Category: The Conversation

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Arun Vivian Holden, Emeritus Professor of Computational Biology, University of Leeds

As plans for missions to Mars accelerate, so do questions about how the human body might cope. A return trip to the red planet would give more than enough time for someone to become pregnant and even give birth. But could a pregnancy be conceived and carried safely in space? And what would happen to a baby born far from Earth?

Most of us rarely consider the risks we survived before birth. For instance, about two thirds of human embryos do not live long enough to be born, with most losses happening in the first few weeks after fertilisation; often before a person even knows they’re pregnant. These early, unnoticed losses usually happen when an embryo either fails to develop properly or to implant successfully in the wall of the womb.

Pregnancy can be understood as a chain of biological milestones. Each one must happen in the right order and each has a certain chance of success. On Earth, these odds can be estimated using clinical research and biological models. My latest research explores how these same stages might be affected by the extreme conditions of interplanetary space.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Microgravity, the near-weightlessness experienced during spaceflight, would make conception more physically awkward but probably wouldn’t interfere much with staying pregnant once the embryo has implanted.

However, giving birth, and looking after a newborn, would be far more difficult in zero gravity. After all, in space, nothing stays still. Fluids float. So do people. That makes delivering a baby and caring for one a much messier and more complicated process than on Earth, where gravity helps with everything from positioning to feeding.

At the same time, the developing foetus already grows in something like microgravity. It floats in neutrally buoyant amniotic fluid inside the womb, cushioned and suspended. In fact, astronauts train for spacewalks in water tanks designed to mimic weightlessness. In that sense, the womb is already a microgravity simulator.

But gravity is only part of the picture.

Radiation

Outside Earth’s protective layers, there’s a more dangerous threat: cosmic rays. These are high-energy particles – “stripped-down” or “bare” atomic nuclei – that race through space at nearly the speed of light. They’re atoms that have lost all their electrons, leaving just the dense core of protons and neutrons. When these bare nuclei collide with the human body, they can cause serious cellular damage.

Here on Earth, we’re protected from most cosmic radiation by the planet’s thick atmosphere and, depending on the time of day, tens of thousands to millions of miles of coverage from the Earth’s magnetic field. In space, that shielding disappears.

When a cosmic ray passes through the human body, it may strike an atom, strip its electrons, and smash into its nucleus, knocking out protons and neutrons and leaving behind a different element or isotope. This can cause extremely localised damage – meaning that individual cells, or parts of cells, are destroyed while the rest of the body might remain unaffected. Sometimes the ray passes right through without hitting anything. But if it hits DNA, it can cause mutations that increase the risk of cancer.

Even when cells survive, radiation can trigger inflammatory responses. That means the immune system overreacts, releasing chemicals that can damage healthy tissue and disrupt organ function.

In the first few weeks of pregnancy, embryonic cells are rapidly dividing, moving, and forming early tissues and structures. For development to continue, the embryo must stay viable throughout this delicate process. The first month after fertilisation is the most vulnerable time.

A single hit from a high-energy cosmic ray at this stage could be lethal to the embryo. However, the embryo is very small – and cosmic rays, while dangerous, are relatively rare. So a direct hit is unlikely. If it did happen, it would probably result in an unnoticed miscarriage.

Pregnancy risks

As pregnancy progresses, the risks shift. Once the placental circulation – the blood flow system that connects mother and foetus – is fully formed by the end of the first trimester, the foetus and uterus grow rapidly.

That growth presents a larger target. A cosmic ray is now more likely to hit the uterine muscle, which could trigger contractions and potentially cause premature labour. And although neonatal intensive care has improved dramatically, the earlier a baby is born, the higher the risk of complications, particularly in space.

On Earth, pregnancy and childbirth already carry risks. In space, those risks are magnified – but not necessarily prohibitive.

But development doesn’t stop at birth. A baby born in space would continue growing in microgravity, which could interfere with postural reflexes and coordination. These are the instincts that help a baby learn to lift its head, sit up, crawl, and eventually walk: all movements that rely on gravity. Without that sense of “up” and “down,” these abilities might develop in very different ways.

