting new gear, it can be daunting—monetarily and personally—to get into the gym spirit. Thankfully, our favorite protein powder for beginners is 30% off at Amazon.

Optimum Nutrition Gold Standard 100% Whey Protein Powder $29.39 (Was $41.99)

SEE IT

Most people add protein powder to their diet to gain muscle or for recovery after a workout. This whey protein powder from Optimum Nutrition combines whey isolates, concentrates, and peptides to build lean muscle (although there’s certainly nothing wrong with bulking up). There are 24 grams of protein, 3-4 carbs, and 5.5 grams of BCAAs in each serving. It also comes in 17 different flavors like Banana Cream, Chocolate Hazlenut, and Vanilla Ice Cream. Mix the powder with cold water or milk, shake for about 30 seconds, and drink up before or after a workout.

Here are more supplements and powders to add to your well-being arsenal:

Protein powders

• Garden of Life Organic Vegan Vanilla Protein Powder 22g Complete Plant-Based Raw Protein $32.39 (Was $46.99)
• Premier Protein Powder, Vanilla Milkshake $16.79 (Was $26.99)
• Premier Protein Powder Plant Protein, Chocolate $16.79 (Was $23.99)
• Premier Protein Powder, Chocolate Milkshake $16.79 (Was $23.99)
• Optimum Nutrition Gold Standard 100% Plant-Based Protein Powder $24.99 (Was $33.99)
• Owyn Vegan Protein Powder, 20g Plant Based Protein $23.99 (Was $39.99)
• Sports Research Whey Protein $75.95 (Was $55.16)
• Dymatize Elite 100% Whey Protein Powder $43.35 (Was $86.59)
• Dymatize Super Mass Gainer Protein Powder $25.88 (Was $48.70)

Supplements

• Optimum Nutrition Micronized Creatine $18.99 (Was $24.99)
• Natural Vitality Calm Magnesium Citrate Supplement $17.68 (Was $40.95)
• Renew Life Women’s Probiotic Capsules $23.10 (Was $44.99)
• Nature’s Way CalmAid Softgels with Silexan Lavender Oil $8.22 (Was $14.29)
• Nature’s Way Alive! Men’s 50+ Daily Ultra Potency Complete Multivitamin $15.89 (Was $29.99)
• Osteo Bi-Flex Triple Strength with Vitamin D Glucosamine Chondroitin Joint Health Supplement $20.01 (Was $48.17)
• Nature’s Bounty Vitamin D3, Immune and Bone Support $10 (Was $20.14)
• Garden of Life Organics Kids Gummy Vitamins $19.97 (Was $34.99)

The post More gains, less investment: Our favorite protein powder for beginners is 30% off at Amazon appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

On January 1, pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) discontinued Flovent, a popular steroid inhaler that is used to lower the frequency of asthma attacks and other symptoms. The company discontinued production of the branded product in preparation for the rollout of an “authorized generic” version of the widely prescribed medication. The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America estimates that about 25 million people have asthma in the United States and using inhaled corticosteroids like Flovent are among the most effective treatments for the disease. Here’s what you should know.

[Related: Gas stoves could be making thousands of children in America sick.]

What is Flovent?

Flovent is the brand name of fluticasone, a medication that has been sold since 2020. It is an inhaled corticosteroid that can be used by people four years of age and older for treating asthma long term. Fluticasone helps to keep inflammation in the lungs low and the airways open. It is used twice per day and is not a rescue inhaler. When it is taken every day, it can lower the number and severity of asthma attacks. 

GSK first notified the FDA about the decision to stop manufacturing Flovent in June 2023.

Why is there a new ‘authorized generic’ version?

According to a statement from GSK to the Allergy Foundation of America, the generic version of the prescription inhaler will have an identical formula and drug-delivery mechanism. GSK says that this new version will provide lower cost alternatives. 

However, this switch from the branded version to a generic one occurs at the same time as the elimination of the rebate cap removal of Medicaid drug prices. This provision was made as part of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. Under it, pharmaceutical companies are required to pay states higher Medicaid rebates if they raise the cost of the drug more than inflation. According to GoodRx, Flovent’s average price increased from about $207 in 2013 to $292 in 2018 and has gone up by 47 percent since 2014. 

“Flovent Diskus has been on the market since 2000 and Flovent HFA since 2004, and GSK has hiked the price on both products numerous times since their launch,” Dr. William Feldman, an associate physician in the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, told CNN. “These are precisely the sort of drugs that will be affected by the new policy eliminating the Medicaid rebate cap.”

Instead of being a typical generic medication that is made by a different company to compete with the original product, the “authorized generic” is made by the same company. GSK can continue to set prices. 

[Related: Common asthma medications may change brain matter, but don’t panic.]

Are doctors concerned?

In late 2023, both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America expressed concern that discontinuing Flovent may leave those who rely on it with higher co-pays and delayed access, as patients have to clear coverage with their insurance company. 

“In general, people think generics should be cheaper,” Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America president and CEO Kenny Mendez told NPR. “That’s kind of the common knowledge, but it really depends on… your insurance plan and what’s covered and what’s not.”

Doctors are reporting that some insurers are not covering GSK’s new authorized generic version. Even if insurance authorizes coverage, patients may end up paying more than they would have if they were purchasing the previous branded version of the medication at a pharmacy. Some patients will also need to change asthma drugs or get new prescriptions for GSK’s authorized generic, which adds barriers that could disrupt critical asthma care. 

Due to its popularity over the past 24 years, some medical professionals fear it will create a “huge shock to the system” for doctors and those with asthma. Patients are advised to see their doctors as soon as possible to explore alternative medications and see if the new authorized generic version of Flovent is not covered by their insurance. 

The post Popular corticosteroid asthma inhaler Flovent was discontinued this month appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on The Conversation.

When you enter the gym, which way should you head first? Toward the treadmills and spin studio to get your sweat on with a cardio session? Or toward the free weights and strength-training machines to do some resistance training?

The American College of Sports Medicine suggests doing both types of exercise to take advantage of their unique benefits for improving health and daily functioning and reducing chronic disease risk. But what is the optimal sequence to get the best results?

The answer to this question is… it depends. I’m an exercise physiologist. Recently in my lab we have been studying the effects of combinations of aerobic and resistance training on improving health-related fitness, particularly aerobic capacity and muscular strength.

Research suggests that when you’re designing your exercise program, there are a few factors to take into account, including your age, fitness level and exercise history and goals. You’ll also want to consider the volume of your exercise routine–that is, its duration and intensity–and how you’ll schedule your training during the day.

Benefits of exercise

First, just about any exercise at all is going to be better for you than doing nothing.

Aerobic exercise is rhythmic activity that gets your heart pumping. Examples are walking, running, swimming, cycling and using a cardio machine such as an elliptical trainer.

Aerobic exercise can improve cardiorespiratory function–over time, your heart and lungs get better at delivering oxygen to your muscles to make energy for continued muscle contractions. Aerobic exercise can also reduce several chronic disease risk factors, increase how much energy your body uses and how much fat it burns, and improve physical and cognitive function.

Resistance training involves strengthening your muscles by lifting, pushing or pulling against resistance. This type of exercise can be done using free-weight barbells, dumbbells, kettlebells, weight machines or even elastic bands.

Resistance exercise improves muscular strength, endurance and the power and the size of muscles–what exercise physiologists call muscle hypertrophy. Studies show resistance training has health-related benefits, as well, particularly for people who have or are at risk of developing Type 2 diabetes. It can improve blood pressure, blood levels of glucose and the ability of muscles to use glucose for energy, and it helps maintain lean body mass and bone health.

Training for health benefits

With a limited amount of time to devote to working out, many people include both cardio and weights in the same exercise session. This concurrent training comes with plenty of benefits for your health, including lowering your cardiovascular and metabolic risks.

In fact, doing both forms of exercise together is better, especially for people with chronic disease risk factors, than exercising for the same amount of time but sticking with just aerobic or resistance exercise.

Studies of concurrent training suggest a generalized training effect–similar improvements in aerobic capacity and muscular strength, regardless of the order of aerobic and resistance exercises in a session. These benefits hold for a wide variety of people, including those who are initially inactive, recreationally active, young people and older women and men.

Resistance exercise done before aerobic exercise results in a small increase in lower-body muscular strength without compromising all the other improvements in health-related physical fitness.

So if your exercise goals are along the lines of staying generally healthy and enjoying the mental benefits of moving your body, resistance training first might provide a little boost. Research suggests that overall, though, you don’t need to worry too much about which order to focus on–cardio versus weights.

Training with performance goals in mind

On the other hand, you may want be more thoughtful about the order of your workout if you’re a performance-oriented athlete who is training to get better at a particular sport or prepare for a competition.

Research suggests that for these exercisers, concurrent training may slightly inhibit improvement in aerobic capacity. More likely, it can hinder gains in muscular strength and power development, and to a lesser degree muscle growth. This phenomenon is called the “interference effect.” It shows up most in well-trained athletes undertaking high volumes of both aerobic and resistance exercise.

Researchers are still investigating what happens on a cellular level to cause the interference effect. Aerobic and resistance training unleash competing influences at the molecular level that affect genetic signaling and protein synthesis. At the start of an exercise program, the body’s adaptations are more generalized. But with more training, the muscle changes become more and more specific to the kind of work being done, and the likelihood of the interference effect kicking in increases.

Of course, many sports require combinations of aerobic and muscular capabilities. Some elite-level athletes need to improve both. So the question remains: What is the optimal order of the two modes of exercise to get the best performance effects?

Given research findings about concurrent training for high-level athletes, it makes sense to do resistance exercise first or to train first in the type of exercise that is most important to your performance goals. Additionally, if possible, elite athletes should give their bodies a break of at least three hours between resistance and aerobic training sessions.

Don’t sweat the order

In my lab, we’re studying what we call “microcycles” of aerobic and resistance exercise. Instead of needing to decide which to do first, you weave the two modalities together in much shorter bursts. For instance, one set of a resistance exercise is immediately followed by three minutes of walking or running; you repeat this cycle for as many times as necessary to include all of the resistance exercises in your routine.

Our preliminary findings suggest this method of concurrent training results in similar gains in aerobic fitness, muscular strength and lean muscle mass–while also feeling less challenging–when compared with the typical concurrent routine where all of the resistance exercise is followed by all of the aerobic exercise.

For most people, my current advice remains to choose the order of exercise based on your personal preferences and what will keep you coming back to the gym. High-level athletes can avoid any significant interference effect by doing their resistance routine before the aerobic routine or by separating their aerobic and resistance workouts within a particular day.

Randal Claytor is the Associate Professor of Kinesiology, Nutrition and Health at Miami University. Disclosure statement: Randal Claytor has received funding in the past from NIH, AHA, ADA.

The post Should you do cardio or weights first? appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Best overall		Levoit Core P350		SEE IT	This is a great overall choice for anyone who owns pets and a pair of lungs.
Best for large rooms		GermGuardian Air Purifier		SEE IT	This burly model cleans the air in a space up to 1,760 square feet.
Best splurge		Molekule Air Pro		SEE IT	This high-end model covers a large area with more features for a price.

Without an air purifier for pets, our furry friends’ dander can get the better of us. As much as we love our animals, they are ripe with allergens, which can cause serious issues for those with sensitivities. But living with a cat or dog doesn’t have to result in misery for those with allergies. The best air purifiers for pets offer multiple levels of filtration to capture everything from dander and other pet allergens to clumps of loose fur and even odors, getting rid of that wet dog smell. 

• Best overall: Levoit Core P350
• Best splurge: Molekule Air Pro
• Best for large rooms: GermGuardian Air Purifier
• Best for small rooms: Molekule Air Mini+
• Best budget: Winix A231 Tower H13

How we chose the best air purifiers for pets

My household comprises a dog whose favorite thing is rolling in the grass, a cat, and a husband who is allergic to all three things. As a result, air purifiers are a must in our household to combat the constant barrage of allergens. When selecting the best air purifiers for pets, we prioritized devices with high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters, as these offer the best results for reducing allergens. We then looked at other filtration methods (some offer multiple varieties in a single air purifier), room size coverage, and odor-reducing features. Finally, we factored in device size, noise levels, and any additional features, such as timers and connectivity options. We based our selections on hands-on experience, customer feedback, and editorial reviews. 

The best air purifiers for pets: Reviews & Recommendations

Having pets in your home doesn’t mean you must be miserable and simply deal with allergies, thanks to air purifiers. Purifiers for pets can provide significant relief from the effects of dander and other allergens, like what gets tracked in the house after a long walk, and even get rid of those less-than-pleasant pet odors and floating fluff. 

Best overall: Levoit Core P350

SEE IT

Specs

• Filter type(s): Fabric pre-filter, True HEPA filter, and activated carbon filter
• Maximum coverage area: Up to 218 square feet
• Dimensions: 8.7 x 8.7 x 14.2 inches
• Weight: 7.5 pounds

Pros

• Quiet
• Compact
• Plenty of settings and controls
• Pet Lock keeps settings from changing if it gets bumped

Cons

• No app connectivity

The Levoit Core P350 earns our top slot thanks to its balance of features, design, quality, and price. Levoit purpose-built this air purifier for pets, as is evidenced by the Pet-Lock function to keep your furry friend from accidentally changing settings on the touchscreen display. It’s also a bonus in households with kids. 

The Core P350 features a three-in-one filtration system. The Non-Woven Fabric Pre-Filter traps pet fur to reduce the amount of hair on your floors. The Efficient Activated Carbon Filter neutralizes pet odors to keep your home smelling fresh. It effectively removed the dog smell from my office, where the dog crate lives. And finally, the True HEPA filter cleans the air to remove allergens. 

All three filter types are packed in a relatively compact package with a sleek, attractive design that will fit well in just about any space. It’s powerful enough to purify a 219-square-foot room in only 12 minutes, yet can produce as little as 24 decibels. Three fan modes allow you to fine-tune noise levels and cleaning effectiveness, and a night mode turns off lights so you can sleep without distractions. 

The primary downside to the Core P350 is that it doesn’t pair with an app and doesn’t offer an air quality sensor. But at $130, it’s hard to beat all that this air purifier for pets has to offer. 

Best splurge: Molekule Air Pro

SEE IT

Specs

• Filter type(s): PECO, True- HEPA, and carbon filters
• Maximum coverage area: Up to 1000 square feet
• Dimensions: 23.1 x 10.9 inches
• Weight: 22.9 pounds

Pros

• Very quiet
• Automatic mode detects changes in air quality
• Six manual speeds offer lots of control
• Attractive design
• Tackles odors, smoke particles, dust, and more

Cons

• Expensive

If thorough air-cleaning abilities, smart design, and broad coverage are of utmost importance, the Molekule Air Pro is your best bet. This larger air purifier for pets covers up to 1,000 square feet in rooms with ceilings up to eight feet. The modern design will look smart in your home, and the vegan leather handle makes it easier to move when cleaning a different room.

The Air Pro features a True HEPA filter to capture 99.7 percent of small particles. A carbon filter removes odors and gases. But what makes it unique is the light-activated PECO technology, which destroys organic pollutants instead of simply trapping them. In 2023, scientists at the Florida International University published a preclinical study in Nature examining how PECO filters reduce allergic reactions to cat dander. The team found that the PECO filter was more effective at destroying cat dander, thus reducing allergy responses. The air in the room where I have my Air Pro definitely smells fresher since getting this purifier up and running. 

On top of effective air purifying abilities, Molekule’s Air Pro is also extremely smart. Thanks to the built-in air quality sensor, it offers two automatic modes. One automatically adjusts the fan speed when it detects increased particles and chemical levels. When I burned some food while cooking, the fan spun up to clear out the smoke faster. The other automatic mode does the same, but silently. There are also six manual fan speeds, so you can take full control when you want. It operates at noise levels between 30-65 decibels, with the lowest level barely noticeable over normal white noise in your home. 

The Molekule app is easy to navigate and provides daily and weekly air quality assessments. With the Air Pro, you can even break these down into specific pollutants, such as carbon dioxide, VOCs, and various particle sizes. It will remind you when to change filters, and you can subscribe to receive new filters automatically. The Air Pro is expensive, to be sure. But it is ripe with features, scientifically backed, and attractively designed. The steep price tag is the only reason this didn’t earn our best overall designation.

Best for large rooms: GermGuardian Air Purifier

SEE IT

Specs

• Filter type(s): True HEPA, UV-C light, carbon pre-filter
• Maximum coverage area: Up to 1760 square feet
• Dimensions: 9.65 x 15.95 x 20.87 inches
• Weight: 13 pounds

Pros

• Cleans up to 1,760 square feet
• Three fan speed settings
• UV-C light reduces germs, viruses, and bacteria
• Removes odors

Cons

• Two fan speeds are quite loud
• A bit bulky

Large spaces require more robust air purifiers for pets. The GermGuardian can purify rooms up to 1,760 square feet, fitting the bill. In rooms that size, it can circulate the air one time per hour. Or, for faster cleaning, it can cycle the air 4.8 times per hour in 365-square-foot spaces. It features three levels of cleaning, including a True HEPA filter, a carbon pre-filter to remove odors and trap pet hair, and a UV-C light to reduce airborne germs. 

The GermGuardian is roughly the size of a dehumidifier, though slightly more narrow. It will require some space, but since it’s made for large rooms, that shouldn’t be too much of an issue for most. It’s relatively affordable for the large coverage as well, which is nice to see. A night mode turns off the device’s lights. And an eight-hour auto-off timer keeps it from running unnecessarily. 

Our main complaint with the GermGuardian is the fan speed settings. There is not much difference in noise between two levels, and both are quite loud. The third setting is barely noticeable, so we primarily keep it at this setting. Having more even differences between the three levels for more control would be nice. There are no sensor or automatic controls, so you must manually change fan speeds. But, overall, it seemed to cut back on our allergies when running and effectively removed odors as well, which is appreciated. 

