Recent report finds new home appliance could save thousands of lives each year: 'Most people don't realize'
Heat pumps help save the planet and can provide cost savings, but did you know they're better for human health too?
That's the word from a new study by Rewiring America, which helps Americans electrify their homes and turn down the thermostat on the overheating planet.
"Switching to heat pumps is one of the most energy-efficient and cost-effective ways to reduce the climate impact of buildings, which account for more than a third of U.S. carbon emissions," Canary Media reported. "It can also save lives by cleaning the air we breathe."
The study evaluated what would happen if every household in the United States switched to a heat pump, heat pump water heater, and heat pump clothes dryer. The result? It would keep 300,000 tons of fine particulate matter out of the atmosphere, which is like 40 million cars vanishing from roads.
That means 3,400 fewer premature deaths, 1,300 fewer hospital visits, 220,000 fewer asthma attacks, and 670,000 fewer days of missed work and activities annually — or $40 billion of health improvements every year.
Burning dirty fuels produces toxic gases such as ammonia, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. Such pollutants come from gas stoves and other appliances, which are known to reduce indoor air quality. What's more, these harmful pollutants are also released outside via vents connected to traditional furnaces, water heaters, and dryers.
The reduction in outdoor pollution would impact areas differently, Canary Media explained. Those with high population densities and heavy reliance on dirty fuel-powered heating and cooling equipment — such as the Northeast — would benefit most.
"Most people don't realize that improved air quality is a benefit of home electrification because the connection is less obvious than, say, energy efficiency and utility savings," the outlet stated.
Lead author and senior research associate Wael Kanj noted that it's difficult to link indoor appliances to outdoor air quality.
Do you think all new homes should use heat pump technology?
Definitely
Let each state decide
Let homeowners decide
No way
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
"Our hope is that by quantifying them more granularly, we'll make the data available to folks who are making the case for electrification, whether it's through different policy initiatives, advocacy, or public education," Kanj said, per Canary Media.
The analysis assumed the grid will be 95% decarbonized by 2050. If it's more or less than that, the benefits would increase or decrease.
Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
18 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Trump's First Surgeon General: RFK Jr. Purging the CDC Advisory Committee Will Put Lives at Risk
When Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. began his tenure as Health and Human Services Secretary, he pledged, 'We won't take away anyone's vaccines.' However, recent policy changes under his leadership—coupled with the unprecedented dismissal of all 17 members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on June 9—have proven that statement false, raising grave concerns for our nation's COVID-19 response and broader vaccine policies. These shifts not only jeopardize public health but also threaten to erode trust in our health institutions at a critical time. In May 2025, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) introduced a new COVID-19 vaccine framework, limiting access to updated vaccines for Americans aged 65 and older or those with specific risk factors. Furthermore, Secretary Kennedy announced that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for 'healthy' children or pregnant women—bypassing the standard ACIP review process. Compounding these changes, the abrupt removal of ACIP's entire panel of independent experts, who have guided evidence-based vaccine policy for decades, risks destabilizing a cornerstone of public health. These actions collectively restrict access to a vital tool for saving lives and undermine confidence in our health systems. During my tenure as Surgeon General under the first Trump administration, we faced significant public health challenges, from addressing the opioid epidemic by increasing access to Naloxone to launching Operation Warp Speed for the COVID-19 vaccine development effort. The vaccines developed under Trump's first term have proven to be one of our most effective defenses against COVID-19; yet, the current administration's new policies limit their availability, potentially leaving millions vulnerable. The dismissal of ACIP's experts—without a clear plan for replacing them with qualified scientists—further jeopardizes trust in the institutions tasked with protecting Americans. The major flaw in the new vaccine framework is its narrow assessment of risk. Although the immediate dangers of COVID-19 have lessened, it remains a leading cause of death and hospitalization, claiming nearly 50,000 lives in the U.S. in 2024—more than breast cancer or car accidents. The fact is, 75% of Americans have risk factors, such as obesity or diabetes, that increase their vulnerability to severe COVID outcomes. However, the burden is now placed on individuals to self-identify as high risk, creating confusion and inconsistency in access. Unlike other countries with centralized systems for identifying at-risk individuals, the U.S. expects patients—many of whom lack easy access to healthcare—to navigate eligibility alone. Risk assessment should also consider individual circumstances beyond underlying health conditions. A 58-year-old bus driver or healthcare worker faces significantly greater exposure than someone working remotely. By limiting vaccines to specific groups based solely on preexisting health status, the policy overlooks these critical contextual differences. Secretary Kennedy's team argues that there is insufficient evidence to support updated COVID-19 vaccines for healthy Americans under 65, but this claim is flatly unfounded. Years of real-world data demonstrate that vaccines save lives and reduce hospitalizations across all age groups. During the 2023 to 2024 fall and winter season, 95% of those hospitalized for COVID had not received an updated vaccine. While the administration cites other countries' more restrictive vaccine policies, such comparisons ignore the unique health landscape in the U.S., which includes higher obesity rates, worse maternal health outcomes, and uneven healthcare access. The policy also neglects the issue of Long COVID, which affects millions with debilitating symptoms lasting months or years. Though older adults are at higher risk for severe acute infections, Long COVID disproportionately impacts adults aged 35 to 49—and children are also affected. Vaccination reduces the risk of developing Long COVID, an essential reason many healthy individuals choose to stay up-to-date with their vaccines. Particularly concerning is the decision to end COVID vaccine recommendations for 'healthy' pregnant women, which contradicts the FDA's own guidance. Pregnant women face heightened risks of severe COVID outcomes, including death, pre-eclampsia, and miscarriage. Vaccination during pregnancy is crucial—not just for maternal health but