Latest news with #STAT
Vox
11-07-2025
- Health
- Vox
Microwaves produce radiation. Is that bad for me?
covers health for Vox, guiding readers through the emerging opportunities and challenges in improving our health. He has reported on health policy for more than 10 years, writing for Governing magazine, Talking Points Memo, and STAT before joining Vox in 2017. A Vox reader asks: Are microwaves actually bad for you, your health, and the food you eat? I think anybody who's ever 'nuked' some leftovers or a ready-made meal has pondered the same question. Nuke? As in the same nuclear radiation that causes deformities and mutations in my favorite science fiction? What exactly am I doing to my body? It's an understandable concern. It seems like so much of what we eat is bad for us, and US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. constantly warns Americans that modern conveniences could be allowing invisible particles into our bodies that damage our health. It made sense then, that some staffers on his presidential campaign were reportedly fearful of radiation from kitchen microwaves. But here is the good news: You are not ingesting toxic nuclear radiation. Microwaves are in fact quite safe — but there are a few precautions you should be aware of, if only to avoid that tinge of anxiety the next time you hit start on your instant oatmeal. Let's start here: Microwaves produce a very different kind of radiation than a nuclear reaction. A nuclear bomb's detonation will emit ionizing radiation. That stuff carries so much energy it can actually strip electrons out of individual atoms, which can damage your body at the cellular level and potentially lead to cancer and other illnesses. A microwave will not. The radiation produced by your kitchen microwave, on the other hand, is 'non-ionizing.' These are electromagnetic waves that are similar to radio and light waves. Non-ionizing radiation is much, much less powerful than the other kind, which means it does not possess the necessary energy to alter your DNA at the molecular level. While prolonged, direct and intense exposure could lead to tissue damage, we are exposed to non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation all the time with no significant health harms, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Visible light — literally the light waves from the sun or a light bulb that our eyes pick up and our brains turn to images — is even a low-grade form of it. Plus, microwaves are appliances that the FDA strictly regulates to reduce any potential risk of radiation leakage; the agency says radiation injury from microwaves is 'very rare' and associated with extremely unusual circumstances or the microwave being in poor condition. Okay, we're not radiating ourselves when we nuke a slice of pizza. That's good. But you may still be wondering: Am I ruining the food somehow? While I personally hate the way a piece of pizza tastes after being microwaved, when considering the nutritional value (of pizza or anything else), heating your food in the microwave isn't going to hurt it. 'The non-ionizing radiation used by a microwave does not make the food radioactive,' according to the US Environmental Protection Agency. And it won't deplete your food of its nutritional value either: As Harvard Medical School's Anthony Komaroff wrote in 2019, 'microwave cooking is actually one of the least likely forms of cooking to damage nutrients.' The reason is simple: time. We invented microwaves to have a quicker way to heat up food and, as it turns out, that also confers some nutritional benefits. Foods leach nutrients when they are under more heat for a longer period of time. By shortening the amount of time that your food is being heated, microwaves allow it to retain more of its vitamins and minerals. It's unambiguously better than boiling, for example, during which the hot water removes many of the nutrients. How microwaving compares to roasting, sauteeing, or air-frying depends on the vegetable, but in general, microwaves are no worse for your food — from a nutritional point of view — than other forms of cooking. Alright, microwaves aren't slowly poisoning you, nor are they robbing your food of its health benefits. Are there any catches? Sort of. There are at least two precautions to take when using your microwave. First, make sure you are using a safe container. Never, ever put metal in the microwave. And don't put plastic bowls or containers in there either: Everybody is freaking out about microplastics, BPAs, and PFAS these days — and for good reason: When it comes to microwaves, you do have some reason to worry. Studies have indicated that chemicals can leach into your food if you heat your food in them using a microwave. Once they enter your body, microplastics could damage your heart and other organs, disrupt your digestion, and affect your mental sharpness. You may be better off with glass or ceramic containers. At the very least, check that the plates or bowls you're using in a microwave have been labeled safe for that use. You may want to consider replacing containers after a lot of microwave use because the risk of leaching harmful chemicals increases with time or if they have been damaged in some way. And then there is one other kind of harm from microwaves that health officials worry about: burns. Anybody who has grabbed a plate out of their microwave as soon as the buzzer sounds knows they can produce intense heat that can burn your body when you grab your food or your tongue and mouth when you ingest it. That is what the FDA is warning consumers to be mindful of, rather than nuclear mutations. The fear of turning into an extra from the Mad Max post-apocalypse should not dissuade you from using your kitchen's microwave — so long as you are also using an appropriate container and you handle it with care. Instead, focus on what preparation will be the most satisfying to you, and some people may want to consider what will provide the most nutritional value.
