Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

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

Why Early Prostate Cancer Screening Matters for Black Men

News Feed
Wednesday, September 18, 2024

This episode is part of “Health Equity Heroes,” an editorially independent special project that was produced with financial support from Takeda Pharmaceuticals.Rachel Feltman: September is Prostate Cancer Awareness Month, so here’s something you should be aware of: earlier this year the Prostate Cancer Foundation issued new screening guidelines encouraging Black men to start getting baseline blood tests for prostate cancer as early as age 40. That’s because, according to the American Cancer Society, Black men are [about] 70 percent more likely than white men to develop prostate cancer in their lifetime and twice as likely to die from the disease.For Scientific American’s Science Quickly, I’m Rachel Feltman. Today I’m joined by Dr. Alfred Winkler, chief of urology at NewYork-Presbyterian Lower Manhattan Hospital. He’s here to tell us more about how folks can protect themselves from prostate cancer.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Dr. Winkler, thanks so much for joining us. It’s great to have you on the show.Dr. Alfred Winkler: I welcome the opportunity. Thank you.Feltman: So why don’t we start by just talking a little bit about the prostate? You know, where is it, and what does it do?Winkler: Sure, happy to. So very, very important starting point because people really don’t know what—where the prostate is or what it does.So the prostate sits deep in the male pelvis—only men [meaning people assigned male at birth] have prostates—and it sits below the bladder. The urethra, the urine tube that drains the bladder, runs through the middle of the prostate.The prostate’s main job is to produce the fluid in which sperm are transported. It’s also thought to perhaps produce some antibacterial factors, but its main job is to produce transport fluid.Feltman: So earlier this year the Prostate Cancer Foundation updated its screening guidelines. Could you walk us through what changed and why?Winkler: I think there are two points of emphasis, and, and I’ll start with the one that really has made the biggest difference, and that is the fact that rectal exams, or physical exams, are no longer part of primary screening for prostate cancer. Frankly, that is really what deterred a lot of men from getting screened or even talking about it. So that’s a huge, huge victory in terms of getting more men to come in and be evaluated.Also, there’s a lot more emphasis on shared decision-making. We don’t want this to be a test that your primary care provider orders blindly. There needs to be at least some discussion of why it’s a possible test for you to be ordered. And really, is it a test that’s right for you? And that’s multifactorial.Feltman: Yeah, and so what’s replaced the rectal exam that deterred so many people?Winkler: So over many, many years we’ve just seen that the positive predictive value of doing a rectal exam just isn’t there. It really does not help us diagnose prostate cancer. And what’s more, as I mentioned just now, it’s actually a deterrent for men seeking evaluation.Feltman: And so I assume there are blood tests or other diagnostics that can help detect prostate cancer?Winkler: So primary screening really is only going to consist of the blood test: PSA, or prostatic-specific antigen.Feltman: Got it. And so I believe that the new guidelines also change some of the, the recommendations for the age of first screening. Is that correct?Winkler: Sure, they did, and again, there’s more emphasis on shared decision-making and really fitting whether or not a patient should be screened or even have a test to their particular medical circumstance. So that includes ethnicity or race, it includes family history, and it includes age.And some of those factors even affect the interval of screening. We’ve said, “Well, maybe in certain age groups, we don’t have to screen every year, maybe every two or four years within a certain age band, depending on the patient’s family history.”Feltman: So tell me more about groups that are higher risk. What do we know about those disparities?Winkler: So we look, really, at two primary groups: those folks who have a family history of prostate cancer in a primary male relative, so that’s a father, brother; and also people who have a family history of hereditary breast or ovarian cancer. So it’s very important not only to know the—your own medical history, but it’s important to know your family’s medical history. Not always a favorite topic at family reunions, but it’s an opportunity to just learn more about your family and thereby more about yourself.The other group that continues to be at very high risk are African Americans. African Americans have among the highest rates of prostate cancer in the world. And that’s thought to be multifactorial, so a lot of effort is made towards reaching out to those groups and talking to them about whether or not they should be screened.Feltman: Well, and, you know, you said that that’s thought to be multifactorial, but do we have any idea what those factors might be?Winkler: We do. So some of these factors we can control, and some of these factors are really beyond our control.So the one that’s really—is beyond our control, most obviously, is genetics. Your family history is your family history; your genetics are your genetics. That’s why it’s important to really understand your family history and are there certain diseases that it’s important for you to be screened for, prostate cancer among them.But for most cancers, or at least many cancers, there’s thought to be an environmental