Sydney reopens beaches after tar ball scare
Beaches in the Australian city of Sydney have reopened for swimmers after being closed earlier this week when thousands of mysterious black tar-like balls washed ashore, prompting health concerns. Officials say tests found the balls to be formed from chemicals similar to those in cosmetics and cleaning products but it is still unclear where they came from. Eight beaches including Bondi - the city's most famous - were closed and a massive clean-up ordered amid fears the black deposits were toxic. New South Wales's Environment Minister, Penny Sharpe, said investigations were continuing to establish the source of the pollution and who was responsible.
The state's maritime authority said the balls were not highly toxic to humans but should not be touched or picked up."Based on advice from the Environment Protection Authority, we can now confirm the balls are made up of fatty acids, chemicals consistent with those found in cleaning and cosmetic products, mixed with some fuel oil," said New South Wales Maritime Executive Director Mark Hutchings.
The New South Wales Environment Protection Authority (EPA) said laboratory testing was continuing, to try to determine where the balls came from, Reuters news agency reports."It is still somewhat of a mystery and may take a few more days to determine origin," said EPA Executive Director Stephen Beaman.The tar balls were "not harmful when on the ground but should not be touched or picked up", Mr Hutchings was quoted as saying by Australian broadcaster ABC."If you see these balls, report them to a lifeguard. If you or your family accidentally touches one, wash your hands with soap and water or baby oil."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
EPA employees sign ‘declaration of dissent' over agency moves under Trump
A group of Environmental Protection Agency employees on Monday published a declaration of dissent from the agency's policies under the Trump administration, saying they 'undermine the EPA mission of protecting human health and the environment'. More than 170 EPA employees put their names to the document, with about 100 more signing anonymously out of fear of retaliation, according to Jeremy Berg, a former editor-in-chief of Science magazine who is not an EPA employee but was among non-EPA scientists or academics to also sign. The latter figure includes 20 Nobel laureates. The letter represents rare public criticism from agency employees who could face blowback for speaking out against a weakening of funding and federal support for climate, environmental and health science. Scientists at the National Institutes of Health made a similar move earlier in June. 'Since the Agency's founding in 1970, EPA has accomplished [its] mission by leveraging science, funding, and expert staff in service to the American people. Today, we stand together in dissent against the current administration's focus on harmful deregulation, mischaracterization of previous EPA actions, and disregard for scientific expertise,' the letter read. Agency spokespeople did not immediately respond on Monday to messages seeking comment. 'I'm really sad. This agency, that was a superhero for me in my youth, we're not living up to our ideals under this administration. And I really want us to,' said Amelia Hertzberg, an environmental protection specialist at the EPA who has been on administrative leave since February from the office of environmental justice and external civil rights, while the administration works to close down her department. Hertzberg's work focused on the most vulnerable groups affected by pollution: pregnant and nursing people, young children and babies, the elderly, people with pre-existing and chronic health conditions and people living in communities exposed to higher levels of pollution. That was not supposed to be controversial, but it had become so in this political climate, she said. 'Americans should be able to drink their water and breathe their air without being poisoned. And if they aren't, then our government is failing,' she said. Berg, who also directed the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at NIH from 2003-2011, said the dissent was not motivated by partisan criticism. He said the employees hoped it would help the EPA get back to the mission for which it was established – which 'only matters if you breathe air and drink water'. The letter outlines what the EPA employees see as five main concerns: undermining public trust; ignoring scientific consensus to benefit polluters; reversing the EPA's progress in America's most vulnerable communities; dismantling the office of research and development; and promoting a culture of fear, forcing staff to choose between their livelihood and wellbeing. Under Lee Zeldin, the agency's administrator, the EPA has cut funding for environmental improvements in minority communities, vowed to roll back federal regulations that lower air pollution in national parks and tribal reservations, wants to undo a ban on a type of asbestos and proposed repealing rules that limit planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion Zeldin began reorganizing the EPA's research and development office as part of his push to slash their budget and gut their study of climate change and environmental justice. And he is seeking to roll back pollution rules that an Associated Press examination found were estimated to save 30,000 lives and $275bn every year. 'People are going to die,' said Carol Greider, a Nobel laureate and professor of molecular and cellular biology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who also signed the letter. She described last week's east coast heatwave as evidence of the ways people are feeling the effects of climate change. 'And if we don't have scientists at the EPA to understand how what we do that goes into the air affects our health, more people are going to die,' she added. Berg said the declarations of dissent from both the NIH and EPA employees are noteworthy because they represent scientists speaking out as their careers are on the line. Even non-agency employees have to consider whether the government will withdraw research funding. Greider, asked about fears of repercussions or retaliation, said she was 'living the repercussions of everything'. She regularly meets with graduate students who are worried about pursuing scientific careers as labs lose funding. She said it was a long-term problem if we are not supporting the next generation of scientists: 'That's decades worth of loss.'
