Latest news with #WayneStateUniversity
CNET
5 hours ago
- Health
- CNET
A Dermatologist Shares the Ideal SPF to Use This Summer
4th of July party preparation is in full swing. I'm sure by now you are checking to make sure you have everything on your list: ice, drinks, hot dogs, plates and napkins. But there is one product you may be forgetting that is essential for your health -- sunscreen. Especially during the summer months, sunscreen is crucial to protect your skin from the sun's UV rays, which can lead to skin cancer and premature aging. But with so many different SPF numbers out there, it can be difficult to know which one to choose. We asked a dermatologist, so you don't have to. What is SPF? SPF, or sun protection factor, describes the amount of solar energy needed to produce a sunburn on protected skin relative to unprotected skin, according to the US Food and Drug Administration. Logic would follow, then, that wearing a higher SPF would offer you better protection when you're out and about, basking in the sun's rays. Is a higher SPF better? Is higher SPF sunscreen more protective in a measurable way that actually matters? The tested difference between SPF 30 and SPF 50 is small, according to Dr. Steven Daveluy, board-certified dermatologist and program director at Wayne State University Department of Dermatology. There was a difference of 96.7% blocking vs. 98% blocking, in one example he provided. Research on people wearing sunscreen out in "real life" has suggested higher SPFs are more protective, Daveluy said in an email. Combine this with the fact you're probably not wearing enough sunscreen -- studies have shown people apply only 25% to 50% of the amount that they should, Daveluy said -- and a higher SPF may come out reasonably more protective. "You should use about 1 ounce of sunscreen to cover your head, neck, arms and legs when wearing shorts and a T-shirt," Daveluy recommended, adding that people without hair should use a little more. "That means your 3-ounce tube of sunscreen is only three applications," Daveluy said. "Most people are not using that amount." What is the minimum SPF you need in a sunscreen? The American Academy of Dermatology Association recommends your sunscreen be SPF 30 or higher. It also recommends you look for sunscreen that has broad-spectrum protection (it protects against UVA and UVB rays) and make sure it's water-resistant. "If you follow the recommendations for the proper amount of sunscreen, then SPF 30 is great," Daveluy said. If you think you're skimping on the layers, though, a higher SPF could offer more benefit. He added that he generally recommends looking for at least SPF 50 or 60. Does skin tone matter when choosing an SPF? People with darker skin tones have more melanin, which does offer some protection from the sun's damaging rays. For this reason, skin cancer rates in people of color are lower than rates in white people, but the risk isn't zero. Research also suggests that people of color may be more likely to experience a missed or late diagnosis of skin cancer, making outcomes more dangerous. (It's also important to note that melanoma can have other causes besides exposure to sunlight or UV rays, and can show up in areas not typically exposed to sun.) "SPF 30 is the minimum for everyone," Daveluy said. He added that tinted sunscreens may be a better fit for darker skin tones, leaving less of a white cast. "If you have very fair skin, the higher [SPF] numbers may be a good idea, especially if you aren't using the proper amount, because you will see the consequences of underuse more easily," Daveluy said. Sunscreen red flags As long as you're wearing a minimum of SPF 30, applying it properly and also looking for products that are broad spectrum and water resistant, you've got the basics down. Daveluy added that for people with sensitive skin, finding a mineral sunscreen with "active ingredients of zinc and/or titanium" may be a good choice. Daveluy pointed out other measures of protecting yourself from the sun, including wearing a wide-brimmed hat, sun-protective clothing and hanging out in the shade when possible. But don't forget that sunscreen has a proven safety record going back for decades, he said. "The biggest red flags for sunscreen are any people or reports that try to tell you sunscreen isn't safe," Daveluy said.