factor, and that you can control. So that is the environment in which you live and how you participate in that environment, and the biggest example of that is diet.Feltman: Yeah, that makes sense.So what are the age ranges where people should start thinking about screening, and, you know, how is that different if you are in one of these higher-risk categories?Winkler: Sure, so higher-risk patients should consider getting screened at age 45—and actually, in fact, some people we start screening at age 40. And that screening really consists of the PSA blood test. We essentially have never found value in screening people younger than age 40, regardless of their family history.We really, really try to screen people with the model of shared decision-making, in terms of speaking to your primary care provider and deciding the interval in the context with your family history.We typically do not screen people above the age of 75. The thought process of that is when we discover or diagnose prostate cancer beyond age 75, it tends to be a slower-growing cancer. But again, I think we still need to apply the rule that everyone’s an individual, and if you’re 76, and you’re in great health, and you have a family history, be an advocate for yourself and ask the question, “Is this a good test for me?”The key is early diagnosis. A really wonderful thing that we’re seeing in prostate cancer is that we’re diagnosing more and more people at an earlier stage, where, in fact, they undergo what we call active surveillance, which means that they require no treatment and they require a close follow-up. And that close follow-up is essentially periodic blood tests over the course of two years; some imaging with an MRI of the prostate, which has been a huge difference maker in terms of determining who does and doesn’t need a prostate biopsy. Even folks who are diagnosed with cancer that’s a little bit more aggressive, there are tons of options that include surgery, focal therapy, radiation therapy, and the cure rate of those are easily in the mid-90s.But again, the earlier you diagnose, the more choices you have and the higher your survival rate is. So again, all the more reason to ask about this test so that you can have more information about your risk.Feltman: So if someone is listening to this episode, and they’ve been avoiding getting screened for prostate cancer or talking to their doctor about it, what steps would you recommend that they take?Winkler: Well, I want them to realize that, really, the evaluation is first a discussion ...Feltman: Mm-hmm.Winkler: And then a blood test, and that’s it.Really everyone, to the best of, of their ability, should be seen by a primary care provider on a yearly basis. And for most of us that’s going to involve some questions and a questionnaire and some blood work. So this is just another disease that you are just trying to gauge your risk for.So I think it starts with asking about the test in the first place. I’m very sympathetic to my primary care colleagues. They’re overwhelmed. There’re not enough of them. They’re trying to squeeze a tremendous amount of information and detective work into a short visit, and we sort of have to be our own advocates in that realm.So I think it starts with simply asking your primary care provider, “Do I need this test?” And the conversation may surprise you. You may not actually need that test. Or maybe it’s been a test that you’ve gotten in recently enough that you can skip this year.I think the other thing that’s important for people to realize is when a problem is discovered early there tends to be many, many more choices you have to deal with that problem. And chances are, the more choices there are, the more likely you are to find one that you like. And I think prostate cancer is a great, great example of that.By asking the question you’re only being an advocate for yourself—you really, really have to be an advocate for yourself in all things that have to do with your health. I think there are many things in our lives that we do a better job of taking care of or keeping appointments for way over our health. And it really, really shouldn’t be that way.And to just remember your health is just not you; it’s the people who are around you, who love you, who depend on you and want you here. And they would want you to be an advocate.One idea I, I have that I wish people would do is almost have in your life a “bring a loved one to the doctors” day. When you make your appointment for yourself, maybe make an appointment for your significant other and bring them along. I think that way you’re taking care of two people instead of one, and maybe you’re breaking down some barriers for someone who is not seeking out care just because they’re afraid.Feltman: Yeah, that’s great advice. Thank you so much for joining us, Dr. Winkler. I think this is gonna be really helpful for a lot of our listeners.Winkler: Thank you for the opportunity.Feltman: That’s all for today’s episode. We’ll be back on Friday with part one of our latest Friday Fascination miniseries. This one is all about the beauty and mystery of math, and I promise it’s a surprisingly wild ride.In the meantime, do us a favor and leave a quick rating or a review wherever you listen to this podcast. You can also send us any questions or comments at ScienceQuickly@sciam.com.Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Kelso Harper, Madison Goldberg and Jeff DelViscio. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news.For Scientific American, this is Rachel Feltman. See you next time!This episode is part of “Health Equity Heroes,” an editorially independent special project that was produced with financial support from Takeda Pharmaceuticals.

