Latest news with #healthhazards
Independent Singapore
3 days ago
- Lifestyle
- Independent Singapore
'Two jobs, no life — Is this hustle culture or just slow suicide?'
SINGAPORE: For the past three months, a Singaporean has lived a life that many would call 'extreme' and damaging. In an honest and very revealing post, the poster shared how he's been working two full-time jobs nonstop — an exhausting 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. night shift, followed by a 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. day job. That's a full 24 hours of work with hardly time to breathe, and just one day off a week. The motivation is financial independence. This Redditor is resolute in wiping out his financial liabilities, building up savings, and starting to invest. 'I don't see any chance of getting a job that pays S$4k to S$5k, let alone hitting the S$10k mark with just one job,' he wrote. 'So, I'm working two jobs to beat that ceiling.' Each month, when the salaries come in, there's a sense of pride — a concrete prize for persistent determination, but the effect on the body and mind is obvious. 'My body? It's beaten, running on low battery. I look like I have cancer, pale, exhausted, like a zombie. I feel drained all the time,' he shared. Heart tremors, anxiety, and seclusion have become routine. 'Is this sacrifice worth it?' he asked. 'Has Singapore become like this?' Empathy, tough love, and reality checks One response zeroed in on the blatant health hazards: 'How much sleep are you getting? Success amounts to nothing when your health suffers, and you can't enjoy what you worked hard towards.' The commenter advised the original poster to re-examine his approach now that the debt has been settled, and to make rest and upskilling the priorities. Another netizen provided a frank but vital reality check: 'No, Singapore hasn't 'become like this'. It's your own choice to live like this. You could've taken longer to clear your debt by working one job. This is not a success. This is self-destruction.' A recurring theme emerged from the readers' reactions — the difference between short-range gains and continuing sustainability. Many commented that dashing for a financial target without considering physical and mental well-being is a hazardous move. 'This isn't what success feels like, this is what stupidity feels like — something which will dawn on you when you're lying in a hospital bed,' one Redditor said. Others recommended a few options — upskilling, side hustles, or concentrating on building a single career path instead of grinding out two jobs in an unmanageable twist. 'The aim isn't to grab on to whatever money you can now. The aim is to build a life and career such that money finds you.' When hustle culture turns toxic Underneath the real-world advice and frank commentaries are deeper issues — the pressure of combating financial uncertainty and meeting societal expectations. The Redditor's story resonates with many young adults who are stuck between stagnant salaries, escalating prices, and the craving to become financially independent. However, as several netizens pointed out, forfeiting sleep, physical strength, mental well-being, and happiness for the sake of a somewhat quicker climb out of debt is not a sustainable or honourable path. Success, one commenter said, isn't about working yourself to death. 'Job success is when you get paid to do nothing. When something goes wrong, you fix it to remind people why you're paid highly.' It's about leverage, not hundreds of hours worked. To those grinding themselves into dust, one netizen asked – 'Is this the life you want? Because if your body breaks down before you reach your goals, none of that money will matter.' Sometimes, the most heroic act isn't crushing through the pain — it's stopping long enough to rebuild, re-evaluate, and pick a better path onwards.