CNET
5 days ago
- Health
- CNET
Should You Use a Sunscreen With a Higher SPF? We Asked a Dermatologist
Before you leave your house, you probably check to make sure you have three items on hand: your keys, wallet and phone. But there is one product you may be forgetting that is essential for your health -- sunscreen. Especially during the summer months, sunscreen is crucial to protect your skin from the sun's UV rays, which can lead to skin cancer and premature aging. But with so many different SPF numbers out there, it can be difficult to know which one to choose. We asked a dermatologist, so you don't have to. What is SPF? SPF, or sun protection factor, describes the amount of solar energy needed to produce a sunburn on protected skin relative to unprotected skin, according to the US Food and Drug Administration. Logic would follow, then, that wearing a higher SPF would offer you better protection when you're out and about, basking in the sun's rays. Is a higher SPF better? Is higher SPF sunscreen more protective in a measurable way that actually matters? The tested difference between SPF 30 and SPF 50 is small, according to Dr. Steven Daveluy, board-certified dermatologist and program director at Wayne State University Department of Dermatology. There was a difference of 96.7% blocking vs. 98% blocking, in one example he provided. Research on people wearing sunscreen out in "real life" has suggested higher SPFs are more protective, Daveluy said in an email. Combine this with the fact you're probably not wearing enough sunscreen -- studies have shown people apply only 25% to 50% of the amount that they should, Daveluy said -- and a higher SPF may come out reasonably more protective. "You should use about 1 ounce of sunscreen to cover your head, neck, arms and legs when wearing shorts and a T-shirt," Daveluy recommended, adding that people without hair should use a little more. "That means your 3-ounce tube of sunscreen is only three applications," Daveluy said. "Most people are not using that amount." What is the minimum SPF you need in a sunscreen? The American Academy of Dermatology Association recommends your sunscreen be SPF 30 or higher. It also recommends you look for sunscreen that has broad-spectrum protection (it protects against UVA and UVB rays) and make sure it's water-resistant. "If you follow the recommendations for the proper amount of sunscreen, then SPF 30 is great," Daveluy said. If you think you're skimping on the layers, though, a higher SPF could offer more benefit. He added that he generally recommends looking for at least SPF 50 or 60. Does skin tone matter when choosing an SPF? People with darker skin tones have more melanin, which does offer some protection from the sun's damaging rays. For this reason, skin cancer rates in people of color are lower than rates in white people, but the risk isn't zero. Research also suggests that people of color may be more likely to experience a missed or late diagnosis of skin cancer, making outcomes more dangerous. (It's also important to note that melanoma can have other causes besides exposure to sunlight or UV rays, and can show up in areas not typically exposed to sun.) "SPF 30 is the minimum for everyone," Daveluy said. He added that tinted sunscreens may be a better fit for darker skin tones, leaving less of a white cast. "If you have very fair skin, the higher [SPF] numbers may be a good idea, especially if you aren't using the proper amount, because you will see the consequences of underuse more easily," Daveluy said. Sunscreen red flags As long as you're wearing a minimum of SPF 30, applying it properly and also looking for products that are broad spectrum and water resistant, you've got the basics down. Daveluy added that for people with sensitive skin, finding a mineral sunscreen with "active ingredients of zinc and/or titanium" may be a good choice. Daveluy pointed out other measures of protecting yourself from the sun, including wearing a wide-brimmed hat, sun-protective clothing and hanging out in the shade when possible. But don't forget that sunscreen has a proven safety record going back for decades, he said. "The biggest red flags for sunscreen are any people or reports that try to tell you sunscreen isn't safe," Daveluy said.