According to the American Cancer Society, Black men are about 70 percent more likely than white men to develop prostate cancer in their lifetime and twice as likely to die from the disease.

This episode is part of “Health Equity Heroes,” an editorially independent special project that was produced with financial support from Takeda Pharmaceuticals.

Rachel Feltman: September is Prostate Cancer Awareness Month, so here’s something you should be aware of: earlier this year the Prostate Cancer Foundation issued new screening guidelines encouraging Black men to start getting baseline blood tests for prostate cancer as early as age 40. That’s because, according to the American Cancer Society, Black men are [about] 70 percent more likely than white men to develop prostate cancer in their lifetime and twice as likely to die from the disease.

For Scientific American’s Science Quickly, I’m Rachel Feltman. Today I’m joined by Dr. Alfred Winkler, chief of urology at NewYork-Presbyterian Lower Manhattan Hospital. He’s here to tell us more about how folks can protect themselves from prostate cancer.


On supporting science journalism

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


Dr. Winkler, thanks so much for joining us. It’s great to have you on the show.

Dr. Alfred Winkler: I welcome the opportunity. Thank you.

Feltman: So why don’t we start by just talking a little bit about the prostate? You know, where is it, and what does it do?

Winkler: Sure, happy to. So very, very important starting point because people really don’t know what—where the prostate is or what it does.

So the prostate sits deep in the male pelvis—only men [meaning people assigned male at birth] have prostates—and it sits below the bladder. The urethra, the urine tube that drains the bladder, runs through the middle of the prostate.

The prostate’s main job is to produce the fluid in which sperm are transported. It’s also thought to perhaps produce some antibacterial factors, but its main job is to produce transport fluid.

Feltman: So earlier this year the Prostate Cancer Foundation updated its screening guidelines. Could you walk us through what changed and why?

Winkler: I think there are two points of emphasis, and, and I’ll start with the one that really has made the biggest difference, and that is the fact that rectal exams, or physical exams, are no longer part of primary screening for prostate cancer. Frankly, that is really what deterred a lot of men from getting screened or even talking about it. So that’s a huge, huge victory in terms of getting more men to come in and be evaluated.

Also, there’s a lot more emphasis on shared decision-making. We don’t want this to be a test that your primary care provider orders blindly. There needs to be at least some discussion of why it’s a possible test for you to be ordered. And really, is it a test that’s right for you? And that’s multifactorial.

Feltman: Yeah, and so what’s replaced the rectal exam that deterred so many people?

Winkler: So over many, many years we’ve just seen that the positive predictive value of doing a rectal exam just isn’t there. It really does not help us diagnose prostate cancer. And what’s more, as I mentioned just now, it’s actually a deterrent for men seeking evaluation.

Feltman: And so I assume there are blood tests or other diagnostics that can help detect prostate cancer?

Winkler: So primary screening really is only going to consist of the blood test: PSA, or prostatic-specific antigen.

Feltman: Got it. And so I believe that the new guidelines also change some of the, the recommendations for the age of first screening. Is that correct?

Winkler: Sure, they did, and again, there’s more emphasis on shared decision-making and really fitting whether or not a patient should be screened or even have a test to their particular medical circumstance. So that includes ethnicity or race, it includes family history, and it includes age.

And some of those factors even affect the interval of screening. We’ve said, “Well, maybe in certain age groups, we don’t have to screen every year, maybe every two or four years within a certain age band, depending on the patient’s family history.”

Feltman: So tell me more about groups that are higher risk. What do we know about those disparities?

