Environment

Water fluoridation: a Comprehensive View of the Debate

Medicine / By

Introduction:

The debate over water fluoridation (adding extra fluoride to community water) started in the 1960s, about ten years after the National Fluoridation Program was launched. Now, about 2/3rds of communities in the United States have fluoridated water to help prevent cavities. This is often referred to as one of the best achievements in public health in the last century. However, the United States is one of the few countries that does this, and, with Health Secretary RFK Jr. planning to tell the CDC to stop recommending water fluoridation, debates over water fluoridation have intensified. With there being a lot of debates over the Health Secretary himself, this debate in America has become increasingly political with both sides of the debate ignoring facts and ethical concerns that do not align with their political beliefs. So, this will be a comprehensive analysis of information on both sides to allow you to better understand this issu

Concerns:

There are a lot of studies about the ethical problems with water fluoridation and the medical issues it could potentially cause. The most major concern that people have is with having too much fluoride. The Department of Health and Human Services suggests having .7 milligrams of fluoride in every liter of water you drink, while the World Health Organization says that 1.5 milligrams per liter is needed to risk negative health effects. After the fluoridation process though, there is no possible way to control how much fluoride each person intakes. This is because some people, such as athletes and diabetics, have to drink more water than other people do. How much water people drink also depends on where they live because people in warmer climates usually drink more water than people who live in cooler areas. 

Some people might say that fluoride is completely safe because it is in toothpaste. However, when the fluoride is in the water, you ingest it and then about 50% of that ingested fluoride accumulates in places such as your tissues and bones. Having too much of this fluoride can cause skeletal fluorosis, which is a bone disease that causes bone/joint pain because the bones can become hardened and then be less elastic. This makes fractures more likely and can cause less joint mobility. Among other things, too much fluoride can also hurt a person’s parathyroid gland, which can cause hyperparathyroidism. This causes there to be less calcium in your bones and more calcium in your blood.

There are also concerns about the effects excess fluoride can have on children. For young kids, it could cause mild dental fluorosis where there are noticeable, yet harmless, white specks or streaks in their teeth’s enamel. Ingesting extra fluoride also has no benefits and only risks for infants younger than one years old. 

Finally, there is the ethical concern about forcing people to take medicine. This concern is actually why most European countries do not fluoridate their own water. Every person legally has the right to choose if they take a medication or not, and a lot of people question if water fluoridation violates this right. All of these combines issues make people wonder if community-wide water fluoridation is actually a good solution.

Benefits:

No matter the concerns, water fluoridation has been going on for decades in America for a reason. First of all, fluoride promotes teeth’s remineralization, meaning that it makes people’s enamel stronger so their teeth are better at fighting bacteria off. This reduces how quickly your teeth decay by 20-40%. By providing this fluoride to communities automatically, it saves people money on the dentist. This helps vulnerable communities more than you might think. When water is fluoridated, it diminishes oral health disparities where the economically disadvantaged have less access to dental care than others. The true impact of this is that when analyzing economics, it was found that if a person has less cavities, they are more likely to earn higher wages as an adult. 

To find out if water fluoridation really does have meaningful effects or not, a 2018 study was done about the city of Juneau, Alaska. In 2007, Juneau had stopped the fluoridation of water in their community. The team that performed this study went through youth’s dental records between 2003 and 2012. They found that in 2003, before the decision to stop water fluoridation, there were only 853 teens and young kids who needed dental care. In 2015, that number rose to 1,052. The study’s authors also found that “The odds of a child or adolescent undergoing a dental caries procedure in 2003 was 25.2 [percent] less than that of a child or adolescent in [2012].” Overall, this study shows how much of a positive impact fluoridation has while also exposing the dangers of stopping this practice. 

Conclusion:

While water fluoridation remains a hotly contested topic, some of the impacts can not be ignored. One on hand, cavities dropped by 60% in kids after the practice started. On the other hand, it is widely considered medicating without permission and could have adverse effects on people if not done properly. Debates over ethics and medicine have persisted for centuries, and this one is no different. Health Secretary RFK Jr. can not stop water fluoridation though. He can only stop the CDC from recommending it, and, if that happens, the choice to fluoridate water or not will be left to individual communities. So, no matter the politics, the debates over water fluoridation will last long past his decision and it is likely that a lot of communities will continue with this practice. 

