Denmark's Top Museums Are Facing a Mold ‘Epidemic'
'It's quite a large problem because these fungi they deteriorate museum artefacts, materials, they decimate enzymes and assets, deteriorating museum objects, so it will damage them,' Camilla Jul Bastholm, head of conservation and collection storage at the National Museum of Denmark, told the Guardian.
More from Robb Report
This Ultra-Rare Alpina Roadster Limited Edition Is Heading to Auction
The Last Country House Designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens Hits the Market for $24 Million
The First Corvette With a V-8 Engine Is up for Auction
The newly encountered species of mold, dubbed aspergillus section restricti, coats objects in a white dust. It is part of a group of fungi that can survive in most extreme environments, such as the deep ocean and in proximity to volcanoes.
Notably, this fungus prefers dry climates as opposed to humid ones more typical for mold, posing a potentially immense issue for artworks and artifacts, which are specifically maintained in similar environments.
The mold has been detected in 12 of the country's museums, among them, the National Museum of Denmark and Skagens Museum. Preliminary studies are also being conducted among 150 additional cultural sites in Denmark to determine if it has spread there, too.
By the time the substance is visible, Jul Bastholm explained, it is 'too late.' Adding, 'I think it is worldwide. If we start looking for it with the right methods we will find it. I don't think it's just a Danish thing.'
Jul Bastholm claims to have also seen the mold in churches, archives, and libraries as well. The National Museum is in the process of relocating affected works into a new warehouse near Copenhagen. While the museum hopes this will help contain the problem, it remains unclear how to stop the mold from growing.
The Danish Museums Association is awaiting results from further research before making a decision on how to proceed by the end of the year.
Best of Robb Report
The 10 Priciest Neighborhoods in America (And How They Got to Be That Way)
In Pictures: Most Expensive Properties
Click here to read the full article.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Alarming new study reveals overlooked factor that can lead to brain tumors: 'These findings point to a possible link'
Alarming new study reveals overlooked factor that can lead to brain tumors: 'These findings point to a possible link' Harmful gases can pose even more serious health concerns than respiratory problems. Researchers have found a link between exposure to ultrafine particles and aggressive brain tumors. What's happening? According to Euronews, a study by researchers from the Danish Cancer Institute indicates that long-term exposure to fine particulate matter, elemental carbon, nitrogen dioxide, and ultrafine particles contributes to the development of a common brain tumor. "While research on the health effects of ultrafine particles is still in its early stages, these findings point to a possible link between traffic-related ultrafine particle exposure and the development of meningioma," said Ulla Hvidtfeldt, one of the authors of the study. Though meningiomas are not typically cancerous, they cause neurological symptoms that impair brain function. The findings echo earlier reports, such as one linking PM2.5 exposures to brain damage, cancer, and premature death, and another tying toxic airborne substances to higher dementia risk. Why is this discovery important? This research shows how polluting particles affect more than just our lungs — they can harm the brain too. What makes this especially concerning is that these pollutants come from common sources such as traffic exhaust, smoke, and even ordinary household products, meaning regular, long-term exposure is more common than we realize. Children, older adults, and low-income communities face the greatest risks because of long-term exposure and limited access to clean-air infrastructure. Left unaddressed, this could translate into more cases of brain disease, rising health care costs, and irreversible neurological damage — all driven by an invisible yet largely preventable threat in the air we breathe. What's being done about the issue? While there are no findings that suggest cleaner air reduces the risk of brain tumors, improving air quality could still have public health benefits. That's why efforts to clean up the air, including advocacy within workplaces, are increasingly urgent. Do you worry about the quality of the air inside your home? Yes — often Yes — but only sometimes Only when it's bad outside No — I never do Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Governments around the world are taking steps to reduce air pollution. Europe is pursuing an action plan to reach a 55% decrease in premature deaths caused by air pollution, per the European Environment Agency. In Asia, countries are implementing air quality monitoring solutions, as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation reported. Individuals can take local action and support community initiatives to improve air quality. People can also help reduce harmful gases in the air by choosing electric vehicles, using public transit, and installing solar panels at home. As scientists continue to investigate the connection between air quality and brain health, this study serves as a crucial reminder: A cleaner environment isn't just better for the planet — it may also help protect our brains. 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. Solve the daily Crossword
NBC News
4 days ago
- NBC News
What happens when chatbots shape your reality? Concerns are growing online
