Shao Lin, University at Albany, State University of New York; Arshad Arjunan Nair, University at Albany, State University of New York; Fangqun Yu, University at Albany, State University of New York, and Quan Qi, University at Albany, State University of New York

Long-term high ultrafine particle concentrations in New York state neighborhoods are linked to higher numbers of deaths. That is the key finding of our new research, published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials.

Our study shows that high levels of ultrafine particles in the atmosphere over long periods of time are significantly associated with increased non-accidental deaths, particularly from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.

Ultrafine particles are aerosols less than 0.1 micrometers, or 100 nanometers, in diameter — about one-thousandth the width of a human hair. Due to their tiny size, they can be easily inhaled into the distal branches of lungs, quickly absorbed into the bloodstream and even pass through organ barriers.

We also found that certain underserved populations, including Hispanics, non-Hispanic Black people, children under 5, older adults and non-New York City residents, are more susceptible to the adverse effects of ultrafine particles. The disparities our study uncovered underscore the necessity for public health agencies to focus on and protect high-risk populations.

We quantified the long-term health impacts of exposure to these pollutants by combining mortality data from vital records in New York state and using a model that tracks how particles move and change through the air.

Why it matters

Air pollution is now ranked the second-leading risk factor for death, accounting for about 8.1 million deaths globally and about 600,000 deaths in the United States in 2021.

Most air pollution standards and regulations have been focused on larger particulate matter, such as PM2.5 – which includes organic compounds and metal particulates – and PM10, a category that includes dust, pollen and mold.

In comparison, ultrafine particles are typically much greater in number and have a much larger surface area-to-volume ratio, allowing them to carry substantial amounts of hazardous metals and organic compounds. Furthermore, because of their smaller size, ultrafine particles can follow the air flow and get deep into the lungs when inhaled. These unique characteristics make ultrafine particles particularly dangerous, leading to a range of adverse health problems.

Despite this understanding, ultrafine particles remain largely unregulated, while larger particulates are regulated under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Due to their unique characteristics, ultrafine particles require additional, tailored attention.

Ultrafine particles stem from both natural sources and human activity – primarily from combustion processes such as motor vehicles, power plants, wood burning and wildfires. A large share of ultrafine particles is created by chemical reactions in the atmosphere involving acidic gases from fossil fuel burning and ammonia from farming and residential wastes.

As cities continue to expand and urban populations grow, people’s exposure to these harmful particles is likely to increase. Both PM2.5 and ultrafine particles come from similar sources and can also form through chemical reactions in the atmosphere, but their trends diverge.

PM2.5 mass has been declining in many places, including New York, thanks to air quality regulations. However, recent research suggests that ultrafine particle numbers are not going down and have been increasing since 2017.

What still isn’t known

There are currently no large-scale monitoring sites in the U.S. dedicated to tracking ultrafine particles in the environment. This limits the ability of researchers like us to comprehend the extent of ultrafine particle exposure and its impact on public health.

What’s more, the exact biological mechanisms through which ultrafine particles cause harm are not yet fully understood. Increasing research evidence suggests that ultrafine particles can affect heart function, causing hardening of arteries, lung inflammation and systemic inflammation.

There have been few prior studies looking at death rates related to ultrafine particle exposure by demographics and seasonality. By understanding which groups are most vulnerable to ultrafine particle exposure, interventions can be more effectively tailored to lower the risks and protect those who are disproportionately affected. Our study, which is funded by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, helps fill in these critical knowledge gaps.

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

Shao Lin, Professor of Public Health, University at Albany, State University of New York; Arshad Arjunan Nair, Research Scientist in Atmospheric Sciences, University at Albany, State University of New York; Fangqun Yu, Senior Researcher in Atmospheric Sciences, University at Albany, State University of New York, and Quan Qi, PhD candidate in Economics, University at Albany, State University of New York

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Christopher Damman, University of Washington

Each October, as the days shorten and the air grows crisp, millions of Americans prepare for the beloved – and often sugar-fueled – tradition of Halloween. From jack-o’-lanterns glowing on porches to costumes ranging from the whimsical to the gory, Halloween is a time of playful scares, childhood memories and, of course, candy.

But as the wrappers pile up and the sugar rush hits, there’s something far more sinister brewing beneath the surface: the negative effects of candy on your gut health.

Sugar and other ingredients in Halloween treats can cast a sickly spell on the trillions of microorganisms that reside in your gut, collectively known as the gut microbiome. As a gastroenterologist and gut microbiome researcher at the University of Washington School of Medicine, I have dedicated my career to decoding the cipher of how food affects this microbial community within your gut.

While no candy is truly healthy, some options are better for your gut than others. And there are ways you can help wake your gut from its sugar “spell” after holiday indulgence.

