Scientists issue critical warning after linking common appliance to major health risk: 'The problem is far worse than we thought'
For the first time, researchers are now able to link premature deaths to gas stove pollution. While previous studies have identified the dangers of gas stoves, this groundbreaking review has tied thousands of early deaths to the popular stoves.
A new study estimates that 40,000 deaths in Europe are a result of gas stove pollution, according to Euronews.
Researchers at the University of Jaume I's School of Health Sciences in Spain analyzed dozens of health studies examining how nitrogen dioxide causes asthma and premature deaths. They then scaled up nitrogen dioxide measurements in and outside homes across multiple European countries to establish a clear image of the pollution from gas cookers.
While research from the past 50 years has identified the health risks of nitrogen dioxide pollution, the new findings paint a much darker reality than expected.
"The extent of the problem is far worse than we thought, with our modeling suggesting that the average home across half of Europe breaks WHO limits," lead author of the new study, Dr. Juana Maria Delgado-Saborit, told Euronews. "Outdoor air pollution lays the foundation for those breaches, but it is gas cookers that push homes into the danger zone."
This is the first scientific review to have the data necessary to pinpoint premature deaths due to gas stove pollution. Although the study's findings tie 40,000 premature deaths to nitrogen dioxide exposure, it's important to note that the researchers believe this number to be much higher.
Gas stoves release harmful pollutants that can cause severe health risks as well as environmental damage. On top of exacerbating asthma, the pollutants from gas stoves also exacerbate rising global temperatures.
To avoid indoor pollution from gas cookers, homeowners across the globe are switching to induction stovetops. Unlike gas stoves, induction stoves release no harmful pollutants into the air, keeping you and your family safe.
Induction stoves are also more efficient, saving you energy and money down the line. For homeowners looking to make the switch, induction stoves from brands like Copper offer an easy and affordable solution for avoiding the dangers of gas stoves. What's more, under the Inflation Reduction Act, homeowners can receive up to 30% off the cost of an induction range.
Do you think gas stoves should be banned nationwide?
No way
Let each state decide
I'm not sure
Definitely
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
After switching to an induction stove, you'll notice that you won't spend as much time cooking and cleaning your kitchen since induction stoves cook faster and are easier to maintain than gas stoves.
Moving forward, it's best to act sooner rather than later when it comes to making eco-friendly upgrades to your home. President Donald Trump has stated he intends to remove these subsidies, though this would ultimately require an act of Congress. As a result, upgrading now could be the difference between saving thousands of dollars down the line.
Join our free newsletter for easy tips to save more and waste less, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Newel Health obtains EU MDR for blood pressure management platform
Amid the growing prevalence of hypertension in the EU, Italian health tech Newel Health has secured a CE mark for its Amicomed platform under the EU's Medical Device Regulation (EU MDR), enabling it to support the management of high blood pressure. Compatible with blood pressure monitors including Apple Health and Google Fit, the smartphone app-based platform captures structured blood pressure data and translates it into 'clinically meaningful' insights, Newel Health stated, and offers personalised feedback towards high blood pressure management based on real-world data. The platform's features include medication reminders to improve adherence, and personalised lifestyle and dietary recommendations based on a user's clinical profile. The capabilities are supported by Amicomed's architecture. Developed by Newel Health, the proprietary platform uses artificial intelligence (AI)-based predictive models to improve behavioural segmentation, sustain engagement, and adapt interventions based on an individual's profile. A 2023 report by GlobalData forecasts that AI platforms in healthcare will reach a valuation of $18.8bn by 2027. Newel Health CEO, Ervin Ukaj commented: "We designed Amicomed to offer a digital therapy that fits into people's everyday lives, supporting them, day by day, in managing hypertension. "The MDR certification confirms the strength of our platform and the reliability of our regulatory approach.' Ukaj added that Newel intends to pursue 'scalable growth' by seeking further partnerships with public and private healthcare stakeholders. Systemic hypertension is a key risk factor for chronic disease burden, and a known precursor for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) including atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, with research indicating that hypertension in the EU is on the rise. A European Commission (EC) survey from 2019 found that 22% of individuals aged 15 and above reported having received a high blood pressure diagnosis from a medical professional, while a 2023 report by the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that the number of adults with hypertension in the European region and the Americas rose from 302 million in 1990 to 427 million in 2019 – reflecting a 41% rise. All medical device manufacturers marketing products in the EU must fall in line with the dictates of the EU MDR regulation by 2028. Introduced in 2017 and coming into its 'first phase' of effect in 2021, the EU MDR is promulgated as a means to centralise competencies at the EU level. While well-intentioned, some observers have deemed the regulation's roll out a 'disaster', with concerns around a perceived lack of clarity, and the regulation's overall scope and complexity – factors that have proven particularly challenging for companies with existing device on the European market. "Newel Health obtains EU MDR for blood pressure management platform" was originally created and published by Medical Device Network, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. 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
