Category: Academic Reportage

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Sky Hooler, Ph.D. Student in Environmental Science, University at Albany, State University of New York

Lush forests and crisp mountain air have drawn people to New York’s Adirondack Mountains for centuries. In the late 1800s, these forests were a haven for tuberculosis patients seeking the cool, fresh air. Today, the region is still a sanctuary where families vacation and hikers roam pristine trails.

However, hidden health dangers have been accumulating in these mountains since industrialization began.

Tiny metal particulates released into the air from factories, power plants and vehicles across the Midwest and Canada can travel thousands of miles on the wind and fall with rain. Among them are microscopic pollutants such as lead and cadmium, known for their toxic effects on human health and wildlife.

For decades, factories released this pollution without controls. By the 1960s and 1970s, their pollution was causing acid rain that killed trees in forests across the eastern U.S., while airborne metals were accumulating in even the most remote lakes in the Adirondacks.

As paleolimnologists, we study the history of the environment using sediment cores from lake bottoms, where layers of mud, leaves and pollen pile up over time, documenting environmental and chemical changes.

In a recent study, we looked at two big questions: Have lakes in the Northeast U.S. recovered from the era of industrial metal pollution, and did the Clean Air Act, written to help stop the pollution, work?

Digging up time capsules

On multiple summer trips between 2021 and 2024, we hiked into the Adirondacks’ backcountry with 60-pound inflatable boats, a GPS and piles of long, heavy metal tubes in tow.

We focused on four ponds – Rat, Challis, Black and Little Hope. In each, we dropped cylindrical tubes that plunge into the darkness of the lake bottom. The tubes suction up the mud in a way that preserves the accumulated layers like a history book.

Back in the lab, we sliced these cores millimeter by millimeter, extracting metals such as lead, zinc and arsenic to analyze the concentrations over time.

The changes in the levels of metals we found in different layers of the cores paint a dramatic picture of the pristine nature of these lakes before European settlers arrived in the area, and what happened as factories began going up across the country.

A century plagued by contamination

Starting in the early 1900s, coal burning in power plants and factories, smelting and the growing use of leaded gasoline began releasing pollutants that blew into the region. We found that manganese, arsenic, iron, zinc, lead, cadmium, nickel, chromium, copper and cobalt began to appear in greater concentrations in the lakes and rose rapidly.

At the same time, acid rain, formed from sulfur and nitrogen oxides from coal and gasoline, acted like chemical shovels, freeing more metals naturally held in the bedrock and forest soils.

The result was a cascade of metal pollution that washed down the slopes with the rain, winding through creeks and seeping into lakes.

All of this is captured in the lake sediment cores.

As extensive logging and massive fires stripped away vegetation and topsoil, the exposed landscapes created express lanes for metals to wash downhill. When acidification met these disturbed lands, the result was extraordinary: Metal levels didn’t just increase, they skyrocketed. In some cases, we found that lead levels in the sediment reached 328 parts per million, 109 times higher than natural preindustrial levels. That lead would have first been in the air, where people were exposed, and then in the wildlife and fish that people consume.

These particles are so small that they can enter a person’s lungs and bloodstream, infiltrate food webs and accumulate in ecosystems.

Then, suddenly, the increase stopped.

A public outcry over acid rain, which was stripping needles from trees and poisoning fish, led to major environmental legislation, including the initiation of the Clean Air Act in 1963. The law and subsequent amendments in the following decades began reducing sulfur dioxide emissions and other toxic pollutants. To comply, industries installed scrubbers to remove pollutants at the smokestack rather than releasing them into the air. Catalytic converters reduced vehicle exhaust, and lead was removed from gasoline.

The air grew cleaner, the rain became less acidic, and our sediment cores show that the lakes began to heal through natural biogeochemical processes, although slowly.

By 1996, atmospheric lead levels measured at Whiteface Mountain in the Adirondacks had declined by 90%. National levels were down 94%. But in the lakes, lead had decreased only by about half.

Only in the past five years, since about 2020, have we seen metal concentrations within the lakes fall to less than 10% of their levels at the height of pollution in the region.

Our study is the first documented case of a full recovery in Northeast U.S. lakes that reflects the recovery seen in the atmosphere.

It’s a powerful success story and proof that environmental policy works.

