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

E.P.A. Proposes Limits on Nitrogen Oxides

Nitrogen oxides, a group of gases from the burning of fossil fuels, is linked to a range of health effects.

A rule proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday could better protect communities against pollution from natural gas plants.For the first time in almost two decades, the rule would update emission limits of nitrogen oxides, a group of gases that are harmful air pollutants produced from burning fossil fuels. The emissions can contribute to asthma and respiratory infections, especially in children, older people and those who are immunocompromised.“These stronger standards are necessary to better protect nearby communities’ health, and the power sector has already shown that the additional pollution controls can affordably and reliably do the job,” said Joseph Goffman, the E.P.A.’s assistant administrator for air and radiation, in a statement.The proposal was created to limit nitrogen oxide emissions from all new turbines built at power plants and industrial facilities, along with any existing turbines that are modified or reconstructed after the proposal takes effect.The stricter standards could also lead to reductions in other types of pollution, like particulate matter and ozone, by lowering the amount available to react with other volatile organic compounds.“Ultimately, the healthiest option for families across the nation is for power plants to stop burning fossil fuels altogether and for utilities to invest in clean and reliable renewable energy,” said Holly Bender, the Sierra Club’s chief energy officer, in a statement.Despite advancements in pollution control technology and an increased understanding of how nitrogen oxide harms human health, limits on the amount of nitrogen oxide that can be released have not been updated since 2006.While the Clean Air Act requires the E.P.A. to review protections against air pollution from power plants every eight years, the nitrogen oxide limits lagged for 18 years. The new standard is the result of a 2022 lawsuit brought by the Environmental Defense Fund and the Sierra Club that requires the E.P.A. to take a final action on new limits by November 2025, following a public comment period.The fate of the proposed standard is uncertain after January, when the Trump administration takes over.“It should not go without noting that the incoming Trump administration has repeatedly vowed to slash rules and regulations issued by agencies across the government,” said Julie McNamara, deputy policy director for the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a statement.The E.P.A. estimates the proposed standard would reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by more than 2,600 tons by 2032, producing roughly $45 million in public health benefits each year.

Eating less sugar would be great for the planet as well as our health

"Globally, sugar intake has quadrupled over the last 60 years . . ."

Sugar addiction is on the rise. Globally, sugar intake has quadrupled over the last 60 years, and it now makes up around 8% of all our calories. This sounds like sugar's keeping us fed, but added sugars are actually empty calories – they are bereft of any nutrients like vitamins or fibers. The result is massive health costs, with sugars linked to obesity around the world. Some estimates suggest that half the global population could be obese by 2035. A limited 20% reduction in sugar is estimated to save US$10.3 billion (£8.1 billion) of health costs in the US alone. Yet, sugar's impacts go far beyond just health and money. There are also many environmental problems from growing the sugar, like habitat and biodiversity loss and water pollution from fertilizers and mills. But overall, sugar hasn't received a lot of attention from the scientific community despite being the largest cultivated crop by mass on the planet. In a recent article, we evaluated sugar's environmental impacts and explored avenues for reducing sugar in the diet to recommended levels either through reducing production or using the saved sugar in environmentally beneficial ways. By phasing out sugar, we could spare land that could be rewilded and stock up on carbon. This is especially important in biodiverse tropical regions where sugar production is concentrated such as Brazil and India. But a different, more politically palatable option might be redirecting sugar away from diets to other environmentally-beneficial uses such as bioplastics or biofuels. Our study shows that the biggest opportunity is using sugar to feed microbes that make protein. Using saved sugar for this microbial protein could produce enough plant-based, protein-rich food products to regularly feed 521 million people. And if this replaced animal protein it could also have huge emission and water benefits. We estimate that if this protein replaced chicken, it could reduce emissions by almost 250 million tons, and we'd see even bigger savings for replacing beef (for reference, the UK's national fossil fuel emissions are around 300 million tons). Given sugar has a far lower climate impact than meat, this makes a lot of sense. Another alternative is to use the redirected sugar to produce bioplastics, which would replace around 20% of the total market for polyethelyne, one of the most common forms of plastic and used to produce anything from packaging to pipes. Or to produce biofuels, producing around 198 million barrels of ethanol for transportation. Brazil already produces around 85% of the world's ethanol and they produce it from sugar, but instead of having to grow more sugar for ethanol we could redirect the sugar from diets instead. This estimation is based on a world where we reduce dietary sugar to the maximum in dietary recommendations (5% of daily calories). The benefits would be even larger if we reduced sugar consumption even further. Supply chain challenges This sounds like a big win-win: cut sugar to reduce obesity and help the environment. But these changes present a huge challenge in a sugar supply chain spanning more than 100 countries and the millions of people that depend on sugar's income. National policies like sugar taxes are vital, but having international coordination is also important in such a sprawling supply chain. Sustainable agriculture is being discussed at the UN's climate summit, Cop29, in Azerbaijan this week. Sustainable sugar production should factor into these global talks given the many environmental problems and opportunities from changing the way we grow and consume sugar. We also suggest that groups of countries could come together in sugar transition partnerships between producers and consumers that encourage a diversion of sugar away from peoples' diets to more beneficial uses. This could be coordinated by the World Health Organization which has called for a reduction in sugar consumption. Some of the money to fund these efforts could even come from part of the health savings in national budgets. We can't hope to transition the way we produce and eat sugar overnight. But by exploring other uses of sugar, we can highlight what environmental benefits we are missing out on and help policymakers map a resource-efficient path forward to the industry while improving public health.   Don't have time to read about climate change as much as you'd like? Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation's environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who've subscribed so far. Paul Behrens, British Academy Global Professor, Future of Food, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford and Alon Shepon, Principal Investigator, Department of Environmental Studies, Tel Aviv University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

