Lyft Trying A ‘Green Mode’ To Get More Of Its Riders Into Electric Cars

Concerns about the impact ride-hailing services are having on urban congestion and emissions are growing, so it’s not too surprising that Lyft has a new option to take on one of those issues.

The San Francisco-based company launched “Green Mode,” starting in Seattle, to let people who are concerned with tailpipe pollution request rides in electric vehicles or hybrids instead of gasoline-only models. To encourage more of its drivers to use such vehicles, Lyft is also offering rentals of Chevrolet Bolt EVs through its Express Drive program with free charging for the time being, COO Jon McNeill told Forbes.

The program will expand to California and other markets, but “it was number one on the mind of Seattle drivers and riders,” surveyed about new service options they wanted, he said. “Also because we felt like we could with the charging infrastructure within Seattle, it could be a really fun place to prove out our vision.”

The move is a chance for Lyft to experiment with ways to get more zero-emission vehicles in use ahead of a new California law that will soon require it, Uber and all major ride-hailing companies to do so. Dubbed Electrify California Ride-hailing, the rule kicks in from the early 2020s with ever larger annual targets for percentage of zero-emission vehicles used on ride-hailing platforms.

Since Lyft doesn’t own the vehicles used on its platform, it has to find incentives for drivers to use them since they cost more. That’s why it’s trying the free fuel option.

“Drivers’ biggest costs are fuel and maintenance, so at the outset an EV costs half as much to travel the same distance” as a gasoline car, McNeill said. “Cars that are rented through Express drive receive unlimited free charging.”

Green Mode rides also won’t cost more for riders, Lyft said.

In Los Angeles, where automotive emissions are among the highest in the U.S., the popularity of Lyft and Uber appear to be an added source of carbon pollution, according to a recent report by UCLA’s Daily Bruin. A study by the newspaper determined there are 11,000 short-distance Uber and Lyft rides around the West Los Angeles campus every week.

Those brief trips produce a large amount of tailpipe and carbon emissions and worsen L.A.’s air quality, the report said, citing Yifang Zhu, associate director of the Center for Clean Air and an environmental health sciences professor at UCLA.

Lyft, which expressed some hesitancy to the California EV rules last year, is now fully supportive of the goal, McNeill said.

“We too want to see EVs populate across our entire fleet.”

 

Originally published by Alan Ohnsmain in Forbes at https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2019/02/06/lyft-has-a-green-mod…

 

 

The search for environmental causes of Parkinson's disease moves forward

Scientists evaluate promising research hypotheses for understanding environmental triggers in Parkinson’s disease and propose future directions for research in the Journal of Parkinson’s Disease

IOS PRESS

Amsterdam, NL, January 31, 2019 – Environmental factors are widely believed to play a key role in the development of Parkinson’s disease (PD), but little is known about specific environmental triggers. Writing in the Journal of Parkinson’s Disease, scientists review novel research hypotheses and approaches that may help better define the role of environment in the development of PD, especially before a diagnosis can be made based on the characteristic motor dysfunction for which PD is known.

PD is a slowly progressive disorder that affects movement, muscle control, and balance. Despite recent success in unveiling the genetic basis of late-onset sporadic PD, genetic findings may only explain a small portion of cases and cannot be easily extended to disease prevention. “The greatest risk factors for PD are likely environmental and not genetic,” stated Honglei Chen, MD, PhD, of the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA, and Beate Ritz, MD, PhD, of the Departments of Epidemiology, Environmental Health Sciences, and Neurology, Fielding School of Public Health, and Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, CA, USA. “Yet we know relatively little about environmental causes or triggers of PD onset and progression. Identifying these and defining ways to reduce their impact will be great research challenges for the coming two decades.”

Late-onset sporadic PD takes decades to develop, and by the time of diagnosis, some of the neurodegenerative changes are too advanced to slow down, stop, or reverse. On the other hand, environmental factors that cause or trigger its development and modify its progression may come into play during the “prodromal phase,” decades before specific signs and symptoms develop. “This prodromal stage is of major interest for prevention efforts,” explained the authors. “Targeting factors that enter the body via the nose or gut has become even more important since the discovery that the alpha-synuclein protein-related Lewy pathology, which is characteristic of PD, was identified in the nervous systems of the olfactory pathway and the digestive tract.”

