Tag: 26/9/25

Categories : Environmental Effects Obstetrics & GynaecologyTags :

Artificial Light Changes Menstrual Synchronisation with the Moon

On By ModernMedia

There is no question that the moon has a significant influence on Earth. Its gravitational pull affects the planet and moves water masses in the daily rhythm of ebb and flow (tides) – this point is undisputed. More difficult to answer is the question of whether the same gravitational force also affects life on Earth, especially the human organism. And the discussion becomes even more complicated when it comes to how the fluctuating brightness of the Earth’s satellite between full and new moon affects humans.

A research team led by Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg (JMU) has now presented new findings on this topic. Its conclusion: “We show that synchronisation with the moon has decreased significantly since the introduction of LEDs and the increasing use of smartphones and screens of all kinds,” explains Charlotte Förster. The Würzburg chronobiologist recently headed the Department of Neurobiology and Genetics; she now conducts research there as a senior professor.

Comparing Records from two Centuries

For their study, now published in the journal Science Advances, Förster and her team analysed long-term menstrual records of women from the past 50 years. “The results showed that the menstrual cycles of women whose records were made before the introduction of light-emitting diodes in 2010 and the widespread use of smartphones were significantly synchronised with the cycle of the full and new moon,” says Förster, describing the key finding. After 2010, the cycles were mostly only synchronized in January, when the gravitational forces between the moon, sun, and Earth are at their highest.

The scientists therefore hypothesize that humans have an internal moon clock that can be synchronised to the lunar cycle by natural night light and gravitational forces. However, the coupling of the moon clock to the lunar cycle in humans is impaired by increasing nighttime illumination from artificial light.

Other Studies Support the Moon Clock Hypothesis

“Moon clocks are widespread in marine organisms, but have not yet been proven in humans,” explains Charlotte Förster. In fact, many species synchronize their reproductive behaviour with a specific phase of the lunar cycle in order to increase reproductive success. The human menstrual cycle also has a similar duration to the lunar cycle, at approximately 29.5 days, and recent studies also suggest at least temporary synchronicity between the menstrual and lunar cycles.

The influence of the moon on the female cycle remains controversial. “It is completely unclear how such a lunar clock can be synchronised by the small cyclical changes in gravity between the Earth and the moon,” says Förster. The findings now published are consistent with results from sleep research and psychiatry.

For example, studies by two chronobiologists, Basel researcher Christian Cajochen and Washington biologist Horacio de la Iglesia, show that people sleep significantly less around the full and new moon than at other times. “Interestingly, this also applies to city dwellers, where nighttime city lighting is much brighter than the light of the full moon,” says the chronobiologist. And US psychiatrist Thomas Wehr has concluded that people with bipolar disorder are more likely to switch between mania and depression around the full and new moon.

Artificial Light Disrupts Synchronisation

Taken together, these findings suggest that humans can respond not only to moonlight, but also to the gravitational cycles caused by the moon, according to the Würzburg research team. “However, our study shows that increased exposure to artificial light severely impairs the synchrony between the menstrual cycle and the lunar cycle,” explains Charlotte Förster.

According to this, artificial light at night not only “outshines” the natural moonlight cycles, but also shortens the length of the menstrual cycle. However, since continuous synchronization is only possible if the length of the cycle is close to the lunar cycle, this shortening in turn reduces the likelihood of synchronization.

A High Proportion of Blue Light Increases the Effect

Anyone wondering why the introduction of LEDs and the increasing use of smartphones have this effect – after all, artificial lighting has been around for a long time, from gas lanterns to incandescent light bulbs – will find an explanation in Charlotte Förster’s words: “LEDs have much higher energy than gas lanterns and light bulbs. In addition, they have a high proportion of blue light, to which our photoreceptors in the eye are particularly sensitive.” That is why LED light has a much stronger effect on humans than previous light sources.

