Latest news with #TheConversationUK
Yahoo
22-07-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
From ‘MMS' to ‘aerobic oxygen', why drinking bleach has become a dangerous wellness trend
If something online promises to cure everything, it's probably too good to be true. One of the most dangerous examples? Chlorine dioxide is often marketed under names like 'Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS)' or 'aerobic oxygen', buzzwords that hint at health and vitality. But in reality, these products can make you violently ill within hours – and in some cases, they can be fatal. Despite what the name suggests, MMS is not just bleach. Bleach contains sodium hypochlorite, whereas MMS contains sodium chlorite – a different but equally toxic chemical. When ingested, sodium chlorite can cause methemoglobinemia, a condition where red blood cells lose their ability to carry oxygen. It can also trigger haemolysis (the rupture of red blood cells), followed by kidney failure and death. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. When sodium chlorite mixes with acid (such as stomach acid), it converts into chlorine dioxide, a bleaching agent. This compound has strong antimicrobial properties: it can kill bacteria, fungi and even viruses like SARS-CoV-2. For that reason, it's commonly used in sanitising dental equipment and hospital tools like endoscopes. Its effectiveness at killing over 400 bacterial species makes it useful in cleaning – but not in humans. While the mouth and oesophagus are lined with multiple cell layers, offering some protection, the stomach and intestines are far more vulnerable. These organs have a single-cell lining to absorb nutrients efficiently – but this also means they're highly sensitive to damage. That's why ingesting chlorine dioxide often leads to nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhoea. In extreme cases, the chemical can burn through the gut lining, leading to bowel perforation – a medical emergency with a high risk of death. Using MMS as an enema is equally dangerous. Chlorine dioxide can trigger an overproduction of reactive oxygen species – unstable molecules that damage cells and contribute to chronic gut conditions. This cellular stress may explain both the immediate symptoms and the long-term injuries seen in reported cases. It doesn't make a good mouthwash, either Some sellers claim MMS can be used safely in the mouth because it's found in dental cleaners. But clinical trials show it's no more effective than other mouthwashes, and its oxidising power doesn't distinguish between harmful microbes and healthy cells. Yes, it may temporarily reduce bad breath, but it also disrupts protein synthesis, damages cell membranes, and harms the gut microbiome – the collection of helpful bacteria we rely on for digestion and immune health. Chlorine dioxide doesn't just attack the gut. It also affects the cardiovascular system. Documented risks include low blood pressure, fainting, and cardiac damage – including stroke and shock. In some cases, it causes a dangerous blood disorder called disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). This condition causes abnormal clotting, followed by severe bleeding and potential organ failure, stroke and death. Chlorine dioxide is also a respiratory irritant. Inhalation can inflame the nose, throat and lungs, and in severe cases, cause respiratory distress – particularly with repeated exposure in workplaces. Studies of factory workers show that even low doses can lead to nasal inflammation, coughing and breathing difficulties. And some patients who drank chlorine dioxide to 'treat' COVID-19 ended up with severe chemical lung injuries. Risks to the brain, hormones and skin Animal studies suggest chlorine dioxide can harm the nervous system, causing developmental delays, reduced movement, and slower brain growth. It also appears to affect the thyroid, potentially causing hormonal disruptions and delayed puberty. It doesn't stop there. Some people who consume chlorine dioxide also develop cerebral salt wasting syndrome, a condition where the kidneys lose too much sodium, leading to excessive urination, dehydration and dangerously low blood volume. Skin contact isn't safe either. Chlorine dioxide can irritate the skin, and lab studies show it can kill skin cells at high concentrations. People who've used it to treat fungal infections have ended up with chemical dermatitis instead. Chlorine dioxide can be useful for disinfecting hospital tools, dental equipment and water supplies. But that doesn't mean it belongs in your body. Many of its supposed 'benefits' come from lab studies or animal research – not from safe, approved human trials. There's no evidence that drinking it cures any disease. There's overwhelming evidence that it can harm or kill you. So, if you're tempted by a product that promises miracles with science-y language and zero regulation, take a step back. The risks are very real – and very dangerous. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Adam Taylor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
18-07-2025
- Yahoo
Going on holiday? Here's how to make sure your trip is sustainable
