ButtBidet

Article text below

An analysis of studies incorporating data from almost 30 million people has highlighted the role that air pollution – including that coming from car exhaust emissions – plays in increased risk of dementia.

Dementias such as Alzheimer's disease are estimated to affect more than 57.4 million people worldwide, a number that is expected to almost triple to 152.8 million cases by 2050. The impacts on the individuals, families and caregivers and society at large are immense.

While there are some indications that the prevalence of dementia is decreasing in Europe and North America, suggesting that it may be possible to reduce the risk of the disease at a population level, elsewhere the picture is less promising.

Air pollution has recently been identified as a risk factor for dementia, with several studies pointing the finger at a number of pollutants. However, the strength of evidence and ability to determine a causal effect has been varied.

In a paper published today in The Lancet Planetary Health, a team led by researchers at the Medical Research Council (MRC) Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing scientific literature to examine this link further. This approach allowed them to bring together studies that on their own may not provide sufficient evidence, and which sometimes disagree with each other, to provide more robust overarching conclusions.

In total, the researchers included 51 studies, including data from more than 29 million participants who had been exposed to air pollutants for at least one year, mostly from high-income countries. Of these, 34 papers were included in the meta-analysis: 15 originated in North America, 10 in Europe, seven in Asia, and two in Australia.

The researchers found a positive and statistically-significant association between three types of air pollutant and dementia. These were:

Particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), a pollutant made up of tiny particles small enough that they can be inhaled deep into the lungs. These particles come from several sources, including vehicle emissions, power plants, industrial processes, wood burning stoves and fireplaces, and construction dust. They also form in the atmosphere because of complex chemical reactions involving other pollutants such as sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. The particles can stay in the air for a long time and travel a long way from where they were produced.

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), one of the key pollutants that arise from burning fossil fuels. It is found in vehicle exhaust, especially diesel exhaust, and industrial emissions, as well as those from gas stoves and heaters. Exposure to high concentrations of nitrogen dioxide can irritate the respiratory system, worsening and inducing conditions like asthma and reducing lung function.

Soot from sources such as vehicle exhaust emissions and burning wood. It can trap heat and affect the climate. When inhaled, it can penetrate deep into the lungs, aggravating respiratory diseases and increasing the risk of heart problems.

According to the researchers, for every 10 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m³) of PM2.5, an individual’s relative risk of dementia would increase by 17%. The average roadside measurement for PM2.5 in Central London in 2023 was 10 μg/m³.

For every 10 μg/m3 of NO2, the relative risk increased by 3%. The average roadside measurement for NO2 in Central London in 2023 was 33 µg/m³.

For each 1 μg/m³ of soot as found in PM2.5, the relative risk increased by 13%. Across the UK, annual mean soot concentrations measured at select roadside locations in 2023 were 0.93 μg/m³ in London, 1.51 μg/m³ in Birmingham and 0.65 μg/m³ in Glasgow.

Senior author Dr Haneen Khreis from the MRC Epidemiology Unit said: “Epidemiological evidence plays a crucial role in allowing us to determine whether or not air pollution increases the risk of dementia and by how much. Our work provides further evidence to support the observation that long-term exposure to outdoor air pollution is a risk factor for the onset of dementia in previously healthy adults.

“Tackling air pollution can deliver long-term health, social, climate, and economic benefits. It can reduce the immense burden on patients, families, and caregivers, while easing pressure on overstretched healthcare systems.”

Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain how air pollution may cause dementia, primarily involving inflammation in the brain and oxidative stress (a chemical process in the body that can cause damage to cells, proteins, and DNA). Both oxidative stress and inflammation play a well-established role in the onset and progression of dementia. Air pollution is thought to trigger these processes through direct entry to the brain or via the same mechanisms underlying lung and cardiovascular diseases. Air pollution can also enter circulation from the lungs and travel to solid organs, initiating local and wide-spread inflammation.

The researchers point out that the majority of people included in the published studies were white and living in high-income countries, even though marginalised groups tend to have a higher exposure to air pollution. Given that studies have suggested that reducing air pollution exposure appears to be more beneficial at reducing the risk of early death for marginalised groups, they call for future work to urgently ensure better and more adequate representation across ethnicities and low- and middle-income countries and communities.

Joint first author Clare Rogowski, also from the MRC Epidemiology Unit, said: “Efforts to reduce exposure to these key pollutants are likely to help reduce the burden of dementia on society. Stricter limits for several pollutants are likely to be necessary targeting major contributors such as the transport and industry sectors. Given the extent of air pollution, there is an urgent need for regional, national, and international policy interventions to combat air pollution equitably.”

Further analysis revealed that while exposure to these pollutants increased the risk of Alzheimer's disease, the effect seemed stronger for vascular dementia, a type of dementia caused by reduced blood flow to the brain. Around 180,000 people in the UK are thought to be affected by this type of dementia. However, as there were only a small number of studies that examined this difference, the researchers did not class it as statistically significant.

