August 2023 – Page 6 – The Tarbabys Blog

American democracy is cracking. These forces help explain why.

Washington Post – Imperfect Union

American democracy is cracking. These forces help explain why.

Behind the sense that the political system is broken lies a collision between forces both old and new

By Dan Balz and Clara Ence Morse – August 18, 2023

In a country where the search for common ground is increasingly elusive, many Americans can agree on this: They believe the political system is broken and that it fails to represent them.

They aren’t wrong.

Faced with big and challenging problems — climate, immigration, inequality, guns, debt and deficits — government and politicians seem incapable of achieving consensus. On each of those issues, the public is split, often bitterly. But on each, there are also areas of agreement. What’s broken is the will of those in power to see past the divisions enough to reach compromise.

The Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol is both an extreme emblem of what happens when democracy stops functioning as it should and the result of relentless attacks by former president Donald Trump on the legitimacy of the election process based on lies and distortions, a continuing threat to U.S. democracy.

In more routine ways, the political system feeds frustration and discontent with its incapacity to respond to the public’s needs. There is little on the horizon to suggest solutions.

The failure has multiple origins,including a collapse of trust in institutions. But one of the most significant is a collision between forces both old and new.

The old dates to the writing of the Constitution — debates and compromises that resulted in representation in the House based on population and in the Senatebased on equal standing forthe states; the odd system by which we elect presidents; and lifetime appointments for Supreme Court justices. In general, the founders often distrusted the masses and sought to create structural protections against them.

The newer element, which has gathered strength in recent decades, is the deepening polarization of the political system. Various factors have caused this:shifts within the two parties that have enlarged the ideological gap between them;geographic sorting that haswidened the differences between red and blue states; a growing urban-rural divide; and greater hostility among individuals toward political opponents.

The result is that today, a minority of the population can exercise outsize influence on policies and leadership, leading many Americans increasingly to feel that the government is a captive of minority rule.

Twice in the past two decades, the president was elected while losing the popular vote —George W. Bush in 2000 and Trump in 2016. That had happened only three times in the previous 200-plus years. The dynamic extends beyond the presidency to the other two branches of government.

A new Washington Post analysis found that four of the nine current justices on the Supreme Court were confirmed by senators who represent a minority of the U.S. population. Since 1998, Republicans have had a majority in the Senate a total of 12 years but did not during that time represent more than half the nation’s population, The Post’s analysis of population data and Senate composition shows.

The Post also found that during Trump’s presidency, 43 percent of all judicial and governmental nominees were confirmed by senators representing a minority of the population. Under President Biden, not quite 5 percent of nominees were confirmed by senators representing a minority of the population.

The state of democracy is not uniformly negative. In moments of crisis especially, elected officials have found common ground. At times, government action does reflect the public will. Under Trump, bipartisan congressional majorities passed and the president signed multiple rounds of relief during the covid-19 pandemic. Biden and Congress came together to pass a major infrastructure package in 2021. Last year, there was bipartisan agreement on legislation to spur production of semiconductor chips in the United States.

At times, protection of minorities and their rights from the will of the majority is needed and necessary. Checks and balances afford further protections that nonetheless can seem to hamstring government’s ability to function effectively. But on balance, the situation now is dire. Americans are more dissatisfied with their government than are citizens in almost every other democracy, according to polling.

Henry Brady, professor of political science and public policy at the University of California at Berkeley, has been studying these issues for many years. As he surveys the current state of the United States’ democracy, he comes away deeply pessimistic. “I’m terrified,” he said. “I think we are in bad shape, and I don’t know a way out.”

This is the first in a series of reports examining what is fueling the visceral feeling many Americans have that their government does not represent them. Alongside debates over specific policies, the overall state of democracy roils the national discussion. Heading into the 2024 presidential election, this issue is likely to be a critical factor for many voters.

Distrust in government

Trust in the federal government began to decline during the Vietnam War in the 1960s and then took a big hit amid the Watergate scandal in the early 1970s. There have been occasional rebounds — after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, or during the late 1990s when the economy was doing well. But for the past two decades — through good economic times and bad — mistrust has been persistent.

Individual institutions have suffered as well. Of late it is the Supreme Court’s reputation has been damaged due to rulings that have gone against popular opinion and a heightened sense that the court has become politicized. For Congress, the decline has been ongoing for decades. Only Wall Street and television news have seen more precipitous declines in trust over the past four decades, according to calculations published by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Americans have long been skeptical of the power of the central government. Scandals and corruption over the years have added to the problem. Lately, officials have openly attacked the very institutions of which they are a part, making it even harder for thebureaucracy to function effectively. No one has done this more than Trump. Attacks on institutions have been a hallmark of his time in politics.

While there is some universality to these conditions, citizens in only a handful of democratic countries take a dimmer view of their government than Americans do of theirs.

Polarization

For much of the United States’ history, the constitutional system created by the founders worked reasonably well. The Civil War is an obvious exception, and other periods have tested the collective will. But overall, government generally functioned, even if not perfectly.

More recently, however, the system’s weaknesses became more apparent as tribalism shapes much of political behavior and the Republican Party has departed from its historical moorings. Trump’s impact has distorted traditional Republican conservatism and has led many Republicans to accept as reality demonstrably untrue beliefs. The best example of that is that a majority in the GOP say Biden was not legitimately elected. The hard-right wing of the Republican Party and Trump voters in particular have been resistant to compromise.

“In comparison to European countries, our constitutional system is not well suited for polarized political parties,” said Nathaniel Persily, a law professor at Stanford Law School.

Election of presidents

The Constitution created an unusual mechanism for electing the president — an electoral college. It was built on assumptions that over the years have proved to be faulty.

The founders distrusted a system based on the popular vote, fearing many citizens would not be well-informed. They put power in the hands of electors. They thought the House would often end up picking the president, not anticipating the effects of what quickly became a two-party system in the United States. The rationale for the current system has been overrun by the realities of today’s politics.

“It was created because the founders couldn’t figure out what to do,” said George C. Edwards III, a political science professor at Texas A&M University and author of “Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America.” “It doesn’t work at all as the founders intended.”

During the first two centuries of the country’s history, there were only three cases in which the person elected president did not receive a majority of the popular vote, in 1824, 1876 and 1888. Now it has happened twice in a quarter century and could happen again in 2024. In both 2000, when Bush became president, and 2016, when Trump was elected, the popular vote supported the Democratic nominee, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton respectively, yet the electoral college vote went in favor of the Republican.