And even though Charlotte Förster and her team were able to clearly demonstrate that the synchronization of the female menstrual cycle with the moon is weakened by LEDs, smartphones, and screens of all kinds, there is one small caveat when interpreting these results: “Our findings show a correlation between these two phenomena. We were unable to establish a causal link,” says the scientist.

In principle, the study now published is basic research. Nevertheless, a potential benefit emerges from the evaluation of the data: “Since period length appears to be a possible age-dependent marker for female fertility, our findings could be relevant not only for human physiology and behaviour, but also for fertility and contraception,” says Charlotte Förster.

Source: University of Würzburg

Categories : Environmental EffectsTags :

New Research Calls for Global Action on Micro- and Nanoplastics in the Atmosphere

On By ModernMedia
Photo by FLY:D on Unsplash

Scientists at The University of Manchester are calling for the creation of a global network of air monitoring stations to track the movement of airborne plastic pollution, which may be travelling further and faster around the planet than previously thought.

In a new review, published in the journal Current Pollution Reports, the researchers have examined the current scientific research on how tiny plastic fragments – called micro and nanoplastics – enter the air, where they come from, and the mechanisms that transport them across vast distances.

The study reveals significant gaps in knowledge and understanding of airborne plastic pollution, driven by inconsistent measurement techniques, limited data, oversimplified simulations, and gaps in understanding atmospheric cycling mechanisms.

One key uncertainty is the scale of plastic entering the atmosphere. Current estimates vary wildly – from less than 800 tonnes to nearly 9 million tonnes per year – making it difficult to assess the true global impact. It also remains unclear whether the dominant contributors are land-based, such as road traffic, or marine based, such as sea spray.

Such large uncertainties raise the concern that airborne plastics, which pose potential risks to human and environmental health, may have a more extensive presence and influence than previously captured by current monitoring and simulation systems.

“The scale of uncertainty around how much plastic is entering our atmosphere is alarming. Plastic pollution can have serious consequences for human health and ecosystems, so in order to assess the risks, we need to better understand how these particles behave in the atmosphere. If we want to protect people and the planet, we need better data, better models, and global coordination.”

Lead author Zhonghua Zheng, Co-Lead for Environmental Data Science & AI at Manchester Environmental Research Institute (MERI) and Lecturer in Data Science & Environmental Analytics at The University of Manchester

Each year, the world produces over 400 million tonnes of plastic, with a significant proportion ending up as waste. Over time, these plastics breaks down into microscopic particles called microplastics (less than 5mm) and nanoplastics (smaller than 1 micron), which are increasingly being found in the air we breath, oceans and soil. These particles can move thousands of miles within days and have even remote regions like polar ice zones, desserts and remote mountain peaks.

While our understanding of the problem has grown rapidly, limited real-world data, inconsistent sampling methods, and computer models that oversimplify how plastic behaves in the air, means that key questions remain unanswered.

To address these concerns, the authors are calling for future research efforts to focus on three critical areas:

  • Expanding and standardising global observation networks
  • Improving and refining atmospheric modelling
  • Harnessing the power of artificial intelligence (AI)

They say this integrated approach could transform how we understand and manage the plastic pollution crisis.

“By adopting this integrated approach, we can fundamentally transform how we understand and manage this emerging threat. AI can play a powerful role in analysing data and simulating plastic movement, it can help make sense of fragmented datasets, detect hidden patterns, and integrate information from multiple sources – but it needs good quality data to work with. All of these areas must work hand in hand to manage this emerging threat and shape effective global pollution strategies.”

Fei Jiang, PhD researcher at The University of Manchester

Source: University of Manchester

Categories : Respiratory Diseases Substance UseTags :

Inhaling Cannabis May Greatly Increase Risk of Lung Disease

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Rodnae Productions on Pexels

For those looking to reduce their chances of developing lung disease, say experts at UC San Francisco, then it may be smart to avoid inhaling cannabis.

