Everyday chemicals, hormones, and breast cancer: What is the link?

 Another cell culture study joins the list of research investigating the link between environmental chemicals and breast cancer. Although it is too early to make bold claims, this article covers what experts currently believe.

We have exposure to dozens of chemicals daily. The air we breathe is made of chemicals — nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide, among many others — and so is the water we drink. There are also many chemicals that we have created, such as aspirin, which is an effective pain relief drug.

Organizations including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rigorously test such chemicals under laws such as the Toxic Substances Control Act before they reach the consumer to ensure that they are safe.

However, could some of these chemicals have yet unexplored health effects?

Ruthann Rudel, research director at the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, MA, and Silent Spring scientist Bethsaida Cardona started their research with that question in mind.

They sought to identify preventable causes of breast cancer and investigated which chemicals might contribute to an increased risk of this condition.

As part of their study, Rudel and Cardona went through data on 2,000 chemicals listed in the EPA’s Toxicity Forecaster, which is a program that screens chemicals for potential health hazards.

Their paper appears in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

Main findings

In their review, the researchers found 296 chemicals that caused an increase in levels of estradiol, which is a form of estrogen and the major female sex hormone, progesterone levels, or both estradiol and progesterone in adrenal cell culture.

Of these chemicals, 71 caused an increase in both hormones. They included chemical flame retardants, dyes, fungicides, and pesticides.

Some of the chemicals implicated included:

• 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine: This is a chemical that manufacturers use in the production of dyes, pharmaceuticals, and hydrogen peroxide.
• Malathion: This is an insecticide in the chemical family known as organophosphates. People commonly use it in mosquito control.
• Phosmet: This is an organophosphate insecticide that people use for protecting apple trees.
• Oxyfluorfen: This is an herbicide with widespread use in agriculture, specifically for weed control.

“In this study,” Rudel told Medical News Today, “we used new data produced by EPA to identify commonly used chemicals that have been shown to increase the synthesis of estrogen and progesterone in cells in a dish because this is directly relevant to hormone receptor [HR]-positive breast cancer.”

“There’s been a fair bit of attention on identifying chemicals that bind to and activate the estrogen receptor — essentially mimicking estrogen — but no one had identified chemicals that increase the synthesis of estrogen or progesterone, so we used the new data to do that.”

The findings suggest that some of these synthetic chemicals could increase the risk of breast cancer by way of stimulating the two hormones linked to breast cancer: estrogen and progesterone.

Previous studiesTrusted Source into endocrine-disrupting chemicals had focused only on the chemicals’ ability to bind directly to the estrogen receptor and activate it. In that sense, this study introduces a new dimension to breast cancer research.

“Since many environmental chemicals would not be as strong activators as endogenous estradiol, the weaker activity limited concerns in some assessments,” said Rudel. “However, since the chemicals we identified increase the synthesis of estradiol, which is very potent, the effects of these chemicals on breast cancer may be much stronger [than thought].”

Past studiesTrusted Source have suggested that inhibiting or reducing estradiol was effective in preventing or treating breast cancer.

Similarly, in one randomized trial, using a mixture of estrogen plus progestin — which is the synthetic form of progesterone that the body produces naturally — in hormone replacement therapy was shown to increase breast cancer risk.

However, scientists are still trying to establish how these chemicals are achieving this increase in estradiol.

One way, they hypothesize, is that these chemicals could be acting as aromatase activators — the opposite of drugs such as tamoxifen — and causing cells to produce more of these hormones.

The study also points out that regular exposure from multiple sources rather than one-off or rare exposures is likely to have an effect.

Limitations

The study adds to research exploring additional risk factors for breast cancer that scientists have yet to identify.

“The role of environmental pollutants in breast carcinogenesis is particularly poorly understood, yet there are understandable public concerns about the role of broad, low-level exposure to environmental pollutants,” said Dr. Lauren Teras, Ph.D., the scientific director of epidemiology research at the American Cancer Society.

However, studying possible links between cancer and chemicals proves troublesome.