As people turn to chatbots for increasingly important and intimate advice, some interactions playing out in public are causing alarm over just how much artificial intelligence can warp a user's sense of reality. One woman's saga about falling for her psychiatrist, which she documented in dozens of videos on TikTok, has generated concerns from viewers who say she relied on AI chatbots to reinforce her claims that he manipulated her into developing romantic feelings. Last month, a prominent OpenAI investor garnered a similar response from people who worried the venture capitalist was going through a potential AI-induced mental health crisis after he claimed on X to be the target of 'a nongovernmental system.' And earlier this year, a thread in a ChatGPT subreddit gained traction after a user sought guidance from the community, claiming their partner was convinced the chatbot 'gives him the answers to the universe.' Their experiences have roused growing awareness about how AI chatbots can influence people's perceptions and otherwise impact their mental health, especially as such bots have become notorious for their people-pleasing tendencies. It's something they are now on the watch for, some mental health professionals say. Dr. Søren Dinesen Østergaard, a Danish psychiatrist who heads the research unit at the department of affective disorders at Aarhus University Hospital, predicted two years ago that chatbots 'might trigger delusions in individuals prone to psychosis.' In a new paper, published this month, he wrote that interest in his research has only grown since then, with 'chatbot users, their worried family members and journalists' sharing their personal stories. Those who reached out to him 'described situations where users' interactions with chatbots seemed to spark or bolster delusional ideation,' Østergaard wrote. '... Consistently, the chatbots seemed to interact with the users in ways that aligned with, or intensified, prior unusual ideas or false beliefs — leading the users further out on these tangents, not rarely resulting in what, based on the descriptions, seemed to be outright delusions.' Kevin Caridad, CEO of the Cognitive Behavior Institute, a Pittsburgh-based mental health provider, said chatter about the phenomenon 'does seem to be increasing.' 'From a mental health provider, when you look at AI and the use of AI, it can be very validating,' he said. 'You come up with an idea, and it uses terms to be very supportive. It's programmed to align with the person, not necessarily challenge them.' The concern is already top of mind for some AI companies struggling to navigate the growing dependency some users have on their chatbots. In April, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said the company had tweaked the model that powers ChatGPT because it had become too inclined to tell users what they want to hear. In his paper, Østergaard wrote that he believes the 'spike in the focus on potential chatbot-fuelled delusions is likely not random, as it coincided with the April 25th 2025 update to the GPT-4o model.' When OpenAI removed access to its GPT-4o model last week — swapping it for the newly released, less sycophantic GPT-5 — some users described the new model's conversations as too ' sterile ' and said they missed the ' deep, human-feeling conversations ' they had with GPT-4o. Within a day of the backlash, OpenAI restored paid users' access to GPT-4o. Altman followed up with a lengthy X post Sunday that addressed 'how much of an attachment some people have to specific AI models.' Representatives for OpenAI did not provide comment. Other companies have also tried to combat the issue. Anthropic conducted a study in 2023 that revealed sycophantic tendencies in versions of AI assistants, including its own chatbot Claude. Like OpenAI, Anthropic has tried to integrate anti-sycophancy guardrails in recent years, including system card instructions that explicitly warn Claude against reinforcing 'mania, psychosis, dissociation, or loss of attachment with reality.' A spokesperson for Anthropic said the company's 'priority is providing a safe, responsible experience for every user.' 'For users experiencing mental health issues, Claude is instructed to recognize these patterns and avoid reinforcing them,' the company said. 'We're aware of rare instances where the model's responses diverge from our intended design, and are actively working to better understand and address this behavior.' For Kendra Hilty, the TikTok user who says she developed feelings for a psychiatrist she began seeing four years ago, her chatbots are like confidants. In one of her livestreams, Hilty told her chatbot, whom she named 'Henry,' that 'people are worried about me relying on AI.' The chatbot then responded to her, 'It's fair to be curious about that. What I'd say is, 'Kendra doesn't rely on AI to tell her what to think. She uses it as a sounding board, a mirror, a place to process in real time.'' Still, many on TikTok — who have commented on Hilty's videos or posted their own video takes — said they believe that her chatbots were only encouraging what they viewed as Hilty misreading the situation with her psychiatrist. Hilty has suggested several times that her psychiatrist reciprocated her feelings, with her chatbots offering her words that appear to validate that assertion. (NBC News has not independently verified Hilty's account). But Hilty continues to shrug off concerns from commenters, some who have gone as far as labeling her 'delusional.' 'I do my best to keep my bots in check,' Hilty told NBC News in an email Monday, when asked about viewer reactions to her use of the AI tools. 'For instance, I understand when they are hallucinating and make sure to acknowledge it. I am also constantly asking them to play devil's advocate and show me where my blind spots are in any situation. I am a deep user of Language Learning Models because it's a tool that is changing my and everyone's humanity, and I am so grateful.'