A new study in the Journal of General Internal Medicine found that inhaling marijuana every day is associated with a 44% increased chance of developing asthma. It also increases the odds of developing a common set of lung diseases known as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) by 27%.

The risk of COPD, which includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis, may be understated. The disease takes decades to develop, and the researchers did not have detailed information on how long people in the study had been using cannabis.

Researchers defined “inhaling” as smoking, vaping, and so-called “dabbing,” which involves breathing in the vapors of concentrated marijuana. The study found an association between elevated risks to a person’s lungs and doing any of those things with cannabis even for those who had never smoked cigarettes.

For those who never smoked cigarettes, inhaling marijuana every day was linked to a 51% increased likelihood of developing asthma. The association with COPD was also elevated, but it was not statistically significant.

The study is the largest yet to examine the association between inhaling cannabis and risks to respiratory health among people who have not smoked cigarettes. Of the 380 000 adult participants, nearly 222 000 had never smoked tobacco. The data comes from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a national survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Experts say the broad legalization of marijuana across much of the country and the perception that it is healthier than tobacco has led people to minimize the risks.

“The message about smoking tobacco being bad for you has gotten out there, but for cannabis, it’s much less clear,” said Alison Rustagi, MD, PhD, assistant professor at UCSF and first author of the paper.

“If people are looking to reduce their likelihood of developing a chronic lung disease, they should not start using cannabis,” she said. “And if they already smoke cannabis, they should do it less often.”

Source: University of California – San Francisco

Categories : Ethics and Law Mental HealthTags :

Untangling the Argument Around Prenatal Paracetamol and Autism

On By ModernMedia
Photo by SHVETS production

On Monday 22 September, US President Donald Trump made a widely-publicised announcement that paracetamol (acetaminophen/Tylenol) during pregnancy was confirmed as causing autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The claim – backed by a single, rather dodgy study – brings to a head long-standing concerns about the apparent, well-documented increase in ASD rates. QuickNews dives into the controversy to find out if there is any validity to the claims.

President Trump said, “With Tylenol, don’t take it. Don’t take it. And if you can’t live, if your fever is so bad, you have to take one because there’s no alternative to that, sadly,” adding that other medicines such as aspirin were also “proven bad”.

The announcement had been expected for some time and doctors, scientists and medical organisations were quick to respond. The president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated that the paracetamol–ASD claim “is not backed by the full body of scientific evidence and dangerously simplifies the many and complex causes of neurologic challenges in children”.

At the very least, such an announcement will causing pregnant women to second-guess their taking one of the few over-the-counter pain medications widely regarded as safe during pregnancy. In 2017, the X account for Tylenol stated “We actually don’t recommend using any of our products while pregnant.” But a major pharmaceutical manufacturer would want to protect itself from liability as broadly as possible. The politically-charged nature of the announcement has also seen pregnant women making TikTok videos of themselves apparently taking paracetamol (often with no reason to).

It is generally accepted that ASD is caused by a combination of genetics and environmental factors. About 1000 genes are believed to be related to ASD. And there is a very long list of possible risk factors, with an uncertain risk contribution: “Non-genetic factors mediating ASD risk could include parental age, maternal nutritional and metabolic status, infection during pregnancy, prenatal stress, and exposure to certain toxins, heavy metals, or drugs.”

Study validity questioned

To date, paracetamol during pregnancy had generally been linked by a number of poorly powered studies to a wide variety of outcomes: in addition to ASD, asthma, lower performance intelligence quotient (IQ), shorter male infant anogenital distance (predicting poor male reproductive potential), neurodevelopmental problems (gross motor development, communication), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, poorer attention and executive function, and behavioural problems in childhood. A study of nearly 2.5 million children, the largest and most comprehensive do date, found a slight link for paracetamol exposure and autism – which vanished when controlled for sibling exposure (representing shared environment).

