Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Maximilian Brichta, Postdoctoral Research Associate, University of Virginia

Once seen as often dry and sometimes intimidating, personal finance advice is a far cry from what it was in your grandparents’ day.

It’s not just the array of new online tools, from banking apps to exotic new investing options, such as cryptocurrency. Social media has created a platform for “finfluencers” – nonprofessional personal finance influencers who have become an increasingly common source of advice for young people, whether it’s accurate or not.

While most Americans over 64 say they turn to professional financial planners for guidance, a 2025 Gallup poll found that 42% of 18- to 29-year-olds seek financial advice on social media. That’s almost double the share among those ages 30 to 49. Many finfluencers have no formal financial credentials. Instead, their credibility is largely built on their social media followings, engagement metrics and relatability.

There’s also another generational shift afoot: Personal finance is increasingly bound up with political and social issues. Young adults are attempting to navigate a precarious economy – and the finfluencers who try to court them often launch critiques at the institutions and policies that they say created these conditions.

This advice ranges from risky trading-centric approaches to holistic financial practices. But a common thread is their positioning against traditional financial advice.

As a scholar who studies how the digital economy is affecting young adults’ well-being, I argue that Americans who still get their financial advice from more conventional sources – as well as the professional adviser class – need to understand there’s been a sea change in how young people understand money. And the legions of online followers need a better grasp of the risks involved.

Personal finance goes political

“Hey, I’m Rachel and I’m not paying my federal income taxes this year,” begins a TikTok video of an attorney who claims she’s skipping out on her US$8,800 tax bill for political reasons.

Rachel Cohen’s videos have racked up millions of views so far this year. Her video series details her reasons for refusal, specifically citing her disagreement with federal immigration policy and the “military-industrial complex.” On April 15, 2026, Cohen updated her viewers – some of whom had threatened to report her to the IRS – that she filed her return. But instead of paying the amount due, she’s parking the money in a high-yield savings account. Her sign-off: “Stay tuned and find out if I get arrested!”

Cohen’s not alone in her public protest. Millions of viewers have watched “tax resistance” or “tax strike” videos on TikTok that offer advice on how to not pay taxes and walk viewers through the potential consequences they might face.

Although my research suggests most of the tax-protest content on TikTok comes from left-leaning users, it draws influencers across the political spectrum. Examples include dissenters citing anti-war sentiments or disapproval of the government’s handling of the Epstein files.

Other personalities are encouraging their followers to treat their finances as a broader political statement. In some cases, these videos issue a call to action.

Vivian Tu, better known by her followers as “Your Rich BFF,” explains why the price of raspberries has gone up, citing a variety of foreign and domestic policy decisions: the war in Iran, tariffs and a shortage of migrant farmworkers. “If this video made you mad,” she says, “share it with a friend and contact a legislator.”

Tori Dunlap, author of “Financial Feminist,” tells her 2.2 million followers on Instagram: “If you’re freaking out about the world right now, GET RICH. That is your best form of protest is to get financially stable.”

However, Dunlap isn’t peddling get-rich-quick schemes. Much of her advice is run-of-the-mill personal finance tips – such as improving your credit score, paying down debt or automating savings contributions.

Political personal finance content has also extended beyond protests into things such as tracking the financial integrity of members of Congress or avoiding investments that could fund things such as private prisons.

Follow the money

These examples underscore how people’s financial lives are bound up with their values. And finfluencers appeal to their most politically charged beliefs to shape their financial decisions – even if they aren’t the best choices for their bank accounts.

One example is conflicts of interest. What many followers may not be fully aware of is that most finfluencers are incentivized to make highly performative content to monetize their accounts. This funding can come through either sponsored content – often from credit card and fintech companies – or through their own materials and “masterclasses.”

Moreover, full transparency is not a given. Although TikTok and Instagram have “paid promotion” designations for sponsored content, it’s not always so easy to identify potential conflicts of interest.

Crypto promoters, for example, routinely fail to disclose their sponsorships – and it’s common for them to boost coins they have a vested interest in.

As Americans’ distrust in financial institutions and regulators grows, many are willing to follow advice that falls into gray areas of oversight. When personal finance tips resonate with a viewers’ values, everyday financial decision-making can become colored with politics and nonconformist sentiments.

Advice, please!

Not everyone turns to finfluencers. Many take advice from anonymous strangers on forums such as Reddit.

The r/personalfinance subreddit alone has 2.8 million weekly visitors who post, respond and read questions posed and answered by everyday people. This is only one of 189 finance-related subreddits my colleagues and I compiled in our recent report.

Unlike finfluencers, Reddit users typically trade tips and opinion in plain text and occasional memes. Users of these forums are rarely monetized. It’s also demand-driven advice – people who post on these forums get to ask questions that directly address their personal financial issues. Credibility is earned though community “upvotes” and endorsements. Rather than one opinion, they can get a variety.

But similar to finfluencers, there’s an anti-institutional sentiment that privileges peer-to-peer learning over credentialed expertise. For example, users on the Bitcoin subreddit harshly criticize the contemporary financial system and advocate for digital currency over conventional forms of money.

Others take aim at the excesses of consumer culture, as seen on the forums for anti-consumption and frugal and simple living.

In this environment, financial education is rarely neutral – it’s deeply intertwined with people’s personal and political lives. As finfluencer Ellyce Fulmore puts it: “The barriers you face, your personal experience, the systems that do or don’t work for you … personal, personal, personal, personal!”

Maximilian Brichta 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. How personal finance advice is getting political, thanks to ‘finfluencers’ – https://theconversation.com/how-personal-finance-advice-is-getting-political-thanks-to-finfluencers-280250

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Nicholas Pellegrino, Research Associate in Public Health Sciences, University of Connecticut

Using an in-home HEPA purifier for one month spurs a small but significant improvement in brain function in adults age 40 and older. That’s the result of a new study we co-authored in the journal Scientific Reports.

HEPA purifiers – HEPA stands for high efficiency particulate air – remove particulate matter from the air. Exposure to particulate matter has been connected to respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses as well as neurological diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Environmental health researchers increasingly recommend that people use HEPA air purifiers in their homes to lower their exposure to particulate matter, but few studies have examined whether using them boosts mental function.

We analyzed data from a study of 119 people ages 30 to 74 living in Somerville, Massachusetts. Somerville sits along Interstate 93 and Route 28, two major highways, resulting in relatively high levels of traffic-related air pollution. This makes it an especially good location for testing the health effects of air purifiers.

We randomly assigned participants to one of two groups. One used a HEPA air purifier for one month and then a sham air purifier – which looked and acted like the real thing but did not contain the air-cleaning filter – for one month, with a monthlong break in between. The second group used the real and sham purifiers in reverse order.

After each month, participants took a test that measured different aspects of their mental capacity. The test probed people’s visual memory and motor speed skills by measuring how quickly they could draw lines between sequential numbers, and it tested executive function and mental flexibility by asking them to draw lines between alternating sequential numbers and letters.

We found that participants 40 years and older – about 42% of our sample – on average completed the section testing for mental flexibility and executive function 12% faster after using the HEPA purifier than after using the sham purifier. That was true even when we accounted for factors like differences in the amount of time participants spent indoors, with either filter, as well as how stressful they found the test.

This improvement may seem small, but it is similar to the cognitive benefits that people experience from increasing their daily exercise. While you may not experience a sudden increase in clarity from a 12% boost, preventing cognitive decline is vital for long-term well-being. Even small decreases in cognitive functioning may be associated with a higher risk of death.

Why it matters

Air pollution can negatively affect mental function after just a few hours of exposure. Studies show that air purifiers are effective at reducing particulates, but it’s unclear whether these reductions can prevent cognitive harm from ongoing pollution sources like traffic. Research has been especially lacking in people living near major sources of air pollution, such as highways.

People living near highways or major roadways are exposed to more air pollution and also experience higher rates of air pollution-related diseases. These risks aren’t encountered by all Americans equally: People of color and low-income people are more likely to live near highways or areas with heavy traffic.

Our study shows that HEPA air purifiers may offer meaningful health benefits under these circumstances.

What still isn’t known

Research shows that air pollution begins to affect cognitive function especially strongly around age 40. These effects may become increasingly prominent as people age.

HEPA air purifiers may therefore be especially beneficial for older adults. Our study did not explore this possibility, as fewer than 10 of our 119 participants were over the age of 60.

Also, our participants only used a HEPA air purifier for one month. It’s possible that longer durations of air purification may sustain or even increase the improvement in cognitive function we observed in our study.

Finally, it is unclear exactly how air purifiers improve cognition. Some studies suggest that exposure to particulate matter reduces the amount of the brain’s white matter, which helps brain cells conduct electrical signals and maintains connections between brain regions. The brain regions most harmed by air pollution are the ones that control mental flexibility and executive function, the same domains in which we saw improvements in our study.

We plan to study whether reducing particulate matter by using air purifiers is indeed protecting the brain’s white matter, and whether it could reverse some cognitive decline. We will explore that possibility by studying how levels of molecules called metabolites, which cells produce as they do their jobs, change in response to breathing polluted air and air cleaned by a HEPA filter.

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

Nicholas Pellegrino and Doug Brugge received funding from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences under Grant ID: R01 ES030289

Doug Brugge receives funding from NIH.

Misha Eliasziw receives funding from NIH.

– ref. HEPA air purifiers may boost brain power in adults over 40 – new research – https://theconversation.com/hepa-air-purifiers-may-boost-brain-power-in-adults-over-40-new-research-280885

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Annette Regan, Adjunct Associate Professor of Epidemiology, University of California, Los Angeles

Rotavirus is a highly contagious virus that spreads easily and can make babies and young children very sick. This year, doctors have been seeing more cases earlier in the season than usual.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that almost 8 in 100 people tested for rotavirus have the virus. This is only a little higher than last year at this time, when about 7 in 100 tests were positive. However, doctors are concerned because rotavirus cases started rising earlier than usual – in January – which means more children are getting sick over a longer period of time.

Often referred to as a stomach flu or stomach bug, rotavirus infection can cause extreme diarrhea, leading to severe dehydration and hospitalization. Just like measles and whooping cough, infectious diseases that are also on the rise, rotavirus can be prevented with a safe and highly effective vaccine. But vaccination rates in the U.S. have fallen since 2018.

The Conversation asked epidemiologist Annette Regan to explain why this virus is on the rise and what families can do to protect themselves from the illness.

What is rotavirus and why is it dangerous?

Rotavirus, first identified in 1973, affects the gastrointestinal system – that is, the stomach and the intestines.

Rotavirus spreads from person to person, often when germs from poop get on hands or surfaces and then into the mouth. But a person can also become infected by touching a contaminated surface and then touching their mouth, or by drinking or eating contaminated food or water.

Rotavirus causes sudden diarrhea, vomiting and fever that can cause rapid dehydration, which can lead to death if left untreated. There is no medicine to cure the virus. Doctors can only help by giving fluids and watching closely for dehydration. Babies who lose too much fluid may need care in the hospital.

Rotavirus most often affects infants and young children. Without vaccination, nearly all children have a rotavirus infection by age 5.

The virus causes most instances of hospitalization due to severe diarrhea and is the leading cause of death due to diarrhea in children under 5. Older children and adults typically experience more mild infections, but the virus can cause severe illness in people with weakened immune systems and those over 65.

A safe and effective vaccine

Safe and effective vaccines against rotavirus have been available in the U.S. since 2006.

U.S. regulators approved an early rotavirus vaccine, but it was taken off the market the next year after doctors learned that, in very rare cases, it could cause a serious bowel problem. The rotavirus vaccines used today are different. Studies in more than 70,000 babies show that these vaccines are safe and work well.

Before vaccines were introduced, rotavirus accounted for more than 400,000 medical visits, including 200,000 emergency room visits, 70,000 hospitalizations and 20-60 deaths in the U.S. each year.

Annually, vaccination prevents an estimated 40,000-50,000 hospitalizations of infants in America. Since 2006, hospitalizations due to rotavirus have dropped by 80% and emergency room visits by 57%.

Recent rotavirus surge

Rotavirus is a springtime illness in America. Cases usually increase over the winter and reach their highest point around April or May, then drop off as the weather gets warmer in the summer.

Since January 2026, doctors have been seeing more rotavirus in babies and young children than usual. According to CDC data, about 3% of rotavirus tests in January were positive, when normally only about 1% of tests are positive. That rate is now peaking at nearly 8% of tests.

Scientists have also found more rotavirus by monitoring community sewage to track how germs are spreading. The levels of virus in sewage have gone up by about 40% since February. Together, this tells doctors that rotavirus is spreading more widely and lasting longer than it usually does, which is why they are watching it closely.

Rotavirus vaccine rates in the U.S. have been declining – 77% of children received the full vaccine series by 8 months of age in 2018 compared to 74% of children in 2024. That leaves more infants susceptible to infection. Rotavirus surges are generally shorter in areas where more people are vaccinated against it, meaning they could last longer in areas with lower vaccination coverage.

In January 2026, the Department of Health and Human Services shifted rotavirus vaccination from a universal recommendation to a decision to be made by families and their health care providers. Although this change was recently paused by a U.S. judge, this has left public health officials increasingly concerned that rotavirus vaccination rates could continue to decline.

Preventing rotavirus infection

Proper hand-washing can help reduce rotavirus transmission, but because rotavirus is highly contagious, preventing the disease through vaccination is the most effective form of protection.

There are two oral, live‑attenuated rotavirus vaccines available for infants in the U.S. The first dose must be given before 15 weeks of age, and all doses must be completed by 8 months of age.

Rotavirus vaccines reduce the risk of severe disease in infants by 85% to 90%. This means fewer hospital visits, less risk of dehydration and more babies staying healthy at home.

But these benefits last only when most babies get vaccinated. When vaccination rates drop, rotavirus can spread more easily, and more infants, especially the youngest ones, can get seriously ill. Keeping vaccination rates high helps protect individual babies and keeps the whole community safer.

Annette Regan receives research and related funding from the National Institutes of Health, Pfizer Inc, Moderna, and Merck Sharp & Dohme paid to her institution. She consults for the Pan American Health Organization and is affiliated with Kaiser Permanente Southern California.

– ref. Rotavirus cases in children are rising – but a highly effective vaccine has slashed hospitalizations from the virus by 80% in 2 decades – https://theconversation.com/rotavirus-cases-in-children-are-rising-but-a-highly-effective-vaccine-has-slashed-hospitalizations-from-the-virus-by-80-in-2-decades-281098

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Perin Gürel, Associate Professor of American Studies, University of Notre Dame

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller told CNN in January 2026 that “we live in a world … that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power” – what he called the “iron laws of the world.”