The short half-life of some chemicals, the length of time over which cancer develops, the cumulative exposure to chemicals and various mixtures, and having different physiologic characteristics could determine whether or not these chemicals will impact the body and, if so, to what extent, said Dr. Teras.

Although it is interesting to see these chemicals having an effect, people should interpret the data with caution. Dr. Janie Grumley, surgical breast oncologist and director of the Comprehensive Breast Program at the Margie Petersen Breast Center in Santa Monica, CA, agrees.

“This [research] was in a very controlled in vitro situation, which is the biggest area of caution because it does not necessarily apply to human beings. And when reading something like that, we definitely do not want to jump to conclusions,” Dr. Grumley told MNT.

She likened it to mapping out a route for a trip. “You mark point A and B, and you draw a straight line, and you think O.K., we are going to get there. But in reality, when you actually take that trip, there are lots of things that are unexpected. There are mountains and hills and oceans and things that you can’t really anticipate and may not be turn out to be anything,” she said.

According to Dr. Teras, the results of the study are not surprising.

“We are continuing to learn about the complex ways in which our environment plays a role in human health. However, no one study stands alone. Though this study presents a nice summary of chemicals that deserve further investigation, I do not view this as a list of chemicals that is ready for clinical action,” she told MNT.

The next step would be to determine whether or not these chemicals produce the same effect in animals and humans.

Rudel said that their review also explored the types of effects reported when scientists tested these chemicals in experimental animals. The chemicals, she said, were likely identified as carcinogens or reproductive/development toxicants if tested. However, many had not undergone testing in that regard.

Chemicals reported to affect mammary glands in experimental animals have also been found to influence breast cancer risk by increasing the synthesis of estradiol, progesterone, or both.

New regulations needed

According to Rudel, current methods for chemical safety testing appear to be missing breast-related effects, including effects on breast development, puberty, lactation, and cancer.

“Doing this study really opened my eyes to the fact that our chemical testing approaches are missing potential breast cancer risks because we simply aren’t looking for them,” she said.

“It’s common knowledge in the breast cancer community that estrogen and progesterone are risk factors, and first-line treatments for [HR]-positive breast cancer are to reduce levels of these or block the estrogen receptor so estrogen can’t make the cells divide,” she told MNT.

The researchers recommend strengthening methods to check for likely breast effects when testing chemicals and identifying possible carcinogens before they end up in consumer products.

They also suggest limiting people’s exposures to such chemicals during critical stages of development, such as puberty and pregnancy.

If companies are using the chemicals that have effects on estrogen or progesterone synthesis, “they should invest and could try to tease it out further, knowing that there may be something,” said Dr. Grumley.

“If nothing alarming comes out of it, they can continue to use the product, but if there is, they can take responsibility and produce alternatives or make efforts in that regard,” she added.

To sum it up

The study has raised an interesting point in research to identify breast cancer risk by focusing on chemicals that increase estrogen or progesterone. However, without in vivo studies, it is premature to try to establish a definitive link.

A multi-pronged approach is necessary to get a full understanding of the role that chemicals play in developing breast cancer. This should encompass all data from cell, animal, and observational human studies, according to Dr. Teras.

“Even though the findings are interesting, we cannot take that and apply it to human beings until we do further assessments,” added Dr. Grumley.

Evaluating the effects of these chemicals on humans remains challenging, and most have not undergone adequate studyTrusted Source.

In that sense, the new study can direct future research into examining the effects that chemicals may have on mammary glands, such as tumors.

“So, we expect that more rigor should be applied in interpreting observations of chemically induced changes in mammary tissue,” said Rudel.

Source: Medical News Today

Scientists translate brain waves of man with paralysis into words

 

• Anarthria, which is the loss of the ability to speak, can have a variety of causes, such as a stroke or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
• People with anarthria often retain their linguistic ability, but paralysis may prevent them from using technological aids to communicate.
• Neuroscientists used machine learning to translate into words and sentences electrical activity in the part of the brain responsible for speech.

For the first time, scientists have managed to translate into text the brain activity of a person with paralysis who is unable to speak.

Neuroscientists implanted an electrode array the size of a credit card onto the 36-year-old’s sensorimotor cortex, which is the part of the brain that controls the articulation of speech.