During the past two decades, scientists have identified over a dozen environmental factors associated with the risk of developing PD, including pesticide exposures and traumatic brain injury. Other environmental exposures that have been noted as potential risk factors include organic solvents, high-temperature cooked meats and heterocyclic amines, respiratory and gastrointestinal infections, and inflammation in general. There are also reports on inverse associations between PD and smoking, coffee consumption, vigorous exercise, ibuprofen use, and plasma urate.

The authors review the current research, suggest future directions and discuss the potential of novel tools and theoretical frameworks for scientists to design future studies, such as gene-environment interaction and epigenetic approaches.

Braak Hypothesis

The Braak hypothesis presents a unique hypothetical framework for PD development that allows scientists to better conceptualize different steps in the pathogenesis of the PD prodrome and manifest PD. This can also help define the contributions of environmental factors to the different stages of the pathogenic process. The Braak hypothesis states that PD is caused by a pathogen that enters the body via the nasal cavity and subsequently is swallowed and reaches the gut, initiating Lewy pathology in the nose and the digestive tract. According to this hypothesis, PD Lewy pathology develops in six sequential stages, starting in the olfactory bulb or enteric nerves (or both), years if not decades, before spreading to dopamine neurons in the substantia nigra in the brainstem. Exposome Concept

Another concept described by the authors is the exposome, which represents the totality of human environmental exposures over an individual’s lifetime. The authors propose that, together with the Braak hypothesis, the exposome concept provides a theoretical framework for scientists to design future studies to decipher the environmental causes of PD and to develop early interventions that halt its progression to the characteristic motor and non-motor dysfunction in PD.

“We are at an exciting moment to unveil environmental contributions to PD development and progression by taking a life-course approach, considering prodromal stages of PD, and utilizing novel tools to assess environmental exposures,” commented Dr. Chen and Dr. Ritz. “The lifelong contributions of environmental factors to PD are difficult to characterize because of the decades-long prodromal stage of the disease and the difficulty in assessing environmental exposures during this stage. We nevertheless believe it will be possible to assess long-term exposures through large-scale environmental monitoring and by using novel biomarkers that reflect the exposome.”

###

IMAGE

CAPTION

Possible contributions of environmental factors to different Braak stages of PD and the PD prodrome.

CREDIT

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA, and Departments of Epidemiology, Environmental Health Sciences, and Neurology, Fielding School of Public Health, and Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, CA, USA

NOTES FOR EDITORS

“The Search for Environmental Causes of Parkinson’s Disease: Moving Forward,” by Honglei Chen, MD, PhD, and Beate Ritz, MD, PhD (DOI: 10.3233/JPD-181493) published in the Journal of Parkinson’s Disease, Volume 8, Supplement 1 by IOS Press. It is openly available at https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-parkinsons-disease/jpd181493.

Dr. Ritz’ Parkinson’s research was supported by the NIEHS under award numbers RO1ES10544, P01ES016732, U54ES12078, P50NS038367, RO1ES013717, R21ES022391, and R21ES024356. Dr. Chen is supported by a start-up fund from Michigan State University (GE100455), the Parkinson’s Foundation (Grant No. PF-IMP-1825), and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, through the Parkinson’s Research Program (Award No. W81XWH-17-1-0536).

ABOUT THIS SUPPLEMENT TO THE JOURNAL OF PARKINSON’S DISEASE

The Journal of Parkinson’s Disease published a special issue in 2017 to commemorate the 200th anniversary of James Parkinson’s “Essay on the Shaking Palsy,” and we highlighted eight of the most important advances in Parkinson’s research over the past 60 years. As we were working on that special issue, we commented on how the pace of Parkinson’s research has accelerated remarkably. We speculated that there would be more advances in the treatment and care of Parkinson’s disease during the coming 20 years than were evident during the preceding 200 years. Thus, the idea of a collection of short, forward-looking, and visionary articles was born. Eventually, we identified 19 topics for articles, and we are very excited about the outcome. In 1964 Bob Dylan sang “The Times They Are a-Changin’;” this special supplement clearly shows that the field of Parkinson’s is no exception. This supplement to is openly available at https://content.iospress.com/journals/journal-of-parkinsons-disease/8/s1

For additional information contact Diana Murray, IOS Press, at +1 718-640-5678 or d.murray@iospress.com. Journalists wishing to interview the study’s authors should contact Honglei Chen at chenho@epi.msu.edu or Beate Ritz at britz@ucla.edu.