References:

Brazier, Y. (2018, February 21). Why do we have fluoride in our water? Medical News Today. Retrieved May 12, 2025, from https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/fluoride-toothpaste#toothpaste-ingredients

Public Health on Call. (2024, November 26). Why Is Fluoride in Our Water? | Johns Hopkins | Bloomberg School of Public Health. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Retrieved May 12, 2025, from https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2024/why-is-fluoride-in-our-water

Unde, M. P., Patil, R. U., & Dastoor, P. P. (2018). The Untold Story of Fluoridation: Revisiting the Changing Perspectives. National Library of Medicine. Retrieved May 12, 2025, from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6309358/

Dire Wolves: Have we brought them back from extinction and at what cost?

Biology, Science / By

Introduction:

For the past week, the world has been going wild about an announcement by Texas-based company Colossal Biosciences. On April 8th, they announced that by using gene-editing and cloning, they have created three new dire wolves. The thing is though, dire wolves went extinct between 10,000 and 13,000 years ago. According to Colossal, they currently have three pups. Two of these pups, named Romulus and Remus, are six months old. There is also a female pup named Khaleesi who is just two months old. 

This could be a huge step in genetics, helping endangered species, and much more. However, it does raise ethical questions, questions about the future, and, with such a fantastical headline, one has to wonder just how faithful it is to reality. 

How is this possible?

Ben Lamm, the CEO of Colossal, refers to what they did as “indistinguishable from magic.” Of course, they didn’t wave magical wands and just create once-extinct wolves out of thin air. In order to achieve this “magical” task, they extracted DNA from ancient dire wolf fossils: a skull that is 72,000 years old and a tooth that is 13,000 years old.

One of the main things they used was cloning technology. Cloning has been happening for the past 29 years, starting with the cloning of sheep and moving on to the cloning of gray wolves, horses, and more. To do this, scientists use a tissue sample from the animal they want to clone to obtain just one cell. 

The next step is one that many animal rights groups question because it is very invasive. In this step, a single cell’s nucleus is taken out and put into an ovum of an animal of the same species. This animal also has had its nucleus removed. This ovum then grows into an embryo. After this, the embryo is moved into a surrogate’s womb. Finally, from this womb, a duplicate of the original animal the cell was extracted from is born. 

This is just the typical cloning technique though. For the dire wolves, they had to change it up a bit. To start their process, scientists studied the dire wolves’ genome in the skull and tooth. Then, they looked at the genetics of their closest living relative, the gray wolf, and compared the two. They claimed to have found 20 differences located in 14 genes. These few differences were the causes of dire wolves’ most prominent characteristics, such as how large they are and their different vocalizations. After the scientists identified these differences, they took some of the cells that line gray wolves’ blood vessels (endothelial progenitor cells, also called EPCs), and changed the fourteen genes. 

This editing had its issues because each gene usually does several things. For example, dire wolves have three different genes that serve the purpose of giving them their well-known light coat. However, in gray wolves, these genes can cause blindness and deafness. To solve this problem, the scientists had to make two new genes that stopped red and black pigmentation. This was able to give the wolves their signature light coat without hurting them. 

After they had done all of this, they took the edited nuclei from the cells and put them in a gray wolf’s ova that had already had its nucleus taken out. In total, this made 45 embryos that were moved into two domesticated hounds’ wombs. 65 days later, they gave birth to Remus and Romulus.

Ethical Conundrums and a Potential Hoax for Fame

Despite the fact that Colossal says that no animals were injured in this whole process, there are a lot of debates about the ethics of this development. There are also fierce debates about if the dire wolf actually has been brought back from extinction or not. 

For the ethics debate, there are a lot of factors. For example, there is the question of location. All humans know is that before dire wolves went extinct, they lived somewhere in the plains and mountains of North and South America. Currently, the pups are living on a 2,000-acre preserve that is secure and in a secret location. While this may sound like a lot of land, usually wolves live in much larger areas which lets them migrate to follow their food. It is also unknown where the wolves will live for the rest of their lives. While a lot of people are against them becoming a tourist attraction, it could be harmful to ecosystems if they were put into the wild since the environment is very different from when the wolves had gone extinct. In addition to all of this, the newly created wolves had no clue how to survive on their own and, because they went extinct so long ago, scientists don’t know much about their behaviors or even their past diets. 