Yahoo
02-07-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
I covered the L.A. fires in the Palisades. So I had my blood tested for lead
I watched my blood snake through the tube stuck into my arm as I sat under a canopy erected by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health at an Altadena church. Four months prior — almost to the hour — I stepped out of my car in Pacific Palisades to wailing sirens, raining ash and fleeing people. Now, like hundreds of others, I desperately wanted to know: Had lead once locked away in the homes of the Palisades and Altadena seeped into my bloodstream? And, if so, how much now sat in the vial in the hands of Jessica Segura, a nurse with the Department of Public Health? Tania Rysinski took my chair after me. She had evacuated from Pasadena and, after a trying remediation process, had moved back home with her husband and 3-year-old daughter. I asked what brought her to the Eaton fire resource fair. 'I also worry,' she told me. 'My daughter is the one that we worry about the most.' Despite hours of reading about and discussing remediation and health hazards with friends and family, Rysinski found little certainty that her family was safe. I shared her apprehension. Alongside other health and environment reporters at The Times, I've read thick scientific studies, reviewed reams of data and interviewed dozens of experts to understand what dangerous compounds, transported by wind and smoke, had laced our water systems, settled into homes and embedded themselves in the soil and our bodies. Even so, our reporting left me feeling mostly frustrated with my brain. Several times, after I interviewed residents in the burn areas, they would say: You've covered this in detail. Would you feel comfortable moving back here with kids? I didn't know. A 20-foot-tall flame staring at you through the windshield is a very tangible risk. The lead lurking in the air and soil is a different story. It is invisible and damages our bodies in complex ways. And that damage happens quietly. Segura, the nurse, removed the tube from my arm and pressed a cotton ball to the needle prick. The results would not be a simple positive or negative, she explained. Instead, it would list the concentration in micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood. Anything over 3.5 mcg/dL requires follow-up care, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. I could expect results within two weeks, Segura said. I asked Rysinski what her plan was if her levels were high. 'I have no idea,' she said. Neither did I. I, admittedly, took little precaution to protect myself from the wildfire smoke during the three days I spent in Pacific Palisades. My brain focused on more immediate concerns: dodging downed electrical wires, plotting escape routes, jump=starting folks' cars and watching in horror as buildings erupted into flames in front of me. Rysinski had felt the same in Pasadena. 'We were all on survival mode,' she said. After retreating to my car, which reeked of smoke, for a brief break the morning after the fires erupted, I got a message from my editor. Like concerned friends and family who had been messaging me from the East Coast — and strangers who'd seen my reports on Instagram — the editor wanted to know what the smoke might be doing to our lungs. And were people worried? I threw my body weight against the car door, barely managing to out-muscle the wind, and stumbled through gale-force gusts to talk to folks. At a haphazardly parked SUV, Amber Vanderbilt rolled down the window. 'I know this isn't on the top of most people's minds,' I said, 'but I'm curious how you or the people you know have been dealing with the air quality. Has that been a concern for you?' 'No,' she said with a chuckle. 'I see that it's on the news too, which is really funny.' In fact, the discourse had frustrated her enough that she recalled yelling at the TV newscast, 'No one cares! Show me where the fire perimeter is! Tell me where the wind is going!' I chuckled with her. I too did not care. Then, I started looking at the data. On Jan. 8, an air quality sensor in Chinatown had read fine particulate matter at a concentration over 13 times the federal daily limit — the number that had prompted my team to elicit my interview with Vanderbilt. Amid the scattered, ad hoc testing efforts that followed, one emerged as a leader: the LA Fire HEALTH Study, or the Los Angeles Fire Human Exposure and Long-Term Health Study. Scientists from eight research institutions had banded together with some private funding to, ambitiously, study the health effects of the fires over the course of a decade. In May, I attended one of their events — supposedly a symposium, definitely a cocktail party and perhaps a fundraiser — at a home in Brentwood. A Times photographer and I, slightly underdressed, scuttled past the valet and into the backyard. Guests began migrating to the white lawn chairs set up on the tennis court to hear the scientists speak. The jaunty atmosphere turned tense as Palisadians struggled to make sense of the environmental crisis unfolding in front of them. 'My daughter is a surfer, Pali High student. She's only 17 years old,' one attendee said when the topic of beaches came up. 'Our family is having a really, really hard time telling what the actual truth is.' Dr. David Eisenman, a UCLA public health professor and an avid surfer, had hit the waves that morning after carefully reviewing the nonprofit Heal the Bay's latest test results that showed no significant levels of contaminants in the water. But the attendee pushed back. 'I know a mom who spent $6,000 of her own money to have the beach tested and she found ridiculously high levels of arsenic,' she said. 'This is where children are playing. This is insane. So, we don't know who to trust. We don't know what to do.' The researchers sympathized with her frustration. For almost every combination of contaminant and domain, scientists have rigorously studied the exposure risk and health impact, and, based on that, the federal and state governments have set screening levels: Any more of a particular contaminant requires additional action. California's level for lead in residential soil is 80 milligrams per kilogram. That's the amount that, in the worst case, can raise the blood lead level of a child who routinely plays in the soil by 1 mcg/dL. A blood lead level increase in children of 5 mcg/dL corresponds to a loss of roughly 1 to 3 IQ points. But the problem quickly gets more complicated than that. Take the state's screening level for arsenic, for example, based on a 1-in-a-million chance of developing cancer over a lifetime of exposure. The level is 0.032 milligram per kilogram of soil. But arsenic naturally occurs in soil, typically 2 to 11 milligrams per kilogram. When I asked the state Department of Toxic Substances Control about this, it had a shockingly morbid answer. Arsenic occurring naturally at potentially cancer-causing levels, it said, is simply 'a part of living on Earth.' It's not hard to see why talk of contaminants leaves people frustrated and confused. That includes me, whose full-time job is to figure this stuff out. Yet one report from the LA Fire HEALTH Study struck me as surprisingly lucid. I couldn't get it out of my head. Dr. Kari Nadeau, a researcher with the study and professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, has been collecting firefighters' blood for years. After the L.A. County wildfires, she did the same. The results: The firefighters who battled L.A. County's urban fires had lead levels in their blood five times of those who had battled forest fires in Yosemite. Technically, no level of lead in the blood is safe, but we all live with it in our blood. The average American's blood lead level sits around 0.8 mcg/dL. Elevated levels in kids — above 3.5 mcg/dL, according to the CDC — can cause significant brain and nerve damage leading to slowed development and behavioral issues. Adults are less sensitive to lead, but under much higher concentrations — beyond 40 mcg/dL — the metal, which the body mistakes for calcium, can damage many organs. When I read my colleague's coverage of Nadeau's findings in March, a thought flickered from the back of my mind: What was in my blood? As I waited for my blood test results via snail mail, I became increasingly interested not only in what the environmental health risks of the fires are, but also how our brains process them. Spending so much time in the data had changed me. One weekend I sat next to a campfire, and as I admired the dancing flames, I also imagined the benzene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons the fire was stripping from the wood and whispering into the air for me to inhale. In my head, I recited the federal and state screening levels for airborne chemicals, like a high school student studying for a chemistry exam. So, I called professor Wändi Bruine de Bruin, director of the Schaeffer Institute's Behavioral Science and Policy Initiative at USC and an expert on the psychology of risk assessment. 'Any situation with environmental risk can be hard to comprehend … but with the fires, it is much more complex,' she said. Stacking multiple risks with limited information while likely dealing with a lost home and uncertain future — 'it's a lot.' To escape the helpless quest to find solace and certainty in the numbers, Bruine de Bruin recommended focusing on the most relevant data to you from trusted experts or your own testing, then shifting your focus to simple, accessible actions to limit future exposure. Dr. Michael Crane, a leading health expert in the response to 9/11 and the following environmental disaster, agreed with Bruine de Bruin. 'It's funny, if you make a decision about it, you usually get some peace on that point,' Crane said. 'I would urge people to manage the controllable risks — the ones that are right there, in their fingers.' As the initial shock of the terrorist attacks morphed into trauma, the very real long-term cancer risk posed by the smoke and debris began to sink in among New York's medical community. Crane recalled when an expert from the National Cancer Institute came down to talk with doctors. 'Fantastic young guy, and I mean, we basically surrounded him,' he said. The doctors unloaded all their burning cancer questions until one finally yelled, 'Well, what do you think we should do?" 'Get them to stop smoking,' the expert bluntly replied. Suffice to say, it did not soothe the doctors' concerns. 'He was lucky to get out of that room alive at that point,' Crane said. Yet that one sentence, Crane believes, is a large part of why the cancer rates never reached the sky-high levels many of those doctors feared. Since we don't have silver-bullet medical techniques to reverse the effects of exposure to all harmful contaminants, it's prudent we try to prevent another exposure and lead healthy lives. For doctors, it means staying vigilant: aware of their patients' risks and ready to act should those risks become a reality. Crane chuckled as he recalled the seeming absurdity of the expert's cancer comment; then he turned sincere. "We're very grateful for that guy,' he said. Ten days after my blood test, a letter from the Department of Public Health arrived. I quickly opened it. The lead level in my blood: less than 1 mcg/dL. Rysinski texted me a few days later to share that her results were the same. In fact, of the 1,350 individuals concerned about their exposures from the wildfires who had partaken in the county's lead blood testing program as of May 31, only seven had levels greater than 3.5 mcg/dL. All were adults older than 40; all lead levels were under 10 mcg/dL. Dr. Nichole Quick, chief medical advisor for the Department of Public Health, wants people to remain cautious about contamination but is pleased by the initial results of the county's lead testing program. 'The results are reassuring,' Quick told me, looking at numbers from the beginning of May. Reassuring not that contamination isn't present — it is — but that many of us are taking the simple, manageable steps to lower our risk. To face the often scary and seemingly insurmountable challenge of making it through our scarred landscape, we must do the little things. Wash our hands, clean the floors and keep the cigarettes away from our lips. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
