A mystery wave of seaweed is causing a stink in the Caribbean
A record amount of sargassum seaweed amassed across the Caribbean and surrounding areas in May, with more expected this month, according to a recent report.
The brown algae is blanketing shorelines from Puerto Rico to Guyana, disrupting tourism, killing wildlife, and emitting toxic gases. One school in Martinique was temporarily closed due to the fumes.
The volume of seaweed—38 million metric tons—is the largest quantity observed in the Caribbean Sea, the western and eastern Atlantic, and the Gulf of Mexico since scientists began monitoring the Great Atlantic Sargassum Belt in 2011.
Brian Barnes, an assistant research professor at the University of South Florida and contributor to the report published by the university's Optical Oceanography Lab, confirmed the findings on Monday.
The previous record was set in June 2022, with approximately 22 million metric tons.
'The peaks just seem to keep getting bigger and bigger year after year,' he said.
But scientists don't know why yet.
'It's the million-dollar question,' he said. 'I don't have a supremely satisfying answer.'
Three different types of sargassum exist in the Caribbean and nearby areas, reproducing asexually as they remain afloat thanks to tiny air sacs. They thrive in different ways depending on sunlight, nutrients and water temperature, factors that scientists are currently studying, Barnes said.
Experts also have said that agricultural runoff, warming waters and changes in wind, current and rain could have an effect.
While large clumps of algae in the open ocean are what Barnes called a 'healthy, happy ecosystem' for creatures ranging from tiny shrimp to endangered sea turtles, sargassum near or on shore can wreak havoc.
It can block sunlight that coral reefs need to survive, and if the algae sinks, it can smother reefs and sea grasses. Once it reaches shore, the creatures living in the algae die or are picked off by birds, Barnes said.
Huge piles of stinky seaweed also are a headache for the Caribbean, where tourism often generates big money for small islands.
'It is a challenge, but it's certainly not affecting every single inch of the Caribbean,' said Frank Comito, special adviser to the Caribbean Hotel and Tourism Association.
In the popular tourist spot of Punta Cana in the Dominican Republic, officials have invested in barriers to prevent sargassum from reaching the shore, he said.
In the Dutch Caribbean territory of St. Maarten, crews with backhoes were dispatched in late May as part of an emergency clean-up after residents complained of strong smells of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, which can affect a person's respiratory system.
'The smell is quite terrible,' Barnes said.
Meanwhile, in the French Caribbean, officials expect to soon use storage barges and an upgraded special vessel that can collect several tons of seaweed a day.
The sargassum 'disfigures our coasts, prevents swimming and makes life impossible for local residents,' French Prime Minister François Bayrou recently told reporters.
But Comito said such vessels are 'massively expensive' and not a popular option, noting that another option — using heavy equipment —- is labor-intensive.
'You have to be careful because there could be sea turtle eggs affected,' he said. 'It's not like you can go in there and massively rake and scrape the whole thing.'
Some Caribbean islands struggle financially, so most of the cleanup is done by hotels, with some offering guests refunds or a free shuttle to unaffected beaches.
Every year, the amount of sargassum expands in late spring, peaks around summer and starts to decline in the late fall or early winter, Barnes said.
