SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " topic " 683 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Miami workshop to address topics of women's health
One women’s wellness advocate is bringing medical experts to South Florida to help women better understand their bodies at every stage of life. NBC6’s Sheli Muñiz reports
Judge Judy’s ‘selfishness’ slammed by“ The View” cohosts after TV icon told unhappy Americans to ‘go somewhere else’
Judy Sheindlin raised eyebrows at the Hot Topics table — particularly as Ana Navarro and Sunny Hostin criticized her, though Sara Haines and Alyssa Farah Griffin came to her defense.
Bladen Small Business Center to host “Funding Toolbox” Small Business RoundTable
Small business owners and aspiring entrepreneurs are invited to attend the September Small Business RoundTable at Bladen Community College, featuring a practical discussion on one of the most important challenges facing entrepreneurs: finding the right funding for a business.The September RoundTable, “The Funding Toolbox,” will be held Monday, Sept.28, from 5:30–7 p.m. in Building 14, Room 135, at Bladen Community College.Sponsored by the Bladen Community College Small Business Center (SBC) and the Elizabethtown-White Lake Area Chamber of Commerce, the event will bring together experts familiar with the Small Business Center and SSBCI programs to help participants better understand the funding resources available to entrepreneurs and small businesses.Rather than focusing on one type of financing, “The Funding Toolbox” will explore a variety of funding tools and resources that may be available depending on a business's stage, needs and goals. Participants will have an opportunity to learn about available programs, how they work, what lenders and funding organizations look for, and how business owners can prepare to seek financing.Topics will include:Funding options for startups and existing businessesLoans and other financing resourcesSSBCI-supported funding opportunitiesHow to determine which funding option may fit your businessWhat lenders and funding organizations look forPreparing financial information and documentationResources available to help businesses become funding-ready“The Funding Toolbox” is designed for both aspiring entrepreneurs and established small business owners who are considering starting, expanding or investing in their businesses.The Small Business RoundTable provides an informal setting where local entrepreneurs can learn, ask questions, share experiences and connect with business-resource partners. The program is part of the ongoing efforts of the Bladen Community College Small Business Center and the Elizabethtown-White Lake Area Chamber of Commerce to strengthen and support small businesses throughout the community.The September RoundTable is free and open to the public.For more information or to register, contact the Bladen Community College Small Business Center at 910-879-5572.Event DetailsWhat: Small Business RoundTable – The Funding ToolboxWhen: Monday, Sept.28, 2026 | 5:30–7 p.m.Where: Bladen Community College, Building 14, Room 135Cost: FreeSponsors: Bladen Community College Small Business Center and Elizabethtown-White Lake Area Chamber of Commerce
Not Long Ago, Trump Accused China of Election Meddling. Today, ‘Great Friendship.’
President Trump softened much of his stance toward China as he prepared to host its leader. But his disregard of a topic that has consumed him — the 2020 election — was particularly stark.
Author Sarah Longwell says political character counts in ‘How to Eat an Elephant’
Is the idea of political virtue outdated? What do voters say when asked if character counts? That’s just one of the complicated topics Sarah Longwell, publisher of The Bulwark and host of The Focus Group Podcast, tackles in her new book, “How to Eat an Elephant: One Voter at a Time.”
The Reality of Human Sex Differences: Why It Matters for Science, Medicine, and Policy, and Why We Need to Talk About It
This lecture is part of the NIH Scientific Freedom Lecture Series, which is designed to promote the principles of gold standard science by providing a formal venue for thoughtful discussion of complex scientific topics. Each...
An army of paid creators is carpeting the web with political content
Functioning more like birdshot than a single bullet, these high-volume social media campaigns represent the new vanguard of modern political influence, saturating the internet with a topic.
WHO announces expansion of prequalification programme for medical devices
WHO) today announced a major expansion of its prequalification programme to include a wider range of life-saving medical devices such as contraceptives and innovative tuberculosis (TB) screening technologies.
LRZ Hosts TPC Europe Hackathon on AI for Science and Supercomputing
Agentic AI is currently a hot topic in the scientific community: during the Trillion Parameter Consortium’s autumn hackathon at the LRZ, teams presented practical solutions designed to make supercomputers more accessible and research projects more efficient. Sept. 24, 2026 — In the seminar rooms of the Leibniz Supercomputing Centre (LRZ), small groups stand in front […]
LRZ Hosts TPC Europe Hackathon on AI for Science and Supercomputing
Agentic AI is currently a hot topic in the scientific community: during the Trillion Parameter Consortium’s autumn hackathon at the LRZ, teams presented practical solutions designed to make supercomputers more accessible and research projects more efficient. Sept. 24, 2026 — In the seminar rooms of the Leibniz Supercomputing Centre (LRZ), small groups stand in front […]
Postdocs Speak for Science at the 10th Annual Research Day
In the future, all medical topics will be famous for four minutes
In the Know: Save a Life Day provides overdose harm reduction resources nationwide
Sept. 24, 2026, is Save a Life Day, a nationwide day of action to help people struggling with drug addiction and raise overdose awareness. Volunteers nationwide host events to give out free naloxone. 'In the know' features one or two local news topics to keep you informed as you start your day.
The entertainment value of cruelty
Ariana Grande's body has been the hot topic for the last few months, as it is for most women celebrities, but the commentary isn't as much focused on her body as it is on her ethics. Her apparent thinness has branded her a victim, a villain, a case to be analyzed, diagnosed, and ridiculed. Cruelty online is rampant; we all know this. But why?
State Chamber CEO: Data centers need to be ‘regulated properly’
Randy Zook, CEO of the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce and the Associated Industries of Arkansas, is on the front lines of economic development in the state. The hot topics...
An Insightful Trip To Bearwood
Bobbins reports back from a revealing fan event at Bearwood on Tuesday, which provided information on a wide variety of fascinating topics.
New schizophrenia treatments, AI in mental health among topics at inaugural symposium in Roanoke
The two-day gathering on precision therapeutics will be held at the Fralin Biomedical Research Institute at VTC.
San Francisco 49ers Urged to Make Major Mac Jones Decision
The San Francisco 49ers have become a team mentioned quite often in the NFL rumor mill following Week 2. Those rumors would not see the team acquire a player. Instead, they would see the 49ers opt to trade one. Mac Jones has become a hot topic across the NFL. Quite a few teams saw their […] The post San Francisco 49ers Urged to Make Major Mac Jones Decision appeared first on Gridiron Heroics.
The Business Of Healthcare Is Oct. 1 Community Chatter Topic
Dr. Eric Fish, President & CEO of Schneck Medical Center, will lead the discussion on the Business of Healthcare when the monthly Community Chatter Series is held at Brownstown Methodist Church from 7-8 a.m. on Thursday, Oct. 1. The public is cordially invited to attend. Brownstown United Methodist Church is located at 110 N. Poplar […]
Heart health with 40+ Double Dutch Club
"The Marissa Mitchell Show" is a live news and lifestyle program with the goal to inform, inspire, and entertain through discussions about a variety of topics, ranging from current events and relationships, to finances, parenting, wellness, and more.
Nimesh Patel on stand-up, Palestine and politics: ‘The way that religion’s been weaponized is ugly’
The comedian went from being discovered by Chris Rock to making Saturday Night Live history. Now his new Netflix special, Buy the Dip, tackles timely topics with optimism
Soup with Substance: Beyond the Politics of Borders, Sept. 23
Soup with Substance will feature an interdisciplinary panel discussion with Marquette faculty whose research engages with topics and questions related to immigration.
Movie recommendations based on St. Louis Cardinals players
This is a baseball blog, so I am supposed to talk about baseball. One of my other passions is movies, so I try to find any excuse to write about movies if I can’t think of a good baseball-related topic to write about. And in order to write about movies, I need to connect it […]
LASK capitulation a major factor in Celtic’s current woes
Despite starting the campaign well enough, Celtic’s form has taken a massive nosedive over the last week or so and the reason behind that is the topic of much debate…LASK vs Celtic, Linz 25 August...
Holy Cross fosters civil discourse over contentious topics
The college's “Dialogue Dinners” invite students to engage in constructive discourse, led by a student facilitator, that begins with an acknowledgement that the conversation should start from a point of curiosity, not critique.
Which side Is Ed Sheeran on?
He addressed the Kraft-Macklemore uproar at a show last night—but some topics have no safe middle ground.
Open Thread, September 20, 2026: Two Truths and a Lie
Your daily source for off topic chatter with the MMA Mania faithful.
Mizzou Honors 1960 National Championship Team During Halftime
Back in August, the Missouri Tigers officially claimed the 1960 National Championship. It is the Tigers’ only claim to college football royalty in program history.The Tigers claimed the title after the United States Congress, led by Missouri Senator Eric Schmitt, awarded it to them when the Senator brought the topic to the Senate on Aug. […] The post Mizzou Honors 1960 National Championship Team During Halftime appeared first on HEAVY.
Letter: Move Science Museum to Berglund Center
The Berglund Center is a hot topic of discussion these days. How to preserve it and keep it relevant for future generations?
Association Between Electronic Health Record Health Maintenance Topic and Lung Cancer Screening Completion in a Resident-Run Clinic
Introduction: Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer-specific mortality in high-risk populations, yet screening rates remain low nationwide. Ele...
Science on Tap: Mechanics of Messaging
A monthly series of informal discussions by the SEE Science Center on relevant topics with local experts and scientists. Doors open at 5pm. Events are free. Advance Sign up appreciated. Food and drink can be ordered off the menu.Oct. 13 Topic: Mechanics of MessagingWe all know that Gutenberg changed the world, but printing technology did not stop there. Join us to discuss how NH has played a role in the evolution of high-tech printing and related technologies. From Dot-Matrix, to Ink jet to Laser and 3-D discover what is being employed, how it evolved and where it is headed next.Panelists will include:James K McMahon- Layer Grown Model Technology Services-Retired
Science Vs on the 49ers Substation: Anatomy of a Hatchet Job
In August, Pablo Torre Finds Out and Science Vs released an episode about my theory that electromagnetic fields from the electrical substation beside the 49ers facility may be contributing to the team’s run of soft-tissue injuries. As the originator of the theory, I was also a subject of the episode. I sat was interviewed by Wendy Zukerman and Rose Rimler of Sciene Vs. I sent them research, connected them with scientists, and spent hours digging through the City of Santa Clara’s and Silicon Valley Power’s records to help clarify critical details. Both Wendy and Rose came off as affable and professional, showing curiosity during the interviews, with Wendy going out of her way to question the “conspiracy theory” framing itself. Then they titled the episode We Solve the 49ers Viral Conspiracy Theory. I was familiar enough with their catalog that I never expected them to agree with my theory, but I did expect them to give it a fair hearing and to deliver their findings honestly. On both counts they came up short. They were not directly dishonest in anything they said, but rather in what they left out, in how what remained was cut, and in the picture painted by those two things in combination. They asked me to recorded the interview on my phone for better audio quality, and I held on to my copy for reference later. That turned out to be a fortuitous decision. Here is the raw audio of my first interview, unedited*. Only my side was recorded, so their questions aren’t on it, but you can generally infer them from the answers, and every claim I make below about what I said can be checked against my statements in this clip. (Note: Wendy had connection trouble at the beginning of the interview and was cutting in and out, which accounts for the false starts.) 0:00 -1:19:13 Audio playback is not supported on your browser. Please upgrade. Science Vs is a fun show. It is pitched at roughly a high-school understanding of science, for an audience that is skeptical, Snopes-oriented, and worried about misinformation. Take a claim circulating online, interview a supporter of the claim, interview consensus scientists, and then tell people which side of the line it lands on. I have listened to their episodes on raw milk, seed oils, 5G and other contested issues in the wellness space. I have problems with all of them, but each at least made an honest attempt to represent the actual range of scientific opinion by talking to credentialed scientists with differing perspectives. Dissenting researchers were heard from, answered, and often given a chance to respond. This episode did not do that. This article is not a relitigation of the science. I have written extensively about that already. This post is for the record. It is simply an accounting of what was wrong with their episode. Contents Is there a power plant next to the 49ers practice facility? — the clearest single example of getting something objectively wrong For the record — a high-level overview of all of the problems with their investigation Draw your own conclusions — why they had to make this episode at all What they left out about childhood leukemia — the exposure threshold, and playing games with statistics to minimize sick children What they left out about the mechanism — the body of literature they refused to cover, and evidence for the mechanism used against it The scientists Science Vs interviewed and did not air — four credential scientists who support myhe theory, recorded and cut, or not even called How they misrepresented me and my case — an answer severed from its question, and three telling edits How you would actually study the injuries — it doesn’t actually matter which team is the most injured, overall The theory: magnetic fields, oxidative stress, and collagen Since the episode never states my theory, here it is below. Those who are familiar with my work can skip this section. Electrical equipment produces magnetic fields, and those fields induce faint electrical currents in anything that passes through them, including people. My argument goes further than induced current. Mitochondria — the structures that generate a cell’s energy — run on continuous flows of electrons and protons, and those flows carry faint electromagnetic fields of their own. Maxwell’s principle of superposition shows that when two fields share the same space, they add together. An external field does not need to be strong to alter an internal field, it only needs to be present. The electron transport chain inside the mitochondria leaks a small fraction of its electrons by design, and those become reactive oxygen species — free radicals, which healthy cells use as signals. External magnetic fields cause the rate of leakage to change, increasing free radicals. When free radicals accumulate faster than the cell’s antioxidant systems can clear them, the result is oxidative stress. Oxidative stress is a recognized driver of chronic illness, including cardiovascular disease, neurodegeneration, diabetes and cancer, and it is in every medical school curriculum. One of its ordinary effects in connective tissue is that it switches on matrix metalloproteinases — MMPs, the enzymes that break collagen apart — while suppressing new collagen synthesis. Tendons are made of collagen. An athlete loading his soft tissue heavily six days a week is already creating oxidative stress in the tendons, so the addition of magnetic field exposure compounds the damage and inhibits repair, making him more susceptible to injury when enormous force lands on a tendon in a fraction of a second. That is the theory. We know that EMF causes oxidative stress, and we know that oxidative stress degrades collagen. The only thing missing is a study showing that direct connection. I have never claimed certainty that the substation is contributing to the elevated injury rate. I do believe it is likely, and I believe it warrants caution, and that a revenue machine like a major NFL team can easily afford to remove the exposure out of precaution. Is there a power plant next to the 49ers practice facility? Here is the clearest single instance of the problem with this episode. It requires no knowledge of electromagnetic fields at all. This story first came to me through Jon Feliciano, a former 49er, in an interview on Willard & Dibs on 95.7 The Game. Asked about why the 49ers are always injured, he said players used to joke that it was the power plant behind the practice fields. Wendy Zukerman corrects him on air. “It’s important to say that it’s not a power plant near the 49ers site.” Torre then asks her to explain the difference between a substation and a power plant. Her answer: a power plant generates electricity and transmits it to a substation, which converts the voltage into something your house can use and sends it on to your home or your business. There are two problems with that. The first is that there is a power plant on that site. The Gianera Generating Station is a natural-gas-fired peaker plant owned by Silicon Valley Power, and it has been there since 1986. I have published aerial photographs of the location from 1987 in which the gas plant is the only thing standing, before the practice facility was even there. I even mentioned the gas plant in my first interview. (Feliciano has since gone on record about this issue, and it is clear he had the substation in mind rather than the gas plant.) The second is that her definition describes a distribution substation, and the facility beside the 49ers is not that. It is the Northern Receiving Station, which takes in bulk power from outside the city’s grid and delivers it to distribution substations. Silicon Valley Power’s own map distinguishes receiving stations from substations, and Rose Rimler even reads the label out loud in the episode when she walks through that map on air. A few minutes before the map segment, Zukerman tells Torre: “like I said, we fact check everything.” Well, maybe not everything. I made a mistake On the morning of July 6th, at 10:20, I sent Rose and Wendy two studies. During the interview I had been asked which human studies show oxidative stress from electromagnetic fields, and I had not been able to name one on the spot. Rose emailed asking for the studies, I quickly searched for a couple, and I wrote that I thought these were the most relevant from that search. Unfortunately, I was busy and did not read either one closely at first. I picked them because they were topically relevant — one on substation workers, one on power plant workers. Neither were great studies, and their problems go past the ones raised in the episode. That was careless on my part. There is context that did not make the episode, though. Before that email I had been on a Zoom call with Rose talking about EMF and oxidative stress, and I pointed her to Dr. Henry Lai at the University of Washington, who has spent years aggregating the literature on this question. His tallies show that roughly 90% of studies since the late 1990s find oxidative effects from electromagnetic field exposure — hundreds of studies, systematically counted. Rose told me she was already aware of his work. So when she asked for studies, I understood her to have the aggregate view already and that she would report anything within that context. Not reading those two carefully was still a mistake, but the larger mistake was assuming the episode would be based on a thorough review of the actual body of literature, rather than on whatever I happened to send that morning. The second email At 1:49 that same afternoon — three hours and twenty-nine minutes after the first — I sent them a second email that I had been preparing for a while. It was a structured document in six numbered sections, written in response to a request they had made two weeks earlier, laying out my entire argument with citations attached to every link in the chain. The episode aired on August 13th, five weeks later, and not a single item from the second email is in it. Here is how it opens: The full email is included at the bottom of this post in Appendix B. Nearly 1,500 words in total. It contains two named mechanisms with the physics behind them. Occupational studies in humans. The literature on oxidative stress and collagen. A section addressing the strongest counter-evidence against my own theory, which I raised myself. And a closing section stating plainly what the theory cannot yet show. My entire argument, in writing, with detailed citations for every claim, provided to them five weeks before broadcast, and none of it made it into the episode. That is the single largest omission, but it is not an isolated one. The whole episode is riddled with similar problems, and the conclusion they came to is not merely a difference of opinion about the scientific evidence. Through omission and through strategic editing, Science Vs misinformed its audience — about what the evidence shows, about what I argued, and about who they spoke to. That is a notable outcome for a show whose stated purpose is correcting misinformation. For the record I am not going to tell you that Science Vs set out to discredit me, or that they had come to their conclusion before they reported the story, or that they used misleading editing to make me look like a man retreating from his own theory. I cannot know what was in anyone’s head, and I am not going to pretend otherwise, either. What I can tell you is what is on the record. They asked me for evidence and aired the weakest thing I sent. They interviewed three scientists who supported my theory and aired none of them. They discussed childhood leukemia without ever saying the exposure level at which it appears. And they took an answer I gave weeks before Ken Karipidis, the one EMF scientist who was put on air, was interviewed, and placed it directly after his critique, where it comes off as a major concession. A friend of mine who has worked as a journalist for thirty years read that last one and called it sleazy. I agree with her. Those are