Another side of the ethics debate has to do with human behavior. People are scared because this technology gives humans a chance to think that we can let any animal go extinct because we assume we can just bring them back in the future. These concerns have been furthered because, after Colossal’s announcement, the Trump administration suggested taking away endangered species’ legal protections. This whole situation has created a fear that this could give people the feeling that we can “play God” in a way. This all leads into the question of if humans actually have the ability now to de-extinct animals. 

In this debate, a lot of professors say that, while impressive, these pups are not truly dire wolves. Duke University professor Stuart Pimm called them a “designer dog” and said that the “dire wolf is not really closely related to a regular wolf.” While some people agree with him that they aren’t related, others claim that, even though they’re related, they are not closely related enough that changing 20 genes would create dire wolves. To that end, paleontologist Ric Rawlence says, “the gray wolf genome is 2,447,000,000 individual bases (DNA letters) long. Colossal has said that the gray wolf and dire wolf genomes are 99.5% identical, but that is still 12,235,000 individual differences.” He goes on to say that only making 20 edits still makes this species “very much a gray wolf.” With this, people are wondering if this is just a wild headline to make money or if it is a legitimate thing done to improve science. 

O, T. (2008, January 19). Woolly Mammoth like the one Colossal could create in the next few years. Flickr. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wooly_Mammoth-RBC.jpg

The Future of Colossal Gene-Editing

A lot of experts also question why scientists are spending so much time bringing animals back to life when they could be focusing on saving endangered species instead. According to Vox, the reasoning behind Colossal’s decision could be because de-extinction is a very difficult challenge and beating this challenge could lead to developments in technologies that could help future breakthroughs, like creating an artificial womb. Now that they have cloned the dire wolves, they have been working more on conservation. 

Colossal works to save endangered species from extinction by editing genes to maximize the genetic diversity of the remaining population. They have partnered with a lot of conservation organizations to make these breakthroughs possible. These organizations include the American Wolf Foundation, Save the Elephants, the Mauritian Wildlife Foundation, and more. They are also working with the native MHA Nation tribes, which are the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara. These tribes have said that they want the dire wolves to be moved to their lands in North Dakota, where they will live in the wild. Colossal also says that it could be possible for them to use their cloning techniques to put species’ blood samples into a biobank to prevent any species in the future from becoming endangered.

While they do plan to do this conservation work, they also plan on using their cloning technology to bring back even more animals from extinction. In March, they announced their most recent development in bringing woolly mammoths back. They showed that they created woolly mice, which are mice that they modified to have woolly mammoths’ traits. After this achievement, they say that they plan to edit Asian elephants’ nuclei to create baby woolly mammoths in 2028. In addition to this, Colossal also wants to bring back Tasmanian tigers and dodo birds.

Conclusion

Whether or not those 20 edits brought back dire wolves from extinction may be up for debate, but this announcement most assuredly could change the future of conservation and gene-editing. Even if they’re mostly gray wolves, this technologically impressive feat is a milestone in history. We now get the chance to shape history and try to navigate this challenge ethically.

As it currently stands, it is putting endangered species at risk of having their protection taken away. Maybe, in this new Jurassic Park-esque world, it’s not the new animals that kill us, but us that kill them and take down whole species because we feel like we can play God. We could do this, or we could use this technology to protect species while respecting animals’ rights by doing our part to protect their ecosystems and help them thrive. 

Figuring out the path forward will be complicated, but, with these dire wolves, we have accepted this responsibility. There may be no truly correct answer on what to do next. We just have to go step by step, always keeping our eyes on doing the next right thing. Then, instead of a sign of a potentially scary future, these unmistakably adorable wolf pups could be a sign that humans can reverse a few of our environmental wrong-doings. 

There is one question that only time and people’s decisions will answer: will we use this technology to redeem or to destroy?

References

Bolotnikova, M. (2025, April 10). The new dire wolves explain everything wrong with “de-extinction”. Vox. Retrieved April 16, 2025, from https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/407781/dire-wolves-deextinction-colossal-biosciences

Kekatos, M. (2025, April 11). Should we be bringing back extinct species? Ethical concerns raised after dire wolf allegedly resurrected. ABC News. Retrieved April 16, 2025, from https://abcnews.go.com/US/bringing-back-extinct-species-ethical-concerns-raised-after/story?id=120674068

Kluger, J. (2025, April 7). The Science Behind the Return of the Dire Wolf. Time. Retrieved April 16, 2025, from https://time.com/7275439/science-behind-dire-wolf-return/

Tiny but Mighty: UC Berkeley’s Micro-Robot Takes Flight with Magnetic Power

Technology / By

There’s a very popular saying that states “A little goes a long way.” That saying is exemplified through the University of California, Berkeley’s new smallest robot. Weighing in at just 21 milligrams and only being 9.4 millimeters in size, it is the smallest robot in the world that is capable of controllable flight.

Inspired by the movements of bumblebees, Liwei Lin, professor of mechanical engineering at UC Berkeley, aimed to create a robot that could mimic their precision, stating that “Bees exhibit remarkable aeronautical abilities, such as navigation, hovering, and pollination, that artificial flying robots of similar scale fail to do.” Typically, flight is only achievable in robots through motors, propellers, and electronics for flight control. These components prove to be a challenge to cram into such a miniscule frame. However, this robot is powered by external magnetic fields, with its body built to resemble a propeller, and has two magnets of opposite attraction attached, which provide the robot with the necessary lift to take off.

Lau, Adam. Campus Professor Liwei Lin Holds the Robot, Which Is Able to Pick up and Distribute Pollen and Nectar When Flown into Flowers. DailyCal.org, 2025

Magnetic force is caused by the rotation of electric charges, which creates an invisible force that can attract or repel other magnetic materials. This force creates an external magnetic field, which attracts and repels the magnet within the robot, spinning the propeller and causing the robot to fly. In this case, the field is generated by an electromagnetic field coil. By altering the strength of the magnetic field, the flight path of the robot can be accurately controlled.

With such a small frame, the possibilities are endless. One of the most promising applications is artificial pollination, as mentioned by Wei Yue, co-author of the study and Ph.D. candidate. “This flying robot can be wirelessly controlled to approach and hit a designated target, mimicking the mechanism of pollination as a bee collects nectar and flies away,” states Lin. This can be instrumental in supplementing global pollination. Trends have shown that populations of bees — who are the #1 pollinators in the world — have been steadily declining. If enough of these robots are produced, it could counteract the decline of the bee population. This is just one of the many uses. The next smallest size of robot is about 2.8 cm. This is over 3 times the size of the UC Berkeley model. The miniscule form of this robot makes it highly beneficial in rescue situations, as it will be able to squeeze into spaces previously deemed too small to fit into. They can also be useful in the field of medicine, with Yue stating that “They could potentially be used in minimally invasive surgery because we could inject a number of them into the body and have them cooperate together to form stents, ablate clots or do other tasks.”

 Lau, Adam, and Berkeley Engineering. “The Robot Was Designed to Mimic the Flight Behavior of Insects like Bumblebees.,” UC Berkeley News, 2025

Due to the nature of the frame, it is not possible for the robot to adjust its movements instantaneously, as on-board sensors are not able to fit. This means it cannot adapt to any unexpected changes or obstacles in its flight path. So, events like strong wind or rain can knock the robot off course. However, the scientists at UC Berkeley plan to further develop this technology, with Yue stating “In the future, we will try to add active control, which would allow us to change the robot’s attitude and position in real time.” Another drawback is that the magnetic field required to lift the robot is quite strong. This can be corrected by further shrinking the size of the robot down to about 1mm. This will make it light enough to be carried by weaker fields made from waves such as radio waves.

Innovation knows no bounds with UC Berkeley’s new smallest robot. Despite the challenges, this robot shows that big things can truly come from small packages. From saving the environment, to enhancing medical practices, to performing rescue missions, the possibilities are endless. 

