Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Everything you need to know to keep your teeth healthy

News Feed
Monday, March 17, 2025

Consumer Reports has no financial relationship with any advertisers on this site.With age comes a greater risk that things will go wrong with your teeth. Among adults, procedures such as filling cavities tend to peak in your early to mid-50s, according to the Health Policy Institute. By the time you reach your 60s, you’re almost certain to need treatment for tooth decay. Figuring out exactly what dental care you need and when can be challenging. Yet there’s one key step that’s simple and inexpensive: taking care of your teeth at home.Though certain dental problems may require extra attention, the basics of brushing twice daily and cleaning between your teeth by flossing haven’t changed. And while plenty of companies would like to sell you pricey gadgets and special products for your oral health, you don’t need to shell out big bucks to keep your mouth in great shape.How often for dental cleaning?Even with great home hygiene habits, you still need to see your dentist regularly for checkups and cleanings. Some people will need to visit more often than the standard twice a year, while others may be fine with less frequent visits. A 2020 review by Cochrane, an independent group of expert researchers, found that adults who visited the dentist every six months and those who visited on a schedule customized to their individual dental risk had comparable oral health.People who are being treated for periodontal disease or who have dental implants — which can fail more quickly than a natural tooth — may need to see their provider every three months or so, says Martha McComas, a clinical associate professor of dentistry at the University of Michigan School of Dentistry in Ann Arbor.Your dentist can help you figure out the right cadence for checkups, as well as your optimal at-home dental care strategy. “We can customize it based on what we see in your mouth,” says Karin Arsenault, program director of geriatric dentistry at the Tufts University School of Dental Medicine in Boston.Between visits, here’s what you need to know about the vital tools for keeping your teeth and your whole mouth as healthy as they can be.Your toothpaste mattersFluoride is important. Fluoride is crucial because of the power it has to help fight cavities and tooth decay — something proved by decades of research. While some ingredients, notably a chemical called hydroxyapatite, have shown promise as viable alternatives, fluoride is still your best choice right now, according to the American Dental Association.Cavities occur when the bacteria in our mouths consume the traces of food left on our teeth, particularly anything sugary. As the bacteria gobble up these sugars, they release acid, which can remove minerals from our teeth’s enamel, eventually creating cavities. Fluoride can help replace some of these lost minerals, strengthening the surface of our teeth and repairing some damage.When you’re shopping for toothpaste, look for one with the ADA Seal of Acceptance. To earn that seal, manufacturers need to not only include fluoride in their toothpaste but also meet other safety and efficacy standards, including one meant to ensure toothpastes aren’t too abrasive. (Very abrasive toothpastes can damage enamel.)Watch out for this ingredient: If you’re prone to canker sores inside your mouth, you may want to look for a toothpaste that doesn’t contain sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS). A 2019 research review found that using an SLS-free toothpaste might help reduce canker sores in people who get a lot of them (about 25 percent of adults).Skip charcoal toothpaste. Activated charcoal is often touted as a superior ingredient for a variety of products, including toothpaste. But it can be highly abrasive, which research has shown can damage your enamel and cause increased sensitivity.How much toothpaste to use: Generally, adults need only a pea-size amount of toothpaste — that will create enough foam to cover all the surfaces in your mouth, Arsenault says.Also, “one of the big myths about toothbrushing is that you should rinse your mouth out after you brush,” says McComas. Studies show that the fluoride in your toothpaste provides the biggest benefit if you don’t do this, instead allowing the fluoride to work its magic on your enamel for more time.What about prescription pastes? You may want to ask your dentist whether a prescription toothpaste, which generally contains a higher dose of fluoride, might be right for you. Severe dry mouth, which can be more common as you age (particularly if you’re taking certain medications for various chronic conditions, including for high blood pressure and depression), can raise your risk of cavities. So can periodontal disease, especially if the surfaces of the roots of your teeth, which lack protective enamel, are exposed.How to brush wellThe right bristles: Use a toothbrush with soft or extra-soft bristles. There are so many toothbrush options, but in the midst of considering the shape of the brush head, the brand name and other fancy features, don’t lose sight of bristle stiffness. Seek out a toothbrush with “soft” or “extra soft” on the packaging. Stiffer bristles are more likely to damage your gums or your teeth’s enamel, according to the American Dental Association.The advantages of an electric toothbrush: You can keep your mouth perfectly healthy with a manual toothbrush, but a 2014 Cochrane review found that three months of using an electric toothbrush resulted in 21 percent less plaque and 11 percent less gum inflammation (also called