just the four issues that are impossible to defend as pure editorial decision, but they are not the only issues. The most glaring issues stem from what they left out: The exposure level at which the childhood leukemia association actually appears — three to four milligauss, a number the episode never states despite it being much lower than what I measured. The mechanism itself: The episode gets as far as “oxidative stress could weaken collagen,” which leaves it sounding like speculation, rather than a known pathway. The second email, and all the studies in it. Dr. Paul Héroux at McGill, whose work my proposed mechanism rests on, whose contact details I supplied, and who was never called. Dr. Beatrice Golomb at UC San Diego, who runs a research group on oxidative stress and mitochondrial function and has specific expdertice in collagen, interviewed and not aired. Dr. David Carpenter at Albany, the most prominent academic voice on the harm from magnetic field exposure, interviewed and not aired. Dr. Joel Moskowitz at Berkeley, interviewed and not even credited. The specific, testable condition I put in writing that would make me abandon the theory. My own unprompted statement of the theory’s evidentiary gap. My caveats about my own measurements. My ranking of EMF as one factor among several rather than the only one. The new equipment installed at those facilities between 2010 and 2014, and the sharp rise in system load from 2013 onward. But that is not all. What they kept, they selectively edited to serve a narrative that was not served by the raw transcripts of the interviews. A description of thousands of commercial routers in a workplace, reduced to the Wi-Fi in your house. My own acknowledgment, multiple times, that "I'm not a scientist" clipped in an episode that spends considerable energy pointing out that I am not a scientist. And a qualification I volunteered about my own measurements, cut from my answer and delivered later by their EMF expert as a correction. Together their edit produce a portrait of a wellness guy with Wi-Fi phobia and two bad studies, backing away from his theory the moment a “real” scientist looked at it. A practice facility where nothing changed because no new substation was built. Injuries written off as random because the 49ers were not quite the single most injured team in the league over the period in question. That portrait is false even though almost no individual statement made in the episode is. Draw your own conclusions At the top of the episode, Pablo Torre says his show had been flooded with requests to investigate the substation — that it was the thing they were asked to look into over and over again. Neither show went hunting for this story. It arrived from their own audience, in volume, and it could not be waved off. A thread I posted on X reached twenty-two million people. A guy with a gaussmeter and a brand-new Substack obligated a Pultizer prize winning program to spend an hour on a question about player health, that is considered fringe enough that most media operations won’t touch it. Pablo Torre Finds Out could not ignore it. So Science Vs came in and ran a “debunking” operation instead of an investigation. Everything below is what had to be left on the cutting room floor to deliver the “debunking”. They could not ignore it. So they tried debunked it instead. The demand was strong enough to force an episode, and since the episodes release the 49ers have sustained more injuries, including season ending ones, and interest has only grown. Demand from fans and playets is strong enough to force a better investigation from someone else. An omission is not a lie until you find out what was omitted. What follows is the detailed record so you can see the full picture. Draw your own conclusions. I have drawn mine. I am going to keep publishing. A note about Pablo Torre Finds Out After the episode aired I posted publicly, calling out Pablo Torre Finds Out for concerns I had about the integrity of their investigation, and about an interview directly with Pablo Torre which had been offered but never happened. I have since spoken with a producer at PTFO. The offer had rested on a misunderstanding about where things stood between us, and it fell away as the Science Vs part of the production widened past the science. He apologized for the miscommunication and I accepted. The producer also confirmed to me that they did essentially hand off the entire investigation to Science Vs for narrative purposes — so Pablo would be genuinely curious or potentially surprised by their findings — while still taking responsibility for what went out under their name. I appreciated the candor and the accountability, and I am comfortable with where we left things. So this post is not about PTFO. My disagreement is with Science Vs. What they left out about childhood leukemia Childhood leukemia appears at three milligauss. They gave no number at all. 1. They built an EMF ruler, then discussed childhood cancer without it. The sequence on air went like this: First I measured almost 9 mG, then I measured up to 50 milligauss. Torre reacts with concern — “that sounds high.” Cut to Karipidis: the public limit is 2,000 milligauss. Torre reacts again — “What happens at 2,000?” Karipidis explains that nothing happens at 2,000, that safety factors are built in. Then: at more than 50,000 milligauss you get flickers of light in the retina, and higher still, nerve stimulation. The listener now has a ruler (their ruler) to measure these numbers with. Fifty is nothing by their ruler. Then the episode turns to childhood leukemia and states, accurately, that there is a real association — but tellingly, they never give the exposure level at which that association appears. Childhood leukemia appears at three milligauss. They conveniently left that out. The pooled analyses that produced the World Health Organization’s carcinogen classification found roughly a doubling of childhood leukemia risk above three to four milligauss. That is the number that belongs in that segment, and it is more than ten times below the reading that had just been dismissed as trivial. I gave them that number myself, on tape, in the interview. Describing my own threshold, I said my comfort level for long-term chronic exposure is three to four milligauss, but preferably one. 2. Six children in thirteen million. The episode reports that these fields might explain one to four percent of childhood leukemias, then reframes it as a German estimate of perhaps six cases among thirteen million children. Torre, to his credit, is uncomfortable. What never gets explained is why that number is small. Almost no children lives above three milligauss in Europe. Fewer than two children in a hundred, in the Italian data. So even if the risk to those children doubles, the number of additional cases across an entire country stays small — not because the hazard is small, but because hardly anyone is exposed to it. Count the whole population and the few who are exposed disappear. And the reason hardly anyone is exposed is that siting rules keep housing away from transmission lines. In Europe, at least. The Dutch government has a standing precautionary policy against building new homes in any zone where the annual average magnetic field exceeds 4 milligauss — the same number the episode never mentioned. Denmark and Norway treat 4 milligauss as the level that triggers a look at mitigation. That is five hundred times below the ICNIRP figure quoted on air. The United States has no federal equivalent. That is evidence of infrastructure siting policy working. It is not evidence that there is no hazard. It is evidence that we already act as though there is one. If you listen to the raw audio you will hear that my proposed solution is EMF exposure is to build better infrastructure. What they left out about the mechanism 3. They accused me of cherry-picking, and then cherry-picked themselves. On air, Zukerman tells Torre that people who worry about electromagnetic fields dismiss the studies showing null results and collect the ones showing harm, and that this is why you have to be careful not to cherry-pick. They had two papers I had rattled off in a hurry, and a second email containing a carefully chosen set. They ran the two weakest, graded them on air, and presented the result as the state of the evidence for not only my theory, but the whole question of oxidative stress from magnetic fields. That is cherry-picking from my emails. The bigger picture is what they did with the literature as a whole. Zukerman acknowledges it exists, dismisses it, and disposes of it in a single stroke. You can go online right now, she tells Torre, and find scores of studies showing these fields increase oxidative stress. The issue, she says, is that they are not studies in people. Many of them are in people. The occupational studies in my second email are in people. That email had been in her inbox for five weeks. She waved off the literature on a factual claim that the documents in her possession contradict. (I have written separately about the evidentiary standard at work here). The effect was that they essentially baited me: ask the subject to supply the evidence, take the weakest thing he sends, and let that stand as a proxy for the whole argument. Wendy has been doing this show for ten years and clearly knows how to extract what she needs for her desired narrative. 4. They presented the collagen-improvement research as a gotcha, but I had already addressed it. The episode treats the existence of studies showing that EMF can improve collagen as a surprise that undercuts me, but I had pre-emptively addressed that five weeks earlier in the email they ignored. Those studies use measured, high-intensity pulsed dosing. The mechanism by which they work is oxidative signalling. The cell reads a controlled rise in reactive oxygen species as a warning, upregulates its antioxidant defenses, mounts a repair response, and the therapy stops before the system is overwhelmed. The key point is that it induces an oxidative response, which means those studies are actually evidence for my proposed mechanism, not against it. A field that produces a therapeutic effect cannot be biologically inert (which is the implication when they say “Nothing happens at 2,000 milligauss). Chronic ambient exposure is the same pathway with no off switch, and it is most consequential during the evening and while sleeping, when the body is in repair mode and the exposure does not stop. Section 5 of my email is titled What about the study showing improved collagen synthesis. I raised the counter-evidence myself, explained why I did not think it refuted the theory, and wrote that I was disappointed the question had not come up in the interview. That is worth holding against the cherry-picking charge in the item above: the studies they presented as inconvenient for me were studies I had gone out of my way to put in front of them. 5. Section 1 of my email stated a critical argument that was never put to the expert directly responsible for it. My email says the exposure limits exist to prevent acute effects and do not address chronic exposure at all, and that my dispute is with the entire framework. Zukerman gestures at this once. After Karipidis gives the 2,000 milligauss figure, she tells Torre that I would object because those levels do not capture “more subtle effects.” That is not my argument, and “subtle” is doing a lot of work here. My argument is that the limits are built to prevent acute effects — nerves firing, muscles twitching, etc — and were not designed to address chronic exposure at all. In fact, ICNIRP’s own documents state as much themselves. Mine is a structural objection to what the standard measures, reduced as a concern about subtlety, it becomes a matter of degree, rather than a categorical difference. They interviewed Ken Karipidis, vice chair of ICNIRP — the body that writes those limits. He was asked what the limit is, but he was never asked how it applies to chronic exposure. The scientists Science Vs interviewed and did not air 6. They interviewed four officials of the standards body. The episode credits roughly a dozen researchers. Four of them are associated with ICNIRP. Ken Karipidis is the vice chair. Rodney Croft chaired ICNIRP from 2020 to 2024 and led the development of its current guidelines. Dan Baaken is ICNIRP’s scientific secretary. Frank de Vocht sits on the Main Commission. One of them speaks in the episode. Their institution’s position is more than adequately represented — the 2,000 milligauss figure, the safety factors, the assurance that nothing happens below the line. 7. The four who were left out. Dr. Beatrice Golomb is Professor of Medicine at UC San Diego — a