Author: MIL-OSI Publisher

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Christopher Schaberg, Director of Public Scholarship, Washington University in St. Louis

It’s happened to you countless times: You’re waiting for a website to load, only to see a box with a little mountain range where an image should be. It’s the placeholder icon for a “missing image.”

But have you ever wondered why this scene came to be universally adopted?

As a scholar of environmental humanities, I pay attention to how symbols of wilderness appear in everyday life.

The little mountain icon – sometimes with a sun or cloud in the background, other times crossed out or broken – has become the standard symbol, across digital platforms, to signal something missing or something to come. It appears in all sorts of contexts, and the more you look for this icon, the more you’ll see it.

You click on it in Microsoft Word or PowerPoint when you want to add a picture. You can purchase an ironic poster of the icon to put on your wall. The other morning, I even noticed a version of it in my Subaru’s infotainment display as a stand-in for a radio station logo.

So why this particular image of the mountain peaks? And where did it come from?

Arriving at the same solution

The placeholder icon can be thought of as a form of semiotic convergence, or when a symbol ends up meaning the same thing in a variety of contexts. For example, the magnifying glass is widely understood as “search,” while the image of a leaf means “eco-friendly.”

It’s also related to something called “convergent design evolution,” or when organisms or cultures – even if they have little or no contact – settle on a similar shape or solution for something.

In evolutionary biology, you can see convergent design evolution in bats, birds and insects, who all utilize wings but developed them in their own ways. Stilt houses emerged in various cultures across the globe as a way to build durable homes along shorelines and riverbanks. More recently, engineers in different parts of the world designed similar airplane fuselages independent of one another.

For whatever reason, the little mountain just worked across platforms to evoke open-ended meanings: Early web developers needed a simple shorthand way to present that something else should or could be there.

Depending on context, a little mountain might invite a user to insert a picture in a document; it might mean that an image is trying to load, or is being uploaded; or it could mean an image is missing or broken.

Down the rabbit hole on a mountain

But of the millions of possibilities, why a mountain?

In 1994, visual designer Marsh Chamberlain created a graphic featuring three colorful shapes as a stand-in for a missing image or broken link for the web browser Netscape Navigator. The shapes appeared on a piece of paper with a ripped corner. Though the paper with the rip will sometimes now appear with the mountain, it isn’t clear when the square, circle and triangle became a mountain.

Users on Stack Exchange, a forum for developers, suggest that the mountain peak icon may trace back to the “landscape mode” icon on the dials of Japanese SLR cameras. It’s the feature that sets the aperture to maximize the depth of field so that both the foreground and background are in focus.

The landscape scene mode – visible on many digital cameras in the 1990s – was generically represented by two mountain peaks, with the idea that the camera user would intuitively know to use this setting outdoors.

Another insight emerged from the Stack Exchange discussion: The icon bears a resemblance to the Microsoft XP wallpaper called “Bliss.” If you had a PC in the years after 2001, you probably recall the rolling green hills with blue sky and wispy clouds.

The stock photo was taken by National Geographic photographer Charles O’Rear. It was then purchased by Bill Gates’ digital licensing company Corbis in 1998. The empty hillside in this picture became iconic through its adoption by Windows XP as its default desktop wallpaper image.

Mountain riddles

“Bliss” became widely understood as the most generic of generic stock photos, in the same way the placeholder icon became universally understood to mean “missing image.” And I don’t think it’s a coincidence that they both feature mountains or hills and a sky.

Mountains and skies are mysterious and full of possibilities, even if they remain beyond grasp.

Consider Japanese artist Hokusai’s “36 Views of Mount Fuji,” which were his series of paintings from the 1830s – the most famous of which is probably “The Great Wave off Kanagawa,” where a tiny Mount Fuji can be seen in the background. Each painting features the iconic mountain from different perspectives and is full of little details; all possess an ambiance of mystery.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the landscape icon on those Japanese camera dials emerged as a minimalist reference to Mount Fuji, Japan’s highest mountain. From some perspectives, Mount Fuji rises behind a smaller incline. And the Japanese photography company Fujifilm even borrowed the namesake of that mountain for their brand.

The enticing aesthetics of mountains also reminded me of the environmental writer Gary Snyder’s 1965 translation of Han Shan’s “Cold Mountain Poems.” Han Shan – his name literally means “Cold Mountain” – was a Chinese Buddhist poet who lived in the late eighth century. “Shan” translates as “mountain” and is represented by the Chinese character 山, which also resembles a mountain.

Han Shan’s poems, which are little riddles themselves, revel in the bewildering aspects of mountains:

Cold Mountain is a house
Without beams or walls.
The six doors left and right are open
The hall is a blue sky.
The rooms are all vacant and vague.
The east wall beats on the west wall
At the center nothing.

The mystery is the point

I think mountains serve as a universal representation of something unseen and longed for – whether it’s in a poem or on a sluggish internet browser – because people can see a mountain and wonder what might be there.

The placeholder icon does what mountains have done for millennia, serving as what the environmental philosopher Margret Grebowicz describes as an object of desire. To Grebowicz, mountains exist as places to behold, explore and sometimes conquer.

The placeholder icon’s inherent ambiguity is baked into its form: Mountains are often regarded as distant, foreboding places. At the same time, the little peaks appear in all sorts of mundane computing circumstances. The icon could even be a curious sign of how humans can’t help but be “nature-positive,” even when on computers or phones.

This small icon holds so much, and yet it can also paradoxically mean that there is nothing to see at all.

Viewing it this way, an example of semiotic convergence becomes a tiny allegory for digital life writ large: a wilderness of possibilities, with so much just out of reach.

Christopher Schaberg does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why two tiny mountain peaks became one the internet’s most famous images – https://theconversation.com/why-two-tiny-mountain-peaks-became-one-the-internets-most-famous-images-268169

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Morgan Bazilian, Professor of Public Policy and Director, Payne Institute, Colorado School of Mines

Two new data centers in Silicon Valley have been built but can’t begin processing information: The equipment that would supply them with electricity isn’t available.

It’s just one example of a crisis facing the U.S. power grid that can’t be solved simply by building more power lines, approving new power generation, or changing out grid software. The equipment needed to keep the grid running – transformers that regulate voltage, circuit breakers that protect against faults, high-voltage cables that carry power across regions, and steel poles that hold the network together – is hard to make, and materials are limited. Supply-chain bottlenecks are taking years to clear, delaying projects, inflating costs and threatening reliability.

Meanwhile, U.S. electricity demand is surging from several sources – electrification of home and business appliances and equipment, increased domestic manufacturing and growth in AI data centers. Without the right equipment, these efforts may take years longer and cost vast sums more than planners expect.

Not enough transformers to replace aging units

Transformers are key to the electricity grid: They regulate voltage as power travels across the wires, increasing voltage for more efficient long-distance transmission, and decreasing it for medium-distance travel and again for delivery to buildings.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that the U.S. has about 60 million to 80 million high-voltage distribution transformers in service. More than half of them are over 33 years old – approaching or exceeding their expected lifespans.

Replacing them has become costly and time-consuming, with utilities reporting that transformers cost four to six times what they cost before 2022, in addition to the multiyear wait times.

To meet rising electricity demand, the country will need many more of them – perhaps twice as many as already exist.

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation says the lead time, the wait between placing an order and the product being delivered, hit roughly 120 weeks – more than two years – in 2024, with large power transformers taking as long as 210 weeks – up to four years. Even smaller transformers used to reduce voltage for distribution to homes and businesses are back-ordered as much as two years. Those delays have slowed both maintenance and new construction across much of the grid.

Transformer production depends heavily on a handful of materials and suppliers. The cores of most U.S transformers use grain-oriented electrical steel, a special type of steel with particular magnetic properties, which is made domestically only by Cleveland-Cliffs at plants in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Imports have long filled the gap: Roughly 80% of large transformers have historically been imported from Mexico, China and Thailand. But global demand has also surged, tightening access to steel, as well as copper, a soft metal that conducts electricity well and is crucial in wiring.

In partial recognition of these shortages, in April 2024, the U.S. Department of Energy delayed the enforcement of new energy-efficiency rules for transformers, to avoid making the situation worse.

Further slowing progress, these items cannot be mass-produced. They must be designed, tested and certified individually.

Even when units are built, getting them to where they are needed can be a feat. Large power transformers often weigh between 100 tons and 400 tons and require specialized transport – sometimes needing one of only about 10 suitable super-heavy-load railcars in the country. Those logistics alone can add months to a replacement project, according to the Department of Energy.

Other key equipment

Transformers are not the only grid machinery facing delays. A Duke University Nicholas Institute study, citing data from research and consulting firm Wood Mackenzie, shows that high-voltage circuit-breaker lead times reached about 151 weeks – nearly three years – by late 2023, roughly double pre-pandemic norms.

Facing similar delays are a range of equipment types, such as transmission cables that can handle high voltages, switchgear – a technical category that includes switches, circuit breakers and fuses – and insulators to keep electricity from going where it would be dangerous.

For transmission projects, equipment delays can derail timelines. High-voltage direct-current cables now take more than 24 months to procure, and offshore wind projects are particularly strained: Orders for undersea cables can take more than a decade to fill. And fewer than 50 cable-laying vessels operate worldwide, limiting how quickly manufacturers can install them, even once they are manufactured.

Supply-chain strains are hitting even the workhorse of the power grid: natural gas turbines. Manufacturers including Siemens Energy and GE Vernova have multiyear backlogs as new data centers, industrial electrification and peaking-capacity projects flood the order books. Siemens recently reported a record US$158 billion backlog, with some turbine frames sold out for as long as seven years.

Alternate approaches

As a result of these delays, utility companies are finding other ways to meet demand, such as battery storage, actively managing electricity demand, upgrading existing equipment to produce more power, or even reviving decommissioned generation sites.

Some utilities are stockpiling materials for their own use or to sell to other companies, which can shrink delays from years to weeks.

There have been various other efforts, too. In addition to delaying transformer efficiency requirements, the Biden administration awarded Cleveland-Cliffs $500 million to upgrade its electrical-steel plants – but key elements of that grant were canceled by the Trump administration.

Utilities and industry groups are exploring standardized designs and modular substations to cut lead times – but acknowledge that those are medium-term fixes, not quick solutions.

Large government incentives, including grants, loans and guaranteed-purchase agreements, could help expand domestic production of these materials and supplies. But for now, the numbers remain stark: roughly 120 weeks for transformers, up to four years for large units, nearly three years for breakers and more than two years for high-voltage cable manufacturing. Until the underlying supply-chain choke points – steel, copper, insulation materials and heavy transport – expand meaningfully, utilities are managing reliability not through construction, but through choreography.

Kyri Baker receives funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and The Climate Innovation Collaboratory. She is a visiting researcher at Google DeepMind. The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s employer or any affiliated organizations.

Morgan Bazilian does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Supply-chain delays, rising equipment prices threaten electricity grid – https://theconversation.com/supply-chain-delays-rising-equipment-prices-threaten-electricity-grid-269448

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Mary J. Scourboutakos, Adjunct Assistant Professor in Family and Community Medicine, Macon & Joan Brock Virginia Health Sciences at Old Dominion University

It starts with a slight scratchiness at the back of your throat.

Then, a sneeze.

Then coughing, sniffling and full-on congestion, with or without fever, for a few insufferable days.

Viral upper respiratory tract infections – also known as the common cold – afflict everyone, typically three times per year, lasting, on average, nine days.

Colds don’t respond to antibiotics, and most over-the-counter medications deliver modest results at best.

In recent years, research has emerged demonstrating the effectiveness of the ancient practice of nasal saline irrigation in fighting the common cold in both adults and children.

Not only does nasal saline irrigation decrease the duration of illness, it also reduces viral transmission to other people, minimizes the need for antibiotics and could even lower a patient’s risk of hospitalization. Better yet, it costs pennies and doesn’t require a prescription.

I’m both an adjunct assistant professor of medicine and a practicing physician. As a family doctor, I see the common cold every day. My patients are usually skeptical when I first recommend nasal saline irrigation. However, they frequently return to tell me that this practice has changed their life. Not only does it help with upper respiratory viruses, but it also helps manage allergies, chronic congestion, postnasal drip and recurrent sinus infections.