01-07-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Beach safety 101: From strong water currents to hot sand and even flying umbrellas, here are tips to enjoy the summer getaway
A beach day is a rite of passage during the summer months. While it's wonderful to lie out in the sun with a cold beverage and a new book, or cool off in the ocean, beaches come with some surprising health hazards too. Whether it's the risk of heat stroke and dehydration or the threat of rip currents (not to mention potentially deadly umbrellas on a windy day), there are just a few things you need to keep in mind to have the best, safest beach day. Fortunately, a little preparation goes a long way. Here's what to know before you head for the sand and surf. Most people prefer their beach days to be full of sunshine, but that also means a greater risk of skin damage. Wearing sunscreens with high SPF values is crucial to protect your skin from harmful UV rays, experts told Yahoo, as doing so can prevent both sunburn and long-term damage like skin cancer and premature aging. Both mineral and chemical sunscreens are good options, based on your personal preference. (Mineral sunscreen often leaves a white cast, while chemical options may be less favorable to people with sensitive skin.) Just make sure that whichever one you use is a broad-spectrum sunscreen with at least SPF 30. Reapply at least a shot glass-size amount for your whole body every two hours, or more often if you're swimming or sweating. And sunscreen isn't your only line of defense: Experts recommend wearing sun-protective clothing, like a wide-brimmed hat and sunglasses with UV protection to shield your eyes from harmful rays. Opt for long, loose and lightweight fabrics to help cover exposed skin, and consider clothing labeled with an Ultraviolet Protection Factor (UPF) rating for added defense against UV radiation. The beach may come with a sea breeze, but spending time outdoors when it's hot comes with a higher risk of heat-related illness, which occurs when your body struggles to cool itself down. Risk for heat illness goes up when you exert yourself in high temperatures and are dehydrated. If you're hanging at the beach on a sweltering summer day, avoid overexerting yourself with activities. (Save the beach volleyball for a cooler day, for example.) Instead, keep your body as shaded as possible, such as under a pop-up tent or umbrella. (More on how to ensure you're doing so as safely as possible in a moment!) You can also keep yourself cool with a battery-powered fan and/or mister. Staying hydrated is also crucial — and that doesn't mean just drinking more water. To maintain hydration, you need to replace electrolytes like sodium, potassium and magnesium, which are lost through sweat. Adding an electrolyte powder to your water or eating electrolyte-rich foods like bananas and salted nuts can help your body absorb and retain fluids. It's also smart to avoid alcohol and limit caffeine, as both can worsen dehydration. Some things to keep on your radar are the symptoms of heat stroke, a life-threatening condition that occurs when the body can no longer regulate its temperature. If you or someone you're with experiences confusion, dizziness, nausea, a rapid pulse, hot and dry skin, or stops sweating despite the heat, make sure to move them to a cooler place immediately and try to lower their body temperature with cool water or ice packs. If they lose consciousness, have a seizure, or show signs of severe confusion, call 9-1-1 right away. Bringing snacks to the beach is the best — but to avoid foodborne illness, you need to adhere to food safety measures. The most important one is to ensure that your food stays at a safe temperature, aka outside of what the U.S. Department of Agriculture calls the danger zone — between 40 and 140°F. Food scientist Bryan Quoc Le previously told Yahoo that food that's eaten fresh or cold should be 'kept on ice before serving, and there should always be enough ice so that it does not all melt' — think perishable foods like deli meats, dairy products and cut fruits. Doing so should keep the food at 40°F or below. And avoid leaving food out in the sun for more than two hours — or just one hour if it's over 90°F — as bacteria can grow rapidly in warm conditions. When in doubt, toss anything that's been sitting out too long. Outside of making sure your food is stored at the proper temperature, also do your best to keep your hands as clean as possible before eating. Since soap and running water may not be available at the beach, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends using hand sanitizer that contains at least 60% alcohol as a backup for cleaning your hands before handling food. Want to go for a dip at the beach? Practice water safety. Always swim near a lifeguard, never swim alone and keep an eye on notices for dangerous ocean conditions, such as flags, that can indicate whether the water is acceptable to swim in. (A bright bathing suit can also help catch a lifeguard's