gingivitis).There are not significant performance differences between oscillating (or rotating) electric toothbrushes, which typically have round heads, and sonic toothbrushes, which usually have rectangular heads. So get the kind you like and will use.How much to brush: Do it twice a day for at least two minutes. Some research suggests that people may brush for a lot less time than this on average, possibly around a minute or less. But common sense and a 2009 Journal of Dental Hygiene study suggest that brushing longer will remove more plaque — though the added benefit of extra time beyond two minutes is probably marginal, and brushing too hard can exacerbate problems, including receding gums, which can expose the roots of your teeth to a greater risk of cavities and tooth decay.How to flossWhy flossing matters: Use any standard string floss (waxed or unwaxed), floss pick or interdental cleaning brush. The scientific evidence for flossing is not as strong as it is for brushing: A 2019 Cochrane review found that flossing in addition to brushing may reduce plaque and gingivitis more than brushing alone, but the authors cautioned that the evidence supporting this conclusion was weak. Still, dentists say the biological justification for flossing is sound: Without it, the bacteria that cause decay can build up between your teeth even if you’re brushing regularly.Do water flossers work? While not quite as effective as string floss, water flossers can be a great option if you have a hard time using string floss, have mouth hardware like braces or a permanent retainer, or have other kinds of dental work like implants, bridges, or crowns. Dentist Sally Cram, a spokeswoman for the American Dental Association, says the evidence on the benefits of a water flosser is encouraging, but it’s not enough for her to recommend it as a replacement for flossing just yet. Still, if you know you won’t use string floss every day, a water flosser is better than nothing.Avoid floss with PFAS. Skip floss that’s coated with these environmental contaminants, which are associated with a variety of health problems. You can look for flosses that use non-PFAS coatings such as beeswax or plant waxes like carnauba or candelilla.CR partnered with Made Safe, an independent organization that certifies products as safer and more sustainable, to find flosses made without PFAS. Read our special report, “How to Choose Dental Floss Without PFAS and Other Harmful Chemicals,” for the details, including three good floss options made from silk instead of plastic.How often should you floss? Do it once a day. Whether you floss or brush first doesn’t matter, as long as you do both.What if you have implants or gum disease? If you have an implant, you may want to opt for an interdental brush instead of regular string floss, particularly if your implant doesn’t touch the teeth next to it on either side.These are tiny round brushes designed specifically to clean in between teeth, and they work well with teeth that have gaps in between them. They come in different sizes, so Jennifer Harmon, a registered dental hygienist and clinical associate professor at the University of North Carolina Adams School of Dentistry in Chapel Hill, recommends working with your dentist to figure out which size you need for your teeth.If you’re dealing with bleeding gums, Arsenault says, you can consider using prescription chlorhexidine mouthwash after you floss. Just be sure to follow your dentist’s instructions, because chlorhexidine can also cause some tooth staining and changes in taste.Do you need these dental tools?Tongue scrapers: The experts we spoke with say this is a great tool. The bacteria that cause tooth decay don’t just live on your teeth; they can collect on your tongue, too. That means you should clean your tongue daily. You can do this with your toothbrush bristles or the ridged back of some brushes, but a tongue scraper can be a little more effective, Cram says.Plus, scraping your tongue is a great habit if you struggle with halitosis (bad breath), says Roxanne Dsouza-Norwood, a registered dental hygienist and clinical assistant professor of dental hygiene at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. But be gentle; otherwise you could accidentally lacerate your tongue. And you may need to experiment with different types of tongue scrapers to find one that doesn’t activate your gag reflex.Whitening strips: Over-the-counter whitening strips can help your teeth look whiter, but it can sometimes be difficult to spot the change, McComas says. You can try using them only on the upper teeth first so that the difference is more visible. (Then apply them to the lower teeth.) Keep in mind that the older you get, the more you can see the yellowish dentin underneath your enamel, which — along with crowns and implants — is not affected by strips. So you might end up with uneven colors.Strips can also cause sensitivity, particularly if you already have sensitive areas from gum recession, Cram says. So leave them on only as long as instructed on the package.Mouthwash: Because swishing it around can coat parts of your teeth’s surface that are harder to reach with other tools, mouthwash can be a nice adjunct to your dental care routine, particularly if you choose one that has fluoride. Prescription washes that contain chlorhexidine can also be helpful for people with bleeding gums or other severe gum problems.Consumer Reports is an independent, nonprofit organization that works side by side with consumers to create a fairer, safer and healthier world. CR does not endorse products or services and does not accept advertising. Read more at ConsumerReports.org.