And the radiation risk doesn’t go away. A baby’s brain continues to grow after birth, and prolonged exposure to cosmic rays could cause permanent damage – potentially affecting cognition, memory, behaviour and long-term health.

So, could a baby be born in space?

In theory, yes. But until we can protect embryos from radiation, prevent premature birth, and ensure babies can grow safely in microgravity, space pregnancy remains a high-risk experiment – one we’re not yet ready to try.

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

– ref. Floating babies, cosmic radiation and zero-gravity birth: what space pregnancy might actually involve – https://theconversation.com/floating-babies-cosmic-radiation-and-zero-gravity-birth-what-space-pregnancy-might-actually-involve-261142

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sarah Richmond, Honorary Associate Professor of Philosophy, UCL

With a few exceptions, philosophers have had little to say about clothes. Maybe this is because the topic seems frivolous, or feminine, unworthy of the attention of a predominantly male collection of thinkers.

Perhaps, too, the transience of fashion, and the fact that clothes belong – quite literally – to the domain of mere appearance, also has something to do with it. In A Philosopher Looks at Clothes, an engaging and informative book, Kate Moran, philosophy professor at Brandeis University in the US, urges us to think again.

As Moran points out, clothing looms large in life. Every day we dress, deciding how many layers to wear and whether we need a coat – or might a cardigan suffice? We gaze critically at other people’s choices (“OMG, those shoes!”). We wonder how to rise to the challenge of an imminent Eurovision-themed party.

From a historical point of view, also, our species-specific recourse to clothes stretches back to the earliest human society. In mythical time, it begins with Adam’s and Eve’s discovery, in shame, that they were naked. If fashion is transient, clothes, per se, are not.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

Clothes, Moran tells us, serve three basic purposes: protection, modesty and decoration. At once, these introduce questions of deep philosophical interest. Are the purposes equally important? Why, throughout human history, have we refused to settle merely for protection, desiring for example that a hat should be of some favoured colour or shape? To what extent do our decorative choices express our personal identity? Do clothes ever qualify as works of art? Why is modesty an abiding concern, given that we all know the contours of the unclothed body?

In many contexts, and especially today, clothes invite ethical and political assessment. Clothes communicate a great deal of information about us, including our social position and the causes we espouse.

Read more:
A brief history of the slogan T-shirt

We may knowingly exploit this, choosing to flaunt an obviously expensive garment or to wear our football team’s scarf. In other cases the meanings are imposed. The uniforms forced on prisoners, for example, emphasise subordination and erase their individuality.

Poignantly, research into textile history has uncovered a streak of resistance in even the most ill-treated captives. In concentration camps during the second world war some prisoners altered their uniforms, or mended them, or added pockets. As Moran remarks, these actions were not just practical; their aim, too, was to “recover some sense of identity and dignity”.

In the brilliantly conceived series by Cambridge University Press to which this title belongs, each author discusses some general topic from a perspective that is philosophically informed and at the same time personal.

We need more books like these, to counteract the entrenched pretence of disinterestedness in philosophy. (Nietzsche, exceptionally, saw through it, denouncing philosophers as “advocates who do not want to be seen as such … sly spokesmen for prejudices that they christen as ‘truths’”.)

Knowledge of the significance, in an author’s life, of her subject-matter enriches the reader’s imaginative experience of a book. Describing herself as an “ardent hobbyist” who sews her own clothes, Moran provides an additional facet to her account of today’s fashion industry and its scandalous environmental costs.

The reader knows that Moran herself has found an alternative. This lends a certain authority to her judgement that, however futile it may seem for any one person to step off the fast-fashion bus: “There is an important moral difference between being inefficacious and being innocent.”

Moran shows how many areas of philosophy can illuminate the phenomenon of clothes: not only ethics and political thought, but also aesthetics, theories of communication, of personal identity, of gender and cultural appropriation.

For readers unfamiliar with academic philosophy, these forays offer a path into a rich conceptual landscape. Along the way, we are offered a multitude of riveting facts. Who would have guessed that pink has not always been for girls, and blue for boys? And there are pictures, too. My highlight was the “revenge dress” that Princess Diana wore to a gala dinner in the midst of hostilities with Charles, in a successful bid to divert press attention from his appearance on TV.

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

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

– ref. A Philosopher Looks at Clothes by Kate Moran is engaging and unpretentious – we need more philosophy books like this – https://theconversation.com/a-philosopher-looks-at-clothes-by-kate-moran-is-engaging-and-unpretentious-we-need-more-philosophy-books-like-this-260473

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alastair Culham, Associate Professor of Botany, University of Reading

With hosepipe bans in force across several English regions and more restrictions likely to follow, gardeners face some tough choices. When every drop counts, which plants deserve your precious water from the water butt, and which should you leave to fend for themselves?

As someone who has researched how British gardeners need to adapt to respond to our changing climate, I can tell you that not all garden plants are created equal when it comes to water needs. Some plants will bounce back from a summer scorching, while others may never recover.

Top plants to prioritise for watering

1. New woody plants

Any woody plant installed in the last 12-18 months should be your absolute priority. These haven’t yet developed the deep root systems needed to find moisture reserves and going without enough water the first year or so after planting could kill them.

Water thoroughly and add a deep mulch of wood chips to help the soil hold water. For young trees you can install a watering bag around the trunk but you still need to top it up.

2. Hydrangeas

Hydrangeas adopt a conservative strategy when it comes to drought. They shut their stomata (leaf pores) rapidly when they sense dry soil, and keep them closed until consistent moisture returns. They often drop their leaves too.

This can mean many weeks without growth, after even a relatively short drought period. So if you want to keep them looking at their best, they need consistent watering. You can cut growth back to reduce water loss, and save the the plant at the cost of flowers.

3. Moisture loving trees

Japanese maples (Acer palmatum), along with other moisture-loving trees like birch and beech, are prone to serious die-back during summer droughts. Their shallow root systems and large leaves make them particularly vulnerable to water stress. Water and mulch them.

4. Soft herbaceous plants

Astilbe, dicentra, filipendula, heuchera, primula, trollius and many other soft herbaceous plants require good moisture levels and may not survive prolonged drought.

5. Shallow-rooted shrubs

Rhododendrons and azaleas are shallow-rooted shrubs particularly susceptible to drought stress, especially the large-leaved evergreen species which are also prone to wind damage when stressed.

6. Clematis

Many clematis varieties struggle with drought. Since they’re often grown for their spectacular flowering displays, maintaining adequate moisture around the roots is crucial, especially for autumn-flowering varieties, or spring-flowering varieties which flower on the previous year’s growth.

A gravel mulch can help keep the roots cool and damp. However, clematis orientalis, terniflora, and evergreens such as C. cirrhosa can be surprisingly tolerant of a hot dry period.

7. Ripening vegetables

If you’re growing vegetables, prioritise crops approaching harvest and those that split when moisture returns after drought, such as carrots. Runner beans and courgettes need moist soil to keep cropping and potato yields are heavily influenced by water levels.

8. All the pots

Anything in pots has limited access to soil moisture reserves and will need regular attention. Move containers to shadier spots if possible. Always use a pot saucer to hold water and prevent it draining away.

Plants that can survive without extra water

Research into plant water-stress shows that many common garden plants are surprisingly resilient.

Forsythia adopts a risk-taking strategy. It keeps growing and photosynthesising even when soil moisture becomes limited, gambling that it can regrow after damage. This makes it remarkably drought-tolerant. It is also tolerant of heavy pruning which can save it in severe conditions.

Mediterranean shrubs like lavender, rosemary, sage and thyme are naturally adapted to dry conditions. Their grey, hairy or waxy leaves are evolved to conserve moisture. Soil conditions are crucial though. If the plants are deep rooted they will draw water up, but if your soil is shallow or compacted they might well be less drought tolerant.

Sedums, sempervivums and other succulents store water in their fleshy leaves and can survive extended dry periods. RHS research identifies Sedum spectabile as particularly reliable under stress.

Ornamental grasses generally have efficient root systems and many species actually prefer drier conditions once established.

Established shrubs including cistus, phlomis, buddleja, cotoneaster, berberis and viburnum have deep roots and proven track records for drought survival. The RHS report identifies these as garden stalwarts, with high stress resilience.

Some trees, including eucalyptus, bay (Laurus nobilis) and holm oak are remarkably drought tolerant.

Those to sacrifice

Grass lawns are thirsty and can be left to go dormant. If you have a newly seeded or turfed lawn from this year, some limited watering may be justified. But in general, embrace the golden colour of water-stressed lawns. As long as you don’t create too many bare patches from over-use, the green colour and growth will come back when it rains.

Annual bedding plants like busy lizzies and begonias have shallow root systems and high water demands. However, they are only there for one season and are easily replaceable, so prioritise them for watering only if they’re particularly important to your garden’s summer display and you can spare the water. You could save some by potting them up and enjoying a display that needs less water.

When you do water, research shows that technique is crucial. Water thoroughly but less frequently to encourage deep root growth. Focus water at the base of plants rather than on leaves, and water in early morning or evening to reduce evaporation.

Consider “split-root” watering for established shrubs – water one side of the plant thoroughly, then switch to the other side two to three weeks later. This keeps plants hydrated while chemical signals from the dry side’s roots prevent excessive new growth that would increase water demands.

This drought is a taste of Britain’s gardening future. The plants struggling most in this year’s drought are likely to become increasingly unsuitable for British gardens without intensive irrigation.

Be willing to swap out plants that suffer in drought for new plants that are more tolerant. Refresh plantings to adapt to the new climate.

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

Alastair Culham is affiliated with the Royal Horticultural Society through the RHS Science & Collections Group as a voluntary member. Opinions expressed here are his and do not represent the RHS.

– ref. Hosepipe ban survival guide: which garden plants to save and which to sacrifice – https://theconversation.com/hosepipe-ban-survival-guide-which-garden-plants-to-save-and-which-to-sacrifice-261603

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Hemamali Tennakoon, Senior Lecturer in Strategy and Management, Brunel University of London

With its natural beauty, wildlife and culture, Sri Lanka is known as the “pearl of the Indian Ocean”, and attracts millions of tourists every year.

But my research suggests that the country might not be so reliant on tourism in the future, as it looks to become a major player in global maritime trade. The island’s numerous harbours and enviable location along international sea routes have led to major investment from China and the US, as they seek to extend their strategic influence in the region.

That investment is being welcomed after years of economic and political turmoil in Sri Lanka.

The Easter bombings of 2019 targeted Catholic churches and hotels, killing 269 people and devastating tourism. The same year, significant tax cuts slashed government revenue before COVID did serious damage to the economy.

In 2021, a ban on chemical fertilisers led to nationwide agricultural failure, while excessive borrowing and money printing triggered soaring inflation, which peaked at 70% in August 2022. The country ended up failing to pay its foreign debts.

Following huge protests in 2022 and the resignation of the president, Sri Lanka began a major political and economic shift. It secured a bailout from the International Monetary Fund and implemented reforms aimed at stabilising the economy.

So far, some of the effects have been positive. Inflation has eased, investor confidence has improved and more tea, clothing and rubber products are being exported up.

Key to this has been improved logistics and port infrastructure. Business at the port of Colombo, the country’s largest, is booming, aided in part by global shipping disruptions, including the Red Sea crisis, which rerouted vessels through the Indian Ocean.

But international maritime ambitions can be a complex affair, and Sri Lanka needs to be wary of becoming just a well-positioned commodity for the world’s economic superpowers.

China for example, has secured a controversial 99-year lease of Hambantota port. India, wary of Chinese encroachment, has ramped up its own investments, including the development of a container terminal in Colombo.