Before President Trump’s announcement, news releases on a review making the link were published some weeks before – QuickNews even covered it. The review, published in Environmental Health, selected certain related studies using the ‘Navigation Guide’ methodology – a non-quantitative methodology for the narrow use of inferring health impacts from environmental toxins, but was nevertheless used for pharmaco-epidemiology and teratology. According to Nathan A. Schacthman, legal counsel for scientific matters, the study has serious conflicts of interest: for example, last author Andrea A. Baccarelli is an environmental epidemiologist who has been involved with a lawsuit against manufacturers and sellers of paracetamol. In that lawsuit, his claims were thrown out on the basis of not having sufficient validity, including cherry-picked data and over-generalisation to distinct disorders (such as grouping attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder [ADHD] and other neurodevelopmental disorders). In addition, the study also made misleading claimed about being funded by the National Institutes for Health (NIH). Finally, although this is not mentioned by Schacthman, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is also an environmental lawyer.

What’s this about a ‘cure’ for autism?

The bombshell announcement by President Trump came with an another bombshell announcement that there was ‘cure’ for autism. The cure is allegedly leucovorin – which sounds very impressive to the non-medical public. But leucovorin is merely folinic acid, which is a vitamer of plain old folic acid – aka vitamin B9. Folinic acid is on the World Health Organization’s essential medicines list. On the same Monday, the US Food and Drug Administration approved it for the treatment of ASD in children – bypassing the normal review process.

Can a simple medication – or rather, supplement – really ‘cure’ ASD, an extremely complex neurological disorder? The NIH funds about $300 million in ASD research annually, nearly double the amount in 2011. If anything, this has echoes of President Trump’s touting of hydroxychloroquine as a now-discredited cure for COVID in the height of the pandemic. It might indeed be beneficial if a patient had a bout of malaria and COVID at the same time, but was rapidly discredited.

The largest controlled study for the use of folinic acid supplementation plus usual care found only a modest ~1 point increase in the Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS) compared to usual care plus placebo.

There are also concerns about potential conflicts of interest. One of the manufacturers of folinic acid, iHerb, had the celebrity heart doctor Mehmet Oz as an investor, and is now the administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), served until recently. CMS has however denied that Dr Oz will receive any financial reward from this.

But why are autism rates on the rise?

There are a few good explanations about why the rate of autism diagnoses is increasing, which do not depend on the addition of some new environmental variable. The first and most obvious is that there is increased awareness of this, and more referrals for assessment. A second reason is that the guidelines for diagnosis have become a lot less stringent. The definition of autism diagnoses, unlike schizophrenia, has drifted over time, with more “normal” people being likely to be diagnosed. The DSM-III of 1980 had more stringent criteria, for example, an individual needed to exhibit “a pervasive lack of responsiveness to other people” [emphasis added].

Introduced from 1994, the DSM-IV had broader criteria, and folded Asperger disorder into ASD. With the introduction of the DSM-V, new diagnoses were curbed – for a time. This is because about 20% of the children diagnosed with ASD under DSM-IV-TR would not have received one under the DSM-V. The DSM-V relaxed the criteria for language delay, co-occurrence, and IQ, making it easier for borderline cases to qualify for a diagnosis.

Another underappreciated element is that of social contagion. If parents know a family with a child with ASD, they may be more likely to seek a diagnosis. One study from California showed that ASD diagnoses were more likely the more other ASD diagnoses under one kilometre away.

Back to square one

Considering the weakness of the cited studies, the difficulty of explaining ASD, the underlying social phenomenon of shifting diagnostic thresholds and increased awareness, it seems as though these announcements are mostly without substance. In amidst the headline-grabbing news, the NIH quietly announced the launch of a $50 million initiative into the causes of ASD.

According to the news release, the NIH will fund 13 projects “that draw on genomic, epigenomic, metabolomic, proteomic, clinical, behavioral and autism services data. These projects will integrate, aggregate and analyze existing data resources, generate targeted new data and validate findings through independent replication hubs.”