The scientists, led by the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), then used “deep-learning algorithms” to train computer models to recognize and classify words from patterns in the participant’s brain activity.

They asked the man to think about saying words that they presented to him on a screen.

In addition to the deep-learning models, they used a “natural-language model,” which is a program that predicts the next word in a sentence based on the previous words.

“This outcome really is a milestone toward restoring speech for people who are unable to communicate due to paralysis,” said David Moses, a postdoctoral engineer at UCSF and lead author of the study, in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle.

“There have been other existing approaches, but this is the first proof that someone can attempt to speak and that we can translate what they were trying to say from that brain activity.”

Loss of intelligible speech

The participant, who was 36 at the start of the study, had a stroke in his brain stem when he was 20 that resulted in severe paralysis and loss of intelligible speech, known as anarthria.

Other causes of anarthria include amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, a rare neurological condition that mainly affects the nerves responsible for voluntary movement.

The man in the study could vocalize grunts and moans but was unable to articulate words, despite having healthy cognitive functions.

Using slight movements of his head, he can control a computer-based typing device to communicate. However, his typing speed with this device is only around five correct words per minute.

After 48 training sessions with the new “mind-reading” technology over the course of 81 weeks, he was able to generate around 15 words per minute, with an error rate of 26%.

The scientists, who report their findings in The New England Journal of Medicine, say speech decoding technologies are generally considered usable if they have a word error rate below 30%.

“This study represents a transformational breakthrough in the field of brain-computer interfaces,” said Dr. Lee H. Schwamm, who chairs the advisory committee of the American Stroke Association and was not involved in the new research.

“While the intervention is quite invasive, requiring brain surgery to implant a recording strip on the surface of the brain, and the ‘thought-to-spoken’ conversion accuracy was modest, the paradigm is groundbreaking,” Dr. Schwamm told Medical News Today.

Dr. Schwamm is vice president, virtual care, at Mass General Brigham and professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, MA.

He said that while previous research has used a similar interface to translate thoughts about movement into control of a robotic arm, it is an even bigger leap to decipher words.

“What is most astounding is that the area of the brain for sensor implant, the sensory-motor cortex, is not thought to play an important role in language understanding or word generation,” he added.

The area is involved in moving the lips and throat to produce speech sounds, so the next step may be to see whether it can also assist with people with aphasia, which is a more common cause of disabling language disturbance after a stroke, said Dr. Schwamm.

Brain activity data

In 48 training sessions, the participant attempted to produce particular words from a set of 50 words.

In each trial, he was presented with one of these words on a screen. When the word turned green after a 2-second delay, he attempted to say the word.

Over the course of these sessions, the researchers collected 22 hours of brain activity data, which they fed to the deep-learning algorithm.

In an additional final two sessions, the man attempted to use the previously trained words to generate sentences such as “I am thirsty” and “I need my glasses.”

In each trial, the participant was presented with the sentence and attempted to generate the words as quickly as possible by thinking about saying them.

The deep-learning algorithm and language model enabled his thoughts to be decoded without error in more than half of the sentence trials.

Precise timing of words

A previous studyTrusted Source by the same group involved healthy volunteers.

However, one of the biggest challenges for researchers trying to create a deep-learning program that can translate the brain activity of a person with paralysis is the precise timing of their words.

This is because the algorithm does not have an obvious way to distinguish electrical activity that arises from trying to articulate words, from the background brain activity.

Following training, however, the new algorithm managed to correctly identify 98% of the attempts by the participant to produce individual words.

Another challenge is to process the patterns of brain activity fast enough to translate in real time.

A studyTrusted Source published in 2019 by the Cognitive Systems Lab at the University of Bremen in Germany also used deep learning to decode brain activity but not in real time.

“The new study does indeed decode the brain activity in real time, but I believe that is not the biggest achievement,” said one of its authors, Prof. Christian Herff, who was not involved in the new research.

He told MNT that a few teams had subsequently achieved real-time translation, including the Brain-Computer Interface Group at Maastricht University in 2020, where he now works.

