‘Human Footprint' Season 2 Review: Clean Up on Aisle PBS
What do cane toads and honey bees have in common? Both are examples of what can happen when man tries to tweak nature. The six new episodes, hosted by evolutionary biologist Shane Campbell-Staton of Princeton University, wanders all over the globe, addressing instances in which humans tried to manipulate the environment to meet a very reasonable end—Australia's introduction of cane toads, for instance, which not only failed to eat the cane beetles they were meant to eradicate but poisoned native species that tried to eat them (though why any creature would attempt such a hideous meal is a mystery). The efforts that Mr. Campbell-Staton tracks in rescuing honey bees from extinction are more a case of reversing the unintended consequences of pollution and pesticides.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Science Officially Confirmed That The 10,000 Steps Rule Is Outdated. Here's The New Number To Target.
A new meta review published in the Lancet officially confirmed that we've been calculating our step count number all wrong. The new findings suggest that you can actually reap the major health benefits well before you hit 10,000 steps. Here's what experts say about the 10k number and how this applies to your life. The idea that you need to log 10,000 steps a day for good health has been health gospel for ages. But as Women's Health previously reported this year, the 10,000-a-day steps goal (which roughly equates to five miles) isn't really based in science. In fact, it's more marketing than anything. But it's a nice, round number, and it's built into most fitness trackers. Now, a new scientific analysis in The Lancet Public Health officially confirms that this lofty steps count goal isn't actually necessary—and the potential health benefits start to level off well before you reach that point. If you've been happily clocking 10,000 steps a day and feel like it's working for you, there's no reason to stop. But if that number is intimidating and feels impossible to reach with everything else you've got going on in your life, this study probably has some findings you can use. Here's what the scientific review discovered, plus where experts and trainers recommend you try to land with your new step count goal. Meet the experts: Albert Matheny, RD, CSCS, co-founder of SoHo Strength Lab; Dani Singer, CPT, founder of Fit2Go Personal Training What did the new meta review find? For the review, researchers analyzed data from 88 different studies, looking at how step counts were linked with the risk of developing a slew of health conditions. Overall, the researchers discovered that the risk of developing serious health conditions like cardiovascular disease, dementia, cancer, type 2 diabetes, and depression was lower in people who logged 7,000 steps a day compared to those who only did 2,000 daily steps. But they also discovered that the health perks beyond 7,000 steps were actually pretty minimal. "Although 10,000 steps per day, an unofficial target for decades without a clear evidence base, was associated with substantially lower risks for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease incidence, cancer mortality, dementia, and depressive symptoms than 7,000 steps per day, the incremental improvement beyond 7,000 steps per day was small, and there was no statistical difference between 7,000 steps per day and a higher step count for all the other outcomes," the investigators wrote. "Therefore, 7,000 steps per day might be a more realistic and achievable recommendation for some, but 10,000 steps per day can still be a viable target for those who are more active.' Where did the 10,000 number come from? The famous steps goal number has a long history behind it (you can do a deep dive here). But here's a quick recap: This number was formulated by a Tokyo doctor named Iwao Ohya who created a fitness tracker called Manpo-Kei (in Japanese, that means "10,000 step meter) with engineer Jiro Kato. It's been suggested that 10,000 steps was chosen because the Japanese character for 10,000 looks like a man running or walking, but it's not really clear if that's truly one of the reasons behind the number. (Both inventors have since died.) The number 10,000 eventually got picked up by researchers and fitness tracker developers, and its popularity spread. These days, almost everyone knows the number. Still, "no clinical data backed it then, and none was added later," says Dani Singer, CPT, founder of Fit2Go Personal Training. Why is it not accurate? While hitting 10,000 steps isn't bad for you (and means you're moving a lot throughout the day) the exact number is pretty much made up. "It was a marketing campaign,' says Albert Matheny, RD, CSCS, co-founder of SoHo Strength Lab. 'There wasn't a scientific basis for it.' Matheny stresses that the 10,000 steps a day goal isn't necessarily inaccurate from a health POV—but many people can get serious health perks between 5,000 to 7,000 steps a day. "The data show health gains level off well before 10,000," Singer says. "Mortality and cardiovascular risk improvements start at just 2,000. It's important to understand this so that you avoid an all-or-nothing mindset—especially one that isn't based on any actual data." If that's the number you like, and you hit it consistently, stick with it! But just remember: '10,000 steps per day is not the magic number," per Matheny. So, how many steps should I take per day? Based on the scientific review's findings, aiming for 5,000 to 7,000 steps a day is a good goal to reach for. That's roughly two to 3.5 miles per day, depending on your stride. 'There's nothing wrong with 10,000 steps, but it isn't based in science,' Matheny says. If you want to still aim for 10,000 steps, Matheny says you should go for it. 'If you don't get there, maybe you still get to 7,000,' he points out. But any amount of walking is helpful. 'A thousand steps is way better than zero,' Matheny says. You Might Also Like Jennifer Garner Swears By This Retinol Eye Cream These New Kicks Will Help You Smash Your Cross-Training Goals Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Scientists Are Warning of A Brand-New Kind of Acid Rain
