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.

Nearsightedness Has Become a Global Health Issue

News Feed
Tuesday, October 1, 2024

In 350 B.C.E. Aristotle noted that some people went about their days with what he called “short sight.” People with this condition, he found, would habitually narrow their eyelids to focus their vision—an observation widely credited as the first attempt at defining nearsightedness, or myopia. More than two millennia later, health officials are paying new attention to this old condition for a startling reason: myopia has reached epidemic levels worldwide.Myopia’s prevalence has dramatically increased in recent decades, now affecting as much as 88 percent of the population in some Asian countries. Although it seems most acute in Asian cities, myopia’s growing prevalence is by no means an exclusively regional trend. By 2050, according to one estimate, five billion people—half the world’s population—will be nearsighted. The U.S., which has been less diligent than some other countries in tracking myopia cases, saw a jump in prevalence from 25 percent of people aged 12 to 54 in the early 1970s to 42 percent in the early 2000s, according to the last major national survey of the condition.These statistics matter because myopia is a leading cause of visual impairment, and it can precipitate serious diagnoses that range from detached retinas to glaucoma.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.A search is now underway for tangible measures to stem this rising tide. An expert panel from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) released a report in September entitled Myopia: Causes, Prevention, and Treatment of an Increasingly Common Disease. It lays out a series of recommendations, one of which calls for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reclassify myopia as a disease that necessitates a medical diagnosis—a step that would encourage federal and state agencies, along with professional associations, to devote resources to reversing the situation. Notably, the committee also recommended that children spend one to two hours outdoors each day.Terri L. Young, co-chair of the NASEM committee that produced the report and chair of the department of ophthalmology and visual sciences at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, talked with Scientific American about the implications of the myopia epidemic for people with myopia and policymakers.[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]I’d like to begin with the most basic of basics. Could you define what myopia, or nearsightedness, is?I’ll start off with what a person with myopia experiences. Myopia is a condition in which an individual sees an object up close clearly but cannot see it clearly at a distance without optical correction. They have natural blurred vision at a distance.Optically, there is a detailed definition that involves the very basics of how we see. Scattered light rays that enter the eye pass through multiple ocular components that reduce the scatter to focus the rays onto the retina, which converts the light into an electrical signal that is transferred through the optic nerve. The optic nerve is similar to a telephone cable that connects the eye to the occipital cortex at the very back of the brain, where what is viewed is then processed and interpreted.The focus of those wavelengths that enter the eye and travel through all its optical components needs to coincide on the retina. In the case of nearsightedness, or myopia, the focus of the light occurs in front of the retina.Myopia seems to be getting more attention lately, both in the U.S. and internationally. Why is that?Myopia prevalence rates are at epidemic levels, especially in urban Asian communities, where in recent times upward of 80 to 90 percent of young individuals have developed myopia. There are large, government-sponsored myopia research institutes in many parts of Asia, including Taiwan, Singapore, China, Hong Kong and Japan.Take Singapore, for example. All young men there are required to perform [two years] of military service after completing high school. Many of these military conscripts, and in particular the ones who are being prepared to go into battle or fly fighter planes, often need glasses or other corrective means for their myopia to fulfill those functions, causing concern for national security.And what about in the U.S.?It’s now certainly an issue in the U.S. as well. Research on myopia is conducted primarily in ophthalmologic and optometric training and research academic programs. But it hasn’t garnered, for whatever reasons, the same sense of urgency and funding as is the case for other parts of the world.In the U.S., we don’t have good prevalence data for myopia and other refractive errors, such as astigmatism and hyperopia [farsightedness]. Health care in this country is so varied in terms of everything from access to dissemination of vision care; because we don’t have a nationalized health system, we also don’t have a national database to provide standardized tracking and reporting.Aren’t there already simple ways to deal with myopia, such as getting a new prescription for glasses? Why is it perceived as becoming a global health problem?Myopia correction is not just an inconvenience of glasses or contact lenses. It predisposes a person to other eye conditions that can lead to blindness. Higher degrees of myopia are associated with eye conditions: premature cataracts, glaucoma, retinal tears and detachments and myopic macular degeneration.What’s happened in Asian communities is that the baseline level of refraction, the deflection of wavelengths as they pass through the eye, is trending toward nearsightedness. This shift is reflected in more individuals with high-grade myopia, with its increased ocular risks, as I described earlier. So instead of that group reflecting 3 to 5 percent of myopic individuals, it’s risen to 10 percent or more.Access to quality vision care, with proper and standardized dissemination for all children, is a major issue in [the U.S.] There are many children who don’t have steady access to care and the opportunity for continued changes in spectacle correction as they grow. If they can’t see, they can’t learn. If they don’t learn, they may get discouraged. If they get discouraged, they tend to act out or to not perform well in school—which has lifelong educational, vocational and economic impacts.Is there some idea why this myopia epidemic is happening?Nowadays, children are indoors more often, and they’re not getting as much outdoor play. Outdoor light enables the visual system to process a variety of spectral wavelengths of light for a certain duration of time, and that affects normal eye development and growth. Our report reaffirms what has been in the scientific literature for more than 15 years: increased childhood outdoor time appears to be protective for myopia onset and development.In urban Asia, education is highly regarded, and children undergo indoor schooling for relatively more hours per day—routinely with additional tutorial sessions on evenings and weekends. In Singapore, for example, there are fewer green spaces, and living situations are generally more vertical because of limited land mass. There are fewer nonclassroom hours and places for children to go outside to view the horizon for extended periods of time. That’s becoming more of the case in the urban U.S. as well.What does being outside do to promote healthy eyes?There are different and varied light wavelengths that enter the eye from outdoor versus indoor exposures. And there are differences in luminance—higher-intensity versus lower-intensity light levels. In the report, there is a lengthy discussion on what is called the “visual diet”—the environmental factors affecting the myopic eye—and there is a consensus that more research is needed.What about the role of electronic devices in promoting myopia?That’s certainly a trend that has exponentially grown in activity and use in our younger generations. I am a pediatric ophthalmologist. I see two- or three-year old children in my clinic who are comfortably playing with cell phones. This close-up activity is generally indoors. The limited research findings regarding electronic device impact on myopia development are inconclusive, however. Reflected in our report, studies could not support unequivocal evidence that using digital devices, especially electronic small devices, is an influencer for this shift toward myopia.What measures have countries implemented to try preventing or correcting myopia in young people?The Singapore Ministry of Health instituted outdoor playtime or recess during school hours. There are now programs in China and in Taiwan where classroom settings have been altered with the use of glass walls or colored light bulb use to increase outdoor daylight exposure. Children are undergoing treatment with atropine eye drops, which in some reports diminishes the shift toward myopia over time in the school-age years. The effect of the drops is not curative, however, and there are concerns regarding unknown long-term effects because we don’t quite understand the specific biochemical actions of atropine. Diagnosed children are also prescribed multifocal contact lenses or eyeglasses [progressive lenses that have different prescription zones to correct vision at different distances].One of the main findings of the report that you co-chaired is the recommendation that myopia be classified as a disease. Can you explain why the consensus of the panel felt that was important?The issue needs escalation to a recognized disease category to underscore its short- and long-term visual health consequences, and to attract attention and funding dollars on multiple and varied fronts for effective screening, treatment, prevention and research study.It takes a multipronged team to elevate this issue. That groundswell would have to come from parents, educators and educator societies, local to national health care systems, local to national policymakers, public health experts, researchers, funding agencies, insurance companies, etcetera. All [of these groups] need to recognize that continuous vision screening starting in early childhood is important. In addition to implementation, the data from those screening visits need to be collated for national database entry for improved monitoring in this country.What do you think should be the main takeaway from this report?In this country, if we elevate this condition to be considered a disease and recognize its impact on our children and ultimately on our future workforce, that would be monumental.