This “might-makes-right” mindset, which seems to permeate the Trump administration, sees the world through a singular prism and leaves little room for understanding others or their perspectives. Although President Donald Trump later said that he did “believe” in international “niceties,” his administration has focused on the exercise of raw power – as seen in its military operations against Venezuela and Iran – while cutting programs that seek to foster understanding.

In September 2025, for example, the Department of Education terminated US$86 million in Title VI funding for foreign language and area studies programs at universities across the country, calling them “inconsistent with administration priorities.”

Consider also the drastic cuts to international exchange programs and the administration withdrawing the country from 66 global cooperation organizations, including UNESCO, the International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies, and many others.

The implied logic appears simple and seductive: If power is all that matters, why study other people’s languages and cultures? After all, as long as you have a large enough military and the tough-talking bravado to match it, you don’t need to listen to, well, anyone else. Especially to people who appear different in some way and might challenge your cherished worldviews.

As a cultural historian, I’d like to introduce you to Nasreddin Hoja, a leading jocular figure in folk tales across West Asia.

Hoja’s stories contain important lessons about power and knowledge. Specifically, Hoja’s ability to question assumptions and challenge entrenched hierarchies with the simplest retort demonstrate how dangerous it is to be locked into a single worldview – the inevitable result of not caring about “other” cultures and languages.

Hoja’s timeless jokes have a lot to teach us about the current state of world affairs.

The folk hero who cannot be pinned down

The earliest Hoja tales likely originated in central Anatolia – in what is now Turkey – around the 13th century and then traveled rapidly in the region. He merged with the “Juha” tales popular in Arabic-speaking lands, became Molla Nasreddin in Iran, and took the honorific “Afandi,” or sir, in much of Central Asia.

“Hoja” means teacher or religious guide in Turkish, and, in many stories, he acts as an unconventional type of teacher, challenging perceived wisdom and symbols of authority – including his own – with a witty phrase.

For example, one day a villager asks Hoja to read a letter. He takes a look and says, “I cannot read this – it’s in Persian. Take it to someone else.” The villager gets mad. “What kind of hoja are you then? Look at the turban on your head, and you can’t even read Persian?” Hoja calmly takes off his turban and places it on the villager’s head. “If the trick is in the turban, go ahead, read it yourself.”

In another famous tale, Hoja arrives at a feast wearing old and ragged clothes and is treated rudely. He returns the next day in a fur coat and is showered with food and hospitality. In response, he dips his coat into the soup, mumbling, “Eat, my fur coat, eat.” Aghast, the hosts ask him what he is doing. Hoja shrugs and points out that the coat was the only thing that had changed about him, so the feast must be in its honor.

Hoja has a subversive relationship to military and political authority as well. Many Hoja stories show the folk figure interacting with the Central Asian Emperor Timur, who ruled a vast empire stretching from Afghanistan to Asia Minor at the end of the 13th century.

In story after story, Hoja manages to mock and trick Timur and evade punishment through his wit. In one of the earliest recorded interactions between the two, they go into the bathhouse together. Timur asks Hoja to estimate how much he, the mighty emperor, would be worth if on sale as a slave. Hoja names a ridiculously low price, equivalent to around 15 cents. When Timur objects that the towel wrapped around him would be worth that much, Hoja shrugs and says, “Exactly. That’s what I set the price for.” The joke implies that Timur, stripped of all the trappings of power and authority, is essentially worthless.

Such tales clearly advise against judging people on material criteria, or assuming value based on markers of religion, class and political authority. They are among the countless stories that cast Hoja on the side of the weak.

Another side to Hoja

Yet this wise fool and trickster cannot be pinned down so easily. As folklorist İlhan Başgöz has written, while a stereotypical folk hero, such as Robin Hood, defends the interests of at least one social group, Hoja “defies and challenges all interests, including his own.”

Consider another famous story featuring Timur. This time, the emperor sends a prized war elephant to Hoja’s village. The animal begins wrecking the fields and terrorizing the people. The townspeople beg Hoja to lead them as they travel to petition Timur to remove the elephant. Yet, they all abandon Hoja in fear of the emperor before they reach the palace.

Timur receives Hoja in an extremely sour and defensive mood. Still reeling from his supposed allies’ betrayal, Hoja doesn’t feel like advocating for them. Instead, he tells Timur how much the villagers admire the emperor’s precious elephant. However, Hoja says, they all fear that the beast is sad and lonely. Would Timur please send a female companion for the first? Pleased, Timur promises him another elephant and Hoja returns to tell the “wonderful” news to the shocked villagers who abandoned him.

This story conveys that Hoja can be willing to exact social retribution at a great price. The joke is on the cowardly villagers, and on Hoja himself, all of whom now have to live in a village terrorized by two war elephants instead of one.

In sum, Hoja is not always “good” or even “wise.” He is, however, always thought-provoking.

Curiosity and humility

Why learn about Hoja at all, and why now?

When well-meaning people defend the value of learning about other cultures and languages, they often reach for a familiar argument: Studying the world is really just a way of recognizing our shared humanity. Beneath our differences, we are all basically the same, and realizing that can prevent conflicts.

But genuine curiosity about other cultures is not the mere confirmation of sameness. It is something harder and more useful: an awareness of what we do not know, and a willingness to sit with ambiguity as we learn.

In one of my favorite jokes, someone asks Hoja why people always walk in different directions. Why won’t they simply all go the same way? His answer is immediate: “If all went in the same direction, the world would topple.” Here, Hoja echoes a powerful line from the Quran, about the importance of not just tolerating but also learning from difference: We “made you into peoples and tribes so that you may get to know one another,” 49:13.

History is full of powerful actors who believed the world’s complexity could be overcome by will and might. Hoja has been subverting confident authorities for at least seven centuries, while refusing to be pinned down, even as a hero. If his tales can be said to have an overall lesson, it is against the comfort of easy answers.

Declaring hard power as all that matters, as Miller has done, doesn’t just mean ignoring others’ humanity – it also means ignoring our own human capacity for curiosity and intellectual humility.

Perin Gürel 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. What a Muslim folk trickster can teach us about the danger of holding a single worldview – https://theconversation.com/what-a-muslim-folk-trickster-can-teach-us-about-the-danger-of-holding-a-single-worldview-262311

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Aaron Brynildson, Law Instructor, University of Mississippi

It may sound hard to believe, but the almost trillion-dollar U.S. military is struggling to fight cheap drones in its war with Iran.

Iran has built a simple drone, the Shahed, with a motorcycle-type engine, loaded it with explosives and successfully targeted its neighbors’ cities and power plants.

Iran has also hit U.S. military bases with these drones, including an early April 2026 attack on the U.S. Victory Base Complex in Baghdad.

The drones cost between US$20,000 and $50,000 to build. In response, the U.S. military sometimes fires missiles worth more than $1 million to shoot one down.

As a former U.S. Air Force officer and now national security scholar, I believe that math is a problem: The U.S. military for now has a $1 million answer to a $20,000 question. This math tells you almost everything you need to know about one of America’s biggest national security headaches.

And the frustrating part is that the U.S. military watched this happen in Ukraine for years. It knew the threat was coming.