"Hearst Magazines and Yahoo may earn commission or revenue on some items through these links." Here's what you'll learn when you read this story: While acid rain caused by sulfur dioxide is an environmental threat of the past (at least, for now), a new kind of acid is proliferating in rain water—as well as groundwater, ice cores, and even human blood. Trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) is a subclass of 'forever chemical' that's been steadily increasing in concentrations around the world. With calls to consider this rise in TFA a planetary threat, some governments are starting ban chemicals linked to TFA—but the threat will require global cooperation. Acid rain may have a sequel, and like most sequels, it's arguably worse. While the world's first bout of acid rain (at least, in modern times) came from increased concentrations of sulfuric acid produced largely from coal plants, this new anthropogenic source is possibly more pervasive, more persistent, and more sinister. Its name is Trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), a kind of 'forever chemical' that, for decades, has been steadily increasing in rain water—but not just rain water. Countries around the world have found increasing concentrations in groundwater, arctic ice cores, wine, and even human blood. In fact, TFA is likely the most pervasive form of per- and poly-fluoroalkyl (PFAS)—technically, a subclass known as ultrashort-chain perfluoroalkyl acid (PFAA)—on Earth due in part to the fact that longer-chain PFAS degrade into TFA via incinerators or sewage treatment plants. They're also used in refrigerants instead of chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons, which were famously known to deplete the Earth's ozone layer. In October of 2024, a team of European environmental scientists raised the TFA alarm, stating that a rise in concentration could be considered a threat to 'planetary boundaries'—a system designed to make sure the planet remains habitable for human life (which we are doing a real bang-up job at following). 'Since the 1990s, it has been suggested that hazard-related concerns of TFA and other short-chain PFAAs are much lower than those of PFAAs with longer perfluoroalkyl chains, which are more bioaccumulative and generally more toxic,' the authors wrote back in October. 'However, these early reports did not consider TFA's ubiquitous accumulation in the environment, in particular its observed accumulation in water resources and bioaccumulation in various plants, including crops.' One of the most dangerous things about PFAAs is what we don't know about them. Unlike other PFAS (of which there are, sadly, thousands of different kinds), TFA is so small (a.k.a. ultrashort) that it's water-soluble, meaning it likely passes through the human body pretty quickly. A new Nature article reports that some scientists find this evidence compelling enough to not even consider TFA a kind of PFAS, but a growing chorus of voices are raising concerns that increased concentrations of TFA in water and food sources could render TFA's fast-moving nature a moot point. In fact, TFA's water-solubility could be a long-term headache. If scientists and governments eventually decide that TFA does need to be removed from drinking water and other sources, current filtration technologies are not up to the task. In other words, ridding the world of TFA will not only be immensely difficult, it'll also be incredibly expensive. Current regulations to eliminate certain forms of PFAS are already proving to be fiscally onerous. Thankfully, some governments are taking action. Denmark, for example, banned 23 substances earlier this month known to contain PFAS that contribute to rising TFA concentrations. Meanwhile, the U.S. is lagging behind—the Environmental Protection Agency doesn't even define TFA as a 'forever chemical,' much to the dismay of environmentalist groups and to the merriment of many industry leaders. Rising concentrations of TFA is the acid rain sequel no one wanted. But just like every terrible sequel ever made, it seems like we're getting it anyway. You Might Also Like The Do's and Don'ts of Using Painter's Tape The Best Portable BBQ Grills for Cooking Anywhere Can a Smart Watch Prolong Your Life? Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Pfizer and 3SBio conclude licensing deal for SSGJ-707
Pfizer has concluded a global licensing agreement with 3SBio, excluding China, which grants it exclusive rights for the development, production and commercialisation of 3SBio's bispecific antibody SSGJ-707. The antibody targets programmed cell death protein 1 and vascular endothelial growth factor and was developed using 3SBio's CLF2 platform. As part of the agreement, which was signed in May 2025, 3SBio will receive $1.25bn, along with a $100m equity investment from Pfizer. The agreement also includes an option for Pfizer to extend its licensing rights to include exclusive development and commercialisation of SSGJ-707 in China, for which Pfizer will pay up to $150m in option payments to 3SBio. Pfizer research and development chief scientific officer and president Chris Boshoff stated: 'We are excited to contribute our significant expertise and resources to rapidly advance the development of the SSGJ-707 programme, including novel combination strategies across a number of our major tumour areas of focus. 'This is an important candidate that combines two key targets in a promising class of medicines, complementing our antibody-drug conjugate portfolio and further demonstrating our commitment to advancing pioneering science to deliver transformative cancer medicines and new hope to people living with cancer.' SSGJ-707 is undergoing multiple clinical trials in China for metastatic colorectal cancer, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and gynaecological tumours. Interim Phase II data have shown positive outcomes regarding the efficacy and safety of SSGJ-707 as a single agent for patients with advanced NSCLC. Pfizer intends to manufacture the drug substance for the antibody in Sanford in the US state of North Carolina, and the drug product in Kansas. The clinical development plan for SSGJ-707 will involve trial centres in the US and globally, with a focus on the Phase III worldwide development plan for NSCLC as well as other solid tumours. "Pfizer and 3SBio conclude licensing deal for SSGJ-707" was originally created and published by Pharmaceutical Technology, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Melden Sie sich an, um Ihr Portfolio aufzurufen. Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten
