
New Harvard app identifies wildfire hotspots with biggest risk of smoke impacts
The app is able to identify not just where blazes are likely to burn, but also where their public health impacts could be most profound, as detailed in a new study, published on Monday in Environmental Science & Technology.
'We want to know not just where catastrophic fires are likely to occur, but which fires will generate the most smoke, and affect the most people downwind,' senior author Loretta Mickley, a senior research fellow in chemistry-climate interactions at Harvard University, said in a statement.
Gaining that knowledge is critical, given the number of people who die prematurely from wildfire smoke inhalation in the U.S. West, Mickley explained.
This trend, she added, has persisted despite decades of progress made in curbing air pollution on the coasts.
To help address this gap, Mickley and her colleagues developed a Google Earth Engine App call SMRT-Flames, which enables fire managers and policymakers to evaluate potential fire-related smoke exposure risks in a given region and refine prevention strategies accordingly.
While the app currently focuses on Northern California, the researchers said that it can be expanded to include other areas.
Within that specific region, however, the scientists used their app to determine that in the 2020 fire season, targeted land management in the 15 highest-risk zones — about 3.5 percent of the area — could have decreased smoke exposures by as much as 17.6 percent.
They also calculated that following the season, about 36,400 people died from complications connected to inhaling the fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) found in smoke. These particles, the authors explained, disproportionately impact vulnerable individuals, including those with asthma and heart conditions, as well as the elderly.
The data available via SMRT-Flames could policymakers plan where management strategies, such as prescribed burns, could be most effective — and thereby reduce smoke-related health impacts over broad areas, according to the study.
'You can consider hypothetical scenarios and plan prescribed fires to reduce smoke exposure over an entire region, not just the immediate area where that prescribed fire is happening,' co-author Tianjia Liu, now an assistant professor at the University of British Columbia, said in a statement.
The practice of kindling controlled burns, as opposed to preventing them, has become increasingly essential to staving off larger and more catastrophic fire events from blazing through areas in the future, the researchers noted.
'This idea of wildfires being out of control is due to a combination of factors, including climate,' co-author Makoto Kelp, now a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford University, said in a statement.
But Kelp also pointed to a problematic history 'of fire suppression where we've actively prevented fires for the last 100 years, which has led to this huge buildup of fuels.'
As also shown in another study on prescribed burns last week, the researchers observed that prescribed burns are not quite as effective in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) — the area where homes meet wild vegetation — than outside, in the more highly forested areas.
And yet, the WUI spots also come with a higher risk of smoke exposure, the authors of the current study warned. With that in mind, they explained that the SMRT-Flames app can also integrate additional on-the-ground information and other types of fuel treatment plans.
'Increasing smoke exposure from wildfires in the western US underscores the urgency of optimizing land management to account for longer-term health impacts,' the authors concluded.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Entrepreneur
4 hours ago
- Entrepreneur
Microsoft Says Its AI Diagnoses Patients Better Than Doctors
Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman says that the AI tool is one step closer to providing high-quality medical advice for Copilot and Bing users. Microsoft says its new AI tool performs four times better than experienced human doctors at diagnosing complex health conditions — but the company's AI CEO says human physicians are still needed to help treat the illnesses. In a paper released on Monday titled "The Path to Medical Superintelligence," Microsoft introduced an AI tool that correctly diagnosed complex cases up to 85% of the time and arrived at the diagnoses more cost-effectively than human physicians. Related: 'No Longer Optional': Microsoft Staff Mandated to Use AI at Work, According to a New Report The team used more than 300 complex case studies from the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and had the AI tool imitate a panel of physicians to find the right diagnosis. The AI tool asked questions of the data, recommended what tests the hypothetical patient should get, and arrived at a diagnosis as it learned more information. As researchers added more data to the AI tool, it updated its best estimate of the diagnosis in real-time and explained the reasoning behind its conclusion. Microsoft researchers said that the AI tool correctly "solved" more than eight out of 10 NEJM case studies — much better than the average success rate of two out of 10 for human