Winkler: So we look, really, at two primary groups: those folks who have a family history of prostate cancer in a primary male relative, so that’s a father, brother; and also people who have a family history of hereditary breast or ovarian cancer. So it’s very important not only to know the—your own medical history, but it’s important to know your family’s medical history. Not always a favorite topic at family reunions, but it’s an opportunity to just learn more about your family and thereby more about yourself.

The other group that continues to be at very high risk are African Americans. African Americans have among the highest rates of prostate cancer in the world. And that’s thought to be multifactorial, so a lot of effort is made towards reaching out to those groups and talking to them about whether or not they should be screened.

Feltman: Well, and, you know, you said that that’s thought to be multifactorial, but do we have any idea what those factors might be?

Winkler: We do. So some of these factors we can control, and some of these factors are really beyond our control.

So the one that’s really—is beyond our control, most obviously, is genetics. Your family history is your family history; your genetics are your genetics. That’s why it’s important to really understand your family history and are there certain diseases that it’s important for you to be screened for, prostate cancer among them.

But for most cancers, or at least many cancers, there’s thought to be an environmental factor, and that you can control. So that is the environment in which you live and how you participate in that environment, and the biggest example of that is diet.

Feltman: Yeah, that makes sense.

So what are the age ranges where people should start thinking about screening, and, you know, how is that different if you are in one of these higher-risk categories?

Winkler: Sure, so higher-risk patients should consider getting screened at age 45—and actually, in fact, some people we start screening at age 40. And that screening really consists of the PSA blood test. We essentially have never found value in screening people younger than age 40, regardless of their family history.

We really, really try to screen people with the model of shared decision-making, in terms of speaking to your primary care provider and deciding the interval in the context with your family history.

We typically do not screen people above the age of 75. The thought process of that is when we discover or diagnose prostate cancer beyond age 75, it tends to be a slower-growing cancer. But again, I think we still need to apply the rule that everyone’s an individual, and if you’re 76, and you’re in great health, and you have a family history, be an advocate for yourself and ask the question, “Is this a good test for me?”

The key is early diagnosis. A really wonderful thing that we’re seeing in prostate cancer is that we’re diagnosing more and more people at an earlier stage, where, in fact, they undergo what we call active surveillance, which means that they require no treatment and they require a close follow-up. And that close follow-up is essentially periodic blood tests over the course of two years; some imaging with an MRI of the prostate, which has been a huge difference maker in terms of determining who does and doesn’t need a prostate biopsy. 

Even folks who are diagnosed with cancer that’s a little bit more aggressive, there are tons of options that include surgery, focal therapy, radiation therapy, and the cure rate of those are easily in the mid-90s.

But again, the earlier you diagnose, the more choices you have and the higher your survival rate is. So again, all the more reason to ask about this test so that you can have more information about your risk.

Feltman: So if someone is listening to this episode, and they’ve been avoiding getting screened for prostate cancer or talking to their doctor about it, what steps would you recommend that they take?

Winkler: Well, I want them to realize that, really, the evaluation is first a discussion ...

Feltman: Mm-hmm.

Winkler: And then a blood test, and that’s it.

Really everyone, to the best of, of their ability, should be seen by a primary care provider on a yearly basis. And for most of us that’s going to involve some questions and a questionnaire and some blood work. So this is just another disease that you are just trying to gauge your risk for.

So I think it starts with asking about the test in the first place. I’m very sympathetic to my primary care colleagues. They’re overwhelmed. There’re not enough of them. They’re trying to squeeze a tremendous amount of information and detective work into a short visit, and we sort of have to be our own advocates in that realm.

So I think it starts with simply asking your primary care provider, “Do I need this test?” And the conversation may surprise you. You may not actually need that test. Or maybe it’s been a test that you’ve gotten in recently enough that you can skip this year.

I think the other thing that’s important for people to realize is when a problem is discovered early there tends to be many, many more choices you have to deal with that problem. And chances are, the more choices there are, the more likely you are to find one that you like. And I think prostate cancer is a great, great example of that.

By asking the question you’re only being an advocate for yourself—you really, really have to be an advocate for yourself in all things that have to do with your health. I think there are many things in our lives that we do a better job of taking care of or keeping appointments for way over our health. And it really, really shouldn’t be that way.