“The big step of [the new study] is that they present their results in a patient who is actually not able to speak anymore. Before, all studies were conducted with volunteers who were still able to speak,” said Prof. Herff.

Source: Medical News Today

Premature babies: Who will speak up for these ‘little guys?’

 In an interview with Medical News Today, neonatologist Dr. Charleta Guillory speaks about her work looking after very small babies, how health inequity affects prematurity, and what public health measures she set up to counter these.

In the United States, around 10%Trusted Source of babies are born prematurely each year, meaning before 37 weeks of pregnancy. Globally, there are about 15 millionTrusted Source premature births annually.

While medical advances have ensured that many babies born prematurely survive and have good long-term outcomes, prematurity remains the leading cause of deathTrusted Source in children under 5 years globally.

In this Special Feature interview, Medical News Today spoke to Dr. Charleta Guillory, an associate professor at Baylor College of Medicine and the Director of the Neonatal-Perinatal Public Health Program at Texas Children’s Hospital, both in Houston.

Dr. Guillory previously served as the Texas State prematurity campaign director for the March of Dimes. At the time of our interview, Dr. Guillory was on call at the Level 4 neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) at Texas Children’s and would be for the next 6 weeks.

Level 4 NICUs provide the greatest level of care for premature and critically ill babies. This is where the smallest babies, those born before 32 weeks and weighing less than 1,500 grams, are looked after.

Dr. Guillory gave MNT some background information on prematurity and the known risk factors. She also explained how the care of premature babies had changed during her career and how her unit and the families she is working with have coped during the COVID-19 pandemic.

We spoke about the babies’ long-term outlook, how she talks to parents, and what support family and friends can offer.

Dr. Guillory also discussed how the social determinants of health affect prematurity and what public health measures she has developed to address these.

We have lightly edited the interview transcript for clarity.

Premature births are on the rise

MNT: What exactly do healthcare professionals mean when they say that a baby is premature?

Dr. Guillory: According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), preterm birth is the delivery of an infant before completion of 37 weeks gestation.

There are three categories of preterm births: Late preterm infants are born between 34 weeks and 36 weeks and 6 days of gestation, moderate preterm infants are born between 32 and 33 weeks gestation, and very preterm births are born at less than 32 weeks gestation.

In 2019, preterm birth affected 1 of every 10 infants born in the U.S., and this is kind of frightening.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)Trusted Source, the rate of premature births decreased from 2007 to 2014. Their researchTrusted Source shows that this is likely due to lower numbers of births to teens and young mothers.

The CDC explains that in 2019, the rate of preterm birth among African American women was 14.4%. This is [nearly] 50% higher than the rate of preterm birth among white women, where it is 9.3%, and Hispanic women, where it is 10%.

I’m really worried about what’s gonna happen.

MNT: Are there any specific risk factors? Who is more likely to have a premature baby?

Dr. Guillory: There are specific risk factors for preterm birth, including sociodemographic and obstetric factors.

These include maternal reproductive factors, such as a history of preterm birth and maternal age. A U-shaped relationship exists between maternal age and the frequency of preterm birth. Women under 16 and those above 35 have a 2-4% higher rate of preterm birth than those between 21 and 24 years.

Maternal health is also important. We look at infection, anemia, hypertension, preeclampsia, eclampsia, cardiovascular and pulmonary disorders, and diabetes.

Then there are maternal lifestyle issues, such as physical activity, history of substance abuse or smoking, diet, weight, and stress.

There are also specific issues, such as cervical, uterine, and placental factors, including a short cervix, cervical surgery, uterine malformations, vaginal bleeding, and placenta previa or abruption.

Multiple gestation, so having more than one baby, is another risk factor.

And finally, fetal factors, such as the presence of congenital anomalies, growth restriction, fetal infections, and fetal distress, can play a role.

Lack of prenatal care

MNT: What do you think is behind this rise in prematurity rates?

Dr. Guillory: I think it’s multifactorial. The social determinants of health are beginning to play a major role, [particularly] access to healthcare, especially with the dismantling of the [Affordable Care Act (ACA)]. We have a lot more people who are not insured.