From brushing to whitening to the timing for dental cleanings, and everything in between.

Consumer Reports has no financial relationship with any advertisers on this site.

With age comes a greater risk that things will go wrong with your teeth. Among adults, procedures such as filling cavities tend to peak in your early to mid-50s, according to the Health Policy Institute. By the time you reach your 60s, you’re almost certain to need treatment for tooth decay. Figuring out exactly what dental care you need and when can be challenging. Yet there’s one key step that’s simple and inexpensive: taking care of your teeth at home.

Though certain dental problems may require extra attention, the basics of brushing twice daily and cleaning between your teeth by flossing haven’t changed. And while plenty of companies would like to sell you pricey gadgets and special products for your oral health, you don’t need to shell out big bucks to keep your mouth in great shape.

How often for dental cleaning?

Even with great home hygiene habits, you still need to see your dentist regularly for checkups and cleanings. Some people will need to visit more often than the standard twice a year, while others may be fine with less frequent visits. A 2020 review by Cochrane, an independent group of expert researchers, found that adults who visited the dentist every six months and those who visited on a schedule customized to their individual dental risk had comparable oral health.

People who are being treated for periodontal disease or who have dental implants — which can fail more quickly than a natural tooth — may need to see their provider every three months or so, says Martha McComas, a clinical associate professor of dentistry at the University of Michigan School of Dentistry in Ann Arbor.

Your dentist can help you figure out the right cadence for checkups, as well as your optimal at-home dental care strategy. “We can customize it based on what we see in your mouth,” says Karin Arsenault, program director of geriatric dentistry at the Tufts University School of Dental Medicine in Boston.

Between visits, here’s what you need to know about the vital tools for keeping your teeth and your whole mouth as healthy as they can be.

Your toothpaste matters

Fluoride is important. Fluoride is crucial because of the power it has to help fight cavities and tooth decay — something proved by decades of research. While some ingredients, notably a chemical called hydroxyapatite, have shown promise as viable alternatives, fluoride is still your best choice right now, according to the American Dental Association.

Cavities occur when the bacteria in our mouths consume the traces of food left on our teeth, particularly anything sugary. As the bacteria gobble up these sugars, they release acid, which can remove minerals from our teeth’s enamel, eventually creating cavities. Fluoride can help replace some of these lost minerals, strengthening the surface of our teeth and repairing some damage.

When you’re shopping for toothpaste, look for one with the ADA Seal of Acceptance. To earn that seal, manufacturers need to not only include fluoride in their toothpaste but also meet other safety and efficacy standards, including one meant to ensure toothpastes aren’t too abrasive. (Very abrasive toothpastes can damage enamel.)

Watch out for this ingredient: If you’re prone to canker sores inside your mouth, you may want to look for a toothpaste that doesn’t contain sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS). A 2019 research review found that using an SLS-free toothpaste might help reduce canker sores in people who get a lot of them (about 25 percent of adults).

Skip charcoal toothpaste. Activated charcoal is often touted as a superior ingredient for a variety of products, including toothpaste. But it can be highly abrasive, which research has shown can damage your enamel and cause increased sensitivity.

How much toothpaste to use: Generally, adults need only a pea-size amount of toothpaste — that will create enough foam to cover all the surfaces in your mouth, Arsenault says.

Also, “one of the big myths about toothbrushing is that you should rinse your mouth out after you brush,” says McComas. Studies show that the fluoride in your toothpaste provides the biggest benefit if you don’t do this, instead allowing the fluoride to work its magic on your enamel for more time.

What about prescription pastes? You may want to ask your dentist whether a prescription toothpaste, which generally contains a higher dose of fluoride, might be right for you. Severe dry mouth, which can be more common as you age (particularly if you’re taking certain medications for various chronic conditions, including for high blood pressure and depression), can raise your risk of cavities. So can periodontal disease, especially if the surfaces of the roots of your teeth, which lack protective enamel, are exposed.

How to brush well

The right bristles: Use a toothbrush with soft or extra-soft bristles. There are so many toothbrush options, but in the midst of considering the shape of the brush head, the brand name and other fancy features, don’t lose sight of bristle stiffness. Seek out a toothbrush with “soft” or “extra soft” on the packaging. Stiffer bristles are more likely to damage your gums or your teeth’s enamel, according to the American Dental Association.

The advantages of an electric toothbrush: You can keep your mouth perfectly healthy with a manual toothbrush, but a 2014 Cochrane review found that three months of using an electric toothbrush resulted in 21 percent less plaque and 11 percent less gum inflammation (also called gingivitis).

There are not significant performance differences between oscillating (or rotating) electric toothbrushes, which typically have round heads, and sonic toothbrushes, which usually have rectangular heads. So get the kind you like and will use.

How much to brush: Do it twice a day for at least two minutes. Some research suggests that people may brush for a lot less time than this on average, possibly around a minute or less. But common sense and a 2009 Journal of Dental Hygiene study suggest that brushing longer will remove more plaque — though the added benefit of extra time beyond two minutes is probably marginal, and brushing too hard can exacerbate problems, including receding gums, which can expose the roots of your teeth to a greater risk of cavities and tooth decay.

How to floss

Why flossing matters: Use any standard string floss (waxed or unwaxed), floss pick or interdental cleaning brush. The scientific evidence for flossing is not as strong as it is for brushing: A 2019 Cochrane review found that flossing in addition to brushing may reduce plaque and gingivitis more than brushing alone, but the authors cautioned that the evidence supporting this conclusion was weak. Still, dentists say the biological justification for flossing is sound: Without it, the bacteria that cause decay can build up between your teeth even if you’re brushing regularly.

Do water flossers work? While not quite as effective as string floss, water flossers can be a great option if you have a hard time using string floss, have mouth hardware like braces or a permanent retainer, or have other kinds of dental work like implants, bridges, or crowns. Dentist Sally Cram, a spokeswoman for the American Dental Association, says the evidence on the benefits of a water flosser is encouraging, but it’s not enough for her to recommend it as a replacement for flossing just yet. Still, if you know you won’t use string floss every day, a water flosser is better than nothing.