And to just remember your health is just not you; it’s the people who are around you, who love you, who depend on you and want you here. And they would want you to be an advocate.

One idea I, I have that I wish people would do is almost have in your life a “bring a loved one to the doctors” day. When you make your appointment for yourself, maybe make an appointment for your significant other and bring them along. I think that way you’re taking care of two people instead of one, and maybe you’re breaking down some barriers for someone who is not seeking out care just because they’re afraid.

Feltman: Yeah, that’s great advice. Thank you so much for joining us, Dr. Winkler. I think this is gonna be really helpful for a lot of our listeners.

Winkler: Thank you for the opportunity.

Feltman: That’s all for today’s episode. We’ll be back on Friday with part one of our latest Friday Fascination miniseries. This one is all about the beauty and mystery of math, and I promise it’s a surprisingly wild ride.

In the meantime, do us a favor and leave a quick rating or a review wherever you listen to this podcast. You can also send us any questions or comments at ScienceQuickly@sciam.com.

Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Kelso Harper, Madison Goldberg and Jeff DelViscio. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news.

For Scientific American, this is Rachel Feltman. See you next time!

This episode is part of “Health Equity Heroes,” an editorially independent special project that was produced with financial support from Takeda Pharmaceuticals.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Why the health risks from air pollution could be worse than we thought

A new study found elevated and previously overlooked health risks for communities living near industrial polluters.

Many people who live near heavy industry are routinely exposed to dozens of different pollutants, which can result in a multitude of health problems.Traditionally, environmental regulators have assessed the risks of chemical exposure on an individual basis. But that approach has led to underestimates of the total health risks faced by vulnerable populations, according to a new study.Now researchers at Johns Hopkins University have developed a new method for measuring the cumulative effects on human health of multiple toxic air pollutants. Their findings were published last week in Environmental Health Perspectives.Regulators typically measure community risk by looking at the primary health effects of individual chemicals, an approach that often fails to address their combined risks, said Keeve Nachman, the study’s senior author.Residents in disadvantaged communities are exposed to a toxic stew of chemicals daily, and they “don’t just breathe one at a time, [they] breathe all the chemicals in the air at once,” said Peter DeCarlo, another of the study’s authors.Follow Climate & environment“Very little has happened to protect these people. And one of the major reasons for that is that current approaches have not done a good job showing they’re in harm’s way,” Nachman said.“When we regulate chemicals, we pretend that we’re only exposed to one chemical at a time,” Nachman continued. “If we have each chemical and we only think about the most sensitive effect, but we ignore the fact that it could potentially cause all these other effects to different parts of the body, we are missing protecting people from the collective mixture of chemicals that act together.”Nachman, DeCarlo and their colleagues set out to more accurately account for the total burden of breathing multiple toxic air pollutants.The study assessed the risks faced by communities in southeastern Pennsylvania living near petrochemical facilities using a mobile laboratory to measure 32 hazardous air pollutants, including vinyl chloride, formaldehyde and benzene. The researchers developed real-time profiles of the pollution concentrations in the air and translated them into estimates of what people are actually breathing.Using these estimates and a database of the chemicals’ toxic effects on various organs, the researchers created projections of the long-term cumulative health impacts of the pollution.By looking past the immediate health effects of chemicals and measuring what happens as concentrations increase, negative health outcomes can be detected in other parts of the body, Nachman said.For example, while EPA risk assessments consider only the respiratory effects of formaldehyde, the study found potential health impacts in 10 other organ systems, including neurological, developmental and reproductive harms.The cumulative risk study appears at a fraught moment for environmental regulation. Although the Biden administration in November released a draft framework for monitoring the cumulative impact of chemical exposure, the Trump administration has announced plans to roll back dozens of Biden administration environmental rules and is considering shutting down the EPA’s Office of Research and Development.A spokesperson for the American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group, said in an email that the Johns Hopkins research “may provide some useful information” but that “further assessment, replication and validation will be needed” of the methods and substances assessed in the study.“ACC continues to support the development of scientifically robust data, methods and approaches to underpin cumulative risk assessments,” the spokesperson added.The EPA did not provide an immediate comment while it reviewed the study.Jen Duggan, the executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project, said communities often face higher health impacts than the EPA estimates due to their exposure to dangerous chemicals from multiple sources.“The authors of this paper powerfully demonstrate how EPA has repeatedly underestimated the true health risks for people living in the shadow of industrial polluters,” Duggan said.