Access to healthcare [is] a big problem for our mothers. And without that care, especially the prenatal care aspect of it, we’re going to see more premature babies.

Actually, I was looking at the data, and about 60% of our African American moms are not getting prenatal care in the first trimester. We had a baby [here] the other day, and mom had not had any prenatal care.

[Also,] we didn’t expand Medicaid. We had opportunities to expand Medicaid, and in Texas, Medicaid pays for 50% of deliveries.

We also have older moms. [We know that with age, we see an] increased number of premature births. We have moms who are working under stress because they need insurance. So all of this [leads to] increased rates [of prematurity].

With assisted reproductive technology, we have more triplets. Twins, triplets, multiple gestations, that all [adds to] the number of premature births.

MNT: It seems very counterintuitive not to have prenatal care.

Dr. Guillory: Exactly! If you want a healthy nation: we always knew that infant mortality was the best barometer for measuring how well a nation is doing.

We know that premature babies have the highest morbidity and mortality, particularly those born at less than 32 weeks gestation.

‘Expertise in these little guys‘

MNT: How has the care of premature babies changed during your career?

Dr. Guillory: The biggest challenge initially was survival, mostly from respiratory distress syndrome.

Improvements in the NICUs with the advent of surfactant treatment and antenatal steroid therapy to prevent and treat neonatal respiratory distress resulted in decreased mortality rates of premature infants.

Now, we focus on other things, using a more active management approach to sepsis, necrotizing enterocolitis, etc. With the discovery of the benefits of [breast] milk, survival has improved significantly.

Today, we don’t just want to improve the survival of infants, but we want to focus on improving long-term developmental outcomes.

MNT: Can you tell us a little bit more about how the focus has changed?

Dr. Guillory: There are two aspects to this. One before birth and one after. I [will talk] about the prenatal aspects first and our [obstetrician] partners and our maternal-fetal medicine [partners.]

[Prenatally], those [who are at increased risk of having a premature baby] should not just be taken care of by OB/GYNs. They should be taken care of by maternal-fetal medicine doctors, as these are high risk pregnancies.

These doctors deal with antibiotics for mothers with group B strep; they deal with antenatal steroids and delayed cord clamping. We know [that] if you allow more blood to reach the baby, it causes the blood pressure to stabilize. This decreases the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis and intraventricular hemorrhage.

What has changed is now when the babies come to us, not only do we have [better ways] to decrease respiratory distress syndrome, we have a small baby team or small baby group.

[This team] takes care of these babies specifically. So, not only are there trained neonatologists and neonatal practitioners, but we also have respiratory therapists and nurses at the bedside. We have a team that takes care of the small babies.

When I was first a neonatologist, what we did back then, we wanted babies to survive. Everything was [focused] on getting them to survive. Nobody was talking about survival intact.

Gradually, we got rid of the respiratory distress syndrome, and then [we started to focus on the next set] of complications in the premature baby group.

Premature babies have a high incidence of respiratory distress syndrome, necrotizing enterocolitis, intraventricular hemorrhage, and sepsis. Beyond 32 weeks of gestation, these go down. But before 32 weeks, the incidence is high.

The small baby group works specifically on things such as necrotizing enterocolitis. We know that necrotizing enterocolitis is better when mom’s milk is being used in the NICU. We then had donor milk come into play.

[In the past,] we used to give [a lot of] antibiotics to rule out sepsis. We now have an organized approach to infection. We use specific antibiotic therapy; we don’t keep [babies] on it very long. If the [microbial] cultures come back positive, we [can be] very specific with this.

All to decrease antibiotic resistance. I call it antibiotics stewardship.

Delayed cord clamping helps with intraventricular hemorrhage. Plus, getting babies delivered where they should be delivered so we don’t have to transport them, which increases the risk of intraventricular hemorrhage.

So, there is a shift where providers and the team develop expertise in caring for the small babies.

Source: Medical News Today

Climate change and toxic pollution: Which countries are most at risk?