Avoid floss with PFAS. Skip floss that’s coated with these environmental contaminants, which are associated with a variety of health problems. You can look for flosses that use non-PFAS coatings such as beeswax or plant waxes like carnauba or candelilla.

CR partnered with Made Safe, an independent organization that certifies products as safer and more sustainable, to find flosses made without PFAS. Read our special report, “How to Choose Dental Floss Without PFAS and Other Harmful Chemicals,” for the details, including three good floss options made from silk instead of plastic.

How often should you floss? Do it once a day. Whether you floss or brush first doesn’t matter, as long as you do both.

What if you have implants or gum disease? If you have an implant, you may want to opt for an interdental brush instead of regular string floss, particularly if your implant doesn’t touch the teeth next to it on either side.

These are tiny round brushes designed specifically to clean in between teeth, and they work well with teeth that have gaps in between them. They come in different sizes, so Jennifer Harmon, a registered dental hygienist and clinical associate professor at the University of North Carolina Adams School of Dentistry in Chapel Hill, recommends working with your dentist to figure out which size you need for your teeth.

If you’re dealing with bleeding gums, Arsenault says, you can consider using prescription chlorhexidine mouthwash after you floss. Just be sure to follow your dentist’s instructions, because chlorhexidine can also cause some tooth staining and changes in taste.

Do you need these dental tools?

Tongue scrapers: The experts we spoke with say this is a great tool. The bacteria that cause tooth decay don’t just live on your teeth; they can collect on your tongue, too. That means you should clean your tongue daily. You can do this with your toothbrush bristles or the ridged back of some brushes, but a tongue scraper can be a little more effective, Cram says.

Plus, scraping your tongue is a great habit if you struggle with halitosis (bad breath), says Roxanne Dsouza-Norwood, a registered dental hygienist and clinical assistant professor of dental hygiene at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. But be gentle; otherwise you could accidentally lacerate your tongue. And you may need to experiment with different types of tongue scrapers to find one that doesn’t activate your gag reflex.

Whitening strips: Over-the-counter whitening strips can help your teeth look whiter, but it can sometimes be difficult to spot the change, McComas says. You can try using them only on the upper teeth first so that the difference is more visible. (Then apply them to the lower teeth.) Keep in mind that the older you get, the more you can see the yellowish dentin underneath your enamel, which — along with crowns and implants — is not affected by strips. So you might end up with uneven colors.

Strips can also cause sensitivity, particularly if you already have sensitive areas from gum recession, Cram says. So leave them on only as long as instructed on the package.

Mouthwash: Because swishing it around can coat parts of your teeth’s surface that are harder to reach with other tools, mouthwash can be a nice adjunct to your dental care routine, particularly if you choose one that has fluoride. Prescription washes that contain chlorhexidine can also be helpful for people with bleeding gums or other severe gum problems.

Consumer Reports is an independent, nonprofit organization that works side by side with consumers to create a fairer, safer and healthier world. CR does not endorse products or services and does not accept advertising. Read more at ConsumerReports.org.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Regulators are underestimating health impacts from air pollution: Study