The weapon that changed modern war

The Shahed isn’t impressive because it’s high-tech. It’s impressive because it isn’t.

Inspection of captured Shahed drones has found that many of their parts are made by ordinary commercial companies. That includes processors from a U.S. manufacturer, fuel pumps from a U.K. company and converters from China.

These military components aren’t hard to get. You could find similar parts in factories or farm machinery. That’s exactly what makes the Shahed so tough to deal with.

Russia, which also produces the drone, tolerates losing more than 75% of its Shahed stock because even at those loss rates, it’s winning the math battle against Ukraine. Russia or Iran don’t need every drone to hit its target. They just need to keep sending waves of them until their opponent runs out of expensive missiles to shoot back.

Ukraine, which had no choice but to learn fast, eventually figured out a better answer. Ukraine developed cheap interceptor drones that could slam into Shahed drones before they reached their targets. Each interceptor costs about $1,000 to $2,000, and Ukrainian manufacturers are producing thousands of them per month. That’s better math: a $2,000 interceptor against a $20,000 attacker.

Ukraine’s battlefield experience, as a result, has become one of the most valuable resources in the world, with American and allied forces asking Ukrainian drone experts to share their knowledge.

Why can’t the U.S. churn out a solution of its own? Because the U.S. military doesn’t have a technology problem but a bureaucracy problem.

The Pentagon’s three-legged slowdown

The U.S. Department of Defense typically can’t just buy things. It follows a long, complicated process that can take a decade or more to go from “we need something” to “here it is.” That process runs through three separate bureaucratic systems, each of which can cause years of delay.

First, someone must write a formal document, known as a requirement, that explains exactly what they need and why. A military service, such as the Air Force, for example, drafts up a requirement and routes it through an internal service review within only their branch.

Until recently, this service-vetted requirement went through a Pentagon review process, the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, where all joint services took a look. This process, which the Department of Defense ended in 2025, required approval from military officials.

Even though the joint requirements process was ended, implementation of a new system is far from complete, and the existing culture potentially remains. Under the old requirements process, it took over 800 days to get a requirement approved.

Second, any new program then needs money. This is handled through the planning, programming, budgeting and execution process, a budget cycle designed in 1961. Getting a new program into the budget typically takes more than two years after the requirement is approved, because the military must submit its budget request years in advance. By then, the threat has potentially already moved on.

Third, once a requirement is approved and money allocated, the program then must be developed and built. The average major defense acquisition program now takes almost 12 years from program start just to deliver an initial capability to troops in the field, according to a 2025 Government Accountability Office report.

Add it up and you get a system where the military sees a threat, begs for a solution, argues for money and waits a decade.

Why the system is built this way

The Shahed drone exposed a gap that defense experts have been warning about for years: The U.S. military is very good at building the most advanced, most expensive weapons in the world, but it struggles to build cheap, simple things fast. That is the opposite of what this new kind of warfare demands.

It would be easy, but inaccurate, to blame the military for the decade-long contract process. The real answer is more complicated.

The Pentagon’s lengthy process was designed by the Department of Defense and Congress for a reason. Policymakers created the current system during the Cold War to combat excessive and redundant spending by the separate service branches. The system is built with checkpoints, reviews and approvals to make sure taxpayer money isn’t wasted.

Legacy military contractors also benefit from this dysfunctional process and resist change. They have the capital and know-how to wait out the predictable and stable existing contracts, while vying for new ones. These military contractors rarely need to worry about upstart contractors because they know small companies cannot survive waiting for a decade to secure funding for their prototypes.

The problem is that those rules were built for a world where the biggest threat was another superpower’s expensive jets and missiles. It wasn’t built to fight a flying bomb made from tractor parts. This type of threat requires fast innovation from lean companies, the exact companies that struggle in the current budget process.

What’s changing

There are signs of movement. In August 2025, the Pentagon killed its old requirements process entirely and replaced it with a faster, more flexible system.

However, killing the requirements process dealt with only one leg of the three-legged monster. The 1960s-era budget process that determines how money flows remains largely intact.

The most important reforms still need Congress to act, and Congress moves slowly, too. Congress has launched studies into reforming this system numerous times, with the answers being too politically difficult to implement.

Officials are expanding the use of flexible contracting tools, such as Other Transaction Authority, that let the military skip some traditional rules to get anti-drone technology faster. Yet these flexible contracting tools still represent a small slice of the Defense budget, and their effectiveness is unclear.

Ultimately, instead of using flexible contracting tools to quickly buy new prototypes, the bureaucratically easier solution could be to buy more of the expensive, already approved missiles.

This quick fix would reload the military’s stock of interceptors with existing weapons systems, which is the source of the bad math. The math would get worse and at the same time the operational imperative to find cheaper and better solutions might disappear.

So, as the Shahed keeps flying, the most powerful military in the world is still figuring out the paperwork and looking to other countries for help.

Aaron Brynildson served in the U.S. Air Force from 2016-2025.

– ref. Why the US military is stuck using $1 million missiles against Iran’s $20,000 drones – https://theconversation.com/why-the-us-military-is-stuck-using-1-million-missiles-against-irans-20-000-drones-281089

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Eduardo B. Farfán, Professor of Nuclear Engineering, Director of the Center for Nuclear Studies, Kennesaw State University

When nuclear accidents happen, many people imagine radiation spreading everywhere and lasting forever. The reality is more complex. Radioactive materials move, change and sometimes disappear faster than people expect.

The Chernobyl accident in 1986 and the Fukushima Daiichi accident in 2011 released radioactive materials into the air, soil and water around those two nuclear power plants. The general term for the materials that got released is “radionuclides.”

Some decayed quickly, effectively disappearing without having done much harm. But others, mostly isotopes of iodine, cesium, strontium and plutonium, remained in the environment for many years, damaging human health and the environment. The mechanisms by which they do that damage depends on the material itself, the weather and the local environment. For example, cesium chemically behaves like sodium and potassium, which are accumulated in human tissues. Strontium chemically behaves like calcium, which is accumulated in bones.

As a nuclear engineer and researcher who has worked on tracking radiation levels and exposure in projects related to Chernobyl, Fukushima Daiichi, and U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories and nuclear sites, I have seen how science and engineering help measure, map and manage radiation to keep people safe. I study how radionuclides migrate because this helps predict where radioactive contamination goes, how fast it moves, and who or what might be exposed over time.

The most important lesson is that radiation risk can be understood and controlled. Human senses can’t detect radiation, but scientific instruments can accurately measure the amounts and types of radiation in an area. Once it is measured, scientists and engineers can make informed decisions about how to use well-established methods and modern technology to reduce risk.

How radioactivity travels

The major nuclear accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi released radioactive materials into the atmosphere as tiny particles. Winds carried these particles across countries and even between continents. Rain and snow brought them out of the air and down to the ground.

Soil plays a very important role in what happens next. Some radionuclides stick strongly to soil and do not move very much. Others move more easily and travel slowly downward through the soil toward groundwater or get washed into rivers, lakes and oceans.

Radioactivity also moves through water. After the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, radionuclides entered the ocean through direct releases and runoff. Scientists monitored seawater, fish and seaweed to track how radioactive materials moved and changed over time. Monitoring showed that radionuclides such as cesium spread through coastal waters but became diluted and dispersed over time, with levels in most areas farther out in the ocean decreasing and remaining low and relatively stable after the initial release. Continuous sampling of water and marine life also showed that radioactivity in seafood generally declined over time and distance from Fukushima, remaining within safe limits.