 

• Humanity has produced significant amounts of both toxic and nontoxic pollution.
• Toxic pollution, such as fine particulate matter, directly harms human health.
• Nontoxic pollution contributes to global heating, which consequently damages human health due to the negative effects of climate change.
• Toxic and nontoxic pollution can exacerbate one another.
• The present study shows a “strong correlation” between toxic and nontoxic pollution in specific countries.
• The study also highlights a list of 10 countries that are most at risk of climate change and toxic pollution.

In a new study, researchers have demonstrated a “strong correlation” between toxic pollution, which directly damages human health, and nontoxic pollution, which contributes to global heating and climate change.

In the study, published in the journal PLOS ONE, the researchers identified countries that the international community can effectively support to reduce the negative effects of both types of pollution.

The researchers also identified countries that will require support to “address governance challenges in order to have a chance at successfully addressing pollution risk,” says Dr. Richard Marcantonio from the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame, IN, and his study co-authors.

Pollution and global heating

Human pollution has had a profound negative effect on ecologies across the world. This pollution originates from toxic emissions — such as fine particulate matter, or PM2.5 — and nontoxic emissions, such as greenhouse gasses.

Over the past few centuries, humans have released more greenhouse gasses, such as carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere, increasing the Earth’s temperature and contributing to climate change.

Researchers have shown that climate change poses a significant threat to human health, and believe that some of the negative ecological and human health effects of climate change are irreversible.

Scientists are concerned that tipping points, which may soon be crossed, cause “self-reinforcing feedbacks” in global heating, according to Prof. Will Steffen, a climate change expert and emeritus professor at the Australian National University in Canberra, Australia, and his co-authors. This would limit humanity’s ability to collectively respond to the climate crisis.

Toxic pollution, such as fine particulate matter, is also a major health issue.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), fine particulate matter has been linked to many serious health problems, primarily respiratory and cardiovascular conditions. The EPA also notes that fine particulate matter can damage rivers, lakes, coastal waters, soil, and forests.

Researchers have shown that toxic and nontoxic pollution are not separate issues, as they can reinforce one another. However, some scientists have suggested that more research is needed to understand this relationship and to determine what the appropriate response to mitigate the health effects of toxic and nontoxic pollution should be.

Further, as the researchers behind the present study observe, there has been little research exploring the correlation between the location of toxic pollution exposure and the location of climate change vulnerability.

Determining this correlation could be important, as it may help the international community identify countries that could be most effectively supported to respond to both toxic and nontoxic pollution.

Data covering 176 countries

To determine the correlation between the location of toxic pollution exposure and climate vulnerability, the researchers of the present study analyzed data from three sources:

• the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative Country Index, which measures a country’s vulnerability to climate change-related harm
• the Yale Environmental Performance Index, which measures the environmental health of a country
• the Global Alliance on Health and Pollution, which estimates mortality due to toxic pollution

The data included 176 countries and covered the year 2018 — the most recent year all the datasets had information that included all the countries.

‘Strong correlation’

The researchers found a “strong correlation” between a country’s vulnerability to climate change and its population’s exposure to toxic pollution.

This finding confirms the researchers’ hypothesis and is backed up by previous research that has shown that the negative effects of climate change and exposure to toxic pollution disproportionately affect the world’s poorest countries.

Speaking to Medical News Today, Prof. Philip J. Landrigan, director of the Global Observatory on Pollution and Health at the Schiller Institute for Integrated Science and Society, Boston College, who was not involved in the research, said that fossil fuel combustion “is the major source of […] the greenhouse gas that [drives] climate change and [is also] responsible for 85% of airborne particulate pollution and for almost all pollution by oxides of sulphur and nitrogen.”

“Thus, it is logical that the health effects of both these two problems should fall disproportionately […] on the same populations.”

Target list

The researchers’ findings enabled them to determine which countries are most at risk of toxic pollution and climate change-related harm.

The researchers were also able to produce a top 10 “target list” to identify countries that are in the best position to protect themselves against the risks of toxic pollution and climate change with support from the international community. These countries are:

• Singapore
• Rwanda
• China
• India
• Solomon Islands
• Bhutan
• Botswana
• Georgia
• South Korea
• Thailand

The list also identifies which countries would not be able to respond to these risks even with international support. The researchers note this can be due to a number of factors, including an inability to enforce environmental standards, the exploitation of this by external businesses, and specific geographical issues.