Vox
07-07-2025
- Health
- Vox
The US just recorded the most measles cases in 30 years
covers health for Vox, guiding readers through the emerging opportunities and challenges in improving our health. He has reported on health policy for more than 10 years, writing for Governing magazine, Talking Points Memo, and STAT before joining Vox in 2017. The US has seen more measles cases in 2025 than in any year since US has now recorded 1,277 measles cases this year, according to case data collected by Johns Hopkins University, making the current outbreak the most severe since 1992. The disease continues to spread, and by now most schools are out for the summer. July summer camps have opened and family vacations are picking up — all creating new opportunities for the virus to transmit. The next few months will be crucial for getting measles under control in the US. Three people have already died this year, the first measles deaths in the country in a decade. Most of the cases have been concentrated in a major outbreak in the Southwest — in New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas — but the virus is now also spreading in Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, and Ohio. New outbreaks have recently sparked in Colorado, Montana and North Dakota. Though cases are still rising, they're doing so more modestly than they were in March, when the country was seeing 100 or more new cases in a week. The measles outbreak does appear to be slowing down, experts say. But as cases continue to spread, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in mid-June urged kids' summer camps to check their participants for measles immunity status. Measles is one of the world's most contagious viruses and, with vaccination rates declining among children across the country, a lot of kids tightly cloistered for several days creates a prime environment for measles to spread quickly once introduced. The CDC's new checklist for summer camps advises camp organizers to collect vaccine records from campers and keep the documentation on hand, to check campers and staff for any signs of fever or rash upon arrival, and to set up an isolation area if anyone begins to feel sick once camp has started. We are living in a new reality: Measles is spreading widely, vaccination rates are down, and the country's top health official, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has backed away from urging vaccination — even though they are 97 percent effective — as the best way to tamp down on measles' spread. Kennedy has installed a new expert vaccine committee, opening up a review of the childhood vaccination schedule that includes the MMR shot. Given this more lax approach from the Trump administration, now is a good time to look out for ourselves and our loved ones. Here's what you need to know about measles as the season with the biggest potential to spread heats up: Measles is an extremely contagious and dangerous virus The US has been largely free of measles — a disease that still kills over 100,000 people worldwide every year, most of them young children — since the 1990s. Its risks have for most people become largely hypothetical. But for unvaccinated Americans, those risks remain very real. Measles is an extremely contagious virus that can lead to high fever and rash. Some patients develop pneumonia or encephalitis, a brain inflammation, both of which can be deadly. Measles has a fatality rate of 0.1 percent, but about 20 percent of cases can put patients in the hospital. The virus can be particularly dangerous for kids, especially young infants, as well as pregnant women and people who are immunocompromised. Some vaccine skeptics, including Kennedy, downplay the measles' risk. 'It used to be, when I was a kid, that everybody got measles. And the measles gave you lifetime protection against measles infection,' he said on Fox News in March. But measles has never been some harmless disease: In the decade before a vaccine was introduced in 1963, between 400 to 500 children died annually from measles in the US. From 1968 to 2016, there were about 550 measles deaths total in the US, according to the CDC. But before this year, it had been 10 years since any measles deaths had been recorded in the US. Even people who survive a measles infection can endure long-term health consequences, the risks of which are greater for vulnerable groups. Some of those infected in the current outbreak may have their health affected for years. Measles can cause what's called immunity amnesia. The virus can wipe out more than half a person's preexisting antibodies that provide protection against other pathogens. That can leave the patient at higher risk from other diseases for years after their measles infection. And in very rare cases, measles can lead to fatal brain swelling years after the initial infection. Patients can also experience hearing loss from ear infections that started their illness, while the people who develop acute encephalitis can suffer permanent neurological damage. You can protect your kids from measles. Here's how. Vaccination is without a doubt the best defense against measles: two doses of the MMR vaccine — given to protect against measles, mumps, and rubella. It is one the most effective vaccines we have for any disease, and any risks from the vaccine are extremely low when compared to the dangers of measles itself. But in this new world, you're more likely to see a measles outbreak in your community. People may want to be more proactive about protecting themselves and their loved ones. Here's what you can do: Parents of young children — the group most at risk from measles — should talk to their pediatrician about measles vaccination. Children usually get