physics undergraduate degree, a PhD in biology, an MD. She directs a research group whose stated focus is the relationship between oxidative stress, mitochondrial function and health. That is the mechanism the episode spent its first half dismissing. Her published work includes the fluoroquinolone case series behind the FDA’s black box warning on an antibiotic class that ruptures tendons, where the accepted mechanism is oxidative stress and mitochondrial toxicity — the back half of my chain, already on a drug label. She is in the credits. She is not in the episode. She has told me she finds my theory biologically plausible, and that she has a recording of her interview. Dr. David Carpenter directed the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany for decades and is the most prominent academic voice arguing these fields cause harm. Childhood leukemia is the reason these fields carry a WHO classification at all, and Carpenter is the person you call if you want that case made by someone who has spent a career on it. He is in the credits. He is not in the episode. He has told me that when he was interviewed they could not have been less interested in what he had to say. Dr. Joel Moskowitz directs the Center for Family and Community Health at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health. He told me directly that they interviewed him and that he thought it went well. He does not appear in the episode, and unlike Golomb and Carpenter, he does not even appear in the credits. Dr. Paul Héroux at McGill is the researcher whose work provides the foundation for the oxidative stress mechanism my theory rests on. I gave Rose his email address and phone number. He was never interviewed. They never even called him. 8. “He’s not a scientist.” The episode leans hard on the fact that I am not a credentialed scientist. Zukerman says it. Torre repeats it. “At all.” Having built a segment on that, they then left out the physicist-biologist-physician, the professor of public health, the director of a university environmental health institute, and the McGill researcher whose work the primary mechanism comes from. They spent the episode telling their audience I am not a scientist, and then kept four actual scientists who support the theory off because their argument does not survive otherwise. How they misrepresented me and my case 9. They played my words as a response to an interview I had never heard. Near the end of the hour, Zukerman says she went to me and told me the evidence was lacking. Then she plays me saying I am not wedded to it being an EMF, that I have staked my reputation on it needing more study, and that I am not certain of anything. That segment was placed immediately after Karipidis had finished taking the cherry-picked papers apart. It plays as a man folding under expert scrutiny. Commenters have used it against me since, but it is incorrect. Here is the sequence as it happened. I was interviewed. Karipidis was interviewed weeks later. I was never told what he said, or even who he was. I was never asked to respond to it. I did not know his name until the episode aired. That is not a simple editing decision. That is a quote from one interview, moved to follow a critique from a different interview it was not a response to, so that it would land as a concession. A friend of mine who has spent thirty years as a journalist read that sequence and called it sleazy. She is right. The full passage is reproduced in Appendix A, and it is worth reading. What airs is the preamble. Four paragraphs later I say “to directly answer your question” — and that answer, about what would change my mind if the team relocated, is not in the episode. Neither is the sentence two paragraphs on, where I say the EMF might turn out to be ten percent of the problem. I will say the underlying point again, though, because I meant it and I still do. I am not wedded to my theory that magnetic fields from the substation are contributing to the 49ers injuries. I could be wrong. What I am wedded to is the process of scientific inquiry, and the fact that we should be cautious around these exposures and we need more independently funded studies. 10. Three telling edits. They cut “I’m not a scientist” mid-sentence. What I said: “...and I am not certain of anything. I’m not a scientist. To me, I find the mechanisms compelling. I will go back to the fact that I got into this not because of the 49ers, but because of clients I was working with who suffer from EDS...” What aired: “...and that I am not certain of anything. I’m not.” The clip ends on the first two words of the sentence in which I say I am not a scientist, in an episode that spends considerable energy establishing that I am not a scientist. The full sequence is in Appendix A. They cut my own description of my work. Asked what I do, I said I run a wellness business, that I am focused on writing software to help people navigate environmental stressors, that environmental health is my focus, and that I also do independent journalism and research. What aired is the wellness business and the environmental health, with the software and the journalism removed from my own answer. The software engineering does come up later — narrated by them, as a hacker who grew up to write firmware — but my current work, in my own words, arrives as “wellness guy.” Thousands of commercial routers became home Wi-Fi. What I described: working at a wireless networking company surrounded by thousands of Wi-Fi routers, and a stress-induced health collapse afterward that working in that environment contributed to. What aired: Wi-Fi, the kind you have at home — reinforced by a clip of Christian McCaffrey talking about turning his router off at night. Three cuts, and every one of them makes me seem less credible. That is not a coincidence. 11. I gave them my own caveats and the test that would disprove me. In the first email I wrote that a well-designed chronic, ambient-level exposure study in tendon showing no collagen degradation, run over many months, would undercut my confidence in the theory. That is a specific, testable condition, stated in advance and in writing. There was a second interview, weeks later, which was not used in the episode, but in that I asked again for the falsification criterion to be included. What the episode presents instead is a man saying “we need more study,” which reads as a hedge, an open-ended request for the benefit of the doubt. It is the opposite of a hedge. Section 6 of my second email says, unprompted, that as far as I am aware there is not a single study showing EMF-driven oxidative stress degrading collagen in a human in vivo or in human tendon in a lab. I wrote that because it is true and because it is the first thing anyone should check. Under their standard it becomes the hinge of the entire first half, framed as something they had to surface without my cooperation. I had handed it to them five weeks earlier. And in the interview I said that my 25 to 50 milligauss readings were taken at knee level, and that these fields attenuate quickly, so by the time it reaches your head it is not that high anymore. That did not air either. The qualification arrives later, from Karipidis, as a correction. How you would actually study the injuries 12. They measured the wrong thing. The episode spends its final act on whether the 49ers are the most injured team in the NFL, finds no clean ranking, and lands on “injuries are random”. That is the wrong test. You would define the exposure — measured field levels at the facility — and the outcome narrowly: soft-tissue injuries, not a single MSK injury count that a broken finger and a ruptured Achilles both land in. Then you would compare the 49ers to themselves before and after the exposure changed, and compare that change against every other team over the same window. That controls for league-wide shifts in rules, turf and training load. It is a difference-in-differences design, and it is standard. I sent them that argument on July 28th, in writing, along with the fact that in eleven of the past twelve seasons the 49ers had finished top ten in Adjusted Games Lost. And by the episode’s own reporting, the 49ers are second in games lost to injury over the past decade, with FTN’s Aaron Schatz confirming that once you adjust for starters they come out second worst in the league — after having been one of the healthiest teams for years before that. A finding like that is where an investigation starts, not where it stops. 13. I did a lot of substation research for the episode that was never aired. I had reported that the substation next to the facility was expanded in 2014. That was wrong, and Rose Rimler and I sorted it out together. They gave me credit on air, which I appreciated, but framed it as a concession on my part to something they had found. In fact I had been investigating it myself, was uncertain before they asked, but was waiting for clarification from Silicon Valley Power. The uncertainty centered around a substation named “Esparanca” that was proposed right behind the facilities as part of the stadium construction, but now appears to never have been built. I spent days in Silicon Valley Power’s records, and did eventually reach Silicon Valley Power for confirmation and indentified the mistake myself. I also gave them highly detailed documents on what we do know about those facilities: new equipment installed between 2010 and 2014, and load growth across the system with an inflection around 2013–2014, with the Northern Receiving Station carrying the highest capacity in the system and sitting closest to the data center corridor. None of that is in the episode. I have a separate piece about it coming out soon. *I cut 2 seconds from the raw audio to remove personal information that had no connection to anything in the episode. Appendix A: the passage the clip was taken from This is the sequence from my first interview, in full. The episode uses one fragment of it. It’s tricky because my understanding is that there’s something like a 15-year half-life on collagen remodeling issues. They’re going to get a new crop of players. What I really need, though, is for the injuries to be broken down so we can see the soft tissue injuries. Right now, they’re categorized as MSK injuries, but let’s say we can actually identify them more specifically. Is that right? He was able to do that? Oh, cool. I wasn’t able to find that information. Interesting — I didn’t know that data existed. I tried so hard to get it, and I didn’t know it was available. Maybe you could connect me with that person. That would be amazing. I’m not wedded to it being an EMF, honestly. I’m not. I would say that, to a certain extent, I’ve staked my reputation on the fact that it needs more study. It’s important to look into it, and I am not certain of anything. I’m not a scientist. To me, I find the mechanisms compelling. I will go back to the fact that I got into this not because of the 49ers, but because of clients I was working with who suffer from EDS, Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, a tendon hypermobility issue. This condition is documented to be partially caused by oxidative stress. I’ve worked with them to mitigate their EMF exposure and have seen people improve. I think it’s a bigger story. In a way, the 49ers represent an occupational cluster with specific exposure risks. If someone would conduct a study on this, I believe we could learn a lot. Perhaps we would discover that it’s like, okay, maybe it’s 10% of the problem. I don’t know the exact number, but I think either way, conducting the study would provide valuable insights. To directly answer your question, it’s challenging for me because it’s part of a bigger story. If the 49ers move and stop having injuries, I might conclude that it was related to the substation. However, if they move and still experience injuries, I would want to analyze the nature of those injuries. Are they primarily soft tissue injuries? I don’t think it’s necessarily a case closed, but the story might lose traction at that point regardless. Three things are worth noting. The aired fragment stops immediately before the sentence in which I say I am not a scientist — the cut described in item 10. It also stops four paragraphs before the words “to directly answer your question.” What the episode plays is the throat-clearing. The actual answer, about what would change my mind, never airs. And two paragraphs in, I say the EMF might turn out to be ten percent of the problem. That is the ranking the episode says I never gave. Appendix B: the full email, July 6th, 1:39 PM Hi Rose, You asked me to send you some studies a couple of weeks ago. I apologize for the delay. I have been incredibly busy. I also wanted to give you a chance to dig in yourself, and get your own perspective before I influenced you too much with mine. That said, I do want to make sure that the actual argument is abundantly clear, so here it is! One note before I begin, there are really two separate questions here: Does the substation cause the soft-tissue injuries? That was my specific claim, and what the podcast is about. Is the theory biologically sound? Can 50/60 Hz fields at these levels do anything biological below the safety limits? Question two is why people have been calling me a conspiracy theorist. The regulatory and advisory bodies (ICNIRP, etc) maintain that anything below their exposure limits is biologically inert, and that position is broadly accepted within the mainstream, but the actual science paints a different picture. To defend my theory I’ve had to defend a much larger claim: that the advisory bodies have the biology wrong. I can’t honestly answer question 1 without first addressing that. Here’s is a simplified outline of my theory, with links to studies: 1. Advisory body thresholds for biological effects The ELF magnetic-field limits (ICNIRP’s ~2,000 mG public / 10,000 mG occupational) exist to prevent acute effects from exposure. If a magnetic field is strong enough, it makes nerves fire and muscles contract. Muscles twitch. You can see faint flashes of light in your vision. People can even feel tingling or even a shock. That happens due to Faraday’s law, which states that a time-varying magnetic field induces an electric field inside the body via the creation of Eddy currents.The standards assume that those currents do nothing below the twitch threshold. They do not consider chronic effects at all. My argument is that they are biologically active and do have chronic effects. 