eye in case you ever need assistance — just in case you needed an extra excuse to shop this summer.) If you're not a strong swimmer, stick to shallow areas or wear a flotation device — though remember that they're not foolproof. If you're planning on spending time at the beach, you may also want to consider swim lessons — they could save your life. And whether or not you're a strong swimmer, it's important to know the power of rip currents, which are fast-moving channels of water that flow away from the shore and can quickly carry swimmers out to sea, even in seemingly calm conditions. About 100 people a year die in rip currents in the United States, and over 80% of rescues by surf beach lifeguards in the U.S. are in response to rip currents, according to the U.S. Lifesaving Association. Before wading into the water at the beach, check the National Weather Service's local rip current forecast. Signs of a rip current include a gap of darker, calmer water between breaking waves, a noticeable change in water color, or foam and debris moving out to sea. If you get caught in a rip current, stay calm, swim parallel to shore until you're out of the current, then head back in with the waves — don't try to fight it directly. And if you see someone else struggling, call for help and toss them something that floats. Never put yourself at risk by trying to rescue them without proper skills or equipment. No one's Instagram pics of a beach day include flies — but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Common beach bugs include sand flies, mosquitoes and beach fleas. To avoid them, use insect repellent, cover up with lightweight clothing and avoid sitting directly on the sand by using a blanket or beach chair. You should also avoid pools of standing water, which attract bugs. It's not just bugs to be concerned about: The ocean may also contain some sea life you'd be better off not interacting with. Here's what to do if you have an unpleasant sea life encounter in the ocean — and how to cope if you do: Jellyfish: While not every jellyfish stings, the ones that do cause painful stings that lead to red, burning welts. Soak the area in hot water for relief. Stingrays: Stingrays tend to chill in shallow water or even under sand. They sting when stepped on, which can lead to a sharp puncture wound. Soak your stung area in hot water, and seek medical attention. You can shuffle your feet while walking so you don't accidentally step on one. Sea urchins: Stepping on one of these spiky creatures can leave painful spines stuck in your skin. Soak the area in hot water or vinegar and seek medical care if spines remain stuck. Sea lice: These are tiny jellyfish larvae that cause a rash under your swimsuit. Feeling the itch? Rinse off, wash your suit and use ice or antihistamines for relief. While these shade-producing items may not appear dangerous, a gust of wind can send one flying, leading to potentially serious injuries for anyone in its path. Recently, a New Jersey lifeguard was hospitalized after being impaled by a rogue beach umbrella. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission stepped in with new safety guidelines for beach umbrellas. When you're buying or renting an umbrella, look for labels to ensure it's compliant with the regulatory agency, and always follow the setup instructions carefully to keep it secure. Once you bring your umbrella to the beach, you can keep yourself and others safe by securing the umbrella deep in the sand. (An umbrella anchor can also keep your umbrella steady in the sand.) Always angle the umbrella into the wind and never leave it unattended while open — and, if the wind suddenly picks up or your umbrella starts to wobble, close it right away to prevent it from blowing away. It doesn't have to be very hot outside for the sand at the beach to heat up — in fact, while the temperature outside may be a reasonable 90°F, the sand can be more than 120°F on your poor bare feet. Since human skin starts to feel pain at 111°F, and first-degree burns occur at 118°F, it's important to protect yourself. Southwest Florida podiatrists with the Foot and Ankle Group previously told Palm Beach Daily News that there are a few ways to protect your feet if you must cross hot sand. One surprising tip? Skip the flip-flops. While they may be the go-to beach shoe, they easily trap sand against your feet, which can lead to burns. Instead, pick shoes with thicker plastic, rubber or foam soles like Crocs. No shoes to speak of? In a pinch, you can dig your feet deeper into the sand, where it's cooler, and shuffle across the beach toward the water. Or, wet your feet before walking across hot sand, as damp feet can handle the heat for longer periods of time. For those of us who prefer their beach days to be more taxing and less relaxing, there's always the option of digging a hole. Unfortunately for those people, holes at the beach are a major hazard, experts say. That's because holes are easily able to collapse inwards, which can lead people to be buried in the sand. In 2024, a 7-year-old girl in Florida died when a beach hole collapsed, burying her and her brother, who survived the ordeal. It's a tragic situation that happens to at least a few people per year. Hole collapses are especially dangerous because sand is heavy: Just one cubic foot of dry sand can weigh up to 90 to 110 pounds. And wet sand is even heavier at up to 130 pounds — the equivalent of 20 bricks pressing down on you. If you must dig a hole at the beach, abide by this rule: Never dig a hole any deeper than the knees of the shortest person in the group. This way, should the hole collapse on someone, they can easily get themselves out safely. And make sure to always fill in your holes completely before leaving the beach, so no one trips and falls in.