The new record set is hardly stationary — experts said they expect even more sargassum for June.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Richard Branson faces fight to challenge Eurostar
Sir Richard Branson faces a fight to fulfil his dream of operating trains through the Channel Tunnel after the rail regulator concluded there was room for just one new entrant. The ruling means Sir Richard must convince the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) that he is better placed to provide competition to Eurostar than three rival bidders. While the ORR found that the only UK depot capable of servicing Channel Tunnel trains has room to handle more, it made clear that vital maintenance capacity is extremely limited. The regulator said: 'Taken together with Eurostar and applicants' initial plans, the assessment suggests there is room for at most one new operator, or for Eurostar to grow.' The chosen bidder will win the right to compete with Eurostar in the lucrative Paris market and potentially launch new services to cities such as Bordeaux, Marseille, Frankfurt and Zurich. The ruling is poised to pitch Sir Richard's Virgin Trains against Gemini Trains, chaired by Labour peer Lord Berkeley, which has said it would provide services from London's St Pancras International to Paris and Brussels with a fleet of 10 trains. Also in the running is Trenitalia, the main operating arm of Italy's state railway company FS Italian. It is expected to partner with a fourth bidder, Evolyn, which is backed by the Spanish Cosmen family. Virgin Trains said it would order a dozen trains worth around £500m, representing half of the required launch funding. These would most likely be from Alstom or Siemens, which together provide the Eurostar fleet. Sir Richard would take a major equity stake, supported by a partner or partners. While inactive on the UK rail network since 2019, Virgin Trains was credited with bringing airline-style flair to the West Coast route between London and Scotland following its privatisation in the late 1990s. The current West Coast contract is run by Trenitalia with FirstGroup. It was ranked as Britain's worst train service for punctuality and the second worst for cancellations in the first quarter, according to the most recent ORR figures. While Eurostar itself said it would also stake a claim to the spare capacity at Temple Mills depot in east London, the ORR is expected to favour an end to its 31-year monopoly over passenger express services between Britain and the Continent. In a letter to bidders, the regulator asked them to present final submissions 'at pace' to allow it to make a decision on awarding the routes by the end of October. However, it cautioned that applicants must submit detailed plans on the allocation of depot capacity and said that they were free to work together on alternative solutions for providing maintenance. Eurostar, which connects London with Paris, Lille, Brussels, Rotterdam, Amsterdam and the French Alps, said it was still of the view that Temple Mills was too full to accommodate a new entrant, with the one and a half servicing lanes available sufficient for five trains at the most. The company, owned by French state railway SCNF, said the only workable solution may be to build a second UK depot and that there a number of suitable sites available, including one at Stratford, close to Temple Mills. While construction costs would most likely exceed £100m, a spokesman said it would be open to collaborating with a potential rival to share the cost. Eurostar operates a fleet of around 20 trains from St Pancras but plans to place an order for up to 50 more as early as this year, to be split between its Channel Tunnel routes and a Paris-to-Brussels service. The spokesman said: 'It's clear a strategic, joined-up approach is needed to unlock the full potential of international rail for passengers and the UK economy.' Virgin Group welcomed the ORR's update and said it was 'ready to take up the challenge.' A spokesman said: 'Today's report is great news for passengers, bringing the group even closer to unlocking competition on the cross-Channel route.' Gemini didn't immediately respond to requests for comment. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
WebMD
2 hours ago
- WebMD
The Right Way to Use AI to Interpret Medical Test Results
June 5, 2025 – It's a common situation today: You're anxiously awaiting the results of a medical test when – ding! – they land in your patient portal. You'll be looking at them before your doctor. You start reading, but the confusing jargon makes you more nervous. What's a tortuous colon? Is a 1-centimeter nodule on my thyroid big enough to worry about? Do I have cancer? Many people are now using artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT to decipher their test results while they wait to hear from their doctor. Some doctors see it as the next-gen version of asking Dr. Google, but on steroids. Just like an old-school internet search, the answers can range from highly accurate to not-so-helpful to misleading to terrifying. "Patients often do this and come in with conclusions, and sometimes those conclusions are appropriate based on what ChatGPT has recommended," says Karim Hanna, MD, an associate professor and program director of the University of South Florida's Family Medicine Residency Program. "But also, there are times where those conclusions need redirection or clarification for the patients so they're not misunderstanding the details." We asked doctors to spell out the pros and cons of using AI to interpret medical test results and share advice on the smartest ways to do it. What are the benefits of using AI to explain test results? AI is good at translating medical terms into understandable language. Test result reports aren't exactly patient-friendly. "I've been a physician for 20 years, and there are aspects of these radiology reports I don't understand because they're talking about the dye and the protocol, and that's very specific to a radiologist," says Ateev Mehrotra, MD, MPH, chair of the Department of Health Services, Policy and Practice at the Brown University School of Public Health and a researcher studying how AI can make test reports more understandable. "This is a document that was really directed to talk between doctors, or sometimes between radiologists." Say a report says you have a tortuous colon. It sounds horrific, but it just means your colon's twists and turns were hard to navigate. AI can clarify things like that. "If there's some verbiage that is kind of medical lingo, ChatGPT does a great job of bringing it to lay terms and explaining things to patients," says Hanna. Plain-language summaries help people digest results. One study found that people with