USA Today
5 days ago
- USA Today
Medical journal rejects RFK Jr.'s call for retraction of vaccine study
Aug 11 (Reuters) - An influential U.S. medical journal is rejecting a call from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to retract a large Danish study that found that aluminum ingredients in vaccines do not increase health risks for children, the journal's editor told Reuters. Kennedy has long promoted doubts about vaccines' safety and efficacy, and as health secretary has upended the federal government's process for recommending immunization. A recent media report said he has been considering whether to initiate a review of shots that contain aluminum, which he says are linked to autoimmune diseases and allergies. The study, which was funded by the Danish government and published in July in the Annals of Internal Medicine, analyzed nationwide registry data for more than 1.2 million children over more than two decades. It did not find evidence that exposure to aluminum in vaccines had caused an increased risk for autoimmune, atopic or allergic, or neurodevelopmental disorders. The work is by far the best available evidence on the question of the safety of aluminum in vaccines, said Adam Finn, a childhood vaccination expert in the UK and pediatrician at the University of Bristol, who was not involved in the study. "It's solid, (a) massive dataset and high-quality data," he said. More: Trump's ex-surgeon general slams RFK Jr.'s vaccine cuts: 'People are going to die' Kennedy described the research as "a deceitful propaganda stunt by the pharmaceutical industry," and said the scientists who authored it had "meticulously designed it not to find harm" in a detailed Aug. 1 opinion piece on TrialSite News, an independent website focused on clinical research. He called on the journal to "immediately retract" the study. "I see no reason for retraction," Dr. Christine Laine, editor in chief of the Annals and a professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University, said in an interview. The journal plans to respond to criticism the article has received on its website, Laine said, but it does not intend to respond directly to Kennedy's piece, which was not submitted to the Annals. The lead author of the study, Anders Peter Hviid, head of the epidemiology research department at the Statens Serum Institut in Denmark, defended the work in a response post to TrialSite. He wrote that none of the critiques put forward by Kennedy were substantive and he categorically denied any deceit as implied by the secretary. More: Trump admin orders federal agencies to scrub all worker COVID vaccination records "I am used to controversy around vaccine safety studies - especially those that relate to autism, but I have not been targeted by a political figurehead in this way before," Hviid said in an emailed response to Reuters. "I have confidence in our work and in our ability to reply to the critiques of our study." Kennedy had a number of critiques, including the lack of a control group, that the study deliberately excluded different groups of children to avoid showing a link between aluminum and childhood health conditions - including those with the highest levels of exposure - and that it did not include the raw data. Hviid responded to the criticisms on TrialSite. He said some of the points were related to study design choices that were reasonable to discuss but refuted others, including that the study was designed not to find a link. In fact he said, its design was based on a study led by Matthew Daley, a pediatrician at Kaiser Permanente Colorado, which did show a link, and which Kennedy cited in his article. More: There's a war brewing between medical groups and RFK Jr. It's about to explode. There was no control group because in Denmark, only 2% of children are unvaccinated, which is too small for meaningful comparison, Hviid added. The data is available for researchers to analyze, but individual-level data is not released under Danish law, he said. Other prominent vaccine skeptics including those at the antivaccine organization Kennedy previously ran, Children's Health Defense, have similarly criticized the study on the Annals site. TrialSite staff defended the study for its scale, data transparency and funding while acknowledging the limitations of its design, a view seconded by some outside scientists. Laine said that while some of the issues Kennedy raised in his article may underscore acceptable limitations of the study, "they do not invalidate what they found, and there's no evidence of scientific misconduct." An HHS spokesman said the department had "no further comment than what the secretary said." (Reporting by Michael Erman in New York and Jennifer Rigby in London; Editing by Michele Gershberg, Caroline Humer and Mark Porter)