During the past two decades, the number of competitive states in presidential elections, where the victory margin has been five percentage points or fewer, has declined. Meanwhile, the number of states decided by margins of 15 percentage points or more has increased, based on an analysis of state-by-state results by The Post.

Because the outcome in the most competitive states can be decided by a relatively small number of votes, Republicans now have a significantly better chance of winning in the electoral college than in the popular vote. Democrats, meanwhile, roll up huge margins in deep blue states like California that give them no significant boost in the electoral college math.

Congress

In the Great Compromise among delegates to the Constitutional Convention, the House was to be divided based on population, while the Senate would give each state equal representation regardless of population.

In times past, many state delegations to the Senate were split between the two major parties. In 1982, for example, about two-dozen states had split representation. Today there are only six true splits,and those states account for about 9 percent of the U.S. population.

Republicans tend to have full control in less populated states, creating an imbalance in the number of senators they send to Washington and the percentage of the national population they represent. Even when they have recently held a majority in the Senate, they represent a minority of the population. In 2024, two of the nation’s least populous states — West Virginia and Montana — could flip control of the Senate from Democrats to Republicans, if GOP challengers prevail over Democratic incumbents.

This has had an impact especially on confirmations of judicial nominees and senior executive branch appointees. During the four years Trump was in office, nearly half of the individuals nominated for key positions were confirmed by senators representing a minority of the population. No other recent president had more than 5 percent confirmed by senators representing a minority of the population.

Through gerrymandering, population dispersion and the sorting of where people prefer to live, competition for House seats has declined.

The overwhelming majorityof districts now lean strongly either to Republicans or to Democrats. In those districts, that makes the primary election more important than the general election. Because turnout is generally concentrated among the most fervent voters in primary contests, more extreme candidates have an advantage. This has widened the ideological gap in the House, which makes compromise even more difficult.

It has also led to the kinds of dysfunction seen this year, such as the multi-ballot marathon to elect Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) as speaker, or the threats to let the government default on its debts that ultimately were avoided by an old-fashioned bit of compromise.

As the number of swing districts has declined, another phenomenon has become evident: Even in open-seat races, which historically have been more contested than those involving incumbents, the number of landslide victories by members of both major parties has increased dramatically.

The Supreme Court

Democrats have won the popular vote in seven of the last nine presidential elections. But during that time, Republican presidents have nominated six of the nine current members of the Supreme Court. Four of the nine justices, including the three nominated by Trump, were confirmed by senators representing a minority of the population.

The percentage of Americans represented by senators voting to confirm justices has been decreasing over the past half century. Now that justices can be confirmed with a simple majority vote, rather than a supermajority, the phenomenon of confirmation by a majority of senators representing a minority of citizens has become common place when Republicans hold the Senate majority.

State legislatures

In Washington, political divisions have led to gridlock and inaction on many issues. In the states, the opposite has occurred because states have increasingly become either mostly red or mostly blue.

In just two states is the legislature split between Republicans and Democrats. In more than half of the states, the dominant party enjoys a supermajority, which means they can override vetoes by a governor of a different party or generally have their will on legislation.

Similarly, full control of state government — the legislature and the governor’s office — is the rule rather than the exception. Today 39 states fit this definition. The result is a sharper and sharper divergence in the public policy agendas of the states.

The dominant party has been able to move aggressively to enact its governing priorities. That has meant tight restrictions on abortion in Republican states and few or no restrictions in blue states; it’s meant challenges to LGBTQ rights in red states and affirmation of those rights in blue states.

These divisions have made it possible for the dominant party to govern with little regard to the interests of those with allegiance to the minority party and often little accountability as well. The result is two Americas with competing agendas and values.

Public opinion vs. public policy

The gap between public policy and public opinion is one major consequence of today’s frozen federal government. Three of the most talked about issues reflect that: abortion, guns and immigration.

On abortion, most Americans oppose last year’s Supreme Courtdecision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which ended the constitutional right to abortion. On guns, big majorities favor individual proposals to tighten laws, but the gun lobby remains powerful enough to block action.

On immigration, there has been a majority for some years favoring tougher border controls along with a path to citizenship, with some penalties, for the millions of undocumented immigrants living here. Every effort to deal with this in Congress over the past two decades has failed, including attempts to resolve the plight of people brought here illegally as children, known as “dreamers.”

The Constitution

One way to deal with some of the structural issues — the electoral college, a Senate where a minority of the population can elect a majority of members or the lifetime appointments for Supreme Court justices — would be by amending the Constitution. But the U.S. Constitution, though written to be amended, has proved to be virtually impossible to change. Nor is there cross-party agreement on what ails the system. Many conservatives are satisfied with the status quo and say liberals want to change the rules for purely partisan reasons.

It was the drafters of state constitutions who saw the need for amending such documents. Over the history of the country, state constitutions have been amended thousands of times — more than half of all those proposed. But while there have been about 12,000 proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Congress has submitted just 33 to the states, of which 27 have been ratified.

The last amendment was approved in 1992, and that was a provision that had been proposed along with others that became the Bill of Rights. In reality, it has been half a century since a contemporary amendment has been ratified. Given the political conditions in the country, the prospect of two-thirds of both the House and Senate voting to propose an amendment and then three-fourths of the states ratifying it seems extremely unlikely.

To remain a living document, the Constitution needs to be adaptable to changing times, perspectives and conditions. The alternative to amending the Constitution is through judicial interpretation by the Supreme Court. Today the court is dominated by “originalists” who interpret the document through a strict reading of the words and timesin which it was written — long a goal of conservatives. But the America of 2023 is not the America of the framers of the Constitution in the late 18th century, a time when enslaved people were counted as three-fifths of a person and women did not have the right to vote.

Not all countries have written constitutions — Britain, for example. But the amendment process when functioning effectively is “a mechanism to peaceful revolution,” said historian Jill Lepore, who directs the Amendments Project at Harvard University. So there is value to a written constitution, but only if it can be changed.

“The danger,” Lepore said, “is that it becomes brittle and fixed — and then the only way to change your system of government or to reform a part of it is through an insurrection.”

About this project

In the analysis of population data and Senate composition, The Post’s count of senators in each year represents the composition of the Senate on Jan. 31 of that year, with two exceptions: Al Franken is counted in the 2009 Senate and Norris Cotton is counted in the 1975 Senate. In the analysis of confirmations over time, The Post examined all Senate roll call votes with a result of “confirmed.” For all senators who voted to confirm a given nominee, The Post calculated the percent of Americans from the states of those senators that year, with each senator representing half of their state population. Many nominees to various positions were confirmed with a voice vote or through a unanimous consent agreement; these confirmations are not reflected in this data. In the analysis of House elections, The Post determined open House races using several sources, including FEC and MIT elections results data.

Reporting by Dan Balz and Clara Ence Morse. Editing by Griff Witte. Copy editing by Mina Hag. Project editing by KC Schaper. Design and development by Courtney Beesch and Tyler Remmel. Design editing by Betty Chavarria. Illustrations by Courtney Beesch with images from iStock. Topper animation by Emma Kumer. Photo editing by Christine T. Nguyen. Graphics by Clara Ence Morse and Hanna Zakharenko. Graphics editing by Kevin Uhrmacher. Data editing by Anu Narayanswamy. Visual enterprise editing by Sarah Frostenson. Research provided by Monika Mathur. Additional editing, production and support by Philip Rucker, Peter Wallsten, Jenna Johnson and Tom Justice.

This is the best exercise to lower blood pressure, study finds

Today

This is the best exercise to lower blood pressure, study finds

A. Pawlowski – August 18, 2023

High blood pressure is known as the “silent killer” because it often comes with no symptoms and puts people at a higher risk of heart disease.

Exercise can lower blood pressure without medication, so experts have been urging doctors to prescribe it for people with hypertension, which is defined at or above 130/80 mmHg.

But what kind of exercise is best?

A recent review of studies suggests it’s isometric exercise, particularly the wall squat.

Two people doing wall sits together. (FilippoBacci / Getty Images)

Unlike walking or running, which is all about movement, isometric exercise involves contracting muscles and holding that position for a few minutes without moving. It’s static, but very intense. Think of a plank.

The paper, published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, found all types of physical activity — including aerobic exercise, resistance training and high-intensity interval training — were “significantly effective” in reducing resting blood pressure.

But isometric exercise was the most effective. It reduced systolic blood pressure (the upper number of the reading) by 8 points and diastolic blood pressure (the lower number) by 4 points, the authors write.

The findings are based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of 270 randomized controlled trials that involved more than 15,000 participants and looked at the effects of various modes of exercise on resting blood pressure.

It’s not clear why isometric exercises are so effective, but it appears to be linked to the unique physiological response to a static muscle contraction, says Jamie Edwards, the lead study author.

“When holding this contraction, the local blood vessels in the surrounding area become mechanically compressed by the contracting muscles,” Edwards, a researcher and instructor at Canterbury Christ Church University in England, tells TODAY.com.

“On release of this contraction — for example, when you stand up from a squatting position — there is a reactive rush of blood flow to the vessels, which causes the release of molecules that (widen) your vessels.”

How to do a wall squat:

The wall squat was the most effective individual exercise in the isometric category, Edwards and his colleagues found.

It’s simple, but incredibly intense. Stephanie Mansour, a certified personal trainer, instructs people to lean against a wall with feet hip-width apart and slide down into a squat. Feet should be far enough from the wall so that the knee joints can form a 90-degree angle, with thighs parallel to the floor.

Edwards suggested doing four wall squats lasting 2 minutes each, separated by rest intervals of 1 to 4 minutes. This should be done three times per week. Keep breathing normally throughout an isometric contraction, he advises.

It’s likely that repeating this pattern over several weeks results in sustained reductions in blood pressure, Edwards notes.

Cardiologist’s take

Dr. Luke Laffin, co-director of the Center for Blood Pressure Disorders at the Cleveland Clinic, says there’s no question people need to exercise to manage their blood pressure.

But the ultimate goal is to reduce the risk for strokes and heart attacks, and study after study has shown aerobic physical activity — like walking, cycling or running — is better than isometric exercise when it comes to lowering cardiovascular risk, he notes.

“Aerobic exercise training should be promoted above all else,” Laffin tells TODAY.com.

He recommends at least 150 minutes of moderate intensity aerobic physical activity per week, split most any way people want. Studies show “weekend warriors” who squeeze all their exercise into two days get similar health benefits as people who do more frequent shorter workouts.

Moderate intensity activity means you can carry on a conversation while you’re doing it, Laffin says.

Different types of exercise can offer different benefits, so a combination of cardio, resistance training and high-intensity interval training can be best, with isometric exercise considered complimentary to those workouts, both Laffin and Edwards say.

Who should avoid isometric exercise?

People with aortic aneurysms or history of aortic dissection should avoid it, Laffin says. Women make up most cases of spontaneous coronary artery dissection — a tear or a bleed within the layers of a heart artery wall.

Isometric exercise produces a sudden acute load on the aorta, which can lead to further damage, Laffin warns.

How long does it take to lower blood pressure with exercise?

Exercise has been associated with “immediate significant reductions” in systolic blood pressure (the upper number of the reading), which can last for almost 24 hours, studies have found. This is known as post-exercise hypotension.

The body releases nitric oxide, which causes blood vessels to open wider for improved blood flow, Laffin says.

A sustained change would take about three months of regular exercise, Bethany Barone Gibbs, a vascular researcher who studies the prevention and treatment of cardiometabolic disease, previously told TODAY.com.

What home buyers need to know about soaring mortgage rates

The Washington Post

What home buyers need to know about soaring mortgage rates

Aaron Gregg, The Washington Post – August 18, 2023

A for sale sign stands outside a single-family residence on the market Sunday, June 18, 2023, in Denver. On Thursday, the National Association of Realtors reports on sales of existing homes in May. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski) (ASSOCIATED PRESS)

It’s getting even harder to buy a home.

The average mortgage rate recently hit a 21-year record of 7.09 percent, according to Freddie Mac, significantly increasing the cost of acquiring a home for all but the most cash-rich buyers. That’s more than double the rate of a few years ago.

Here’s what to know about rising mortgage rates and the effect on home buyers.

Why are mortgage rates so high?

Mortgages have become more expensive because of the Federal Reserve’s campaign to get inflation under control.

The U.S. central bank has repeatedly raised the federal funds rate – the interest rate at which banks lend each other money – to increase borrowing costs for everyday people and businesses. More expensive debt, the reasoning goes, means less spending and that should gradually slow the rise in prices.