With the rise of sustainable tourism (travelling in a way that minimises harm to the environment, and benefits local communities), words such as 'sustainable', '"eco' and 'green' appear on countless holiday brochures. From five-star hotels promoting 'eco luxury' to airlines pledging to reduce carbon emissions and destinations making various green claims, sustainability is increasingly being used as a marketing tool. But with so many green claims floating around, it's hard to know who is really providing sustainable travel and who is just greenwashing. A recent report shows that 53% of green claims are vague, misleading, or unfounded – and half of all green labels offer weak or non-existent verification. So, how can travellers distinguish genuine sustainability from greenwash that exaggerates environmental claims to attract eco-conscious travellers? Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. Sustainability certification is a voluntary, third-party assessment that verifies a product, service, or organisation meets certain environmental, social, or ethical standards. These certifications provide a structure to manage, improve and communicate sustainability performance. More than 100 sustainable certifications promise that they have vetted tourism businesses so you can have a satisfying and guilt-free holiday. Yet, not all certifications are made equal, as our recent research shows. Most certification schemes audit actions taken, rather than assessing how effective these are. They assure you that the hotel you are staying in has an environmental policy or that it is progressively reducing some of its negative effects on the environment, but not that their energy or water consumption is well below that of its competitors, for example. One major challenge is that consumers are not using these labels to inform their buying decisions. Next time you travel, select businesses certified by an organisation with a proven track record of verification and transparency. There are several things a strong certification should do: First, it should be third-party verified. This ensures that the green claims are independently checked. Second, it needs specific and clear criteria. Beware of vague sustainability claims, such as 'eco-friendly'. Look for certifications that require transparent reporting on performance for specific environmental actions, such as waste management, or responsible sourcing. Third, it should go beyond eco-savings. Reducing energy and water consumption saves the hotel money. They should not get a prize for that. Seek evidence of the certification promoting best practice in complex issues like biodiversity conservation and dignity in the workplace. Examples of sustainable tourism certifications to keep an eye on include Green Key (the largest label in Europe); B Corp (which measures a company's entire social and environmental impact); The Long Run (a promoter of nature conservation); and Fair Trade Tourism (a promoter of fair working conditions). These certifications require businesses to undergo regular audits to maintain them. In case you are thinking it's not your responsibility to find out who is any good – you are right. The EU Green Claims Directive (due to be implemented by 2026) is a new legislation that requires companies to prove their environmental claims and labels, and ensure they are credible and trustworthy. This directive recognises the greenwash problem and will require certification to be based on assessment of actual performance – in tourism, and every other sector of the economy. The directive applies to any business anywhere in the world that sells to consumers from the EU. Expect fewer, but more respected and recognisable labels, that reduce consumer confusion. Beyond eco-labels Certification is only part of the picture. Your next holiday can make a greater contribution to local communities while minimising its harm to the environment. Take the time to consider how your trip can be part of a larger, positive contribution. Here are more ways to ensure that your holiday supports local communities and the environment: Make sure you travel shorter and stay longer. Research shows that transport is a major part of the carbon footprint of your trip. Fly less (if at all). Choose flights with lower carbon footprints – various booking sites now tell customers the carbon footprint for each flight at the time of purchase. And stay longer so you spend more locally, for that same flight. Read more: Choose tour operators that prioritise locally owned and small suppliers. Buy souvenirs that are made locally, and you can only find in that country. Travel slow – soak in where you are. Hike, cycle, use local transport. You will see more of the real place you are in. Choose buses and trains over private cars. Rent electric vehicles and select accommodation that provides charging facilities. And enjoy local and seasonal rather than imported food. Eat everything in your plate, rather than create food waste. Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation's environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who've subscribed so far. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
16-07-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
From tea towels to TV remotes: eight everyday bacterial hotspots – and how to clean them
From your phone to your sponge, your toothbrush to your trolley handle, invisible armies of bacteria are lurking on the everyday objects you touch the most. Most of these microbes are harmless – some even helpful – but under the right conditions, a few can make you seriously ill. But here's the catch: some of the dirtiest items in your life are the ones you might least expect. Here are some of the hidden bacteria magnets in your daily routine, and how simple hygiene tweaks can protect you from infection. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. Shopping trolley handles Shopping trolleys are handled by dozens of people each day, yet they're rarely sanitised. That makes the handles a prime spot for germs, particularly the kind that spread illness. One study in the US found that over 70% of shopping carts were contaminated with coliform bacteria, a group that includes strains like E. coli, often linked to faecal contamination. Another study found Klebsiella pneumoniae, Citrobacter freundii and Pseudomonas species on trolleys. Protect yourself: Always sanitise trolley handles before use, especially since you'll probably be handling food, your phone or touching your face. Kitchen sponges That sponge by your sink? It could be one of the dirtiest items in your home. Sponges are porous, damp and often come into contact with food: ideal conditions for bacteria to thrive. After just two weeks, a sponge can harbour millions of bacteria, including coliforms linked to faecal contamination, according to the NSF Household Germ Study and research on faecal coliforms. Protect yourself: Disinfect your sponge weekly by microwaving it, soaking it in vinegar, or running it through the dishwasher. Replace it if it smells – even after cleaning. Use different sponges for different tasks (for example, one for dishes, another for cleaning up after raw meat). Chopping boards Chopping boards can trap bacteria in grooves left by knife cuts. Salmonella and E. coli can survive for hours on dry surfaces and pose a risk if boards aren't cleaned properly. Protect yourself: Use separate boards for raw meat and vegetables. Wash thoroughly with hot, soapy water, rinse well and dry completely. Replace boards that develop deep grooves. Tea towels Reusable kitchen towels quickly become germ magnets. You use them to dry hands, wipe surfaces and clean up spills – often without washing them often enough. Research shows that E. coli and salmonella can live on cloth towels for hours. Protect yourself: Use paper towels when possible, or separate cloth towels for different jobs. Wash towels regularly in hot water with bleach or disinfectant. Mobile phones Phones go everywhere with us – including bathrooms – and we touch them constantly. Their warmth and frequent handling make them ideal for bacterial contamination. Research shows phones can carry harmful bacteria, including Staphylococcus aureus. Protect yourself: Avoid using your phone in bathrooms and wash your hands often. Clean it with a slightly damp microfibre cloth and mild soap. Avoid harsh chemicals or direct sprays. Toothbrushes near toilets Flushing a toilet releases a plume of microscopic droplets, which can land on nearby toothbrushes. A study found that toothbrushes stored in bathrooms can harbour E. coli, Staphylococcus aureus and other microbes. Read more: Protect yourself: Store your toothbrush as far from the toilet as possible. Rinse it after each use, let it air-dry upright and replace it every three months – or sooner if worn. Bathmats Cloth bathmats absorb water after every shower, creating a warm, damp environment where bacteria and fungi can thrive. Protect yourself: Hang your bathmat to dry after each use and wash it weekly in hot water. For a more hygienic option, consider switching to a wooden mat or a bath stone: a mat made from diatomaceous earth, which dries quickly and reduces microbial growth by eliminating lingering moisture. Pet towels and toys Pet towels and toys stay damp and come into contact with saliva, fur, urine and outdoor bacteria. According to the US national public health agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, pet toys can harbour E. coli, Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Protect your pet (and yourself): Wash pet towels weekly with hot water and pet-safe detergent. Let toys air dry or use a dryer. Replace worn or damaged toys regularly. Shared nail and beauty tools Nail clippers, cuticle pushers and other grooming tools can spread harmful bacteria if they're not properly cleaned. Contaminants may include Staphylococcus aureus – including MRSA, a strain resistant to antibiotics – Pseudomonas aeruginosa, the bacteria behind green nail syndrome, and Mycobacterium fortuitum, linked to skin infections from pedicures and footbaths. Protect yourself: Bring your own tools to salons or ask how theirs are sterilised. Reputable salons will gladly explain their hygiene practices. Airport security trays Airport trays are handled by hundreds of people daily – and rarely cleaned. Research has found high levels of bacteria, including E. coli. Protect yourself: After security, wash your hands or use sanitiser, especially before eating or touching your face. Hotel TV remotes Studies show hotel remote controls can be dirtier than toilet seats. They're touched by many hands and rarely sanitised. Common bacteria include E. coli, enterococcus and Staphylococcus aureus, including MRSA, according to research. Protect yourself: Wipe the remote with antibacterial wipes when you arrive. Some travellers even put it in a plastic bag. Always wash your hands after using shared items. Bacteria are everywhere, including on the items you use every day. You can't avoid all germs, and most won't make you sick. But with a few good habits, such as regular hand washing, cleaning and smart storage, you can help protect yourself and others. It's all in your hands. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Manal Mohammed does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Why many Americans still think Darwin was wrong, yet the British don't
One hundred years after a Tennessee teacher named John Scopes started a legal battle over what the state's schools can teach children, Americans are still divided over evolution. Scopes was charged with violating Tennessee law by teaching evolution, in a highly publicised July 1925 trial that led to national debate over evolution and education. The trial tested whether a law introduced that year really could punish teachers over evolution lessons. It could and did: Scopes was fined US$100 (£74). But here's the weird part: while Americans remain deeply divided about whether humans evolved from earlier species, our British predecessors largely settled this question decades before the Scopes trial. According to thinktank Pew Research Center data from 2020, only 64% of Americans accept that 'humans and other living things have evolved over time'. Meanwhile, 73% of Brits are fine with the idea that they share a common ancestor with chimpanzees. That nine-percentage-point gap