2. There are multipe ELF-EMF mechanisms for inducing oxidative stress. This is basic biophysics. Below are the two primary mechanisms. Simplest first. Dr. Paul Héroux of McGill has the most intuitive explanation, which rests on Maxwell’s principle of superposition: because Maxwell’s equations are linear, two sets of electromagnetic waves sharing the same space simply add together. In the interview I pictured a pebble dropped into a pond, sending out clean ripples. Then a boat motors past at distance, sending larger waves, and where they meet the ripples, the two add together and the original pattern gets distorted. In our cells, the mitochondria run on continuous currents of electrons and protons that carry their own faint electromagnetic fields. An external field from a substation, by the principle of superposition, adds to those internal currents and shifts the pattern. The electron transport chain in the mitochondria leaks a fraction of its electrons by design as reactive oxygen species (ROS), which act as signalling molecules in a healthy cell. Distorting that field increases that electron leakage, creating oxidative stress. A tiny electromagnetic interference results in a large downstream effect. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844025006474 The more complex pathway is Dimitris Panagopoulos’s Ion Forced-Oscillation / Voltage-Gated Ion Channel (IFO-VGIC) mechanism. Weak, polarized, low-frequency fields force the ions (calcium, potassium, sodium) next to an ion channel’s voltage sensor to oscillate; because that force scales with the inverse cube of the distance involved, fields far below the stimulation threshold can still force the channel open, disrupting the cell’s ion balance and driving ROS overproduction (Nitric oxide and superoxide interact and produce peroxynitrite, a highly unstable cytotoxin that breaks down into free radicals). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366088934 https://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/59/5/92 https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/18/10041 https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1585441/full https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3772193/ 3. Evidence of oxidative stress, in vivo, in humans from ELF-EMF There are many studies, and the strongest are occupational, which applies to the 49ers situation. 115 power-plant workers vs. 145 office controls. Serum malondialdehyde (MDA, the standard lipid-peroxidation marker), superoxide dismutase, and catalase were all significantly higher in the exposed group, and the markers rose with increasing field exposure. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3233/WOR-203244 A follow-up where they reversed the oxidative stress in power plant workers. A double-blind randomized controlled trial: 91 power-plant workers given vitamin E, vitamin C, both, or placebo for 90 days. The antioxidant groups showed reduced lipid peroxidation and raised antioxidant capacity versus controls. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32191586/ A spot-welder study: 46 welders occupationally exposed at 50 Hz, showed significantly altered red-blood-cell antioxidant enzyme activity and concluded ELF-MF “might act as an oxidative stressor… even at the recommended levels of exposure.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18504600/ A substation-specific study found oxidative stress and DNA damage https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24460415/ 4. Oxidative stress degrades collagen This half isn’t controversial at all. Oxidative stress activates the matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) that break collagen down and suppresses its synthesis. Here are three example studies: Siwik et al. 2001: Oxidative stress raises MMPs and lowers collagen synthesis in cardiac fibroblasts. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11121376/ Fisher et al. 2009: Collagen fragmentation drives oxidative stress and elevates MMP-1 in aged human skin. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2631323/ Varani et al. 2006: Decreased collagen production in oxidatively aged skin. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16723701/ 5. What about the study showing improved collagen synthesis I’m glad you asked this question, and I’m bummed we didn’t get to it in the interview because it is a great question, and very important to understand. Superficially it may appear to be a refutation of my theory, but I would argue that it actually supports the underlying argument. That study used a short, high-intensity pulsed dose: therapeutic-PEMF, the same type of field used clinically to stimulate bone and tissue healing. The reason this works is because it triggers the very same biological pathways that can lead to oxidative stress. The exposure still stimulates ROS production, but done at a controlled dosage, for a limited duration it has a different effect. The cell reads the ROS as a warning signal and it upregulates its antioxidant defenses, and mounts a repair/proliferation response. The therapy is then stopped before the cell gets overwhelmed. That is essentially a hormetic response: a small dose of a stressor producing a beneficial adaptation. Two things follow: At the very least, this means the field is biologically active, which by itself undercuts the regulatory claim that these fields are inert below their thresholds. There is a wealth of literature on PEMF (pulsed EMF) bone regeneration and calcium channel signalling (which is the second mechanims in section one). Here is one. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep13856 At best, it leads us straight to my actual concern, which is that under chronic, chaotic and unregulated exposure, the cell’s antioxidant capacity gets overwhelmed, resulting in oxidative stress. There are plentiful examples of things that are beneficial at controlled doses, but harmful at uncontrolled doses. Excecise is one obvious, uncontroversial example. Botox is perhaps a more interesting example. 6. What about a study that shows EMF causing collagen degradation in humans? As far as I am aware there is not a single study showing EMF-driven oxidative stress degrading collagen in a human, in vivo, or in human tendon in a lab. There are studies involving isolated fibroblasts though, which secrete collagen. The most relevant one showed that human fetal scleral fibroblasts exposed to 50 Hz ELF-EMF showed a significant decrease in collagen synthesis and that MMP-2 expression was upregulated, which is the exact mechanism I described in section 2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3626379/ That’s it! Thanks again for the interview. Best, Peter Anthony Cowan Environmental Health · Wellness Tech · Researcher & Journalist Publisher & Editor, Living Energy Bio: petercowan.comSocial: X · Instagram · TikTokApp: sunlightis.lifePhone: [redacted]
Health Journalists Visit Conservative Georgia District and Weigh AI Bioweapon Threat
KFF Health News journalists made the rounds on national and local media recently to discuss topical stories. Here’s a collection of their appearances.
Mind Your Manners: Kindness counts — and might provide surprising health benefits
Because I work closely with the medical community, I receive a weekly digest featuring the latest medical updates, developments, studies and hot topics from around the world. One recent article,
Ask a Professor turns difficult topics into opportunities for dialogue
MSU Denver faculty host a series of student discussions designed to put the ‘civil’ back in civil discourse
Leadership, faith big topics at Business School's annual Summit
Building a culture in the workplace. Leaning on faith in a business setting. Understanding the character behind success. Following your… More on this post
Final Fantasy 7 Revelation will be "around 200GB" says game director, as he details Sephiroth and Vincent Valentine DLC plans
"I understand there are a lot of opinions about this topic," explains Naoki Hamaguchi.
Health: State Abortion Bans And Ectopic Pregnancies
Between 2020 and 2025, nearly 200 women have died from ectopic pregnancies. That’s almost double the number of deaths in the previous six years.Ectopic pregnancies happen when an embryo implants outside the uterus and can’t develop properly. If left untreated, the embryo can rupture, causing deadly bleeding. The treatment for ectopic pregnancies – which are almost never viable – is termination. But since the reversal of Roe v. Wade in 2022, terminating a pregnancy has become more complicated in states with abortion restrictions.We sit down to talk about a new investigation from ProPublica that explores the role these state abortion bans could be playing in the rise in deaths related to ectopic pregnancies.Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.
Vikings Get Encouraging Kyler Murray Update Ahead of Sunday
The Minnesota Vikings quarterback situation has been a hot topic of discussion as they get ready to face the Chicago Bears on Sunday. Now, NFL Network’s Rapoport has another update for Vikings fans, as Kyler Murray’s health is a topic of discussion.The quarterback has made encouraging progress throughout the week. He returned to practice as […] The post Vikings Get Encouraging Kyler Murray Update Ahead of Sunday appeared first on HEAVY.
A space shark, 'royal' auroras and a 'Venusian pearl': See the winners of the 2026 ZWO Astronomy Photographer of the Year contest
A Royal Observatory Greenwich contest showcased work from around the night sky and the solar system, with prize-winning photos spanning topics ranging from auroras to planets.
Alaska gubernatorial forum puts healthcare at center stage
Medicaid enrollment, rural issues and mental health were among the topics discussed at an Alaska Hospital and Healthcare Association event.
GSU, Shimadzu host second annual forensic science symposium
Georgia Southern University’s College of Science and Mathematics (COSM) is teaming up with Shimadzu Scientific Instruments to host the second annual Forensic Science Symposium on Sept. 30. This year’s event offers an expanded list of speakers, poster presentations and a panel discussion covering a broad range of topics.
These Democrats won over working-class voters. Here’s their advice for candidates.
A new report explains which topics they emphasize — and which they don’t.
Researchers sue National Institutes of Health over censorship claims
Researchers are suing against the National Institutes of Health, saying that grant funding is used to censor topics the Trump administration dislikes.
Scientists challenge US NIH grant screening as unconstitutional
A group of scientists filed a class-action lawsuit on Wednesday against the U.S. National Institutes of Health, alleging the agency is unconstitutionally screening research grants to suppress viewpoints the Trump administration disfavors on topics like diversity, gender identity and climate change.