Originally published by Eureka Alert at https://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/191668.php 

Turns out your standing desk isn't solving your sitting problem – WIRED

The “sitting is the new smoking” theory started as early as 1961. Researchers in London found that bus drivers had three times more risk of “sudden death” than their conductor colleagues, and established for the first time a link between sedentariness and heart disease.

And the research that has followed since has consistently confirmed it: a report conducted on 800,000 people in the UK in 2012, for example, found that those who sat for the longest periods of time were two times more at risk of diabetes, heart disease and early death.

Just last week, the American Journal of Epidemiology published another study recommending that we cut the overall time that we spend sitting. The team, led by professor Keith Diaz of Columbia University, who had previously put forward the theory that the issue lay in how much time we spend sitting without interruption, suggested that we break sitting time into bouts of under 30 minutes.

“This new study shows that, unlike what we had previously hypothesised, the length of sitting doesn’t matter; even short sedentary time is harmful,” Diaz says. “What helps is movement. You have to replace some of the time that you spend sitting with movement to reduce your overall sitting time.”

The research, conducted on almost 8,000 middle-aged and older adults, concluded that replacing 30 minutes of sitting time with light physical activity like walking could cut risks of early death by 17 per cent; and up to 35 per cent if replacing it with higher-intensity activity.

The body of research dedicated to the dangers of sitting may be extensive; but so far it has failed to clearly define why and how exactly sedentariness impacts our hearts. A slower metabolism can be blamed for higher blood pressure, obesity and for fat clogging around the heart. Or it could be that the time spent sitting means less time spent exercising, which has been shown to improve heart health. The most recent study showed that sitting for more than ten hours a day led to the release of more troponins – a protein that heart muscle cells produce when they are damaged, and which lead to heart disease when they are kept above normal levels for an extended period of time.

A direct link between troponin and sitting is hard to establish, given that many other factors can come into play, such as body mass index or age. But while the exact how remains unclear, it is still giving workers reason to worry – understandably, given the amount of professions now requiring that we sit in front of a screen all day.

The NHS recommends “walking to a co-worker’s desk” instead of using emails, or placing your laptop on a box to work standing. The American Medical Association stated that work settings should offer employees alternatives to sitting all day. And alert entrepreneurs were keen to jump on a business opportunity, creating the much-hyped sit-stand desk, which is forecast to represent a $2.8 billion market in 2025.

Except sit-stand desks, while they may relieve muscular pain, will do little for your heart. Peter Smith, senior public health scientist from the Institute of Medical Science at the University of Toronto, explains that standing for a couple of hours more at work doesn’t require enough energy to significantly reduce cardiovascular risk. “If you were to stand instead of sit for an hour, you would burn 9 extra calories,” he says. “So you would need to stand for six hours more to burn off the energy from a slice of bread. And standing for that long will put you at risk for other conditions like heart disease.”

Solutions like the sit-stand desk, therefore, won’t reduce the risk of heart disease for workers who sit all day. And more importantly, like the avalanche of guidelines delivered by health institutions targeting sedentariness in the office, they have missed a point.

Niklas Krause, a professor in Environmental Health Science at UCLA, explains, studies so far have analysed total sitting time, and failed to differentiate between sitting at work and sitting at home. And that is significant, because it means that although sitting at work seems the most obvious behaviour to change, it is not necessarily the one that is the most harmful.

“Sitting during the entire day is definitely associated with higher mortality compared to people who sit less,” he says. “But studies that have investigated sitting at work separately found that sitting work postures were not associated consistently with any increased cardiovascular disease risk.”

David Rempel, professor of occupational medicine at the University of California San Francisco, agrees: “Studies have found that sitting time at work does not increase risk,” he says. In fact, he continues, if you had to predominantly sit or stand at work, you would probably select sitting as the lesser evil to reduce your cardiovascular risk.

That is far from saying that sitting is good for you. But certain forms of sitting, which have not been given much attention, are a lot more dangerous; particularly forms of sitting that occur in leisure time. And if there is one that researchers all agree to point their fingers at, because of its high correlation to cardiac disease, it is sitting in front of the TV. A behaviour that Diaz describes as “toxic,” especially when it is combined with high calorie intake. And something that is bound to happen to the everyday Joes, he says, who come back from work and have dinner – potentially their most energy-dense meal – in front of the television.