From soil and water, radioactive materials also moved into plants and animals, which posed risks to human health. For instance, grass absorbed radionuclides from soil, cows ate the grass, and radionuclides then appeared in the cows’ milk. The International Atomic Energy Agency, World Health Organization, and Food and Agriculture Organization all have programs that look for radioactivity in foods to keep unsafe food off the market.

Measuring and mapping radiation

Though radiation cannot be detected by human senses, there are many proven ways to measure and monitor it in the environment. Scientists use handheld detectors such as Geiger counters, laboratory instruments and fixed environmental monitoring stations. These tools measure radiation in soil, water, air and food, helping assess exposure and guide safety decisions.

Modern technologies go further by combining detector data with imaging and mapping systems. These systems can create three-dimensional maps that show where radiation is located and how it spreads. Such maps have been used, for example, after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster to visualize contamination patterns and guide cleanup.

Researchers don’t monitor radiation only after accidents. Many countries, such as the U.S. and European countries, also constantly monitor radiation as part of their environmental protection programs. These monitoring systems measure natural background radiation and look for unusual increases. This helps detect problems early and ensures that radiation levels remain safe for the public.

Cleaning up radiation

When and where radiation is detected, managing it can take several forms, depending on the type of contamination and how much there is.

One common method is removing contaminated soil and transporting it in sealed, labeled containers to licensed storage or disposal facilities, where it is stored in special buildings that isolate the material from the environment and prevent leaks into soil or groundwater.

Another method involves covering contaminated areas with clean soil, clay or concrete. This approach does not remove the radioactivity but rather acts as a barrier that reduces radiation exposure and helps prevent contaminated particles from being spread by wind, water or human activity.

In some cases, chemicals are added to the soil to reduce the mobility of radionuclides and limit their uptake by plants. After the Chernobyl disaster, for example, national governments and international agencies applied potassium fertilizers to soils to reduce the uptake of radioactive cesium by crops. Following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, large areas of farmland were treated similarly, and contaminated topsoil was removed and stored in temporary as well as long-term facilities.

Scientists also use computer models to predict how radiation moves in air, soil and water. These models help estimate radiation risks and help decision-makers choose the best cleanup strategy. The goal is to reduce radiation exposure as much as reasonably achievable.

Lessons learned over time

Long-term studies in the Chernobyl exclusion zone have helped scientists understand how radionuclides behave over decades. Researchers have examined how radionuclides such as cesium and strontium isotopes migrate through forests, lakes, soils and built-up areas, providing critical data for predicting long-term environmental and health effects.

These studies have shown that radionuclide movement is influenced by environmental factors, such as soil composition, moisture and biological activity, and that contamination can remain mobile and biologically relevant for decades.

Some of this work includes my own research and collaborations. For example, I have contributed to studies evaluating radionuclide migration in soils and ecosystems within and around the 18-mile (30-kilometer) exclusion zone, including how these materials move vertically through soil layers and accumulate in vegetation and wildlife. My work has also examined how radionuclides penetrate and persist in concrete structures in contaminated areas such as Pripyat, as well as how radiation doses affect small animals and ecological systems over time.

Overall, this body of research has improved understanding of how radiation moves and how best to monitor it, informing emergency response and long-term remediation strategies around the world.

Research has also found that straightforward communication is also very important after a nuclear accident. The public needs clear, honest and simple explanations about what is happening and what is being done to protect them.

In practice, however, this level of communication is often difficult to achieve during a crisis. In the aftermath of both disasters, investigations later showed that information provided to the public was sometimes delayed, incomplete or inconsistent. These communication gaps contributed to confusion, mistrust and increased anxiety among affected populations.

As a result, one of the key lessons learned from these events is the importance of timely, transparent and accurate communication. Emergency response plans today emphasize clear messaging, regular updates and the use of multiple communication channels to ensure that the public understands both the risks and the protective actions being taken.

Eduardo B. Farfán 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. Research at Chernobyl and Fukushima shows how radioactive materials move in the environment – https://theconversation.com/research-at-chernobyl-and-fukushima-shows-how-radioactive-materials-move-in-the-environment-280007

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Stephanie Insalaco-Wyner, Assistant Professor of Geographic Information Sciences, Southwestern University

Florida’s Indian River Lagoon has been an ecosystem in decline going back to 2011, when harmful algal blooms led to a severe decline in seagrass, the foundational component of shallow coastal ecosystems.

Seagrass meadows stabilize sediments, improve water clarity and provide critical habitat and forage for species ranging from invertebrates to sea turtles and manatees. Seagrass also generates a significant amount of economic activity in the state of Florida.

The loss of seagrass in the Indian River Lagoon System undermined fisheries, tourism and wildlife, ultimately leading to the starvation of more than 1,200 manatees from 2020-25, peaking in 2021-22.

Mosquito Lagoon is part of the Indian River Lagoon system that spans 28 miles (45 kilometers), running from Cape Canaveral in the south up to Ponce Inlet in the north. As in the rest of the lagoon system, years of nutrient pollution and recurring algal blooms had diminished seagrass cover to nearly zero by the early 2020s. By most accounts, Mosquito Lagoon had crossed a critical ecological tipping point.

In the fall of 2022, hurricanes Ian and Nicole struck Florida’s east coast within six weeks of one another, bringing intense rainfall, storm surges and coastal erosion. In the immediate aftermath, seagrass declined even further.

But a few months later, in the spring of 2023, seagrass began to return. Satellite imagery revealed rapid and widespread regrowth.

We are geographers who study environmental change. Our research documents this unexpected recovery and examines what it may reveal about ecosystem resilience in heavily degraded coastal systems.

One of us, Hannah Herrero, is a Volusia County native who grew up around the lagoon. She returned to her hometown at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. It was there that some local guides and fishermen she’d known for years suggested that our team should use satellite imagery to look at the state of collapse in the lagoon.

The study we designed as a result used satellite imagery and machine learning, a type of artificial intelligence that uses advanced algorithms to learn and predict patterns, to track seagrass dynamics in Mosquito Lagoon before, during and after the storms. This approach allowed us to observe change at a scale and frequency that is difficult to achieve using only traditional field survey methods.

Tracking seagrass from space

Monitoring seagrass coverage “the old-fashioned way” involves going into the lagoon and laying out transects, straight lines that cut through a landscape, so standard observations could be recorded. We would then have to boat or wade all along those lines to measure seagrass extent and locations and create digital maps manually to show where it is present.

As you can imagine, this is a time-intensive process that’s limited by how far you can boat or swim in a day, and by financial resources.

So we decided to use satellite imagery instead. This method is not without its own challenges – water turbidity, or cloudiness, seasonal variability and the patchy nature of vegetation that grows on the bottom of the lagoon all make it difficult to observe seagrass growth directly on the imagery.

To address this challenge, our study used imagery from NASA’s Harmonized Landsat–Sentinel program, which combines data from multiple satellites into a consistent record of photos of the same areas taken frequently over time. We analyzed imagery collected between September 2022 and January 2024, focusing on periods before and immediately after the hurricanes and throughout the subsequent recovery.

We applied a type of machine learning model called Random Forest to classify each image into seagrass and nonseagrass categories.

