GoGreenNation news

Babies vs. Plastics: The public health problem of our time—and how you can help

News Feed

Monday, April 22, 2024

Plastic is everywhere. We pump crude oil from the ground and then process it into just about anything we want.It’s on and in all your electronics. Kitchens and bathrooms are mostly coated in it. Around 60% of all clothing is technically considered a type of plastic. Then there’s furniture, cars, ships, and even the internal coating of drink cans.Our world is inundated with plastic, not just in our surroundings but also in our food and bodies. About 300 million tons of plastic are manufactured each year, including a mind-boggling five trillion plastic bags and 583 billion plastic bottles.That’s about 650 plastic bags per person annually, each taking about 1,000 years to disintegrate. All that plastic breaks down into microscopic fragments that can quickly enter our bodies.Studies show that microplastics can enter our bloodstream and even end up in our brains, causing inflammation, neurological disorders, or even neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s.But there’s plenty of action being taken to try to change our addiction to plastic. The End Plastics Initiative, part of the Washington, D.C.,-based Earth Day organization, aims to reduce our dependence on plastic by 60% over the next 16 years.Reckon spoke with Aidan Charron, the director of Earth Day’s plastic initiative, about what’s happening in that world and how we can cut back.Reckon:There still seems to be a lack of public awareness about plastic. Some people don’t believe it’s harmful. What strategies do you use when encountering people who have no idea or are reluctant to think this stuff is bad for us?Aidan Charron:That’s part of the reason we wrote the Babies vs. Plastics report. There’s a main group of people that are saying they don’t want to believe the big issues we’re having with plastic. That’s hard to do when faced with all the evidence. If you don’t want to believe that oil is killing you, you have to understand at least that there are 16,000 possible chemicals and only 4,200 of them are non-toxic, and that’s only because those are the only ones that have been tested. I tell people to look into some of these chemicals and what they can do to our bodies and the environment.Why did you call it babies vs plastic?We wanted to convey the idea that plastic affects all of us and isn’t just floating in the sea far away.But it’s also not just hurting minority groups, like indigenous populations and Black and brown communities. It’s affecting everybody, including those in the frontline communities dealing with the most pollution types. We chose the name because we wanted people to know that our children are also being exposed to these chemicals among groups most of us don’t think about.Given that plastic is used in our clothes, phones, laptops, advanced medical devices, and even inside our bodies, is ending plastic a practical vision?We’re not completely crazy. We know plastic will never go away completely. That’s why we came up with the 60% reduction by 2040 goal. We do see that as feasible because 50% of all plastic is single-use. So if we phase out single-use plastic and make sure that all the materials are reusable, that requires us to transition backward even to some materials that are actually inert, like glass or aluminum, and in a lot of cases, stainless steel.We can go ahead and cut off 50% of our production right there. That involves coming up with alternatives to the plastic we put in laptops and, for example, building materials that don’t use regenerative materials. PVC piping, a widely used building material, is one of the most dangerous types of piping out there. If we can transition away from those things, that will eventually lead us to that 60% reduction goal.Is there a new technology out there that could replace plastics?We’re a little hesitant to talk about it because sometimes, the new technology or material in five years turns out not to be so great for the environment or people. The ones I’ve seen are pretty cool and are things like mycelium or mushrooms to replace Styrofoam packaging. The question with things like that is, is it scalable? Is it expensive? What investments do we need to make to get it going?Then there’s hemp, right? Hemp is an extremely versatile material that we seem to ignore.The alternatives to fast-fashion clothing are well known, and it’s a sector where we can easily progress in replacing it. That would be organic hemp, organic cotton, and wool, which are all regenerative. It’s just better than wearing stuff that could also power a car. It’s wild to think we are wearing oil.How can regular people like me and my neighbors cut back on our plastic use?Every environmentalist you talk to will tell you to use more renewable and reusable materials. And that is really the simplest thing to do: use reusable water bottles, preferably made of glass, stainless steel, or aluminum.Transition away from Saran wrap to tin foil or aluminum foil if you can. I also use cotton and beeswax materials to cover my food. Plastic Tupperware has inserted itself into every part of society in the U.S. Switch to glass. By heating plastic food containers in a microwave, you’re exposing yourself to the plastics of the container and the microplastics already in your food.Many of these big plastic-using companies, like Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and Nestle, go to great lengths to greenwash us. And yet, I know they hire highly intelligent business executives and creatives who surely know the products they manufacture harm people, wildlife, and the environment.Do you ever think about who these people are, what they stand for, and how it would be much easier if they admitted what we already know about their products?Yes, it would be much easier if they were honest. Then, I wouldn’t have to work as hard to ensure that at least somebody’s being honest. Part of my job is talking to government officials and getting them to be honest about plastic use. Companies are a little bit more complicated. I understand they all have families and their living expenses. But it’s hard for me to think what the price is for someone to sell their soul and the souls of 8 billion people. I get it. A CEO making $200 million a year is a lot of money. But then you go down the line, like, you are a chemical engineer for Coca-Cola developing a new set of plastics for $80,000 a year. That’s all it took for you to sell out?Do you think that has to do with the fact that plastic is such an enormous and useful part of our culture and is elevated above how we feel about garbage, sewage, and littering? How might that change?I also think that. Hopefully, in my lifetime, more burdens will be placed on these companies regarding the damage they’re doing. Plastic is cheap and quick. But then there’s all the underlying health costs that producers don’t have to worry about.Plastic and its additive chemicals cost the healthcare industry $250 billion a year because of the different health issues it causes. That’s just in the U.S. Plastic producers don’t have to pay anything towards those costs. We’ll see big plastic changes if the healthcare industry becomes involved.In the same vein, do you think those big plastic producers will have to bear some legal responsibility for the health issues and pollution they cause in the same way the EPA is gradually going after companies that put chemicals forever in our food and water?For a long time, I felt like the EPA wasn’t doing nearly enough, and I do think it can do a lot more. However, I’m glad to see they’re starting to target some of these chemical companies, which makes me think it will eventually pivot to the plastics industry. We also have the global plastics treaty, which we hope can bring greater awareness and policy.I’ve also seen many more rules and regulations coming from the EPA, but I fear it’s all for show since the agency can’t enforce what’s already on the books.Honestly, I’ve been feeling the same way. It sucks because that’s what we’re relying on to fight these battles. The EPA has been heavily underfunded for years and still doesn’t have the funding to put toward lawsuits like petrochemical and chemical companies do. It’s hard to go up against some of the most profitable businesses ever, even for the government. Then, you get certain administrations coming through that gut funding, which makes auditing and environmental regulation much harder.