To a large extent, it has worked: The annual rate of inflation stood at 3.2 percent in July, far lower than last summer’s peak of 9.1 percent.

Mortgage rates tend to move in the same direction as the federal funds rate, although lenders’ efforts to manage risk and expectations for future inflation also play a role.

How does this impact affordability?

Individuals buying houses typically get mortgages, which are loans for the purchase of a home. Home mortgages usually have terms that last 10 to 30 years.

Because mortgages cover such a massively expensive purchase over a loan period that can span a generation, even small differences in the interest rate can make a huge difference in what the homeowner has to pay every month.

Let’s say a home is being bought for $250,000 with a 20 percent down payment. Holding all else equal, the difference in monthly payment from a 3 percent interest rate and a 7 percent rate comes out to more than $500 a month, according to a Washington Post mortgage calculator.

Has this happened before?

Joe Gyourko, who studies the housing market at University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business, recalls when he and his wife bought a house in the early 1990s. Then, as today, the typical mortgage rate was close to 7 percent.

But housing prices have risen precipitously since then, and most people’s incomes have not kept up.

“It’s easy for an old-timer like me to say, ‘Ah, I remember rates like these,'” Gyourko said. “But prices were lower relative to income than they are today, particularly in the coastal markets.”

Rates could be even worse, one analyst said. Mortgage rates climbed throughout the 1970s and reached more than 18 percent in the early ’80s before declining.

“High rates are challenging for home buyers, but it’s worth noting that Americans bought homes before the recent era of super-low rates,” said Jeff Ostrowski, analyst at Bankrate.

How long will rates stay high?

“That is the million-dollar question,” said Jessica Lautz, deputy chief economist at the National Association of Realtors.

Experts say it’s hard to predict what path mortgage rates will take moving forward, but they will depend to a large extent on what happens with inflation and how the Fed responds.

Inflation has cooled significantly but still hasn’t reached the Fed’s goal of 2 percent. Fed chairman Jerome H. Powell has made clear that there is more work ahead to snuff out inflation altogether, even after last month’s 0.25 percent rate hike. Fed officials don’t know precisely when they will raise rates again, or how long they will hold at the current level.

Does it make sense to buy now and refinance later?

Some real estate professionals have been using the phrase “marry the house, date the rate,” to describe one possible homebuying strategy for today’s market.

The strategy entails buying a house at an unfavorable rate with the hope of refinancing at a later date, allowing the home buyer to capitalize on rising home prices while pivoting to the best mortgage deal available at a given point in time. It can also benefit lenders – they collect fees with each refinancing.

Experts caution that no one knows when rates will fall. Buyers could be stuck with an unfavorable mortgage for years, warns Wharton’s Gyourko.

“The problem is you need to at least be prepared to also marry the rate,” Gyourko said.

How can I keep my rate as low as possible?

There are a number of strategies home buyers can employ to lower their interest rate, although buyers will always be constrained by what lenders are willing to offer.

One way is to watch your credit score and diligently improve it over time. Credit reporting bureaus track things like the amount of debt you have, missed or late payments on credit card bills, and the length of your credit history. Your credit score can also take a hit from a “hard inquiry” that typically accompanies a loan application.

Pay off as much debt as possible before seeking a mortgage, says Lautz of the National Association of Realtors. Mortgage brokers closely examine the debt-to-income ratio on applications they receive. They tend to view debt-laden households as more risky and thus deserving of a higher rate.

Do these things, Lautz says, “and the bank will look at you as a more favorable consumer, and your mortgage will be better.”

AI tech jobs are popping up and the salaries are huge

Yahoo! Finance

AI tech jobs are popping up and the salaries are huge

Diane King Hall, Anchor – August 18, 2023

Are AI job wages of up to $900,000 justified?

Streaming platform Netflix (NFLX) is sharing artificial intelligence job postings offering salaries of up to $900,000. NYU Professor Vasant Dhar sits down with Yahoo Finance Live’s Diane King Hall to discuss whether these AI jobs wages are wholly justified amid widespread artificial intelligence adoption and current labor market conditions. “Assuming [these companies] get some clarity around what AI really means for their business, these numbers are justified,” Dhar states. “Now, the trouble is that there’s a high variance in people’s abilities and skills to actually translate something into real sort of money, business profits.” Inversely, companies have sought value and efficiency through the adoption of AI models this year, resulting in layoffs and projected downsizing. “We should not conflate the ability of the computer to speak well with knowledge,” Dhar says, adding: “The thing to keep in mind is that these pre-trained models make it easy to build applications really quickly, but they’ll inherit the limitations of these models.”

The AI boom is trickling into the job market, and the pay is good, if you can get it.

Netflix recently posted a position paying as much as $900,000 for someone with extensive experience working with machine learning platforms. (The posting appeared to be taken down after a little too much press, but one with a similarly high range is still visible if you search AI.)

It’s not the only high-paying job in generative AI. Nvidia has postings paying in the $400,000 range. Meta, Microsoft, and Alphabet’s Google also have positions with lucrative salaries advertised.

“AI is the new Wall Street,” NYU Professor Vasant Dhar says. “Now it is Big Tech that is making big money, these are the new cash machines. It is all about intelligence, the future is all about intelligence. There isn’t enough supply of really good people.”

With the six-figure jobs piling up, AI might not be the jobs destroyer that some thought, at least for certain skilled professions.

And as Netflix hires AI positions paying nearly a million dollars, its writers remain on strike — in part due to issues surrounding generative AI.

SAG-AFTRA actors and Writers Guild of America (WGA) writers walk the picket line during their ongoing strike outside Sunset Bronson studios and Netflix offices in Los Angeles, California, U.S., August 11, 2023. — SAG-AFTRA actors and Writers Guild of America (WGA) writers walk the picket line during their ongoing strike outside Sunset Bronson studios and Netflix offices in Los Angeles, California, U.S., Aug. 11, 2023. (Mario Anzuoni/REUTERS)

The challenge, Dhar says, is that “there is a very high variance of ability out there. Some people are worth every penny, you can’t pay them enough, and there are people who aren’t worth it. The question is, can you tell the difference?”

If AI isn’t at the core of a company’s business, that distinction becomes even harder and more important, which gives companies already in the AI game — think Google, Nvidia, and Microsoft — a leg up.