The machine learning algorithm is informed by training samples collected in the field, but once the model has learned the signature of seagrass, it is able to then apply the classification model to the rest of the lagoon and across time with limited human input. We can then validate this classification.

Heading into the field

First, we had to train the model using hundreds of GPS points collected in the field over multiple seasons. This step helps to ensure that satellite classifications align with on‑the‑ground conditions and are accurately interpreting the images.

Over several weeks during the summers of 2020 through 2023, our team spent many hours navigating Mosquito Lagoon in a small skiff designed for shallow depths, recording seagrass presence.

It wasn’t always easy – Florida summers are intensely hot and humid, and Mosquito Lagoon definitely lived up to its name. But we got to see a wide variety of wildlife, including manatees, dolphins, sea turtles and alligators. And occasionally, on lucky days, we even spotted a roseate spoonbill or reddish egret.

Our experience in the field highlighted why this system matters: Mosquito Lagoon is a remarkably vibrant place, teeming with wildlife. These long days on the lagoon, surrounded by its biodiversity and immersed in its unique sense of place, are what anchor the remote sensing data to on-the-ground ecological conditions and make the resulting models credible.

What we found

Our analysis reveals three distinct phases of seagrass coverage.

First, seagrass declined sharply following hurricanes Ian and Nicole. By December 2022 and early 2023, satellite imagery showed virtually no detectable seagrass across the lagoon.

Then, in March 2023, we identified a statistically significant shift. Seagrass began to reappear, initially in small, scattered patches.

Finally, during late spring and summer 2023, seagrass expanded rapidly. By July 2023, it covered more than 20% of the lagoon – levels not observed in more than a decade. Coverage then declined again during the winter of 2023–24, as expected based on seasonal growth cycles. But even our last observation, completed in January 2024, showed seagrass covering 4.3% of the lagoon, substantially higher than pre-recovery levels during the winter season.

In spring 2026, seagrass in Mosquito Lagoon has remained at stable levels. Although it still experiences fluctuations due to algal blooms, seasonality and other changes in the ecosystem, we have not seen a complete loss of seagrass again like what was occurring for over a decade.

Importantly, this pattern was not random. Regrowth occurred primarily in the central and southern parts of the lagoon, areas historically known to support dense seagrass meadows. The timing also aligned with established seagrass seasonal growth patterns, which strengthens our confidence that the observed changes reflect true ecological recovery.

How storms may have contributed

We cannot prove that hurricanes directly caused the seagrass recovery that we document in our study. Further study beyond the scope of our work is needed to evaluate this possibility. However, we believe the sequence of events suggests that the storms may have altered environmental conditions in ways that enabled regrowth.

Hurricane Ian delivered large volumes of fresh water into the lagoon, potentially suppressing salt‑tolerant macroalgae that compete with seagrass for sunlight and nutrients.

Six weeks later, Hurricane Nicole breached coastal dunes and created several new inlets between the lagoon and the Atlantic Ocean. These openings allowed salt water into the lagoon, likely altering salinity and changing water circulation and conditions.

The hurricanes may also have redistributed seagrass fragments and mobilized dormant seed banks, accelerating regrowth once conditions stabilized. Ecologists have observed similar mechanisms in other coastal systems affected by tropical cyclones.

Beyond Mosquito Lagoon

Mosquito Lagoon’s collapse and eventual tentative recovery illustrates both the vulnerability and resilience of coastal ecosystems. Even after years of decline, the Mosquito Lagoon coastal ecosystem demonstrated an ability to recover relatively rapidly when physical conditions shifted.

At the same time, resilience does not guarantee permanence, and we believe this recovery should be viewed cautiously.

From a practical standpoint, our study also highlights the value of satellite imagery and machine learning for ecosystem monitoring. These tools allow scientists, resource managers and local communities to detect change consistently and respond before losses spread.

Hannah V. Herrero is the Director of Science for the Lagoon Watermen Alliance, a Florida-based non-profit. The mission of Lagoon Watermen Alliance is to protect the entire Indian River Lagoon system by advocating for science-based solutions that will lead to improved water quality, protection of imperiled habitats and safeguarding of gamefish populations.

Stephanie Insalaco-Wyner 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. Hurricanes devastated Florida’s East Coast – then seagrass made an unexpected comeback – https://theconversation.com/hurricanes-devastated-floridas-east-coast-then-seagrass-made-an-unexpected-comeback-279177

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Anne Toomey McKenna, Affiliated Faculty Member, Institute for Computational and Data Sciences, Penn State

On a Saturday morning, you head to the hardware store. Your neighbors’ Ring cameras film your walk to the car. Your car’s sensors, cameras and microphones record your speed, how you drive, where you’re going, who’s with you, what you say, and biological metrics such as facial expression, weight and heart rate. Your car may also collect text messages and contacts from your connected smartphone.

Meanwhile, your phone continuously senses and records your communications, info about your health, what apps you’re using, and tracks your location via cell towers, GPS satellites and Wi-Fi and Bluetooth.

As you enter the store, its surveillance cameras identify your face and track your movements through the aisles. If you then use Apple or Google Pay to make your purchase, your phone tracks what you bought and how much you paid.

All this data quickly becomes commercially available, bought and sold by data brokers. Aggregated and analyzed by artificial intelligence, the data reveals detailed, sensitive information about you that can be used to predict and manipulate your behavior, including what you buy, feel, think and do.

Companies unilaterally collect data from most of your activities. This “surveillance capitalism” is often unrelated to the services device manufacturers, apps and stores are providing you. For example, Tinder is planning to use AI to scan your entire camera roll. And despite their promises, “opting out” doesn’t actually stop companies’ data collection.

While companies can manipulate you, they cannot put you in jail. But the U.S. government can, and it now purchases massive quantities of your information from commercial data brokers. The government is able to purchase Americans’ sensitive data because the information it buys is not subject to the same restrictions as information it collects directly.

The federal government is also ramping up its abilities to directly collect data through partnerships with private tech companies. These surveillance tech partnerships are becoming entrenched, domestically and abroad, as advances in AI take surveillance to unprecedented levels.

As a privacy, electronic surveillance and tech law attorney, author and legal educator, I have spent years researching, writing and advising about privacy and legal issues related to surveillance and data use. To understand the issues, it is critical to know how these technologies function, who collects what data about you, how that data can be used against you, and why the laws you might think are protecting your data do not apply or are ignored.

Big money for AI-driven tech and more data

Congressional funding is supercharging huge government investments in surveillance tech and data analytics driven by AI, which automates analysis of very large amounts of data. The massive 2025 tax-and-spending law netted the Department of Homeland Security an unprecedented US$165 billion in yearly funding. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, part of DHS, got about $86 billion.

Disclosure of documents allegedly hacked from Homeland Security reveal a massive surveillance web that has all Americans in its scope.

DHS is expanding its AI surveillance capabilities with a surge in contracts to private companies. It is reportedly funding companies that provide more AI-automated surveillance in airports; adapters to convert agents’ phones into biometric scanners; and an AI platform that acquires all 911 call center data to build geospatial heat maps to predict incident trends. Predicting incident trends can be a form of predictive policing, which uses data to anticipate where, when and how crime may occur.