Myopia is projected to affect half of the world’s population by 2050. A new report says it needs to be countered by classifying it as a disease and upping children’s outdoor time

In 350 B.C.E. Aristotle noted that some people went about their days with what he called “short sight.” People with this condition, he found, would habitually narrow their eyelids to focus their vision—an observation widely credited as the first attempt at defining nearsightedness, or myopia. More than two millennia later, health officials are paying new attention to this old condition for a startling reason: myopia has reached epidemic levels worldwide.

Myopia’s prevalence has dramatically increased in recent decades, now affecting as much as 88 percent of the population in some Asian countries. Although it seems most acute in Asian cities, myopia’s growing prevalence is by no means an exclusively regional trend. By 2050, according to one estimate, five billion people—half the world’s population—will be nearsighted. The U.S., which has been less diligent than some other countries in tracking myopia cases, saw a jump in prevalence from 25 percent of people aged 12 to 54 in the early 1970s to 42 percent in the early 2000s, according to the last major national survey of the condition.

These statistics matter because myopia is a leading cause of visual impairment, and it can precipitate serious diagnoses that range from detached retinas to glaucoma.


On supporting science journalism

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


A search is now underway for tangible measures to stem this rising tide. An expert panel from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) released a report in September entitled Myopia: Causes, Prevention, and Treatment of an Increasingly Common Disease. It lays out a series of recommendations, one of which calls for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reclassify myopia as a disease that necessitates a medical diagnosis—a step that would encourage federal and state agencies, along with professional associations, to devote resources to reversing the situation. Notably, the committee also recommended that children spend one to two hours outdoors each day.