might not sound like much, but it represents millions of people who think Darwin was peddling fake news. From 1985 to 2010, Americans were in what researchers call a statistical dead heat between acceptance and rejection of evolution — which is academic speak for people couldn't decide if we were descended from apes or Adam and Eve. Here's where things get psychologically fascinating. Research into misinformation and cognitive biases suggests that fundamentalism operates on a principle known as motivated reasoning. This means selectively interpreting evidence to reach predetermined conclusions. And a 2018 review of social and computer science research also found that fake news seems to spread because it confirms what people already want to believe. Evolution denial may work the same way. Religious fundamentalism is what researchers call 'the strongest predictor' for rejection of evolution. A 2019 study of 900 participants found that belief in fake news headlines was associated with delusionality, dogmatism, religious fundamentalism and reduced analytic thinking. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. High personal religiosity, as seen in the US, reinforced by communities of like-minded believers, can create resistance to evolutionary science. This pattern is pronounced among Southern Baptists — the largest Protestant denomination in the US — where 61% believe the Bible is the literal word of God, compared to 31% of Americans overall. The persistence of this conflict is fuelled by organised creationist movements that reinforce religious scepticism. Brain imaging studies show that people with fundamentalist beliefs seem to have reduced activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex — the brain region responsible for cognitive flexibility and analytical thinking. When this area is damaged or less active, people become more prone to accepting claims without sufficient evidence and show increased resistance to changing their beliefs when presented with contradictory information. Studies of brain-injured patients show damage to prefrontal networks that normally help us question information may lead to increased fundamentalist beliefs and reduced scepticism. Fundamentalist psychology helps explain the US position in international evolution acceptance surveys. In a 2006 study, of over 33,00 people from 34 countries from 34 countries, only Turkey ranked lower than the US, with about 27% accepting evolution compared to America's 40% at the time. Among the developed nations surveyed, the US consistently ranks near the bottom — a pattern that persists in more recent international comparisons. Research shows that political polarisation on evolution has historically been much stronger in the US than in Europe or Japan, where the issue rarely becomes a campaign talking point. In the US, anti-evolution bills are still being introduced in state legislatures. In the UK, belief in evolution became accepted among respectable clergymen around 1896, according to church historian Owen Chadwick's analysis of Victorian christianity. But why did British religious institutions embrace science while American ones declared war? The answer lies in different approaches to intellectual challenges. British Anglicanism has a centuries-old tradition of seeking a 'via media' — a middle way between extremes — that allowed church leaders to accommodate new ideas without abandoning core beliefs. Historian Peter documented how British religious leaders actively worked to reconcile science and religion, developing theological frameworks that embraced scientific discoveries as revealing God's methods rather than contradicting divine authority. Anglican bishops and scholars tended to treat evolution as God's method of creation rather than a threat to faith itself. The Church of England's hierarchical structure meant that when educated clergy accepted evolution, the institutional framework often followed suit. A 2024 paper argued that many UK church leaders still view science and religion as complementary rather than conflicting. The British experience proves it's possible to reconcile science and faith. But changing American minds requires understanding that evolution acceptance isn't really about biology — it's about identity, belonging, and the fundamental question of who gets to define truth. People don't reject evolution because they've carefully studied the evidence. They reject it because it threatens their identity. This creates a context where education alone can't overcome deeply held convictions. Misinformation intervention research suggests that inoculation strategies, such as highlighting the scientific consensus on climate change, work better than debunking individual articles. But evolution education needs to be sensitive. Consensus messaging helps, but only when it doesn't threaten people's core identities. For example, framing evolution as a function of 'how' life develops, rather than 'why it exists, allows for people to maintain religious belief while accepting the scientific evidence for natural selection. People's views can change. A review published in 2024, analysed data which followed the same Gen X people in the US over 33 years. It found that, as they grew up, people developed more acceptance of evolution, though typically because of factors such as education and obtaining university degrees. But people who were taught at a private school seem less likely to become more accepting of evolution as they aged. As we face new waves of scientific misinformation, the century since the Scopes trial teaches us that evidence alone won't necessarily change people's minds. Understanding the psychology of belief might be our best hope for evolving past our own cognitive limitations. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Edward White is affiliated with Kingston University.