cancer who received a CT scan report simplified by a large language model and checked by a radiologist understood their condition better than people who only received the original report. Another study found that patients better understood their pathology reports when they received an AI-generated summary. Some health systems, such as Stanford Medicine, are now using AI tools to help doctors explain test results to patients. Mehrotra expects more will follow. AI can ease panic – in some cases. Now that test results go straight to patients, sometimes before doctors see them, anxiety around test results is common, research shows. Mehrotra says AI tools could potentially decrease panicked calls to doctors by helping patients understand common findings and test results that are normal or low risk. " The hope is that more people will see their test results and say, 'Oh, it's OK,' and then be willing to wait for their doc for a couple days to respond, as opposed to having that panic," says Mehrotra. What are the downsides of using AI to explain test results? It can be wrong. AI is good, but it's not perfect. ChatGPT is 87%-94% accurate when it analyzes radiology reports, according to Harvard research, and about 97% accurate at interpreting pathology reports, according to a study in JAMA Network Open. Sometimes, AI tools such as ChatGPT generate hallucinations, presenting incorrect information as if it's true (and doing so in a confident way). Fact-check: First, click the supporting links to ensure the information comes from real sources. "There are times where it just makes up sources, and you try to find that source, and it's nowhere to be found," says Sirui Jiang, MD, PhD, a diagnostic radiology resident at University Hospitals Cleveland who studies AI. Once you verify a source exists, check its quality. Ideally, it's a peer-reviewed journal, a doctors' society, or a health system. Then, make sure the text says what the AI tool claims it does. The output isn't tailored to your situation. One drawback of ChatGPT for interpreting medical tests: It lacks context about the patient's medical history, according to research by Hanna and colleagues. When ChatGPT interprets one test in isolation, it might miss the big picture. "Let's say someone has a hemoglobin of 11," says Hanna. "That hemoglobin of 11 is, in theory, abnormal, and ChatGPT will report it as such, sometimes giving reasons that may be scary or concerning to patients." For example, ChatGPT might say that person needs to rule out colon cancer. But they may have had a hemoglobin of 11 for years, and this finding might not actually be new or concerning. "Take everything that ChatGPT gives you with a grain of salt," says Hanna. "The best person to give you recommendations on the results that they ordered is the physician that ordered said result because that clinician will at least have the wherewithal to get you to the right resource, even if it's beyond their capacity to handle that problem." If you're expecting bad news, should you wait to hear from your doctor? Before a high-stakes test, like a test to stage cancer, doctors and patients should make a plan to shorten the limbo period when a patient is alone with their results, says Howard Forman, MD, MBA, a professor of radiology and biomedical imaging at Yale University. "The first thing is to have foresight, both from the patient as well as the physician point of view, and an agreement about how you're going to handle new information," he says. "I think some physicians know that a patient is awaiting a very anxiety-provoking report, and in those situations, it's really useful to have an agreement that the doctor is going to be as anxious to see the results as you are and that they'll be in touch with you by MyChart in a few hours, or maybe by phone or maybe in person." Whether you choose to dive into the results early or not, at least you know how soon you will have a chance to ask questions. What should you tell AI about your test results? For the most helpful output, don't just copy and paste test results into an AI tool and hit send. Use prompt engineering – the art and science of creating prompts for best results. "If you're a patient and you are going to leverage these tools, then I usually suggest an acronym, C.A.R.E," says Hanna. Give the tool: Context, or background about yourself Action, a verb that describes what you want it to do Role to take on; in this case, an expert doctor Expectations for how complex the explanation will be For example, you could paste your results and add the following text: I am __. (Enter relevant background information, like your age, if you're comfortable with it, keeping in mind that these tools don't have the same security and privacy standards as medical records.) Assume the role of a _____. (Enter radiologist for an imaging test or pathologist for a tissue or fluid sample.) Please ____ (Identify the key findings in this report OR tell me what the most likely next steps would be OR simplify this report.) at a _____ language level. (Start with fourth grade. If you want more detail and complexity, go up to your highest education level.) Try a few variations and compare. "If you're going to do it, do it a few ways and see how consistent it is," says Mehrotra. "Three interpreted responses versus just one is probably going to be more helpful." Consider using an AI tool made for medical information and clinical data, such as Open Evidence. "It's trained on evidence-based medicine, essentially, so it's not just pulling from the internet; it's pulling from peer-reviewed articles," says Hanna. Whether patients use AI or not, radiologists and imaging specialists can help by writing reports in scientifically accurate yet understandable ways, says Forman. "The more that we can use terms that are clear, concise, and convey information in a manner that is useful to the clinicians and then the patients, the better it is," he says. How should you talk with your doctor about what ChatGPT told you? If you're concerned, call and ask to discuss your results as soon as possible. Be upfront about where you got your information. "If you're feeling guilty about using ChatGPT or any other way to interpret your test results, don't feel guilty, and don't hide it from the doctor," says Mehrotra. "Everyone's doing it." During the waiting game, it helps to remember that while most doctors are busy, they move fast in emergencies. "Patients may not be aware of that if there's something life-threatening on a radiology test, a laboratory test, a pathology test, that radiologist is calling at 2 a.m. or whatever time it is to a doctor to say, 'Look, there's a life-threatening issue here, call the patient, get them on board," says Mehrotra. "That is their responsibility."