also for protecting infants under six months, who cannot be vaccinated and rely on maternal antibodies for protection. Decades of research confirm that vaccines, including COVID vaccines, safely transfer antibodies to newborns, lowering their risk of severe illness. The dismissal of ACIP's members amplifies these concerns. ACIP has been a trusted, science-driven body that ensures vaccines are safe and effective, saving countless lives through its transparent recommendations. Its members, rigorously vetted for expertise and conflicts of interest, provide independent guidance critical to public health. Removing them without clear evidence of misconduct risks replacing qualified scientists with less experienced voices. This move fuels vaccine hesitancy and skepticism about public health decisions, particularly when paired with the bypassing of ACIP's review process for the new COVID vaccine policies. These changes create uncertainty about who can access vaccines. Without clear CDC recommendations, insurance companies may impose their own coverage criteria, potentially increasing costs for a vaccine that was previously free for most Americans. Healthcare providers, lacking federal guidance and ACIP's expertise, may struggle to advise patients, leading to a confusing and inequitable system that limits choice—hardly the 'medical freedom' Secretary Kennedy claims to champion. Ultimately, these actions threaten to erode trust in public health. FDA officials argue the new framework enhances transparency, yet bypassing ACIP's review and dismissing its members undermines that aim. Extensive data demonstrate that updated vaccines lower hospitalization and death rates, yet this evidence was sidelined. Such actions breed skepticism, making it harder to unite Americans around shared health goals. The stakes are high, but a better path is possible. Restoring trust requires transparent, evidence-based policymaking that prioritizes access to life-saving tools. I urge Secretary Kennedy and the administration to reconsider this framework, reinstate ACIP's role in vaccine policy, and ensure any new appointees are qualified, independent experts. If concerns about ACIP exist, they should be addressed through reform, not dissolution. Healthcare providers and community leaders must also educate patients about vaccination benefits, particularly for vulnerable groups like pregnant women and those with high exposure. Individuals can take action by staying informed, discussing vaccination with their doctors, and advocating for clear, equitable access to vaccines. By working together—government, providers, and citizens—we can protect lives, reduce the burden of Long COVID, and rebuild confidence in our public health system. We must seize this opportunity to unite around science and ensure a healthier, safer, and prosperous future for all Americans.
New York Post
19 minutes ago
- New York Post
Widely-used drug can seriously increase women's odds of living to age 90
Time to re-up that AARP subscription. A popular prescription drug already in millions of medicine cabinets could be the key to unlocking a longer life for women. New research published in the Journal of Gerontology: Medical Sciences found that those taking this widely-used diabetes drug had a great shot at making it to the big 9-0. JackF – No, it's not Ozempic — it's called metformin, and almost 20 million Americans are estimated to be taking it to help manage their Type 2 diabetes. Like other diabetes drugs, this decades-old, dirt-cheap medication works by decreasing the amount of glucose the body absorbs from food and improves its response to insulin. Also used to treat Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS), metformin has often been hailed as a 'wonder drug' due to its other health benefits, including improving fertility in women, aiding in weight management and even reducing the risks of heart disease and certain cancers. This new study set its sights on promising research indicating it may also have anti-aging effects. Researchers analyzed the data of 438 postmenopausal women — half of whom were on metformin, the other half of whom took another diabetes drug called sulfonylurea. Like other diabetes drugs, metformin works by decreasing the amount of glucose the body absorbs from food and improves its response to insulin. Halfpoint – They found that those in the metformin group had a 30% higher chance of making it to 90 when compared to the sulfonylurea group. The study has a few limitations, the most notable of which is that it had no control group — meaning none of the participants weren't on diabetes medication — as well as a relatively small sample size. However, one of its strengths was a follow-up period of 14-15 years, which is much longer than the average randomized controlled trial. All told, the new study adds to an increasing body of research on the geroscience hypothesis, which posits that 'biological aging is malleable and that slowing biological aging may delay or prevent the onset of multiple age-related diseases and disability,' the researchers wrote. The new study backs up previous research published last year which showed that metformin can slow aging and also prevent disease in healthy older adults. 'I don't know if metformin increases lifespan in people, but the evidence that exists suggests that it very well might,' Steven Austad, a senior scientific adviser at the American Federation for Aging Research who studies the biology of agin, told NPR. While scientists figure out how to biohack our systems, this little pill may just propel you into your golden years.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
"We dissent": NIH scientists sign declaration against Trump's research cuts
National Institute of Health scientists signed a declaration decrying the cuts to healthcare and medical research by the Trump administration on Monday. Ninety-two scientists added their names to a letter, the Bethesda Declaration, which calls out the Trump administration's handling of the NIH and the cutting of more than 2,100 research grants and contracts, totaling more than $12 billion in federal funding. The letter, named for NIH's headquarters in Maryland, expresses the scientists' "dissent" and outrage over Trump administration policies "that undermine the NIH mission, waste public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe." The declaration points to canceled studies, including work on the long-lasting effects of COVID-19 and climate change-related health impacts. "Ending a $5 million research study when it is 80% complete does not save $1 million," the declaration states, "it wastes $4 million." Along with the 92 named signatories, more than 250 scientists at the NIH signed the declaration anonymously. "We include anonymous signers and speak for countless others at NIH," the letter concluded, "who share our concerns but who — due to a culture of fear and suppression created by this Administration — chose not to sign their names for fear of retaliation."The declaration was delivered to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya on Monday. Bhattacharya said the declaration "has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months." "Nevertheless," he continued, "respectful dissent in science is productive. We all want the NIH to succeed."