Yahoo
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal prosecutors now charging immigrants who don't submit fingerprints under dormant 1940s law
Federal officials have begun carrying out President Donald Trump's orders to enforce a World War II-era criminal law that requires virtually all non-citizens in the country to register with and submit fingerprints to the government. Since April, law enforcement in Louisiana, Arizona, Montana, Alabama, Texas and Washington, D.C., have charged people with willful 'failure to register' under the Alien Registration Act, an offense most career federal public defenders have never encountered before. Many of those charged were already in jail and in ongoing deportation proceedings when prosecutors presented judges with the new charges against them. The registration provision in the law, which was passed in 1940 amid widespread public fear about immigrants' loyalty to the U.S., had been dormant for 75 years, but it is still on the books. Failure to register is considered a 'petty offense' — a misdemeanor with maximum penalties of six months imprisonment or a $1,000 fine. In reviving the law, the Trump administration may put undocumented immigrants in a catch-22. If they register, they must hand over detailed, incriminating information to the federal government — including how and when they entered the country. But knowingly refusing to register is also a crime, punishable by arrest or prosecution, on top of the ever-present threat of deportation. 'The sort of obvious reason to bring back registration in the first place is the hope that people will register, and therefore give themselves up effectively to the government because they already confessed illegal entry,' said Jonathan Weinberg, a Wayne State University law professor who has studied the registration law. But the Trump administration also has another goal. It says one purpose of the registration regime is to provoke undocumented immigrants to choose a third option: leave the country voluntarily, or, in the words of the Department of Homeland Security, compulsory 'mass self-deportation.' Those efforts, alongside the administration's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act and a more aggressive approach to immigration raids, are meant to achieve a broader, overarching campaign promise: the largest deportation program in the history of America. 'For decades, this law has been ignored — not anymore,' the department said in a February announcement that it would enforce the law. The department called 'mass self-deportation' a 'safer path for aliens and law enforcement,' and said it saves U.S. taxpayer dollars. The Department of Homeland Security did not answer questions about its enforcement policies. The Alien Registration Act was passed in 1940, amid fears about immigrants' loyalties. A separate provision of the statute criminalizes advocacy for overthrowing the government. For about two decades, that provision was used to prosecute people who were accused of being either pro-fascist or pro-Communist. The registration provision, though, remained largely dormant, and had not been enforced in 75 years. It applies to non-citizens, regardless of legal status, who are in the U.S. for 30 days or longer. Certain categories of legal immigrants have already met the requirement. Immigrants who have filed applications to become permanent residents are considered registered by DHS, for example. And even some undocumented U.S. residents are already registered: U.S. residents who have received 'parole' — a form of humanitarian protection from deportation — are also considered registered. Still, DHS estimates that up to 3.2 million immigrants are currently unregistered and are affected by the new enforcement regime. The administration has created a new seven-page form that non-citizens must use. The form requires people, under penalty of perjury, to provide biographical details, contact information, details about any criminal history and the circumstances of how they entered the U.S. After DHS issued regulations to enforce the registration requirement in April, the administration announced that 47,000 undocumented immigrants had registered using the new form. The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights and other advocacy groups filed a lawsuit challenging Trump's move to revive the registration requirement in March. U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, initially expressed skepticism toward the administration, saying in a recent hearing that officials had pulled a 'big switcheroo' on undocumented immigrants. But McFadden in April refused the plaintiffs' request to temporarily block the policy, saying the Coalition likely lacks the legal standing to sue because it has not shown that it would be harmed by the policy. The group has appealed McFadden's decision. In the meantime, the administration has begun to prosecute people for failure to register for the first time in seven decades. The prosecutions so far have stumbled. On May 19, a federal magistrate judge in Louisiana consolidated and dismissed five of the criminal cases, saying prosecutors had no probable cause to believe the defendants had intentionally refused to register. Judge Michael North wrote that the Alien Registration Act requires 'some level of subjective knowledge or bad intent' behind the choice not to register. The prosecutions, the judge wrote, are impermissible because most people are simply unaware of the law, and the government 'did not provide these Defendants — as well as millions of similarly situated individuals here without government permission — with a way to register' since 1950. But North also pointed out that the government may have an easier path to proving probable cause in the future, given that DHS created a new registration form in April. And government attorneys have appealed the five dismissed cases. The Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Louisiana declined to comment on recent charges filed under the law. A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia said the office 'is aggressively pursuing criminals in the district and will use all criminal justice resources available to make D.C. safe and to carry out President Trump's and Attorney General Bondi's direction to support immigration enforcement." The other federal district attorneys whose offices filed charges did not respond to a request for comment. Michelle LaPointe, legal director at the American Immigration Council, an immigrants' rights advocacy group, said these initial cases are the 'tip of the iceberg.' LaPointe is among the attorneys representing the Coalition in its lawsuit against the administration. 'I don't expect them to abate just because there were some dismissals,' LaPointe said, pointing to North's statements about future charges. 'They have already stated that they intend to make prosecution of the few immigration-related criminal statutes a priority for DOJ, and it's very easy for them to at least charge, even if they're not always gonna be able to sustain their burden to secure a conviction.' Weinberg, the Wayne State law professor, agreed that the administration will likely continue attempting broad enforcement. 'If they bring a whole lot of prosecutions and end up losing all, they may step back,' Weinberg said. 'If they bring a whole lot and win a few, they'll say, 'Well, that's the basis on which we can move further'' and appeal — potentially all the way to the Supreme Court, he noted.