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr.'s New Report Actually Nails What's Wrong With American Health. Too Bad About the Other Part.
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. Emma lives in France. She wakes up in a country where junk food advertising to children is controlled. At school, she eats a nutritious lunch—half of which must come from locally sourced ingredients. The chemicals in her food are more strictly monitored; France bans many food additives that are still allowed in American products. When she gets home, she's not bombarded by algorithm-driven social media designed to maximize engagement through addictive content. Madison lives in Ohio. She wakes up to a breakfast, marketed directly to her through cartoon characters, packed with sugar and artificial additives. At school, she can buy snacks from a vending machine—something banned in French schools—stocked with products from companies that spend millions targeting her developing psychology. Her toys and environment contain harmful chemicals like PFAS and bisphenols that remain largely unregulated in America, unlike in France. After school, she's on social media platforms that use sophisticated algorithms to keep her scrolling, often on to content that makes her feel worse about herself. The health outcomes speak for themselves: France ranks third globally in child well-being, while the U.S. ranks 36th. The difference between Emma and Madison isn't that French doctors practice medicine differently. It's that the French government governs differently. As a pediatrician, I see this policy gap play out in my practice every day. The food we eat and the environment we live in are the primary drivers of chronic disease. Poor nutrition from ultra-processed foods drives obesity and diabetes, environmental toxins contribute to asthma and developmental disorders, and social media algorithms fuel mental health issues. I spend most of my time recommending lifestyle changes that work beautifully in countries like France but struggle to take hold in America's toxic environment. So when I opened the Trump administration's new 'Make America Healthy Again' report on childhood chronic disease, I was genuinely intrigued. Finally, I thought, a government document that seemed to understand what I see daily in clinical practice. The statistics cited are sobering. Over 40 percent of American children now have at least one chronic disease, with childhood obesity increasing by more than 270 percent since the 1970s. As a pediatrician treating these conditions, I was impressed by how thoroughly the commission had documented the crisis. But as I continued reading, I kept waiting for the group to outline a solution. Nearly 70 percent of children's calories come from ultra-processed foods designed to override satiety mechanisms and increase caloric intake, and kids are exposed to 15 food ads a day, with over 90 percent promoting products high in fat, sugar, and sodium. Not to mention the pesticides and microplastics commonly found in at alarming levels in their blood and urine. Americans, as the report demonstrates, simply live in an environment that is saturated with foods and chemicals that are terrible for our health. Just trying to avoid all this stuff can be impossible, particularly if you are a child. The logical thing to do to 'make America healthy' might be to regulate the industries that profit from making us sick—restricting predatory food marketing, cleaning up our chemical environment, and ensuring that kids have access to nutritious options. But MAHA doesn't suggest doing that. Instead, I found something far more fascinating: a document that makes the most compelling progressive case for government intervention I've ever seen, while at the same time steadfastly refusing to embrace its own conclusions. The MAHA report reads as if it were ghostwritten by a liberal think tank. It meticulously details what it calls 'corporate capture'—the way industry interests dominate and distort government actions, regulatory agencies, and medical institutions. The commission even provides a blueprint for solutions, citing countries with superior pediatric health outcomes. It notes that France bans junk food advertising to kids. Japan mandates comprehensive school nutrition programs. Regulation is possible and desirable. It's a lever that government could pull so that citizens lead healthier lives. The MAHA Commission has accidentally written a landmark conservative admission that the free market doesn't work in health care—that allowing corporations to operate without regulation corrupts institutions and undermines children's well-being. Stunningly, rather than embrace the obvious solution its data demand, the report pivots to blaming 'the overmedicalization of our kids.' That is, it claims that doctors like me and our health care system at large are too focused on treating illness and not on preventing it in the first place. It calls for 'unleashing private sector innovation' while explicitly rejecting 'a European regulatory system'—the kind that bans harmful food additives and restricts corporate marketing directed at children. This is where the commission's logic completely breaks down. It has spent dozens of pages documenting how corporate greed harms children, from selling them ultra-processed foods to exposing them to chemical toxins, creating an environment that leads to obesity, asthma, and other chronic illnesses. Then the group proposes solving this issue by giving