References:

Jacobs, Skye. “Miniature Robot Takes Flight Using Magnetic Fields, No Onboard Power.” TechSpot, 3 Apr. 2025, www.techspot.com/news/107394-miniature-robot-takes-flight-using-magnetic-fields-no.html. Accessed 11 Apr. 2025.

Manke, Kara. “UC Berkeley Engineers Create World’s Smallest Wireless Flying Robot – Berkeley News.” Berkeley News, 28 Mar. 2025, news.berkeley.edu/2025/03/28/uc-berkeley-engineers-create-worlds-smallest-wireless-flying-robot/. Accessed 11 Apr. 2025.

Trovato, Roman. “UC Berkeley Engineers Create World’s Smallest Wireless Flying Robot.” Www.dailycal.org, 2 Apr. 2025, www.dailycal.org/news/campus/research-and-ideas/uc-berkeley-engineers-create-world-s-smallest-wireless-flying-robot/article_be09b0eb-5f5e-48a4-892c-b92cda6064ec.html. Accessed 11 Apr. 2025.

The Future of Environmental Policies in America

Climate Change / By

Since November, the US has undoubtedly been undergoing one of the most intense polarizations in modern history. The resurgence of certain advocacy groups, particularly those on climate change concerns have ignited new debates within the scientific community regarding the urgent role of government in addressing environmental policies. Fueled by Trump’s iconic campaign slogan,  “Drill, Baby, Drill, ” many climate change skeptics have rolled back even harder when it comes to voting for green alternatives, presenting the rising importance of understanding the risks that may front as a result of this conservative philosophy. 

Although media coverage on global warming has been dying down, it remains vital to realign our perspectives on this issue. The implications of climate change as a ‘positive good’ by legislators strays us from possible solutions that will become worthless within a few years in an irrevocable manner. The messages conveyed by our country’s leaders, in which they advocate for fossil fuel production and the deregulation of US carbon emissions, reflect a growing misguided perception of our nation, effectively placing it on a pedestal while allowing Americans to bear the consequences. But what does this actually entail? 

Worry regarding climate change is justified, as human-induced climate change is not a prospective issue lacking historical context. Continuous observations have clearly demonstrated that the production of greenhouse gases (GHGs) is the primary driver of alterations in the climate system and its effects on our environment. According to NOAA, GHGs constitute merely 1% of all air molecules in the atmosphere; however, the amount of heat energy they absorb is in significant amounts– part of it being re-radiated back toward the surface. There are several compounds of GHGs, namely CO2, CH4, N2O, and fluorinated gases. By slowing or hindering the loss of heat, these gases contribute to the warming of the Earth—an essential process for sustaining life. While their natural presence in our atmosphere creates optimal conditions through Earth’s natural greenhouse effect, human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels (such as coal and oil), amplify this process and disrupt the planet’s energy balance.

As a result, the increased concentration of these gases alters weather patterns, oceans, and ecosystems by shifting temperature and precipitation patterns, raising ocean temperatures, sea levels, and acidity, and accelerating the melting of glaciers and sea ice. These changes also lead to fluctuations in the frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme weather events, as well as shifts in ecosystem characteristics. Individuals in certain geographic locations face heightened vulnerabilities to these impacts. For instance, in Florida, residents are increasingly susceptible to catastrophic hurricanes due to warm waters, an extensive coastline, and atmospheric high-pressure systems. They are now experiencing intensified winds and rainfall, further exacerbated by rising sea levels.

During Trump’s first campaign in 2016, he was vocal about his opposition to environmental advocacy and climate legislation. His unwavering support for polluters raises questions about his genuine concern for public health and suggests he may continue to disregard scientific consensus. With these drawbacks in mind, can we trust others’ promises to turn green or will the U.S. remain dependent on oil and gas? Although a pivot toward sustainability could be underway, it is evident that the Trump administration prioritized reducing environmental regulations while downplaying the risks to America’s environmental future. It may be too soon to draw definitive conclusions, but it is reasonable to deduce that indications of Trump’s agenda, supported by his conservative allies in Congress, will hinder the United States’ transition to clean energy. 

References

https://www.climate.gov/ghg/what-are-greenhouse-gases-and-why-do-they-matter

https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/basics-climate-change#othergases

Proton-Coupled Energy Transfer Deciphered: High-Pressure Research Reveals Key Mechanisms

Science, Technology / By

In a groundbreaking study, a team of researchers have discovered new mechanisms of proton-coupled electron transfer (PCET), a fundamental process that is the base for life-sustaining reactions such as cellular respiration and photosynthesis. Using an innovative high-pressure technique, the team has successfully distinguished between two key reaction mechanisms, paving the way for advancements in energy conversion and storage technologies.

The Balancing Act of Electrons and Protons

Redox reactions, which involve the transfer of electrons between molecules, are critical to both natural and industrial processes. However, electron transfer alone can create energetically unfavorable charge imbalances. Nature’s solution? Coupling electron transfer with the movement of positively charged protons. As the researchers explain, “This proton-coupled electron transfer (PCET), as it is known, does not produce any change in charge—the most efficient way for a redox reaction to occur.”

But how exactly do these transfers occur? There are two possibilities: either electrons and protons move simultaneously in a “concerted” mechanism, or they transfer separately in a stepwise fashion. “To be able to optimize these processes, we need to know the exact mechanisms,” says Professor Ivana Ivanović-Burmazović. “Before now, however, there has been no direct method for differentiating the two alternatives with certainty. Our work set out to remedy this.”

Pressure Yields the Answer

The research team, led by Professor Ivana Ivanović-Burmazović of LMU Munich and Professor Dirk Guldi from FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg, investigated the influence of pressure on a light-induced reaction in a photosensitive molecule. By applying pressures of up to 1,200 atmospheres (atm), they observed how the reaction rate changed or was unaffected under extreme conditions. “If high pressure—in the experiment, up to 1,200 atmospheres—is applied and the reaction rate remains unchanged, it is a concerted reaction,” explains Ivanović-Burmazović. “When electrons and protons are transferred simultaneously, charge of reacting species does not change and neither does the associated solvation sphere—that is, the cluster of solvent molecules surrounding the molecules. Therefore, pressure has no influence on reaction rate—a clear sign of a concerted mechanism.” Conversely, if the rate changes, this points to changes in the charge and to a change in the volume of the solvation sphere—indicating a stepwise process.

Original diagram explaining (pressure-based) Concerted vs Stepwise mechanisms

Surprising Control Over Reaction Pathways

The team’s findings went beyond mere observation. “By increasing the pressure, we managed to steer the reaction from a stepwise mechanism toward a concerted mechanism,” says Ivanović-Burmazović. This level of control opens up new possibilities for designing and optimizing chemical processes.

Implications for Energy and Beyond

The study’s results have potential for practical applications. As the authors emphasize, “The new findings are highly significant for numerous research areas that deal with the motion of electrons and protons. They not only offer new insights into fundamental chemical processes, but could also help advance new technologies concerned with the conversion and storage of chemical energy—such as redox catalysis for the generation of solar fuels or for hydrogen production.”

Example of high-pressure reactors (Optimus Instruments)

Looking Ahead

The team’s innovative use of high-pressure techniques sets a new standard for studying complex reaction mechanisms. As researchers continue to explore the intricacies of PCET, the findings could lead to breakthroughs in fields as diverse as biochemistry, materials science, and renewable energy.

For now, one thing is clear: the connection between high-pressure science and molecular chemistry has furthered our understanding of the building blocks of life and energy to a new level.

Citations:

Langford, D., Rohr, R., Bauroth, S. et al. High-pressure pump–probe experiments reveal the mechanism of excited-state proton-coupled electron transfer and a shift from stepwise to concerted pathways. Nat. Chem. (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41557-025-01772-5

Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. “Proton-coupled electron transfer: Deciphered with high pressure.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 21 March 2025. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/03/250321121450.htm>.

High pressure reactors – optimus instruments. (2024, June 27). Optimus Instruments. https://optimus.be/subject/high-pressure-reactors/

The Fading Stars: Exploring Global Light Pollution

Astronomy, Physics, Science / By

A pollution that you can expect no one to talk about, is Light Pollution. Harmless at a glance, but poses an underlying depth of detriments. 