What is nasal saline irrigation?

Nasal saline irrigation is a process by which the nasal cavity is bathed in a saltwater solution. In some studies, this is accomplished using a pump-action spray bottle.

In others, participants used a traditional neti pot, which is a vessel resembling a teapot.

This practice of nasal irrigation originated in the Ayurvedic tradition, which is a system of alternative medicine from India dating back more than 5,000 years.

The neti pot can be traced back to the 15th century. It garnered mainstream interest in the U.S. in 2012 after Dr. Oz demonstrated it on the “Oprah Winfrey Show.” But it’s not the only device that has historically been employed for such purposes. Ancient Greek and Roman physicians had their own nasal lavage devices. Such practices were even discussed in medical journals such as The Lancet over a century ago, in 1902.

How does nasal saline irrigation work?

Nasal saline has a few key benefits. First, it physically flushes debris out of the nasal passage. This not only includes mucus and crust, but also the virus itself, along with allergens and other environmental contaminants.

Second, salt water is slightly lower on the pH scale compared with fresh water. Its acidity creates an environment that is inhospitable for viruses and makes it harder for them to replicate.

Third, nasal saline helps restore the actions of part of our natural defense system, which is composed of microscopic, hairlike projections called cilia that line the surface of the nasal passage. These cilia beat in a coordinated fashion to act like an escalator, propelling viruses and other foreign particles out of the body. Nasal saline irrigation helps keep this system running effectively.

What the research shows

A study of more than 11,000 people published in The Lancet in 2024 demonstrated that nasal saline irrigation, initiated at the first sign of symptoms and performed up to six times per day, reduced the duration of symptomatic illness by approximately two days. Meanwhile, smaller studies have reported that the reduced duration of illness could be as high as four days.

Research has also demonstrated that nasal saline irrigation can help prevent the spread of illness. A study in hospitalized patients showed that after detection of COVID-19 via nasal swab, nasal saline irrigation performed every four hours over a 16-hour period decreased COVID-19 viral load by 8.9%. Meanwhile, the viral load in the control group continued to increase during that time.

The benefits of nasal saline also extend beyond acute infectious illnesses. When performed regularly by patients with allergic rhinitis, also known as hay fever, a meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials showed that nasal saline irrigation can enable a 62% reduction in the use of allergy medications. It’s also effective for chronic congestion, postnasal drip and recurrent sinus infections.

Why it matters

Besides helping patients feel better faster, one of the most valuable benefits of nasal saline irrigation is that its use can help decrease unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions, which are a major contributor to antibiotic resistance.

It is well established that antibiotics do not shorten the duration or reduce the severity of respiratory tract infections. Despite this, studies have shown that patients are happier when they leave their doctor’s office with an antibiotic prescription in hand.

This may be why 10 million inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions are given each year for viral respiratory tract infections. In one study of more than 49,000 patient encounters for respiratory infections, antibiotics were unnecessarily prescribed to 42.4% of patients.

One reason patients with upper respiratory viral infections tend to initially feel better with antibiotics is because of their off-target, anti-inflammatory properties. However, this benefit can be better achieved with anti-inflammatory medications such as ibuprofen or naproxen, that can be taken in conjunction with nasal saline irrigation.

Overall, nasal saline irrigation is a cheap, effective, evidence-based alternative that will not only shorten the duration of illness but also prevent its spread, minimize the need for unnecessary antibiotics and keep people out of the hospital.

How to do it

For those who want to try it, you don’t need anything fancy. Even a neti pot is not necessary. Many pharmacies sell salt water in a container with a nozzle and even spray bottles that can be refilled with a homemade saltwater solution.

You’ll mix approximately half a teaspoon of non-iodized salt with 1 cup of water. It’s important for your safety that the water be either distilled water or boiled for at least five minutes and then cooled to destroy any harmful bacteria. You can also add a pinch of baking soda to reduce any potential sting.