Looking forward

But the Adirondacks aren’t entirely in the clear. Legacy pollution lingers in the soils, ready to be remobilized by future disturbances from land development or logging. And there are new concerns. We are now tracking the rise of microplastics and the growing pressures of climate change on lake ecosystems.

Recovery is not a finish line; it’s an ongoing process. The Clean Air Act and water monitoring are still important for keeping the region’s air and water clean.

Though our findings come from just a few lakes, the implications extend across the entire Northeast U.S. Many studies from past decades documented declining metal deposition in lakes, and research has confirmed continued reductions in metal pollutants in both soils and rivers.

In the layers of lake mud, we see not only a record of damage but also a testament to nature’s resilience, a reminder that with good legislation and timely intervention, recovery is possible.

Sky Hooler received funding from National Science Foundation with
the Geological Society of America Graduate Student Geoscience
Research Grant #1949901, 2021.

Aubrey Hillman 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. Industrial pollution once ravaged the Adirondacks − decades of history captured in lake mud track their slow recovery – https://theconversation.com/industrial-pollution-once-ravaged-the-adirondacks-decades-of-history-captured-in-lake-mud-track-their-slow-recovery-260182

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Thomas A. Stapleford, Associate Professor of History and Liberal Studies, University of Notre Dame

Many financial and political analysts are trying to assess the impact of President Donald Trump’s decision to fire U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner Erika McEntarfer on Aug. 1, 2025, the same day that an unemployment report conveyed weakness in the job market. Some of the strongest criticism of this unprecedented move has come from Republican-aligned and nonpartisan experts, including a former BLS commissioner Trump appointed during his first term and the American Economic Association, a nonprofit that has 17,000 members in academic, government and business professions. They have said that what Trump has accused McEntarfer of doing – “rigging” data“ – would be impossible to pull off.

The Conversation U.S. asked Tom Stapleford, a professor who has written a book on the political history of the U.S. consumer price index, to explain why this move could undermine trust in the indicators the government releases and why that could damage the economy.

What key data does the BLS release?

Founded in 1884, the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes monthly and annual data about American consumers and workers. Historically, the BLS has focused on urban workers and consumers, while the Department of Agriculture covered farmers and agricultural work. But these days, the Bureau of Labor Statistics also collects some data reflecting rural areas too.

The bureau publishes monthly data on inflation, employment and unemployment, and compensation. It also measures productivity on a quarterly basis, and twice per year it issues reports on consumer purchases – what people buy and how much they spend in different categories.

These official statistics are often revised in the months that follow as the bureau adopts new methods or more data becomes available.

How can data affect markets and the economy?

The bureau’s data on inflation, employment, unemployment and compensation draws the most attention because it answers basic questions about the economy.

For example: Are prices rising? Are employers adding new jobs? Are people finding work? How much are workers getting paid?

Employment and unemployment may seem very similar, but they show you different things. BLS employment data tells you how many jobs there are, where they are and in what lines of work.

BLS unemployment data is about people. How many Americans are looking for work but can’t find a job? How many have part-time jobs but would prefer to work full time?

The BLS also collects, analyzes and releases inflation data that shows how price changes are affecting American consumers. The BLS consumer price index data is weighted so that changes in the prices of items that are a big part of household expenses will have a larger effect on the final results than other changes.

Each BLS statistic has a narrow focus, but, taken together, they can reveal a lot about economic conditions across the country and in specific states.

Businesses and investors look to BLS data as guides for trends that might affect companies or financial markets as a whole. If prices start to rise quickly, the Federal Reserve might raise interest rates, which reduces bond prices.

If job creation starts to slow, the country might be heading toward a recession, and employers might pull back on hiring and production or invest less in new equipment. Policymakers use BLS statistics to guide decisions about government actions, and everyone else may use them to judge whether politicians have succeeded in managing the economy well.

Of course, all of these uses depend on Americans being able to trust the numbers. The BLS goes to great lengths to secure that trust, publishing detailed descriptions of its methods and research papers that try to explain patterns in the data and test new approaches. Until recently, the BLS also had two unpaid advisory committees of economists and statisticians from companies, universities and nonprofits that analyzed BLS methods and offered advice.

However, the Department of Labor disbanded those committees in March 2025, stating that the committees “had fulfilled their intended purpose.”

What does the BLS commissioner do?

The BLS commissioner oversees all aspects of the bureau’s operations and serves as the primary liaison with Congress and the leadership of the Department of Labor.