Terri L. Young, co-chair of the NASEM committee that produced the report and chair of the department of ophthalmology and visual sciences at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, talked with Scientific American about the implications of the myopia epidemic for people with myopia and policymakers.

[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]

I’d like to begin with the most basic of basics. Could you define what myopia, or nearsightedness, is?

I’ll start off with what a person with myopia experiences. Myopia is a condition in which an individual sees an object up close clearly but cannot see it clearly at a distance without optical correction. They have natural blurred vision at a distance.

Optically, there is a detailed definition that involves the very basics of how we see. Scattered light rays that enter the eye pass through multiple ocular components that reduce the scatter to focus the rays onto the retina, which converts the light into an electrical signal that is transferred through the optic nerve. The optic nerve is similar to a telephone cable that connects the eye to the occipital cortex at the very back of the brain, where what is viewed is then processed and interpreted.

The focus of those wavelengths that enter the eye and travel through all its optical components needs to coincide on the retina. In the case of nearsightedness, or myopia, the focus of the light occurs in front of the retina.

Myopia seems to be getting more attention lately, both in the U.S. and internationally. Why is that?

Myopia prevalence rates are at epidemic levels, especially in urban Asian communities, where in recent times upward of 80 to 90 percent of young individuals have developed myopia. There are large, government-sponsored myopia research institutes in many parts of Asia, including Taiwan, Singapore, China, Hong Kong and Japan.

Take Singapore, for example. All young men there are required to perform [two years] of military service after completing high school. Many of these military conscripts, and in particular the ones who are being prepared to go into battle or fly fighter planes, often need glasses or other corrective means for their myopia to fulfill those functions, causing concern for national security.

And what about in the U.S.?

It’s now certainly an issue in the U.S. as well. Research on myopia is conducted primarily in ophthalmologic and optometric training and research academic programs. But it hasn’t garnered, for whatever reasons, the same sense of urgency and funding as is the case for other parts of the world.

In the U.S., we don’t have good prevalence data for myopia and other refractive errors, such as astigmatism and hyperopia [farsightedness]. Health care in this country is so varied in terms of everything from access to dissemination of vision care; because we don’t have a nationalized health system, we also don’t have a national database to provide standardized tracking and reporting.

Aren’t there already simple ways to deal with myopia, such as getting a new prescription for glasses? Why is it perceived as becoming a global health problem?

Myopia correction is not just an inconvenience of glasses or contact lenses. It predisposes a person to other eye conditions that can lead to blindness. Higher degrees of myopia are associated with eye conditions: premature cataracts, glaucoma, retinal tears and detachments and myopic macular degeneration.

What’s happened in Asian communities is that the baseline level of refraction, the deflection of wavelengths as they pass through the eye, is trending toward nearsightedness. This shift is reflected in more individuals with high-grade myopia, with its increased ocular risks, as I described earlier. So instead of that group reflecting 3 to 5 percent of myopic individuals, it’s risen to 10 percent or more.

Access to quality vision care, with proper and standardized dissemination for all children, is a major issue in [the U.S.] There are many children who don’t have steady access to care and the opportunity for continued changes in spectacle correction as they grow. If they can’t see, they can’t learn. If they don’t learn, they may get discouraged. If they get discouraged, they tend to act out or to not perform well in school—which has lifelong educational, vocational and economic impacts.

Is there some idea why this myopia epidemic is happening?

Nowadays, children are indoors more often, and they’re not getting as much outdoor play. Outdoor light enables the visual system to process a variety of spectral wavelengths of light for a certain duration of time, and that affects normal eye development and growth. Our report reaffirms what has been in the scientific literature for more than 15 years: increased childhood outdoor time appears to be protective for myopia onset and development.

In urban Asia, education is highly regarded, and children undergo indoor schooling for relatively more hours per day—routinely with additional tutorial sessions on evenings and weekends. In Singapore, for example, there are fewer green spaces, and living situations are generally more vertical because of limited land mass. There are fewer nonclassroom hours and places for children to go outside to view the horizon for extended periods of time. That’s becoming more of the case in the urban U.S. as well.

What does being outside do to promote healthy eyes?

There are different and varied light wavelengths that enter the eye from outdoor versus indoor exposures. And there are differences in luminance—higher-intensity versus lower-intensity light levels. In the report, there is a lengthy discussion on what is called the “visual diet”—the environmental factors affecting the myopic eye—and there is a consensus that more research is needed.

What about the role of electronic devices in promoting myopia?