Politico
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Politico
Federal prosecutors now charging immigrants who don't submit fingerprints under dormant 1940s law
Federal officials have begun carrying out President Donald Trump's orders to enforce a World War II-era criminal law that requires virtually all non-citizens in the country to register with and submit fingerprints to the government. Since April, law enforcement in Louisiana, Arizona, Montana, Alabama, Texas and Washington, D.C., have charged people with willful 'failure to register' under the Alien Registration Act, an offense most career federal public defenders have never encountered before. Many of those charged were already in jail and in ongoing deportation proceedings when prosecutors presented judges with the new charges against them. The registration provision in the law, which was passed in 1940 amid widespread public fear about immigrants' loyalty to the U.S., had been dormant for 75 years, but it is still on the books. Failure to register is considered a 'petty offense' — a misdemeanor with maximum penalties of six months imprisonment or a $1,000 fine. In reviving the law, the Trump administration may put undocumented immigrants in a catch-22. If they register, they must hand over detailed, incriminating information to the federal government — including how and when they entered the country. But knowingly refusing to register is also a crime, punishable by arrest or prosecution, on top of the ever-present threat of deportation. 'The sort of obvious reason to bring back registration in the first place is the hope that people will register, and therefore give themselves up effectively to the government because they already confessed illegal entry,' said Jonathan Weinberg, a Wayne State University law professor who has studied the registration law. But the Trump administration also has another goal. It says one purpose of the registration regime is to provoke undocumented immigrants to choose a third option: leave the country voluntarily, or, in the words of the Department of Homeland Security, compulsory 'mass self-deportation.' Those efforts, alongside the administration's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act and a more aggressive approach to immigration raids, are meant to achieve a broader, overarching campaign promise: the largest deportation program in the history of America. 'For decades, this law has been ignored — not anymore,' the department said in a February announcement that it would enforce the law. The department called 'mass self-deportation' a 'safer path for aliens and law enforcement,' and said it saves U.S. taxpayer dollars. The Department of Homeland Security did not answer questions about its enforcement policies. The Alien Registration Act was passed in 1940, amid fears about immigrants' loyalties. A separate provision of the statute criminalizes advocacy for overthrowing the government. For about two decades, that provision was used to prosecute people who were accused of being either pro-fascist or pro-Communist. The registration provision, though, remained largely dormant, and had not been enforced in 75 years. It applies to non-citizens, regardless of legal status, who are in the U.S. for 30 days or longer. Certain categories of legal immigrants have already met the requirement. Immigrants who have filed applications to become permanent residents are considered registered by DHS, for example. And even some undocumented U.S. residents are already registered: U.S. residents who have received 'parole' — a form of humanitarian protection from deportation — are also considered registered. Still, DHS estimates that up to 3.2 million immigrants are currently unregistered and are affected by the new enforcement regime. The administration has created a new seven-page form that non-citizens must use. The form requires people, under penalty of perjury, to provide biographical details, contact information, details about any criminal history and the circumstances of how they entered the U.S. After DHS issued regulations to enforce the registration requirement in April, the administration announced that 47,000 undocumented immigrants had registered using the new form. The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights and other advocacy groups filed a lawsuit challenging Trump's move to revive the registration requirement in March. U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, initially expressed skepticism toward the administration, saying in a recent hearing that officials had pulled a 'big switcheroo' on undocumented immigrants. But McFadden in April refused the plaintiffs' request to temporarily block the policy, saying the Coalition likely lacks the legal standing to sue because it has not shown that it would be harmed by the policy. The group has appealed McFadden's decision. In the meantime, the administration has begun to prosecute people for failure to register for the first time in seven decades. The prosecutions so far have stumbled. On May 19, a federal magistrate judge in Louisiana consolidated and dismissed five of the criminal cases, saying prosecutors had no probable cause to believe the defendants had intentionally refused to register. Judge Michael North wrote that the Alien Registration