Plastic is one of the great human inventions, but the downsides are deadly.

Plastic is everywhere. We pump crude oil from the ground and then process it into just about anything we want.

It’s on and in all your electronics. Kitchens and bathrooms are mostly coated in it. Around 60% of all clothing is technically considered a type of plastic. Then there’s furniture, cars, ships, and even the internal coating of drink cans.

Our world is inundated with plastic, not just in our surroundings but also in our food and bodies. About 300 million tons of plastic are manufactured each year, including a mind-boggling five trillion plastic bags and 583 billion plastic bottles.

That’s about 650 plastic bags per person annually, each taking about 1,000 years to disintegrate. All that plastic breaks down into microscopic fragments that can quickly enter our bodies.

Studies show that microplastics can enter our bloodstream and even end up in our brains, causing inflammation, neurological disorders, or even neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s.

But there’s plenty of action being taken to try to change our addiction to plastic. The End Plastics Initiative, part of the Washington, D.C.,-based Earth Day organization, aims to reduce our dependence on plastic by 60% over the next 16 years.

Reckon spoke with Aidan Charron, the director of Earth Day’s plastic initiative, about what’s happening in that world and how we can cut back.

Reckon:

There still seems to be a lack of public awareness about plastic. Some people don’t believe it’s harmful. What strategies do you use when encountering people who have no idea or are reluctant to think this stuff is bad for us?

Aidan Charron:

That’s part of the reason we wrote the Babies vs. Plastics report. There’s a main group of people that are saying they don’t want to believe the big issues we’re having with plastic. That’s hard to do when faced with all the evidence. If you don’t want to believe that oil is killing you, you have to understand at least that there are 16,000 possible chemicals and only 4,200 of them are non-toxic, and that’s only because those are the only ones that have been tested. I tell people to look into some of these chemicals and what they can do to our bodies and the environment.

Why did you call it babies vs plastic?

We wanted to convey the idea that plastic affects all of us and isn’t just floating in the sea far away.

But it’s also not just hurting minority groups, like indigenous populations and Black and brown communities. It’s affecting everybody, including those in the frontline communities dealing with the most pollution types. We chose the name because we wanted people to know that our children are also being exposed to these chemicals among groups most of us don’t think about.

Given that plastic is used in our clothes, phones, laptops, advanced medical devices, and even inside our bodies, is ending plastic a practical vision?