That’s certainly a trend that has exponentially grown in activity and use in our younger generations. I am a pediatric ophthalmologist. I see two- or three-year old children in my clinic who are comfortably playing with cell phones. This close-up activity is generally indoors. The limited research findings regarding electronic device impact on myopia development are inconclusive, however. Reflected in our report, studies could not support unequivocal evidence that using digital devices, especially electronic small devices, is an influencer for this shift toward myopia.

What measures have countries implemented to try preventing or correcting myopia in young people?

The Singapore Ministry of Health instituted outdoor playtime or recess during school hours. There are now programs in China and in Taiwan where classroom settings have been altered with the use of glass walls or colored light bulb use to increase outdoor daylight exposure. Children are undergoing treatment with atropine eye drops, which in some reports diminishes the shift toward myopia over time in the school-age years. The effect of the drops is not curative, however, and there are concerns regarding unknown long-term effects because we don’t quite understand the specific biochemical actions of atropine. Diagnosed children are also prescribed multifocal contact lenses or eyeglasses [progressive lenses that have different prescription zones to correct vision at different distances].

One of the main findings of the report that you co-chaired is the recommendation that myopia be classified as a disease. Can you explain why the consensus of the panel felt that was important?

The issue needs escalation to a recognized disease category to underscore its short- and long-term visual health consequences, and to attract attention and funding dollars on multiple and varied fronts for effective screening, treatment, prevention and research study.

It takes a multipronged team to elevate this issue. That groundswell would have to come from parents, educators and educator societies, local to national health care systems, local to national policymakers, public health experts, researchers, funding agencies, insurance companies, etcetera. All [of these groups] need to recognize that continuous vision screening starting in early childhood is important. In addition to implementation, the data from those screening visits need to be collated for national database entry for improved monitoring in this country.

What do you think should be the main takeaway from this report?

In this country, if we elevate this condition to be considered a disease and recognize its impact on our children and ultimately on our future workforce, that would be monumental.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Tijuana River sewage still pollutes the San Diego Coast. She’s fighting to clean it up

The Tijuana River’s sewage contamination continues to sicken communities in southern San Diego County. San Diego County Supervisor Paloma Aguirre has become a leading force in pushing for binational fixes and emergency funding to protect public health.