Reuters
8 hours ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court tosses rulings that favored transgender people
WASHINGTON, June 30 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court threw out on Monday judicial decisions that favored transgender people in cases from North Carolina, West Virginia, Idaho and Oklahoma, including in legal challenges to state health insurance programs that deny coverage for patients seeking gender-affirming medical treatment. Acting in appeals by officials in North Carolina and West Virginia, the justices ordered lower courts to reconsider their decisions siding with the challengers to the insurance policies in light of the Supreme Court's major June 18 ruling that upheld a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on treatments such as puberty blockers and hormones for minors experiencing gender dysphoria. The Supreme Court decided that Tennessee's ban on youth transgender care did not violate the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment promise of equal protection, as challengers to the law had argued. The court's conservative justices were in the majority and liberal justices in dissent in the 6-3 decision. Gender dysphoria is the clinical diagnosis for significant distress that can result from an incongruence between a person's gender identity and the sex assigned at birth. The Supreme Court routinely orders lower courts to revisit certain cases that were on appeal in order to apply new case standards and legal interpretations from the nation's top judicial body. The case from North Carolina involved the state employee health plan, which excludes medical and surgical treatment "leading to or in connection with sex changes or modifications and related care." In West Virginia, Medicaid - the state-federal health insurance program covering low-income Americans - has denied coverage for "transsexual surgery" since 2004. Medicaid is managed primarily by state governments. In a similar case, the Supreme Court on Monday ordered reconsideration of a lower court's ruling that allowed a lawsuit to proceed against an Idaho official accused of denying surgical care to transgender Medicaid beneficiaries in that state, also taking into account the June 18 ruling. The justices also ordered reconsideration in a lower court's decision that revived a lawsuit challenging Oklahoma's policy barring transgender people from changing their birth certificates to match their gender identity. As in the Tennessee dispute, the plaintiffs had asserted that the policies violate the 14th Amendment and other laws. The justices did not immediately act in three other pending appeals involving state laws in West Virginia, Idaho and Arizona that would ban transgender athletes from female sports teams at public schools. Thursday is the next day when the Supreme Court acts on whether or not to take up pending appeals. The issue of transgender rights is a flashpoint in the U.S. culture wars. President Donald Trump during his 2024 election campaign promised to impose restrictions on gender-affirming care and sports participation, and since returning to office in January has taken aim at transgender rights. The Supreme Court in May permitted Trump's administration to implement his ban on transgender people in the U.S. military. Trump also has signed an executive order targeting what he called "gender ideology" and declaring that the federal government would recognize only two sexes: male and female. Trump also rescinded orders by his predecessor, Democrat Joe Biden, combating discrimination against gay and transgender people. The Supreme Court's ruling in the Tennessee case could bolster efforts by states to defend other measures targeting transgender people. Tennessee's law, passed in 2023, aimed to encourage minors to "appreciate their sex" by prohibiting healthcare workers from prescribing puberty blockers and hormones to help them live as "a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex." The Supreme Court's ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, highlighted the "ongoing debate among medical experts regarding the risks and benefits associated with administering puberty blockers and hormones," and found that the state law directly responds to that uncertainty. The ruling, however, left some room for future legal challenges and for lower courts to apply tougher legal scrutiny and potentially find unlawful discrimination involving other curbs on transgender rights.