Best for small rooms: Molekule Air Mini+

SEE IT

Specs

• Filter type(s): PECO, True- HEPA, and carbon filters
• Maximum coverage area: Up to 250 square feet
• Dimensions: 8.26 x 8.26 x 12 inches
• Weight: 7.3 pounds

Pros

• Extremely quiet
• Pairs with the Molekule app 
• FDA-cleared as a medical device
• Compact and portable

Cons

• Pricey for the size

The Molekule Air Mini+ is essentially a smaller version of the Air Pro mentioned above. It features the same proprietary PECO-HEPA Tri-Power to purify air from various allergens and pollutants effectively. Like the Air Pro, the Air Mini+ is DA-cleared as a 510(k) Class II medical device to destroy viruses, bacteria, and mold. 

The Air Mini features a particle sensor to detect and track PM2.5 levels over time, which you can view in the app. The automatic mode spins up the fan as needed, adapting to the current conditions in your room. Or you can manually adjust with five different speed settings, resulting in noise levels from 39 to 62 decibels. 

This compact air purifier for pets can purify up to 250 square feet. We’ve had ours in our bedroom and have noticed much-improved allergies while trying to sleep. The vegan leather handle makes it easy to move if you need to bring it from room to room with you. Although the PECO filter is light-activated, it is very dim and doesn’t cause much of a glow in a dark room at night. There are controls on the top of the device that are easy to use, or you can change settings via the Molekule app as well. Overall, it’s a sleek, effective little air purifier.

Best budget: Winix A231 Tower H13

SEE IT

Specs

• Filter type(s): Washable fine mesh pre-filter, activated carbon filter, True HEPA filter
• Maximum coverage area: Up to 230 square feet
• Dimensions: 9.5 x 9.5 x 14.6 inches
• Weight:

Pros

• Washable pre-filter saves money
• Carbon filter reduces odors
• Automatic mode with built-in sensor and air quality indicator
• Offers a dedicated sleep mode

Cons

• Fairly loud, even on lower settings

The Winix A231 offers quality air purification even for those on a tight budget. And despite the friendly price, it still has plenty of features, making it our best value pick. Most notable for an air purifier for pets at this price is the built-in sensor and automatic mode. Plus, the air quality indicator will alert you to changes in air quality with different light colors on the top of the device.  

This Winix air filter features three levels of purification. The True HEPA filter captures 99.97 percent of airborne particles as small as 0.3 microns in size. The carbon filter reduces odor-causing VOCs to keep your room smelling fresh. A washable fine mesh pre-filter traps larger airborne particles, including pet hair. We love to see a washable design since it saves you money and reduces the environmental impact. 

Unique to this air purifier is the Winnix PlasmaWave Air Cleaning Technology, which can be turned on or off. Winix says this acts as a permanent filter to break down odor, allergens, chemical vapors, and other pollutants. Unfortunately, users have reported that it is loud even on the lowest fan speed, though the sleep mode does provide quiet operation. But for the price, you’ll be hard-pressed to find as many features or quality in other options.

Things to consider when shopping for the best air purifiers for pets

Air purifiers for pets can vary from extremely simple devices with just a few settings to tech-heavy options with all sorts of fancy features. No matter what variety you are looking for, there are some key things to look out for to ensure you get a quality purifier that will actually clean your air. 

Filter types

The most important aspect of any air purifier is the thing doing the purifying—the filters. High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters are the best available, so prioritize air purifiers with this type of filter for best results. That’s because HEPA filters can remove 99.97 percent of dust, pollen, mold, bacteria, or any other airborne particles as small as 0.3 microns, according to the EPA. 

However, you’ll want to pay close attention to HEPA filter mentions on air purifier listings. There are True HEPA filters, which are highly effective. But there are also HEPA-like filters, which are not certified to meet the standards mentioned by the EPA. 

Many air purifiers rely on multiple types of filters, so there are other filter types to pay attention to—some feature activated carbon filters, which work to reduce odors. For households with pets, this may be an extremely important feature. If you have extra furry friends that make it impossible to keep up with vacuuming, look for devices with a pre-filter, which will catch loose hair to prevent it from blocking up the HEPA filter. Some air filters also feature a UV light to kill airborne bacteria. 

Room size

As with any air filter, manufacturers build pet air purifiers for specific room sizes. This will be listed in square footage. A small purifier meant for a 350-square-foot room won’t work well in a vast, open space. On the other hand, a large air purifier meant for over 1,000 square feet will be overkill for a tiny bedroom. Be sure to consider where you will put the filter and roughly how many square feet it is before selecting.

Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR)

Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR) refers to the volume of filtered air an air purifier delivers. The CADR is broken into separate scores for tobacco smoke, pollen, and dust. The CADR of your air purifier should be equivalent to at least two-thirds of the room’s area, according to the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). For example, for a 120-square-foot room, it “would be best to have an air cleaner with a smoke CADR of at least 80.” 

Using an air purifier with a CADR number larger than two-thirds of the room’s square footage simply means that it will clean the air more often and faster, which isn’t bad. Unfortunately, not all manufacturers will list CADR numbers. But it is worth checking to see if they are provided.  

Replacement filter cost

To keep your filter working, you’ll need to replace filters occasionally. Some are reusable, though they will still require proper cleaning. If you are on a budget, be sure to factor in the cost of replacement filters on top of the initial cost of the air purifier for pets. Some companies, such as Molekule, offer subscription services to send you new filters when it’s time automatically. If you tend to forget such things, you may want to opt for a device with a subscription service to keep your air clean. 

Noise levels

Air filters use a fan to pull air through a filter, inevitably producing noise. Some are louder than others, though. Manufacturers will occasionally list decibel levels; if noise is a concern for your household, check to see if the decibel level is provided on the models you are considering. 

Luckily, many devices provide multiple fan levels. That means you can turn it up when you want a boost of cleaning and then lower the fan noise when you are trying to watch TV. You can even find models with specific sleep modes to keep the volume down when it’s time for bed.

Additional features

Beyond the necessities, you may find additional features on air purifiers for pets that could be of interest. Some offer timers so that you aren’t constantly running the unit. Others feature air quality sensors to keep you aware of the air quality in a given room. Others provide app connectivity with reminders to change filters, remote control features, and more. 

FAQs

Final thoughts on the best air purifiers for pets

• Best overall: Levoit Core P350
• Best splurge: Molekule Air Pro
• Best for large rooms: GermGuardian Air Purifier
• Best for small rooms: Molekule Air Mini+
• Best budget: Winix A231 Tower H13

As much as we love the animals in our lives, they put out an awful lot of allergens. Even those without serious allergies may suffer from minor reactions to all that dander and associated pollutants. The best air purifier for pets will keep the air clean even with a small zoo in your house, making it more comfortable and safer for everyone involved. 

Why trust us

Popular Science started writing about technology more than 150 years ago. There was no such thing as “gadget writing” when we published our first issue in 1872, but if there was, our mission to demystify the world of innovation for everyday readers means we would have been all over it. Here in the present, PopSci is fully committed to helping readers navigate the increasingly intimidating array of devices on the market right now.

Our writers and editors have combined decades of experience covering and reviewing consumer electronics. We each have our own obsessive specialties—from high-end audio to video games to cameras and beyond—but when we’re reviewing devices outside of our immediate wheelhouses, we do our best to seek out trustworthy voices and opinions to help guide people to the very best recommendations. We know we don’t know everything, but we’re excited to live through the analysis paralysis that internet shopping can spur so readers don’t have to.

The post The best air purifiers for pets in 2024, tested and reviewed appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on Undark.

When Frank Lin was in junior high, his grandma started wearing hearing aids. During dinner conversations, she was often painfully silent, and communicating by phone was nearly impossible. As a kid, Lin imagined “what her life would be like if she wasn’t always struggling to communicate.”

It was around that time that Lin became interested in otolaryngology, the study of the ears, nose, and throat. He would go on to study to be an ENT physician, which, he hoped, could equip him to help patients with similar age-related hardships.

Those aspirations sharpened during his residency at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in the late 2000s. Administering hearing tests in the clinic, Lin noticed that his colleagues had vastly different reactions to the same results in young versus old patients. If mild deficits showed up in a kid, “it would be like, ‘Oh, that hearing is critically important,’” said Lin, who today is the director of the Cochlear Center for Hearing and Public Health at Hopkins. But when they saw that same mild to moderate hearing loss in a 70-something patient, many would downplay the findings.

Yet today, research increasingly suggests that untreated hearing loss puts people at higher risk for cognitive decline and dementia. And, unlike during Lin’s early training, many patients can now do something about it: They can assess their own hearing using online tests or mobile phone apps, and purchase over-the-counter hearing aids, which are generally more affordable their predecessors and came under regulation by the Food and Drug Administration in October 2022.

Despite this expanded accessibility, interest in direct-to-consumer hearing devices has lagged thus far—in part, experts suggest, due to physician inattention to adult hearing health, inadequate insurance coverage for hearing aids, and lingering stigma around the issue. (As Lin put it: “There’s always been this notion that everyone has it as you get older, how can it be important?”) Even now, hearing tests aren’t necessarily recommended for individuals unless they report a problem.

Meanwhile, interest has surged in other consumer audio products that are less expensive than most hearing aids and have features that may help with mild hearing loss: wearable devices like Apple’s AirPods and Sony’s LinkBuds. And this fall, the Consumer Technology Association, a trade group representing the $505 billion U.S. consumer technology industry, released a standard metric for consumer electronics products to report a person’s hearing status. While yearly sale estimates for hearing aids hover around 20 million units worldwide, the fast-growing global market for consumer earbuds now tops 300 million.

The trend has some experts—including Lin, who is a consultant for Apple and on the advisory board for Sharper Sense—wondering if public interest in hearing health could ultimately be driven less by the medical community and more by technology companies wanting to boost consumer awareness of their audio products.

About one in five Americans over the age of 12 struggles with hearing, and the percentage creeps higher with each decade of life. Among those who have reached their 70th birthday, roughly two-thirds have hearing difficulties. One vexing aspect is that hearing loss often emerges imperceptibly, with no obvious benchmarks to announce its arrival. “It’s very obvious when our vision starts to change. You can’t read the back of the soup can,” said Stephanie Czuhajewski, the executive director of the Academy of Doctors of Audiology. (Audiologists treat and manage hearing loss and balance disorders.) Yet with hearing loss, she said, “it sneaks up on you.” 

Some people remain unaware of their hearing struggles despite test results showing clear deficits. In a national study of adults between the ages of 20 and 69, more than two-thirds of participants with demonstrated hearing loss believed their hearing was fine. Even in the subset with more pronounced difficulties, 43 percent continued to report that their hearing seemed normal. This may be, in part, because some everyday noises are subtle. People don’t remember that they used to hear background noises, for instance, like birds singing and leaves rustling, said Kate Carr, president of the Hearing Industries Association, a trade group. (Carr will retire from her position on Dec. 31 and become a strategic adviser for the organization.)

Part of what makes it hard to notice one’s own hearing loss is the body’s ability to adapt and accommodate. For nearly three decades, 54-year-old Geoff McKonly has only been hearing out of his left ear; in 1997, doctors cut his right auditory nerve during a surgery to remove a fast-growing tumor. Yet having lived more than half his life with just one working ear, “you do a lot to compensate,” said McKonly, a furniture maker in Southampton, Massachusetts. “Most of the time, it’s not something I even think about.”

While hearing loss may be common, only about one in three older adults who could benefit from hearing aids have used them, several estimates suggest. Adoption rates appear to be edging upward in recent years, though on the whole, have only risen modestly since the 1950s, when devices were larger and clunkier.

By comparison, today’s hearing aids are a technological marvel—tiny, lightweight, and often lasting a full day without charging. Why are they still underused?

Cost is a key barrier. A 2022 survey of more than 15,000 U.S. households, conducted by the Hearing Industries Association before the FDA established the over-the-counter category, identified 2,079 respondents who chose not to get hearing aids despite reporting having hearing loss. From a list of possible reasons, more than half chose “too expensive” as the top response.

The high cost of hearing aids largely stems from regulatory history. In 1977, the FDA started regulating hearing aids as medical devices. In that pre-digital era when hearing aids had to be manually programmed with a screwdriver, the FDA stipulated that companies could not sell the devices directly to consumers to prevent them from buying ineffective devices. Rather, hearing aids were only available through licensed dispensers or audiologists who generally buy devices from manufacturers at wholesale prices and bundle them with the hearing test and related services, such as fitting and adjustments, into one hefty sum.

The actual device cost might make up just 40 to 60 percent of that total price, said Kim Cavitt, an audiology consultant in the Chicago area. In a 2020 study, the average patient shelled out $2,500—a bundled out-of-pocket cost that, researchers estimated, was unaffordable to more than three-quarters of Americans with hearing loss. A 2018 survey placed the cost even higher, suggesting that hearing aid consumers paid an average bundled price of about $4,700. In another survey, only a quarter of respondents said their insurance helped with these costs. Traditional Medicare does not cover hearing aids or exams for fitting hearing aids, and only covers hearing exams if ordered by a doctor or other health care provider.

The bundled pricing model consolidated the market to an extent that, prior to the introduction of direct-to-consumer devices, five manufacturers sold more 90 percent of hearing aids worldwide.

Even if cost were not a hurdle, many adults don’t think to get their hearing checked in the first place—and they’re unlikely to get prodded by a physician. In 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which makes recommendations about screenings and other clinical preventive services, issued a statement concluding that “evidence is insufficient” to determine if it’s beneficial for physicians to identify and treat hearing loss in people who haven’t raised concerns about their hearing.

This is not a recommendation against screening, said Task Force chair Michael Barry, a primary care clinician at Massachusetts General Hospital: “It’s ‘we don’t know, and we need more research.’”­

Still, coming from a respected body of national experts that shapes the practice of evidence-based medicine with preventive care guidelines, the inconclusive statement holds sway. Practically speaking, it means that hearing loss is not built into automated health care maintenance reminders the way screenings for cancer, dementia, and home safety are, said Catherine James, a retired physician who worked in clinics in San Francisco for 25 years and considers Task Force recommendations useful and “free from big pharma influence.” 

The primary care agency’s advice tends to be conservative—“less interventionist” than medical specialty societies, Bay Area primary care physician Vera Zeldovich told Undark. She noted, for example, that the American Cancer Society recommends annual mammograms for women ages 45 to 54 whereas Task Force guidelines suggest this screening every two years starting at age 50.

Primary care physicians also have limited time to spend with each patient, and generally have a lot to squeeze into clinic appointments. Checking on hearing ranks low on the priority list, Lin said: “It’s just not pragmatically possible in the context of a 20-minute visit.”

Yet hearing struggles burden some 40 million U.S. adults. In a 2019 survey, nearly 49 percent of Medicare beneficiaries reported having hearing loss, more so than heart disease, osteoporosis, or cognitive decline.

Research shows that hearing difficulties put people at greater risk for loneliness, depression, and falls. Hearing loss may also have implications for brain health. In a 2020 report for the medical journal The Lancet, a global team of experts found that untreated hearing impairment was the largest potentially modifiable risk factor for dementia. And a large clinical trial published by Lin and colleagues this summer found that addressing hearing loss can actually slow cognitive decline in some older adults.

The three-year study enrolled nearly 1,000 older adults with untreated hearing loss from multiple locations in the U.S. Half were randomly assigned to receive hearing-related counseling and hearing aids, while the other half received generalized counseling on healthy aging, as a control intervention. Among participants whose health profiles put them at higher risk of cognitive decline, the researchers found that using hearing aids was protective: Their mental faculties slipped 48 percent less than high-risk patients in the control group. While past studies had linked hearing deficits with various health risks, this was among the first to convincingly show a tangible health benefit from wearing hearing aids.

But even if those results had been available several years ago when the Task Force was reviewing evidence for its latest hearing loss recommendation, they might not have had much impact. The “question is not just whether the intervention helps,” Barry explained. “It’s whether there is a proven pathway from screening to intervention to improved health.” 

The Task Force’s last two hearing loss statements relied heavily on data from a single randomized trial published in 2007. That study enrolled 2,305 U.S. veterans. Among those who had an exam suggesting hearing loss at tested frequencies, less than 10 percent were actually doing anything about it one year later. 

In this case, the fact that hearing aids remain underused and undervalued may have prevented the U.S. screening recommendation. The World Health Organization, on the other hand, suggests regular hearing screening for adults ages 50 and up every five years, with screen frequency increasing to every one to three years from 65 years of age.

With experts divided over screening recommendations and U.S. primary care focused more on treating life-threatening conditions than on promoting wellness, it’s often up to patients to take action on their hearing.

After getting by without hearing a thing from his right ear since the late 1990s, McKonly, the furniture maker, started noticing possible lapses during the past year or two—often when driving his son to and from school. “My left ear is the one that’s facing the window, so I have trouble with conversations in the car,” he said. He also recalls having a hard time talking with customers at furniture shows last year.

But even more than noticing his own struggles, what really drove the issue home, McKonly said, was witnessing hearing loss in his family members—“stubborn old men who are, like, ‘what? what?’ all the time and could really benefit from hearing aids but won’t go there.”

Seeing their resistance take a toll on the family, McKonly decided he could no longer ignore his own hearing struggles. Something helped spur him into action: Last year, the FDA defined a new category of over-the-counter hearing aids for adults 18 and over with “perceived mild to moderate hearing loss.” Sold at retail stores and online, these devices can be purchased without a prescription.