Note that saltier solutions are not more effective. However, some studies have suggested natural seawater, due to its additional minerals such as magnesium, potassium and calcium, could offer even greater benefits. Saltwater solutions can also be purchased commercially, which might be worth a try for those with an insufficient response to saline alone.

You can use nasal saline irrigation after any potential exposure to an infectious illness. For best results, you’ll want to start irrigating the nasal passage at the first sign of an infection. You can repeat rinses throughout the day as often as needed for the duration of the illness. At minimum, you’ll want to irrigate the nasal passages every morning and evening. You can also consider gargling salt water as an adjunctive therapy.

Mary J. Scourboutakos does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Recent studies prove the ancient practice of nasal irrigation is effective at fighting the common cold – https://theconversation.com/recent-studies-prove-the-ancient-practice-of-nasal-irrigation-is-effective-at-fighting-the-common-cold-266659

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Christos Makridis, Associate Research Professor of Information Systems, Arizona State University; Institute for Humane Studies

Do your office, inbox and calendar feel like a ghost town on Friday afternoons? You’re not alone.

I’m a labor economist who studies how technology and organizational change affect productivity and well-being. In a study published in an August 2025 working paper, I found that the way people allocate their time to work has changed profoundly since the COVID-19 pandemic began.

For example, among professionals in occupations that can be done remotely, 35% to 40% worked remotely on Thursdays and Fridays in 2024, compared with only 15% in 2019. On Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, nearly 30% worked remotely, versus 10% to 15% five years earlier.

And white-collar employees have also become more likely to log off from work early on Fridays. They’re starting the weekend sooner than before the pandemic, whether while working at an office or remotely as the workweek comes to a close. Why is that happening? I suspect that remote work has diluted the barrier between the workweek and the weekend – especially when employees aren’t working at the office.

The changing rhythm of work

The American Time Use Survey, which the U.S. Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts annually, asks thousands of Americans to recount how they spent the previous day, minute by minute. It tracks how long they spend working, commuting, doing housework and caregiving.

Because these diaries cover both weekdays and weekends, and include information about whether respondents could work remotely, this survey offers the most detailed picture available of how the rhythms of work and life are changing. This data also allows me to see where people conduct each activity, making it possible to estimate the share of time American professionals spend working from home.

When I examined how the typical workday changed between 2019 and 2024, I saw dramatic shifts in where, when and how people worked throughout that period.

Millions of professionals who had never worked remotely suddenly did so full time at the height of the pandemic. Hybrid arrangements have since become common; many employees spend two or three days a week at home and the rest in the office.

I found another change: From 2019 to 2024, the average number of minutes worked on Fridays fell by about 90 minutes in jobs that can be done from home. That change accounts for other factors, such as a professional’s age, education and occupation.

The decline for employees with jobs that are harder to do remotely was much smaller.

Even if you just look at the raw data, U.S. employees with the potential to work remotely were working about 7½ hours per weekday on average in 2024, down about 13 minutes from 2019. These averages mask substantial variation between those with jobs that can more easily be done remotely and those who must report to the office most of the time.

For example, among workers in the more remote-intensive jobs, they spent 7 hours, 6 minutes working on Fridays in 2024, but 8 hours, 24 minutes in 2019.

That means I found, looking at the raw data, that Americans were working 78 fewer minutes on Fridays in 2024 than five years earlier. And controlling for other factors (e.g., demographics), this is actually an even larger 90-minute difference for employees who can do their jobs remotely.

In contrast, those employees were working longer hours on Wednesdays. They worked 8 hours, 24 minutes on Wednesdays in 2024, half an hour more than the 7 hours, 54 minutes logged on that day of the week in 2019. Clearly, there’s a shift from some Friday hours, with employees making up the bulk of the difference on other weekdays.

Fridays have long been a little different

Although employees are shifting some of this skipped work time to other days of the week, most of the reduction – whether at the office or at home – has gone to leisure.

To be sure, Fridays have always been a little different than other weekdays. Many bosses allowed their staff to dress more casually on Fridays and permitted people to depart early, long before the pandemic began. But the ability to work remotely has evidently amplified that tendency.

This informal easing into the weekend, once confined to office norms, can be a morale booster. But as it has expanded, it’s become more individualized through remote and hybrid arrangements.