Gut-busting treats

What does all this candy do to your gut?

In a healthy state, your gut microbiome acts like a microbial factory. It digests nutrients your body can’t – such as fiber and colorful, health-conferring plant compounds called polyphenols – and produces important molecules called metabolites that protect against infection and support brain health. It also regulates metabolism, or the transformation of food into useful components that power and grow cells.

A balanced diet keeps your gut’s microbial cauldron churning smoothly. But the concentrated sugar, saturated fat and additives in candy can throw things into disarray by feeding inflammatory microbes that weaken your gut barrier – the protective lining that separates your microbiome from the rest of the body.

Once the gut barrier is breached, even friendly microbes can stir up inflammation, causing health issues ranging from overweight to obesity, infections to autoimmune disease, and mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer’s.

Sugar and inflammation impair your microbiome’s ability to digest food and regulate metabolism. Instead of producing healthy byproducts – such as butyrate from fiber and urolithin A from polyphenols – candy lacking these nutrients may trick your system into storing more fat, providing less energy for your muscles and brain.

Too much candy can also affect your immune system. A healthy gut microbiome helps your immune system distinguish between friend and foe, reducing the risk of infections and autoimmune disorders. Sugar and inflammation undermine the microbiome’s role in training the immune system to distinguish between harmful invaders and harmless substances. Without a carefully calibrated immune system, your body may not effectively clear infections or may strongly react to its own cells.

Neurologically, excess sweets can also affect the gut-brain axis, the two-way communication between the gut and brain. A healthy microbiome normally produces neurotransmitters and metabolites, such as serotonin and butyrate, that influence mood and cognitive performance. Sugar and inflammation adversely affects the microbiome’s role in mental health and cognitive function, contributing to depression, anxiety and memory troubles.

The candy conundrum

Not all Halloween treats are created equal, especially when it comes to their nutritional value and effects on gut health. Sugar-coated nuts and fruit such as honey-roasted almonds and candy apples rank among the top, offering whole food benefits just beneath the sugary coating. Packed with fiber and polyphenols, they help support gut health and healthy metabolism.

On the opposite end of the spectrum are chewy treats such as candy corn, Skittles, Starbursts and Twizzlers. These sugar-laden confections are mostly made of high fructose corn syrup, saturated fat and additives. They can increase the unsavory bacterial species in your gut and lead to inflammation, making them one of the least healthy Halloween choices.

Chocolate-based candies, however, stand out as a more microbiome-friendly option. While varieties such as Twix, Three Musketeers and Milky Way contain only a small amount of chocolate, pure chocolate bars – especially dark chocolate – are rich in fiber and polyphenols. In moderation, dark chocolate with at least 80% to 85% cacao may even benefit your gut microbiome and mood by encouraging beneficial bacterial species to grow.

Chocolates with whole nuts, such as almonds or peanuts, offer a boost of fiber, protein and omega-3 fats, making them a healthier choice. Dark chocolate with nuts is best. But when sorting through Halloween treats, Peanut M&Ms, 100 Grands and Almond Joys may be better options over Rolos, Krackels and Crunches. Even candies with processed nuts, such as Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups and Butterfingers, retain small amounts of fiber and protein, making them preferable to nut-free options.

At the bottom of the list, along with chewy sugar candies, are pure sugar candies such as lollipops, Jolly Ranchers, gummies and Smarties. These sweets lack nutritional value, and their high sugar content can contribute to the growth of unhealthy bacteria in your gut microbiome.

In the end, all candies are high in sugar, which can be harmful when consumed in large quantities. Moderation and an otherwise balanced diet is key to enjoying Halloween treats.

Rebalancing after indulgence

If the microbiome is critical for health, and candy can disrupt its balance, how can you restore gut health after Halloween?

One simple strategy is focusing on the four F’s of food: fiber, phytochemicals, unsaturated fats and fermented foods. These food components can help support gut health.

Fiber-rich foods such as whole grains, nuts, seeds, beans, fruits and vegetables regulate digestion and nourish beneficial gut bacteria.

Polyphenol-rich foods such as dark chocolate, berries, red grapes, green tea and extra virgin olive oil help reduce inflammation and encourage the growth of healthy gut bacteria.

Unsaturated fats such as omega-3 fats, walnuts, chia seeds, flaxseed, avocados and fatty fish such as salmon can also support a healthy microbiome.

Fermented foods such as sauerkraut, kimchi, yogurt, kefir and miso help replenish beneficial bacteria and restore gut balance.

To make tracking your diet easier, consider using a food calculator to measure how well your meals align with the four F’s and microbiome friendly options. Like a virtual “spellbook,” an online tool can help ensure your food choices support your gut health and ward off the effects of sugar overload.