Several years ago, Lin and colleagues at Johns Hopkins introduced a concept called the Hearing Number—an average of how loud four frequencies of sounds must be for a person to hear them. This metric represents hearing on a scale of 0 to 100 decibels, where numbers below 10 denote the ability to hear very soft sounds, and values 65 and above signify severe hearing loss. Over the past year, Lin and representatives from about a dozen technology companies worked with the Consumer Technology Association to make the Hearing Number the standard metric that gets reported to customers who use the companies’ devices to test their hearing.

Anticipation of these milestones evoked hope and anxiety. Public health advocates celebrated the concept, hoping it would lower costs and expand access to a vital intervention. 

Some audiologists expressed worry that giving people direct access to hearing tests and hearing aids would hurt their business model, which has traditionally relied on bundled pricing that lumped the device cost with services, Lin said. 

Surveyed in August 2022 just after the FDA ruling, less than 27 percent of audiologists said they would start selling OTC hearing aids, about 42 percent indicated they would “unbundle” their fees to compete with OTC hearing aid prices, and about 56 percent would support patients with OTC hearing aids purchased elsewhere. In another recent survey, about one in five audiologists said they will not sell or service OTC devices.

In discussions leading up to the launch of Hearing Number, hearing aid companies were “not very keen,” Lin said. On a call explaining the idea of a standard metric to equip people to measure their hearing and act on it, he recalled a director of marketing piping up in disbelief: “So, Dr. Lin, you’re telling me you want to emancipate the consumers?”

In a recent episode of his ListenUp! podcast, ENT physician Mark Syms likened the launch of OTC hearing aids to the Y2K moment—a season of panic about the possibility that a decades-old computer programming shortcut could bring banking and other information technology sectors to a halt as the year changed from 1999 to 2000. “I know people who were banking gold and silver,” Syms said, and yet there were no dire results. “It happened without a blip.”

The same can be said for OTC hearing aids, which some feared or hoped could shake up the industry but instead, have yet to make much of a dent. Based on survey data released in September by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, of the adults in the U.S. who have hearing struggles, just 2 percent have purchased an OTC hearing aid, and only 4 percent said they intend to purchase one in the coming year. Return rates also appear higher in OTC hearing aids, with one popular company reporting return rates of over 34 percent, compared to a 15 to 19 percent return rate for prescription hearing aids in the last few years. 

Some hesitance may derive from a lack of quality data, which is important for motivating change in the medical community. When Alex Krist, a family physician in Fairfax, Virginia, counsels patients who say they’re having trouble with their hearing, he typically recommends going to an audiologist, since “that’s more the pathway in my community.” Sometimes he suggests the local Costco, which offers a free hearing test and sells several brands of hearing aids well below national average prices, with free follow-up appointments.

Krist tries to help his patients find cost-effective hearing aid options but at this point does not specifically recommend OTC devices. “As a physician, I’d actually like to see some studies comparing how well do the over-the-counter do compared to getting one that’s more tailored and prescribed by an audiologist,” he said.

Barring the occasional peer-reviewed publication, the vast majority of information on OTC hearing aids comes from online product reviews.

While primary care physicians tend to be more conservative in their recommendations to patients, audiology engineers are eager to innovate and appeal to consumers. Rather than thinking in categories, engineers tend to see hearing enhancement technologies on a continuum. 

“It starts with something I put in my ear to answer a phone or play music, and it goes all the way up to coping with whatever level of hearing loss I have,” said technology strategist Nick Hunn, who chairs Bluetooth’s hearing aid working group. “That’s just different iterations of the technology.”

The underlying technology of OTC hearing aids is fundamentally similar to prescription hearing aids. What differs is the user. Whereas prescription hearing aids typically serve the segment of patients with more severe difficulties, OTC hearing aids are aimed at adults who perceive “mild to moderate” hearing loss. Within the OTC category, devices have preset self-fitting procedures to test hearing and adjust their audio programs. Plus, customers have a myriad of choices including style, comfort, and other features such as directional microphones, noise cancellation, and Bluetooth streaming of phone and video calls. The diversity of options makes it hard to do head-to-head comparisons as might typically be done in medical research.

The picture is further complicated by “hearables,” a term Hunn coined in 2014 to describe in-ear devices with various health and audio features—including, in some cases, hearing enhancement capabilities that some think could potentially help people with mild hearing loss. 

“Hearables” overlap with a category of devices called personal sound amplification products, or PSAPs, which the FDA regulates as consumer electronics—unlike hearing aids, which are medical devices. Both PSAPs and hearing aids amplify sound for the user but have different intended uses. Hearing aids “make up for impaired hearing” whereas PSAPs “are intended for people with normal hearing to amplify sounds in certain situations, such as recreational activities like birdwatching or hunting,” FDA press officer Carly Pflaum explained in an email to Undark. 

In the view of scientists who build and test these products, “people with hearing loss generally just have enhanced difficulties in all the things that normal hearers have,” said Nicky Chong-White, a hearing technology developer at the government-funded National Acoustic Laboratories in Sydney, Australia. For example, anyone may have trouble hearing, at times, in noisy places, she said, but “people with hearing loss have a really elevated difficulty. They can’t separate out background noise from the person they’re trying to listen to.”

In 2014, Apple released a feature called Live Listen to help in these very situations, by using the iPhone as a remote microphone when paired with hearing devices. For example, in a noisy room, placing the phone next to the speaker could relay their speech, using Bluetooth wireless technology, straight into someone’s hearing aids or earbuds. While earlier iterations suffered from an echo, newer-generation AirPods can amplify sound with no perceptible delay and provide personalized amplification based on a user’s hearing test results.

Analyses by Chong-White and colleagues suggest that AirPods Pro work comparably to hearing aids for sounds at normal speech levels, though it overamplified loud sounds and underamplified soft sounds. And in a different study, the researchers found that the earbuds can help people who have normal audiograms but struggle to hear in noisy environments.

These devices are not going to replace hearing aids, Chong-White said. Their batteries don’t last all day, they cannot be fine-tuned as well, and generally aren’t as comfortable for long-term wear. “But for the population that’s not yet ready for hearing aids—they’ve got difficulty sometimes but not all the time—it’s a good option to have,” she added.

No matter how people with hearing loss access technology, some experts say the end result is what matters. “Hearing is a spectrum,” said Hunn. “At the end of the day, you want conversation. You want sound. You want to enjoy it.”

The post Why aren’t more people buying over-the-counter hearing aids? appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This time of year, it’s not unusual to see a family member or a friend get impatient and try to figure out what is inside a wrapped present by shaking it. But what are they trying to figure out? Are they attempting to find out the shape of the present inside or how many objects are in there? A recent study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that it only took observers of the present-shaker a few seconds to tell which information they’re looking for. This research into human cognition and perception could have implications for artificial intelligence in the future.

[Related: Can exercising the mind improve our abilities, or is it just another self-improvement fantasy?]

“Just by looking at how someone’s body is moving, you can tell what they are trying to learn about their environment,” study co-author and Johns Hopkins University cognitive scientist Chaz Firestone said in a statement. “We do this all the time, but there has been very little research on it.”

Pragmatic vs. epistemic actions

Without even realizing it, our brains recognize and analyze another person’s actions multiple times a day. Pragmatic actions include anything that moves a person towards a goal. Our brains analyze these actions to guess which way someone is walking down a street or determine what they’re reaching for. Earlier studies have shown that people can quickly and accurately guess the goal of another person’s pragmatic actions just by observation.

The new study investigates a different kind of behavior consisting of epistemic actions. These kinds of actions are performed when a person is trying to learn something about their surroundings. Epistemic action is dipping your toes into a pool to test out the water temperature or sampling a soup to see if it needs more seasoning. 

While pragmatic and epistemic actions are similar, there are some subtle differences. Firestone and the team were curious to see if participants could detect another person’s epistemic goals just by watching them and designed a series of experiments to find out.

What’s in the box?

Researchers asked 500 participants to watch two videos of a person picking up a box full of objects and shaking it. One video showed a person shaking a box to determine the numbers of objects that are inside of it. The other video showed someone shaking the box in order to decipher the shape of the objects inside. 

Almost every participant in the study could tell who was shaking the box to figure out the number of objects and who was shaking to figure out the content’s shape. 

“What is surprising to me is how intuitive this is,” study co-author and Johns Hopkins graduate student Sholei Croom said in a statement. “People really can suss out what others are trying to figure out, which shows how we can make these judgments even though what we’re looking at is very noisy and changes from person to person.”

[Related: How you see these shapes may depend on your culture.]

More research into epistemic actions could help engineers develop more anticipatory AI systems that are designed to interact with humans better. In future studies, the team is curious if it is possible to observe epistemic intent versus their pragmatic intent and decipher what is going on in their brain when someone performs an action like sticking your hand out of a  window to test the air temperature. They’re also curious it’s possible to build models that detail exactly how observed physical actions reveal epistemic intent. 

“When you think about all the mental calculations someone must make to understand what someone else is trying to learn, it’s a remarkably complicated process,” said Firestone. “But our findings show it’s something people do easily. It’s one thing to know where someone is headed or what product they are reaching for, but it’s another thing to infer whether someone is lost or what kind of information they are seeking.”

The post Shaking presents for science appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally published on KFF Health News.

A food poisoning outbreak that killed two people and sickened 51, stemming from a Montana restaurant, has highlighted just how little is known about morel mushrooms and the risks in preparing the popular and expensive delicacy.

The FDA conducted an investigation into morel mushrooms after the severe illness outbreak linked to Dave’s Sushi in Bozeman in late March and April. The investigation found that undercooked or raw morels were the likely culprit, and it led the agency to issue its first guidelines on preparing morels.

“The toxins in morel mushrooms that may cause illness are not fully understood; however, using proper preparation procedures, such as cooking, can help to reduce toxin levels,” according to the FDA guidance.

Even then, a risk remains, according to the FDA: “Properly preparing and cooking morel mushrooms can reduce risk of illness, however there is no guarantee of safety even if cooking steps are taken prior to consumption.”

Jon Ebelt, spokesperson for Montana’s health department, said there is limited public health information or medical literature on morels. And samples of the morels taken from Dave’s Sushi detected no specific toxin, pathogen, pesticide, or volatile or nonvolatile organic compound in the mushrooms.

Aaron Parker, the owner of Dave’s Sushi, said morels are a “boutique item.” In season, generally during the spring and fall, morels can cost him $40 per pound, while morels purchased out of season are close to $80 per pound, he said.

Many highly regarded recipe books describe sauteing morels to preserve the sought-after, earthy flavor. At Dave’s, a marinade, sometimes boiling, was poured over the raw mushrooms before they were served, Parker said. After his own investigation, Parker said he found boiling them between 10 and 30 minutes is the safest way to prepare morel mushrooms.

Parker said he reached out to chefs across the country and found that many, like him, were surprised to learn about the toxicity of morels.

“They had no idea that morel mushrooms had this sort of inherent risk factor regardless of preparation,” Parker said.

According to the FDA’s Food Code, the vast majority of the more than 5,000 fleshy mushroom species that grow naturally in North America have not been tested for toxicity. Of those that have, 15 species are deadly, 60 are toxic whether raw or cooked—including “false” morels, which look like spongy edible morels—and at least 40 are poisonous if eaten raw, but safer when cooked.

The North American Mycological Association, a national nonprofit whose members are mushroom experts, recorded 1,641 cases of mushroom poisonings and 17 deaths from 1985 to 2006. One hundred and twenty-nine of those poisonings were attributed to morels, but no deaths were reported.

Marian Maxwell, the outreach chairperson for the Puget Sound Mycological Society, based in Seattle, said cooking breaks down the chitin in mushrooms, the same compound found in the exoskeletons of shellfish, and helps destroy toxins. Maxwell said morels may naturally contain a type of hydrazine—a chemical often used in pesticides or rocket fuel that can cause cancer—which can affect people differently. Cooking does boil off the hydrazine, she said, “but some people still have reactions even though it’s cooked and most of that hydrazine is gone.”

Heather Hallen-Adams, chair of the toxicology committee of the North American Mycological Association, said hydrazine has been shown to exist in false morels, but it’s not as “clear-cut” in true morels, which were the mushrooms used at Dave’s Sushi.

Mushroom-caused food poisonings in restaurant settings are rare—the Montana outbreak is believed to be one of the first in the U.S. related to morels—but they have happened infrequently abroad. In 2019, a morel food poisoning outbreak at a Michelin-star-rated restaurant in Spain sickened about 30 customers. One woman who ate the morels died, but her death was determined to be from natural causes. Raw morels were served on a pasta salad in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 2019 and poisoned 77 consumers, though none died.

Before the new guidelines were issued, the FDA’s Food Code guidance to states was only that serving wild mushrooms must be approved by a “regulatory authority.”

The FDA’s Food Code bans the sale of wild-picked mushrooms in a restaurant or other food establishment unless it’s been approved to do so, though cultivated wild mushrooms can be sold if the cultivation operations are overseen by a regulatory agency, as was the case with the morels at Dave’s Sushi. States’ regulations vary, according to a 2021 study by the Georgia Department of Public Health and included in the Association of Food and Drug Officials’ regulatory guidelines. For example, Montana and a half-dozen other states allow restaurants to sell wild mushrooms if they come from a licensed seller, according to the study. Seventeen other states allow the sale of wild mushrooms that have been identified by a state-credentialed expert.

The study found that the varied resources states use to identify safe wild mushrooms—including mycological associations, academics, and the food service industry—may suggest a need for better communication.

The study recognized a “guidance document” as the “single most important step forward” given the variety in regulations and the demand for wild mushrooms.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

The post Mysterious morel mushrooms at center of food poisoning outbreak appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

The absolute latest possible day to purchase an Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 for the foreseeable future is officially Christmas Eve. The company has announced that it will pause online sales of its most recent wearable models beginning at 3pm ET on December 21, with in-store inventory suspensions going into effect after December 24.

The upcoming unavailability isn’t due to a dangerous safety recall notice. It’s actually an ongoing patent dispute. According to legal filings, medical technology manufacturer Masimo claims Apple cloned its blood oxygen sensor tech hardware following a series of collaboration discussions that began in 2013. Although the two parties ultimately failed to team up, Masimo alleges that Apple stole tech information obtained during its meetings for its forthcoming Apple Watch design, as well as poached a number of Masimo employees.

[Related: Apple Watch comparison: Which one is right for you?]

The specific blood oxygen monitor technology in dispute is only available in the latest Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 models, hence the specific moratoriums. When enabled, the latest wearable optical system emits red and near-infrared light onto a wrist’s “blood perfused tissue.” Light sensors then detect and process re-emitted photo-signals into what are known as photoplethysmograms (PPGs) to track heartbeat pulsations. These are then translated into blood oxygen level readings for users. Earlier existing options such as the Series 8 and Watch SE are unaffected by the patent litigation, as they do not contain hardware Masimo claims violate patents.

“Before Masimo, pulse oximeters were unreliable, providing inaccurate measurements and frequent false alarms,” the medical company’s About Us page reads before contending Masimo “revolutionized the industry” thanks to its Signal Extraction Technology.

A US judge ruled in Masimo’s favor in January 2023 following years of legal back-and-forth, siding with the medical company’s claims of patent infringement via Apple Watch’s blood oxygen sensors. Although Apple appealed, an International Trade Commission ruling in October upheld the initial assessment. Although the Biden administration has since had 60 days to veto the ITC decision, its radio silence on the matter prompted Apple to “preemptively” announce its pulling of both Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 from US markets.

“Apple strongly disagrees with the order and is pursuing a range of legal and technical options to ensure that Apple Watch is available to customers,” reads a portion of the company statement provided to news outlets on December 18. “Should the order stand, Apple will continue to take all measures to return Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 to customers in the U.S. as soon as possible.”

If President Biden ultimately does not veto the ruling, Apple plans to appeal the ITC decision with the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The two Masimo patents mentioned by the ITC do not expire until August 2028. There is also the possibility that the two parties settle out-of-court, likely including a licensing agreement that puts the dispute to rest once and for all. In any case, be prepared to settle for Apple Watch Series 8 or older for the time being.
The last time a presidential administration issued a veto on Apple’s behalf was in 2013, when President Obama ruled in the company’s favor in an iPhone and iPad patent dispute with Samsung. A few months prior to the veto, Masimo’s chief medical officer left his position at the company for a role within Apple.

The post You may not be able to buy the latest Apple Watches after December 24th appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured in MIT Press.

In 2009, my research group found that newborns possess the ability to discern a regular pulse–the beat–in music. It’s a skill that might seem trivial to most of us but that’s fundamental to the creation and appreciation of music. The discovery sparked a profound curiosity in me, leading to an exploration of the biological underpinnings of our innate capacity for music, commonly referred to as “musicality.”

In a nutshell, the experiment involved playing drum rhythms, occasionally omitting a beat, and observing the newborns’ responses. Astonishingly, these tiny participants displayed an anticipation of the missing beat, as their brains exhibited a distinct spike, signaling a violation of their expectations when a note was omitted. This discovery not only unveiled the musical prowess of newborns but also helped lay the foundation for a burgeoning field dedicated to studying the origins of musicality.

Yet, as with any discovery, skepticism emerged (as it should). Some colleagues challenged our interpretation of the results, suggesting alternate explanations rooted in the acoustic nature of the stimuli we employed. Others argued that the observed reactions were a result of statistical learning, questioning the validity of beat perception being a separate mechanism essential to our musical capacity. Infants actively engage in statistical learning as they acquire a new language, enabling them to grasp elements such as word order and common accent structures in their native language. Why would music perception be any different?

To address these challenges, in 2015, our group decided to revisit and overhaul our earlier beat perception study, expanding its scope, method and scale, and, once more, decided to include, next to newborns, adults (musicians and non-musicians) and macaque monkeys.