As an example, the researchers highlight the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The DRC is exposed to fine particulate matter from both the Sahara desert and from transport in urban areas. It also contains many national and international mining businesses that contribute to the pollution of its waterways and may be damaging people’s health.

Moreover, global heating and increased rain disrupt farming, which increases the risk of malnutrition and the prevalence of diseases.

For the researchers, rather than primarily supporting countries such as the DRC to mitigate the negative effects of toxic pollution and climate change, the international community needs to first help alleviate issues of structural inequality, poverty, corruption, and the exploitation of lax environmental standards. These issues make it more difficult to mount a direct response to toxic pollution and climate change.

The researchers found, however, that countries such as China and India, which are two of the countries in the top five highest target list, are not only vulnerable to climate change and toxic pollution but also well placed to respond to these issues with the support of the international community.

Speaking with MNT, Dr. Marcantonio said that the nature of toxic and nontoxic pollution from greenhouse gasses also affects the type of response that the international community should offer.

“The target list weights ‘readiness’ and interacts that value with the combined climate vulnerability and toxic pollution risk. So the countries on the bottom of the list tend to have low readiness and high vulnerability/toxic exposure.”

“One key difference between these variables is that toxic pollution and readiness are endogenous to each country on average, whereas several factors driving climate vulnerability are exogenous — [that is], the countries have no control over them, because they are driven by global ecosystem changes driven by the [greenhouse gas] emissions of all countries.”

“So, [reducing] toxic pollution tends to be more of a domestic/national policy program, whereas [reducing] many aspects of climate vulnerability require[s] international coordination, [such as the] Paris climate accords.”

Source: Medical News Today

5 top tips for self-care in a pandemic-exhausted world

 Some countries are lifting pandemic restrictions, while others are instating snap lockdowns amid fresh outbreaks of COVID-19. We are living in stressful, confusing times, and it is now perhaps more important than ever to look after ourselves as much as possible. Read on for some top self-care tips from Medical News Today and our trusted experts.

As the pandemic continues for a second year, some countries, such as the United Kingdom and the United States, have partially eased their restrictions in a bid to give the local economy and citizen morale a boost.

Other countries, however, such as Australia and Singapore, are reinstating local lockdowns or retightening restrictions amid rising numbers of new COVID-19 cases caused by emerging variants of SARS-CoV-2.

There is no doubt that, around the world, people are feeling the impact of having to negotiate life in an ongoing pandemic as SARS-CoV-2 infection numbers keep on waxing and waning.

Right now, investing in self-care is perhaps more important than ever, both for individual well-being and for the sake of our social health.

So what can you do to make sure you look after yourself and prioritize your own wellness at this confusing time? Read on for an overview of MNT’s top tips and advice gleaned from peer-reviewed studies and experts in their field over the years.

Business neurolinguistic programming practitioner and mental health trainer Tania Diggory, founder and director of Calmer, and environmental psychologist and well-being consultant Lee Chambers, founder of Essentialise, also weigh in.

1. Set clear boundaries between ‘work’ and ‘home’

Although restrictions have eased in some countries, many people continue to work from home in a bid to stay safe and keep others safe or because a work-from-home setting allows them to accommodate care duties for family members.

While such arrangements may allow for more flexibility in scheduling both work- and home-related duties into one’s day, they also mean that the boundaries between work time and private time become blurred.

This could easily lead to burnout, an experience of chronic stress and fatigue that can have long-term effects on well-being and productivity.

It could also result in a phenomenon dubbed “revenge bedtime procrastination,” in which a person delays their bedtime even when they are very tired so that they get a chance to enjoy some private leisure time.

That is why it is vital to set clear boundaries, experts say. If possible, people should designate a specific room or space within a room for work only.

This can help separate the “office” area from the rest of a person’s home within their own mind. Thus, at the end of the workday, simply stepping out of that designated workspace can help a person “switch off” their “work mode.”