Although you may think that sitting is sitting, there are several reasons that could explain why watching TV in your couch is a lot worse. While you sit in an office, you may take more breaks, walk to meetings, grab a coffee, go to the printer; you will be more likely to be sitting straight; you will be sustaining what Jeroen Lakerveld, associate professor with the Upstream team – a research network focusing on the relationship between the environment and chronic disease risk – describes as “active maintenance”. Not quite the same as slouching in front of Love Island all Sunday.

And with that comes a new dimension to the sitting imbroglio: that of socio-economic background. It has been shown that lower socio-economic positions are linked to higher TV viewing habits, and therefore higher exposure to toxic sitting time. An inequality that Lakerveld found to be confirmed in his research. “In absolute terms, higher-educated people sit more, because they are more likely to have sat office jobs,” he says. “But the much more damaging form of sedentary behaviour – that of sitting on the couch and watching television – is more prominent among those with lower-education backgrounds.”

So is there something that public health institutions should think about, rather than recommending sit-stand desks? Diaz certainly thinks so. The latest study he led did not differentiate between sitting at work and sitting in leisure time. While that doesn’t undermine its final conclusion – we should reduce the overall time we spend sitting by moving more every day – he recognises that it is something that needs to be given more attention.

“Not much of our work is geared towards targeting leisure time,” he says. “Yet it’s when you’re at home that you need to change your behaviour.” So you might want to swap your evening plans to binge-watch Sex Education for a casual walk in the park. It’s worth the effort.

Originally published by Daphne Leprince-Ringuet in WIRED at https://www.wired.co.uk/article/standing-desk-benefits#_=_

Workplace Wellness

ASK DR. SHANE QUE HEE, FSPH professor of environmental health sciences, about the impact of the UCLA Industrial Hygiene Program and his answer is emphatic: “It saves lives.”

So why don’t industrial hygienists — the scientists and professionals who help to protect the health and safety of workers — make regular headlines? Probably because, like many public health practitioners, their work is focused on preventing people from getting sick or injured in the first place.

Que Hee, who directs the FSPH-based training program, explains that industrial hygienists traditionally worked in factories, where they assessed whether workers were exposed to unsafe levels of toxic chemicals and other hazards, and trained them to follow procedures and wear protective equipment. The field has evolved to include oversight of non-factory settings, where industrial hygienists might be responsible for verifying that air filtration and ventilation systems are properly functioning and not exposing workers to polluted air, or that desks, spaces, chairs and work environments are not ergonomic stressors. Industrial hygienists work for large companies, governments, insurance carriers, unions, universities and consulting companies. They often collaborate with epidemiologists, physicians, nurses, safety specialists and toxicologists. They anticipate, identify, evaluate, control and prevent factors that affect worker health, including physical factors (noise, heat, cold, radiation); airborne particles and chemicals; biological exposures such as airborne microorganisms; mechanical stressors such as those causing carpal tunnel syndrome; and factors affecting psychosocial health, including job stress and workplace violence.

“Being an industrial hygienist means you have to be able to measure stressors to show that you have a safe and healthy environment,” Que Hee says. “You need to know how to do a risk assessment to confirm that whatever guidelines or regulations are applicable are obeyed.”

The UCLA Industrial Hygiene Program’s curriculum includes hands-on training using monitoring and safety equipment, field trips, and courses in biostatistics, epidemiology, general environmental health and other scientific fields. Students are taught, for example, not only how to take air samples and submit them to a lab, but also the methods the lab will use to analyze the samples. The program, based in FSPH’s Department of Environmental Health Sciences, was established in 1983 and is part of the UCLA Center for Occupational and Environmental Health. It is supported by the Southern California NIOSH Education and Research Center, one of 18 multidisciplinary occupational health centers of excellence in the U.S., which provides students with some financial support for tuition and living expenses. Students receive MPH, MS and doctoral degrees; currently the program includes 10 students, four of whom are doctoral students.

Nadia Ho entered the program while pursuing dual degrees with FSPH’s Department of Environmental Health Sciences (EHS) and the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs. After Ho’s first year at FSPH, she did a summer internship within the environmental health and safety department of defense contractor Northrop Grumman.