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
TeleTracking and Palantir partner for operational decision-making in healthcare
TeleTracking Technologies has collaborated with Palantir Technologies to enhance operational decision-making in healthcare. This strategic partnership is set to offer long-term value to healthcare providers worldwide by integrating TeleTracking's Operations IQ platform with the analytics and Palantir's AI-driven operating system, Palantir Foundry and AIP. Combining the operational workflow expertise of TeleTracking with the decision intelligence capabilities of Palantir, the partnership will enable caregivers to integrate and analyse various data types. This includes clinical, operational, financial, workforce, and third-party information. The goal is to use predictive forecasting and demand modelling to manage capacity, staffing, and resources more efficiently. The partnership will facilitate transparency and almost instantaneous awareness of circumstances across different areas or systems, leading to the optimisation of crucial resources throughout the entire organisation. It will also enhance the movement of patients through operational command centres. The distinctive operational information provided by TeleTracking, together with the AI-native platform from Palantir, seeks to automate operational procedures, lessening the load on staff and caregivers while also enhancing patient care and financial results. Palantir CEO Alex Karp said: 'This partnership with TeleTracking represents the AI revolution in healthcare we are in the midst of, where we continue to move closer to a world where all hospitals and health systems are embracing, implementing, and operating with an AI-powered approach, helping to streamline operations allowing for increased focus on providing the best level of care.' Health systems, regardless of their sizes, benefit from improved operational coordination, multi-hospital system management, and strategic planning powered by data. The partnership is designed to tailor their response capability to changing patient requirements and help to achieve cost efficiency. Earlier this year, TeleTracking announced a five-year collaboration with European applied AI company Faculty. This partnership aims to bring AI-powered automation and predictive capabilities to health systems and hospitals. "TeleTracking and Palantir partner for operational decision-making in healthcare" was originally created and published by Hospital Management, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
An Uproar at the NIH
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Updated at 10:26 a.m. on June 9, 2025 Since winning President Donald Trump's nomination to serve as the director of the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya—a health economist and prominent COVID contrarian who advocated for reopening society in the early months of the pandemic—has pledged himself to a culture of dissent. 'Dissent is the very essence of science,' Bhattacharya said at his confirmation hearing in March. 'I'll foster a culture where NIH leadership will actively encourage different perspectives and create an environment where scientists, including early-career scientists and scientists that disagree with me, can express disagreement, respectfully.' Two months into his tenure at the agency, hundreds of NIH officials are taking Bhattacharya at his word. More than 300 officials, from across all of the NIH's 27 institutes and centers, have signed and sent a letter to Bhattacharya that condemns the changes that have thrown the agency into chaos in recent months—and calls on their director to reverse some of the most damaging shifts. Since January, the agency has been forced by Trump officials to fire thousands of its workers and rescind or withhold funding from thousands of research projects. Tomorrow, Bhattacharya is set to appear before a Senate appropriations subcommittee to discuss a proposed $18 billion slash to the NIH budget—about 40 percent of the agency's current allocation. The letter, titled the Bethesda Declaration (a reference to the NIH's location in Bethesda, Maryland), is modeled after the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter published by Bhattacharya and two of his colleagues in October 2020 that criticized 'the prevailing COVID-19 policies' and argued that it was safe—even beneficial—for most people to resume life as normal. The approach that the Great Barrington Declaration laid out was, at the time, widely denounced by public-health experts, including the World Health Organization and then–NIH director Francis Collins, as dangerous and scientifically unsound. The allusion in the NIH letter, officials told me, isn't meant glibly: 'We hoped he might see himself in us as we were putting those concerns forward,' Jenna Norton, a program director at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and one of the letter's organizers, told me. None of the NIH officials I spoke with for this story could recall another time in their agency's history when staff have spoken out so publicly against a director. But none of them could recall, either, ever seeing the NIH so aggressively jolted away from its core mission. 