We’re not completely crazy. We know plastic will never go away completely. That’s why we came up with the 60% reduction by 2040 goal. We do see that as feasible because 50% of all plastic is single-use. So if we phase out single-use plastic and make sure that all the materials are reusable, that requires us to transition backward even to some materials that are actually inert, like glass or aluminum, and in a lot of cases, stainless steel.

We can go ahead and cut off 50% of our production right there. That involves coming up with alternatives to the plastic we put in laptops and, for example, building materials that don’t use regenerative materials. PVC piping, a widely used building material, is one of the most dangerous types of piping out there. If we can transition away from those things, that will eventually lead us to that 60% reduction goal.

Is there a new technology out there that could replace plastics?

We’re a little hesitant to talk about it because sometimes, the new technology or material in five years turns out not to be so great for the environment or people. The ones I’ve seen are pretty cool and are things like mycelium or mushrooms to replace Styrofoam packaging. The question with things like that is, is it scalable? Is it expensive? What investments do we need to make to get it going?

Then there’s hemp, right? Hemp is an extremely versatile material that we seem to ignore.

The alternatives to fast-fashion clothing are well known, and it’s a sector where we can easily progress in replacing it. That would be organic hemp, organic cotton, and wool, which are all regenerative. It’s just better than wearing stuff that could also power a car. It’s wild to think we are wearing oil.

How can regular people like me and my neighbors cut back on our plastic use?

Every environmentalist you talk to will tell you to use more renewable and reusable materials. And that is really the simplest thing to do: use reusable water bottles, preferably made of glass, stainless steel, or aluminum.

Transition away from Saran wrap to tin foil or aluminum foil if you can. I also use cotton and beeswax materials to cover my food. Plastic Tupperware has inserted itself into every part of society in the U.S. Switch to glass. By heating plastic food containers in a microwave, you’re exposing yourself to the plastics of the container and the microplastics already in your food.

Many of these big plastic-using companies, like Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and Nestle, go to great lengths to greenwash us. And yet, I know they hire highly intelligent business executives and creatives who surely know the products they manufacture harm people, wildlife, and the environment.

Do you ever think about who these people are, what they stand for, and how it would be much easier if they admitted what we already know about their products?

Yes, it would be much easier if they were honest. Then, I wouldn’t have to work as hard to ensure that at least somebody’s being honest. Part of my job is talking to government officials and getting them to be honest about plastic use.

Companies are a little bit more complicated. I understand they all have families and their living expenses. But it’s hard for me to think what the price is for someone to sell their soul and the souls of 8 billion people. I get it. A CEO making $200 million a year is a lot of money. But then you go down the line, like, you are a chemical engineer for Coca-Cola developing a new set of plastics for $80,000 a year. That’s all it took for you to sell out?

Do you think that has to do with the fact that plastic is such an enormous and useful part of our culture and is elevated above how we feel about garbage, sewage, and littering? How might that change?

I also think that. Hopefully, in my lifetime, more burdens will be placed on these companies regarding the damage they’re doing. Plastic is cheap and quick. But then there’s all the underlying health costs that producers don’t have to worry about.

Plastic and its additive chemicals cost the healthcare industry $250 billion a year because of the different health issues it causes. That’s just in the U.S. Plastic producers don’t have to pay anything towards those costs. We’ll see big plastic changes if the healthcare industry becomes involved.

In the same vein, do you think those big plastic producers will have to bear some legal responsibility for the health issues and pollution they cause in the same way the EPA is gradually going after companies that put chemicals forever in our food and water?

For a long time, I felt like the EPA wasn’t doing nearly enough, and I do think it can do a lot more. However, I’m glad to see they’re starting to target some of these chemical companies, which makes me think it will eventually pivot to the plastics industry. We also have the global plastics treaty, which we hope can bring greater awareness and policy.

I’ve also seen many more rules and regulations coming from the EPA, but I fear it’s all for show since the agency can’t enforce what’s already on the books.

Honestly, I’ve been feeling the same way. It sucks because that’s what we’re relying on to fight these battles. The EPA has been heavily underfunded for years and still doesn’t have the funding to put toward lawsuits like petrochemical and chemical companies do. It’s hard to go up against some of the most profitable businesses ever, even for the government. Then, you get certain administrations coming through that gut funding, which makes auditing and environmental regulation much harder.

Read the full story here.

Photos courtesy of

Related News

New Study Links Wildfire Smoke to Premature Births

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Nov. 5, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Wildfire smoke may do more than harm the lungs.New research shows it...