What Does the Science of Climate Change Really Look Like?
Editor’s Note: This is the second in a three-part series on how the Right should think about environmental and climate policy. Read Chris Barnard on Reclaiming Environmental Policy from the Left. More than a decade ago, the world’s governments negotiated and signed the Paris Climate Agreement, committing to hold global warming well below 2 degrees Celsius. In the following years, climate had immense cultural power. Greta Thunberg emerged. Fortune 500 companies established net-zero plans. The U.S. got the Inflation Reduction Act. Then the pendulum swung back. President Donald Trump returned to the Oval Office, speaking of green energy as a “scam” and carbon footprints as a “hoax” and on all matters of international policy emphasizing bilateral engagement and power over globalism and cooperation. The technology companies that had been at the forefront of net-zero pledges and green leadership discovered the importance of all-of-the-above power to their visions for artificial intelligence and began quietly postponing or removing their targets. On the left side of the political spectrum, rising concerns about inflation and cost pushed climate lower down in the stated priorities of voters and stump speeches of politicians. The moment is ripe for a reset on the politics of climate change and for conservatives especially to chart a course that acknowledges and addresses the real challenges in plausible ways. So what should we think about climate change as we enter a post-peak climate era? If it is neither an apocalypse nor a hoax, what will hold up as a durable view of climate change? And how does it project onto the concerns and priorities of the right-of-center’s emerging coalition? New to Commonplace_? Subscribe below to get the magazine in your inbox._ Subscribe A Solid Foundation As the politics and economics of climate careened over the past ten years, the physics carried on regardless. In 2015, the year the Paris Climate Agreement was adopted, the world emitted 41.2 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide. By 2025, emissions had risen only 2.4%, to 42.2 gigatonnes, because falling emissions from land use offset increasing emissions from fossil fuels. But slow growth in annual emissions is not rapid decline, let alone net-zero, so carbon dioxide kept accumulating in the atmosphere, going from 399 to 426 parts per million. Global temperature kept rising too, from about 1.1 degrees Celsius above the 1850–1900 average in 2015, to 1.4 degrees above it in 2025. None of this should surprise anyone. Even most prominent skeptics, like the authors of the 2025 report commissioned by the Trump administration’s Department of Energy, accept the basic physics. Carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere at industrial volumes accumulates and traps heat that would otherwise escape to space. That heat warms the upper ocean and increases temperatures at the surface. Increased ocean heat and melting of land ice cause sea levels to rise. Changes in the climate become noticeable to us as subtle shifts in temperature and precipitation, seasons arriving early or late, changes in the surrounding ecosystem, and weather extremes. The much more meaningful debate is not about whether these things are happening, but about what it all means for human societies. (While it is a proxy measure of overall risk, no one experiences global surface temperature.) This debate invokes at least three interesting questions: how much today’s warming is showing up in regional climate trends, how much more warming we should anticipate, and how extreme weather events can be understood in the context of climate change. Recent scientific advances give us new insights into each of these, but there is still much to learn. This is the context in which the next generation of conservative leaders will be the first to deal with significant climate change as a fact, not a forecast. It will be with them for their entire careers. Our evolving scientific picture of climate change will come from weather and climate records stretching further into the past, new kinds of observations in the present, better modeling tools for the future, and simply more time to observe the emergence of climate signals and their tangible effects on ecosystems and communities in the United States and around the world. The policy landscape will be shaped by not only the impacts of changes in the climate, but also by the ways in which societies respond and by the emergence of new technologies for both altering the trajectory of emissions and adapting to new climate realities. Global climate records now show the fingerprints of warming in different phenomena around much of the world. The IPCC, in its most recent assessment report, documents warming trends over all land regions, even as natural variability adds substantial variance to local trends. And the highest temperature extremes have become more intense and frequent, almost everywhere, since the 1950s. Scientists are highly confident that these changes are attributable to human influence. But confidence in detecting trends and attributing them to human influence degrades across heavy precipitation events; drought trends are heterogeneous and not attributable to human activity with great confidence. For hurricanes, tornadoes, and other severe storms there is even less confidence in trends or their relationship to climate change. In general, a fair summary of the evidence is that for well-observed phenomena, like surface temperature or heavy rainfall, with a clear relationship to warming, our multidecadal observations are consistent with human influence overcoming natural variability over long time periods and extremes increasing. For regions that are sampled more sparsely, or phenomena with a higher noise-to-signal ratio, we will need to observe them longer to understand the magnitude of the climate signal or improve dynamical understanding using models and observations together. But for Climate For those who can’t wait, we also have new techniques that attempt to understand the role climate change has in influencing particular extreme events. When the climate is changing and disaster strikes, it is natural to ask whether that disaster was somehow “caused” by climate change. For scientists and policymakers acting in good faith, answering that question helps develop a more accurate picture of the problem, how it may be getting worse, and what preparations we should be making to respond to it. It may, at some point, give some weight to how liability is assigned by courts or adaptation funding is distributed by society. But how we ask this question is extremely important. It is easy to get the analysis wrong by discounting the role that meteorology plays. As meteorologist Theodore Shepherd explained in a clear 2016 review of climate attribution methods, “if a weather or climate event is truly extreme in the present climate, then perforce it requires unusual meteorological conditions, which means that climate change is at most a contributing factor.” Share Scientists have two ways to probe climate as a contributing factor, both of which have entered media coverage of extreme weather events. One asks a probabilistic question: How much more likely is a particular event (e.g., a temperature record over a particular area) amid global warming? The answer involves using historical records and computer simulations to estimate the likelihood of such an event in both a changed and a preindustrial climate. The findings are less about the specific event, and more about events of that nature. The other question is: How has the changed climate affected the specific event in question? Here, scientists try to understand what a similar event would have looked like in the preindustrial climate. This is sometimes called the storyline approach, where the story is the specific meteorological details of the event. These methods offer ways to test the intuition of scientists about real weather extremes. In late June and early July of 2021, a persistent high-pressure ridge, or heat dome, set up over the Pacific Northwest and an extraordinary heat wave affected the area from Oregon to British Columbia. For six days, it shattered temperature records across the region and hundreds died from heat-related causes, in an area where such high, and persistently high, temperatures were well outside of experience and many live without air conditioning. Scientists have studied its connection to climate change using multiple approaches. This specific event was created by a rare combination of meteorological factors, a strong high-pressure ridge created the conditions for extreme heat, which occurred on top of higher average temperatures in the region from global warming. Probabilistic analyses showed that climate change increased the likelihood of such an event by at least 8-fold to more than 100-fold. One standout example found that such an event had effectively zero probability of occurring in the preindustrial climate. The enormous range in these assessments reflects how hard it is to estimate probabilities of events at the tail of the historical record. Estimates of the effect on the temperature of the event are more clustered. A recent review paper documents how multiple methodologies have found a positive influence, roughly 1-2 degrees Celsius of an anomaly that exceeded 15 degrees, of climate change on the temperature magnitude of the event. Multiple studies have investigated and found some positive influence of climate change in other extreme events. Attribution studies found climate likely increased the heavy rainfall that accompanied Hurricane Helene in North Carolina and surrounding regions in 2024. The extensive fires that struck Los Angeles in 2025 illustrate how the causal chain can become messy, though. Studies do detect a positive influence of climate on the event’s likelihood, but while climate change likely contributed to underlying aridity, it would not have played a role in the heavy winds or land practices that preceded disaster. These event attribution studies will become more common for extreme, or damaging, weather events. They can be produced quickly, and often are reported before peer review. As the Pacific Northwest heatwave example shows, when multiple methods converge on a positive attribution, the finding should probably carry some weight even if you have to be careful about accepting the results from a single study. I expect that as climate change proceeds and the climate thus departs further from a preindustrial counterfactual, the influence will become more detectable across a variety of extreme events and more easily identified. This will be used to cast blame, but can also be used to inform how communities and society adapt to ongoing change. We May Still Be Surprised One positive development, insofar as less climate change is better, has been that our central estimates for future climate change should probably be revised downward. Mostly, that is because the high-end warmings that scientists regularly analyzed about ten to 20 years ago, driven by high emissions throughout the twenty-first century, now appear to be somewhere between unlikely and impossible. At one time, the upper end of mainstream climate projections extended well into 4 to 6 degrees Celsius of warming by the end of this century, which, models suggest, would have wrought enormous real-world damage. Current energy and policy trends now point toward 2.5 or 3 degrees. Damages and risks are commonly modeled as increasing steeply with more warming, so this is already a better-than-previously-expected outcome for the climate (which is independent of the physical response to emissions). But we should maintain a wide range for plausible outcomes and prepare for the possibility of being surprised. Emissions trajectories are subject to deep uncertainty, the physical climate response is still developing, and whatever change occurs in the climate will then be mediated through unpredictable economic, social, and political institutions. Over the past decade, the pace of warming surprised some keen observers and appeared to accelerate, though not yet outside the range of expectation provided by climate models. The reasons for that apparent acceleration are being actively studied (as was the apparent pause in warming from 1998 to 2012), but no single driver has emerged. Some blame it on the El Niño, variability which would have no bearing on climate. Some think it is a result of factories in East Asia and global shipping fleets cutting aerosol emissions, which in the strongest version of the argument would indicate higher climate sensitivity to carbon-dioxide emissions. Others are more measured, not yet ready to draw solid conclusions as to whether climate projections require revision. We will have to see. Long-Term Thinking Climate change asks us to think over long time scales. But the pace of human-driven warming is compressing a large global change into a century. Changing weather patterns and extreme events are already causing adjustment costs and damages and will do more. Adaptation will help, but it is not free. For some communities, these costs will erode livelihoods and well-being, and may force migration. Are we prepared for large-scale managed retreats in the United States? Thankfully, American wealth, geographical diversity, and moderate climates may leave us better prepared than many around the world. But wealthy countries can still suffer serious disruption from narrowly concentrated costs, even if they appear entirely manageable in aggregate. Readers of Commonplace are familiar with the challenges of rapidly adapting to economic forces. The displacement that came from the China Shock is barely perceptible in aggregate GDP and employment data, but it affected millions of people and those people were far less mobile than economic models tended to assume. Deindustrialization rippled through the nation with enormous effects for not only our economic vitality, but also our national security. The forces surrounding climate change may not be so different; the world gets richer and must accept some diffuse costs. Those may be modest overall, but cause all manner of unpredictable effects with which policymakers must cope. In the case of the China Shock, our faith in a growing pie served us poorly. We’ll need to do better on climate. Leave a comment
NSF announces 3 additional topics as part of the NSF X-Labs initiative to pursue generational breakthrough science and technology efforts
NSF X-Labs invites proposals from teams working in AI for physical systems and announces two forthcoming topics...
