As a bipartisan group of Senators seeks a regulatory path away from gun violence, “One proposal being discussed would possibly incentivize states to enact red flag laws on an individual, rather than national, basis. But for some Republicans, red flag laws are already too invasive of a regulation.” [1] Are red flag laws helpful, or more safety theater? A new study provides some useful information. I wonder if the Senators will take “the science” into account?

An immigrants tale of serendipity and finding a vital medication on a distant island
Stupidity is not monolithic; it comes in so many forms. The problem with making something “fool-proof” is that fools are so clever.
Bicyclists killed by autonomous vehicle – what the operator tells us.
What if there is no answer to gun violence?

In April, the EPA published its draft Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Toxicological Review of Formaldehyde (inhalation), a 192-page document. The publication of this document raises issues that go far beyond the health effects of formaldehyde, issues concerning science, policy, the role of our scientific agencies, and the potential overreach of government regulatory authority.  

Barry Bonds has an asterisk next to his name because he used muscle-enhancing steroids. President Clinton earned an asterisk because he used another human as a humidor. Will Smith applied for his when he slapped Chris Rock. An asterisk after your name signifies some notable exception, usually bad. I have questions.

Everyone I know is against STDs (Sexually transmitted diseases). I haven’t heard anyone say the solution is to ban sex. Instead, most health specialists advocate “safe sex.” When it comes to guns, however, this rationality is lost. We’re either categorically in favor or against, with some focusing on gun safety. So, how would you make a safer gun?

A recent study suggested that pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables could counteract some of the nutritional benefits of consuming said produce. Are the results anything to worry about? No, not even a little bit.

On Episode 5 of the Science Dispatch Podcast, ACSH contributor Dr. Barbara Billauer recounts the tragic story of the "Radium Girls," a cohort of young women who were gradually sickened and killed by occupational radium exposure in the early 20th century. Subsequent research has shown that their employers knew the girls were at risk, but denied culpability and continuously assured them that all was well.
These shocking developments changed the way we view occupational health and safety—providing the foundation for current radiation exposure standards.

No, we are not talking about the dietary emissions that your intestines create; we are talking about those emissions that are associated with making the foods we eat. We are talking about Big Meat’s crushing footprint on our atmosphere.

Every action we take, every discovery or innovation we make, has consequences, many of them unintentional. Consider artificial sweeteners (AS), developed to fulfill many needs: to reduce calories in processed foods such as soft drinks, lower glycemic indices for patients with diabetes, and aid dieters in weight loss. Now, scientific literature reports that AS, like microplastics, are emerging as trace pollutants in our waters and soils.

The effectiveness of vaccines against COVID infection has been well established. Vaccine coverage has been steadily increasing, concurrently with the spreading of the Omicron virus variant. Recent data on children in New York State provide an opportunity to examine these trends.