Health impacts are likely being underestimated by traditional risk models used by regulators, according to a new study that has found a different way to measure the cumulative risk air pollution poses to health. The new method, which accounts for the ways numerous chemical exposures impact the entire body, found increased risks to people’s brains, hearts, lungs, kidneys, and hormonal systems from air pollution in a community near Philadelphia. Traditional methods found no increased health risks based on the same level of pollution exposure in that community.“I think this [is a] holistic approach,” Pete DeCarlo, study co-author and a Johns Hopkins University associate professor who studies atmospheric air pollution, told EHN. “The cumulative burdens across multiple health systems for every chemical that we measure is really, really important, because we breathe everything all at once.” Multiple chemical exposures impact multiple body partsThe study, conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins University and Aerodyne Research Inc., a company that creates software and sensors for environmental research, differs from traditional risk models by accounting for simultaneous exposures to multiple chemicals and their potential impacts on multiple parts of the body. Traditional regulatory approaches to analyzing health impacts from air pollution consider each chemical individually, rather than cumulatively. Limits are set based on the level of daily exposure to a chemical over a lifetime that is unlikely to cause harm. A chemical may harm different parts of the body at different concentrations, so this method uses the lowest harm-inducing concentration to begin regulation and then assumes other parts of the body won’t be affected, according to Keeve Nachman, study co-author and professor of environmental health and engineering at Johns Hopkins University. “If we were exposed to one chemical at a time, that would be totally logical, right?” Nachman told EHN. “But the reality is that we are not exposed to one chemical at a time.” The research team created an expanded method that would be able to better account for exposures to multiple chemicals by adding together their impacts to all parts of the body, not just the most sensitive. The research team collected air samples from a mobile air monitor over a three-week period from communities along the Delaware River near Philadelphia that experience pollution from petrochemical refineries, municipal waste incinerators, and other industrial facilities. Using this data, they conducted a non-cancer risk analysis for 32 volatile organic compounds, including formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, and xylenes (while some of these chemicals can cause cancer, analyzing cancer risk requires a different process).“If we use the traditional approach to risk assessment, we don't find an elevated risk of any health endpoint in this community, nothing,” Nachman said. “So the result of using that risk assessment for making decisions would mean no change needed. We wouldn't need to intervene at all.” But using their revised method, the researchers found increased risk of damage to the people’s brains, hearts, lungs, kidneys, and hormonal systems from the same level of air pollution exposure, which they say should prompt regulators to think differently about how industrial sites are permitted and regulated in communities across the country. Empowering polluted communitiesHeather McTeer Toney, former EPA Region 4 administrator and executive director of the environmental group Beyond Petrochemicals said this study confirms the experience of those who have been impacted by the petrochemical industry in Texas, Louisiana, and Appalachia for decades.“We are validating what they have been saying, and that in and of itself is hope because it allows us to identify the problem,” Toney said. “And for so long people have been in and living in these spaces where people didn’t believe them.The cumulative impact of these chemicals is “not only devastating, but generationally crushing,” Toney said. “[This discovery] should be a part of the decision-making process when we are thinking about what plant [to permit], where it’s going to go, and why we even need it in the first place.”In an effort to make their research accessible and replicable, the researchers created a public database of the risk assessments for the chemicals they analyzed and plan to develop a tool to share in the future. DeCarlo and Nachman noted that the study has a few limitations, including the fact that they may not have a full picture of chemicals existing in the atmosphere and cannot accurately account for additional health stressors like poverty, social issues, or preexisting health conditions.“While we think this paints a much more complete picture than the current way of looking at things, we still know that there's more things to add,” DeCarlo said. “There's more things to measure, and that would likely mean more health burden, but we're doing what we can with the data that we have right now.”With the data they have right now, the research team believes they can make a positive impact.“It’s a challenging time for cumulative risk research, people experiencing cumulative risk, [and] environmental injustices, but don’t lose hope,” Nachman said, reflecting on the Trump administration's efforts to roll back clean air protections, industry regulations, and public health research. “Because I am confident that what we are helping contribute to…is a better set of methodologies that will account for these things, and that when that window opens back up for making smart policy that actually protects fenceline communities, we’re going to be ready with ways to do it.”Editor’s note: The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Beyond Petrochemicals, and Environmental Health News receive funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies.

Health impacts are likely being underestimated by traditional risk models used by regulators, according to a new study that has found a different way to measure the cumulative risk air pollution poses to health. The new method, which accounts for the ways numerous chemical exposures impact the entire body, found increased risks to people’s brains, hearts, lungs, kidneys, and hormonal systems from air pollution in a community near Philadelphia. Traditional methods found no increased health risks based on the same level of pollution exposure in that community.“I think this [is a] holistic approach,” Pete DeCarlo, study co-author and a Johns Hopkins University associate professor who studies atmospheric air pollution, told EHN. “The cumulative burdens across multiple health systems for every chemical that we measure is really, really important, because we breathe everything all at once.” Multiple chemical exposures impact multiple body partsThe study, conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins University and Aerodyne Research Inc., a company that creates software and sensors for environmental research, differs from traditional risk models by accounting for simultaneous exposures to multiple chemicals and their potential impacts on multiple parts of the body. Traditional regulatory approaches to analyzing health impacts from air pollution consider each chemical individually, rather than cumulatively. Limits are set based on the level of daily exposure to a chemical over a lifetime that is unlikely to cause harm. A chemical may harm different parts of the body at different concentrations, so this method uses the lowest harm-inducing concentration to begin regulation and then assumes other parts of the body won’t be affected, according to Keeve Nachman, study co-author and professor of environmental health and engineering at Johns Hopkins University. “If we were exposed to one chemical at a time, that would be totally logical, right?” Nachman told EHN. “But the reality is that we are not exposed to one chemical at a time.” The research team created an expanded method that would be able to better account for exposures to multiple chemicals by adding together their impacts to all parts of the body, not just the most sensitive. The research team collected air samples from a mobile air monitor over a three-week period from communities along the Delaware River near Philadelphia that experience pollution from petrochemical refineries, municipal waste incinerators, and other industrial facilities. Using this data, they conducted a non-cancer risk analysis for 32 volatile organic compounds, including formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, and xylenes (while some of these chemicals can cause cancer, analyzing cancer risk requires a different process).“If we use the traditional approach to risk assessment, we don't find an elevated risk of any health endpoint in this community, nothing,” Nachman said. “So the result of using that risk assessment for making decisions would mean no change needed. We wouldn't need to intervene at all.” But using their revised method, the researchers found increased risk of damage to the people’s brains, hearts, lungs, kidneys, and hormonal systems from the same level of air pollution exposure, which they say should prompt regulators to think differently about how industrial sites are permitted and regulated in communities across the country. Empowering polluted communitiesHeather McTeer Toney, former EPA Region 4 administrator and executive director of the environmental group Beyond Petrochemicals said this study confirms the experience of those who have been impacted by the petrochemical industry in Texas, Louisiana, and Appalachia for decades.“We are validating what they have been saying, and that in and of itself is hope because it allows us to identify the problem,” Toney said. “And for so long people have been in and living in these spaces where people didn’t believe them.The cumulative impact of these chemicals is “not only devastating, but generationally crushing,” Toney said. “[This discovery] should be a part of the decision-making process when we are thinking about what plant [to permit], where it’s going to go, and why we even need it in the first place.”In an effort to make their research accessible and replicable, the researchers created a public database of the risk assessments for the chemicals they analyzed and plan to develop a tool to share in the future. DeCarlo and Nachman noted that the study has a few limitations, including the fact that they may not have a full picture of chemicals existing in the atmosphere and cannot accurately account for additional health stressors like poverty, social issues, or preexisting health conditions.“While we think this paints a much more complete picture than the current way of looking at things, we still know that there's more things to add,” DeCarlo said. “There's more things to measure, and that would likely mean more health burden, but we're doing what we can with the data that we have right now.”With the data they have right now, the research team believes they can make a positive impact.“It’s a challenging time for cumulative risk research, people experiencing cumulative risk, [and] environmental injustices, but don’t lose hope,” Nachman said, reflecting on the Trump administration's efforts to roll back clean air protections, industry regulations, and public health research. “Because I am confident that what we are helping contribute to…is a better set of methodologies that will account for these things, and that when that window opens back up for making smart policy that actually protects fenceline communities, we’re going to be ready with ways to do it.”Editor’s note: The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Beyond Petrochemicals, and Environmental Health News receive funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies.