In 2023, the US announced a US$500 million (£372 million) plan to develop a deep-water shipping container terminal at the port of Colombo. And the potential US tariffs of 30% on imports from Sri Lanka have been interpreted by some as a pressure tactic to get greater access to its waters.

Balancing these interests is a delicate act. While foreign investment is crucial for infrastructure development, Sri Lanka needs to protect its sovereignty and ensure that port operations serve national, not just international, interests.

My research suggests that one way of building a resilient and diverse Sri Lankan economy would be to focus on its surrounding waters. Sri Lanka’s vast “exclusive economic zone”, an area of sea where it controls marine resources, holds massive untapped potential.

Blue economy

This potential lies in traditional sectors like fisheries and tourism, but also emerging industries such as marine biotechnology.

This growing field offers opportunities in things like bioengineering and marine-based pharmaceuticals. With other countries rapidly advancing in these sectors, Sri Lanka is well-positioned to follow suit and become a regional leader in the blue economy (economic activities associated with the sustainable use of ocean resources).

But there is still a complex web of geopolitical interests and economic pressures to navigate, as well as environmental challenges.

At the moment for example, the Sri Lankan government is making plans for the deep natural port at Trincomalee to become a major marine repair and refuelling centre between Dubai and Singapore. Other proposed projects include offshore wind farms and oil rig facilities.

The country also needs to compete with the likes of Malaysia, which is investing heavily in AI-driven port operations. To stay competitive, Sri Lanka must modernise infrastructure and streamline processes.

And despite the progress, challenges persist. Poverty in Sri Lanka has doubled since 2021, while youth unemployment remains high.

Sri Lanka faces rising maritime threats like piracy and illegal fishing, requiring stronger maritime surveillance. Simultaneously, port expansion risks damaging marine ecosystems. Green technologies and stricter environmental regulations are essential for long-term security and sustainability.

Sri Lanka’s strategic location and maritime heritage offer a foundation for economic renewal. With wise governance, sustainability, and balanced geopolitics, its ports could once again become vital gateways to regional prosperity and global trade.

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

– ref. As Sri Lanka’s economy pivots from tourism, it’s well placed to benefit from global trade and geopolitical jostling – new research – https://theconversation.com/as-sri-lankas-economy-pivots-from-tourism-its-well-placed-to-benefit-from-global-trade-and-geopolitical-jostling-new-research-261231

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Winnie Courtene-Jones, Lecturer in Marine Pollution, Bangor University

Representatives from 175 countries will gather in Geneva, Switzerland, in August for the final round of negotiations on a legally binding UN treaty to end plastic pollution. Non-governmental organisations, academics and industry lobbyists will also be in the room. They will all be hoping to influence what could be the world’s first truly global agreement on plastics.

The summit, known as “INC-5.2”, follows a failed attempt to reach agreement in Busan, South Korea, late last year. That meeting ended without resolving important issues, despite hopes that it would conclude the treaty process. Now, it’s crunch time in Geneva.

Either countries bridge their political divides, or risk the whole process falling apart.

I’ve been researching the effects of plastic for more than a decade and have been involved in the UN treaty process since 2022. I’ve attended several of the negotiations and will be in Geneva next month. The science is clear: we need ambitious action which tackles every stage of the plastics lifecycle, from production through to disposal. But the question is, will countries deliver?

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

In 2022, the UN Environment Assembly agreed to develop a legally binding treaty to end plastic pollution. Since then, progress has been slow. Negotiations have repeatedly stalled over issues such as whether the treaty should limit plastic production or regulate chemicals, how to define terms, and how to fund implementation.

Industry lobbying has also played a powerful role throughout. At the last round of talks, lobbyists for the petrochemical and plastics industries made up the single largest delegation. They outnumbered representatives from the EU, all of Latin America, the Pacific islands, independent scientists and Indigenous communities. This imbalance threatens to weaken the science-based action that is urgently needed.

Although countries failed to reach agreement in Busan, a foundation was laid. They agreed to continue negotiations using the “chair’s text”, which is a draft treaty with multiple options still on the table. That document forms the starting point in Geneva. But it remains uncertain whether enough common ground can be found to finalise the text.

What’s at stake?

This treaty is a once-in-a-generation chance to tackle one of the world’s most urgent environmental crises. More than 450 million tonnes of plastic are produced every year. That figure is expected to double by 2045 if current trends continue.

Only around 9% of plastic is ever recycled. The rest is landfilled, incinerated or ends up polluting the environment.

An estimated 139 million tonnes of plastics pollute marine and fresh water. But that could be significantly higher when considering leakages of plastics to land, and from microplastics, which are plastics smaller than 5mm in diameter.

Plastic is found in the deepest oceans, the remotest mountains and inside the human body. While scientists are only beginning to understand the long-term implications for human health, biodiversity and climate, studies show harmful effects of plastics and their chemicals on animals and ecosystems.

Plastic pollution doesn’t respect national borders. It moves through rivers, oceans and air, and gets carried across continents. Global supply chains and waste exports have made this a problem no country can solve alone. That’s why a global treaty is essential.

Crossroads

Despite this growing urgency, a disparity in positions has hindered progress and continues to divide delegations.

Some, such as members of the High Ambition Coalition, a group of countries committed to progressive climate action, want strong rules to cap plastic production, phase out toxic chemicals and hold polluters accountable. Others, often with prominent petrochemical industries, argue for a weaker, voluntary approach focused mainly on recycling and waste management.

Read more:
A global plastic treaty will only work if it caps production, modelling shows

If these divisions aren’t resolved, there’s a real risk the treaty will end up being too watered down to make a difference. A patchy, fragmented agreement would fail to curb rising plastic production and could undermine the integrity of global action.

Between December’s meeting in Busan and next month’s talks, countries have been holding smaller meetings to try to find compromise. That momentum must now be carried into the final negotiations.

Important articles in the draft treaty, including those on chemicals and products, plastic production and finance, remain contested. Whether those provisions are strengthened or diluted will shape the treaty’s effects for decades to come.

Flexibility will be needed. But leadership is also crucial. Countries that support an ambitious outcome must stand firm and bring others with them.

As we approach what may be the final negotiating round, we’re at a critical crossroads. The world has the chance to take meaningful action on plastic pollution. Let’s not waste it.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Winnie Courtene-Jones is an unpaid member and working-group lead of the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Treaty; an International network of independent scientific and technical experts contributing robust scientific evidence to the Treaty process.

– ref. A global treaty to limit plastic pollution is within reach – will countries seize the moment? – https://theconversation.com/a-global-treaty-to-limit-plastic-pollution-is-within-reach-will-countries-seize-the-moment-261331

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Adam Taylor, Professor of Anatomy, Lancaster University

If something online promises to cure everything, it’s probably too good to be true. One of the most dangerous examples? Chlorine dioxide is often marketed under names like “Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS)” or “aerobic oxygen”, buzzwords that hint at health and vitality.

But in reality, these products can make you violently ill within hours – and in some cases, they can be fatal.

Despite what the name suggests, MMS is not just bleach. Bleach contains sodium hypochlorite, whereas MMS contains sodium chlorite – a different but equally toxic chemical.

When ingested, sodium chlorite can cause methemoglobinemia, a condition where red blood cells lose their ability to carry oxygen. It can also trigger haemolysis (the rupture of red blood cells), followed by kidney failure and death.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

When sodium chlorite mixes with acid (such as stomach acid), it converts into chlorine dioxide, a bleaching agent. This compound has strong antimicrobial properties: it can kill bacteria, fungi and even viruses like SARS-CoV-2. For that reason, it’s commonly used in sanitising dental equipment and hospital tools like endoscopes. Its effectiveness at killing over 400 bacterial species makes it useful in cleaning – but not in humans.

While the mouth and oesophagus are lined with multiple cell layers, offering some protection, the stomach and intestines are far more vulnerable. These organs have a single-cell lining to absorb nutrients efficiently – but this also means they’re highly sensitive to damage.