In summary The Tijuana River’s sewage contamination continues to sicken communities in southern San Diego County. San Diego County Supervisor Paloma Aguirre has become a leading force in pushing for binational fixes and emergency funding to protect public health. Hours after a November storm, the Tijuana River flooded a grove of trees in Imperial Beach, gushed through a row of calverts and exploded into mounds of fetid foam.  This is ground zero for the contaminated river, which sickens thousands of people in southern San Diego County. “The Tijuana River is one of, if not the most polluted, river in the entire United States,” said San Diego County Supervisor Paloma Aguirre, who viewed the overflowing river wearing black rain boots and a hot pink respirator mask. “The river is carrying dangerous chemicals, pollutants, pathogens and toxic gases that are impacting South San Diego communities.” The site, known as the Saturn Boulevard hot spot, is part of a system of polluted waterways and failed sewage treatment plants in the cross-border region. In the ocean, the contamination leaves swimmers and surfers with breathing problems, digestive illness and rashes. Unsafe conditions have closed parts of the Imperial Beach shoreline for three years. Last year, researchers discovered that the pollution is airborne as well. Foul-smelling hydrogen sulfide emissions near the river sometimes rise hundreds of times higher than the state’s odor threshold. At those levels the gas triggers headaches, nausea, eye irritation and respiratory distress. And there are other chemicals, viruses and bacteria in the mix.  For children, the effects are worse, said Tom Csanadi, an Imperial Beach physician who has been active in the issue. Their lung surface area to body size is higher, which means they absorb more toxins. Children breathe faster than adults and they’re still growing, so it can affect their body tissues more severely. There are 11 schools within three kilometers of the hot spot. “It could lower IQ, stunt cognitive development,” Csanadi said. As a surfer, activist and elected leader, Aguirre has spent two decades tackling this problem, which she considers one of the worst environmental crises in the country. “She’s been at the forefront of the advocacy side of this for a long, long time, before her political career even started,” said Falk Feddersen, an oceanographer with Scripps Institution of Oceanography who has mapped sewage flows up the coast from Mexico. A cocktail of chemicals While storm water seeped across the road at the hot spot, a swiftwater rescue truck drove through puddles, scanning for stranded motorists. The culverts under the crossing were installed to keep flooding under control, but they also churn the water, spewing noxious gas and other pollutants.  “The unintended consequence is that it’s exacerbating the release of all the molecules and aerosols into the air,” Aguirre said. “It’s literally rocketing them into the environment.” Hydrogen sulfide, with its distinctive rotten egg odor, is an indicator of that toxic brew, said Kim Prather, an atmospheric chemist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. She raised the alarm about airborne pollution from the Tijuana River last year. Flooding caused by the Tijuana River covers a section of Saturn Boulevard after a rainy day in San Diego on Nov. 21, 2025. Photo by Adriana Heldiz, CalMatters Layers of foam caused by sewage and chemicals bubble up along a section of the Tijuana River after a rainy day in San Diego on Nov. 21, 2025. Photo by Adriana Heldiz, CalMatters Layers of foam caused by sewage and chemicals bubble up along a section of the Tijuana River after a rainy day in San Diego on Nov. 21, 2025. Photo by Adriana Heldiz, CalMatters “That’s one in a cocktail of thousands of compounds,” she said. “It’s a blessing that it smells. I know it sounds strange, but it tells you to get away.” Aguirre described her own struggles with Tijuana River pollution, including migraines, chest pain, shortness of breath, and waking in the middle of the night to an odor she likened to a “porta potty.” Recent improvements to wastewater treatment plants in the U.S. and Mexico have reduced water pollution by keeping tens of millions of gallons of sewage out of the ocean each day. Aguirre and others celebrate that news, but note the river still contaminates surrounding areas. More big upgrades are in the works on both sides of the border, but fixing the Saturn Boulevard hot spot quickly could offer immediate relief, Aguirre said. “This is a very specific and low hanging fruit that will at least begin to mitigate the amount of gases being released into the air and benefit tens of thousands of people that live here,” she said. Waves of pollution Tijuana River pollution dates back to at least the 1930s, when the U.S. and Mexican governments built the first cross-border sewage plants. As Tijuana’s population soared with its booming industry, the city’s waste outstripped its treatment systems. Plant failures and sewage spills became common in the early 2000s, along with frequent beach closures along the south San Diego coast. That’s when Aguirre encountered cross-border pollution in the surf at Imperial Beach. Growing up in Puerto Vallarta Mexico, she was used to surfing in muddy water after rains, so the discolored waves didn’t seem worrisome.  “I remember going out here in Imperial Beach while the water was chocolate brown, not knowing that it’s nothing like what I was used to, because that was sewage,” she said. She was the only one at the beach that day, except for a man posting signs stating “Clean water now.” He was Serge Dedina, executive director of the environmental group WildCoast, and he enlisted her in the fight against sewage pollution. Aguirre first volunteered for the organization and soon joined its staff. She worked there for more than a decade, while earning a master’s degree in marine biodiversity and conservation at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. At WildCoast she organized a citizens’ group, advocated for improved water testing using DNA analysis, and served on working groups for a binational agreement on cross-border pollution, called Minute 320. When Dedina was elected mayor of Imperial Beach in 2014, Aguirre saw a path to solving the sewage problem. “I thought, well, if he can do it I can do it,” she said. “And I built on the momentum that he was able to create on this issue.” San Diego County Supervisor Paloma Aguirre wears a respiratory filter mask while standing near a section of the Tijuana River in San Diego on Nov. 21, 2025. Photo by Adriana Heldiz, CalMatters A warning sign about sewage and chemical contamination is posted along the shore of Imperial Beach on Nov. 21, 2025. Photo by Adriana Heldiz, CalMatters Aguirre won a seat on the Imperial Beach City Council in 2018 and was elected mayor in 2022, when Dedina left office. With a bigger platform, she called on California and the federal government to declare a state of emergency over the border pollution problem and lobbied to classify the area as a Superfund site. Those efforts haven’t gained traction, but other angles yielded results. Imperial Beach sued the International Boundary and Water Commission with the city of Chula Vista and Port of San Diego in 2018, alleging that it violated the Clean Water Act and other federal laws by failing to control coastal sewage pollution. They settled the lawsuit in 2023 with a promise of more resources and binational cooperation.  “My tenure as mayor of IB really focused on advocating and working in a bipartisan fashion to secure the additional funding that was needed,” to fix cross-border pollution, she said. A person walks their dog near the Imperial Beach Pier in Imperial Beach on Nov. 21, 2025. Photo by Adriana Heldiz, CalMatters Aguirre led delegations of local officials to Washington, D.C. to drum up money for costly infrastructure upgrades needed to get the sewage problem under control. She met with White House officials in both the Biden and Trump administrations, and with lawmakers who had served as Navy SEALS and had experienced the pollution problem at BUD/S, the Navy SEAL training program in Coronado. In July, Aguirre won a special election for an open San Diego County Board of Supervisors seat. She immediately led county plans to study the health effects of cross-border pollution and asked the state for $50 million to fix the Saturn Boulevard hot spot.  “She’s moved a problem that has been stuck, when other people could not,” Prather, the Scripps atmospheric chemist, said. Sewage spills prompt quick fixes The long-standing pollution problem came under new scrutiny in 2017, when a spill from a damaged line in Mexico dumped an estimated 143 million gallons of wastewater into the Tijuana River, sending foul odors wafting through the region. That accident revealed just how dilapidated the aging infrastructure had become. “That’s one of the reasons why things are so horrific, because they’re playing catch up on fixing these things when they have catastrophic failures,” said Feddersen, the Scripps oceanographer. In early 2022, another major spill released hundreds of millions of gallons of sewage-tainted water across the border for two and a half weeks.  That summer, San Diego congress members freed up more than $300 million that had been authorized for wastewater treatment upgrades through the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. Mexico committed $144 million to replace failing sewage treatment facilities in Tijuana, with an updated treaty between the two countries known as Minute 328. In 2024, the lawmakers persuaded the Biden administration to add another $370 million to repair the aging South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant near the border, Rep. Scott Peters said. After decades of deterioration, major improvements came online this year. The South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant, which was barely operable, is now fully functioning and expanded its capacity from 25 million to 35 million gallons of wastewater per day. The project was expected to take two years, but was completed in 100 days, according to the U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission. An aerial view shows a treated wastewater river heading to the Pacific Ocean near Real Del Mar in Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico on Aug. 12, 2025. Photo by Guillermo Arias, AFP via Getty Images By the end of next year that will climb to 50 million gallons per day, with higher capacity for peak wastewater surges. The commission, which manages the wastewater systems, has spent $122 million on the first series fixes, and the full project will cost $650 million. Although the Trump administration has clawed back federal funding for many projects, it has doubled down on the cross-border sewage problem, Aguirre said. In July U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin met with his Mexican counterpart to seal the environmental deal. In April Mexico repaired its Punta Bandera plant, located on the coast about six miles south of the border. The plant had failed completely in 2020 and was dumping raw sewage into the ocean. It now handles 18 million gallons of wastewater per day. That’s a big boost for beach safety, said Feddersen, whose research tracked the flow of sewage in ocean currents and modeled scenarios for reducing it. “The best bang for the buck, the greatest reduction in beach closure and reduction in human illness, was fixing Punta Bandera,” he said. Yet, the Tijuana River still threatens residents in its watershed with untreated sewage and industrial chemicals from maquiladoras in Tijuana. That includes solvents, heavy metals and toxins known as PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” Prather said. “The river right now is a wastewater treatment plant without any processing,” she said. Removing the culverts would eliminate the turbulence that sprays out hydrogen sulfide and other toxins. The county plans to finish a feasibility study on the project by January. That project would keep contaminants out of the air, but not out of the water. Aguirre also wants new infrastructure to clean up the Tijuana River on the U.S. side. The recent binational Treaty, Minute 328, includes that option, and the International Boundary and Water Commission is exploring what it would take to divert and treat the river flows. There’s no funding for the project yet, but Aguirre says it’s on her agenda. “Rivers are diverted up and down,” she said.  “It’s doable. Is it expensive? Yes. Are our lives in South San Diego worth it? Yes.”