CNET
24-06-2025
- CNET
Should You Buy an Induction or Electric Stove? Here's How to Make the Right Choice
Even if you enjoy cooking, waiting for a pot of water to boil is probably one of the things you'd rather not have to deal with. And yes, the more you watch it, the slower it boils -- that's just science. But did you know that some ways of heating a pot are quicker than others? They can be better for other reasons, too. Using an electric stove can take longer than you'd like, making a gas range the preferred choice -- not to mention they usually heat your pots and pans more evenly, too. And with summer very much here, you've better things to do than stand and wait for water to boil. So gas is the way to go, right? Well, it's complicated. As quick as they are, gas ranges have their own problems, including the potential health hazards that come with setting a fossil fuel alight just so you can make some noodles. Thankfully, for those looking to go electric with their cooking, there are choices. Induction stoves are a popular option nowadays, and they don't have many of the problems that you get with traditional electric ranges. They also heat more quickly and evenly while being more energy-efficient. The trick is magnets. Here's a look at how induction cooktops compare to electric ranges. The mechanics of induction and electric heat Electric and induction cooktops produce the same outcome -- dinner -- but the way they actually get there is quite different. The burners on electric cooktops heat up and transfer that energy to your pots and pans through what's called conduction. The burners consist of metal coils, which may be exposed or covered by a cooktop made of glass or ceramic, that are heated with an electric current. The LG Signature Smart InstaView microwave mounts above the company's induction stove, and a camera mounted on the bottom of the microwave allows you to watch your food cook on the range from across the room. James Martin/CNET That heat then transfers either directly to the cookware, in the case of exposed coils, or into the conductive surface and then onto your pots and pans. Induction cooktops, meanwhile, use magnetic elements to energize your metal pots and pans, heating up the cookware itself instead of heating up the surface it sits on. This means the whole pan is being heated up evenly and less energy is wasted in heating up the air around the stove or the surrounding surface. Read more: The Cooktop Burner That Saved Us During a Kitchen Remodel The pros and cons of an induction cooktop Induction cooking is faster and safer, but that doesn't mean it's the easiest switch. There are some key differences to know. Induction cooktop pros Cooking on an induction cooktop has plenty of benefits. Primary among them is the fact that they require far less energy to heat. Because they transfer heat directly to cookware, considerably less energy is lost through the cooking process. By some estimates, induction cooktops are capable of delivering as much as 90% of the electromagnetic energy generated to the food in the pan, compared to as little as 38% of the energy generated in gas ranges. Another benefit of induction cooktops is the speedy cooking times. Induction surfaces can boil water in about half the time it takes for gas to do so, for instance. At CES 2025, we saw the Copper Charlie induction stove bring water to a boil in about 30 seconds. That induction stove and oven is expensive -- about $6,000 -- but it also comes with a 5 kilowatt-hour battery, allowing it to run during a power outage. Because of how induction cooktops transfer heat, the surface itself does not actually get as hot, except for the residual heat of having a hot pan on it. That means it's much safer if you touch it by accident. Spill food? You won't have to scrape it off after you're done, because it won't cook onto the stovetop. That's safer, and it makes cleanup a breeze. Another advantage is that induction cooktops generally aren't heating anything up unless there's a metal pan on top of an element, so you can worry less about the myriad hazards of leaving the stove on. Induction cooktop cons The main downside of an induction range is the cost. If you're on a budget, it may be difficult to find an induction cooktop that's the size you want and meets your preferred price. Copper's stove is particularly pricey at $6,000, but induction range and ovens from other brands typically start around $1,000 and go up from there. There are also some hidden costs: Most induction stoves require a 240-volt outlet to run. If you already have an electric stove, you may already have one of those in your kitchen. If you're switching from gas, you might need to call an electrician to get the right outlet installed -- and you need to have the space for it in your electrical panel. Those costs add up. (The Copper stove we saw at CES can plug into a standard 120-volt outlet because of its battery, but it also costs $6,000 to begin with.) On top of the product and installation costs, you may need to buy new pots and pans. Induction stoves only work with cookware made of ferromagnetic material. Specifically, that means stainless steel, cast iron and carbon steel. Pots and pans made from aluminum and copper aren't compatible. Adding to the confusion, some cookware uses a combination of materials in its construction, so its induction status isn't always obvious. To know for sure, give your pan the magnet test. If the magnet sticks, you're good to go. If not, then you may have to swap it for another one. Worse, you might have to change out all your existing