Joint first author Dr Christiaan Bredell from the University of Cambridge and North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust said: “These findings underscore the need for an interdisciplinary approach to dementia prevention. Preventing dementia is not just the responsibility of healthcare: this study strengthens the case that urban planning, transport policy, and environmental regulation all have a significant role to play.”

The research was funded by the European Research Council under the Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and from the European Union’s Horizon Europe Framework Programme.

Reference

Best Rogowski, CB, & Bredell, C et al. Long-term Air Pollution Exposure and Incident Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Lancet Planetary Health; 24 July 2025; DOI: 10.1016/S2542-5196(25)00118-4

Article text below

Wrestling legend Hulk Hogan dies aged 71, his representative confirms

First responders received a call from his Florida home at 10:00 local time over a report of "cardiac arrest", authorities say - he was pronounced dead at hospital later

Hogan, whose real name was Terry Bollea, was the biggest professional wrestler of the 80s and 90s and went on to achieve crossover fame

Tributes from the wrestling world, political sphere and Hollywood have been pouring in, with many remembering him as an "American pop culture fixture"

Known for red and yellow outfits, "Real American" entrance music, and army of "Hulkamaniac" fans, he continued wrestling well into his 50s

In 2018, he was reinstated into the WWE Hall of Fame after being ejected for using a racist slur

Friends sometimes complain that they're too big, too short, too tall, etc. I think they're all fine, and want to let them know that. My problem is that I'm a middle aged guy and and I don't want to give off any whiff that I'm flirting with anyone. I just want to tell people that they're perfect and good the way they are. Are there safe ways to say it?

I feel like this is a thing that easier to do if you're a woman? (sorry if I'm wrong)

I like anime. It's definitely better than most white culture shit. It just feels like the #1 theme or trope for a video game or series (that isn't the West) is Japan. I'm just utterly bored to death of Japanese schools, Japanese feudal themes, yakuza shit, Tokyo streets, etc. Yes, it's 1000 times cooler than New York or Texas. I'd rather play Ace Attorney or a Yakuza game than COD or Modern warfare. I'd rather watch JoJo's Bizarre Adventure than Family Guy. Japanese stuff is often cooler than Western stuff.

God I can't complain if Japanese developers want to make something that they know with the language they speak. My big gripe is non-Japanese developers imitating Japan because that's what sells. Think Genshin Impact, Battle Realms, or Blue Archive. My steam recommendations are filled with Japanese themes made my non Japanese developers. No, I'm not offended. I'd just like to play a game, once, that doesn't have samurai and geisha. It would be neat to learn about another culture that isn't Japan. Maybe go to another continent.

Wouldn't it be neat to play a stealth game in Nigeria or Bolivia, and not yet another game with Samurai.

USians sucka my ass

I decided against posting this to c/vegan as I want some negative feedback.

For the record, I absolutely am not saying that my not killing bugs is a noble act. Frankly it's just vibes. I've been on this planet for 40+ years as a bug murderer. I would not be invited to the Bugs are Friends convention.

I've just been feeling a lot of personal stress this year. A lot of stuff has been going on in my personal community, and I'm seeing a lot of hostile stuff from the state as well as a lot of people are struggling more. I do mutual aid but it just feels like a drop in an ocean of need. On top of that, a situations happening that cause me to be homeless is not far from the realm of possibility. I'm unsure if I'm overreacting, but I can imagine myself being homeless. (Sorry homeless comrades if this feels like I'm trivialising it).

Obviously the attacks on vulnerable groups are terrifying, and as active as I am in orgs to agitate against it, I feel hopeless to do anything about it.

So with all that happening, I just have this dude chilling in my room:

He's not hurting anyone. He's responsible for non of the shit that's going on right now. He's just living. Why should I give a fuck about him???

Previously I would occasionally spray and leave traps. I'd squash a bug if it was annoying. Now I just keep my place clean. If I see two that means there's maybe many more under the sink and shit. But are they hurting me? (That is a real question if you want to answer.) I'd probably slap a mosquito if they got close, as I don't want a disease, but wearing long trousers and long sleeve shirts when in nature takes care of most of it. In fairness, many a friend and comrade how commenting how I'm weird that I can wear long sleeves/trousers in 40 degree celsius weather.

I'm a middle aged guy. You're not gonna hurt my feelings by critiquing me. BTW I'm not yet advocating for not killing bugs, this is 100% my feelings at this point.

Article Text

Children under seven years old should not have shop-bought slushies over health concerns about a chemical they contain, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) has said.

The government watchdog said slushed ice drinks containing glycerol - a type of sweetener - were unsafe for young children, and consumption of them should be limited for children aged between seven and 10.

Most slushies contain naturally occurring glycerol instead of sugar to stop them freezing solid, giving them the slushy effect.

The FSA said consuming large amounts of it can cause side-effects, including headaches and sickness, low blood sugar levels, shock, and loss of consciousness in children.