CDC warns cruise passengers of hot tub disease outbreak

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has alerted cruise-goers of the dangers of hot tub usage on ships. The post CDC warns cruise passengers of hot tub disease outbreak appeared first on SA People.

CDC issues warning of hot tub-caused Legionnaires’ Disease The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently released a health warning following an outbreak of Legionnaires’ Disease among passengers who had been on cruises.  As reported by Travel News, the CDC found that a number of cases of Legionnaires’ Disease were connected by an unnamed cruise ship, between November 2022 and April 2024 of this year. Private outdoor hot tubs on the balconies of two cruise ships were pinpointed as the source of the bacteria for multiple infections between the period, as stated in a report last month from the CDC. “Epidemiologic, environmental and laboratory evidence suggests that private balcony hot tubs were the likely source of exposure in two outbreaks of Legionnaires’ disease among cruise ship passengers,” the CDC said in the report.   “These devices are subject to less stringent operating requirements than public hot tubs, and operating protocols were insufficient to prevent Legionella growth.” they added. What is Legionnaires’ Disease? According to Cleveland Clinic: “Legionnaires’ disease is a serious type of pneumonia you get when Legionella bacteria infect your lungs. Symptoms include high fever, cough, diarrhea and confusion. You can get Legionnaires’ disease from water or cooling systems in large buildings, like hospitals or hotels.” Legionella is found naturally in lakes, streams and soil, but it can also contaminate drinking water and air systems, especially in large buildings. You can breathe small droplets of water directly into your lungs, or water in your mouth can get into your lungs accidentally You also have an increased risk of getting Legionnaires’ disease if you: Are older than 50. Smoke or used to smoke cigarettes. Have a weakened immune system. Certain medical conditions (like HIV, diabetes, cancer and kidney or liver disease) and medications can compromise your immune system. Have a long-term respiratory illness, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or emphysema. Live in a long-term care facility. Have stayed in a hospital recently. Have had surgery requiring anesthesia recently. Have received an organ transplant recently. The post CDC warns cruise passengers of hot tub disease outbreak appeared first on SA People.

TCEQ to hold public permit renewal meeting for Houston concrete plant with past compliance issues

The Torres Brothers Ready Mix plant has “a history of violations,” according to the Harris County Attorney’s Office. Air Alliance Houston is urging community members to attend the Monday night meeting.