Job market disruption

While these new lucrative jobs are popping up, AI is displacing others. A new study by Technalysis Research, “Generative AI in Enterprise,” shows that 10% of companies polled have replaced humans in roles with AI. The study also showed that another 36% of companies are expecting an impact of AI on staffing.

“The reality is, just as we have seen with any major technological innovation, there are shifts in the workplace and some roles get displaced,” said Bob O’Donnell, the president of Technalysis and analyst who conducted that research.

So why are people shaking in their boots about the impact of AI on the labor market?

O’Donnell says that the key difference now is who it’s happening to.

“It has happened in the past, but it was blue collar and now people are more concerned because of the potential impact to white collar,” he said.

The OpenAI logo in front of a computer screen displaying output from ChatGPT, Tuesday, March 21, 2023, in Boston. (Michael Dwyer/AP Photo)

Man versus machine

AI’s impact on the labor market ultimately depends on how good it is, since the early developmental jobs at Netflix and Nvidia are unlikely to move the needle for anyone but the lucky few.

Arthur AI researchers conducted a Hallucination Experiment to see just how good generative AI is at answering a slew of questions ranging from math facts and US presidents to Moroccan political leaders.

There were several cases where the bots devolved into hallucinations, instances where generative artificial intelligence delivers misinformation. GPT-4 performed the worst on the test of US presidents, but it did the best on math. Anthropic’s Claude 2 performed the best on US presidents. Meta’s Llama 2 needs work overall; researchers noted more hallucinations with its large language model compared to GPT and Claude 2.

At least for now in the battle of man versus machine, generative AI has shown itself to be imperfect, capping the pace of structural changes, at least somewhat.

These parts of California could get a year’s rain in a few days thanks to Hurricane Hilary

Los Angeles Times

These parts of California could get a year’s rain in a few days thanks to Hurricane Hilary

Grace Toohey, Hayley Smith, Rong-Gong Lin II – August 18, 2023

General view of the Medano beach before the arrival of hurricane Hilary at Los Cabos resort in Baja California state, Mexico on August 18, 2023. Hurricane Hilary strengthened into a major storm in the Pacific on Friday and was expected to further intensify before approaching Mexico's Baja California peninsula over the weekend, forecasters said. (Photo by ALFREDO ESTRELLA / AFP) (Photo by ALFREDO ESTRELLA/AFP via Getty Images) — Surf roils off Medano Beach at a Los Cabos resort in Baja California on Friday. (Alfredo Estrella / AFP via Getty Images)

Some areas of Southern California and southern Nevada could see a year’s worth of rain in the coming days as Hurricane Hilary arrives.

Historic flooding could hit a wide swath of Southern California and the Las Vegas area, especially in San Bernardino and Inyo counties, with Death Valley and the Morongo Basin expected to see the most major flooding.

Hilary is likely to have weakened to a tropical storm by the time it leaves Mexico and enters California. But officials are sounding the alarm for potential flooding.

Everyone “should prepare for the potential for significant flash flooding. This is not the time to wait to prepare; this forecast is unlikely to improve,” said the National Weather Service in Las Vegas, which also issues forecasts for Death Valley and Morongo Valley.

Some areas could even see as much as a year’s worth of rain in a 24-hour period Sunday — and if not then, over the next few days. “This will not be a constant rainfall, but rather several rounds of moderate/heavy rainfall,” from Friday through Monday, the weather service said.

“Once impacts begin in your areas, they will likely worsen as we head into next week,” forecasters said. Sometimes the rain “could be slowly compounding. Other times, it could be flash flooding. Not much time between rounds of rain for conditions to improve.”

Other desert areas are also expected to receive at least a year’s worth of rain during the storm, officials with the National Weather Service said.

Palm Springs and Yucca Valley both average 4 to 5 inches of rainfall per year, but the forecast shows a deluge of 4 to 7 inches falling between Saturday and Monday, according to Elizabeth Adams, a meteorologist with the weather service in San Diego.

“The amount of moisture we’re getting is just unbelievable,” Adams said. “The rain rates could potentially be really extreme as well — over an inch or 2 inches of rain in an hour will be possible.”

Even higher rainfall totals of 6 to 10 inches are possible along the east-facing desert slopes of the Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego County mountains, Adams said.

She advised residents in the storm’s path to monitor forecast updates and ensure they have multiple methods of receiving warnings, including wireless emergency alerts, weather apps and local TV, radio and news stations.

In Yucca Valley, officials are warning residents to take precautions and avoid unnecessary travel, as access to some local roads may be limited.

“As the ability to travel may be reduced over the next two days, residents are reminded to keep a supply of necessary provisions and medications on hand,” Yucca Valley officials said on X, formerly known as Twitter. “Be sure to bring pets inside. Never use generators, outdoor heating or cooking equipment indoors.”

The National Weather Service office in Phoenix, which issues forecasts for portions of southeastern California, said it’s likely the storm will bring “significant and rare (and potentially destructive) impacts.”

Current models show moisture anomalies that are “off the charts,” the agency wrote in its latest forecast — “and almost unbelievably more extreme than previous iterations. Essentially every standardized field measure is pegged at a climatological extreme for this time of year at multiple time scales.”

The rains expected with Hilary are rare and bring a “life-threatening” risk of flash floods from Baja California to southern Nevada.

A tropical storm watch is in effect across much of southwestern California, from the California-Mexico border into parts of Los Angeles County, something the National Hurricane Center said is a first for this area.

A watch indicates that tropical storm conditions — meaning sustained winds of more than 39 mph — are possible within 48 hours, according to the hurricane center.

‘Life-threatening flash flooding’

While high winds are creating the unusual tropical storm conditions, officials continue to emphasize that rain remains the greatest concern.

“This could [bring] rare and life-threatening flash flooding in the heaviest areas of rainfall. That is especially going to be prevalent Sunday evening through Monday morning,” said Elizabeth Adams, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in San Diego.

A high-risk warning for excessive rainfall was issued for much of inland Southern California — from the San Bernardino Mountains through the Coachella Valley and down into the Anza Borrego Desert — indicating the high probability for flash flooding Sunday and Monday.

The warning was issued for the first time in more than a decade for the low deserts east of the Southern California mountains, which are typically the drier-facing slopes, Adams said.

Rainfall is expected as early as Saturday morning for the Southland’s mountains and deserts, continuing through Monday — with eastern-facing mountains likely to see the most extreme amounts of rain, from 6 to 10 inches, and up to a foot in some isolated areas. Three to 6 inches of rain will be expected across the deserts.