their first shot around the time they turn 1 and receive another shot around age 5, but there is some flexibility. The CDC recommends that infants as young as 6 months receive one dose if they are traveling internationally, and the recommended age for the second dose ranges from 4 to 6 years old. Several leading public health experts, including former CDC director Rochelle Walensky, wrote in a JAMA op-ed over the spring that the recommendations should be updated to advise one shot for infants traveling in the US to areas with higher risk of exposure. There have been reports of vaccinated individuals getting infected during the current outbreaks, which has raised questions about how protected vaccinated people actually are. As good as it is, 97 percent effectiveness is not 100 percent, and it is possible to be vaccinated against measles and still get sick. For a very small percentage of people, the vaccine simply doesn't produce immunity. It is also possible that immunity could wane over time, but that was previously not an issue because high vaccination rates had snuffed out the virus's spread. Per the CDC's estimates, about 3 percent of measles cases this year have been vaccinated people — consistent with the 97 percent efficacy rate. The priority should be vaccinating those people who do not have any protection at all: very young children and the people who weren't vaccinated as kids. Pregnant women should not receive the vaccine, but women planning to become pregnant could consult with their doctor about a booster shot; likewise, people with immune conditions should talk to their doctor before getting any additional doses, because the vaccine's live virus could present a risk depending on how compromised their immune system is. People who are at a higher risk may want to take extra precautions, such as wearing a face covering, if there are any reports of measles infections in their immediate area. For other people who have already been vaccinated but are still worried about transmission, it may be reasonable to consider a booster shot. But there are some important steps you should take first. First, check your vaccination records if you can find them. Anyone who received two doses as a child very likely had a successful immune response; only three in 100 people don't. And if you received one dose — which was generally the norm before 1989 — you're probably still protected, but it is slightly more likely that you never developed immunity, Aaron Milstone, an infectious disease pediatrician at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, told me earlier this year. The next step would be to talk to your doctor, who can give you a 'titer test' that measures the measles antibodies in your body. If they're still present — then you should be good. But if they're not, you may want to ask your doctor about getting an additional measles shot. The risks from measles should be kept in context: If you're not near any confirmed measles cases, your personal risk probably remains low. If you're vaccinated and have antibodies, you are very likely protected from the virus even if there is local transmission. But summer travel introduces some new risks: Several smaller outbreaks this year have been traced to infectious travelers passing through US airports. But measles can not be ignored either. Milstone said he and his fellow infectious disease doctors could not believe it when they heard the news in February of a child's death from measles in the United States of America.
Yahoo
18-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Boston Globe Media Celebrates Prestigious Journalism Award Wins Across The Organization
Recent accolades include four New England Emmy® Awards, three Scripps Howard Journalism Awards, an INMA Global Media Award, and a National City and Regional Magazine Award BOSTON, June 18, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Boston Globe Media is proud to recognize notable and award-winning work across several brands in its media portfolio, including The Boston Globe, STAT, The B-Side, and Boston magazine. "At a time when journalism is so vital, it's a true joy for so many of our teams across Boston Globe Media to be recognized and celebrated for their remarkable work, impactful stories, and commitment to holding people and organizations accountable," said Linda Henry, CEO of Boston Globe Media. "The talented editors, producers, and journalists responsible for this work are dedicated to serving our community in the region and to setting a nationwide industry standard of excellence." The Boston Globe was awarded three New England Emmy® Awards, underscoring the newsroom's commitment to amplifying its renowned journalism through video innovation. Winning entries were recognized in the categories of Societal Concerns-News for a short-form video by Olivia Yarvis and Janelle Nanos titled "Anxious? Lonely? Disconnected? Blame the post-pandemic 'human doom loop.'" The Globe received top prize in the News Promotion category for "Why didn't anyone stop the Lewiston shooter?" by Randy Vazquez and Tim Rasmussen. The former Boston Globe Today show won in the category of Politics and Government for "Breaking Down the Ballot Questions" with more than 10 individuals listed, including James Pindell, host and Globe political reporter. Boston Globe Media also celebrated an Emmy® win in the Societal Concerns - Long Form Content category for the documentary "Bearing Witness: A Name & A Voice" which was executive produced by Boston Globe Media CEO Linda Henry in collaboration with Anthem Multimedia and featured former and current members of the Globe team sharing the critical importance of accountability and investigative journalism. The Globe Spotlight