Introducing the WIRED App
The app is the best way to read, watch, and listen to WIRED’s journalism.
Pay to ghost your boss: Japan’s resignation business
Resignation agencies in Japan help employees leave their jobs seamlessly in just 15 minutes. Young people are especially eager to use their services.
Briere says Michkov has ‘different swagger' heading into Flyers training camp
Danny Briere discussed Matvei Michkov and other topics in his pre-training camp press conference.
Congress set to discuss this once taboo topic in women's health
Congress will talk about vaginal estrogen and hot flashes at its first-ever hearing on menopause Wednesday, Sept. 16.
Max Miller’s challenger launches attack ad based on domestic violence allegations
Democrat Brian Poindexter said that accusations against the Ohio Republican have become “a very prominent topic” in the race.
The Allen County-Scottsville Crime Task Force offering school and business talks on variety of topics
The Allen County-Scottsville Crime Task Force is working to build relationships with the community and offer school and business talks.
Johnson on AI: US must maintain ‘our edge’
CNN’s Manu Raju asked House Speaker Mike Johnson (R) on Monday about the president’s remarks on Truth Social that suggest there should be no guardrails other than himself. Johnson said that the topic will be addressed in an upcoming meeting with AI executives.
APS Recognizes 11 Psychological Scientists With 2027 Lifetime Achievement Awards
The 2027 recipients have advanced research in sleep disorders, cross-cultural comparisons of parenting, emotional regulation, and many other topics.
As Midterms Rage, Gillibrand Wants Congress to Talk Menopause
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York is devoting a hearing to a topic that affects millions but is poorly understood and widely ignored, including when it comes to federal research money.
WATCH: Politics Today for the week of Sept. 13, 2026
AMARILLO, Texas (KAMR/KCIT) — On Sept. 13, during the Politics Today episode on KAMR Local 4 News, Jack Kessler reviews several recent political developments and topics of interest in the Amarillo …
Sonoma Co.: County Launches Free Virtual Workshops For Student Mental Health
The Sonoma County Office of Education is hosting a series of free, virtual workshops for families and caregivers to learn more about various mental health topics that may impact students.
Mental health is health
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (CAPITOL CITY NOW) - The stigma is slowly going away when the subject is mental health. "Being able to talk more openly about these topics, I think, is really important. I think that is a huge piece of suicide prevention," says Lauren Yoggerst, mobile crisis unit manager at Memorial Behavioral Health. "Making sure
Candidates answer Flock, data center, business questions at NAACP forum
Four local candidates took part in the Henderson NAACP’s “Can We Talk?” forum, answering questions that included topics of data
😮 Everything clicks, Bundesliga club enjoys record start
The defining topic of Saturday’s football action was definitely the major crisis and nightmare start of Borussia Mönchengladbach, which was completed in brutal fashion this afternoon with a 0–5 t...
Open Thread, September 12, 2026: MEXICO!!
Your daily source for off topic chatter with the MMA Mania faithful.
From Practical Magic 2 to Saturday Night Live UK: your complete entertainment guide to the week ahead
Bullock and Kidman try to put a second spell on you in the fantasy comedy sequel, while the topical sketch show returns after a well-regarded debut
Politics Needs More Pragmatism
To the Editor: It’s no secret that our political climate has grown wildly polarized and shockingly partisan. I recall growing up in a time when the hot topics for debate […]
The Mississippi Book Festival is coming up. Here are 10 authors to look forward to.
Most writers have ties to the Magnolia State, utilized Mississippi and other Southern locals in their works, or have examined Southern topics.
Ectopic pregnancy deaths have nearly doubled. It’s worse in states with abortion bans
The number of women who died after an ectopic pregnancy has spiked in recent years, a ProPublica analysis found. The mounting deaths in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data have drawn little scrutiny or response.
Buccaneers Get Huge Support From Insider Poll About NFC South
The Tampa Bay Buccaneers have a lot of expectations to have a good NFL season with a strong roster. Quarterback Baker Mayfield will attempt to lead Tampa Bay to contention for the Super Bowl. One insider poll from Yahoo led to a group of insiders voting on the biggest topics entering the NFL season. Eight […] The post Buccaneers Get Huge Support From Insider Poll About NFC South appeared first on HEAVY.
Fabiani Outlines Lazio’s Strategy, Squad Valuation, & Fan Relations
During the official press conference presentation of new signing Diogo Leite at Formello, Lazio Sporting Director Angelo Fabiani addressed the media on several pressing topics surrounding the club.Spe...
Republican Senate Candidates Avoid Tariffs and Iran War at Trump’s Convention
Four battleground Senate nominees who spoke sidestepped a pair of issues that have posed political challenges, focusing instead on Mr. Trump’s tax law and other topics.
Director of Philanthropy for Maui Health Foundation to speak at Rotary Club of Lahaina Sunset
The Rotary Club of Lahaina Sunset welcomes Leana Taylor, Director of Philanthropy for Maui Health Foundation on Tuesday, Sept. 15, 2026. The topic of her presentation will be “Food Is Medicine: Locally Grown, Physician Prescribed.”
Meet The Hyangle, the San Diego art gallery dedicated to mental health
Artist Stephen Williams focuses his abstract paintings on mental health and wellness topics, and he opens his gallery to a variety of organizations and events that support San Diegans’ well-being. Written by Kate Morrissey, Edited by Lauren J. Mapp Author’s Note: This story includes mention of suicide. If
An embattled Donald Trump is increasingly using sports as prop
Sports is the rare topic in which the president has succeeded in shifting the conversation to his preferred terms
The 98 Biggest TV Show Flops, Bombs and Misses in the First Half of 2026
(Welcome to the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a newsletter on the entertainment industry and business strategy. I write a weekly Streaming Ratings Report and a bi-weekly strategy column, along with occasional deep dives into other topics, like today’s article. Please subscribe.) In July, I updated my look at how the “streaming bubble” popped since 2023, showing the decline in streaming TV shows over time. But after compiling and analyzing and writing about over one hundred TV show flops in the first half of 2026—I counted 99 “nominees” and there are even more honorable mentions—I couldn’t have told you that the number of shows is going down. When it comes to scripted, English-language TV shows, it feels like we have as many bombs as ever. I don’t keep a specific count, but some streamers probably had as many flops as they’ve ever had.1 That’s right, it’s time for part two of my analysis of the biggest flops, bombs and misses on streaming in the first half of 2026. Two weeks ago, I took a look at films. Today, TV shows. If you want to read the full methodology for how I assemble this list, you can find it at the bottom of this article. In short, this list is… ...scripted and unscripted TV shows,...from the nine major streamers,...in the US (using US-only ratings),...excluding true crime, kids and foreign-language shows,...that got no/poor ratings,...from Jan-2026 to the end of June-2026. Reminder: this article does not represent my personal opinion—many of these shows are great!—but I follow the data, and a miss is a miss and a bomb is a bomb. Also, price matters. If a TV show costs north of $100 million, it needs to get lots and lots of streaming viewership to justify that budget. As with past editions, I ordered this list by streamer, going from best (fewest flops) to worst (the most misses)—taking the size of the flops into consideration—and like the last edition, three or four streamers vied to take the win/loss of having the most flops. (But the actual winner is no surprise.) I try to avoid tooting my own horn too much, but seriously, in just under 5,000 words (including the methodology section) I provide a mostly comprehensive overview of the eight major streamers (Netflix, Disney+, Prime Video, Hulu, HBO Max, Peacock, Paramount+, and Apple TV) for the first half of the year, mentioning most of their hits and all their misses. It summarizes the entire first half of 2026! If you want to support this work, please subscribe. Subscribe Tubi Big Mood Boarders The Freak Brothers Twenty Twenty Six Honorable Mentions: Busted on Bodycam, Deestroying the Pitch, Destination World Cup 2026 I don’t think that Tubi spends all that much making or (mostly) licensing these original TV shows—Big Mood, Boarders and Twenty Twenty Six all come from the UK—but they’re not free and they didn’t chart anywhere. Winner: The Freak Brothers Have you even heard of this show? It’s an animated comedy...that’s on its third season! And Pete Davidson, Woody Harrelson, John Goodman and Tiffany Haddish all provide voice talent for it. Yes, animated shows don’t cost as much as live action shows, but cheap isn’t free! So a show with this level of talent needs to perform better. Disney+ Daredevil: Born Again Star Wars: Maul – Shadow Lord Honorable Mentions: Behind the Attraction, Donna Hay Coastal Celebrations, We Call It Imagineering Disney+ doesn’t make all that many original shows anymore. They had two flops, and one was animated. Their one not-a-miss show, Wonder Man, got just good enough viewership to not be considered a “miss”...but it’s since been cancelled. At this point, Disney has pivoted entirely away from making big budget TV shows for Disney+ to making...almost nothing for Disney+? Sure, Disney’s spending circa 2019-2022 was unsustainable, but now they’re pivoting too far in the other direction. At some point, Disney needs to stop shifting strategies so wildly. Really, Disney should have made fewer shows for Disney+ at launch and the shows they did make at that time needed to be made at more reasonable budgets. And they should adopt that strategy now. Winner: Daredevil: Born Again Daredevil, the Marvel Comics character, is on my personal Mount Rushmore of favorite superheroes, so it pains me to give him the win/loss today, but this show deserves it. I’ll repeat my hot take from last spring: “Based on his popularity, Daredevil should be in movies, and probably ones that cost a lot less than the MCU’s usual price tag. Disney/Bob Iger/Ike Perlmutter (who, based on reporting, made the decision) made a huge mistake selling TV shows to Netflix in the 2010s, thus limiting this character to the small screen. Daredevil could have anchored Marvel’s post-Infinity War plans, and if he did, the MCU would probably be in a better place than it is now.” HBO Max We’re just getting started with this issue, but the rest is for paid subscribers of the Entertainment Strategy Guy, so if you’d like to find out… What four streamers had the most misses... HBO’s strong start to 2026… The caveat to Peacock’s turnaround this year... Paramount+’s key man problem… What country isn’t delivering hits for Netflix or Hulu... The cavalcade of stars on a streamer where no one is watching their shows... Across nearly 5,000 words of analysis… And a lot more... ...please subscribe! We can only keep doing this great work with your support. If you’d like to read more about why you should subscribe, please read this article about the Streaming Ratings Report, why it matters, why you need it, and why we cover streaming ratings best.