DHS has also spent millions on AI-driven software used to detect sentiment and emotion in users’ online posts. Have you been complaining about Immigration and Customs Enforcement policies online? If so, social media companies including Google, Reddit, Discord, and Facebook and Instagram owner Meta may have sent identifying data, such as your name, email address, phone number and activity, to DHS in response to hundreds of DHS subpoenas served on the companies.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s national policy framework for artificial intelligence, released on March 20, 2026, urges Congress to use grants and tax incentives to fund “wider deployment of AI tools across American industry” and to allow industry and academia to use federal datasets to train AI.

Using federal datasets this way raises privacy law concerns because they contain a lifetime of sensitive details about you, including biographical, employment and tax information.

Blurring lines and little oversight

In foreign intelligence work, the funding, development and controlled use of certain AI-driven gathering of data makes sense. The CIA’s new acquisition framework to turbocharge collaboration with the private sector may be legal with proper oversight. But the line between collaborating for lawful national security purposes versus unlawful domestic spying is becoming dangerously blurred or ignored.

For example, the Pentagon has declared a contractor, Anthropic, a national security risk because Anthropic insisted that its powerful agentic AI model, Claude, not be used for mass domestic surveillance of Americans or fully autonomous weapons.

On March 18, 2026, FBI Director Kash Patel confirmed to Congress that the FBI is buying Americans’ data from data brokers, including location histories, to track American citizens.

As the federal government accelerates the use of and investment in AI-driven spy tech, it is mandating less oversight around AI technology. In addition to the national AI policy framework, which discourages state regulation of AI, the president has issued executive orders to accelerate federal government adoption of AI systems, remove state law AI regulation barriers and require that the federal government not procure the use of AI models that attempt to adjust for bias. But using advanced AI systems is risky, given reports of AI agents going rogue, exposing sensitive data and becoming a threat, even during routine tasks.

Your data

The surveillance capitalism system requires people to unwittingly participate in a manipulative cycle of group- and self-surveillance. Neighborhood doorbell cameras, Flock license plate readers and hyperlocal social media sites like Nextdoor create a crowdsourced record of all people’s movements in public spaces.

Sensors in phones and wearable devices, such as earbuds and rings, collect ever more sensitive details. These include health data, including your heart rate and heart rate variability, blood oxygen, sweat and stress levels, behavioral patterns, neurological changes and even brain waves. Smartphones can be used to diagnose, assess and treat Parkinson’s disease. Earbuds could be used to monitor brain health.

This data is not protected under HIPAA, which prohibits health care providers and those working with them from disclosing your health information without your permission, because the law does not consider tech companies to be health care providers nor these wearables to be medical devices.

Legal protections

People have little choice when buying devices, using apps or opening accounts but to agree to lengthy terms that include consent for companies to collect and sell their personal data. This “consent” allows their data to end up in the largely unregulated commercial data market.

The government claims it can lawfully purchase this data from data brokers. But in buying your data in bulk on the commercial market, the government is circumventing the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions and federal laws designed to protect your privacy from unwarranted government overreach.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure by the government. Supreme Court cases require police to get a warrant to search a phone or use cellular or GPS location information to track someone. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act’s Wiretap Act prohibits unauthorized interception of wire, oral and electronic communications.

Despite some efforts, Congress has failed to enact legislation to protect data privacy, the use of sensitive data by AI systems or to restore the intent of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Courts have allowed the broad electronic privacy protections in the federal Wiretap Act to be eviscerated by companies claiming consent.

In my opinion, the way to begin to address these problems is to restore the Wiretap Act and related laws to their intended purposes of protecting Americans’ privacy in communications, and for Congress to follow through on its promises and efforts by passing legislation that secures Americans’ data privacy and protects them from AI harms.

This article is part of a series on data privacy that explores who collects your data, what and how they collect, who sells and buys your data, what they all do with it, and what you can do about it.

Anne Toomey McKenna serves on the Advisory Board to the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)-USA’s Artificial Intelligence Policy Committee (AIPC) and Chairs multiple AIPC subcommittees. The AIPC work involves subject matter and education-related interaction with U.S. Senate and House congressional staffers and the Congressional AI Caucus. McKenna has received funding from the National Security Agency for the development of legal educational materials about cyberlaw (a course which the government still makes available online for the public) and funding from The National Police Foundation together with the U.S. Department of Justice-COPS division for legal analysis regarding the use of drones in domestic policing.

– ref. US government ramps up mass surveillance with help of AI tech, data brokers – and your apps and devices – https://theconversation.com/us-government-ramps-up-mass-surveillance-with-help-of-ai-tech-data-brokers-and-your-apps-and-devices-277440

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Angelica P. Ahrens, Assistant Research Scientist in Data Science and Microbiology, University of Florida

Your early life may quietly set the stage for developing Type 1 diabetes, an increasingly common, lifelong condition that can significantly affect daily life.

Our team’s research, published in the journal Nature Communications, shows that biological pathways associated with future Type 1 diabetes may begin as early as pregnancy, and that these signs could be detected in umbilical cord blood.

As a group, we study how living systems respond to stress. Understanding the early biology of Type 1 diabetes can help uncover windows of opportunity to treat the disease sooner.

Early stressors and Type 1 diabetes

Type 1 diabetes affects the pancreas. Specifically, its insulin-producing beta cells that help control blood sugar are progressively destroyed.

While this condition has typically been attributed to a dysfunctional immune system, a growing body of research suggests that beta cells themselves play an active role in disease development. Beta cells become stressed when overworked or exposed to harmful conditions. In some cases, they may even self-destruct before the immune system shows signs of affecting the pancreas. Potential stressors include infection, increased energy demands and smaller pancreas size.

Type 1 diabetes does not fit neatly within the traditional definition of an autoimmune disease. It ultimately develops when the body can no longer make enough insulin. During periods of increased demand for insulin, such as after consuming a large amount of carbohdyrates or during infection, beta cells are forced to work harder. When stressed beta cells stop working properly or die, they release molecular signals that can activate an immune response. This raises the possibility that immune responses may, in some cases, follow rather than initiate beta cell injury.

These observations suggest that stressed beta cells are not merely a consequence of Type 1 diabetes but also a contributor to its onset.

Studying diabetes in a general population

Our team wanted to see whether we could detect early signs of beta cell vulnerability before Type 1 diabetes symptoms start – or even before the immune system begins attacking the pancreas.

While genetics does play a role in Type 1 diabetes, an increasing number of people without a family history of diabetes are developing the disease. Much of the existing research has focused on children with high genetic risk. This is in part because, although Type 1 diabetes is increasing, it’s relatively rare – affecting less than 1% of people globally – making it hard to study before the disease starts.

In contrast, we sought to study children from a general population, not just those known to be at high risk for Type 1 diabetes. So we used data from the All Babies in Southeast Sweden cohort, a longitudinal study founded by one of us, Johnny Ludvigsson, which has been following mothers and their children since the late 1990s.

As part of the study, researchers collected and stored umbilical cord blood samples. Decades later, we selected samples from babies who later developed Type 1 diabetes for this study and screened them for proteins known to be involved in inflammation. We then used machine learning tools to identify factors linked to disease risk.

We found that the levels of several proteins in umbilical cord blood predicted the likelihood of whether a child in this cohort developed Type 1 diabetes in the future. These protein biomarkers fell into a few categories, including ones that help molecules get to where they need to be; ones that do not belong in the body, such as pollution; ones involved in the maintenance of cell structure; and ones that help regulate immune responses.