Yahoo
11-07-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
The forgotten 80-year-old machine that shaped the internet – and could help us survive AI
Many years ago, long before the internet or artificial intelligence, an American engineer called Vannevar Bush was trying to solve a problem. He could see how difficult it had become for professionals to research anything, and saw the potential for a better way. This was in the 1940s, when anyone looking for articles, books or other scientific records had to go to a library and search through an index. This meant drawers upon drawers filled with index cards, typically sorted by author, title or subject. When you had found what you were looking for, creating copies or excerpts was a tedious, manual task. You would have to be very organised in keeping your own records. And woe betide anyone who was working across more than one discipline. Since every book could physically only be in one place, they all had to be filed solely under a primary subject. So an article on cave art couldn't be in both art and archaeology, and researchers would often waste extra time trying to find the right location. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. This had always been a challenge, but an explosion in research publications in that era had made it far worse than before. As Bush wrote in an influential essay, As We May Think, in The Atlantic in July 1945: There is a growing mountain of research. But there is increased evidence that we are being bogged down today as specialisation extends. The investigator is staggered by the findings and conclusions of thousands of other workers – conclusions which he cannot find time to grasp, much less to remember, as they appear. Bush was dean of the school of engineering at MIT (the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and president of the Carnegie Institute. During the second world war, he had been the director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, coordinating the activities of some 6,000 scientists working relentlessly to give their country a technological advantage. He could see that science was being drastically slowed down by the research process, and proposed a solution that he called the 'memex'. The memex was to be a personal device built into a desk that required little physical space. It would rely heavily on microfilm for data storage, a new technology at the time. The memex would use this to store large numbers of documents in a greatly compressed format that could be projected onto translucent screens. Most importantly, Bush's memex was to include a form of associative indexing for tying two items together. The user would be able to use a keyboard to click on a code number alongside a document to jump to an associated document or view them simultaneously – without needing to sift through an index. Bush acknowledged in his essay that this kind of keyboard click-through wasn't yet technologically feasible. Yet he believed it would be soon, pointing to existing systems for handling data such as punched cards as potential forerunners. He envisaged that a user would create the connections between items as they developed their personal research library, creating chains of microfilm frames in which the same document or extract could be part of multiple trails at the same time. New additions could be inserted either by photographing them on to microfilm or by purchasing a microfilm of an existing document. Indeed, a user would be able to augment their memex with vast reference texts. 'New forms of encyclopedias will appear,' said Bush, 'ready-made with a mesh of associative trails running through them, ready to be dropped into the memex'. Fascinatingly, this isn't far from today's Wikipedia. Bush thought the memex would help researchers to think in a more natural, associative way that would be reflected in their records. He is thought to have inspired the American inventors Ted Nelson and Douglas Engelbart, who in the 1960s independently developed hypertext systems, in which documents contained hyperlinks that could directly access other documents. These became the foundation of the world wide web as we know it. Beyond the practicalities of having easy access to so much information, Bush believed that the added value in the memex lay in making it easier for users to manipulate ideas and spark new ones. His essay drew a distinction between repetitive and creative thought, and foresaw that there would soon be new 'powerful mechanical aids' to help with the repetitive variety. He was perhaps mostly thinking about mathematics, but he left the door open to other thought processes. And 80 years later, with AI in our pockets, we're automating far more thinking than was ever possible with a calculator. If this sounds like a happy ending, Bush did not sound overly optimistic when he revisited his own vision in his 1970 book Pieces of the Action. In the intervening 25 years, he had witnessed technological advances in areas like computing that were bringing the memex closer to reality. Yet Bush felt that the technology had largely missed the philosophical intent of his vision – to enhance human reasoning and creativity: In 1945, I dreamed of machines that would think with us. Now, I see machines that think for us – or worse, control us. Bush would die just four years later at the age of 84, but these concerns still feel strikingly relevant today. While it's great that we do not need to search for a book by flipping through index cards in chests of drawers, we might feel more uneasy about machines doing most of the thinking for us. Is this technology enhancing and sharpening our skills, or is it making us lazy? No doubt everyone is different, but the danger is that whatever skills we leave to the machines, we eventually lose, and younger generations may not even get the opportunity to learn them in the first place. The lesson from As We May Think is that a purely technical solution like the memex is not enough. Technology still needs to be human-centred, underpinned by a philosophical vision. As we contemplate a great automation in human thinking in the years ahead, the challenge is to somehow protect our creativity and reasoning at the same time. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Martin Rudorfer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