Joy Behar says Whoopi Goldberg has been on“ The View ”so long that ‘she used to be white’
Behar made the joke as she encouraged the audience to celebrate Goldberg’s 20th season at the Hot Topics table.
Scientists Are Still Trying To Understand How the Moon Formed
The Earth and the Moon have nearly identical isotopic compositions, and the Giant Impact Hypothesis strives to explain this. New research into the ancient impact shows how the temperature of both worlds, and how it affects the strength of the materials involved in the collision, shaped the outcome, including the isotopic compositions.
Online cybersecurity clinic available for Hawaiʻi small businesses
“The One-Person Security Department: Building Your Own Tools for Hawaiʻi IT on No Budget” is the topic for the first in a series of three free Zoom meetings presented by the University of Hawaiʻi Maui College for sole proprietors and registered businesses in Hawaiʻi.
Is investing in mental health an overlooked opportunity?
EXPERT INSIGHT: If you’re an impact investor, what’s your first reaction to mental health? Do you immediately think of founders’ wellbeing, of highly scalable, AI-enabled therapy apps, or do you believe it’s a personal topic that isn’t investable at all?
Star Trek used wormholes to jump through space – but what’s the science behind them?
The first appearance of a wormhole in Star Trek was a typically pioneering reference to what was then a niche research topic.
Politics in NI: What are the possibilities for Stormont reform?
A growing question among local politicians concerns whether Stormont should be reformed. If rules or procedures are changed, can that make local politics more effective? Will it better serve the people who live here? Over the course of 2026 these conversations have grown louder and more frequent. It is one of the central topics of...
Hernando Teachers Protest 23% Health Insurance Premium Hike at Packed School Board Meeting
A packed Aug. 25 Hernando County School Board meeting was dominated by one topic — a potential 23% jump in employees’ health insurance premiums. Florida Blue informed the district during […]
Talk Business & Politics: Editor Andrew DeMillo and mid-term election analysis
It has been a busy week in Arkansas between the topics of data centers, prison wrangling and healthcare.
MSU expanding AI curriculum with new minor and course additions
Artificial intelligence has taken the world by storm, and Michigan State University is responding. The university introduced an AI minor, added topics to existing courses and created two brand-new AI classes.
EU and ASEAN discuss health emergency preparedness and response
The Director-General of the European Commission’s Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA), Dr Florika Fink-Hooijer, met with the Secretary-General of ASEAN, Dr Kao Kim Hourn, in Jakarta on 4 September 2026 to discuss health emergency preparedness and response to emerging health threats, and to explore deeper cooperation between the EU and ASEAN. Both regions face similar challenges from emerging threats such as infectious diseases, which will further increase with climate change and increased travel, requiring global and regional cooperation. Both sides acknowledged that regional partnerships are essential to prepare for the next health emergency — it's a matter of when, not if. Building close EU-ASEAN cooperation on health emergency preparedness and response is therefore critical to ensuring a collective response, as we look ahead to the Commemorative Summit in 2027 marking the 50th anniversary of EU-ASEAN Dialogue Relations. Among other topics, discussions covered future partnership in the establishment and operations of the ASEAN Centre for Public Health Emergencies and Emerging Diseases (ACPHEED), as well as other key avenues for deeper collaboration.
Monitoring One Health action against antimicrobial resistance in Indonesia
Ministry of Health, with support from WHO and partners, convened a national multisectoral validation meeting for Indonesia’s 2026 TrACSS submission. Representatives from human health, animal health, fisheries, food and agriculture, environment, research institutions and development partners reviewed the country’s progress on AMR, and validated evidence supporting survey responses prior to submission. In the meeting, WHO presented Indonesia’s 2025 TrACSS results and facilitated technical sessions on the 2026 survey structure, rating principles and submission process.
Public Health Topic: Suicide Prevention Awareness
The Central MA Regional Health Dept. (CMRHD) is highlighting Suicide Prevention Awareness for the month of September. CMRHD is dedicated to fostering a community where mental health and well bein
‘The View’ reveals 1 former cohost returning to the table for season 30
‘The View’ revealed Sherri Shepherd will join Whoopi Goldberg, Joy Behar, and more at the Hot Topics table when the show premieres for its landmark season 30.
How Science Journalists Are Using AI Image Tools to Create Explainer Graphics for Complex Technical Topics
A Google Quantum AI researcher recently described visuals and metaphors as essential to sharing research that often sounds
Cardinals Legend Sends Warning Over Michael Wilson Extension Talks
The Michael Wilson contract extension talks have been one of the biggest player storylines for the Arizona Cardinals this offseason. Cardinals legend Adrian Wilson decided to share his two cents on the topic.The legendary safety and 2015 Ring of Honor inductee published a nine-post thread on X on the Michael Wilson extension talks. He cautions […] The post Cardinals Legend Sends Warning Over Michael Wilson Extension Talks appeared first on HEAVY.
WVU, Marshall leaders detail latest developments at universities, local communities during Business Summit
University, health, and city leaders covered a cornucopia of topics Wednesday.
WHO validates Timor-Leste’s elimination of trachoma as a public health problem
WHO has validated Timor-Leste as having eliminated trachoma as a public health problem. With this validation, trachoma has been eliminated as a public health problem throughout the WHO’s South-East Asia Region.
US Open under the influence: content creators spark debate
Jessica Pegula is all in favor of bringing more fans into tennis, but the world number three said Wednesday it's important to keep the focus on the game.The influencers focus not just on tennis, but on fashion, food and lifestyle topics that are now an inextricable part of the game.
Everyone can help: Recognizing the signs and preventing suicide
Mental health challenges affect people of all ages, backgrounds and walks of life. Yet conversations about these concerns aren’t always easy to discuss. That’s especially true when it comes to a topic like suicide, which remains a leading cause of death in the United States, responsible for more than 48,000 deaths each year. The impact […]
Why health equity is now a business imperative in cardiology
For health systems under value-based care payment initiatives, there a direct financial incentive to invest in programs that improve access and outcomes among underserved populations. Cardiologist Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, shared her thoughts on this important topic.
Topicals Appoints New CEO From Fenty Beauty
Founder Olamide Olowe has stepped down from her chief executive role and will become chairwoman as Sukiana Chancy joins the company.
AI dominates the 4th International Congress of Basic Science in Beijing
Subir Sarkar finds that AI was a hot topic among the over 800 delegates
Amendment 71: New Opportunity: A.16 Cryosphere
A.16 Cryosphere solicits high-impact efforts focused on sea ice, ice sheets, and glaciers. The expectation is that proposed investigations will use the wealth of data from NASA satellites and airborne campaigns to address the most urgent and impactful topics in cryospheric science, as identified in the National Academy of Sciences Decadal Survey, Thriving on Our Changing Planet: A Decadal Strategy for Earth Observation from Space (2018), https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24938.
Marathon’s Low Playercount Is Creating Matchmaking And Onboarding Issues
Marathon's low playercount is frequently a topic of conversation, but now it has gotten to a point where it's actively harming the game and its future prospects.
Fresno’s hot political month: ballot fiasco, racial slur fallout, DA stabbed, recall Bredefeld?
Here’s your guide to Fresno's chaotic August in politics. Each story and topic explained from dueling tax measures to why a senior DA was stabbed at a campaign ad shoot.
Help Us Investigate Abusive Coaches in Youth Sports
We’re continuing to report on abusive youth sports coaches and the gaps in the system that allow them to continue working with kids. If you have something to share on this topic, we want to hear from you.
Private property rights challenge rural Colorado communities
If there were ever a topic I believe deeply in, it’s private property rights. If there were ever a topic that leaves me in a moral conundrum more often than not, it’s private property rights. The northern portion of Weld County is where towns like Grover and Hereford are hunkered down against the wind. It’s […]
WATCH: Politics Today for the week of Aug. 30, 2026
AMARILLO, Texas (KAMR/KCIT) — On Aug. 30, during the Politics Today episode on KAMR Local 4 News, Jack Kessler reviews several recent political developments and topics of interest in the Amarillo a…