team's investigation of Steward Health Care was named the recipient of a Scripps Howard Journalism Award for Best-in-the-Nation Business/Financial reporting. The Scripps Howard is considered one of the country's top journalism competitions, honoring work across visual, audio, digital, and print platforms. In addition, the Globe's coverage of the Sandra Birchmore case was a finalist in Local/Regional Investigative Reporting, and the team behind Massachusetts Legislature State Secrets earned a finalist placement in the category of Distinguished Service to the First Amendment. It's the second straight year the Spotlight newsroom has taken home a Scripps Howard. Last year, the Murder in Boston podcast won an award for Excellence in Audio Storytelling. STAT received two Scripps Howard Journalism Awards for "Health Care's Colossus": The Excellence in National/International Investigative Reporting, the Ursula and Gilbert Farfel Prize and the Impact Award, the highest honor amongst all award recipients. The judges noted that STAT's examination of UnitedHealth "stood out" by "combining old-fashioned shoe leather reporting and cutting-edge data analysis" to show how the company profited at the expense of patients, prompting legislative reform. The B-Side took home first place at the International News Media Association (INMA) 2025 Global Media Awards in New York, winning in the regional category of Best Initiative to Bolster Next-Generation Readership. The international winners announced in all categories were awarded for innovation and forward thinking in a variety of industry topics, including digital features, subscriptions, and artificial intelligence. The B-Side team was recognized for its ambitious multiplatform strategy, which has delivered the journalism of Boston Globe Media brands to a young Boston audience through a daily newsletter and social media. Boston magazine won the General Excellence award for the largest circulation division at the 40th annual National City and Regional Magazine Awards (CRMA) competition at CRMA's annual conference in Denver. Judges shared that "You can feel the ambition, energy and love for Boston on every page." The magazine also won first in the category of Feature Design for "A Nuts-and-Bolts Guide to Boston's AI Revolution" and received top honors for the best Food or Dining Section with "Beacon." Learn more about Boston Globe Media's award-winning media portfolio at Contact: Boston Globe Media Communications Team, communications@ About Boston Globe Media:Boston Globe Media Partners, LLC is a locally owned, award-winning media company serving Boston and New England for over 153 years. Its cornerstone is The Boston Globe, a 27-time Pulitzer Prize-winning news source and one of the most successful metro news organizations in the United States. The Globe is headquartered in Boston with regional bureaus in Washington, D.C., Rhode Island, and New Hampshire. The Globe has been successfully growing its direct subscriber base, today boasting the highest total number of subscribers the organization has had since 2008. The Globe hosts events that connect community members to its journalism and provides a range of digital and home-delivered advertising solutions that reach more consumers than any other New England media brand. Boston Globe Media's portfolio includes The Boston Globe, STAT, Globe Opinion, The B-Side, Boston magazine, Globe Events, Studio/B, and Globe Publishing Services. View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Boston Globe Media Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Senators grill NIH director in budget hearing: 4 takeaways
National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya faced questions from senators during an Appropriations subcommittee hearing Tuesday, as the federal government agency has taken hits to its staffing levels and grant-making ability since under President Trump. Senators focused on the Trump administration's requested 2026 budget, which calls for cutting NIH's funding by $18 billion from 2025 levels. That roughly 40 percent reduction means 1,800 fewer new grants would be awarded and funded through the NIH and would impact many current grants, according to STAT. The budget also details Trump administration plans to restructure the agency and consolidate its 27 institutes into eight. Congress has the final say on how federal dollars are allocated, so the final NIH budget could look different. Here are four takeaways from the hearing: National Institutes of Health grant awards have plummeted since Trump returned to the White House in late January. One analysis found that the NIH has issued $2.3 billion less in new grant funds between January and April of this year than it did during that same time in 2024. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) questioned Bhattacharya about the drop in grant funding and asked who was behind the decision to terminate or withhold funding. Bhattacharya, at first, tried to sidestep the question but eventually took responsibility for the agency's grant cancellations. 'There [have been] changes in priorities for the NIH, to move away from politicized science. I've made those decisions,' he said. 'Decisions regarding, for instance, Harvard and some other institutions, that's joint with the administration.' The NIH has canceled $9.5 billion worth of funding through 2,100 research grants since January and another $2.6 billion in contracts supporting clinical trials, according to a recent letter signed by more than 2,000 NIH scientists condemning the Trump administration's research cuts. Democratic Senators hammered Bhattacharya over the administration's desire to greatly reduce the NIH's spending. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill) noted that research in his home state has taken a hit and that Northwestern University has not 'received a penny in NIH grants in 11 weeks.' 'I'm very hopeful that a resolution can be made with the universities where those decisions have been made,' Bhattacharya said. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) questioned Bhattacharya over the NIH's decision to impose a 15 percent cap on indirect costs in grant research. Bhattacharya said that he could not speak directly to the cap since it is subject to litigation. Instead, he spoke to how changes in the NIH's grant funding process are an opportunity to ensure that funds are more broadly distributed across the country's research institutions. He argued that the agency's research funding 'very concentrated' with 20 universities receive 60 percent to 65 percent of NIH's funding. 'It's absolutely vital that the NIH's investments are geographically dispersed,' he said. 'I would love to work with Congress to think of ways to make NIH's investment in scientific research more geographically dispersed.' Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) pushed Bhattacharya to answer long-standing questions about the consequences of the Trump administration's changes to the NIH, including just how many staff members have been terminated or left the agency amid threats of future layoffs. Murray also asked the director just how many clinical trials have been impacted by the NIH's grant terminations or pauses and how many fewer clinical trials the agency would be able to fund next year if the proposed budget were approved. Bhattacharya said he could not answer either question but pledged to send a response to Murray's office by the end of the day. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
10-06-2025
- Health
- The Hill
Senators grill NIH director in budget hearing: 4 takeaways
National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya faced questions from senators during an Appropriations subcommittee hearing Tuesday, as the federal government agency has taken hits to its staffing levels and grant-making ability since under President Trump. Senators focused on the Trump administration's requested 2026 budget, which calls for cutting NIH's funding by $18 billion from 2025 levels. That roughly 40 percent reduction means 1,800 fewer new grants would be awarded and funded through the NIH and would impact many current grants, according to STAT. The budget also details Trump administration plans to restructure the agency and consolidate its 27 institutes into eight. Congress has the final say on how federal dollars are allocated, so the final NIH budget could look different. Here are four takeaways from the hearing: National Institutes of Health grant awards have plummeted since Trump returned to the White House in late January. One analysis found that the NIH has issued $2.3 billion less in new grant funds between January and April of this year than it did during that same time in 2024. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) questioned Bhattacharya about the drop in grant funding and asked who was behind the decision to terminate or withhold funding. Bhattacharya, at first, tried to sidestep the question but eventually took responsibility for the agency's grant cancellations. 'There [have been] changes in priorities for the NIH, to move away from politicized science. I've made those decisions,' he said. 'Decisions regarding, for instance, Harvard and some other institutions, that's joint with the administration.' The NIH has canceled $9.5 billion worth of funding through 2,100 research grants since January and another $2.6 billion in contracts supporting clinical trials, according to a recent letter signed by more than 2,000 NIH scientists condemning the Trump administration's research cuts. Democratic Senators hammered Bhattacharya over the administration's desire to greatly reduce the NIH's spending. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill) noted that research in his home state has taken a hit and that Northwestern University has not 'received a penny in NIH grants in 11 weeks.' 'I'm very hopeful that a resolution can be made with the universities where those decisions have been made,' Bhattacharya said. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) questioned Bhattacharya over the NIH's decision to impose a 15 percent cap on indirect costs in grant research. Bhattacharya said that he could not speak directly to the cap since it is subject to litigation. Instead, he spoke to how changes in the NIH's grant funding process are an opportunity to ensure that funds are more broadly distributed across the country's research institutions. He argued that the agency's research funding 'very concentrated' with 20 universities receive 60 percent to 65 percent of NIH's funding. 'It's absolutely vital that the NIH's investments are geographically dispersed,' he said. 'I would love to work with Congress to think of ways to make NIH's investment in scientific research more geographically dispersed.' Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) pushed Bhattacharya to answer long-standing questions about the consequences of the Trump administration's changes to the NIH, including just how many staff members have been terminated or left the agency amid threats of future layoffs. Murray also asked the director just how many clinical trials have been impacted by the NIH's grant terminations or pauses and how many fewer clinical trials the agency would be able to fund next year if the proposed budget were approved. Bhattacharya said he could not answer either question but pledged to send a response to Murray's office by the end of the day.