Wildfire Survivors Still Struggle With Basic Needs and Support

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterSATURDAY, April 19, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Three months after wildfires tore through Los Angeles, a new study...

SATURDAY, April 19, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Three months after wildfires tore through Los Angeles, a new study offers insight into the lasting needs of fire survivors. Researchers from UC Davis School of Medicine said their findings from earlier wildfires may help with support efforts in this and future disasters. They surveyed 2,208 households in the aftermath of a series of Northern California wildfires in 2017 and found that months later, 1,461 had major needs. The study identified four key areas in which survivors needed help: Physical needs: food, water, shelter, clothing, electricity, internet access, gas, money and cell phone service Clean air: including access to air filters and masks Health: access to care, including mental health care) Information access: wildfire status, where to obtain shelter or supplies, the location and well-being of loved ones and navigating insurance paperwork “Understanding the community needs and impacts that arise during and after wildfires is crucial to identifying the timing, extent and types of assistance that are most needed during response and recovery efforts,” Kathryn Conlon, an associate professor in the UC Davis Department of Public Health Sciences and senior author of the study, said in a news release.Physical needs were the most common, both right after the fires and months later. 1 in 2 households had these needs. Housing and financial help were among the most enduring problems. One in six households reported a health-related need months after the fires. More than 25% of respondents needed clean air or supplies like masks and filters immediately after the fires. People wanted updates during the fire but later had questions about environmental health. Mental health issues were especially common. Of the 177 households that mentioned health issues, most said they needed mental health support."Unaddressed mental health concerns can have a significant impact on a person’s health and well-being,” Conlon said in a news release. “Integrating support for mental health and health information should be part of any needs assessments during wildfires.”Conlon recommends tools like "psychological first aid" to help survivors process trauma in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. It emerged as an intervention in the early 2000s.“Respondents want to know the health impacts of urban wildfires and whether it is safe to return to the burn areas,” Conlon added. “When these fires burn, they are not just burning biomass. They are also burning everything in the home. And we don’t know all the health impacts. We still have so much to learn.”Study co-author Mira Miles noted how many survivors wanted to support their neighbors, showing a strong sense of community. “While this is a remarkable social phenomenon, it is important that we strive to meet community needs as best we can following a disaster,” she said.SOURCE: UC Davis Health, news release, April 9, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

G' and his 'lovely girl': Gene Hackman penned poignant notes to wife amid Alzheimer's battle

The correspondence of Gene Hackman and Betsy Arakawa was humorous, sad, moving and mundane, offering a glimpse into the couple's private life.