Scheduling in strict breaks for meals and recharge time can also help offset stress and help a person maintain a general sense of well-being.

Additionally, setting aside a few minutes at the start and at the end of the workday to do something different — such as going for a run or a walk — might help simulate a work commute, thus clearly separating “work time” and “home time.”

2. Get in the right mindset for the day ahead

According to Tania Diggory, one way to prioritize self-care in these uncertain times is to set the intention to do things that we enjoy at the start of every day.

“Self-care comes in many forms, not just in the things we do and make time for — such as reading, cooking, meditation, or exercise, to name a few — but it’s also about mindset,” Diggory told MNT.

“StudiesTrusted Source have shown that taking micro-breaks in the day for reflection and self-compassion can reduce stress and depression and enable greater attention and focus — attributes that are incredibly important to nurture during this time of change and uncertainty,” she noted.

Some researchers have also suggested that we dress in work-specific outfits to get in the right mindset for work. This is a concept known as “enclothed cognition,” in which we use our clothes as a tool to put us in the right mindset for the experience we want to have — in this case, to help us feel ready for work.

3. Ration news and social media consumption

As cases of COVID-19 keep fluctuating in countries around the world, it makes sense to want to stay informed about the local and global situation, which restrictions are in place, and what to do to maintain good health.

However, being constantly connected to our devices and being bombarded with news — particularly bad or uncertain news — can have serious effects on our mental health, relationships, and aspects of our physical well-being.

Becoming overloaded with information can also lead to news-related anxiety and contribute to concerns related to the pandemic.

Some ways to avoid this news and screen time overload include consciously rationing the amount of news that you read in a day, as well as taking breaks from checking social media.

Replacing some of the news and social media consumption with other activities, such as reading, exercising, or meditating, can also help reduce stress levels and mitigate anxiety.

Focusing on what you, as an individual, can do can also help offset the sense of anxiety created by the news cycle. That is because, as existing researchTrusted Source has suggested, altruistic actions can improve subjective well-being, give a sense of purpose in life, and consolidate the individual’s identity within their community.

Seeking out the positive news stories in what may otherwise seem like a stressful news cycle and taking time savoring those can also help

4. Make sure you have a good night’s sleep

As many studies have shown, time and again, good, restful sleep is crucial in maintaining both physical and mental health. Adults generally benefit from at least 7 hours of uninterrupted sleep, without which they are likely to experience fatigue, mood swings, and reduced focus, among other effects.

“With an increasingly dynamic world, and many of us spending periods of time in high arousal states, such as anxiety and excitement, emotional balance and cognitive flexibility play a role in ensuring we feel functionally optimistic about the future and handle uncertainty and instability we are likely to face,” Lee Chambers told MNT.

Sleep, he said, is key to achieving that state of balance, so it is important to take all the steps we can to ensure that we can rest adequately.

Some ways of making sure that you can fall asleep more easily include establishing a sleep routine that involves going to bed and waking up at the same time each day, avoiding screen time before bed, practicing mindfulness or meditation just before bed, and making sure the room is at the right temperature.

The National Sleep Foundation recommends a bedroom temperature of 60–67°F (16–19ºC).

5. Engage in the activities you like, and know your limits

“Other things I feel are beneficial [for well-being] are remembering things we have enjoyed from [before] the pandemic and not stopping doing them as we start to be able to access rituals that are opening up,” Chambers advised readers from countries where pandemic restrictions are beginning to ease.

He also mentioned that journaling could help improve our state of mental and emotional well-being.

“Journaling is a really powerful way to reflect and plan and can be helpful in processing our thoughts and inner chatter,” he said.

In fact, research has shown that expressive writing — in which we narrate events and describe how they have affected us — can help us manage and process negative emotions.

Chambers also suggested that “getting out into nature is a perfect way to find some serenity and reduce our state of arousal in a positive way, as well as moving our bodies and eating mindfully.”

Going for walks and enjoying time spent out in nature is beneficial to our physical and psychological well-being, as research has repeatedly shown.

Source: Medical News Today