As my daughters often remind me, it’s perfectly fine to indulge every now and then in a few tricks and treats. But remember, moderation is key. With a balanced diet, you’ll keep your gut healthy and strong long after the Halloween season ends.

Christopher Damman, Associate Professor of Gastroenterology, School of Medicine, University of Washington

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Thomas G. Roberts, Georgia Institute of Technology

The next president of the United States could be the first in that office to accept a phone call from the Moon and hear a woman’s voice on the line. To do so, they’ll first need to make a series of strategic space policy decisions. They’ll also need a little luck.

Enormous government investment supports outer space activities, so the U.S. president has an outsize role in shaping space policy during their time in office.

Past presidents have leveraged this power to accelerate U.S. leadership in space and boost their presidential brand along the way. Presidential advocacy has helped the U.S. land astronauts on the surface of the Moon, establish lasting international partnerships with civil space agencies abroad and led to many other important space milestones.

But most presidential candidates refrain from discussing space policy on the campaign trail in meaningful detail, leaving voters in the dark on their visions for the final frontier.

For many candidates, getting into the weeds of their space policy plans may be more trouble than it’s worth. For one, not every president even gets the opportunity for meaningful and memorable space policy decision-making, since space missions can operate on decades-long timelines. And in past elections, those who do show support for space initiatives often face criticism from their opponents for their high price tags.

But the 2024 election is different. Both candidates have executive records in space policy, a rare treat for space enthusiasts casting their votes this November.

As a researcher who studies international affairs in outer space, I am interested in how those records interface with the strategic and sustainable use of that domain. A closer look shows that former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris have used their positions to consistently prioritize U.S. leadership in space, but they have done so with noticeably different styles and results.

Trump’s space policy record

As president, Trump established a record of meaningful and lasting space policy decisions, but did so while attracting more attention to his administration’s space activities than his predecessors. He regularly took personal credit for ideas and accomplishments that predated his time in office.

The former president oversaw the establishment of the U.S. Space Force and the reestablishment of the U.S. Space Command, as well as the National Space Council. These organizations support the development and operation of military space technologies, defend national security satellites in future conflicts and coordinate between federal agencies working in the space domain.

He also had the most productive record of space policy directives in recent history. These policy directives clarify the U.S. government‘s goals in space, including how it should both support and rely on the commercial space sector, track objects in Earth’s orbit and protect satellites from cyber threats.

He has called his advocacy for the creation of the Space Force one of his proudest achievements of his term. However, this advocacy contributed to polarized support for the new branch. This polarization broke the more common pattern of bipartisan public support for space programming.

Like many presidents, not all of Trump’s visions for space were realized. He successfully redirected NASA’s key human spaceflight destination from Mars back to the Moon. But his explicit goal of astronauts reaching the lunar surface by 2024 was not realistic, given his budget proposal for the agency.

Should he be elected again, the former president may wish to accelerate NASA’s Moon plans by furthering investment in the agency’s Artemis program, which houses its lunar initiatives.

He may frame the initiative as a new space race against China.

Harris’ space policy record

The Biden administration has continued to support Trump-era initiatives, resisting the temptation to undo or cancel past proposals. Its legacy in space is noticeably smaller.

As the chair of the National Space Council, Harris has set U.S. space policy priorities and represented the United States on the global stage.

Notably, the Trump administration kept this position that the president can alter at will assigned to the vice president, a precedent the Biden administration upheld.

In this role, Harris led the United States’ commitment to refrain from testing weapons in space that produce dangerous, long-lasting space debris. This decision marks an achievement for the U.S. in keeping space operations sustainable and setting an example for others in the international space community.

Like some Trump administration space policy priorities, not all of Harris’ proposals found footing in Washington.

The council’s plan to establish a framework for comprehensively regulating commercial space activities in the U.S., for example, stalled in Congress.

If enacted, these new regulations would have ensured that future space activities, such as private companies operating on the Moon or transporting tourists to orbit and back, pass critical safety checks.

Should she be elected, Harris may choose to continue her efforts to shape responsible norms of behavior in space and organize oversight over the space industry.

Alternatively, she could cede the portfolio to her own vice president, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who has virtually no track record on space policy issues.

Stability in major space policy decisions

Despite the two candidates’ vastly different platforms, voters can expect stability in U.S. space policy as a result of this year’s election.

Given their past leadership, it is unlikely that either candidate will seek to dramatically alter the long-term missions the largest government space organizations have underway during the upcoming presidential term. And neither is likely to undercut their predecessors’ accomplishments.

Thomas G. Roberts, Postdoctoral Fellow in International Affiars, Georgia Institute of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.