Germophobes Can Breathe Easy On Airplanes, In Hospitals, Experts Say

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterFRIDAY, Dec. 5, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Germophobes can breathe a little easier when visiting a hospital...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterFRIDAY, Dec. 5, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Germophobes can breathe a little easier when visiting a hospital or taking an airplane trip, a new study says.The ambient air on planes and in hospitals mostly contains harmless microbes typically associated with human skin, researchers reported Dec. 4 in the journal Microbiome.The cutting-edge study analyzed germ samples captured on the outer surface of face masks worn by air travelers and health care workers, researchers said.“We realized that we could use face masks as a cheap, easy air-sampling device for personal exposures and general exposures,” senior researcher Erica Hartmann, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, said in a news release.“We extracted DNA from those masks and examined the types of bacteria found there,” Hartmann said.Overall, the team analyzed germs drawn from masks worn by 10 air travelers and 12 health care professionals. Travelers turned in their masks following a flight, hospital workers following a shift.Researchers also analyzed germs captured by an aircraft cabin filter that had been used for more than 8,000 hours.Overall, the team found 407 distinct species of microbes.“Somewhat unsurprisingly, the bacteria were the types that we would typically associate with indoor air,” Hartmann said. “Indoor air looks like indoor air, which also looks like human skin.”A few potentially disease-causing germs did show up, but they were in extremely low amounts and without signs of active infection, researchers said.Hartmann’s team came up with the study idea in January 2022, amid the COVID pandemic.“At the time, there was a serious concern about COVID transmission on planes,” Hartmann said. “HEPA filters on planes filter the air with incredibly high efficiency, so we thought it would be a great way to capture everything in the air.”“But these filters are not like the filters in our cars or homes,” Hartmann added. “They cost thousands of dollars and, in order to remove them, workers have to pull the airplane out of service for maintenance. This obviously costs an incredible amount of money, and that was eye opening.”To beef up their project, the team turned to a much cheaper alternative: face masks.They also decided to include hospitals as another study locale.“As a comparison group, we thought about another population of people who were likely wearing masks anyway,” Hartmann said. “We landed on health care providers.”The results indicate that people themselves are the main source of airborne microbes in enclosed settings, and that most of the germs come from people’s skin rather than from any illnesses, researchers said.Although the results show indoor air is relatively safe, researchers noted that infectious germs also spread through other routes — most importantly, touch.“For this study, we solely looked at what’s in the air,” Hartmann said. “Hand hygiene remains an effective way to prevent diseases transmission from surfaces. We were interested in what people are exposed to via air, even if they are washing their hands.”SOURCES: Northwestern University, news release, Dec. 3, 2025; Microbiome, Dec. 4, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