According to the Oxford Dictionary, Light Pollution is the existence of too much artificial light in the environment, for example from street lights, which makes it difficult to see the stars. But do the effects stop here? Most certainly not.

Disrupting the natural patterns of wildlife, an increase in the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and complicated health problems are just fractions of the effects that the majority of the populace in urban areas are turning a blind eye to. So much coming from a small bulb hanging in your room huh? But why is the light radiation coming out of a simple light bulb posing such a threat you may ask?

Well, as the Nepali saying goes “Too much sugar is bitter”, and so is the case with bulbs. Few of them pose almost zero to negligible effect but in the context of urban areas housing 4.4 billion inhabitants, things get complicated.

Diving into the sole causes responsible for light pollution, the ones making the headlines are the residential lights and the dense populace.

This image helps us depict how light radiation in different areas across the United States varied over the past few decades. A general trend we can notice is that, as the population increased the brighter the night was.

When a lot of sources of light emitting devices are concentrated in a small area, light emitted from say a bulb usually directed towards the ground covers a broad surface area while also increasing the space of the glare region. And like all mediums, the ground also acts as a medium for reflection, and the waves of light travel onto the sky only to be deflected by the heavy clouds. This causes for the light particles to be trapped and its appearance is that of a haze during night time.

The image by Anezka Gocova, in “The Night Issue”, Alternatives Journal 39:5 helps for better visualisation.

To bring forth the gravity of this situation, a prime example would be the L. A power outage, caused by an earthquake in 1994. Panicking residents rushed to inform authorities through 911 to complain about the Milky Way Cluster they were seeing. (similar to the image below taken by Forest Wander)

Mind you, this astounding night view was something all humans around the world could see at night back when proper lighting hadn’t been invented.

Scientists fear that with time, even the brightest stars would stop shining if the light pollution isn’t controlled and that children in the coming generations won’t aspire to study astronomy as there would be nothing to see in the night sky.

Relating to the Nepali saying again, It’s the collective effort that counts. Some little countermeasures that one can take to reduce the drastic effects of light pollution are:

  • Use motion-sensor lights.
  • Direct outdoor lights downward.
  • Replace bulbs with energy-efficient LEDs.
  • Dim or lower-intensity outdoor lights.
  • Install lighting only where needed.
  • Use window coverings to block light.
  • Don’t leave decorative lights on all night.

Battling Plastic Pollution: Unveiling Nature’s Tiny Heroes

Biology, Ecology, Editors Pick, Science / By

Polyethylene, plastic for short. It’s used everywhere, from the humble water bottle to grand and towering airplanes. We all hear that plastic doesn’t decompose, but many of us adopt an “out of sight, out of mind” thinking process. But, all because you can’t see a problem doesn’t mean that it’s not there. 

Over 170 trillion plastic pieces are in our oceans currently, with that number exponentially skyrocketing. This causes several issues, primarily a negative impact on wildlife and ecosystems within the ocean (colloquially referred to as plastic pollution). 

Fish (among other aquatic creatures) run the risk of being constricted by plastic rings, eating miniature pieces of them, or even having them cut against their skin. Not only this, but the plastic itself is toxic, with it containing thousands of chemicals that are harmful for aquatic life but also anyone else who comes in contact with contaminated water, humans included.

Image credit: https://www.surfacemag.com/articles/plastic-research-toxins-carcinogens/, depicts a gigantic pile of empty plastic containers. 

Since the dawn of its creation, it was just assumed as an unfortunate reality that we had to accept: gain a powerful, versatile, and cheap material and sentence the oceans and all the life it maintains to the guillotine. After all, it would cost an arm and a leg (upwards of $150 billion specifically) to remove the majority, not even all, of the plastic. 

But what if human hands combined with those of Mother Nature? What if we called upon the meek insects that scurry on the floors we stepped on to remove this pollution? What if we found a solution to this problem, a cheap and readily available cure for this illness? Well, that may just be possible.

October of 2022 brought more than just the welcoming of Halloween, it also was the time of a critical discovery: a type of caterpillar whose spit could decompose plastic. This was oddly enough discovered by a hobbyist beekeeper named Federica, who placed these caterpillars (wax moth in particular) into a plastic bag and found out briefly afterward that they had escaped, leaving multiple holes as their tunnels to freedom. 