Those workers in remote-intensive occupations who are single, young or male reduced their working hours across the board the most, relative to 2019, although their time on the job increased a bit in 2024.

The benefits and limits of flexibility

There are a few causal studies on the effects of remote work on productivity and well-being in the workplace, including some in which I participated. A general takeaway is that people tend to spend less time collaborating and more time on independent tasks when they work remotely.

That’s fine for some professions, but in roles that depend on frequent coordination, that pattern can complicate communication or weaken team cohesion. Colocation – being physically present with your colleagues – does matter for some types of tasks.

But even if productivity doesn’t necessarily suffer, every hour of unscheduled, independent work can be an hour not spent in coordinated effort with colleagues. That means what happens when people clock out or log off early on a Friday – whether at home or at their office – depends on the nature of their work.

In occupations that require continuous handoffs – such as journalism, health care or customer service – staggered schedules can actually improve efficiency by spreading coverage across more hours in the day.

But for employees in project-based or collaborative roles that depend on overlapping hours for brainstorming, review or decision-making, uneven schedules can create friction. When colleagues are rarely online at the same time, small delays can compound and slow collective progress.

The problem arises when flexible work becomes so individualized that it erodes shared rhythms altogether. The time-use data I analyzed suggests that remote-capable employees now spread their work more unevenly across the week, with less overlap in real time.

Eventually, that can make it harder to sustain the informal interactions and team cohesion that once happened organically when everyone left the office together at the end of the week. As some of my other research has shown, that also can reduce job satisfaction and increase turnover in jobs requiring greater coordination.

The future of work

To be sure, allowing employees to do remote work and have some scheduling flexibility on any day of the week isn’t necessarily bad for business.

The benefits – in terms of work-life balance, autonomy, recruitment and reducing turnover – can be very real.

Flexible and remote arrangements expand the pool of potential applicants by freeing employers from strict geographic limits. A company based in Chicago can now hire a software engineer in Boise or a designer in Atlanta without requiring relocation.

This wider reach increases the supply of qualified candidates. It can – particularly in jobs requiring more coordination – also improve retention by allowing employees to adjust their work schedules around family or personal needs rather than having to choose between relocating or quitting.

What’s more, many women who might have had to exit the labor force altogether when they became parents have been able to remain employed, at least on a part-time basis.

But in my view, the erosion of Fridays may go beyond what began as an informal tradition – leaving the office early before the weekend begins. It is part of a broader shift toward individualized schedules that expand autonomy but reduce shared time for coordination.

Christos Makridis is also a senior researcher for Gallup, and provides economics research counsel for think tanks.

– ref. Hybrid workers are putting in 90 fewer minutes of work on Fridays – and an overall shift toward custom schedules could be undercutting collaboration – https://theconversation.com/hybrid-workers-are-putting-in-90-fewer-minutes-of-work-on-fridays-and-an-overall-shift-toward-custom-schedules-could-be-undercutting-collaboration-267921

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jenalee Doom, Associate Professor of Psychology, University of Denver

About 4 in 10 of the more than 42 million Americans who get Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits are children under 18. This food aid helps their families buy groceries and boosts their health in many ways – both during childhood and once they’re adults.

I am a developmental psychologist who studies how stress and nutrition affect kids’ mental and physical health during childhood, and how those effects continue once they become adults.

Researchers like me are worried that the SNAP benefits disruption caused by the 2025 government shutdown and the SNAP cuts included in the big tax-and-spending package President Donald Trump signed into law on July 4 will make even more children experience high levels of stress and will prevent millions of kids from accessing a steady diet of nutritious food.

Food insecurity can harm kids – even before they’re born

Food insecurity is the technical term for when people lack consistent access to enough nutritious food.

In childhood, it’s associated with having worse physical health than most people, including an elevated risk of getting asthma and other chronic illnesses.

It is also tied to a higher risk of child obesity. It seems counterintuitive that lower food access is associated with greater obesity risk. One explanation is that not having access to enough nutritious food may lead people to eat a higher-fat, higher-sugar diet that includes food that’s cheap and filling but may cause them to gain weight.