Our machine learning tool also identified some proteins that were associated with the absence of future Type 1 diabetes. These proteins, like tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-3 (TIMP3) and adenosine deaminase (ADA), are known to regulate inflammation by suppressing overactive immune responses, supporting healthy cellular communication and improving insulin production. Researchers have previously found that TIMP3 plays a role in glucose stabilization.

We found that levels of two specific proteins best predicted whether a baby would eventually develop Type 1 diabetes: IDS, which helps break down the long sugar molecules giving tissues strength and flexibility, and HLA-DRA, which is involved in activating the immune system. Type 1 diabetes is known to affect the long sugar molecules that IDS breaks down in several organs.

Importantly, the ability of these proteins to predict disease risk wasn’t heavily reliant on genetics. Although some differences were more pronounced in children with certain variants of HLA linked to increased risk of Type 1 diabetes, including this information in our machine learning algorithm only marginally improved accuracy. Instead, the proteins themselves were driving disease risk.

Type 1 diabetes isn’t inevitable

To be clear, the biomarkers we identified reflect possibility, not destiny. Like blood pressure and growth milestones, these measures could tell clinicians about someone’s risk of disease and ways to treat it.

Currently, screening for Type 1 diabetes typically relies on genetic testing and testing for the presence of autoantibodies, which are proteins that indicate the body is attacking insulin-producing cells. However, by the time autoantibodies appear, it may be too late to address the biological changes that set the stage for Type 1 diabetes.

Some of the markers we observed could be linked to widespread environmental exposures, including PFAS and other forever chemicals, that affect disease risk. Understanding how these toxic substances that pregnant people routinely and inadvertently encounter affect early biology could inform environmental and public health policies.

Our findings suggest that umbilical cord blood could help clinicians and parents more proactively address a child’s risk for Type 1 diabetes. Cord blood is often tossed out during the birthing process. But this “waste” can hold valuable information about early life and future health outcomes.

Beyond its potential value for early screening, cord blood is already used to source lifesaving stem cell treatments. Our work adds to growing evidence that cord blood is an important resource for supporting child health.

What’s next?

We are a long way from applying our findings to the clinic. Our study identified biomarkers associated with the later development of Type 1 diabetes in a group of Swedish children. But we now need to study broader populations and biomarkers, as well as figure out the biology behind these signals. Identifying whether there are specific factors in the first several years of life that could be addressed to offset these protein imbalances could help reduce disease risk.

Our group is also studying umbilical cord blood markers in relation to other conditions, including childhood obesity, depression, autism and inflammatory bowel disease. As a data scientist-, pediatrician- and microbiologist-led team, we use biological data to look for early signs of these conditions to find opportunities to support children before those disease pathways are set.

Eric W. Triplett receives funding from the EU Horizon program.

Johnny Ludvigsson receives funding from the EU Horizon program

Angelica P. Ahrens 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. Umbilical cord blood may hold clues for a child’s risk of developing Type 1 diabetes – https://theconversation.com/umbilical-cord-blood-may-hold-clues-for-a-childs-risk-of-developing-type-1-diabetes-273072

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Gregor Henze, Professor of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado Boulder

Many consumers – and state policymakers and even utility companies – are worried about the possibility of large numbers of data centers raising electricity demand and power prices.

Those are real concerns, but our engineering research finds that if designed, constructed and operated carefully, data centers can actually help the communities that host them.

On-site energy storage

Locating power-generating capacity on-site, even using modified jet engines to drive steam turbines, is one emerging option to address data centers’ high power needs.

But there are other options, too. Data centers can install backup batteries that would kick in during an outage or could be used to avoid an outage when demand spikes. The batteries could not only provide power to the data center but also to the surrounding area in times of need.

Various types of battery designs and chemistries offer options for storing enough energy to keep a data center running from a few hours to a few days. This would be critical in supplying electricity during outages because of extreme weather events or excess demand on the grid during periods of peak usage.

Longer duration batteries are also in development. Plans for a new Google data center in Minnesota include solar panels and wind turbines with batteries that would become the world’s largest electricity storage system, with a power capacity of 300 megawatts. Google plans to install iron-air batteries, which are based on chemical reactions with iron to separate and store charge, that would store enough electrical energy to keep a data center running for as much as 100 hours.

Another long-duration battery design uses zinc and water as its key chemical ingredients. It needs relatively little cooling, so batteries can be stacked closely. Significant storage capacity could allow data center owners to flexibly decide when to use energy directly from the grid, when to run off the batteries, when to recharge the batteries, and even whether to sell power back to the grid to earn extra money.

Using waste heat in the community

Data centers produce large amounts of heat, which must be removed from the computer chips. A data center gives off enough heat to potentially keep nearby buildings warm.

Many cities around the world already have what are called “district heating systems,” in which a group of buildings are connected with a pipe network and receive their heat from a central heat source.

Data centers could serve as a heat source for these systems. Recent improvements in these systems, called a “thermal microgrid” or an “ambient loop,” don’t require steam or extremely hot water, but rather use cooler temperatures of water to transport heat between the buildings. Efficient electric heat pumps in each building use that water loop to adjust the building’s air temperature in both winter and summer, creating combined district heating and cooling systems.

In this scenario, data center heat becomes not wasted energy rejected into the air but a money- and energy-saving resource for the local community. For example, a 75 megawatt data center in the town of Mantsala, Finland, is supplying heat to approximately 2,500 homes in the community.

Combining energy production, storage and heating

In our research, we suggest that combining data centers equipped with on-site power generation and battery energy storage and systems that use the waste heat could make the data center a benefit to the community rather than a drain on its resources.

Locating a data center with on-site battery energy storage in a neighborhood and, crucially, connecting them both thermally and electrically could create a small-scale energy community. In addition to providing heat, the data center could help meet the neighborhood’s electricity needs during power outages, storms or peak usage periods.

Improved efficiency of computing

As a fourth dimension to achieving sustainability in data centers, an emerging approach involves drastically reducing the energy consumed for every unit of computation. That would mean exponential growth in computational tasks does not require a corresponding exponential growth in hardware or electricity usage.

Advances in computer chip designs are making data center processors significantly more efficient, able to do larger numbers of more complex calculations more quickly while using less electricity.

But however efficient the chips get, there is both need and opportunity to make them dramatically more so. A growing field called “unconventional computing” is poised to help.

This field, which includes computing approaches inspired by the architecture of the human brain in the emerging technology of neuromorphic AI, as well as engineering innovations such as chips that use their own waste heat, can exhibit thousands-, millions-, or even billionsfold increases in power efficiency. That could make data centers immensely more capable of the computing tasks needed for training AI systems.

Improvements in data center efficiency would reduce the demand for more computing chips and more electricity to run them, even while producing more output.

Researchers across academia, industry and government agencies are developing road maps to scaling these new pathways for energy-efficient computing and are planning for a future where new materials with fundamentally different properties improve efficiency even more.

Some of these advances may be months away, though others could be decades into the future. But we believe that taken together, the opportunities for power generation and storage, waste heat reuse and improved computational efficiency could make data centers beneficial for their communities, and society as a whole, in support of energy affordability and resilience.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Data centers don’t have to be a burden on local communities – and can even support them by generating power and repurposing waste heat – https://theconversation.com/data-centers-dont-have-to-be-a-burden-on-local-communities-and-can-even-support-them-by-generating-power-and-repurposing-waste-heat-276729