Utah Bans Fluoride In Public Drinking Water

Republican Gov. Spencer Cox signed the legislation despite widespread opposition from dentists and national health organizations.

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Utah has become the first state to ban fluoride in public drinking water, despite widespread opposition from dentists and national health organizations.Republican Gov. Spencer Cox signed legislation late Thursday that bars cities and communities from deciding whether to add the mineral to their water systems.Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Utah lawmakers who pushed for a ban said putting fluoride in water was too expensive. Cox, who grew up and raised his own children in a community without fluoridated water, compared it recently to being “medicated” by the government.The ban comes weeks after U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has expressed skepticism about water fluoridation, was sworn into office.More than 200 million people in the U.S., or almost two-thirds of the population, receive fluoridated water through community water. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.But some cities across the country have gotten rid of fluoride from their water, and other municipalities are considering doing the same. A few months ago, a federal judge ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate fluoride in drinking water because high levels could pose a risk to the intellectual development of children.We Don't Work For Billionaires. We Work For You.Big money interests are running the government — and influencing the news you read. While other outlets are retreating behind paywalls and bending the knee to political pressure, HuffPost is proud to be unbought and unfiltered. Will you help us keep it that way? You can even access our stories ad-free.You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again. We won't back down from our mission of providing free, fair news during this critical moment. But we can't do it without you.For the first time, we're offering an ad-free experience to qualifying contributors who support our fearless journalism. We hope you'll join us.You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again. We won't back down from our mission of providing free, fair news during this critical moment. But we can't do it without you.For the first time, we're offering an ad-free experience to qualifying contributors who support our fearless journalism. We hope you'll join us.Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.The president of the American Dental Association, Brett Kessler, has said the amounts of fluoride added to drinking water are below levels considered problematic.Opponents warn the ban will disproportionately affect low-income residents who may rely on public drinking water having fluoride as their only source of preventative dental care. Low-income families may not be able to afford regular dentist visits or the fluoride tablets some people buy as a supplement in cities without fluoridation.The sponsor of the Utah legislation, Republican Rep. Stephanie Gricius, acknowledged fluoride has benefits, but said it was an issue of “individual choice” to not have it in the water.

Dozens of House Democrats push back on planned EPA research and development cuts

Dozens of House Democrats pushed back on planned Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cuts in a Thursday letter to the agency. “We are particularly concerned by the proposal to eliminate up to 75 percent of employees within EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD),” the letter, from Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) and addressed to EPA Administrator...

Dozens of House Democrats pushed back on planned Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cuts in a Thursday letter to the agency. “We are particularly concerned by the proposal to eliminate up to 75 percent of employees within EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD),” the letter, from Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) and addressed to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, reads. “Firing nearly 1,200 dedicated ORD public servants across the country would decimate the scientific backbone of EPA which provides independent, objective, and unparallelled research that informs Agency assessments and decision-making,” they added. The letter featured the signatures of over 60 House Democrats including Reps. Nikema Williams (Ga.), Ro Khanna (Calif.), Summer Lee (Pa.), Don Beyer (Va.), Joe Neguse (Colo.), Jamie Raskin (Md.), Pramila Jayapal (Wash.) and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.). The Hill reported last week that the EPA was considering the cutting of its science arm and dropping most of the employees of the branch, per documents reviewed by Democratic staff for the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. The termination of the Office of Research and Development as an EPA National Program Office is called for in a plan reviewed by committee staffers. Fifty percent to 70 percent of the 1,540 staffers in the office would be cut under the plan. “While no decisions have been made yet, we are actively listening to employees at all levels to gather ideas on how to better fulfill agency statutory obligations, increase efficiency, and ensure the EPA is as up-to-date and effective as ever,” EPA spokesperson Molly Vaseliou said in a previous statement. In his letter, Landsman said dropping “the majority of ORD employees would be particularly harmful to EPA’s work to address industrial pollution, contaminated air and drinking water, environmental health, and worsening natural disasters.” The Ohio Democrat also questioned the EPA about the reasoning behind the staff cuts in the plan and the way the agency is prepping “to mitigate the loss of scientific expertise, institutional knowledge, and subject matter capacity resulting from this proposed action.” The Hill has reached out to the EPA for comment.