Even temporary disruptions to the disbursement of SNAP benefits can harm American kids. While the effects of brief food shortages can be hard to measure, a study on a temporary food shortage in Kenya suggests that even short-term food shortages can influence both parents and their kids for a long time.

And SNAP spending cuts, including those in what Trump called his “big beautiful bill,” are bound to hurt many children whose families were relying on SNAP to get enough to eat and are now losing their benefits.

A study by researchers from Northwestern and Princeton universities, published in 2025, followed more than 1,000 U.S. children into adulthood. It showed that food insecurity in early childhood predicted higher cardiovascular risks in adulthood. But those researchers also found that SNAP benefits could reduce cardiovascular risks later in life for kids facing food insecurity.

Food insecurity in pregnancy is dangerous too, and not just for mothers. It also poses risks to their babies.

Another study published in 2025 reviewed the medical records of over 19,000 pregnant U.S. women. It found that pregnant women who experience food insecurity are more likely to have pregnancy-related complications, such as giving birth weeks or months before their due date, developing gestational diabetes or spending extra time in the hospital, with their baby requiring a stay in a neonatal intensive care unit.

This same study found that when pregnant women received SNAP benefits and other forms of government food assistance, they were largely protected from these risks tied to food insecurity.

Food insecurity harms children’s mental health

A 2021 analysis of more than 100,000 U.S. children led by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, and Kaiser Permanente showed that when kids experienced food insecurity sometimes or often in a 12-month period, they ran a 50% greater risk of anxiety or depression compared to kids who didn’t.

Food insecurity in childhood is also associated with more behavior problems and worse academic performance. These mental health, academic and behavioral problems in childhood can put people on a path toward poorer health and fewer job opportunities later on.

Children and babies experiencing food insecurity are more likely to have nutrient deficiencies, including insufficient iron. A review of decades of research that I participated in found that iron deficiency during infancy and early childhood, when the brain is developing quickly, can cause lasting harm.

Other research projects I’ve taken part in have found that iron deficiency in infancy is associated with cognitive deficits, not getting a high school diploma or going to college, and mental health problems later on.

Food insecurity is often one of many sources of stress kids face

If a child is experiencing food insecurity, they are often dealing with other types of stress at the same time. Food insecurity is more common for children experiencing poverty and homelessness. It’s also common for kids with little access to health care.

Research from the research group I lead as well as other researchers have found that experiencing multiple sources of stress in childhood can harm mental and physical health, including how bodies manage stress. These different sources of stress often pile up, contributing to health problems.

Parents experiencing food insecurity often get stressed out because they’re scrambling to get enough food for their children. And when parents are stressed they become more susceptible to mental health problems, and may become more likely to lose their tempers or be physically aggressive with their kids.

In turn, when parents are stressed out, have mental health problems or develop harsh parenting styles, it’s bad for their kids.

SNAP falls short, even in normal times

To be sure, even before the 2025 government shutdown disrupted SNAP funding, its benefits didn’t cover the full cost of feeding most families.

Because they fell short of what was necessary to prevent food insecurity, many families with SNAP benefits needed to regularly visit food pantries and food banks – especially toward the end of the month once their benefits had been spent.

A grocer in my rural hometown in South Dakota posted on Facebook in November 2025 about the effects of food insecurity on families that he regularly sees. He explained that he keeps his stores open after midnight on SNAP disbursement days. Many of his customers, he said, are in a rush to get their “first real food in days.”

Jenalee Doom receives research funding from the National Institutes of Health.

– ref. SNAP benefits have been cut and disrupted – causing more kids to go without enough healthy food and harming child development – https://theconversation.com/snap-benefits-have-been-cut-and-disrupted-causing-more-kids-to-go-without-enough-healthy-food-and-harming-child-development-269362

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Stacy D. VanDeveer, Professor of Global Governance & Human Security, UMass Boston

As world leaders and thousands of researchers, activists and lobbyists meet in Brazil at the 30th annual United Nations climate conference, there is plenty of frustration that the world isn’t making progress on climate change fast enough.