The Case for Growth

For the past few years, American politics have been organized around a simple, unnerving feeling: Life is getting too expensive, and no one seems to know what to do about it. Rent and home prices feel out of reach. Child care feels like it costs as much as a second mortgage. Groceries, utilities, and health […]

For the past few years, American politics have been organized around a simple, unnerving feeling: Life is getting too expensive, and no one seems to know what to do about it. Rent and home prices feel out of reach. Child care feels like it costs as much as a second mortgage. Groceries, utilities, and health care have all climbed faster than people’s paychecks. Politicians have reached for familiar tools — blaming corporate “greedflation,” flirting with price controls and tariffs, promising to “take on” whoever is convenient in an election year — but none of that gets to the deeper question: How do we make it genuinely easier to build, to work, and to live well in America? For most of this country’s history, we thought we knew the answer: growth. That means a bigger economy, higher productivity, cheaper and cleaner energy, new technology, and more people able to participate in all of the above. Growth was the background assumption — not a panacea, but the thing that made every other problem a little easier to solve.  Then, beginning in the 1970s, that consensus started to break. Economic growth slowed. Concerns about inequality, consumerism, and environmental damage mounted. A certain anti-growth mentality took root on both the left and the right, and “more” became something to be eyed with suspicion rather than embraced and steered. There were real reasons people were wary of a political project organized around “more” — the environmental damage of fossil fuels, the experience of being left out of past booms, the sense that consumerism had filled our lives with stuff instead of meaning. But, in overcorrecting for the very real mistakes of the past, the US inadvertently locked itself into a low-growth, high-friction status quo that has only made our hardest problems harder. That’s why we need to take sustainable growth seriously again, to move from zero-sum fights over who gets what slice of a fixed pie to a world where the pie is actually bigger. Not growth at all costs, but growth the smart way. That is the animating idea behind this project, The Case for Growth. Over the coming weeks, in explainers, features, and podcast episodes, we’ll look at why our most productive cities have been effectively locking out families and what it would take to open them up. We’ll imagine what an era of clean energy abundance could unlock, from vertical farming to sci-fi climate solutions. We’ll explore how advances in artificial intelligence might finally shake us out of a prolonged productivity slump and how our addiction to cars and meat is choking off more sustainable growth. We’ll talk to experts who make the case that growth can run side by side with policies that prevent the worst of global warming.  In an era when so much of our politics has been reduced to zero-sum arguments over who loses so someone else can win, we want to reopen the possibility of positive-sum progress — of building more; inventing more; and including more people in that story, while taking care of the planet. Growth won’t solve everything, but without it, almost nothing gets solved at scale. The Case for Growth is our attempt to put that idea back into conservation as part of a serious effort to make life more affordable, more sustainable, and more abundant in the US and far beyond. This series was supported by a grant from Arnold Ventures. Vox had full discretion over the content of this reporting. Cities made a bet on millennials — but forgot one key thing We can have growth while fighting climate change The long, fun list of things we could do with unlimited clean energy Why owning a house is overrated The massive stakes of the big federal housing bill, explained

Mapping the Exposome: Science Broadens Focus to Environmental Disease Triggers

By Deanna Neff HealthDay ReporterSATURDAY, Nov. 29, 2025 (HealthDay News) — After decades of intense focus on genetics, the biomedical research...