Precipitation will move into the coasts and valleys, including the Inland Empire, likely by late Saturday, Adams said, where 2 to 4 inches will be expected through Monday.

According to the National Weather Service, Big Bear Lake, Julian, Idyllwild, and Mt. Laguna could get up to 7 inches of rain between Saturday and Monday. The Coachella Valley, including Palm Springs, could see up to 5 inches. Hemet, San Bernardino, Hesperia and Victorville could see up to 4 inches.

Coastal areas

High surf (5-9 feet)
Strong winds
Dangerous rip currents
Coastal flooding/beach erosion
Dangerous conditions for south- and southeast-facing harbors
Catalina Island could see hazardous winds and reduced visibility

Deserts and mountains

Intense rainfall in mountains, more than 10 inches in isolated areas
Coachella Valley could see up to 5 inches of rain
Flash flooding possible in some areas
Five to 7 inches of rain possible in Wrightwood, Big Bear and parts of Imperial County

We Just Got a Hint About Conservatives’ New Supreme Court Strategy on Abortion

Slate

We Just Got a Hint About Conservatives’ New Supreme Court Strategy on Abortion

Mary Ziegler – August 17, 2023

The Supreme Court building with clouds shaped like mifepristone. — What does this augur for the Supreme Court? Photo illustration by Slate. Photos by Robert Alexander/Getty Images and Bill Grenblatt via Getty Images.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5^th Circuit again voted to reimpose limits on the abortion pill mifepristone. If the court had its way, the clock would turn back to 2016, when patients could get mifepristone for only seven weeks of pregnancy, and only after more than one in-person visit with a physician. The ruling won’t have any immediate impact because the Supreme Court issued a stay last spring that keeps the status quo in place as litigation continues. But even if this ruling doesn’t change anything on the ground, it represents conservatives’ best guess that the Supreme Court is going to go much further than it did in Dobbs in limiting abortion at a national level—even if not necessarily in this case.

This case began when the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a group of anti-abortion doctors, set up shop in Amarillo, Texas, where a judge widely believed to be the most hostile to abortion in the country, Matthew Kacsmaryk, presides. AHM, which is represented by the Christian-right powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom, argued that the Food and Drug Administration lacked the authority to approve the pill mifepristone all the way back in 2000. Last spring, Kacsmaryk lived up to expectations, issuing a humdinger of an opinion agreeing with this claim and embracing the language of fetal personhood. Not much later, a different 5t^h Circuit panel concluded that the plaintiffs had waited too long to challenge the original approval of mifepristone, but held that the plaintiffs would probably prevail on their claims that the FDA did not have the power to lift restrictions on mifepristone in both 2016 and 2021. The Supreme Court, however, did not seem to be buying any of it. The court issued a stay that keeps the status quo in place as litigation continues.

One of the factors the court considers in issuing a stay is the plaintiffs’ probability of prevailing when the case is all said and done. Most of the justices seem to think this case is doomed.

Given the Supreme Court’s obvious skepticism, judges with more self-restraint might have let this case die. There are explosive claims made by these plaintiffs that many conservatives want the Supreme Court to take up sooner or later. AHM argues that the federal Comstock Act, a 19^th-century anti-vice law, means that the FDA did not have the authority to permit access to mifepristone via telehealth. According to the plaintiffs, that’s because mailing abortion pills is already a federal crime. In fact, if the Comstock Act is interpreted in this light, any abortion violates federal law: No procedure in the nation takes place without a drug or device going through the mail. That argument is not a slam-dunk—it ignores decades of precedent interpreting the statute far more narrowly—but ambitious anti-abortion lawyers still have big plans for Comstock. Based on what the majority of the three-person panel ruled, the 5^th Circuit could be saving this argument for a better case, as they instead ruled on procedural grounds (in a separate opinion partially concurring and dissenting from the panel majority, Trump appointee James C. Ho stated that the Comstock Act meant that it is illegal to send abortion medication via mail). The same wait-and-see game goes for claims that the FDA did not have the authority to loosen restrictions on mifepristone, or even to approve it in the first place.

But the 5^th Circuit, by ruling in part with AHM on procedural grounds, is also is placing a bet that no case is procedurally defective enough for the court that gave us Dobbs. To say the plaintiffs’ case for standing is weak is to put the matter gently. The physicians bringing the case stressed that they had treated patients for mifepristone complications in the past. Since the complication rate for mifepristone is not zero (it stands at roughly 0.3 percent), that meant that some future patients might suffer complications, and might seek care from the doctors bringing the case, and some of those doctors might suffer conscience-based injuries. If you think that sounds speculative, you aren’t wrong. The 5^th Circuit understood this problem and dedicated a whopping three-dozen pages to explaining why against all evidence, these plaintiffs do have standing.

Even the substance of the decision—which would reinstate restrictions in place in 2016—seems intended to lower the temperature, likely to try to make things more palatable for the Supreme Court. The majority refused to address the Comstock Act and steered clear of explicitly pro-life language.

Reading Judge Ho’s partial dissent makes this tactical move that much clearer. Judge Ho described mifepristone as a drug that takes the life of an unborn child. He concluded that the FDA lacked the authority to approve mifepristone in 2000 because—as abortion opponents have long argued—pregnancy is not a disease, but a normal rite of passage. He chided his colleagues for not ruling on the relevance of the Comstock Act and argued that the act does amount to a ban on mailing abortion pills. He argued that physicians treating a patient for post-abortion complications suffer an “aesthetic harm” worthy of redress.

But the differences between the two opinions are strategic, not substantive. The panel members were united in believing that no standing defect will worry this Supreme Court if it has a chance to limit access to abortion. Judge Ho is just ready to say the quiet part out loud—and to press the court to go even further, even faster. In that way, the majority’s opinion may be a snapshot of where the Supreme Court is today—on this case and abortion more broadly. Judge Ho’s opinion is a prediction about where the court is headed—if not in this case, then in the future.

Reimposing 2016 restrictions on mifepristone would have dramatic effects. But as Judge Ho’s opinion makes clear, mifepristone rules are just the beginning. If these plaintiffs have standing, it’s hard to see how conservatives raising other challenges to controversial drugs, such as those used in gender-affirming care or IVF, won’t be able to establish the same thing. And if the Comstock Act means what Judge Ho thinks it does, then a Republican president could seek to treat any abortion anywhere as a federal crime.