The results, published last month in Cognition, unequivocally confirm that beat perception is a distinct mechanism, separate from statistical learning. The study provides converging evidence on newborns’ beat perception capabilities. In other words, the study was not simply a replication but utilized an alternative paradigm leading to the same conclusion, and, as such, it succeeded in dispelling any lingering doubts.

When we employed the same paradigm with macaque monkeys in 2018, we found no evidence for beat processing, only a sensitivity to the isochrony (i.e., regularity) of the rhythms. This suggests that the evolution of beat perception unfolded gradually among primates, reaching its pinnacle in humans and manifesting with limitations in other species like chimpanzees and various other nonhuman primates. It provides further empirical support for the Gradual Audiomotor Evolution (GAE) hypothesis I outlined in my 2019 book “The Evolving Animal Orchestra,” a hypothesis that addresses the similarities and differences that are found in rhythm perception (and production) between human and nonhuman primates. It suggests the connection between the motor and auditory brain areas to be stronger wired in humans as opposed to chimpanzees or gibbons, while mostly lacking in macaques.

What does this study say about the origins of music, and why does it matter? When we integrate the findings of the new study with our previous work, we now have converging evidence from two distinct paradigms indicating the functionality of beat processing in newborn infants. This adds weight to the argument for a biological foundation of beat perception itself. The study not only contributes to our understanding of the biological underpinnings of musicality but also underscores the intricate and multifaceted nature of our capacity to perceive and engage with rhythmic elements in the auditory environment. As such, music is not solely a cultural phenomenon but also possesses deep biological roots, apparently offering an evolutionary advantage to our species.

The exciting prospect of placing the study of the evolutionary origins of musicality at the forefront of international research is currently witnessing a surge in interest. Previously relegated to mere speculation, this field explores the biological processes that were set in motion millions of years ago, potentially shaping human nature over the last millennia. Despite the challenges posed by the fact that music doesn’t fossilize, and our musical brain doesn’t leave physical traces, a paradigm shift has taken place in recent decades, steering the field toward empirical inquiry.

Alongside psychology and neuroscience, the realms of biology and genomics now offer effective toolkits for empirically testing theories on the origins of music in the present day. Consequently, musicality research is gaining scientific respectability, coherence, and maturity. The once-speculative nature of the origins of musicality research is giving way to a more concrete and scientifically rigorous approach, making it an exciting and promising avenue for those delving into the mysteries of our musical evolution.

Henkjan Honing is a professor of Music Cognition at the University of Amsterdam, author of “The Evolving Animal Orchestra: In Search of What Makes us Musical,” and editor of “The Origins of Musicality.”

The post Babies appear to be born with the ability to discern a beat in music appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Best overall		Kidde Nighthawk Carbon Monoxide Detector		SEE IT	The Kidde Nighthawk checks for multiple kinds of gas and allows for flexible placement.
Best smoke and carbon monoxide detector		Kidde Smoke & Carbon Monoxide Detector		SEE IT	Kidde’s smoke and carbon monoxide detector provides double the protection.
Best plug-in detector		First Alert CO615		SEE IT	The First Alert CO615’s excellent CO detection will warn you before it’s too late.

A carbon monoxide detector, or CO alarm, is an essential safety device for renters and homeowners. Without one, you risk exposing yourself and your loved ones to accidental CO poisoning, which kills more than 400 Americans yearly, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). There’s a chance you already have a carbon monoxide detector at home, as they’re sometimes (but not always) built into smoke detectors. If you don’t have one, they’re affordable and very easy to install. Whether you’re replacing a faulty CO alarm or upgrading an older home to meet local health codes, these are the best carbon monoxide detectors.

• Best overall: Kidde Nighthawk Carbon Monoxide Detector
• Best for smoke and carbon monoxide: Kidde Smoke & Carbon Monoxide Detector
• Best plug-in: First Alert CO615
• Best smart: Google Nest Protect Smoke and Carbon Monoxide
• Best budget: Kidde Carbon Monoxide Detector

How we chose the best carbon monoxide detectors

I’ve been covering technology since 2011 for publications like Popular Science, CNN Underscored, and TechnoBuffalo. To make these recommendations, I considered research into carbon monoxide and safety protocols for preventing CO poisoning, from reports and government-issued guides from sources like CDC.gov, MayoClinic.org, and HopkinsMedicine.org. I also checked out the testing of carbon monoxide detectors from professional reviewers.

The best carbon monoxide detectors: Reviews & Recommendations

We have enough things to worry about in our everyday lives, without the creeping fear of colorless, odorless gas leaks in the back of your mind. If you don’t use a carbon monoxide detector, it’s time to start. If you’re buying your first CO alarm or need to replace an older model, our recommendations offer reliable CO detection and a few extra features.

Best overall: Kidde Nighthawk Carbon Monoxide Detector

SEE IT

Buy used or refurbished: eBay

Why it made the cut: The Kidde Nighthawk features a digital display, battery backup, and corded adapter for extra mounting flexibility.

Specs

• Type: Plug-in
• Battery backup: Yes (9 volt)
• Dimensions: 6.1 x 3.8 x 1.8 HWD

Pros

• Digital display
• Battery backup
• Corded adapter offers more mounting flexibility

Cons

• No interconnection or smart features

The Kidde Nighthawk is more than just a cool name. This plug-in dual carbon monoxide and explosive gas detector comes equipped with a digital display that tells you the current CO concentration, which updates every 15 seconds to indicate any sudden changes. If unhealthy CO levels are detected, the Nighthawk will emit four quick audible beeps every five seconds until levels decrease or the reset button is pressed.

For a plug-in model, the Nighthawk is very flexible. You can plug it directly into the wall or use its 6-foot AC power adapter to mount it higher on your wall. Crucially, the Nighthawk also supports a 9V battery backup, so it will continue running if your power goes out. The Nighthawk is easy to install and use. It has some extras, but nothing over-complicated that might make it excessively expensive or complicated. That’s exactly what you want from a device that you only want to interface with in an emergency.

Best for smoke and carbon monoxide: Kidde Smoke & Carbon Monoxide Detector

SEE IT

Buy used or refurbished: eBay

Why it made the cut: Kidde’s smoke and carbon monoxide detector consolidates two essential safety devices into one, giving you double the protection.

Specs

• Type: Battery-powered
• Battery backup: Yes (AA x 2)
• Dimensions: 5.6-inch diameter x 1.8-inch depth

Pros

• Easy to install
• Provides smoke alerts
• Voice alarm

Cons

• No digital display

Kidde’s combination smoke and carbon monoxide detector is a simple upgrade for your old smoke detector. It’s battery-powered, features voice alerts, and offers a 10-year lifetime warranty for long-term protection. It’s simply designed, with a prominent button in the middle for testing and hushing the alarm. If a dangerous level of CO is detected, the Kidde will sound with four beeps and say, “Warning, carbon monoxide.” It also provides a vocal “fire” warning and lets you know when its battery is low. Though it is not a “smart” device, per se, you can sync up to 24 Kidde safety devices, including up to 12 smoke alarms, for a more thorough, multi-alarm system.

Best plug-in detector: First Alert CO615

SEE IT

Buy used or refurbished: eBay

Why it made the cut: The First Alert CO615 features a digital display, so you’ll always know the CO levels in your space.

Specs

• Type: Plug-in
• Battery backup: Yes (AA x 2)
• Dimensions: 5 x 3.4 x 1.7 inches HWD

Pros

• Digital display
• Battery backup
• Corded plug-in

Cons

• Trickier mounting hardware

Similar to our top pick, the First Alert CO615 is a plug-in CO alarm with a digital display and backup battery in case there’s a power failure. The digital display makes it easy to check CO levels at a glance at any time. The peak level button shows the highest level of carbon monoxide measured, which can help you tell if your current levels are abnormally high. It also features an 85-decibel alarm, a hush button, and an end-of-life signal chirp, so you’ll know when it’s time to replace the unit. These features are easy to use and understand, making the First Alert CO615 an excellent plug-in option.

Best smart: Google Nest Protect Smoke and Carbon Monoxide

SEE IT

Buy used or refurbished: eBay

Why it made the cut: The Nest Protect from Google provides double the protection and a powerful mobile app that lets you hush alarms and receive notifications when you’re away.

Specs

• Type: Battery-powered or wired
• Battery backup: Yes; battery-powered (AA x 6), Yes; wired (AA x 3)
• Dimensions: 5.3 x 5.3 x 1.5 inches HWD

Pros

• Mobile alerts
• Easy to silence from your phone
• Powerful interconnectivity features

Cons

• Expensive

The Google Nest Protect features smoke and carbon monoxide detection and can send mobile alerts to users when they’re away. The Protect also makes it easy to silence an alarm through the Nest app (or by pressing the mute button) and provides voice alerts when there’s an issue. 

Of course, Nest Protect’s real selling point is an array of smart features, including the ability to control basic functionality through the Nest app and detect the source of CO buildup. The Nest Protect is a great way to integrate smoke and CO protection into your smart home setup if you already use other Google Nest appliances, such as a smart thermostat or smart doorbell. It’s more of a splurge than the other options but offers much more control.

Best budget: Kidde Carbon Monoxide Detector

SEE IT

Buy used or refurbished: eBay

Why it made the cut: Kidde’s Carbon Monoxide Detector is easy to use and understand and offers battery backup in case of a power outage.

Specs

• Type: Plug-in
• Battery backup: Yes (AA x 2)
• Dimensions: 4.5 x 2.75 x 1.5 inches HWD

Pros

• Battery backup
• Straightforward operation
• Will alert you if it comes unplugged

Cons

• No digital display
• No corded plug

A solid carbon monoxide detector doesn’t need to be complicated or expensive. The Kidde Carbon makes it very easy to tell if the CO level in your home is too high at a great value. If the light is green, you’re good. If it’s red, get outside. The CO alarm also features a battery backup, an end-of-unit alarm, and a convenient test/reset button on the front. It doesn’t provide as much information as our other picks, but the Kidde Carbon gets the job done and costs less.

What to consider when buying the best carbon monoxide detectors

A good carbon monoxide detector should be easy to install, require little maintenance, and effectively alert you during an emergency. We considered dozens of options and whittled down the field until we found the best carbon monoxide detectors available. Here are the most important things to check before purchasing one.

What is carbon monoxide?

Carbon monoxide is an odorless, tasteless, poisonous gas that builds up when you burn fuel like gas, wood, or coal. If inhaled, carbon monoxide blocks your ability to absorb oxygen into your blood and, by extension, vital organs, including your heart and brain. In a gas-filled room, inhaling carbon monoxide can render you unconscious and kill you within a few minutes, according to reports from the CDC and OSHA. And though symptoms of CO poisoning include headaches, dizziness, chest pain, and vomiting, victims are unaware that they’re being poisoned until it’s too late. 

Using a battery-operated carbon monoxide detector is considered one of the most effective ways to protect yourself from CO poisoning. For ways to prevent carbon monoxide poisoning, particularly in winter when it’s most common, we have some tips on how to protect yourself.

How does a carbon monoxide detector work?

Carbon monoxide detectors aren’t as complicated as they seem. While some models feature different components, they generally feature a silicon microchip that sends an electronic charge to other parts of the detector. If a dangerous level of CO is detected, an audible alarm, usually 85 decibels, will sound.

Carbon monoxide is measured in parts per million (PPM). According to this chart, it may take between 6 – 8 hours for physical symptoms to manifest when exposed to 50 PPM of CO. Triple that to 150 PPM of CO, and you may experience symptoms in as little as 2 – 3 hours. And 800 PPM of CO can be fatal within an hour. If your CO alarm goes off, immediately go outside and only re-enter when emergency responders say it’s safe.

UL listing

A good carbon monoxide detector should have received certification from Underwriters Laboratories, a safety science organization that sets technical standards for CO alarms and other safety gear. The company’s most recent standards, UL 2034, require CO alarms used in living spaces to detect and report carbon monoxide levels below those that cause a loss of ability to react to dangerous exposure. Any device that meets UL’s standards should mention that it’s “UL Listed” somewhere on the packaging.

Power on

Carbon monoxide detectors come in a few form factors, based on how they receive power:

• Battery-powered: A battery-powered (typically 9-volt or AA) CO alarm is the most flexible because you can easily install it in virtually any room in your home. This is an excellent option for places without electricity, like a detached garage or shed where you might be working on an old car.
• Plug-in: Outlet-based detectors don’t need battery replacements, but you’ll need to place them where you have an outlet, and they will not work when your power goes out. A good model will also feature a battery backup if your home loses power.
• Hardwired: You can also install a permanent CO detector in your home. Like plug-in models, a good model will include a backup battery for when your power goes out. We recommend hiring an electrician or contractor to handle any installation that requires interfacing with your home’s power.

Homeowners, particularly those planning a renovation, should probably consider installing a hardwired model. Renters and people with older homes may want to use a plug-in or battery-powered option. If there are detectors in your current space and you’re unsure when they were replaced, you should probably buy new ones. Removing them from their mounts lets you see if yours are hardwired or battery-powered.

Lastly, if you pick a plug-in or hardwired model, ensure it features an easily replaceable backup battery. The CDC recommends replacing the battery in your CO alarm every six months.

Smart features

A smart carbon monoxide detector connected to your home WiFi can send an alert to your phone when you aren’t home. New CO detectors also tend to have much more intuitive controls for basic functions like muting the alarm and battery tests. Some also offer voice alerts when an issue arises and can even tell you which room is the source of the gas buildup.

FAQs

Final thoughts on the best carbon monoxide detectors

• Best overall: Kidde Nighthawk Carbon Monoxide Detector
• Best smoke and carbon monoxide detector: Kidde Smoke & Carbon Monoxide Detector
• Best plug-in detector: First Alert CO615
• Best smart: Google Nest Protect Smoke and Carbon Monoxide
• Best budget: Kidde Carbon Monoxide Detector

A carbon monoxide detector should be in every apartment and home worldwide. They protect you from CO poisoning and are affordable and easy to install, giving you no excuse not to take action. If you don’t have one, you should purchase one as soon as possible because it can mean the difference between life and death.

Why trust us

Popular Science started writing about technology more than 150 years ago. There was no such thing as “gadget writing” when we published our first issue in 1872, but if there was, our mission to demystify the world of innovation for everyday readers means we would have been all over it. Here in the present, PopSci is fully committed to helping readers navigate the increasingly intimidating array of devices on the market right now.

Our writers and editors have combined decades of experience covering and reviewing consumer electronics. We each have our own obsessive specialties—from high-end audio to video games to cameras and beyond—but when we’re reviewing devices outside of our immediate wheelhouses, we do our best to seek out trustworthy voices and opinions to help guide people to the very best recommendations. We know we don’t know everything, but we’re excited to live through the analysis paralysis that internet shopping can spur so readers don’t have to.

The post The best carbon monoxide detectors for 2024 appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on Undark.

A couple years ago, Aggie Steiner and Simran Singh were having lunch with other medical students, all women, at Western Michigan University when the group started swapping horror stories about intrauterine devices, or IUDs. The roughly quarter-sized, T-shaped contraceptive device sits in the uterus, where it prevents pregnancies with close to 100 percent effectiveness for years.

Some women feel little discomfort when a provider inserts the IUD through the cervix—the muscular tunnel at the base of the womb—and places it at the top of the uterus. For others, though, the experience is excruciating. And many patients report that the standard advice given in American clinics—take an over-the-counter painkiller like Tylenol or Advil—doesn’t help at all.

That day at lunch, when someone pointed out that it’s possible to get IUDs under sedation, at least half the group let out a collective gasp, Singh recalled. The medical students had been through preclinical courses on reproduction and contraception, but many of them didn’t realize it was even an option to reduce the pain of IUD placement. If medical students don’t know it’s an option, then it’s likely that the general public doesn’t know, Singh said. “And at that point we’re doing them a disservice.”

Both Steiner and Singh are in the final year of medical school and plan to specialize in obstetrics and gynecology after they graduate in May. On their clinical rotations, they saw that many patients undergoing IUD insertions and other routine gynecological procedures were extremely uncomfortable. “Women cry,” said Steiner. “Women hold onto the exam table so hard that you can see their knuckles are white.” Pain control or sedation was often available, just not offered.

It’s no secret that some office procedures involving the cervix and the uterus can be painful. Thousands of women have shared agonizing on social media and other platforms. “It felt like a knitting needle was piercing my womb,” wrote one woman in a 2021 essay, adding that she “was left shaken for days and traumatised for many years.”

Despite the outcry, U.S. medical authorities have not systematically addressed the problem. Guidelines for physicians from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists offer no recommendations for making IUD procedures more comfortable. And, as Steiner and Singh discovered during their own training, medical education doesn’t always address pain management during outpatient gynecological procedures.

Women experience a spectrum of pain during these procedures, and evidence does not show that any single form of pain control is right for everyone, said Jennifer Villavicencio, an OB-GYN and senior director of public affairs and advocacy at the Society of Family Planning, an international nonprofit organization.

But, she said, there are basic steps many providers could be taking to address patients’ pain, starting from the assumption that women deserve to be as comfortable as possible, then using a combination of available strategies to make that happen.

“It’s less of a data problem and more of a practice problem,” said Villavicencio. “As clinicians, we need to center the patient in our approach to pain control. That is where the advocacy should really lie.”

In 2017, Kaitlin Alper, then a graduate student in her mid-20s at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, went to the university’s health center to get an IUD. Due to a previous gynecological health issue, Alper was a veteran of invasive exams. She assumed that this one wouldn’t be a big deal.

“But it was so bad,” said Alper. When the doctor measured her uterus before inserting the IUD, Alper added, “it was just the worst pain I’ve ever felt—and I’ve broken bone.” Alper said her doctor didn’t offer pain control options other than taking acetaminophen (Tylenol) beforehand, and she felt entirely unprepared for what followed: “It was so much more than I was told it was going to be.”