Prof Robin May, the FSA's chief scientific advisor, said: "While these drinks may seem harmless and side effects are generally mild, they can, especially when consumed in large quantities over a short time, pose serious health risks to young children."

The fresh FSA guidance comes following research indicating children under eight should completely avoid drinking slushies.

It studied the cases of 21 two- to seven-year-olds in the UK and Ireland who needed A&E treatment after becoming acutely ill within an hour of having the drinks, mostly between 2018 and 2024.

The children all recovered and were discharged from hospital.

Dr Duane Mellor from the British Dietetic Association told the BBC that it was "relatively rare" for children to suffer ill side-effects after drinking slushies containing glycerol.

The registered dietician said the "heat of the day", dehydration and a child being excited could "exacerbate" symptoms linked to consuming the drink.

He recommended that children have water or cold milk as alternatives to slushies - or if they want a sweet drink, fruit flavoured water with ice cubes, a diet drink or a low-sugar ice lolly.

The FSA's updated guidance is stricter than its previous advice, which said that under-fives should avoid slushies.

It now also says children aged seven to 10 should have no more than one 350ml slushy drink - "roughly the size of a fizzy drink can" - a day.

"We are asking parents and carers to take extra care when buying drinks for young children, particularly during warmer months when consumption of 'slushies' typically increases," said Prof May.

This guidance also applies to ready-to-drink slushy pouches and make-at-home kits of slushy concentrates.

The FSA says its guidance should be on a "written warning at [the] point of sale" and that producers should make the drinks with the "minimum quantity" of glycerol "technically necessary to achieve the required 'slush' drink effect".

It also recommends against vendors offering free slushy refills in venues where children under the age of 10 would likely consume them.

Y'all are going camping together and not inviting me. This needs to stop! I want to go toooooooo!!!!

source

Honestly he wasn't wealthy before

Stolen from here

The actual article

My husband’s family has a trust that owns rental properties. One of them is a commercial property with several tenants. One of the tenants is Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and they use it as a “short-term holding facility” (their description).

We receive income from the trust, which earns money from several other things as well; it’s all bundled together. Figuring out what portion of my rental income comes from the ICE client is not possible, as the family member who manages it declines to go to the trouble, which I understand is considerable.

I feel pretty horrible about getting money from an immigration prison, but I’m the only beneficiary of the trust who cares. I could resign from the trust, but my husband of 50 years would get my share — and anyway, our funds are completely mingled.

I’m not sure you can make me feel any better about this, but I’m curious about the ethics of receiving money from an entity you consider kind of evil. I went to a lot of Catholic schools, including a Jesuit university. I don’t know all the finer points, but it feels unethical. My husband and his family think this is ridiculous. What is your opinion? Is there a correct action? — Name Withheld

From the Ethicist:

It’s understandable that you’re troubled. Court rulings, investigative reporting and firsthand accounts have shown that ICE has acted in ways that not only harm noncitizens but also erode the rights of citizens.

Even so, the existence of an immigration-enforcement agency isn’t inherently the problem. Most people accept that states have a right to control their borders and that there’s a legitimate role for authorities charged with enforcing immigration policy, especially when it comes to those who have committed serious crimes. ICE also investigates trafficking, smuggling and other transnational offenses that clearly require federal oversight.

The core issue is less the agency’s mandate than its methods. Well-documented abuses — denials of due process, inhumane conditions and politically motivated enforcement — have undermined public trust and raised serious ethical concerns. The worry is not whether immigration law should be enforced but how, and at what human cost.

The holding facilities ICE uses are part of this system: They house people awaiting deportation, court appearances or further investigation. What’s in dispute isn’t the need for such spaces; it’s the treatment of detainees within those spaces. Many facilities have drawn criticism for degrading or dangerous conditions. Still, as a beneficiary of a trust that rents a property to ICE, your leverage is minuscule. You can’t unilaterally break the lease. Even if you could, ICE would simply relocate its facility. And while moral complicity is a serious concern, receiving income from a legal tenant, however problematic, isn’t generally considered an ethical transgression on its own.

We’re all entangled in systems we don’t control. As citizens, we’re already implicated in the actions of government agencies that act in our name and that we help fund. If those actions are shameful, they cast a shadow on all of us. But that shared entanglement also opens the door to shared responsibility — and response.

You mentioned your Jesuit university. You’ll probably remember, then, the emphasis placed on “discernment” — not just abstract moral reasoning but the habit of examining one’s own position in the world, with clarity and courage, and then acting on that understanding. So here’s one constructive path: If this money feels tainted, redirect it. Use it to support organizations that advocate for the rights you believe ICE has violated — groups like the A.C.L.U., the American Immigration Council or local legal-aid nonprofits that provide support for detainees. Back candidates pushing for humane immigration reform. It’s a way to turn your sense of passive complicity into a measure of active redress. You may not be able to change the trust’s lease, but you can choose what your share of the proceeds stands for.