Authorities recently released a new cache of records in the death investigation of Gene Hackman and Betsy Arakawa — including a series of heartfelt notes the couple left for each other, revealing the close-knit nature of their relationship even as Hackman’s health declined amid a battle with Alzheimer’s. The letters are at times humorous, sad, moving and mundane, offering a glimpse into the private and loving life the couple led before they were both found dead in their Santa Fe compound in February.The Oscar-winning actor affectionately signed most of the letters “Love G” and referred to Arakawa, his wife of 33 years, as “Lovely girl.” Included in the Gene Hackman and Betsy Arakawa death investigation are photos of letters the couple exchanged. (Santa Fe Sheriff’s Office) In some of the letters, he appeared to poke fun at his deteriorating memory.“I’m going down to that building out past the hot water place where you sit and do whatever it is that people are supposed to do in such a building — maybe I’ll remember once I get down there,” he wrote, signing the letter “love whats his name.” In another letter, he wrote a joking poem that may have referred to a medical visit, saying, “I’m off to see the wizard, the wizard of achie pokie. She stabs me here, she stabs me there, she stabs me almost everywhere.”“But I’ll survive, because after I am still alive,” the note continues. “(But sometimes just barely) Love G.”Hackman, 95, relied on Arakawa, 65, as his sole caregiver during his later years in life. Other evidence photographed around the home showed her detailed notes on the doses and timing of Hackman’s medications as well as the records she kept of his medical appointments in her calendar.In one letter, Hackman wished Arakawa “happy several days after your birthday” and wrote “sorry still about the dinner and having to ask for your help although it was appreciated.” Letters revealed in the investigation are humorous sad and often mundane. (Santa Fe Sheriff’s Office) Arakawa, too, left written notes for Hackman around the home, reminding him of where she was going and what she was doing.In one letter, she wrote that she was taking their dog Zin to obedience class and that she had left him a jigsaw puzzle on the table. Another letter taped to the wall simply read, “yoga 12:30 p.m.”Arakawa died around Feb. 11 of hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, a rare and often fatal respiratory illness spread by rodents, according to the New Mexico medical investigator’s office. In an environmental assessment, investigators found rodent feces, dead rodents and nests in structures on their property; however, there was no evidence of rodents found in their main home.Hackman died several days later of complications of advanced Alzheimer’s disease, kidney disease and heart disease, according to the medical investigator. Authorities believe he may have wandered the house for several days unaware of Arakawa’s death and unable to get help due to the advanced state of his disease. One of the couple’s three dogs, an Australian kelpie mix named Zinna, was found dead in a crate in their home when the couple were discovered on Feb. 26. A necropsy revealed that Zinna died of dehydration and starvation due to being confined. The other two dogs, who were able to roam the property, were found alive and taken into care. Recently released photos from the investigation showed that the couple displayed in their home dozens of agility ribbons won by their dogs.In addition to the new photos of the home and the letters, the Santa Fe Sheriff’s Office released body camera video, an environmental assessment and a full investigation report this week.A New Mexico state judge had temporarily blocked the release of any records from the death investigation at the request of the Hackman estate. On March 31, however, a judge ruled that records from the investigation could be unsealed as long as they did not clearly show the couple’s bodies.

RFK Jr. Says There Are No Autistic Poets. We Asked an Autistic Poet.

To Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—and contrary to medical consensus and decades of study—autism is an appalling, family-destroying “disease.” To pediatric psychiatrists and autism experts like Vanderbilt University’s Zachary Warren, speaking Wednesday to National Public Radio, autism “isn’t a single thing; it is a word we use in an attempt to […]

To Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—and contrary to medical consensus and decades of study—autism is an appalling, family-destroying “disease.” To pediatric psychiatrists and autism experts like Vanderbilt University’s Zachary Warren, speaking Wednesday to National Public Radio, autism “isn’t a single thing; it is a word we use in an attempt to capture a spectrum of behavioral strengths, differences, and vulnerabilities.” During a startling recent press conference in which Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pledged to establish the “cause” of autism by September, the HHS secretary sparked further outrage—by, as my colleague Anna Merlan reported yesterday, saying the following: “These are kids who will never pay taxes,” Kennedy declared. “They’ll never hold a job. They’ll never play baseball. They’ll never write a poem. They’ll never go out on a date. Many of them will never use a toilet unassisted. We have to recognize we are doing this to our children.”  Kennedy’s years of anti-vaccine activism have centered in large part on autism, framing it as a “preventable disease” and epidemic driven by environmental contaminants. A lawyer by training, with no medical background beyond freelance taxidermy, Kennedy has consistently peddled misinformation about autism and autistic people, presenting the condition as a vaccine-driven scourge. Increasingly, Kennedy has papered over some of the most problematic elements of his crusade—and licensed himself to ignore opposition and criticism from autistic people—by insisting that he’s referring to “profound” autism, or autism with high support needs. It’s a distinction that he’s happy to deploy when it serves his case and to gloss over when promising to end autism once and for all; and, by definition, it excludes his autistic critics from the conversation. A crucial slogan of the disability rights movement is “Nothing about us without us”—so it seemed appropriate to get the reaction of an autistic poet. I spoke with Elizabeth McClellan, an award-winning poet, attorney, and legal educator based in Memphis, Tennessee. Could you tell me about yourself and your work as a poet? I have been publishing poetry professionally since 2009, on and off. I primarily do genre poetry, which is poetry that falls sort of in the speculative fiction, science fiction, fantasy, [and] horror spaces. I have a book of horror poetry that will be coming soon from Kith Books that’s found poetry from Stephen Graham Jones’ My Heart Is a Chainsaw. Poetry doesn’t generally pay for itself, most poets are not just poets. That’s why I supplement it with my work as an attorney. So you’re living evidence that someone can be both autistic and a poet. I am not only living evidence that someone can be autistic and a poet, I will challenge RFK Jr. to write a poem as good as me any day of the week, because I don’t think he can do it. “He’s trying to eradicate support, especially with education, that could help people live the kind of lives where they do get to write poetry.” What was your reaction to Kennedy saying that an increase in autism diagnoses is bad in part because autistic people can’t “write a poem”—not that there’s anything wrong in more people getting diagnosed. It’s completely dehumanizing. He didn’t lead with poet. He led with they’ll never pay taxes, they’ll never have a job. It’s just “useless eaters” rhetoric. And then he fluffs it up with, they’re they’ll never have a poem. They’ll never play baseball. Some people won’t, some people have higher support needs. They are still people. They have a right to live and a right to dignity. And that’s not what he wants for us. He is using the straight-up eugenicist playbook. People who can’t go to the toilet by themselves are still people. People who can’t write a poem are still people. I doubt [RFK Jr.] can write a poem, but he’s still a person. You can’t eradicate autism without eradicating autistic people. It’s genocidal rhetoric against us that’s justified by “autism destroys families. It destroys children.” No, it doesn’t. It’s bias against autistic people. He is taking an axe to the Department of Health and Human Services, [which] means that a lot of autistic people are not going to have the support that they need to thrive and survive. Now, I’ve had support to thrive and survive. I don’t need a whole lot of support to do what I do, but I need it, and I probably would have had a less miserable childhood if the diagnosis were more available. [RFK Jr.] falls into using language like Asperger’s, which, of course, was the distinction that was used to decide who would die and who would work under the Nazis. “What does he do? He chainsaws the heads off dead whales and leaves bear cubs in Central Park.” There are many autistic poets. There’s already a call for a special issue of poetry by autistic poets that will pay the poets just to do an autistic resistance. There are poets writing short poems just to help all of us recover from this person with a great deal of power saying our lives are worth nothing. He’s trying to eradicate support, especially with education, that could help people live the kind of lives where they do get to write poetry. With poetry, you have to be creative. RFK Jr’s hatred towards autistic people seems to be the opposite of that. He’s the antithesis of creativity. I’ve never seen his book of collected poems. Who are you to tell us that we can’t write poetry? When you don’t write poetry, that’s not a thing that you do. You’re not a poet. You don’t get to tell us who gets to be poets. I know so many autistic poets. I know so many poets with various kinds of neurodivergence and that adds to the way that we see the world in our unique way, and that adds to our unique voice as poets. Allistic people can write poetry too, but we have a different way of seeing the world, and that inspired some of us to take up this particular art form. Others of us paint. What does he do? He chainsaws the heads off dead whales and leaves bear cubs in Central Park. And I don’t think it’s performance art. I think it’s just that he’s creepy. What has he ever really done, other than have a last name? What this is all really about is capitalism. “Oh, they’ll never go to the toilet by themselves. That’s a miserable existence.” Plenty of people need assistance going to the bathroom—whose lives are rich and full, who will write poems, who will paint pictures, who will do things, and he doesn’t actually care whether we’re creative or not. He doesn’t actually care whether we’re writing poetry or not. It’s just the same old rhetoric over and over again that we get from eugenicists This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

New Endangered Species Rule Would No Longer Count Habitat Loss as 'Harm'

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, April 17, 2025 (HealthDay News) — The Trump administration is proposing a major change to the Endangered...

THURSDAY, April 17, 2025 (HealthDay News) — The Trump administration is proposing a major change to the Endangered Species Act that would no longer deem habitat destruction a harm to at-risk animals and plants.Federal officials say this change would reduce an unnecessary regulatory burden, while scientists and conservation groups warn it could threaten endangered species across the U.S., The Washington Post reported.The new rule would change how "harm" is defined under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Harm now includes damaging the places where species live. Under the new rule, only actions that directly hurt or kill an animal — such as hunting or trapping — would count.The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released the proposed rule Wednesday.Officials said this reflects “the single, best meaning” of the Endangered Species Act and “makes sense in light of the well established, centuries-old understanding," The Post said.Environmental groups say the move could allow more logging, drilling and construction in areas that species need to survive.“It upends how we've been protecting endangered species for the last 40 years,” Noah Greenwald of the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity, said.In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the broader definition of harm when it blocked logging in forests that were home to the northern spotted owl and red-cockaded woodpeckers. Experts fear that changing this definition now could remove protections for species like prairie chickens, owls, lynx, panthers and turtles.Kristen Boyles, an attorney with the environmental law organization Earthjustice, said the idea that destroying habitat doesn’t count as harm is "nonsensical both legally and biologically."“What they're saying is, it would be okay for a developer to drain a pond where an endangered species of turtle or fish lived, and that wouldn't be harm,” Boyles said.Meanwhile, a representative of the oil and gas industry's key lobbying organization, welcomed the change.We look “forward to working with the administration on commonsense ESA policies that both protect wildlife and support American energy dominance," Scott Lauermann, spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute, told The Post.Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said innovation, not regulation, is the key to saving wildlife. He pointed to new biotech that helped create three wolf pups that resemble the long-extinct dire wolf.“It’s time to fundamentally change how we think about species conservation,” Burgum wrote on X.SOURCE: The Washington Post, April 16, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

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

CONTACT US

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

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