cookware before your kitchen will be ready for induction. When you buy cookware, look on the label for information saying it's "induction ready" or something like it. Of course, if you're just wanting to take induction cooking for a spin, you can save on a lot of cost by picking up a portable induction burner, like a magnetic hot plate, for around $100 or less. Read more: The Best Way to Clean Your Cast-Iron Skillet is With This Kitchen Staple The Copper Charlie induction stove comes with a 5kWh battery, so it can plug into a standard outlet and keep running during a power outage. Jon Reed/CNET The pros and cons of electric cooktops Resistive electric cooktops -- the ones you're probably used to -- are far more common than induction for a reason, but there are some major hangups. Electric cooktop pros Electric cooktops aren't quite as hip as induction cooktops, but that's okay. They've been around for a while, and they're still quite popular for good reason: They get the job done. Simplicity and reliability are among the primary selling points of an electric cooktop, and installation should be easy and straightforward, too. Don't concern yourself with special equipment or particularly steep price tags. Electric cooktops are common and functional, so there's no learning curve. Another benefit of the electric cooktop is the ability to make use of residual heat. You may notice that the stovetop stays warm even after you turn it off. You can use this to help keep food warm or use those final minutes of excess heat to finish off the cooking process before serving your finished dish. Electric cooktop cons Electric ranges are not without their downsides. Residual heat can lead to unfortunate situations if you happen to place your hand on the surface or spill something on it while it's still warm. They can also take longer to heat up, and the coils can sometimes provide uneven heat or waste lots of energy if you're using a pan that's smaller than the surface being heated. There are still plenty of things to consider when deciding on the perfect cooktop for you, including your budget, the size of your kitchen, and how much you plan on actually using it. You might want to experience these cooktops for yourself before you decide, if possible. See how each one works and if you might like to cook on it. There are plenty of great cooktops that use both electric and induction heating mechanisms, so if you do some searching, you're likely to find one that fits your needs. A thoughtful approach will also help you produce great meals every time you use them. Though remember: A stove only provides the heat. You have to do the rest.
New York Times
30-05-2025
- Climate
- New York Times
Smoke From Wildfires in Canada Wafts Into the Upper Midwest
Smoke from wildfires in Canada has begun drifting across the border into the United States, raising concerns on Friday about possible health hazards in the Upper Midwest, the authorities said. Warnings about poor air quality were issued in Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota along with advisories for people in certain groups to curtail outdoor activity. In Michigan, meteorologists at the Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy said on Friday that the levels of fine particulate in the air would be elevated in the state through Saturday morning. People in sensitive groups, defined as those with heart or lung disease, older adults, children, pregnant people and outdoor workers, who may be more susceptible to the smoke, were advised to take precautions, such as adjusting outdoor activity. Particulates are small specks of soot, ash and dust that are picked up by winds and flow hundreds of miles across borders and state lines. In Canada, wildfire season typically runs from March until October. In Western Canada, fire activity normally sees an uptick in May. The season got off to a grim start earlier this month when two people were killed in the province of Manitoba as a wildfire raged, forcing the evacuation of an entire town. This week in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, neighboring provinces in Canada's prairies, dozens of wildfires spread out-of-control, displacing thousands of residents. A cold front was dragging smoke from the large wildfires in Manitoba and Saskatchewan across the border into Minnesota's northern region and tribal nations. The smoke was generating a reading of red on the air quality index, a standard measurement used by states to track particulate pollution, meaning it is unhealthy for many members of the general public. Air quality in the rest of the state was expected to be orange, or unhealthy especially for sensitive groups, Minnesota's Pollution Control Agency said. 'This will be a long-duration event with multiple rounds of smoke expected,' the agency said. The highest concentration of smoke is expected through Saturday afternoon, before a second round of smoke billows in on Sunday and a third wave arrives on Monday. In Wisconsin, state officials said hazy skies and elevated levels of fine particle pollution from the wildfires were forecast to drift into the northwestern region of the state before thickening and moving south on Friday. The advisory in Wisconsin is set to expire at 6 a.m. on Saturday, the Department of Natural Resources said, but there was a chance that the impacts from the smoke could continue in other areas. It said that there was also the possibility that the alert level on the air quality index could reach orange, or unhealthy for sensitive groups, and possibly red, meaning many more would be affected.