“With heavy manufacturing you get exposed to all the aspects of industrial hygiene,” Ho says. “This site [where I interned] makes propulsion and power generation systems and launch platforms for U.S. Navy submarines and aircraft carriers. The process included welding of stainless steel, as well as painting and sandblasting. We had a facilities team that did construction, painting and sandblasting. I was there, absorbing everything. I realized this was really what I wanted to do. It involved worker safety and environmental programs and touched upon everything EHS students learn at UCLA.”

Dr. Niklas Krause, director of the Southern California NIOSH Education and Research Center and FSPH professor of environmental health sciences and epidemiology, says industrial hygienists are in great demand. “All organizations have safety and health concerns, so they need to have a supply of well-trained industrial hygienists,” he says.

Second-year MPH student Jack Arouchian is familiar with the many forms of practice that industrial hygiene can take. Before enrolling at FSPH, he worked with a consulting company where he assessed safety at foundries, bakeries, factories, airports and many other settings. He currently works as an industrial hygienist with the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, where he helps to ensure the safety of lineworkers, individuals who construct and maintain electric power lines. Arouchian recently was asked to investigate a volt explosion, determined that it occurred due to methane gas leaking, and asked the workers to clear the site.

“What I’ve learned [at UCLA] has helped me train an average of 20-30 lineworkers weekly,” he says. “I teach them how to eliminate or minimize exposure to hazardous agents such as asbestos, lead, respirable crystalline silica, noise and heat stress, and what the health effects of contaminants are.”

One of the courses offered by the program explores the health effects posed by physical agents, sources of energy such as noise, vibration and electromagnetic radiation that may cause injury or disease. That course inspired second-year MS student Cynthia Blackman to focus her research thesis on the effects of whole body vibrations experienced by U.S. Navy aircrew and how they relate to back pain. “A lot of the literature says that after a certain amount of time, helicopter pilots experience chronic back pain, but most of those papers were written in the ’80s and ’90s, and they were focused on pilots,” Blackman notes. “I haven’t found a lot of literature focused on aircrew.”

Blackman enrolled in the UCLA Industrial Hygiene Program while serving as a surface warfare officer with the U.S. Navy. Upon graduation, she plans to return to military service, but as an industrial hygienist.

“On one ship, two doors down from where I was working, there was a door that was taped off,” Blackman recalls of her time as a surface warfare officer. “It turned out there was potential lead exposure and we needed to have our industrial hygienist come in and evaluate the space. It made me think, these are the people who are protecting the United States. Who’s protecting them? I want to be the one protecting them.”

 

Originally published in the FSPH Autumn/Winter 2018 Magazine at https://ph.ucla.edu/news/magazine/2018/autumnwinter/article/workplace-we…

Drs. Jerrett and Ritz rank in the top 1% of researchers in world by citations

The world’s most influential scientific researchers in 2018 include 40 UCLA scholars, including COEH’s Director Dr. Michael Jerrett and faculty member Dr. Beate Ritz.In its annual list, Clarivate Analytics names the most highly cited researchers — those whose work was most often referenced by other scientific research papers for the preceding decade in 21 fields across the sciences and social sciences. (The 2018 list is based on citations between 2006 and 2016.)

The researchers rank in the top 1 percent in their fields in producing widely cited studies, indicating that their work “has been repeatedly judged by their peers to be of notable significance and utility,” according to Clarivate. Current UCLA faculty members and researchers who were named to the list, noted with their primary UCLA research field or fields, are:

 

Media Contact

Photo by Alex Proimos

COEH faculty, Dr. Yifang Zhu, quoted in Vogue magazine on CA wildfires

For Those Grappling With California Wildfires, Dangerous Air Quality Is a New Risk
NOVEMBER 16, 2018 3:26 PM
by 
 
 
 

California is still on fire. As of this morning, the Camp Fire in Butte County has burned up 142,000 acres and over 12,000 structures. Sixty-three people are dead and more than 600 are missing. And down south in Los Angeles County, the Woolsey Fire has destroyed 616 structures, with 57,000 still in danger and three fatalities confirmed. Though the numbers alone are breathtaking, there’s something else affecting our respiration: the air quality, which, yesterday in San Francisco, became among the worst in the world.