What does this augur for the Supreme Court? The plaintiffs’ standing arguments don’t sound any better when the 5^th Circuit makes them. From a procedural standpoint, this case is still a dud. Given this truth—and the fact that the Supreme Court already seems to have its doubts about this case—this is still unlikely to be the case that revolutionizes access to the leading abortion method nationwide.

But the judges on the 5^th Circuit understand who is on the Supreme Court, and they know that any loss is likely to be temporary. This ruling may shift the Overton window—passing off the majority opinion here as a sensible, middle-ground outcome. And if the court isn’t ready to go much further on abortion yet, that will likely change later. Judges with more self-restraint might have let this case go. But as the 5^th Circuit seems to believe that when it comes to this Supreme Court on abortion, there is no reason for self-restraint when you have nothing to lose.

Trump-Appointed Judge Cites Wildlife Cases As a Reason to Ban Abortion Pills

Jezebel

Trump-Appointed Judge Cites Wildlife Cases As a Reason to Ban Abortion Pills

Susan Rinkunas – August 17, 2023

On Wednesday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said it would restrict access to the main abortion pill, mifepristone, allowing its use only through seven weeks of pregnancy (down from the current 10) and banning telemedicine prescriptions of it. (None of the proposed changes will take effect until the Supreme Court weighs in on the case.)

But Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho—who was sworn in by Justice Clarence Thomas in GOP megadonor Harlan Crow’s library in 2018—wanted his colleagues go even further. He would have fully reversed the Food and Drug Administration approval of the abortion pill, and he used some uh, wild, reasons to support his argument. Ho wrote in his unhinged concurrence that the plaintiffs, a group of anti-abortion doctors, have standing in the case because they like looking at babies, and the FDA’s approval of the abortion pill deprives them of that right. He cites “aesthetic injury” precedent from past cases involving federal decisions that threatened wildlife and plants:

It’s….pretty close to comparing women and pregnant people to wild animals! And he kept going!

The Supreme Court has recognized that “the person who observes or works with a particular animal threatened by a federal decision is facing perceptible harm, since the very subject of his interest will no longer exist.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 566. Every circuit, including our own, has concluded that, when a federal agency authorizes third parties to harm flora or fauna that a plaintiff intends to view or study, that satisfies all of the requirements for Article III standing. …
In all of these cases, a federal agency approved some action—such as developing land or using pesticides—that threatens to destroy the animal or plant life that plaintiffs wish to enjoy. This injury is redressable by a court order holding unlawful and setting aside the agency approval.
And so too here. The FDA has approved the use of a drug that threatens to destroy the unborn children in whom Plaintiffs have an interest. And this injury is likewise redressable by a court order holding unlawful and setting aside approval of that abortifacient drug.
I see no basis for allowing Article III standing based on aesthetic injury when it comes to animals and plants—but not unborn human life.

This whole flora/fauna line of reasoning gets even creepier when you read this sentence from Ho: “Pregnancy is not a bad or unhealthy condition of the body—it’s a natural consequence of a healthy and functioning reproductive system.” It really sounds like, to him, that women are nothing more than broodmares whose function is to gestate and bring joy to others gazing at them in their habitat.

Judge Ho is an established troll. He notoriously asked during a May hearing, “Is pregnancy a serious illness? When we celebrated Mother’s Day, were we celebrating illness?” But it’s still scary to think what the Supreme Court will do with his writings in the case when they finally weigh in—right in the middle of the 2024 election. It’s also scary to think that Ho, who was on Donald Trump’s Supreme Court shortlist, could get nominated to the high court if Trump wins the presidency in 2024.

Americans Are Not Really That “Divided” About Donald Trump’s Conduct

Slate

Americans Are Not Really That “Divided” About Donald Trump’s Conduct

Ben Mathis-Lilley – August 16, 2023

Trump, wearing a white shirt and a MAGA hat, holds his hands with his palms up while in conversation with a man to his left. — Donald Trump at a golf tournament in Bedminster, New Jersey, on Aug. 13. Rich Graessle/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images

There are two buckets into which most discourse about public opinion regarding Donald Trump’s indictments can be sorted. One of those buckets is labeled “Republican primary,” and it’s where we can put the (accurate) observation that each successive indictment seems to boost Trump’s primary polling lead over Ron “I Have Never Seen a Worse Campaign or Candidate” DeSantis even further. (For what it’s worth, Semafor’s Dave Weigel is reporting that DeSantis “isn’t dead yet” in Iowa, so there’s that.)

The other bucket is labeled “divided America,” and it’s where the country’s headline-writing editors enjoy putting polls which allegedly show that the former president’s conduct divides a fretful, collectively indecisive United States along partisan lines. It’s a polarized country and we can’t agree on anything these days, on account of the polarization, yada yada—you’ve heard it all before.

On Wednesday, for instance, the Associated Press published the results of a new poll that it conducted with the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research under the headline “Americans are divided on partisan lines over Trump’s actions in election cases.”

But are they, really? While it’s true that about 50 percent of Americans will say in any given poll that they support Trump’s prosecution, and that 50 percent is only half of the country, half of people believing something does not mean that the other half believe its opposite. In August 1974, just before he resigned, only 57 percent of Americans told Gallup that Richard Nixon should be removed from office—but that does not mean that a polarized electorate was diametrically paralyzed by the question of whether Richard Nixon was a bum. (They believed that he was, and they were correct.)

So let’s look at the data in more detail. The AP asked Republicans, Democrats, and independent voters about Trump’s “alleged attempt to interfere in Georgia’s vote count in the 2020 presidential election” and his “role in what happened at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.” They were given the choice of describing his behavior as “illegal,” calling it “unethical but not illegal,” saying he did “nothing wrong,” or saying they didn’t know enough about it to answer.

Overall, about both Georgia’s vote count and “what happened at the U.S. Capitol,” 64 percent of American adults said Trump’s conduct was either illegal or unethical. And only 21 percent said he did nothing wrong in relation to Jan. 6, while 15 percent said he did nothing wrong in Georgia. If you boil things down to “what he did was bad” or “what he did was OK,” Trump is a loser by margins of 64–21 and 64–15.