physicians. The AI also ordered fewer hypothetical tests to arrive at the right diagnosis, making it more cost-effective than a human doctor. Human doctors are usually characterized by breadth, like a general family physician, or depth, like a specialist. The team noted that the AI tool demonstrated "clinical reasoning abilities" that "exceed those of any individual physician" due to its ability to combine both breadth and depth of expertise. The AI tool isn't ready for clinical use yet and will only be approved after safety testing and clinical validation. However, Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman says it could help Microsoft provide "high-quality" health advice in response to the 50 million health-related queries it receives every day through its Copilot AI assistant and Bing search engine. "Although this is just early research, we're hoping that as we get this into production, it will give everybody access to very high-quality health information," Suleyman told Yahoo! Finance on Monday. Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman at a company event about Microsoft Copilot on April 4, 2025. Photo byThe AI tool examines existing medical information, synthesizes it, and gives it back to humans at the right time — but it still needs human doctors to hold it accountable, Suleyman said. Doctors are also required to plan and oversee treatment after a diagnosis. "You definitely still need your physician," Suleyman told the outlet, adding that the AI tool will likely get rolled out "in partnership with physicians themselves." Related: Microsoft AI CEO Says Almost All Content on the Internet Is Fair Game for AI Training Microsoft is currently testing the AI tool in real clinical environments to see how it performs on the job before any broader rollout. Microsoft is one of the most valuable companies in the world at the time of writing, second only to Nvidia, with a market cap of over $3.6 trillion.


Bloomberg
5 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Senators Came to Their Senses on AI Regulation Ban
Some sense has prevailed in the Senate — a 99-1 vote against a provision in its huge tax and spending bill that would have banned state-level artificial-intelligence laws for the next 10 years. It's been just 944 dizzying days since ChatGPT was launched into the world — imagine what might have happened over the next 3,653. A last-gasp effort to amend the bill, which included reducing 10 years to five, also failed. The new wording would have been more onerous than the original, decimating existing state laws on facial recognition and data privacy. New laws will need to tackle AI-triggered issues on discrimination, recruitment and mental health. The matter is simply too urgent to be left only in Washington's hands. Senators rightly saw through the moratorium as doing the bidding of big tech companies that want free rein to do as they please in the insatiable race to build and sell AI.


CNN
5 hours ago
- CNN
These women dedicated almost 50 years to science. Their efforts may soon be trashed
Donald Trump Food & healthFacebookTweetLink Follow For decades, researchers have been collecting samples from hundreds of thousands of women and tracking their health. The work has deepened our basic understanding of human health, but now the entire project is in danger. When nurses Patricia Chubb, 70, and her mother, Charlotte Mae Rohrbaugh, 98, joined the fledgling Harvard University-led Nurses' Health Study in 1976, they had no idea it would last for nearly 50 years. 'It's probably the longest, if not one of the longest, prospective health care studies for women that's ever been done,' said Chubb, who lives in Pennsylvania. 'They picked nurses to do the study because they know how to answer health questions correctly and can draw their own blood and the like — it's very cost-effective.' Study data gathered through the years from some 280,000 nurses in the United States has contributed enormously to improving how we live. The work has informed dietary recommendations, including national dietary guidelines; led to hormonal therapies for breast cancer prevention and treatment; and contributed to research about how nutrients, inflammatory markers and heavy metals influence disease development. Yet all of that priceless data may soon be discarded due to President Donald Trump's ongoing feud with Harvard over what Trump claims is a failure to protect Jewish students during campus protests. On Monday, an investigation by the Trump administration claimed that Harvard was in 'violent violation' of the Civil Rights Act by being 'deliberately indifferent' or a 'willful participant in anti-Semitic harassment of Jewish students, faculty, and staff.' Harvard strongly disagreed with the administration's claims. Interestingly, Trump had posted on Truth Social on June 20 that Harvard had 'acted extremely appropriately' during negotiations and that he was close to a 'Deal' with the university that would 'be 'mindbogglingly' HISTORIC, and very good for our Country.' But then, in the letter sent to Harvard on Monday, Trump officials made it clear Harvard would continue to lose 'all federal financial resources,' including millions for research, if the university did not comply with the administration's wishes. Funding for the Nurses' Health Study and its companion study for men, the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, had already been abruptly withdrawn in mid-May, said Harvard nutritionist Dr. Walter Willett, who has led the studies since 1980. Willett and his team were left scrambling to find the funds needed to protect freezers stocked with stool, urine and DNA specimens gathered from thousand of nurses for nearly five decades. Just the liquid nitrogen needed to keep the specimens frozen costs thousands of dollars a month. 