That’s why ingesting chlorine dioxide often leads to nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhoea. In extreme cases, the chemical can burn through the gut lining, leading to bowel perforation – a medical emergency with a high risk of death.

Using MMS as an enema is equally dangerous. Chlorine dioxide can trigger an overproduction of reactive oxygen species – unstable molecules that damage cells and contribute to chronic gut conditions. This cellular stress may explain both the immediate symptoms and the long-term injuries seen in reported cases.

It doesn’t make a good mouthwash, either

Some sellers claim MMS can be used safely in the mouth because it’s found in dental cleaners. But clinical trials show it’s no more effective than other mouthwashes, and its oxidising power doesn’t distinguish between harmful microbes and healthy cells.

Yes, it may temporarily reduce bad breath, but it also disrupts protein synthesis, damages cell membranes, and harms the gut microbiome – the collection of helpful bacteria we rely on for digestion and immune health.

Chlorine dioxide doesn’t just attack the gut. It also affects the cardiovascular system. Documented risks include low blood pressure, fainting, and cardiac damage – including stroke and shock.

In some cases, it causes a dangerous blood disorder called disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). This condition causes abnormal clotting, followed by severe bleeding and potential organ failure, stroke and death.

Chlorine dioxide is also a respiratory irritant. Inhalation can inflame the nose, throat and lungs, and in severe cases, cause respiratory distress – particularly with repeated exposure in workplaces.

Studies of factory workers show that even low doses can lead to nasal inflammation, coughing and breathing difficulties. And some patients who drank chlorine dioxide to “treat” COVID-19 ended up with severe chemical lung injuries.

Risks to the brain, hormones and skin

Animal studies suggest chlorine dioxide can harm the nervous system, causing developmental delays, reduced movement, and slower brain growth. It also appears to affect the thyroid, potentially causing hormonal disruptions and delayed puberty.

It doesn’t stop there. Some people who consume chlorine dioxide also develop cerebral salt wasting syndrome, a condition where the kidneys lose too much sodium, leading to excessive urination, dehydration and dangerously low blood volume.

Skin contact isn’t safe either. Chlorine dioxide can irritate the skin, and lab studies show it can kill skin cells at high concentrations. People who’ve used it to treat fungal infections have ended up with chemical dermatitis instead.

Chlorine dioxide can be useful for disinfecting hospital tools, dental equipment and water supplies. But that doesn’t mean it belongs in your body. Many of its supposed “benefits” come from lab studies or animal research – not from safe, approved human trials.

There’s no evidence that drinking it cures any disease. There’s overwhelming evidence that it can harm or kill you.

So, if you’re tempted by a product that promises miracles with science-y language and zero regulation, take a step back. The risks are very real – and very dangerous.

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

– ref. From ‘MMS’ to ‘aerobic oxygen’, why drinking bleach has become a dangerous wellness trend – https://theconversation.com/from-mms-to-aerobic-oxygen-why-drinking-bleach-has-become-a-dangerous-wellness-trend-260761

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alex Ford, Professor of Biology, University of Portsmouth

England’s privatised water industry may one day be considered a textbook case study of failed corporate responsibility, regulation and governance. The Cunliffe review, the recent report into England’s privatised water industry, concluded that the financial regulator, OfWat, needs to be disbanded and a new water regulator will be introduced.

For that to work effectively, better pollution monitoring and more clearly defined pollution incident criteria are essential. While politicians and water companies have claimed to be reducing pollution incidences, they might not strictly be tackling sources of pollution, so communications must be carefully scrutinised for disinformation.

The UK’s environment minister Steve Reed MP has described the water industry as “broken”. The public have rising water bills. Water companies owe over £60 billion in debts and have left the country with uncertain water security in the face of climate change.