Although some early BLS commissioners did not have advanced degrees, all commissioners since the 1930s have had Ph.D.s in economics or statistics, as well as substantial experience using or producing statistical data.

Unlike rank-and-file BLS staff, who are typically career civil servants, the commissioner is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate for a four-year term. Due to the timing of those terms, each commissioner’s tenure normally spans two presidential terms. The Senate overwhelmingly approved McEntarfer’s nomination, for example, in an 86-8 vote held in January 2024.

However, this appointment is at will, meaning that a president can legally remove a commissioner at any time.

Could the top BLS official fudge any data?

It would be very difficult for the commissioner to alter or falsify data on his or her own.

The data is produced collectively by a large nonpartisan staff who are protected by civil service regulations, so it would be impossible for the commissioner simply to change the numbers.

Nonetheless, the commissioner could shape BLS data indirectly. The commissioner could make certain data harder to access, devote fewer resources to some topics or close some data series altogether.

More significantly, creating national statistics is complicated: There is always uncertainty, and even experts will disagree on many issues. A sufficiently motivated commissioner could potentially nudge the data in favored directions simply by altering the methodology.

If BLS staff thought a commissioner was truly trying to manipulate the statistics, however, I would expect many of them would resign or protest publicly. And there’s no sign of that having happened under McEntarfer’s leadership. She has strong support from former BLS commissioners and leading economists.

What are some possible consequences?

I do not expect to see any immediate consequences from McEntarfer’s firing.

The acting commissioner of the BLS, William Wiatrowski, is a longtime BLS employee who has held this role before.

The rest of the bureau’s staff remain the same. Over the long term, the actions of whomever Trump appoints as McEntarfer’s permanent replacement will determine whether her firing was an aberration or the mark of a new relationship between the White House and the BLS that could eventually undercut trust in its statistics.

To strengthen confidence in the BLS, the new commissioner could reinstate the external advisory committees that the Trump administration has disbanded. But he or she could weaken confidence by making controversial changes, especially regarding employment statistics, that are criticized by leading professional organizations or that cause top BLS officials to quit their jobs.

I believe it’s unlikely that BLS statistics could be faked in ways that would deceive economists. But they could become much less useful, and that would be bad for the United States.

Thomas A. Stapleford 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. Bureau of Labor Statistics tells the US what’s up with the economy – Trump firing its top official may undercut trust in its data – https://theconversation.com/bureau-of-labor-statistics-tells-the-us-whats-up-with-the-economy-trump-firing-its-top-official-may-undercut-trust-in-its-data-262673

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Michael G. Kozak, Associate Clinical Professor of Educational Administration and Leadership, Drexel University

Generative AI platforms have sent shock waves through the K-12 education sector since the public release of ChatGPT nearly three years ago.

The technology is taking hold under the belief that students and teachers need to be proficient in these powerful tools, even though many concerns remain around equity, privacy, bias and degradation of critical thinking among students.

As a professor who teaches future educators and is part of an AI-focused working group, I have observed the potential for artificial intelligence to transform teaching and learning practices in K-12 schools. The trends I am seeing – and that I encourage – are for K-12 educators to use AI to shift from memorization and rote learning to instead emphasize critical thinking and creativity.

Jumping in the deep end

After the public release of ChatGPT in late 2022, some large school districts initially banned the use of AI due to concerns about cheating. Surveys also reflected worries about chatbots fabricating information, such as references for school papers, in addition to concerns about misinformation and biases existing in AI responses to prompts.

Students, on the other hand, tended to jump into the deep end of the AI pool. Common Sense Media, which offers recommendations on children’s media consumption, published a report in 2024 showing that students were using AI-supported search and chatbots for homework and to stave off boredom as well as other personal reasons, including “creating content as a joke, planning activities, and seeking health advice.” Most of the teachers and parents of the students in the study were unaware that students were using the technology.

In my work at Drexel University teaching graduate students who are aspiring school principals or superintendents, I found that in 2023, K-12 students were afraid of using AI due to the policies implemented in their districts banning it. However, it quickly became apparent that students were able to mask their use of AI by instructing AI to insert some mistakes to their assignments.

Meanwhile, despite teachers’ initial concerns about AI, approximately 60% of K-12 teachers now admit to using AI to plan lessons, communicate with parents and assist with grading. Concerns over students cheating still exist, but time-strapped teachers are finding that using AI can save them time while improving their teaching.