Those would be pretty lopsided scores in the United States’ beloved sport of American football! And the numbers aren’t even that great for Trump among Republicans. A combined 42 percent of Republicans told the AP that Trump’s conduct in Georgia was illegal or unethical, while only 31 percent said he’d done nothing wrong. Regarding Jan. 6, 38 percent of Republicans said Trump behaved illegally or unethically, with 46 percent coming down on the side of “nothing wrong.”

To be fair, with more media exposure to the particulars of the case, it’s likely that responses on the Georgia question among Republican voters will end up matching responses on the Jan. 6 question, which is to say that a plurality of them will say Trump didn’t do anything wrong. That said, we’re talking about a narrow plurality, and another way to frame the numbers is that only a minority of Republicans themselves are to willing to say that Trump’s Jan. 6 –related behavior was appropriate. If anything, it’s the Republican Party that’s divided on this issue, not “Americans.”

There are limitations to what can be concluded from the data. The belief that Trump behaved unethically or illegally doesn’t translate directly into support for Biden, his presumed 2024 general election opponent; Trump and Biden matchups are currently more or less even. And about half of Americans, according to a recent ABC News-Ipsos poll, believe the prosecutions of Trump are “politically motivated,” which, to quote the 1996 feature film Romeo + Juliet, implies the existence of a sizable “pox on both their houses” tranche.

That said, the next time you read the phrase “Americans divided on Trump behavior,” you should mentally replace it with the phrase “Americans divided on Trump behavior like so: About half think it was criminal, a sixth or so think it was bad but not illegal, a fifth think it was fine, and the remaining [counting on fingers for 45 seconds] two-fifteenths have, blessedly, not read a news headline in decades, if ever.” Then you should go outside. Summer’s almost over!

Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they wouldn’t support Donald Trump in 2024, poll says

USA Today

Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they wouldn’t support Donald Trump in 2024, poll says

Sudiksha Kochi, USA TODAY – August 17, 2023

WASHINGTON — Nearly two-out-of-three Americans said they would probably not or definitely not support former President Donald Trump in a new poll ahead of the 2024 race for the White House.

The poll, conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, found that 53% of Americans say they would definitely not support Trump if he is the Republican nominee next year, and 11% say they probably wouldn’t support him in November 2024.

Trump was indicted on 13 counts by a grand jury in Georgia earlier this week for allegedly conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. That marks his fourth indictment of the year and comes amid his mounting legal troubles in other civil cases.

But the former president’s criminal charges may not be affecting his grip on Republican voters during the 2024 primary election.

About 63% said of Republicans said they want Trump to run in 2024, according to the polling. And 74% of Republicans said they would back Trump in November 2024.

Sarah Longwell, an anti-Trump Republican strategist, told the Associated Press that “there is a meaningful number of voters who have voted for Trump twice and can’t vote for him again after all of this.”

He has falsely attempted to cast the indictments as “politically motivated” by his rivals in Washington, including President Joe Biden.

But despite his legal troubles, Trump remains the GOP frontrunner for the Republican Party with 53% of support in the crowded field of GOP candidates, according to a polling average from RealClearPolitics. His indictments have also spurred fundraising for his campaign.

The poll of 1,165 adults was conducted from Aug. 10 to Aug. 14. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.

Contributing: Associated Press

Scientists make a startling connection between toxic ‘forever chemicals’ and our immune system: ‘If a person is exposed …’

TCD

Scientists make a startling connection between toxic ‘forever chemicals’ and our immune system: ‘If a person is exposed …’

Mike Taylor – August 17, 2023

A new study suggests per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as forever chemicals or PFAS, reduce the activity of human immune cells.

Researchers from the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research in Leipzig, Germany, showed PFAS can impair health by reducing this activity.

The study, recently published in Chemosphere, also featured a method that “could be used to reveal the immunomodulatory effects of other chemicals.”

What happened?

Dr. Gunda Herberth, an environmental immunologist, and other scientists examined the impact of PFAS on immune cells from the blood of healthy donors.

“PFAS are poorly to hardly biodegradable — and that is a real problem,” Herberth said. “They therefore accumulate in the environment — in soils and bodies of water. They can even be found in Antarctica. They can enter the human body via food, drinking water, or the air.”

Herberth went on to say, “Studies have shown that PFAS can be detected in the blood of almost everyone in the world. What this means for our long-term health is not yet known.”

In the study, the immune cells were exposed to PFAS mixtures for 20 hours and then stimulated before their activity was measured. The cells that were exposed to PFAS showed “significantly lower activity than untreated cells,” according to the study.

“The strongest effects occurred when all six PFAS were mixed,” indicating a compounding effect, Herbeth said.

Researchers documented reduced activity caused by PFAS in mucosa-associated invariant T cells and T helper cells. MAIT cells bridge innate and adaptive immunity, according to the National Institutes of Health, and T helper cells activate other immune cells, according to the Cleveland Clinic.

Why is it important?

PFAS are “water-, stain-, and grease-resistant” and “toxic at extremely low levels (i.e. parts per quadrillion),” according to the National Resources Defense Council.

A 2021 study in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health stated that PFAS were invented in the 1930s, proliferated over the next two decades, and have been linked to “high levels of serum cholesterol, thyroid dysregulation, gestational hypertension, ulcerative colitis, and some cancers.”

The study also noted children are at particular risk of health problems from exposure to PFAS, including reduced immune response after vaccinations.

“Our study clearly shows that PFAS reduce the activity of immune cells,” Herberth said. “If a person is exposed to high levels of PFAS, this is likely to be reflected in their health.”

“If the activity of MAIT cells is restricted,” Herberth added, “it is much easier for pathogens to invade the body. T-helper cells are involved in the production of antibodies. If they are inhibited by PFAS, it is likely that fewer antibodies are produced — which could explain the reduced immune response to vaccination.”

What’s being done?

Other studies have looked into how to dispose of forever chemicals, including with fungus.

In March, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed establishing a standard for PFAS in drinking water.

Herberth and fellow scientists “plan to simulate in vitro PFAS mixtures and concentrations as they occur ‘naturally’ in human blood and determine their effects on immune cells,” the study stated.

“So far, tests for immunotoxic or immunomodulatory effects are not part of the regulatory testing and assessment procedures for chemicals,” Herberth said. “However, as many diseases — from allergies to cancer — can be traced back to a dysregulated immune system, we believe this is urgently needed.”

“We hope that with our study and our new and practical testing method, we can help pave the way for this to happen,” Herberth concluded.