To her horror, about three years later Alper found herself in a similar situation. A routine screening for cervical cancer had revealed abnormalities, and her doctor needed to do a procedure called colposcopy to examine her cervix and then cut out several small tissue samples to test. This time, she said, she wasn’t even advised to take a pain reliever. Forced to relive her distressing IUD experience, Alper felt panicked and shaky from the start.

“It was super painful,” she said.

Alper’s experience isn’t typical, but it isn’t uncommon either. To measure pain, many researchers use what’s known as a visual analog scale, a straight line marked from zero to 10, with zero representing “no pain” and 10 “the worst pain possible.” A 2021 study of 413 women getting IUDs in Brazil found that patients’ pain levels fell roughly into thirds, with about one-third of women reporting that pain was mild (1 to 3); one-third, moderate (4 to 6); and one-third, severe (7 to 10.)

Because it’s easier to insert instruments through the cervix once it’s been stretched in childbirth, women who have given birth vaginally often report lower pain levels than those who have not. The Brazilian study found that, on average, women who’ve undergone a vaginal delivery report pain levels of 3.9 compared to 6.6 for those who’ve never had children and 5.5 for those who delivered by caesarean section.

Studies show that other in-office procedures—such as hysteroscopy, where the clinician passes a scope through the cervix to examine the uterus, or colposcopy with a cervical biopsy, like Alper had—are similarly uncomfortable, even painful, for many patients.

Alper was taken aback by her gynecologist’s seeming nonchalance about how painful a cervical biopsy could be. “She was really nice,” said Alper. “She was clearly good at her job but didn’t seem really concerned.”

Research suggests that clinicians tend to be poor judges of how much a procedure hurts, in some cases significantly underestimating the amount of pain their patients experience.

While physicians can’t predict with certainty whether a procedure involving the cervix and uterus will be easy or agonizing for someone, research has yielded important clues. In addition to not having had a vaginal birth, factors associated with more intense pain include a history of painful menstruation or pain during sexual intercourse, a previous painful experience with a gynecology procedure, and having a history of anxiety or just being especially anxious about the procedure.

Alper is one of thousands of women who have posted about agonizing experiences on the social media platform Reddit. Like many others, she’s frustrated that her doctor did not discuss the possibility of pain with her or how it might be managed.

“They seemed to know it was going to hurt me,” she said. “But it didn’t seem to occur to anybody that they should do anything about that.”

Fifty years ago, clinicians performed many gynecologic procedures in a hospital where they could sedate patients or put them under general anesthesia. But technological advances, especially the development of miniaturized instruments in the last 15 years or so, have made it possible to do minimally invasive procedures in the office.

That trend prompted a host of research into ways to minimize pain without knocking patients out. Unfortunately, the results largely have been inconsistent and contradictory. But many experts say that the evidence is good enough to provide patients with reasonable options to make procedures more comfortable.

It’s not a simple problem to solve. The nerves in the cervix and uterus trigger a different type of discomfort than those on your outside skin, say, or even inside your mouth, said Maureen Baldwin, an OB-GYN at Oregon Health & Science University. In some people, touching the cervix with an instrument causes a visceral reaction. “It’s not always a ‘it hurts here’ kind of a pain,” said Baldwin. “Sometimes it’s a ‘I just feel really sick and I feel like something is wrong’ kind of a pain, sort of like labor feels.” Touching the inside of the uterus causes cramping for some people, she said, and searing pain for others.

The most potentially painful aspects of procedures such as IUD insertion are when the provider grabs the cervix with an instrument resembling a set of pointy tongs called a tenaculum, then passes instruments through it. So, it makes sense that applying a topical numbing agent might help. Because studies of the effectiveness of various topical formulations have yielded mixed results, researchers have pooled data to look at overall trends. A 2018 meta-analysis of 15 randomized clinical trials found that a cream containing the anesthetic lidocaine offered modest pain reduction, while a 2019 meta-analysis of 38 trials suggested that a cream composed of lidocaine and another anesthetic, prilocaine, worked best. Several trials, mostly of women who’d given birth vaginally, also found that lidocaine spray reduced pain. The only real downside of topicals, some doctors say, is the need to wait several minutes for them to take effect.

Decent evidence also supports injecting the cervix with lidocaine in several spots, in what’s known as a paracervical or intracervical block. The good news is that the injections take effect quickly. The bad news is that they hurt, in some cases more than the procedure itself. “Not only is it painful, but people hate the idea of a needle in a very sensitive area,” said Eve Espey, chair of the OB-GYN department at the University of New Mexico. In her experience, because an IUD insertion typically only takes a couple of minutes, many patients turn down the nerve blocks.

Numerous studies show that taking an anti-inflammatory drug such as ibuprofen ahead of time doesn’t make the procedure itself more comfortable, but it can ease any cramping afterward.

Baldwin offers oral anti-anxiety medication to calm patients who feel like they need it. For those who have had or are anticipated to experience higher pain levels, she can also provide moderate sedation by intravenously administering a combination of an opioid and anti-anxiety drug. The only catch is that patients will need a ride home.

Finally, there are the big guns: deep sedation, a sleep-like state where patients are unaware of their surroundings, and general anesthesia, a drug-induced unconsciousness that requires breathing assistance. Those approaches eliminate pain but have numerous downsides. They are typically only available at surgery centers or hospitals, take way more time than an office procedure to schedule, perform, and recover from; can be more expensive for the patient; and can cause side effects such as headache, nausea, and drowsiness. General anesthesia, which is seldom necessary for minor gynecological procedures, can rarely trigger life-threatening complications.

After hearing horror stories from their colleagues, medical students Aggie Steiner and Simran Singh started digging into the medical literature, hoping to understand why pain management wasn’t a routine part of IUD placement.

Most frustrating for the medical students was a thread of dismissiveness they perceived running through the science. Even in studies finding that a measure helped, they recalled, researchers might decide the intervention wasn’t worthwhile, given that it required longer appointments as well as more staff and equipment. “It was like we’re basically saying to patients that us alleviating their pain isn’t worth our time,” said Singh.

The students were also dismayed to find that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which provides influential recommendations to clinicians, gave short shrift to pain-relief options for IUD placement and other routine procedures.

In 2016, a committee of ACOG experts issued clinical guidance addressing challenges associated with long-acting reversible contraceptives, including IUDs. But they didn’t recommend any measures for pain management during IUD insertion. In 2020, ACOG greenlighted the same guidance without updating the evidence review, which doesn’t cite any studies done after 2015—including more recent papers suggesting that anesthetic creams and nerve blocks can help.

ACOG guidelines for other procedures also provide few recommendations for pain management. The 2018 ACOG clinical guidance on hysteroscopy, which the organization re-approved without changes this year, states that medications to dilate the cervix may reduce pain for some patients. The guidelines also note that clinicians can consider using vaginoscopy, a small scope that does away with the need for uncomfortable tools to open the vaginal walls and grasp the cervix. But research doesn’t support other pain control measures, the committee concluded.

In fact, the guidance cites evidence that “office hysteroscopy may be tolerated without the use of any analgesia,” although one-third of patients in the referenced study reported a pain level of 7 or higher—what the authors of that paper regard as “unacceptable pain.”

And recent ACOG-endorsed guidelines from the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology find that evidence does not support the use of anesthetics during biopsies of the inside of the cervix. To back up that claim, the authors of the guidelines cite a 2019 study that actually concludes that local anesthetics do help, especially when taking small samples of the outer cervix, but that they are inadequate for more extensive, painful biopsies, such as those of the inner cervix. Those procedures call for more effective pain relief, according to the authors of the 2019 paper.

Some changes may be coming. Espey, who helped write the ACOG document on IUD insertion, said that the committee agrees that it’s time for a refresh.

In an emailed statement she said was attributable to ACOG, Rachel Kingery, a spokesperson for the group, wrote that the organization updates its guidelines every two to three years, based on the availability of data.  “ACOG’s committee is aware of the need for better pain management and improvements to the patient experience during in-office procedures and is working to address this need,” Kingery wrote. A thorough evaluation of the evidence will take some time, she said, and there’s no definite timeline for publishing updated guidance.

Some published clinical reviews and guidelines from other countries more thoroughly address pain. For example, 2023 IUD guidelines from the United Kingdom’s Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Health Care make several recommendations for pain management, based on a thorough evidence review. And a 2019 review by an international group of researchers finds sufficient evidence to support several strategies, especially for patients at greater risk of a painful experience.

The lead author of that review, Kristina Gemzell Danielsson, an OB-GYN who practices in Stockholm, Sweden, said her country’s guidelines do address strategies for pain control, including sedation and general anesthesia where warranted.

Similarly, a 2022 review of pain management during hysteroscopy makes several specific recommendations, from using the opioid pain medication tramadol, to administering dinoprostone, a medication that dilates the cervix, to letting patients listen to music during the procedures.

For the most part, these other guidelines and reviews don’t uncover overwhelming evidence for any particular drug or technique. Instead, they offer advice on the art as well as the science of medicine: informing patients about what to expect, laying out options for pain management, and then sharing the decision-making for how to proceed.

Alongside the lack of guidance from ACOG, there are other barriers to providing pain management in U.S. clinics. In particular, insurance companies don’t always cover it, which is one big reason effective approaches such as sedation are off the table for many women.

Villavicencio at the Society of Family Planning finds the variations in coverage frustrating. Some patients worry about the pain of insertion and that their insurance wouldn’t cover more extensive anesthesia should it be necessary. “I’ve had patients not get an IUD, even though it was their first choice of birth control,” she said. “That’s a shame.”

Still, despite the barriers, some U.S. OB-GYNs today do manage to offer their patients a range of options.

Baldwin, the OB-GYN who practices at the Center for Women’s Health at Oregon Health & Science University, said that staff are trained to ask patients if they want to schedule an appointment to discuss sedation. She discusses the pros and cons of different pain-control strategies with her patients and refers them to resources such as Bedsider.org for comprehensive information on contraception that includes real patients’ perspectives on their experiences.

Listening to patients and respecting their autonomy is a common theme—for example, asking for a patient’s permission before doing anything. “I do reassure patients that I am an active listener throughout the procedure and if they are experiencing pain, never to feel uncomfortable expressing that,” said Espey.

“Because,” she added, “we can always stop, abandon ship, and then move to a more robust pain control.”

Beverly Gray, director of the Complex Family Planning Fellowship Program at Duke University School of Medicine, said that their program focuses on trauma-informed care, which involves recognizing that patients who have been the victims of sexual violence or trauma have different needs, navigating conversations in a respectful way, and helping patients feel in control, said Gray.

That thoughtful approach is difficult in health systems where doctors are expected to see patients every 15 minutes, she admitted. “I think that the medical system tries to beat that part out of us.”

Experts we spoke with emphasized that the disturbing stories on social media are not typical. After all, people are more likely to share a painful, impactful story than one where everything went fine. Nonetheless, it’s clear that many women aren’t getting the respectful care that these clinicians describe.

Sasha Prokopchuk of Benson, Arizona, is one of those women. She’s had two IUDs. The first insertion required two protracted painful visits. “Worst gynecologist I’ve ever had in my life,” she said. The doctor, she said, “talked about her boyfriend the whole time with her nurse. It was like I wasn’t even there.” The doctor who placed the second IUD was more attentive, said Prokopchuk, but still offered no pain control for what turned out to be another difficult insertion. She recalled bleeding quite a bit and feeling too lightheaded to stand. Prokopchuk says the doctor kept her for observation for an hour and a half.

“For me, it’s the lack of empathy, it’s the lack of attempting to make a patient feel better even if it doesn’t ameliorate the pain,” she said. “It’s the lack of attempt that really gets to me.”

In 2021, Steiner and Singh channeled their frustration and research into a letter published in The BMJ, advocating for more attention to pain during outpatient procedures.

Their views reflect a growing unwillingness to normalize pain as an integral aspect of womanhood, especially among young physicians. “People’s tolerance for pain and just the societal notion of what pain is acceptable—I think it’s changed a lot in the 30 years I’ve been in practice,” said Espey.

Recently, medical students affiliated with the American Medical Association took the lead in proposing that the organization officially address the issue. The AMA went on to adopt a policy recognizing disparities in pain management for gynecologic procedures and supporting further research. The policy also calls for insurers to cover pain-control options.

It’s not clear that the health care system is willing or able to take the steps necessary to ensure that horror stories about gynecology visits are a thing of the past. But at the level of individual practice, changes may be coming. Singh sees a huge shift in her chosen specialty, with the old guard retiring and residencies staffed predominantly by women who will themselves undergo gynecologic procedures and share stories about experiences with other women.

She wonders if that shift will help her profession view pain not as a necessary evil, but a solvable problem. Will doctors say “Oh yeah, in my practice, I’m going to offer pain management?” she asked. “I hope that I’m in that position one day.”

The post At the OB-GYN, pain control is possible—but often overlooked appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on The Conversation.

The global anti-vaccine movement and vaccine hesitancy that accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic show no signs of abating.

According to a survey of U.S. adults, Americans in October 2023 were less likely to view approved vaccines as safe than they were in April 2021. As vaccine confidence falls, health misinformation continues to spread like wildfire on social media and in real life.

I am a public health expert in health misinformation, science communication and health behavior change.

In my view, we cannot underestimate the dangers of health misinformation and the need to understand why it spreads and what we can do about it. Health misinformation is defined as any health-related claim that is false based on current scientific consensus.

False claims about vaccines

Vaccines are the No. 1 topic of misleading health claims. Some common myths about vaccines include:

• Their supposed link with human diagnoses of autism. Multiple studies have discredited this claim, and it has been firmly refuted by the World Health Organization, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
• Concerns with the COVID-19 vaccine leading to infertility. This connection has been debunked through a systematic review and meta-analysis, one of the most robust forms of synthesizing scientific evidence.
• Safety concerns about vaccine ingredients, such as thimerosal, aluminum and formaldehyde. Extensive studies have shown these ingredients are safe when used in the minimal amounts contained in vaccines.
• Vaccines as medically unnecessary to protect from disease. The development and dissemination of vaccines for life-threatening diseases such as smallpox, polio, measles, mumps, rubella and the flu has saved millions of lives. It also played a critical role in historic increases in average life expectancy – from 47 years in 1900 in the U.S. to 76 years in 2023.

The costs of health misinformation

Beliefs in such myths have come at the highest cost.

An estimated 319,000 COVID-19 deaths that occurred between January 2021 and April 2022 in the U.S. could have been prevented if those individuals had been vaccinated, according to a data dashboard from the Brown University School of Public Health. Misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19 vaccines alone have cost the U.S. economy an estimated US$50 million to $300 million per day in direct costs from hospitalizations, long-term illness, lives lost and economic losses from missed work.

Though vaccine myths and misunderstandings tend to dominate conversations about health, there is an abundance of misinformation on social media surrounding diets and eating disorders, smoking or substance use, chronic diseases and medical treatments.

My team’s research and that of others show that social media platforms have become go-to sources for health information, especially among adolescents and young adults. However, many people are not equipped to maneuver the maze of health misinformation.

For example, an analysis of Instagram and TikTok posts from 2022 to 2023 by The Washington Post and the nonprofit news site The Examination found that the food, beverage and dietary supplement industries paid dozens of registered dietitian influencers to post content promoting diet soda, sugar and supplements, reaching millions of viewers. The dietitians’ relationships with the food industry were not always made clear to viewers.

Studies show that health misinformation spread on social media results in fewer people getting vaccinated and can also increase the risk of other health dangers such as disordered eating and unsafe sex practices and sexually transmitted infections. Health misinformation has even bled over into animal health, with a 2023 study finding that 53% of dog owners surveyed in a nationally representative sample report being skeptical of pet vaccines.

Health misinformation is on the rise

One major reason behind the spread of health misinformation is declining trust in science and government. Rising political polarization, coupled with historical medical mistrust among communities that have experienced and continue to experience unequal health care treatment, exacerbates preexisting divides.

The lack of trust is both fueled and reinforced by the way misinformation can spread today. Social media platforms allow people to form information silos with ease; you can curate your networks and your feed by unfollowing or muting contradictory views from your own and liking and sharing content that aligns with your existing beliefs and value systems.

By tailoring content based on past interactions, social media algorithms can unintentionally limit your exposure to diverse perspectives and generate a fragmented and incomplete understanding of information. Even more concerning, a study of misinformation spread on Twitter analyzing data from 2006 to 2017 found that falsehoods were 70% more likely to be shared than the truth and spread “further, faster, deeper and more broadly than the truth” across all categories of information.

How to combat misinformation

The lack of robust and standardized regulation of misinformation content on social media places the difficult task of discerning what is true or false information on individual users. We scientists and research entities can also do better in communicating our science and rebuilding trust, as my colleague and I have previously written. I also provide peer-reviewed recommendations for the important roles that parents/caregivers, policymakers and social media companies can play.