I live in Sonoma County, home to two of last year’s most destructive wildfires in Northern California—8,900 structures, 245,000 acres, 44 people, all gone. Still, the residual smoke that lingers in the air this week somehow seems even more stifling. The health department issued a warning to stay indoors. Local schools closed down for two days. And if you do go outside, you’ll see almost everyone wearing white masks over their nose and mouth, having the same muffled conversation: “Can you believe this smoke?”

But here’s the discussion I’m more interested in: “What are we really breathing in, and what can we do about it—if anything?”

“The main pollutant that comes from the fire is called particular matter, or PM. The most health-relevant particles are in sizes smaller than 2.5 microns—they’re pretty tiny particles,” says Yifang Zhu, Ph.D., professor of environmental health sciences and acting dean of UCLA’s Fielding School of Public Health. Zhu goes on to explain that the national standard for the presence of “PM 2.5” over a 24-hour period is 35 milligrams per cubic meter, which makes for an Air Quality Index of 99. Whenever the index measures 100 or over, she says, it becomes unhealthy. Today in San Francisco, the AQI is around 250.

“Airborne particulates are what we see, what we breathe, and what lodges into our breathing airways,” explains UC Berkeley professor Robert Rhew, Ph.D., who specializes in atmospheric pollution. “Not only are the particulates physically damaging to our lung tissue, they can also contain toxins like heavy metals. So the fact that [the fires] are burning a lot of infrastructure as well as vegetation can lead to very hazardous [health] conditions.”

Both experts contend that the main health concerns right now are short-term, and those with the highest risk of inflammation and disease have preexisting conditions. Children, along with individuals who suffer from asthma, other respiratory conditions, or cardiovascular issues, should stay indoors. If you need to go outside, visit the nearest hospital or hardware store and stockpile N95 masks, which the CDC suggests switching out every eight hours. And the time is probably right to invest in a HEPA air purifier, which can capture particles as small as 0.3 microns, ensuring that, no matter the state outside, your home is safe. As for the long-term effects caused by wildfires? That research is still new.

Beyond air quality, another primary concern to take into consideration during such strained times, and one worth addressing immediately, is the state of your emotional well-beingResearch suggests that between 25 and 50 percent of all people exposed to a natural disaster may have some adverse mental health effects. Getting involved with local relief efforts in the community can provide a strong sense of solace and security. And for those who find stillness in meditation, making time to tune out the noise can be deeply grounding.

Yesterday evening, while driving home from San Francisco, the smog in the sky disappeared into the darkness as I approached the Golden Gate Bridge. I realized, for the first time since the fires began, what a relief the nighttime brings, mainly because I can no longer see the foreboding shift in atmosphere. All that’s visible is the moon, which hangs like an orange rind against a pitch black backdrop. It’s beautiful, but surreal, and I’m reminded how easy it is to take something as simple as a clear sky for granted.

Dr. Beate Ritz at WHO Global Conference on Air Pollution and Health

On October 31, 2018 in Geneva Switzerland, Dr. Beate Ritz addressed the World Health Organization’s first-ever Global Conference on Air Pollution and Health. Participants included ministers of health and environment and other national government representatives; representatives of intergovernmental agencies, health professionals and other sectors (e.g. transport, energy, etc.), as well as academic, research, and civil society. The conference recognized the need for an aspirational goal of reducing the 7 million annual deaths due to air pollution by 2030, as a contribution to reaching the Sustainable Development Goals. The conference underscored the links between air pollution and the global epidemic of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and positioned the health sector to catalyze actions for health-wise policies on energy, transport, and waste. 

Dr. Ritz’s talk “Air Pollution, Fetal Development, and Children’s Brains: Time to Act” may be downloaded or viewed at the links below.

Download Dr. Ritz’s slides at: http://www.who.int/airpollution/events/conference/CAPH1_Parallel_session…

See the video of her talk at: http://www.who.int/airpollution/events/conference/en/

1. Go to “Parallel Events” in the box for videos on the site

2. Click on session “Reducing Air Pollution and improving children’s health” Oct 31, 2019 11:30-13:00

3. Fast forward to minute 9:00 for Beate Ritz’s talk

UCLA trains outdoor workers in California to protect against extreme heat

Raquel Sanchez knows what it’s like to work day after day under the sweltering sun. Originally from Michoacán, Mexico, Sanchez spent her first seven years in the United States picking grapes, cherries and tomatoes for some of the largest growers in California’s Central Valley.