Globally, greenhouse gas emissions and global temperatures continue to rise. In the U.S., the Trump administration, which didn’t send an official delegation to the climate talks, is rolling back environmental and energy regulations and pressuring other countries to boost their use of fossil fuels – the leading driver of climate change.

Coal use is also rising, particularly in India and China. And debates rage about justice and the future for coal-dependent communities as coal burning and coal mining end.

But underneath the bad news is a set of complex, contradictory and sometimes hopeful developments.

The problem with coal

Coal is the dirtiest source of fossil fuel energy and a major contributor of greenhouse gas emissions, making it bad not just for the climate but also for human health. That makes it a good target for cutting global emissions.

A swift drop in coal use is the main reason U.S. greenhouse gas emissions fell in recent years as natural gas and renewable energy became cheaper.

Today, nearly a third of all countries worldwide have pledged to phase out their unabated coal-burning power plants in the coming years, including several countries you might not expect. Germany, Spain, Malaysia, the Czech Republic – all have substantial coal reserves and coal use today, yet they are among the more than 60 countries that have joined the Powering Past Coal Alliance and set phase-out deadlines between 2025 and 2040.

Several governments in the European Union and Latin America are now coal phase-out leaders, and EU greenhouse gas emissions continue to fall.

Progress, and challenges ahead

So, where do things stand for phasing out coal burning globally? The picture is mixed. For example:

• The accelerating deployment of renewable energy, energy storage, electric vehicles and energy efficiency globally offer hope that global emissions are on their way to peaking. More than 90% of the new electricity capacity installed worldwide in 2024 came from clean energy sources. However, energy demand is also growing quickly, so new renewable power does not always replace older fossil fuel plants or prevent new ones, including coal.

• China now burns more coal than the rest of the world combined, and it continues to build new coal plants. But China is also a driving force in the dramatic growth in solar and wind energy investments and electricity generation inside China and around the world. As the industry leader in renewable energy technology, it has a strong economic interest in solar and wind power’s success around the world.

• While climate policies that can reduce coal use are being subject to backlash politics and policy rollbacks in the U.S. and several European democracies, many other governments around the world continue to enact and implement cleaner energy and emissions reduction policies.

Phasing out coal isn’t easy, or happening as quickly as studies show is needed to slow climate change.

To meet the 2015 Paris Agreement’s goals of limiting global warming to well under 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) compared to pre-industrial times, research shows that the world will need to rapidly reduce nearly all fossil fuel burning and associated emissions – and it is not close to being on track.

Ensuring a just transition for coal communities

Many countries with coal mining operations worry about the transition for coal-dependent communities as mines shut down and jobs disappear.

No one wants a repeat of then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s destruction of British coal communities in the 1980s in her effort to break the mineworkers union. Mines rapidly closed, and many coal communities and regions were left languishing in economic and social decline for decades.

Other regions have also struggled as coal facilities shut down.

But as more countries phase out coal, they offer examples of how to ensure coal-dependent workers, communities, regions and entire countries benefit from a just transition to a coal-free system.

At local and national levels, research shows that careful planning, grid updates and reliable financing schemes, worker retraining, small-business development and public funding of coal worker pensions and community and infrastructure investments can help set coal communities on a path for prosperity.

A fossil fuel nonproliferation treaty?

At the global climate talks, several groups, including the Powering Past Coal Alliance and an affiliated Coal Transition Commission, have been pushing for a fossil fuel nonproliferation treaty. It would legally bind governments to a ban on new fossil fuel expansion and eventually eliminate fossil fuel use.

The world has affordable renewable energy technologies with which to replace coal-fired electricity generation – solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels in most places. There are still challenges with the transition, but also clear ways forward. Removing political and regulatory obstacles to building renewable energy generation and transmission lines, boosting production of renewable energy equipment, and helping low-income countries manage the upfront cost with more affordable financing can help expand those technologies more widely around the world.

Shifting to renewable energy also has added benefits: It’s much less harmful to the health of those who live and work nearby than mining and burning coal is.

So can the world quit coal? Yes, I believe we can. Or, as Brazilians say, “Sim, nós podemos.”

Stacy D. VanDeveer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Can the world quit coal? – https://theconversation.com/can-the-world-quit-coal-269772