WEDNESDAY, Nov. 5, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Wildfire smoke may do more than harm the lungs.New research shows it could also raise the risk of premature birth.A large study from the University of Washington found that pregnant people exposed to wildfire smoke were more likely to deliver early.The findings, published Nov. 3 in The Lancet Planetary Health, are based on more than 20,000 births across the United States between 2006 and 2020.About 10% of babies in the U.S. are born early, which can lead to lifelong health problems. While air pollution has already been linked to preterm birth, this is one of the biggest studies so far to look specifically at wildfire smoke as a contributor, researchers said.“Preventing preterm birth really pays off with lasting benefits for future health,” said lead author Allison Sherris, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Washington in Seattle.“It’s also something of a mystery. We don’t always understand why babies are born preterm, but we know that air pollution contributes to preterm births, and it makes sense that wildfire smoke would as well," she added in a news release. "This study underscores that wildfire smoke is inseparable from maternal and infant health.”Researchers measured how often pregnant people were exposed to wildfire-related fine particle pollution, known as PM2.5, and how much they were exposed.The risk of preterm birth was higher when exposure happened in the second trimester, especially around week 21. Later in pregnancy, the biggest risk came from high levels of wildfire smoke, above 10 micrograms per cubic meter. The strongest link was seen in the Western U.S., where wildfire smoke has become more frequent and intense. “The second trimester is a period of pregnancy with the richest and most intense growth of the placenta, which itself is such an important part of fetal health, growth and development,” said co-author Dr. Catherine Karr, a professor of pediatrics and environmental health."So it may be that the wildfire smoke particles are really interfering with placental health," Karr added in a news release. "Some of them are so tiny that after inhalation they can actually get into the bloodstream and get delivered directly into the placenta or fetus.”Researchers say more work is needed to understand exactly how wildfire smoke affects pregnancy, but the evidence is now strong enough to take action for pregnant people."There’s an opportunity to work with clinicians to provide tools for pregnant people to protect themselves during smoke events," Sherris said. "Public health agencies’ messaging about wildfire smoke could also be tailored to pregnant people and highlight them as a vulnerable group."SOURCE: University of Washington, news release, Nov. 3, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Health

Pollution

Light Pollution Harming Heart Health, Study Says

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

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

Health

Pollution

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

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

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

Health

Wildfire Smoke Might Damage Male Fertility

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

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

Health

Pollution

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

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

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

Health

Water

Suggested Viewing

Unacceptable Risk: Dr. Margaret Kripke on Cancer and the Environment

Unacceptable Risk tells the story of a prominent cancer researcher who rethinks her assumptions about the causes of cancer and the true burden of environmentally-induced cancers.

Chemicals

Science

Health

The Connection Between Bats and Coronavirus: Wildlife is not to blame

What exactly is the connection between bats and coronavirus? And how has sheltering-in-place disrupted field research in California and beyond? State and local governments have set restrictions on bat research and rescue in an effort to curtail the spread of the coronavirus. Dr. Winifred Frick, chief scientist of Bat Conservation International, describes how the new restrictions have affected conservation efforts.

Animals

Science

Health

The Rulindo Challenge

In May 2010, Rulindo, Rwanda launched an ambitious plan to bring access to water and sanitation services to the entire district population. This film explores the story, challenges and ultimate success for reaching over 330,000 people with safe water in the rural and mountainous Rulindo District, and how this project is inspiring sustainable water (infrastructure and sanitation) models around the world.

Sustainable

Business

Health

In His Own Home

Heavily armed officers of the University of Florida police department in Gainesville, FL, responding to a 911 call from a neighbor who heard screams, break into the campus apartment of Ghanaian graduate student, Kofi Adu-Brempong. Clad in SWAT gear and ready to attack, they see the disabled doctoral student, sitting with a metal table leg in his hand and within a minute of entry, shoot the unarmed man in the face. Adu-Brempong, who because of childhood polio, needed a cane to walk, and had been suffering from mental illness, now has severe facial injuries, and is charged with resisting arrest. He is guarded outside his hospital door, his legs shackled together when going to the bathroom. The officer who shoots Kofi, and who had previously been caught cruising through town throwing eggs at residents of a Black neighborhood, is not suspended or fired. Student protests lead the administration to drop charges but calls for revoking SWAT-like teams on campus go unheard. Kofi’s shooting is not an isolated incident but part of an ongoing pattern of police brutality against Blacks and a stark reminder of the dangers of increasingly militarized campuses nationwide. In His Own Home came out of outrage by a small group of concerned community members committed to seeing social justice happen on a local level. This documentary is an educational and organizing tool, especially calling for our communities to be safe from violence by racist and over-armed police.

Social Justice

Health

Activism