NBC News
12 hours ago
- NBC News
EPA employees put names to 'declaration of dissent' over agency moves under Trump
A group of Environmental Protection Agency employees on Monday published a declaration of dissent from the agency's policies under the Trump administration, saying they 'undermine the EPA mission of protecting human health and the environment.' More than 170 EPA employees put their names to the document, with about 100 more signing anonymously out of fear of retaliation, according to Jeremy Berg, a former editor-in-chief of Science magazine who is not an EPA employee but was among non-EPA scientists or academics to also sign. The latter figure includes over 70 Nobel laureates. The letter represents rare public criticism from agency employees who could face blowback for speaking out against a weakening of funding and federal support for climate, environmental and health science. Scientists at the National Institutes of Health made a similar move earlier in June. 'Since the Agency's founding in 1970, EPA has accomplished (its) mission by leveraging science, funding, and expert staff in service to the American people. Today, we stand together in dissent against the current administration's focus on harmful deregulation, mischaracterization of previous EPA actions, and disregard for scientific expertise,' the letter read. Agency spokespeople did not immediately respond Monday to messages seeking comment. Employees want the EPA get back to its mission 'I'm really sad. This agency, that was a superhero for me in my youth, we're not living up to our ideals under this administration. And I really want us to,' said Amelia Hertzberg, an environmental protection specialist at the EPA who has been on administrative leave since February from the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, while the administration works to close down her department. Hertzberg's work focused on the most vulnerable groups impacted by pollution: pregnant and nursing people, young children and babies, the elderly, people with preexisting and chronic health conditions and people living in communities exposed to higher levels of pollution. That wasn't supposed to be controversial, but it's become so in this political climate, she said. 'Americans should be able to drink their water and breathe their air without being poisoned. And if they aren't, then our government is failing,' she said. Berg, who also directed the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at NIH from 2003-2011, said the dissent isn't motivated by partisan criticism. He said the employees hope it will help the EPA get back to the mission for which it was established — which 'only matters if you breathe air and drink water.' The letter outlines what the EPA employees see as five main concerns: undermining public trust; ignoring scientific consensus to benefit polluters; reversing EPA's progress in America's most vulnerable communities; dismantling the Office of Research and Development; and promoting a culture of fear, forcing staff to choose between their livelihood and well-being. EPA has cut funding and rolled back federal regulations Under Administrator Lee Zeldin, EPA has cut funding for environmental improvements in minority communities, vowed to roll back federal regulations that lower air pollution in national parks and tribal reservations, wants to undo a ban on a type of asbestos and proposed repealing rules that limit planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas. Zeldin began reorganizing the EPA's research and development office as part of his push to slash their budget and gut their study of climate change and environmental justice. And he's seeking to roll back pollution rules that an Associated Press examination found were estimated to save 30,000 lives and $275 billion every year. 'People are going to die,' said Carol Greider, a Nobel laureate and professor of molecular and cellular biology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who also signed the letter. She described last week's East Coast heat wave as evidence of the ways people are feeling the effects of climate change. 'And if we don't have scientists at the EPA to understand how what we do that goes into the air affects our health, more people are going to die,' she added. Berg said the declarations of dissent from both the NIH and EPA employees are noteworthy because they represent scientists speaking out as their careers are on the line. Even non-agency employees have to consider whether the government will withdraw research funding. Greider, asked about fears of repercussions or retaliation, said she's 'living the repercussions of everything.' She regularly meets with graduate students who are worried about pursuing scientific careers as labs lose funding. It's a long-term problem if we aren't supporting the next generation of scientists, she said: 'That's decades worth of loss.'