Below are some steps that consumers can take to identify and prevent health misinformation spread:

• Check the source. Determine the credibility of the health information by checking if the source is a reputable organization or agency such as the World Health Organization, the National Institutes of Health or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Other credible sources include an established medical or scientific institution or a peer-reviewed study in an academic journal. Be cautious of information that comes from unknown or biased sources.
• Examine author credentials. Look for qualifications, expertise and relevant professional affiliations for the author or authors presenting the information. Be wary if author information is missing or difficult to verify.
• Pay attention to the date. Scientific knowledge by design is meant to evolve as new evidence emerges. Outdated information may not be the most accurate. Look for recent data and updates that contextualize findings within the broader field.
• Cross-reference to determine scientific consensus. Cross-reference information across multiple reliable sources. Strong consensus across experts and multiple scientific studies supports the validity of health information. If a health claim on social media contradicts widely accepted scientific consensus and stems from unknown or unreputable sources, it is likely unreliable.
• Question sensational claims. Misleading health information often uses sensational language designed to provoke strong emotions to grab attention. Phrases like “miracle cure,” “secret remedy” or “guaranteed results” may signal exaggeration. Be alert for potential conflicts of interest and sponsored content.
• Weigh scientific evidence over individual anecdotes. Prioritize information grounded in scientific studies that have undergone rigorous research methods, such as randomized controlled trials, peer review and validation. When done well with representative samples, the scientific process provides a reliable foundation for health recommendations compared to individual anecdotes. Though personal stories can be compelling, they should not be the sole basis for health decisions.
• Talk with a health care professional. If health information is confusing or contradictory, seek guidance from trusted health care providers who can offer personalized advice based on their expertise and individual health needs.
• When in doubt, don’t share. Sharing health claims without validity or verification contributes to misinformation spread and preventable harm.

All of us can play a part in responsibly consuming and sharing information so that the spread of the truth outpaces the false.

Monica Wang receives funding from the National Institutes of Health.

The post Health misinformation is rampant on social media appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

No one likes having a dental cavity. They hurt and can be very expensive to take care of. Our species has been trying to fix our teeth for at least 14,000 years and painful dental problems even plagued Swedish vikings. More than 2,300 juvenile and adult teeth found near a church in Sweden dating back to the 10th through 12th Century CE had evidence of dental problems. They had evidence of tooth decay called caries and even oral diseases that some tried to treat. The findings are described in a study published December 13 in PLOS ONE.

[Related: This new synthetic tooth enamel is even harder than the real thing.]

“I think both dental caries and other dental diseases are very relatable,” Carolina Bertilsson, a study co-author and dentist at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, tells PopSci. “It is awful to imagine the suffering some of these individuals with decay, tooth extractions, and infections must have gone through, without any of the methods we use today in modern dentistry.”

The teeth were uncovered during a 2005 excavation of the remains of a Christian church in present-day Skara, Sweden. The nearby cemetery contained thousands of Viking graves and a team from University of Gothenburg examined teeth belonging to 171 individuals. The team used radiography to take detailed images of the teeth that were also physically examined by a team of dentists and osteoarchaeologists.

While none of the juveniles had evidence of dental caries, 60 percent of the adult remains showed signs of tooth decay. The team also saw traces of tooth infection and signs that some teeth had been lost before death. Many of the individuals likely had tooth decay that would have been severe enough to cause pain and there were signs of attempted dental treatments. One individual also showed signs of filed front teeth similar to those seen in other Swedish Viking remains. 

“It seems like the Vikings tried to file their teeth to ease the pain from infected teeth,” says Bertilsson.

Caries are caused by a buildup of bacteria near the teeth from not cleaning them often and consuming food high in starches and sugar. The diet during the late Viking Age primarily consisted of local produce, meat, fish, dairy, porridge, and breads made from rye, wheat, and barley. They drank beer, mead, and milk since water sources were likely not safe to drink. 

“Sweet taste came from honey, malt, and fruits and berries naturally grown in Scandinavia,” says Bertilsson.

The coarseness of the food and high intake of starch combined with the lack of dental care partially explain the tooth decay. Other factors including individual differences in saliva, genetics, and physiology also may have had an impact on the caries. Personal hygiene and habits also likely played a role in dental health the way consistent brushing and flossing does today. 

“In many individuals, we could also see wear from the usage of toothpicks which indicates that some of the Vikings were very keen to try and keep their teeth clean,” says Bertilsson.

There was also evidence of other attempts to treat dental infections like tooth extractions. It is unclear who would have performed these treatments, some type of professional or the individual with the teeth issues themselves. 

The prevalence of the dental caries in this population is also similar to what has been noted in other European populations from the time. However, nearly a quarter of these individuals appear to have lost teeth before death, which likely skews this analysis. The prevalence of tooth decay appeared to decrease with age, and this unexpected result likely reflects more tooth loss in older Vikings, so the most decayed teeth were not present in the remains. 

[Related: Plague DNA was just found in 4,000-year-old teeth.]

In future studies, the team plans to study other remains for evidence of the types of bacteria present in the body and what effect that may have had on the dental health of the Vikings. 

“It makes me appreciate the time I live in, with the possibility to help my patients with local anesthetics during dental treatments, and antibiotics when needed,” says Bertilsson.

The post Vikings filed their teeth to cope with pain appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

After several major recalls of eye drops and scathing inspection reports, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued new guidance this week on the use of homeopathic eye drops. The agency warned that all drops labeled homeopathic should not be sold. 

[Related: So, what’s the deal with homeopathy?]

Homeopathy can trace its root back to the Ancient Greeks, but was popularized by physician Christian Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann during the late 18th Century. Many of its methods are no better than a placebo. Homeopathy relies on two false principles. The false “law of similars” believes that something that causes a specific symptom in a healthy individual can also treat conditions and diseases with the same set of characteristics. The “law of infinitesimals” says that diluting a substance will make it more potent. Homeopathic products could take toxic substances and almost completely dilute them into more of an essence of the substance. There is no evidence to support the use of homeopathy. It can be very dangerous, as it keeps patients from seeking real medicine.

In November, Amazon stopped selling seven brands of eyedrops. The FDA sent a warning letter to Amazon CEO Andrew Jassy to stop selling “unapproved new drugs” at the major e-retailer. The products in question claimed to help pink eye, dry eyes, and eyestrain and the FDA says that these products violate federal regulations. 

“These products are especially concerning from a public health perspective,” the FDA wrote in the letter. “Ophthalmic drug products, which are intended for administration into the eyes, in general pose a greater risk of harm to users because the route of administration for these products bypasses some of the body’s natural defenses.”

Eyes are at a greater risk of harm since they are one of the body’s immune-privileged sites. Immune responses are restrained in the eyes to prevent inflammation that can damage our vision. 

Under the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, homeopathic remedies are generally considered exempt from FDA safety and efficacy reviews if the active ingredient in the product is included in a list of substances approved by homeopaths. However, all seven of these unapproved products fall into the FD&C Act “because they are intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, and/or intended to affect the structure or any function of the body.”

In October, the FDA also warned consumers about 26 over-the-counter eye drops from major brands sold at retailers like CVS and Target due to infection risk due to unsanitary conditions found at the manufacturers. Even though these drops are not all homeopathic, consumers should not buy any of the products and should immediately stop using them if they’ve already purchased them. The complete list can be found here. 

The advisory posted by the FDA in October states that while no adverse effects had been reported for these products, the agency “found insanitary conditions in the manufacturing facility and positive bacterial test results from environmental sampling of critical drug production areas in the facility.”

[Related: Can our eyes ever fix themselves?]

The FDA is asking Congress for some new regulatory powers, including the ability to mandate drug recalls and require that the eyedrop manufacturers undergo and pass specific inspections before the products can be shipped to the US. 

To find safe eye drops amid all of these recalls, consumers should verify where the drops were manufactured, double-check expiration dates, and look up specific products using an eye drop safety tool from Dry Eye Foundation.

The post Stop using homeopathic eye drops appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Best overall		Vicks ComfortFlex Digital Thermometer		SEE IT	A simple thermometer that’s perfect if you don’t need bells and whistles.
Best smart		Frida Baby Infrared Thermometer		SEE IT	Use it to read forehead, ear, or baby bottle temperatures.
Best budget		Boncare Digital Oral Thermometer		SEE IT	A simple thermometer that costs less than $10.

When you have the sniffles, a thermometer can determine if you have a fever or not. If you’re thinking, “I can just wait for this alien hot-cold feeling to pass,” you might want to reconsider your stance. Having a fever can be fatal. If your fever is higher than 105°F, get thee to an emergency room. Anything higher than that could lead to brain damage, seizures, and shock—all those are way more bothersome than a sore throat and runny nose. You should schedule a telehealth appointment or quick visit to your healthcare provider otherwise. From COVID-19 to flu season to a regular cold, tracking your temperature can determine if you’re getting better. Your body turns itself into a furnace to smoke out the virus and activate your immune response; if your body temperature returns to normal, it most likely means the meds you’re taking are working. Monitoring your temperature can indicate the beginnings of sickness even if you feel fine. The best thermometers can help you start preventative measures to beat your cold faster or track your temperature for peace of mind.

• Best overall: Vicks ComfortFlex Digital Thermometer
• Best infrared: iHealth No-Touch Forehead Thermometer Infrared Digital Thermometer
• Best ear: Braun ThermoScan 7–Digital Ear Thermometer
• Best for kids: Frida Baby Infrared Thermometer
• Best smart: Kinsa QuickCare Smart Digital Thermometer
• Best budget: Boncare Digital Oral Thermometer

How we chose the best thermometers

Going to the nurse’s office in elementary school was a treat. You got to lay on the cold vinyl lounges that smelled and felt like diner benches and get some peace and quiet. Did I love the taste of the thermometer cover? No, nor did I enjoy getting the underside of my tongue prodded. My temperature was rarely ever high enough to get sent home, but I could have used a thermometer there (and maybe Ferris Bueller’s acting skills) to get some extra sick days in. To pick our favorite thermometers, we looked at critical reviews and user recommendations and conducted testing so any child reading this can get the chances I didn’t to stay home from school.

The best thermometers: Reviews & Recommendations

Being sick sucks. Getting a reading on how sick you are—or how sick you’re going to be—can give you a chance to order some electrolytes and ruminate on what your illness binge-watch will be. (We’re fans of Love Island, the OG Brit version only).

Best overall: Vicks ComfortFlex Digital Thermometer

SEE IT

Specs

• Weight: 1.76 ounces
• Dimensions: 4.5 x .5 inches
• Power source: Battery-powered
• Reading area: Mouth, rectum, underarm

Pros

• Easy to read
• Accurate
• Versatile

Cons

• Cover hard to remove to replace batteries

This Vicks thermometer gives accurate readings in less than 10 seconds to get results quickly. Its memory feature recalls and displays the last temperature taken, and its screen color signifies temperature. You’ll get a green display for a normal temperature, yellow for elevated temperature, and red for high temperature. A flexible tip makes it perfect for all ages, and you can take oral, rectal, and underarm readings. It’s waterproof, easy to clean, and it’s BPA-free. This gentle and fast thermometer is perfect if you’re looking for a well-designed thermometer that’s spot-on.

Best infrared: iHealth No-Touch Forehead Thermometer Infrared Digital Thermometer

SEE IT

Specs

• Weight: 4.59 ounces
• Dimensions: 5.39 x 1.54 inches
• Power source: Battery-powered
• Reading area: Forehead

Pros

• Perfect for maintaining distance to take temperatures
• Fast
• Intuitive

Cons

• Not as accurate as other choices

If getting up close with someone who could carry a communicable illness makes you shiver, get a temperature from a safer distance—and without having to unmask—with an infrared thermometer. Simply hold the thermometer around an inch from the forehead, hold the button, and wait just one second to get the temp. The thermometer sensor collects more than 100 data points per second, while environmental sensors work to keep outside factors from affecting the reading. It’s not as accurate as other thermometers, but it’s perfect to get everyone’s temperature before an inside gathering. An easy-to-read, extra-large LED display works in darkness, and the device vibrates when it’s done. No more beeps. You can use it on babies and the elderly, making it a do-all forehead thermometer.

Best ear: Braun ThermoScan 7–Digital Ear Thermometer

SEE IT

Specs

• Weight: 10.4 ounces
• Dimensions: 5.7 x 2.1 inches
• Power source: Battery-powered
• Reading area: Ear

Pros

• Disposable lens filter included
• Age precision technology
• Beep and light confirms proper positioning

Cons

• Expensive

If you’re looking for an ear thermometer, the Braun ThermoScan has features that make it a great choice for the entire family. Age-adjustable fever guidance helps you decide if you should make a trip to UrgentCare or not, and a color-coded display makes interpreting results easy. It comes with a pre-warmed tip that helps with accuracy (cooler tips result in lower temperatures), and disposable lens filters make things hygienic. A light and a beep confirm proper positioning so it’s used correctly. It’s a splurge, but we think it’s well worth it.

Best for kids: Frida Baby Infrared Thermometer

SEE IT

Specs

• Weight: 4 ounces
• Dimensions: 3 x 1 inches
• Power source: Batteries
• Reading area: Forehead, ear

Pros

• 3-in-1
• Large memory
• Sound and color alerts

Cons

• Results not as accurate

Kids are hard to wrangle and a little cranky when they get sick. Make it easier for the whole family with the Frida Baby infrared thermometer. It can take temperatures from the forehead, room or bottle, and ear. Color-coded fever alerts allow you to quickly assess results, which come in 1 second. You can also choose if you want sound alerts as well. Its memory stores 40 previous temperatures, and a storage pouch keeps your thermometer protected from dust and debris. It’s not as accurate as other kinds of thermometers, but it is a great option to quickly and painlessly take a child’s temperature.

Best smart: Kinsa QuickCare Smart Digital Thermometer

SEE IT

Specs

• Weight: 2.4 ounces
• Dimensions: 5.7 inches
• Power source: Battery
• Reading area: Mouth, underarm, rectum

Pros

• Accurate
• Reliable
• Fast

Cons

• Doesn’t adjust temperature with age

Synced to your phone via Bluetooth, this thermometer enables all kinds of data tracking and sharing. Someone in the home can take a reading, and another guardian can get a notification of the reading results. The app syncs up fast, and you can keep multiple profiles to temp track the entire family. The app also lets you make a timeline of fever readings, med administering, and naps. This makes it easy to relay a child’s symptoms to a healthcare provider. You can use it orally, rectally, or via the underarm, and it only takes less than eight seconds to get a reading back. A large lighted display makes it easy to read temperatures, and a bendable tip makes it comfortable to get a temperature. The app turns your thermometer into your own nurse at home but doesn’t adjust for temperature differences between ages. Some reviews note having problems syncing the thermometer with the app.

Best budget: Boncare Digital Oral Thermometer

SEE IT

Specs

• Weight: .37 ounces
• Dimensions: 4.93 x .76 inches
• Power source: Battery operated
• Reading area: Mouth, underarm, rectum

Pros

• Cheap
• Fast

Cons

• You get what you pay for
• Hard to see temperature on small display

The value thermometer has multiple features found on higher-priced thermometers. It recalls your last reading, and it beeps when reading is complete. It takes about 10 seconds to read temperatures, and you can use it in your mouth, rectum, or underarm. The LCD display is a little small and can be hard to read, but there’s nothing a little head tilt can’t fix. It switches in between Celcius and Fahrenheit, and it’s easy to clean. You get a durable, hard plastic case to store it when not in use. It’s small enough to stow away in a first-aid kit, and cheap enough that you can buy more than one without breaking the bank.

What to consider when buying the best thermometers

As we’ve been taught by our parents, teachers, and guardians, it’s unwise to go around sticking just about anything in your mouth. Thermometers are the rare exception. Here’s what you should know before putting one into any of the orifices in your body.

Type of thermometer

There are three kinds of thermometers: contact thermometers, where electronic sensors record body temperature; remote thermometers, which don’t require skin contact for a reading; and mercury thermometers, where the toxic element is encased in glass. Mercury thermometers aren’t typically used because they can break and cause a hazard.

Your thermometer should have a way to read it and a way to take the temperature. You can also find bonus features like a large display for easy reading, a beeping alert when the thermometer is done reading the temperature, or an on/off button.

Reading location

You can take temperatures from many areas of the body. We’ve outlined some of the most popular locations:

• Rectal: Taking temperatures with a rectal thermometer will give you the most accurate result, which is important for infants. However, it can be uncomfortable to take someone’s temperature rectally. You also want to ensure the rectal thermometer is kept far away from the oral thermometers in your home—you wouldn’t want to get them mixed up.
• Oral: Oral temperature readings are generally pretty accurate but not as accurate as rectal thermometers. You need to take 15 minutes after eating or drinking to take an oral temperature—your hot, healing soup could affect the reading. For those suffering from a stuffy nose, keeping your mouth closed long enough to get an accurate reading can be a challenge.
• Armpit: Taking a reading from an armpit is great if you can’t take temperatures orally. They’re not the most accurate. You can use the same kind of thermometer for rectal and oral readings for armpit readings, but we recommend keeping an armpit thermometer an armpit thermometer. If you’ve just taken a shower or bath, or if you’ve been in/under multiple layers, wait 20-30 minutes before taking the reading. You have to take your shirt off and tuck the thermometer under your armpit to get a reading.
• Temporal artery: Forehead thermometers use an infrared scanner to measure temperature. It works quickly and is painless to do. However, it’s expensive and less accurate than a contact thermometer. User error, direct sunlight, sweat, and cold weather can affect readings.
• Ear: Tympanic thermometers use an infrared beam to take the temperature from your ear canal. Tympanic thermometers are quick and comfortable to use. They aren’t recommended for newborns. Earwax and the shape of your ear canal can affect the accuracy of the reading.

FAQs

Final thoughts on the best thermometers

• Best overall: Vicks ComfortFlex Digital Thermometer
• Best infrared: iHealth No-Touch Forehead Thermometer Infrared Digital Thermometer
• Best ear: Braun ThermoScan 7–Digital Ear Thermometer
• Best for kids: Frida Baby Infrared Thermometer
• Best smart: Kinsa QuickCare Smart Digital Thermometer
• Best budget: Boncare Digital Oral Thermometer

A thermometer can accurately read your body temperature to see where you’re in your #healing journey. Pushing yourself while sick isn’t good for you or the people around you: We’ve learned by now that you should not go to work sick (and you should mask up if you do) or risk turning the office party into a superspreader event. We welcome you to languish, lounge, and watch all the trashy television you’d like; just take your temperature occasionally to ensure you’re on the road to recovery.