When a 1-in-100 year flood washed through the Coorong, it made the vital microbiome of this lagoon healthier

The 2022 floods triggered shifts in the Coorong’s microbiome—similar to our gut bacteria on new diets—revealing why freshwater flows are vital to wetland health.

Darcy Whittaker, CC BYYou might know South Australia’s iconic Coorong from the famous Australian children’s book, Storm Boy, set around this coastal lagoon. This internationally important wetland is sacred to the Ngarrindjeri people and a haven for migratory birds. The lagoon is the final stop for the Murray River’s waters before they reach the sea. Tens of thousands of migratory waterbirds visit annually. Pelicans, plovers, terns and ibises nest, while orange-bellied parrots visit and Murray Cod swim. But there are other important inhabitants – trillions of microscopic organisms. You might not give much thought to the sedimentary microbes of a lagoon. But these tiny microbes in the mud are vital to river ecosystems, quietly cycling nutrients and supporting the food web. Healthy microbes make for a healthy Coorong – and this unassuming lagoon is a key indicator for the health of the entire Murray-Darling Basin. For decades, the Coorong has been in poor health. Low water flows have concentrated salt and an excess of nutrients. But in 2022, torrential rains on the east coast turned into a once-in-a-century flood, which swept down the Murray into the Coorong. In our new research, we took the pulse of the Coorong’s microbiome after this huge flood and found the surging fresh water corrected microbial imbalances. The numbers of methane producing microbes fell while beneficial nutrient-eating bacteria grew. Populations of plants, animals and invertebrates boomed. We can’t just wait for irregular floods – we have to find ways to ensure enough water is left in the river to cleanse the Coorong naturally. Under a scanning electron micrograph, the mixed community of microbes in water is visible. This image shows a seawater sample. Sophie Leterme/Flinders University, CC BY Rivers have microbiomes, just like us Our gut microbes can change after a heavy meal or in response to dietary changes. In humans, a sudden shift in diet can encourage either helpful or harmful microbes. In the same way, aquatic microbes respond to changes in salinity and freshwater flows. Depending on what changes are happening, some species boom and others bust. As water gets saltier in brackish lagoons, communities of microbes have to adapt or die. High salinity often favours microbes with anaerobic metabolisms, meaning they don’t need oxygen. But these tiny lifeforms often produce the highly potent greenhouse gas methane. The microbes in wetlands are a large natural source of the gas. While we know pulses of freshwater are vital for river health, they don’t happen often enough. The waters of the Murray-Darling Basin support most of Australia’s irrigated farming. Negotiations over how to ensure adequate environmental flows have been fraught – and long-running. Water buybacks have improved matters somewhat, but researchers have found the river basin’s ecosystems are not in good condition. Wetlands such as the Coorong are a natural source of methane. The saltier the water gets, the more environmentally harmful microbes flourish – potentially producing more methane. Vincent_Nguyen The Coorong is out of balance A century ago, regular pulses of fresh water from the Murray flushed nutrients and sediment out of the Coorong, helping maintain habitat for fish, waterbirds and the plants and invertebrates they eat. While other catchments discharge into the Coorong, the Murray is by far the major water source. Over the next decades, growth in water use for farming meant less water in the river. In the 1930s, barrages were built near the river’s mouth to control nearby lake levels and prevent high salinity moving upstream in the face of reduced river flows. Major droughts have added further stress. Under these low-flow conditions, salt and nutrients get more and more concentrated, reaching extreme levels due to South Australia’s high rate of evaporation. In response, microbial communities can trigger harmful algae blooms or create low-oxygen “dead zones”, suffocating river life. The big flush of 2022 In 2022, torrential rain fell in many parts of eastern Australia. Rainfall on the inland side of the Great Dividing Range filled rivers in the Murray-Darling Basin. That year became the largest flood since 1956. We set about recording the changes. As the salinity fell in ultra-salty areas, local microbial communities in the sediment were reshuffled. The numbers of methane-producing microbes fell sharply. This means the floods would have temporarily reduced the Coorong’s greenhouse footprint. Christopher Keneally sampling for microbes in the Coorong in 2022. Tyler Dornan, CC BY When we talk about harmful bacteria, we’re referring to microbes that emit greenhouse gases such as methane, drive the accumulation of toxic sulfide (such as Desulfobacteraceae), or cause algae blooms (Cyanobacteria) that can sicken people, fish and wildlife. During the flood, beneficial microbes from groups such as Halanaerobiaceae and Beggiatoaceae grew rapidly, consuming nutrients such as nitrogen, which is extremely high in the Coorong. This is very useful to prevent algae blooms. Beggiatoaceae bacteria also remove toxic sulfide compounds. The floods also let plants and invertebrates bounce back, flushed out salt and supported a healthier food web. On balance, we found the 2022 flood was positive for the Coorong. It’s as if the Coorong switched packets of chips for carrot sticks – the flood pulse reduced harmful bacteria and encouraged beneficial ones. While the variety of microbes shrank in some areas, those remaining performed key functions helping keep the ecosystem in balance. From 2022 to 2023, consistent high flows let native fish and aquatic plants bounce back, in turn improving feeding grounds for birds and allowing black swans to thrive. A group of black swans cruise the Coorong’s waters. Darcy Whittaker, CC BY Floods aren’t enough When enough water is allowed to flow down the Murray to the Coorong, ecosystems get healthier. But the Coorong has been in poor health for decades. It can’t just rely on rare flood events. Next year, policymakers will review the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which sets the rules for sharing water in Australia’s largest and most economically important river system. Balancing our needs with those of other species is tricky. But if we neglect the environment, we risk more degradation and biodiversity loss in the Coorong. As the climate changes and rising water demands squeeze the basin, decision-makers must keep the water flowing for wildlife. Christopher Keneally receives funding from the Australian Government Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. His research is affiliated with The University of Adelaide and the Goyder Institute for Water Research. Chris is also a committee member and former president of the Biology Society of South Australia, and a member of the Australian Freshwater Sciences Society.Matt Gibbs receives funding from the Australian Government Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. Sophie Leterme receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC). Her research is affiliated with Flinders University, with the ARC Training Centre for Biofilm Research & Innovation, and with the Goyder Institute for Water Research.Justin Brookes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Murphy, a Beloved Bald Eagle Who Became a Foster Dad, Dies Following Violent Storms in Missouri