A recent Walton Foundation and Gallup study revealed that teachers who used AI tools weekly saved an average of 5.9 hours per week, which they reallocated to “providing students more nuanced feedback, creating individualized lessons, writing emails and getting home to their families in a more reasonable time.”

Opening up new ways of teaching

I recommend that my graduate students use AI because I think ignoring emerging trends in education is not wise. I believe the benefits outweigh the negatives if students are taught ethical use of the technology and guardrails are put in place, such as requiring that AI be cited as a source if students use it in coursework.

Advocates say AI is changing teaching for the better, since it forces teachers to identify additional ways for students to demonstrate their understanding of content. Some strategies for students who rely too heavily on AI include oral presentations, project-based learning and building portfolios of a student’s best work.

One practice could involve students showing evidence of something they created, implemented or developed to address a challenge. Evidence could include constructing a small bridge to demonstrate how forces act on structures, pictures or a video of students using a water sampling device to check for pollution, or students designing and planting a community garden. AI might produce the steps needed to construct the project, but students would actually have to do the work.

Teachers can also use AI to create lessons tailored to students’ interests, quickly translate text to multiple languages, and recognize speech for students with hearing difficulties. AI can be used as a tutor to individualize instruction, provide immediate feedback and identify gaps in students’ learning.

When I was a school superintendent, I always asked applicants for teaching positions how they connected their classroom lessons to the real world. Most of them struggled to come up with concrete examples. On the other hand, I have found AI is helpful in this regard, providing answers to students’ perennial question of why they need to learn what is being taught.

Thought partner

Teachers in K-12 schools are using AI to help students develop their empathetic skills. One example is prompting an AI to “redesign the first-day experience for a relocated student entering a new middle school.” AI created the action steps and the essential questions necessary for refining students’ initial solutions.

In my own classroom, I’ve used AI to boost my graduate students’ critical thinking skills. I had my students imagine that they were college presidents facing the loss of essential federal funding unless they implemented policies limiting public criticism of federal agencies on campus. This proposed restriction, framed as a requirement to maintain “institutional neutrality,” requires students to develop a plan of action based on their knowledge of systems and design thinking. After each team developed their solution, I used AI to create questions and counterpoints to their proposed solution. In this way, AI becomes a critical thought partner to probe intended and unintended outcomes, gaps in students’ thinking and potential solutions that might have been overlooked.

AI researcher Ethan Mollick encourages educators to use AI as a springboard, similar to jazz musicians improvising, as a way to unleash new possibilities. Mollick advises people to partner with AI as co-intelligence, be the human in the loop, treat AI as a co-worker, albeit one that needs to be prodded for evidence, and to learn to use it well. I concur.

Changing perspectives on AI

Some early studies on the effects of using AI in education have raised concerns that the convenience of generative AI will degrade students’ learning and erode their critical thinking skills.

I think that further studies are needed, but I have found in my own work and in the work of my graduate students that AI can enhance human-produced work. For example, AI-powered teaching assistants, like Khanmigo or Beghetto Bots, use AI to help students solve problems and come up with innovative solutions without giving away the answers.

My experiences with other educators on the front lines show me that they are beginning to change their perspectives toward students using AI, particularly as teachers realize the benefit of AI in their own work. For example, one of my graduate students said his district is employing a committee of educators, students and outside experts to explore how AI can be used ethically and in a way that won’t erode students’ critical thinking skills.

Educators are starting to realize that AI isn’t going away anytime soon – and that it’s better to teach their students how to use it, rather than leave them to their own devices.

Michael G. Kozak 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. AI is taking hold in K-12 schools – here are some ways it can improve teaching – https://theconversation.com/ai-is-taking-hold-in-k-12-schools-here-are-some-ways-it-can-improve-teaching-259501

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Michelle L.D. Hanlon, Professor of Air and Space Law, University of Mississippi

The first space race was about flags and footprints. Now, decades later, landing on the Moon is old news. The new race is to build there, and doing so hinges on power.

In April 2025, China reportedly unveiled plans to build a nuclear power plant on the Moon by 2035. This plant would support its planned international lunar research station.
The United States countered in August, when acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy reportedly suggested a U.S. reactor would be operational on the Moon by 2030.

While it might feel like a sudden sprint, this isn’t exactly breaking news. NASA and the Department of Energy have spent years quietly developing small nuclear power systems to power lunar bases, mining operations and long-term habitats.