those same interests more power while scapegoating the doctors trying to treat the resulting diseases of a system that prioritizes profit over well-being. As someone who treats these children regularly, I can tell you: This 'overmedicalization' narrative is completely backward. One example that the report gives of this phenomenon is asthma, noting that prescriptions for medications to control it went up by 30 percent over the course of a decade and declaring, 'American children are on too much medicine.' But the medicine isn't the problem. When I treat a child with asthma, I am dealing with the social determinants of health. That child gasping for breath in my office needs an inhaler because they live in substandard housing with environmental toxins that the government refuses to regulate. This is the reality of practicing pediatrics in America: We're forced to medicalize what other countries prevent through policy. Childhood obesity isn't just a medical condition—it's the symptom of a society that refuses to regulate the food industry. Doctors are left treating the symptoms, with the actual disease being the upstream social and economic factors. I agree with MAHA. This is not ideal. As much as we try, a doctor's stethoscope can't fix what a politician's pen breaks. The MAHA report's critique of doctors reveals how little the commission, which includes not one pediatrician, understands about practicing medicine. For example, the report notes that antidepressant prescriptions were written for greater than 2 million adolescents in 2022, a statistic that makes it seem as if doctors randomly hand out antidepressants. But this ignores that teenage depression rates have skyrocketed, with 5 million adolescents (20 percent of them) having a major depressive episode. When I prescribe an antidepressant to a teenager, it's not because I prefer pharmaceutical solutions. It's because I've already recommended therapy and behavioral changes. We spend much of our time advising nutritional improvement, increasing physical activity, and limiting screen time. However, that teenager lives in a country where all of that is constantly undermined by social media and chronic stress—the very societal factors the report identifies. When it comes to food and mental health, can kids and teens really do anything differently? The typical anti-regulation argument of 'personal responsibility' completely collapses when applied to minors. Children aren't autonomous actors who can meaningfully consent to destructive behaviors. Society has a moral imperative to protect children from predatory behavior. The typical response—that parents should simply 'take more responsibility'—ignores that we're asking families to fight billion-dollar industries alone. That approach has clearly failed. This is particularly true when it comes to guns. A child cannot be held responsible for gun safety. The report's ideological blinders are perhaps most evident in what it omits entirely: There is no discussion of firearm-related fatalities, the leading cause of pediatric deaths. The report does make important observations about pharmaceutical-industry capture, noting: '9 out of the last 10 FDA commissioners have gone on to work for the pharmaceutical industry.' This is a real problem, and the solution is shutting the revolving door between industry and government. Instead, the MAHA Commission uses these legitimate concerns to promote distrust of evidence-based medicine entirely— undermining confidence in the childhood vaccination schedule and framing the worsening mental health crisis as doctor-driven overmedicalization. Despite its flaws, the MAHA commissioners have handed both parties a critical moment of choice. For conservatives, it's a test of whether they're truly the populist party they claim to be. The commission has made the case for government intervention better than any progressive ever has. The question is whether they'll follow their own logic or remain trapped by free-market orthodoxy that's clearly failing America's children. For progressives, it's a reckoning: MAHA has accurately diagnosed the problem. It has correctly identified that U.S. institutions—the Food and Drug Administration, which approves medications from companies that later hire its commissioners; the Department of Agriculture, whose dietary guidelines are written by committees with extensive food-industry ties—are failing American families. Democrats, meanwhile, have found themselves defending institutions that are no longer serving their original purpose—regulatory agencies captured by the very industries they're supposed to regulate. While Republicans have the diagnosis correct, neither side has presented a cure. MAGA's answer is to let DOGE destroy the government's ability to regulate, while establishment Democrats champion the failing status quo. As the popularity of the MAHA movement shows, Americans aren't anti-government; we're anti-corruption. The real answer is pragmatic progressivism—not defending captured institutions but reimagining government—by explicitly channeling antiestablishment anger into pro-government reform. Without these changes, in another decade a different administration will release the next report documenting the same crisis, but with worse statistics. If that happens, the MAHA report will be remembered not as the document that made America healthy again—it'll be remembered as the moment we chose ideological paralysis over taking back our democracy, despite the cost to our children.