Katie Watkins/Houston Public MediaMany concrete batch plant facilities have permits to operate 24 hours a day. Residents will often complain of the bright lights and noise at night.The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality will hear public comments on the permit renewal of a concrete plant with a history of water and air pollution issues. "They have a history of noncompliance," said Crystal Ngo, environmental justice outreach coordinator with Air Alliance Houston. Over the course of three visits from 2021 through 2024, Harris County Pollution Control Services documented "significant violations" of the state's clean air and water laws at the Torres Brothers Ready Mix plant in South Houston. The Harris County Attorney's Office argued the plant is "unable to comply" with the conditions of its permit and state laws. The county is involved in ongoing litigation with the company and seeks more than $1 million in relief. Torres Brothers did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The plant is one of five in the area. TCEQ doesn't consider the cumulative impact of separate facilities in its permitting process. Instead, it examines the compliance of individual sites. Ngo pointed to public health concerns related to air, water, noise and particulate matter pollution, as well as noise and light nuisances. "With so many concrete batch planets within environmental justice communities, predominantly communities of color, this higher exposure is just disproportionate to more affluent neighborhoods in Houston," Ngo said. The meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m. Monday, Nov. 18, at the Hiram Clarke Multi-Service Center.

Standing Desks Are Better for Your Health—but Still Not Enough

Two recent studies offer some of the most nuanced evidence yet about the potential benefits and risks of working on your feet.

Without question, inactivity is bad for us. Prolonged sitting is consistently linked to higher risks of cardiovascular disease and death. The obvious response to this frightful fate is to not sit—move. Even a few moments of exercise can have benefits, studies suggest. But in our modern times, sitting is hard to avoid, especially at the office. This has led to a range of strategies to get ourselves up, including the rise of standing desks. If you have to be tethered to a desk, at least you can do it while on your feet, the thinking goes.However, studies on whether standing desks are beneficial have been sparse and sometimes inconclusive. Furthermore, prolonged standing can have its own risks, and data on work-related sitting has also been mixed. While the final verdict on standing desks is still unclear, two studies out this year offer some of the most nuanced evidence yet about the potential benefits and risks of working on your feet.Take a SeatScience NewsletterYour weekly roundup of the best stories on health care, the climate crisis, new scientific discoveries, and more. Delivered on Wednesdays.For years, studies have pointed to standing desks improving markers for cardiovascular and metabolic health, such as lipid levels, insulin resistance, and arterial flow-mediated dilation (the ability of arteries to widen in response to increased blood flow). But it's unclear how significant those improvements are to averting bad health outcomes, such as heart attacks. One 2018 analysis suggested the benefits might be minor.And there are fair reasons to be skeptical about standing desks. For one, standing—like sitting—is not moving. If a lack of movement and exercise is the root problem, standing still wouldn't be a solution.Yet, while sitting and standing can arguably be combined into the single category of “stationary,” some researchers have argued that not all sitting is the same. In a 2018 position paper published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, two health experts argued that the link between poor health and sitting could come down to the specific populations being examined and “the special contribution” of “sitting time at home, for example, the ‘couch potato effect.’”The two researchers—emeritus professors David Rempel, formerly at the University of California, San Francisco, and Niklas Krause, formerly of UCLA—pointed to several studies looking specifically at occupational sitting time and poor health outcomes, which have arrived at mixed results. For instance, a 2013 analysis did not find a link between sitting at work and cardiovascular disease. Though the study did suggest a link to mortality, the link was only among women. There was also a 2015 study on about 36,500 workers in Japan who were followed for an average of 10 years. That study found that there was no link between mortality and sitting time among salaried workers, professionals, and people who worked at home businesses. However, there was a link between mortality and sitting among people who worked in farming, forestry, and fishing industries.Still, despite some murkiness in the specifics, more recent studies continue to turn up a link between total prolonged sitting—wherever that sitting occurs—and poor health outcomes, particularly cardiovascular disease. This has kept up interest in standing desks in offices, where people don't always have the luxury of frequent movement breaks. And this, in turn, has kept researchers on their toes to try to answer whether there is any benefit to standing desks.

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.