The Environment Agency (EA) in England recently announced that serious pollution incidents in 2024 rose by 60% to 75 from 47 in the previous year. The EA classifies pollution incidents using a four-point scale called the common incident classification scheme. Trained EA officers consider the evidence reported via their incident hotline to assess its credibility and severity.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Category 1 is for major incidents, 2 for significant, 3 for minor incidents and 4 for no impact. Category 1 and 2 typically involve visible signs of dead fish floating. For salmon, if more than 10 adult or 100 young fish are dead, this is category 1. With fewer than ten adult and 100 young fish dead, it’s category 2.

No dead fish, no serious problem? The EA can also record damage on protected habitats as “pollution incidents” but these are harder to substantiate without investigative research that takes time and money.

Last year, more than 450,000 sewage discharges were recorded by event duration monitors. These are devices fitted to the end of overflow pipes that indicate when and for how long they have been discharging.

These discharges represent 3.6 million hours of untreated sewage going into our rivers and coasts. These contain chemical contaminants including pharmaceuticals, detergents and human pathogens. Only 75 incidents were recorded as serious or significant in 2024. Another 2,726 were classed as minor.

So lots of sewage discharges are not being classified as pollution incidents, despite containing pollutants. The EA advises its investigating officers to “record substantiated incidents that result in no environmental impact, or where the impact cannot be confirmed, as a category 4”.

The EA has been criticised for turning up late to 74% of category 1 and 2 pollution incidents and for being pressured to ignore low-level pollution – all claims that they have denied. However, they admit they are constrained by finances. Any new regulator must be adequately resourced and independent.

In their recent report into pollution incidences, the EA states that they respond to all category 1 and 2 (serious and significant) water industry incidents and will be increasing their attendance at category 3 (minor) incidents. They highlight that more inspections will identify more issues. This shows some acceptance that the more incidents they attend, the more would be substantiated or recorded appropriately.

Most sewage discharges would not have been reported to, or recorded by, the EA as pollution incidents because they were permitted discharges from combined stormwater overflows. Water companies are allowed to discharge untreated wastewater under exceptional rainfall or snowfall conditions to prevent sewage backing up through the pipes.

Extra water flow in rivers from rainfall is meant to dilute chemical contaminants in wastewater. However, some discharges can last days or weeks. The EA is currently investigating whether water companies have been breaching their permits and discharging untreated wastewater when there is low or even no rainfall.

What counts as pollution?

The UN classifies pollution as “presence of substances and energy (for example, light and heat) in environmental media (air, water, land) whose nature, location, or quantity produces undesirable environmental effects”. This definition differs markedly from the EA’s working definition of pollution incidents.

Many sewage discharges containing low concentrations of pollutants won’t kill fish but might still be harmful to fish larvae or small insects, for example.

However, the broad picture from EA data is that invertebrate communities at least are in a better state than they were three decades ago before wastewater treatment plants were upgraded following the EU’s Urban Wastewater Directive.

Some pollutants bioaccumulate through the food chain, so they become concentrated in top predators such as orcas. Some chemicals mimic reproductive hormones even in low concentrations and can feminise fish, for example. High levels of nutrients from agriculture and sewage in rivers can cause fungal diseases in seagrass meadows.

Other families of chemicals build up in wildlife and people, such as persistent “forever chemicals”, much of which comes from wastewater discharges. Continued discharges of antibiotics into waterways might not be classified as pollution incidents but still pose a substantial risk to human and ecosystem health through bacteria developing antibiotic resistance.

The government has just committed to cut sewage pollution by 50% by December 2029 based on 2024 data. But it’s not yet clear whether these involve cutting the frequency of discharges, the duration or both.

This data could also be manipulated so that a large number of small discharges can be consolidated into one official discharge event. Currently, the volume of discharges from stormwater overflows isn’t known. Without this vital data we can’t ascertain the risk posed by their contaminants.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Alex Ford receives funding from the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), EU, charities and industry including water companies.

– ref. No wonder England’s water needs cleaning up – most sewage discharges aren’t even classified as pollution incidents – https://theconversation.com/no-wonder-englands-water-needs-cleaning-up-most-sewage-discharges-arent-even-classified-as-pollution-incidents-261502