Why trust us

Popular Science started writing about technology more than 150 years ago. There was no such thing as “gadget writing” when we published our first issue in 1872, but if there was, our mission to demystify the world of innovation for everyday readers means we would have been all over it. Here in the present, PopSci is fully committed to helping readers navigate the increasingly intimidating array of devices on the market right now.

Our writers and editors have combined decades of experience covering and reviewing consumer electronics. We each have our own obsessive specialties—from high-end audio to video games to cameras and beyond—but when we’re reviewing devices outside of our immediate wheelhouses, we do our best to seek out trustworthy voices and opinions to help guide people to the very best recommendations. We know we don’t know everything, but we’re excited to live through the analysis paralysis that internet shopping can spur so readers don’t have to.

The post The best thermometers of 2023 appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Your biological center for thought, comprehension, and learning bears some striking similarities to a data center housing rows upon rows of highly advanced processing units. But unlike those neural network data centers, the human brain runs an electrical energy budget. On average, the organ functions on roughly 12 watts of power, compared with a desktop computer’s 175 watts. For today’s advanced artificial intelligence systems, that wattage figure can easily increase into the millions.

[Related: Meet ‘anthrobots,’ tiny bio-machines built from human tracheal cells.]

Knowing this, researchers believe the development of cyborg “biocomputers” could eventually usher in a new era of high-powered intelligent systems for a comparative fraction of the energy costs. And they’re already making some huge strides towards engineering such a future.

As detailed in a new study published in Nature Electronics, a team at Indiana University has successfully grown their own nanoscale “brain organoid” in a Petri dish using human stem cells. After connecting the organoid to a silicon chip, the new biocomputer (dubbed “Brainoware”) was quickly trained to accurately recognize speech patterns, as well as perform certain complex math predictions.

As New Atlas explains, researchers treated their Brainoware as what’s known as an “adaptive living reservoir” capable of responding to electrical inputs in a “nonlinear fashion,” while also ensuring it possessed at least some memory. Simply put, the lab-grown brain cells within the silicon-organic chip function as an information transmitter capable of both receiving and transmitting electrical signals. While these feats in no way imply any kind of awareness or consciousness on Brainoware’s part, they do provide enough computational power for some interesting results.

To test out Brainoware’s capabilities, the team converted 240 audio clips of adult male Japanese speakers into electrical signals, and then sent them to the organoid chip. Within two days, the neural network system partially powered by Brainoware could accurately differentiate between the 8 speakers 78 percent of the time using just a single vowel sound.

[Related: What Pong-playing brain cells can teach us about better medicine and AI.]

Next, researchers experimented with their creation’s mathematical knowledge. After a relatively short training time, Brainoware could predict a Hénon map. While one of the most studied examples of dynamical systems exhibiting chaotic behavior, Hénon maps are a lot more complicated than simple arithmetic, to say the least.

In the end, Brainoware’s designers believe such human brain organoid chips can underpin neural network technology, and possibly do so faster, cheaper, and less energy intensive than existing options. There are still a number of hurdles—both logistical and ethical—to clear, but although general biocomputing systems may be years down the line, researchers think such advances are “likely to generate foundational insights into the mechanisms of learning, neural development and the cognitive implications of neurodegenerative diseases.”

But for now, let’s see how Brainoware can do in a game of Pong.

The post A ‘brain organoid’ biochip displayed serious voice recognition and math skills appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

America’s eight largest pharmacy providers shared customers’ prescription records to law enforcement when faced with subpoena requests, The Washington Post reported Tuesday. The news arrives amid patients’ growing privacy concerns in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2022 overturn of Roe v. Wade.

The new look into the legal workarounds was first detailed in a letter sent by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and Sara Jacobs (D-CA) on December 11 to the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

[Related: Abortion bans are impeding medication access.]

Pharmacies can hand over detailed, potentially compromising information due to legal fine print. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations restrict patient data sharing between “covered entities” like doctor offices, hospitals, and other medical facilities—but these guidelines are looser for pharmacies. And while search warrants require a judge’s approval to serve, subpoenas do not.  

Representatives for companies including CVS, Rite Aid, Kroger, Walgreens, and Amazon Pharmacy all confirmed their policies during interviews with congressional investigators in the months following Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Although some pharmacies require legal review of the requests, CVS, Rite Aid, and Kroger permit their staff to deliver any subpoenaed records to authorities on the spot. Per The WaPo, those three companies alone own 60,000 stores countrywide; CVS itself employees over 40,000 pharmacists.

According to the pharmacy companies, the industry giants annually receive tens of thousands of subpoenas, most often related to civil lawsuits. Information is currently unavailable regarding how many of these requests pharmacy locations were honored, as well as how many originated from law enforcement.

Given each company’s national network, patient records are often shared interstate between any pharmacy location. This could become legally fraught for medical history access within states that already have—or are working to enact—restrictive medical access laws. In an essay written for The Yale Law Journal last year, cited by WaPo, University of Connecticut associate law professor Carly Zubrzycki argued, “In the context of abortion—and other controversial forms of healthcare, like gender-affirming treatments—this means that cutting-edge legislative protections for medical records fall short.”

[Related: The dangers of digital health monitoring in a post-Roe world.]

Zubrzycki warns that, “at the absolute minimum,” patients seeking reproductive and gender-affirming healthcare “must be made aware of the risks posed by the emerging ecosystem of interoperable records.”

“To permit people to receive care under the illusion that their records cannot come back to harm them would be a grave injustice,” she wrote at the time.

The post Law enforcements can obtain prescription records from pharmacy giants without a warrant appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Today, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a historic treatment for sickle cell disease. Casgevy is the first medicine based on CRISPR gene-editing technology. The procedure was approved for use in the United Kingdom in November. 

[Related: The UK becomes the first country to approve CRISPR treatment.]

“Sickle cell disease is a rare, debilitating and life-threatening blood disorder with significant unmet need, and we are excited to advance the field especially for individuals whose lives have been severely disrupted by the disease by approving two cell-based gene therapies today,” Doctor Nicole Verdun, director of the Office of Therapeutic Products within the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement. “Gene therapy holds the promise of delivering more targeted and effective treatments, especially for individuals with rare diseases where the current treatment options are limited.”

The life-long genetic condition is caused by errors in the genes for the protein hemoglobin. Red blood cells use hemoglobin to carry oxygen through the body. The abnormal hemoglobin makes the blood cells crescent-shaped and hard. The misshapen cells then clump together and block the flow of oxygen to the organs, which causes extreme pain. The cells can then die off early, which leads to anemia.

Sickle cell disease is particularly common among people with Caribbean or African ancestry and affects more than 100,000 Americans. Previously, the only known cure for sickle cell disease was a bone marrow transplant from a donor. These procedures come with the risk of rejection by the patient’s immune system and finding a matching donor is a difficult process. 

How Casgevy works

Casgevy uses CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technique, which allows scientists to make precise alterations to human DNA. French microbiologist, geneticist, and biochemist Emmanuelle Charpentier and American biochemist Jennifer A. Doudna shared the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their work developing the technique.

The procedure uses stem cells taken from a patient’s bone marrow. The cells are then brought into a lab and the genes that are meant to switch on a functioning version of hemoglobin are edited with CRISPR. Patients must then go through a “conditioning treatment.” This can involve taking a drug that suppresses the immune system, radiotherapy, or chemotherapy to get the body ready for an infusion of CRISPR-modified cells back into the body. The new treatment does not come with the risk of graft versus host disease the way that a traditional bone marrow transplant does.

The approval comes on the heels of a clinical trial with 45 patients. Of these, 29 patients have been in the trial long enough for the researchers to gauge how effective Casgevy is. For at least 12 months after treatment, 28 were free of severe pain caused by the disease.

[Related: These organisms have a natural gene-editing system that could be more useful than CRISPR.]

How Lyfgenia works

The FDA also approved another sickle cell treatment called Lyfgenia. The gene therapy from Bluebird Bio. also modifies a patient’s stem cells. Both Lyfgenia and Casgevy require a conditioning treatment that removes cells and bone marrow so that they can be replaced with the modified cells.

According to the FDA,  patient’s blood stem cells are then genetically modified to produce HbAT87Q. This gene-therapy-derived hemoglobin functions similarly to hemoglobin A, or the normal adult hemoglobin produced by those who do not have sickle cell disease. Red blood cells that have HbAT87Q come with a lower risk of sickling and occluding blood flow. The modified stem cells are then delivered to the patient in a one-time, single-dose infusion. 

Lyfgenia’s safety and analysis is based on data from a 24-month study. Of the 32 patients in the study, 88 percent did not have a recurrent vaso-occlusive crises. These hallmarks of the disease occur when blood microcirculation is obstructed by sickled red blood cells, injuring organs and causing extreme pain.  It does have a risk of blood cancer and a black box warning is included in the label. The FDA also advises that patients should have continued monitoring for blood cnacer

Questions for the future

These groundbreaking therapies are expected to be incredibly expensive. A report from a fair prices nonprofit the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, a nonprofit group that helps evaluate the value of medical tests and treatments found that the therapy could cost about $2 million per patient. It could be out of reach for many families and does not include additional care costs. 

“We really have to make sure that it is accessible,” Cleveland Clinic pediatric hematologist-oncologist Rabi told NBC News. “This could be an equalizer for people with sickle cell because many patients cannot pursue career options because of the illness.” Hanna previously served on the advisory board for Vertex, who makes Casgevy.

The treatments are also very time consuming. Between the pre-treatment conditioning, treatment itself, and follow up, patients have to spend weeks and possibly months in the hospital.

“I think there will be immediate uptake in some portion of the patients who have more severe disease—frequent pain episodes that cause hospitalization and require opioids for the treatment of pain,” said Boston Children’s Hospital hematologist and oncologist David Williams, told Stat. He added that there could be “bumps in the road” if pharmaceutical companies run into trouble manufacturing these complicated treatments or if the price tag keeps it out of reach for many patients. 

The long term effects are also still not known. The FDA says that patients who received Casgevy or Lyfgenia will be followed in a long-term study to evaluate safety and effectiveness.

The post FDA approves the first gene-editing treatment in the US appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally published on KFF Health News.

Bill Eisenman has always fished.

“Growing up, we ate whatever we caught—catfish, carp, freshwater drum,” he said. “That was the only real source of fish in our diet as a family, and we ate a lot of it.”

Today, a branch of the Rouge River runs through Eisenman’s property in a suburb north of Detroit. But in recent years, he has been wary about a group of chemicals known as PFAS, also referred to as “forever chemicals,” which don’t break down quickly in the environment and accumulate in soil, water, fish, and our bodies.

The chemicals have spewed from manufacturing plants and landfills into local ecosystems, polluting surface water and groundwater, and the wildlife living there. And hundreds of military bases have been pinpointed as sources of PFAS chemicals leaching into nearby communities.

Researchers, anglers, and environmental activists nationwide worry about the staggering amount of PFAS found in freshwater fish. At least 17 states have issued PFAS-related fish consumption advisories, KFF Health News found, with some warning residents not to eat any fish caught in particular lakes or rivers because of dangerous levels of forever chemicals.

With no federal guidance, what is considered safe to eat varies significantly among states, most of which provide no regulation.

Eating a single serving of freshwater fish can be the equivalent of drinking water contaminated with high levels of PFAS for a month, according to a recent study from the Environmental Working Group, a research and advocacy organization that tracks PFAS. It’s an unsettling revelation, especially for rural, Indigenous, and low-income communities that depend on subsistence fishing. Fish remain a large part of cultural dishes, as well as an otherwise healthy source of protein and omega-3s.

“PFAS in freshwater fish is at such a concentration that for anyone consuming, even infrequently, it would likely be their major source of exposure over the course of the year,” said David Andrews, a co-author of the study and researcher at EWG. “We’re talking thousands of times higher than what’s typically seen in drinking water.”

Dianne Kopec, a researcher and faculty fellow at the University of Maine who studies PFAS and mercury in wildlife, warned that eating fish with high concentrations of PFAS may be more harmful than mercury, which long ago was found to be a neurotoxin most damaging to a developing fetus. The minimal risk level—an estimate of how much a person can eat, drink, or breathe daily without “detectable risk” to health—for PFOS, a common PFAS chemical, is 50 times as low as for methylmercury, the form of mercury that accumulates in fish, according to the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. But she emphasized, “They’re both really nasty.”

Just like mercury, PFAS bioaccumulate up the food chain, so bigger fish, like largemouth bass, generally contain more chemicals than smaller fish. Mercury is more widespread in Maine, but Kopec said PFAS levels near contamination sources are concerningly high.

‘Fishing is a way of life’

The Ecology Center, an environmental group in Michigan, educates anglers about consumption advisories and related health impacts. But Erica Bloom, its toxics campaign director, noted that for many people out on the river, “fishing is a way of life.”

Eisenman participated in an Ecology Center community-based study published this year, which tested fish from Michigan’s Huron and Rouge rivers for PFAS that poured out from auto and other industry contamination. Across 15 sites, anglers caught 100 fish samples from a dozen species, and what they found scared him.

“There were no sites that registered zero,” said Eisenman, noting that some had significantly higher levels of chemicals than others. “You need to make a value judgment. I’m going to still eat fish, but I don’t know if that’s a good thing.”

Last year, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine published a sweeping federally funded report that associated PFAS exposure with health effects like decreased response to vaccines, cancer, and low birth weight.

There are thousands of PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, many of them used to make both household and industrial products stain-resistant or nonstick. They’re in fire-retardant foam used for decades by fire departments and the military, as well as in cookware, water-repellent clothing, carpets, food wrappers, and other consumer goods.

In late October, the EPA added hundreds of PFAS compounds to its list of “chemicals of special concern.” This will require manufacturers to report the presence of those PFAS chemicals in their products—even in small amounts or in mixtures—starting Jan. 1.

Sparse testing leaves blind spots

About 200 miles north of Detroit, in rural Oscoda, Michigan, state officials have warned against eating fish or deer caught or killed near the former Wurtsmith Air Force Base because of PFAS contamination.

“We have a 9-mile stretch of river system in which the state determined way back in 2012 that it wasn’t safe to even eat a single fish,” said Tony Spaniola, an advocate for communities affected by PFAS. He owns a home across a lake from the shuttered military site.

In Alaska, several lakes are designated catch and release only because of PFAS contamination from firefighting foam. A study by the U.S. Geological Survey and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection released in August led to a warning to avoid eating fish from the Neshaminy Creek watershed.

Nationwide, use of firefighting foam and other PFAS-loaded products by the Department of Defense alone has led to the contamination of at least 359 military bases and communities that need to be cleaned up, with an additional 248 still under investigation as of June.

But many lakes and streams haven’t been tested for PFAS contamination, and researchers worry far more sites hold fish laced with high levels of PFAS.

Federal efforts to curb PFAS exposure have focused mostly on drinking water. Earlier this year, the EPA proposed the nation’s first PFAS drinking water standards, which would limit contamination from six types of chemicals, with levels for the two most common compounds, PFOA and PFOS, set at 4 parts per trillion.

But the EWG researchers found that one serving of fish can be equivalent to a month’s worth of drinking water contaminated with 48 parts per trillion of PFOS.

Store-bought fish caught in the ocean, like imported Atlantic salmon and canned chunk tuna, appear to have lower PFAS levels, according to FDA research.

A biomonitoring project focused on the San Francisco Bay Area’s Asian and Pacific Islander community measured PFAS levels in the blood and found higher amounts of the compounds compared with national levels. The researchers also surveyed participants about their fish consumption and found that 56% of those who ate locally caught fish did so at least once a month.

Eating a fish’s fillet is often recommended, as it accumulates fewer chemicals than organs or eggs, but many participants reported eating other parts of the fish, too.

California is one of many states with no fish consumption advisories in place for PFAS. Jay Davis, senior scientist at the San Francisco Estuary Institute, said that’s in part because of “limited monitoring dollars” and a priority on legacy chemicals like PCBs as well as mercury left over in particularly high concentrations from gold and mercury mining.

Wesley Smith, a senior toxicologist with California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, said the state is reviewing the latest scientific literature but needs more data to develop an advisory that is “neither too restrictive nor too permissive.”

States like New Hampshire, Washington, Maine, and New Jersey have some of the most protective guidance, while other states, such as Maryland and Michigan, lag when it comes to designating fish unsafe to eat.

Advisory levels for at-risk groups—such as children and women of childbearing age—are usually lower, while “do not eat” thresholds for the general population range from 25.7 parts per billion in New Hampshire to 300 ppb in Michigan, 408 ppb in Maryland, and 800 ppb in Alabama.

“That’s wicked outdated to have levels that high and consider that safe for folks to eat,” said Kopec, the University of Maine researcher.

Though it is no longer made in the U.S., PFOS remains the most commonly found—and tested for—PFAS chemical in fish today.

The primary maker of PFOS, 3M, announced it would begin phasing the chemical out in 2000. This year, the company said it would pay at least $10.3 billion to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by public water system operators. But in July, attorneys general from 22 states asked the court to reject the settlement, saying it was insufficient to cover the damages.

The military first documented health concerns surrounding PFAS chemicals in the 1970s yet continued to use firefighting foam made with them. Mandated by Congress, the Defense Department was required to stop buying retardant containing PFAS by Oct. 1 and phase it out altogether by 2024. A recently published study linked testicular cancer among military personnel to PFOS.

Tackling pollution at the source

Pat Elder, an activist and director of the environmental advocacy group Military Poisons, has tested water for PFAS up and down the East Coast, including in Piscataway Creek, which drains from Joint Base Andrews, the home of Air Force One.