Act requires 'some level of subjective knowledge or bad intent' behind the choice not to register. The prosecutions, the judge wrote, are impermissible because most people are simply unaware of the law, and the government 'did not provide these Defendants — as well as millions of similarly situated individuals here without government permission — with a way to register' since 1950. But North also pointed out that the government may have an easier path to proving probable cause in the future, given that DHS created a new registration form in April. And government attorneys have appealed the five dismissed cases. The Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Louisiana declined to comment on recent charges filed under the law. A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia said the office 'is aggressively pursuing criminals in the district and will use all criminal justice resources available to make D.C. safe and to carry out President Trump's and Attorney General Bondi's direction to support immigration enforcement.' The other federal district attorneys whose offices filed charges did not respond to a request for comment. Michelle LaPointe, legal director at the American Immigration Council, an immigrants' rights advocacy group, said these initial cases are the 'tip of the iceberg.' LaPointe is among the attorneys representing the Coalition in its lawsuit against the administration. 'I don't expect them to abate just because there were some dismissals,' LaPointe said, pointing to North's statements about future charges. 'They have already stated that they intend to make prosecution of the few immigration-related criminal statutes a priority for DOJ, and it's very easy for them to at least charge, even if they're not always gonna be able to sustain their burden to secure a conviction.' Weinberg, the Wayne State law professor, agreed that the administration will likely continue attempting broad enforcement. 'If they bring a whole lot of prosecutions and end up losing all, they may step back,' Weinberg said. 'If they bring a whole lot and win a few, they'll say, 'Well, that's the basis on which we can move further'' and appeal — potentially all the way to the Supreme Court, he noted.
CBS News
11-06-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Irma Clark-Coleman, former Michigan Senator and longtime local politician, has died
Irma Clark-Coleman, a Democrat whose political career included the Michigan state senate and house, died Tuesday. She was 88. "She will be greatly missed by her loving family, close friends, professional colleagues and those in the communities she diligently served," her family said in an Instagram post. "Let us be intentional in fervent prayer for the family as we solicit the gift of God's peace and comfort during this delicate time." Arrangements for a celebration of life and services are pending. Irma Clark-Coleman file photo Wayne County "I've never met anyone as driven to be of service than Irma and she leaves with us a legacy that demonstrates her commitment. My thoughts are with Irma's family and her countless other friends at this difficult time," Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan said about his friend. Clark-Coleman was born in rural Georgia, then moved to Detroit, according to her biography on the Wayne County site. Clark-Coleman attended Pershing High School and was the first in her family to graduate from college, earning both bachelor's and master's degrees from Wayne State University. Her decades of government service started in 1967 with an entry-level job with the Wayne County Road Commission, working her way up to assistant public information director. She later was media relations director for Wayne County Executive Bill Lucas and press secretary to Wayne County executive Ed McNamara. During her last seven years with the county, she was also a member of the Detroit School Board. She retired in 1998 as a human relations director for Wayne County. Upon retirement, Clark-Coleman served as a Michigan House representative for District 11 and a Michigan senator for District 3. While in the House, her work included legislation aimed at improving educational standards and student opportunities. In the Senate, she sponsored legislation to strengthen high school graduation standards. She also worked on easing requirements for family members who wished to become legal foster parents or adopt children in their care. Her appointments include National Education Commission of the States, as well as the Cherry Commission on Higher Education. She is also a former member of the National School Board Association Board of Directors, Michigan Association of School Boards of Directors and National Alliance of Black School Educators. She held memberships with NAACP, Living Waters Church Board, Trade Union Leadership Council, and the Alpha Rho Omega chapter of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. She was given numerous awards and honors during her life including the Michigan Girl Scouts "Tomorrow Power" award; Latino Community Mana de Michigan Adelita (sister) award; the American Business Women Association award; the Women of Wayne State University Alumni Association's 1997 Headliner award; and the Michigan Chronicle's 2016 Women of Excellence Award.