By Deanna Neff HealthDay ReporterSATURDAY, Nov. 29, 2025 (HealthDay News) — After decades of intense focus on genetics, the biomedical research community is undergoing a major shift, focusing on a new framework called "exposomics."Similar to the way scientists work to map the human genome, this emerging field aims to map the chemical, physical, social and biological elements a person encounters throughout their life.Experts estimate that genetic mutations account for only about 10% of diseases like Parkinson’s for example. The remaining 90% are thought to be caused by environmental factors, prompting scientists to look beyond genes, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) reported.Some examples of exposomic data include light and temperature, biomarkers in the blood or other body fluids, dietary intake, environmental chemicals, physical activity, income and education.The ultimate goal? To turn this big bucket of individual knowledge points into practical, personalized health solutions.Researchers envision a future where a person's "exposomic profile" is included in their electronic medical records, according to the AAMC.Gary Miller, vice dean for research strategy and innovation at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health in New York City, who helped coin the term two decades ago, says the field is now gaining momentum.Exposomics is an enormous undertaking because it requires researchers from various disciplines — including genetics, environmental science and data science — to work together.The goal is to move beyond simply identifying a single cause of disease and instead capture the entire picture of a person’s unique lifetime of exposures.Driving this surge are new technologies that can handle the sheer volume of data involved to map all of the possible exposures.Geospatial data: Satellite images and social determinants of health data help to measure location-specific exposures like air pollution and water quality. Mass spectrometry: Advanced chemical analysis helps to detect thousands of markers in biological samples like blood and urine. Wearable devices: Devices, such as the "exposometer" developed at Stanford Medicine in California, can collect chemical and biological samples directly from the wearer. Chirag Patel, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School and co-leader of NEXUS, explained that his lab uses computational models and artifical intelligence to systematically sort through huge amounts of data.“We’re moving away from looking at causes for disease in a targeted fashion... and moving toward what are non-targeted mass spectrometry approaches,” Patel told AAMC.Rima Habre, also co-leader of NEXUS and associate professor of environmental health and spatial sciences at the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, believes exposomics can help physicians move beyond educated guesswork.She says it's more "discovery-based." It allows researchers to scan everything and follow it up with hypothesis testing.As Miller notes, this new health assessment paradigm requires both sides of the coin: “The genomics and exposomics. They complement each other.”SOURCE: Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), Nov. 12, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Some Suicide Victims Show No Typical Warning Signs, Study Finds

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Nov. 26, 2025 (HealthDay News) — For many families who lose someone to suicide, the same question comes...

WEDNESDAY, Nov. 26, 2025 (HealthDay News) — For many families who lose someone to suicide, the same question comes up again and again: “How did we not see this coming?”A new study suggests that for some people, there truly weren’t clear warning signs to see.Researchers at the University of Utah found that people who die by suicide without showing prior warning signs, such as suicidal thoughts or past attempts, may have different underlying risk factors than those who express suicidal behavior.About half of people who die by suicide have no known history of suicidal thoughts or behaviors. Many also don't have diagnosed mental health conditions like depression.To better understand these people, researchers analyzed anonymized genetic data from more than 2,700 people who died by suicide.They found that people with no prior signs of suicide had:"There are a lot of people out there who may be at risk of suicide where it’s not just that you’ve missed that they’re depressed, it’s likely that they’re in fact actually not depressed," lead study author Hilary Coon, a psychiatry professor at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, said in a news release."That is important in widening our view of who may be at risk," she added. "We need to start to think about aspects leading to risk in different ways."The study also found that this group wasn't any more likely than the general population to show traits like chronic low mood or neuroticism.Suicide prevention has long focused on identifying and treating depression and related mental health disorders. But this research suggests that approach may not reach everyone who's at risk."A tenet in suicide prevention has been that we just need to screen people better for associated conditions like depression," Coon explained."And if people had the same sort of underlying vulnerabilities, then additional efforts in screening might be very helpful. But for those who actually have different underlying vulnerabilities, then increasing that screening might not help for them."In other words: If someone isn’t depressed or showing typical symptoms, current screening tools may miss them.Coon and her team are now looking into other factors that might raise suicide risk in this hidden group, including chronic pain, inflammation and respiratory diseases.They are also studying traits that may protect against suicide to better understand why some people remain resilient even in difficult situations.She emphasized that there is no single suicide "gene."Her goal? To help doctors spot high-risk individuals earlier, even when they do not express suicidal thoughts."If people have a certain type of clinical diagnosis that makes them particularly vulnerable within particular environmental contexts, they still may not ever say they’re suicidal," Coon said. "We hope our work may help reveal traits and contexts associated with high risk so that doctors can deliver care more effectively and specifically."The 988 Lifeline is available for anyone facing mental health struggles, emotional distress, alcohol or drug use concerns or who just needs someone to talk to.SOURCE: University of Utah Health, news release, Nov. 24, 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.