As a space lawyer focused on long-term human advancement into space, I see this not as an arms race but as a strategic infrastructure race. And in this case, infrastructure is influence.

A lunar nuclear reactor may sound dramatic, but its neither illegal nor unprecedented. If deployed responsibly, it could allow countries to peacefully explore the Moon, fuel their economic growth and test out technologies for deeper space missions. But building a reactor also raises critical questions about access and power.

The legal framework already exists

Nuclear power in space isn’t a new idea. Since the 1960s, the U.S. and the Soviet Union have relied on radioisotope generators that use small amounts of radioactive elements – a type of nuclear fuel – to power satellites, Mars rovers and the Voyager probes.

The United Nations’ 1992 Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space, a nonbinding resolution, recognizes that nuclear energy may be essential for missions where solar power is insufficient. This resolution sets guidelines for safety, transparency and international consultation.

Nothing in international law prohibits the peaceful use of nuclear power on the Moon. But what matters is how countries deploy it. And the first country to succeed could shape the norms for expectations, behaviors and legal interpretations related to lunar presence and influence.

Why being first matters

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty, ratified by all major spacefaring nations including the U.S., China and Russia, governs space activity. Its Article IX requires that states act with “due regard to the corresponding interests of all other States Parties.”

That statement means if one country places a nuclear reactor on the Moon, others must navigate around it, legally and physically. In effect, it draws a line on the lunar map. If the reactor anchors a larger, long-term facility, it could quietly shape what countries do and how their moves are interpreted legally, on the Moon and beyond.

Other articles in the Outer Space Treaty set similar boundaries on behavior, even as they encourage cooperation. They affirm that all countries have the right to freely explore and access the Moon and other celestial bodies, but they explicitly prohibit territorial claims or assertions of sovereignty.

At the same time, the treaty acknowledges that countries may establish installations such as bases — and with that, gain the power to limit access. While visits by other countries are encouraged as a transparency measure, they must be preceded by prior consultations. Effectively, this grants operators a degree of control over who can enter and when.

Building infrastructure is not staking a territorial claim. No one can own the Moon, but one country setting up a reactor could shape where and how others operate – functionally, if not legally.

Infrastructure is influence

Building a nuclear reactor establishes a country’s presence in a given area. This idea is especially important for resource-rich areas such as the lunar south pole, where ice found in perpetually shadowed craters could fuel rockets and sustain lunar bases.

These sought-after regions are scientifically vital and geopolitically sensitive, as multiple countries want to build bases or conduct research there. Building infrastructure in these areas would cement a country’s ability to access the resources there and potentially exclude others from doing the same.

Critics may worry about radiation risks. Even if designed for peaceful use and contained properly, reactors introduce new environmental and operational hazards, particularly in a dangerous setting such as space. But the U.N. guidelines do outline rigorous safety protocols, and following them could potentially mitigate these concerns.

Why nuclear? Because solar has limits

The Moon has little atmosphere and experiences 14-day stretches of darkness. In some shadowed craters, where ice is likely to be found, sunlight never reaches the surface at all. These issues make solar energy unreliable, if not impossible, in some of the most critical regions.

A small lunar reactor could operate continuously for a decade or more, powering habitats, rovers, 3D printers and life-support systems. Nuclear power could be the linchpin for long-term human activity. And it’s not just about the Moon – developing this capability is essential for missions to Mars, where solar power is even more constrained.

A call for governance, not alarm

The United States has an opportunity to lead not just in technology but in governance. If it commits to sharing its plans publicly, following Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty and reaffirming a commitment to peaceful use and international participation, it will encourage other countries to do the same.

The future of the Moon won’t be determined by who plants the most flags. It will be determined by who builds what, and how. Nuclear power may be essential for that future. Building transparently and in line with international guidelines would allow countries to more safely realize that future.

A reactor on the Moon isn’t a territorial claim or a declaration of war. But it is infrastructure. And infrastructure will be how countries display power – of all kinds – in the next era of space exploration.

Michelle L.D. Hanlon is affiliated with For All Moonkind, Inc. a 501(c)(3) nonprofit focused on protecting cultural heritage in outer space.

– ref. NASA plans to build a nuclear reactor on the Moon – a space lawyer explains why, and what the law has to say – https://theconversation.com/nasa-plans-to-build-a-nuclear-reactor-on-the-moon-a-space-lawyer-explains-why-and-what-the-law-has-to-say-262773