'It was time enough for us to speak out,' Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the National Cancer Institute, who has signed her name to the letter, told me. To preserve American research, government scientists—typically focused on scrutinizing and funding the projects most likely to advance the public's health—are now instead trying to persuade their agency's director to help them win a political fight with the White House. In an emailed statement, Bhattacharya said, 'The Bethesda Declaration has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months, including the continuing support of the NIH for international collaboration. Nevertheless, respectful dissent in science is productive. We all want the NIH to succeed.' A spokesperson for HHS also defended the policies the letter critiqued, arguing that the NIH is 'working to remove ideological influence from the scientific process' and 'enhancing the transparency, rigor, and reproducibility of NIH-funded research.' The agency spends most of its nearly $48 billion budget powering science: It is the world's single-largest public funder of biomedical research. But since January, the NIH has canceled thousands of grants—originally awarded on the basis of merit—for political reasons: supporting DEI programming, having ties to universities that the administration has accused of anti-Semitism, sending resources to research initiatives in other countries, advancing scientific fields that Trump officials have deemed wasteful. Prior to 2025, grant cancellations were virtually unheard-of. But one official at the agency, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of professional repercussions, told me that staff there now spend nearly as much time terminating grants as awarding them. And the few prominent projects that the agency has since been directed to fund appear either to be geared toward confirming the administration's biases on specific health conditions, or to benefit NIH leaders. 'We're just becoming a weapon of the state,' another official, who signed their name anonymously to the letter, told me. 'They're using grants as a lever to punish institutions and academia, and to censor and stifle science.' NIH officials have tried to voice their concerns in other ways. At internal meetings, leaders of the agency's institutes and centers have questioned major grant-making policy shifts. Some prominent officials have resigned. Current and former NIH staffers have been holding weekly vigils in Bethesda, commemorating, in the words of the organizers, 'the lives and knowledge lost through NIH cuts.' (Attendees are encouraged to wear black.) But these efforts have done little to slow the torrent of changes at the agency. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow at the NIH and one of the letter's signers, told me that the NIH fellows union, which he is part of, has sent Bhattacharya repeated requests to engage in discussion since his first week at the NIH. 'All of those have been ignored,' Morgan said. By formalizing their objections and signing their names to them, officials told me, they hope that Bhattacharya will finally feel compelled to respond. (To add to the public pressure, Jeremy Berg, who led the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences until 2011, is also organizing a public letter of support for the Bethesda Declaration, in partnership with Stand Up for Science, which has organized rallies in support of research.) Scientists elsewhere at HHS, which oversees the NIH, have become unusually public in defying political leadership, too. Last month, after Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—in a bizarre departure from precedent—announced on social media that he was sidestepping his own agency, the CDC, and purging COVID shots from the childhood-immunization schedule, CDC officials chose to retain the vaccines in their recommendations, under the condition of shared decision making with a health-care provider. Many signers of the Bethesda letter are hopeful that Bhattacharya, 'as a scientist, has some of the same values as us,' Benjamin Feldman, a staff scientist at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, told me. Perhaps, with his academic credentials and commitment to evidence, he'll be willing to aid in the pushback against the administration's overall attacks on science, and defend the agency's ability to power research. But other officials I spoke with weren't so optimistic. Many at the NIH now feel they work in a 'culture of fear,' Norton said. Since January, NIH officials have told me that they have been screamed at and bullied by HHS personnel pushing for policy changes; some of the NIH leaders who have been most outspoken against leadership have also been forcibly reassigned to irrelevant positions. At one point, Norton said, after she fought for a program focused on researcher diversity, some members of NIH leadership came to her office and cautioned her that they didn't want to see her on the next list of mass firings. (In conversations with me, all of the named officials I spoke with emphasized that they were speaking in their personal capacity, and not for the NIH.) Bhattacharya, who took over only two months ago, hasn't been the Trump appointee driving most of the decisions affecting the NIH—and therefore might not have the power to reverse or overrule them. HHS officials have pressured agency leadership to defy court orders, as I've reported; mass cullings of grants have been overseen by DOGE. And as much as Bhattacharya might welcome dissent, he so far seems unmoved by it. In early May, Berg emailed Bhattacharya to express alarm over the NIH's severe slowdown in grant making, and to remind him of his responsibilities as director to responsibly shepherd the funds Congress had appropriated to the agency. The next morning, according to the exchange shared with me by Berg, Bhattacharya replied saying that, 'contrary to the assertion you make in the letter,' his job was to ensure that the NIH's money would be spent on projects that advance American health, rather than 'on ideological boondoggles and on dangerous research.' And at a recent NIH town hall, Bhattacharya dismissed one staffer's concerns that the Trump administration was purging the identifying variable of gender from scientific research. (Years of evidence back its use.) He echoed, instead, the Trump talking point that 'sex is a very cleanly defined variable,' and argued that gender shouldn't be included as 'a routine question in order to make an ideological point.' The officials I spoke with had few clear plans for what to do if their letter goes unheeded by leadership. Inside the agency, most see few levers left to pull. At the town hall, Bhattacharya also endorsed the highly contentious notion that human research started the pandemic—and noted that NIH-funded science, specifically, might have been to blame. When dozens of staffers stood and left the auditorium in protest, prompting applause that interrupted Bhattacharya, he simply smiled. 'It's nice to have free speech,' he said, before carrying right on. Article originally published at The Atlantic