'Of course, we would all love to have an agreement that lets us get on with research, education, and working to improve the health and well-being of everyone.' said Willett, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, who has published over 2,000 papers on nutrition. 'But this can't happen if we turn over admissions, faculty hiring and curriculum to governmental control.' Twenty-one-year-old Jackie Desmond joined the Harvard-based study when she graduated from nursing school in 1978. She considered the research so valuable that she later enrolled her 9-year-old son Kyle in a spin-off study investigating family nutrition. At 41, he still participates. 'They send us questionnaires once or twice a year about lifestyle and nutrition, what medications you're on, your lifestyle habits, when you sleep, when you eat, everything,' Desmond said. 'I've sent them samples of blood, urine, feces, whatever they need.' The study even has solicited toenails, which carry markers of heavy metals. One reason the study was so special is it was only focused on women, said Desmond, who is now 68 and lives in Connecticut. 'Before that, most studies were done only on men. So, it was about time to focus on studying women and they came up with some amazing information that's been very helpful to many of us,' Desmond said. 'You know for that reason alone, these samples are irreplaceable — losing them might put women's health research back many years,' she added. For Desmond and Chubb, the cuts in research funding make no sense. 'There's no connection in my mind between antisemitism and medical research. Why are you getting rid of decades of research? It's infuriating,' Desmond said. 'And it's very personal — I guess they'll just toss my DNA into the dump.' The threats to cuts also arrive as the Trump administration pushes its 'Make American Healthy Again' initiative, which Chubb finds ironic. 'You know what? There's lots of research going on to get us healthier and keep us healthier, and those are cuts that should not be made,' Chubb said. 'It's so shortsighted to shoot first and aim later.' Data from the Nurses' Health Study has vastly improved how all Americans live and eat while also impacting the health of people around the world, Willett said. 'From the efforts of these dedicated nurses we learned trans fats were terrible for health, and now those are basically gone from our food supply,' he said. 'We also found one of the earliest links between cigarette smoking and heart disease.' Data from the nurses' studies found red meat and alcohol can lead to breast cancer in women. Other key findings also proved lifestyle choices can improve health — the research identified diets that may reduce risk of cognitive decline. A list of scientific advances produced from the Nurses' Health Study data appears on its website. Dorothy Dodds, who died at 83, joined the original study in 1976. When her daughter Martha became a nurse in 1982, she joined the second wave of research, called the Nurses' Health Study II. A third generation of the study is still enrolling participants — the Nurses' Health Study 3. For Martha Dodds, now 68, her family's years of dedication to the study is priceless. 'You know, nurses don't get paid a lot,' Dodds said. 'We do our work because we want to help others. We took the study seriously and were careful and honest with our answers. 'My one little part may have helped women cut down on alcohol consumption, or maybe it'll help both men and women exercise more and cut back on trans fats,' Dodds added. All of the nurses CNN spoke with consider their years of dedication to the Nurses' Health Study a lifetime accomplishment. 'I'm so proud to be a participant, I'll put it in my obituary,' Chubb said. 'And my 98-year-old mom — who's still got all her faculties, and some of other people's, too — has chosen the Nurses' Health Study for donations in lieu of flowers in her funeral plans.' Chubb and her mother are in good company. Families of nurses across the country have proudly listed their Nurses' Health Study participation in their obituaries: Karen Ann Mudgett from Michigan, Donna Palmer from Georgia, Jeanette Thomas from Pennsylvania, Mary Ellen Natale from New Jersey, Patricia Anne Cobb from California, Marion Jones from Florida, Irene Rees from Virginia and many more. 'And now these hundreds of thousands of hours of work by nearly 300,000 nurses will just be discarded?' Dodds said. 'We're going to take 50 years of research and all this biodata and just destroy it, make it useless? 'It's like burning the Library of Congress — you just can't get that back.' Get inspired by a weekly roundup on living well, made simple. Sign up for CNN's Life, But Better newsletter for information and tools designed to improve your well-being.