But first, let’s review how they were able to do that. They utilized two specific enzymes, or proteins designed to cause a biochemical reaction, named Ceres and Demeter. These were considerably faster at decomposing plastic than traditional means (e.g. fungi or general bacteria), which could take weeks at a time. 

Scientists are currently looking to harvest and mass-produce these enzymes to decompose plastic at a more global scale. Although this is still in the beta phase of testing, it does offer a multitude of questions. How much faster do these enzymes decay plastic than conventional means? Are there other enzymes like this? How long will it take before it can be synthesized and ready for mass engineering? 

But, it does offer something important: a step in the right direction. With the capabilities of science and the will of those who desire clean water free of plastic residue, anything is possible, just maybe with the help of some little bugs by our side. 

Microplastics are everywhere — but are they dangerous?

Ecology, Immunology, Medicine, Science / By

Originally perceived as a marine issue, with oceanographers estimating a total of 15–51 trillion microplastic particles floating on surface waters worldwide, scientists have recently discovered that these tiny particles can contaminate rivers, soils and air. Furthermore, these minuscule particles have been found in a range of food, human stool, and even made their way into some of Earth’s most remote regions; including the poles, the equator, and even Mount Everest.

Plastics are a group of materials, either synthetic or naturally occurring; used in numerous applications in our daily life. They are the third most abundant material, after concrete and steel, and are used in countless sectors; ranging from medicine to transport.

Microplastics are microscopic fragments of plastic debris, that usually emerge from plastic litter due to sunlight exposure, which causes the material to degrade and weaken over time; they can also come from plastic items due to wear and tear. For instance, up to 1.5 million microfibres, a type of microplastic, can be released per kilogram of clothing during a wash. Remarkably, even opening a plastic bottle can create thousands of microplastics. One may ask, are humans ingesting these minute particles?

The short answer is: yes, with the discovery of microplastics found in stool verifying this question. As of today, microplastics have been found in foods and drinks, mainly bottled and tap water, salt, dust, and more. According to a study conducted in Queensland, researchers studied samples of rice from different countries around the world, detecting microplastics in every sample; whether the rice was grown in Thailand, India, Pakistan, or Australia, and packaged in plastic or paper. In an interview, Dr Jake O’Brien, a lead author for Environmental Health Sciences, states “Washing the rice reduced the amount of plastic likely to be ingested. But the study used special filtered water for rinsing, and most households only have access to tap water; which contains microplastics.”

There currently isn’t enough evidence to say that microplastics are harmful, as the topic is relatively new. A lack of information and research surrounding the phenomenon is scarce, as scientists aim to establish an evidence base. Prof Ian Musgrave, a toxicologist at the University of Adelaide, expresses “Knowing if microplastics are harmful to humans is hard to untangle when we are exposed to so many other substances. While we are consuming things that have tiny amounts of microplastics, we don’t absorb them. But because we can’t demonstrate damage, that’s not a reason to be casual.” Additionally, this explains why multiple studies on the ingestion of microplastics by marine animals, can’t completely isolate the impact microplastics have against all the other pollution and pressure they are exposed to in the environment, as it’s difficult to perform.

Likewise, there are emerging studies on the effects of ingesting high levels of microplastics in rats and mice, concluding that high levels of microplastic accumulation can affect reproduction. Nevertheless, it is more likely that the smaller the particles the greater the potential to cause harm, as smaller specks have an easier chance of entering cells or tissues; however, quantifying these issues and understanding where they come from is a challenge.

While the debate is still ongoing as to whether microplastic could cause harm, you may still wish to limit your exposure. To limit your exposure, you can drink filtered tap water, and choose natural-based products over plastic for yourself and your environment will help reduce microplastic exposure. Overall, minimising microplastic exposure globally requires a substantial effort to limit the release of plastics, and microplastics, to the environment. Reducing plastic waste, washing your clothes less often, and bringing your own bag whilst shopping; all can contribute to limiting plastic release and even production; thus decreasing microplastic exposure.

Whatever the solution, it’s important that it’s better for both the planet and people.