In 2021, after testing fish from Piscataway Creek, Maryland officials released the state’s sole PFAS fish consumption advisory to date. But Elder worries Maryland has not gone far enough to protect its residents.

“People eat the fish from this creek, and it creates an acute health hazard that no one seems to be paying attention to,” Elder said.

Since then, Maryland’s Department of the Environment has conducted more fish monitoring in water bodies near potential PFAS sources, as well as at spots regularly used by subsistence anglers, said spokesperson Jay Apperson. He added that the state plans to put out more advisories based on the results, though declined to give a timeline or share the locations.

Part of the challenge of getting the word out and setting location-specific consumption advisories is that contamination levels vary significantly from lake to lake, as well as species to species, said Brandon Reid, a toxicologist and the manager of Michigan’s Eat Safe Fish program.

Michigan set its screening values for fish consumption advisories in 2014, and the state is in the process of updating them within the next year, Reid said.

But to see the chemicals dip to healthier levels, the pollution needs to stop, too. There is hope: Andrews, the EWG researcher, compared EPA fish sample data from five years apart and found about a 30% drop on average in PFAS contamination.

Bloom has watched this cycle happen in the Huron River in southeastern Michigan, where PFAS chemicals upstream seeped into the water from a chrome plating facility. While the levels of PFAS in the water have slowly gone down, the chemicals remain, she said.

“It’s very, very hard to completely clean up the entire river,” Bloom said. “If we don’t tackle it at the source, we’re going to just keep having to spend taxpayer money to clean it up and deal with fish advisories.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

The post ‘Forever chemicals’ found in freshwater fish, yet most states don’t warn residents appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Grinding coffee beans at home is arguably the best way to get a fresh cup of coffee, but this process can be pretty messy. The friction created by breaking up the beans generates static electricity that makes the coffee clump together and stick to the grinder. However, a team of chemists and volcanologists is here to solve this caffeinated nightmare, joining forces to investigate how moisture affects this static buildup. They found that adding a drop of water to the beans before grinding cuts the static and makes a better tasting espresso. Their findings are highlighted in a study published December 6 in the journal Matter. 

[Related: Scientists brew stronger concrete with coffee grounds.]

While coffee enthusiasts and the $343.2 billion United States coffee industry have long known that coffee grinding generates static electricity, how different properties including origin or roast impact static have been more mysterious. Some baristas already use the Ross Droplet Technique and use a wet teaspoon or water on beans before grinding. 

The new study shows how moisture in espresso beans affects static charge builds up and how it can be altered. The team found that when coffee beans have higher internal moisture, they produce less static electricity. This can eliminate some waste and give consumers more bang for their buck and makes more consistent and intense-tasting espresso.

“Moisture, whether it’s residual moisture inside the roasted coffee or external moisture added during grinding, is what dictates the amount of charge that is formed during grinding,” study co-author and University of Oregon computational materials chemist Christopher Hendon said in a statement. “Water not only reduces static electricity and therefore reduces mess as you’re grinding, but it can also make a major impact on the intensity of the beverage and, potentially, the ability to access higher concentrations of favorable flavors.”

To study what factors are behind the electricity generation, Hendon worked with a team of volcanologists. During volcanic eruptions, scientists study similar electrification processes.

“During eruption, magma breaks up into lots of little particles that then come out of the volcano in this big plume, and during that whole process, those particles are rubbing against each other and charging up to the point of producing lightning,” study co-author and Portland State University volcanologist Joshua Méndez Harper said in a statement. “In a simplistic way, it’s similar to grinding coffee, where you’re taking these beans and reducing them to fine powder.”

They ground both commercially and in-house roasted espresso beans. The beans varied by factors including country of origin, roast color, processing method (natural, washed, or decaffeinated), and moisture content. They measured the amount of static electricity produced during grinding and compared the impact of grinding coarseness on the amount of electricity produced.

[Related: How a popcorn popper can help you roast coffee beans at home.]

There was no association between static electricity and where the country was grown or its processing method. However, the team did find associations between electrification and particle size, roast color, and water content. 

When the coffee had a higher internal moisture content and when it was ground at a coarser setting, less electricity was produced. The lighter roasts produced less electrical charge and the charge was more likely to be positive. 

Darker roasts tend to be drier and the dark roasts studied were charged negatively and produced more overall charge. The team also saw that dark roast coffees produce much finer particles than light roasts when ground at the same setting.

The team then tested whether grinding the beans with water changed the way espresso is brewed. The beans ground with water had a longer extraction time and a stronger brew, even if they were made with the same beans. Using water in the grinder also produced espresso shots that tasted more similar from shot to shot.  

While they only tested espresso, the team believes that these benefits should apply to many other brewing methods. 

“The central material benefit of adding water during grinding is that you can pack the bed more densely because there’s less clumping,” said Hendon. “Espresso is the worst offender of this, but you would also see the benefit in brew formats where you pour water over the coffee or in small percolation systems like a stovetop Bialetti. Where you’re not going to see a benefit during brewing is for methods like the French press, where you submerge the coffee in water.”

In future studies, the team plans to follow up with more studies on the quest to prepare the world’s best cup of coffee. This work also has implications beyond the caffeinated, and could offer insight into how granular materials are electrified.

“It’s sort of like the start of a joke—a volcanologist and a coffee expert walk into a bar and then come out with a paper, but I think there are a lot more opportunities for this sort of collaboration, and there’s a lot more to know about how coffee breaks, how it flows as particles, and how it interacts with water,” said Méndez Harper. “These investigations may help resolve parallel issues in geophysics—whether it’s landslides, volcanic eruptions, or how water percolates through soil.”

The post Chemists and volcanologists want you to make a better espresso appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

In Head Trip, PopSci explores the relationship between our brains, our senses, and the strange things that happen in between.

SURE, TIME FLIES flies when you’re having fun. Time also seems to stretch out like an old rubber band when you’re stuck in endless back-to-back Zoom work meetings. The latter is an example of chronostasis, a phenomenon in which time appears to pass more slowly than it actually does. A visual example of chronostasis is the stopped clock illusion, which is induced by shifting one’s gaze abruptly to an old-fashioned ticking clock. This action can result in the clock’s second hand appearing to remain stationary for more than a second.

Kielan Yarrow, reader in psychology at the University of London, explains that the key ingredient in the stopped clock illusion—and chronostasis generally—is a rapid movement of eyes from one object to another. Such movements are called “saccades.” Yarrow explains that they can present problems for our brains. 

“Whenever you move your eyes,” he says, “it’s rather like moving the camera on your phone.” If you move your phone quickly enough, he says, “you can get a big motion smear, and the whole world appears to jump position.” During a rapid eye movement, there are gaps in the visual information our eyes receive. Our brains respond by “filling in” those gaps to avoid motion blur.

The stopped clock illusion exposes the limits of this retrospective reconstruction. If the clock ticks during the saccade, we do not “see” this tick taking place, because the brain’s reconstruction is based on what it sees at the end of the saccade—at which point the clock has already ticked. The result is that the second hand can seem to have been stationary when it was actually in motion. But since the visual information of the moving second hand was missing during our rapid gaze shift, the brain predicts its “past” position based on the best information available—that is, the second hand’s already-ticked place on the clock.

Nevertheless, it’s remarkable that in the vast majority of cases, the brain manages to compensate for lost or incomplete information, even if it is, in a way, guessing. “I think a useful way to think about a lot of these kinds of illusions is to take what’s now often described as a Bayesian view,” Yarrow says. “The idea behind [this] is that what you see at any given time is to some degree uncertain, so the best thing to do is to average together what you see right now with what you think you should have seen. Your past history of experience acts like a kind of baseline, and you generate biases towards that history.”

It’s these biases—or, more accurately, disparities between these biases and reality—that often manifest as illusions. However, as Yarrow points out, “From a broader perspective, [the Bayesian approach] is quite adaptive. If what you see right now is subject to a lot of sensory noise,”—i.e., incomplete or contradictory information—“then on average, you’ll end up getting closer to the truth if you incorporate realistic expectations into that [sensory information]. And it’s a particularly noisy time when you move your eyes.”

These expectations also help in readjusting to reality after experiencing an illusion, as demonstrated by a particularly fascinating experiment that involved subjects playing video games. At first, unbeknownst to subjects, there was a short delay between their inputs (i.e., the pressing of buttons on the controller) and the effects of those inputs being shown on screen. This delay was short enough not to be noticeable, and it seems participants’ brains compensated for it, meaning that participants perceived that their actions were actually manifesting on screen as soon as they pressed their controller buttons. This seems to be an adaptive response: As the experimenters’ paper puts it, “Sensory events appearing at a consistent delay after motor actions are interpreted as consequences of those actions, and the brain recalibrates timing judgments to make them consistent with a prior expectation that sensory feedback will follow motor actions without delay.” 

In the experiment, however, the delay was removed abruptly, and subjects reported feeling that their on-screen actions preceded their inputs. As in the stopped clock illusion, the brain’s expectations came into conflict with reality, resulting in what subjects experienced as an illusion of distorted time. 

Yarrow notes that these effects are generally short-lived: “You have to keep topping people up with out-of-sync experience. Otherwise, they readapt back very quickly.” Such experiments  do, however, make it clear that our perception of time is not objective. Yarrow says that many things can affect how we experience time: “Whether something is moving, how big it is—these all seem to bias how fast time seems to pass.” Ultimately, however, our brains are resilient, and we snap quickly back to reality. Thankfully. Who wants to get stuck in time?

Read more PopSci+ stories.

The post Why do clock hands seem to slow down? appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

When it comes to slicing into bone, three lasers are better than one. At least, that’s the thinking behind a new, partially self-guided surgical system designed by a team at Switzerland’s University of Basel.

Although medical fields like ophthalmology have employed laser tools for decades, the technology’s applications still remain off the table for many surgical procedures. This is most frequently due to safety concerns, including the potential for lasers to injure surrounding tissues beyond the targeted area, as well as a surgeon’s lack of full control over incision depth. To potentially solve these issues, laser physicists and medical experts experimented with increasing the number of lasers used in a procedure, while also allowing the system to partly monitor itself. Their results are documented in a recent issue of Laser Surgeries in Medicine.

[Related: AI brain implant surgery helped a man regain feeling in his hand.]

It’s all about collaboration. The first laser scans a surgery site while emitting a pulsed beam to cut through tissue in miniscule increments at a time. As the tissues vaporize, a spectrometer  analyzes and classifies the results using on-board memory to map the patient’s bone and soft tissue regions. From there, a second laser takes over to cut bone, but only where specifically mapped by its predecessor. Meanwhile, a third optical laser measures incisions in real-time to ensure the exact depth of cuts.

Using pig legs acquired from a nearby supplier, researchers determined their laser trifecta accurately performed the surgical assignments down to fractions of a millimeter, and nearly as fast as the standard methods in use today. What’s more, it did it all sans steady human hands.

“The special thing about our system is that it controls itself without human interference,” laser physicist Ferda Canbaz said in a University of Basel’s profile on December 5.

The system’s benefits extend further than simply getting the job done. The lasers’ smaller, extremely localized incisions could allow tissue to heal faster and reduce scarring in the long run. The precise cutting abilities also allow for shaping certain geometries that existing tools cannot accomplish. From a purely logistical standpoint, less physical interaction between surgeons and patients could also reduce risks of infections or similar postsurgical complications.

Researchers hope such intricate angling could one day enable bone implants to physically interlock with a patient’s existing bone, potentially even without needing bone cement. There might even come a time when similar laser arrays could not only identify tumors, but subsequently remove them with extremely minimal surrounding tissue injury.

The post Swapping surgical bone saws for laser beams appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This story was originally published by Grist. Sign up for Grist’s weekly newsletter here.

Humans eat a stunning amount of meat every year — some 800 billion pounds of it, enough flesh to fill roughly 28 million dump trucks. Our carnivorous cravings, particularly in industrialized, beef-guzzling countries like the United States, are one reason the planet is warming as fast as it is. Raising animals consumes a lot of land that could otherwise soak up carbon. Cows, sheep, and goats spew heat-trapping methane. And to grow the corn, soy, and other plants that those animals eat, farmers spray fertilizer that emits nitrous oxide, another potent planet-warming gas. 

For all those reasons, and many more, activists and scientists have called for people to eat less meat or abstain altogether. At last year’s United Nations climate conference in Egypt, activists chanted slogans like “Let’s be vegan, let’s be free.” At this year’s conference, which starts November 30, world leaders are expected to talk about ways to shift diets toward plant-based foods as a way to lower animal agriculture’s climate pollution, the source of 15 percent of the planet’s greenhouse gas emissions.  

Cutting out meat can be an effective tool: The average vegan diet is linked to about one-quarter the greenhouse gas emissions of a meat-intensive one, according to a paper published in Nature in July. 

But what would happen if everyone actually stopped eating meat tomorrow?

“It would have huge consequences — a lot of them probably not anticipated,” said Keith Wiebe, a senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute.

Such a quick shift probably wouldn’t cause the sort of turmoil that would come if the planet immediately ditched fossil fuels. But still, the upshot could be tumultuous, upending economies, leaving people jobless, and threatening food security in places that don’t have many nutritious alternatives. 

Livestock accounts for about 40 percent of agricultural production in rich countries and 20 percent in low-income countries, and it’s vital — economically and nutritionally — to the lives of 1.3 billion people across the world, according to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization. One-third of the protein and nearly one-fifth of the calories that people eat around the world come from animals. 

Researchers say the economic damage caused by the sudden disappearance of meat would fall disproportionately on low-income countries with agrarian economies, like Niger or Kenya, where farming and raising livestock are critical sources of income. Niger’s livestock industry makes up about 13 percent of the country’s gross domestic product; in the U.S., the entire agricultural system accounts for only around 5 percent.

It’s tough to predict exactly what the economic shock would look like on a global level. There has been “relatively little” research on how phasing out meat would affect employment around the world, Wiebe said. “It’s an issue that deserves a lot more attention.” 

Millions of people would lose jobs, but demand for other sources of calories and protein might rise and offset some of those losses. Some workers might be drawn into agriculture to grow more crops like legumes. That shift in labor, some researchers hypothesize, could slow economic growth by pulling people out of more profitable industries. 

Still, the effects would vary across cultures, economies, and political systems, and they aren’t as clear-cut as, say, the amount of methane that would be saved if cows ceased to exist. “It depends on the species of livestock. It depends on the geographic location,” said Jan Dutkiewicz, a political economist at the Pratt Institute, in New York City. “It’s very difficult, if not impossible, to talk in universal terms about addressing those kinds of things.” 

It’s easier to talk in broad terms about another challenge with getting rid of meat: nutrition. Eliminating livestock overnight would deprive many people of essential nutrients, especially in regions like South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa,  where meat comprises a small but crucial sliver of the average person’s starch-heavy diet. Animal-based foods are high in vitamin B12, vitamin A, calcium, and iron. That’s why researchers say preserving access to meat, milk, and eggs is key to keeping people healthy in low- and middle-income countries right now, where nutritious plant-based options are harder to come by. 

And then there’s the issue of cultural damage. Taking away meat, according to Wilson Warren, a history professor at Western Michigan University, would do more than just deprive Americans of hot dogs and hamburgers and Italians of salami. 

“Historically, the way that most people understood animals was through farming and having close contact with their livestock,” said Warren, who’s also the author of Meat Makes People Powerful, a book about the global history of meat. “You get rid of that sort of close connection, [and] I envision people in some ways being even less environmentally in touch.” (Warren grapples with this idea in a self-published novel called Animeat’s End about a future world in which eating meat is a serious crime.) 

Many researchers agree that phasing out meat entirely, let alone immediately, isn’t an ideal solution to the climate crisis. It would be plenty, they say, to reduce consumption methodically and to focus on the countries that eat the most, particularly wealthy ones like the United States that have no shortage of alternatives.  

It might be easier for the average American, who eats about 220 pounds of red meat and poultry each year, to trade a daily hamburger for a bowl of lentils than for someone in rural sub-Saharan Africa, who eats 10 times less meat, to give up the occasional goat or beef stew for something less nutritious. Such a shift in beef-loving countries also might reduce heart disease and cancer linked to eating a lot of red and processed meat.   

Dutkiewicz suggested using guidelines established by the EAT-Lancet Commission, an international group of scientists who have designed a diet intended to give people the nutrients they need without destroying the planet. It consists of roughly 35 pounds of meat per year. Adopting that diet would require a drastic reduction of cows and chickens in countries like the United States, Australia, China, Brazil, and Argentina, and a slight increase in parts of Africa and South Asia. 

Gradually replacing meat with plants could have immense benefits for the planet. “It would be a huge net win for the environment,” Dutkiewicz said. By one estimate, a complete phaseout of meat over 15 years would cut as much as one-third of all methane emissions and two-thirds of all nitrous oxide emissions. Water use would fall drastically. Biodiversity loss would slow. Animal welfare advocates would be happy to see fewer animals packed into tight pens wallowing in their own poop awaiting slaughter. And there would be ample opportunity to rewild abandoned rangelands and pastures at a scale that would sequester a whole lot of carbon — as much as 550 gigatons, enough to give us a pretty good shot at keeping warming below catastrophic levels.

Given the complexities and pitfalls of a complete phaseout, researchers and advocates have pointed instead to a more modest goal: cutting meat production in half.  Replacing it with plant-based alternatives would lower agricultural emissions 31 percent by 2050, a recent study found. 

“It doesn’t have to be an all-or-nothing approach,” Raychel Santo, a food and climate researcher at the World Resources Institute, said in an email. 

The solution, in other words, lies somewhere between culling cows in Niger and gorging ourselves on factory-farmed flesh.