With this in mind, it really doesn’t look like paracetamol is the singular, mysterious controllable risk factor for ASD rates that President Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr have made it out to be. Maybe paracetamol use simply reflects infection, or some other related factor.

Categories : Allergies Lab Tests and ImagingTags :

From Symptoms to Solutions: Professional Testing Can Reveal Hidden Allergens

On By ModernMedia

As spring arrives in South Africa, many people experience their most challenging allergy season. However, while pollen-filled air triggers obvious seasonal symptoms, allergies extend far beyond springtime discomfort, affecting millions year-round through food sensitivities, skin reactions, and environmental triggers.

“Spring allergies are usually just the tip of the iceberg,” says Tyron Hansen, Business Development Manager at BioSmart Lab. “You wake to spring sunshine and nature in full bloom, but instead of enjoying it, you’re shut inside with tissues and antihistamines. Meanwhile, your stomach acts up after breakfast, and that mysterious rash on your arms is back. Sound familiar?”

Hansen explains that many people assume that their symptoms stem from a single source, like pollen or food preservatives. However, BioSmart Lab’s test results often reveal they’ve actually been living with multiple triggers they never connected to their symptoms.

Why It’s Worth Looking Deeper

Professional allergen tests measure specific antibodies in your blood to identify how your body reacts to different substances. This matters because what looks like “seasonal” hay fever might actually be a mix of environmental, food, and even skin-related triggers.

“Our immune systems are like complicated alarm systems,” explains Hansen. “They go off loudly, but without proper testing, you only hear the siren – you don’t see what’s actually setting it off.”

A major source of confusion is the difference between allergies and intolerances. Both of which can make you feel unwell, but function very differently:

  • Allergies: They set off the immune system through immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies, causing anything from a runny nose or itchy eyes to potentially life-threatening anaphylaxis, often within minutes of exposure.
  • Intolerances: These don’t set off your immune system, but they can still cause digestive discomfort like bloating or nausea, and while not dangerous, they can nevertheless affect daily life.

“Knowing which is which can be the key to finally feeling better,” he adds.

Everyday Triggers You Might Be Missing

Allergies aren’t always obvious or seasonal. Many people live with daily discomfort without realising what’s behind it. Hansen provides some of the most common sources of ongoing allergic reactions.

  • Environmental triggers: Dust mites, mould spores, pet dander, and certain plants can cause year-round congestion, itchy eyes, or skin flare-ups.
  • Food sensitivities: That heavy, bloated feeling after meals could point to, for example, wheat, rice and corn sensitivity, or even certain food combinations.
  • Skin reactions: Chronic eczema or rashes are sometimes triggered by hidden allergens, not simply “sensitive skin.”
  • Allergic clues in children: Kids often can’t articulate their symptoms. What might appear to be frequent colds, skin rashes, or trouble concentrating could be subtle signs of allergies.

“Trying to figure out if your symptoms are caused by allergens through elimination diets, behavioural adjustments, or symptom tracking can take months and still leave you without answers, notes Hansen. “Blood-based testing provides a faster alternative by measuring IgE antibodies – the proteins your immune system releases when it detects threats.”

Taking Back Control

BioSmart Lab’s advanced blood panels analyse these IgE proteins across multiple allergens simultaneously. These tests can be purchased online and provide accurate, quantitative results without the risk of sparking reactions or being influenced by medication use.

Some people discover that they need to remove wheat to manage food allergies. Others learn that their “pet allergy” is actually a dust mite sensitivity. Parents often find their child’s mid-afternoon meltdowns are directly linked to specific food triggers at lunch.

“The goal isn’t just to manage symptoms – it’s to restore people’s quality of life,” emphasises Hansen. “Once you understand what your body is reacting to, you can move from frustrating guesswork to making informed choices, giving you control of your health back,” he concludes.

For more information about BioSmart’s allergy testing options, visit https://biosmart.com/allergy-tests/.