A beloved bald eagle who gained popularity after incubating a rock is mourned after dying from head trauma sustained during violent storms in Missouri last week

A beloved bald eagle who gained popularity for incubating a rock in 2023 is being mourned Saturday after the 33-year-old avian died following intense storms that recently moved through Missouri. Murphy, who surpassed the average life span of 25 years, died last week at the World Bird Sanctuary in Valley Park, Missouri. Sanctuary officials believe the violent storms that ripped apart homes and claimed 12 lives last weekend may have factored in the bird's death. They said birds have access to shelters where they can weather storms and the sanctuary has contingency plans for different environmental situations. But evacuations weren't performed since no tornadoes approached the sanctuary. Three other birds who were in the same shelter with Murphy survived. A veterinarian performed a necropsy and found the bald eagle sustained head trauma. “We are unable to determine if Murphy was spooked by something and hit his head while jumping off a perch or if wind and precipitation played a part in the injury,” a statement shared by the sanctuary on social media said. Murphy lived in the sanctuary's Avian Avenue exhibit area and rose to prominence in 2023 when he incubated a rock. His instincts were rewarded when he was allowed to foster an injured eaglet that he nurtured back to health. The eaglet was eventually released back to the wild and another eaglet was entrusted to Murphy's care. The second eaglet is expected to be released into the wild this summer.“In honor of Murphy’s legacy, we plan to name the eventual eagle fostering aviary Murphy’s Manor, so that we can continue to remember him for decades to come,” the sanctuary's statement added.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

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.