“I saw many of my coworkers get sick because of the heat,” she said, including one coworker who was so seriously affected that Sanchez had to perform first aid on her. “I always protected myself and tried to help my coworkers.”

When outdoor temperatures climb, workers who harvest food, build homes, deliver mail, tend gardens, or distribute goods may suffer serious health consequences. According to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration, nationwide exposure to environmental heat led to 37 work-related deaths and an estimated 2,830 injuries and illnesses that forced people to miss work in 2015, the latest year for which these statistics are available. And as climate change brings more frequent and severe heat events, the risks for people who work outdoors are only expected to increase.

So when Sanchez, who now works as a community health promoter with Campesinas Unidas del Valle de San Joaquin, heard that she could attend a class sponsored by UCLA’s Labor Occupational Safety and Health Program, which goes by UCLA-LOSH, to learn to teach others to prevent heat illness, she jumped at the chance to participate.

In response to several heat-related deaths among California agricultural workers and pressure from worker advocates, California enacted a standard in 2006 to prevent heat illness among outdoor workers. The regulation requires employers to provide drinking water, breaks, shaded cool-down areas and other resources, with additional requirements when temperatures exceed 95 degrees. Only two other states offer similar protections. (A campaign is currently underway to advance a heat illness prevention standard at the national level.) 

“This training initiative was a response to the continuing need for community-level education and capacity building to ensure workers have adequate heat protections,” said Linda Delp, director of UCLA-LOSH and adjunct associate professor in the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.

Part of UCLA’s Center for Occupational and Environmental Health and its Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, UCLA-LOSH is well-qualified to lead these efforts. The program has served as a safety and health resource for California workers since 1978, and it participated in a statewide heat illness prevention initiative from 2010–12, sponsored by the California Department of Industrial Relations.

This summer’s courses, funded by grants from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ Worker Training Program and the California Commission on Health and Safety and Workers’ Compensation, were designed as training-of-trainers for community health promoters and worker-leaders like Sanchez. UCLA-LOSH staff partnered with colleagues at the UC Berkeley Labor Occupational Health Program and with local community-based organizations to host four day-long training sessions in Los Angeles, Santa Rosa, Porterville and Lindsay.

Veronica Ponce de Leon of UCLA-LOSH facilitating the train-the-trainer class in Santa Rosa, California.
UCLA
Veronica Ponce de Leon leading a training session in Santa Rosa, California.

 

The curriculum was designed to both raise awareness of heat as a hazard that particularly affects low-wage workers and vulnerable communities, and to develop participants’ education and advocacy skills, according to Deogracia Cornelio, UCLA-LOSH associate director of education who led the Los Angeles training session. Trainees learned about common signs and symptoms of heat illness, recommended preventive steps, and requirements of the California heat standard. They were then expected to carry out short education sessions with other members of their communities.

The training sessions enrolled about 100 people who in turn have reached close to 600 others, including workers in agriculture, landscaping, construction, garment manufacturing, warehousing and other industries. While the four classes were conducted in Spanish, some participants have gone on to lead education activities in other languages, such as the indigenous Mexican languages of Mixteco and Triqui.

“I didn’t know that heat could have such serious consequences as death,” said Adriana Lúa, a grape packer who participated in the training held in Lindsay in California’s Central Valley. “I’ve been able to share this information with my team members at work as well as my family at home.”

Another participant, Jose Rojas, reflected on the importance of workers knowing the California requirements that employers provide water, shade and rest.

“I used to go under the vineyards to seek shade, or we had to make our own shade,” Rojas recalled of the days before enforcement of the California standard. “Breaks were very short, and we had to go searching for water. I saw many people suffer because of the heat.”

Veronica Ponce de Leon, who facilitated three of the heat trainings for UCLA-LOSH, said that even though the conditions are getting hotter each year, the dangers of heat aren’t discussed enough.

“The participants appreciated how we presented heat as a topic that everyone could relate to and that they could teach to others,” Ponce de Leon said. The people taking each class received handouts, training guides and other materials they could use in their education efforts, and they had the chance to practice their teaching skills throughout the day.

Ponce de Leon marveled at the creative ways these trainers are now reaching others. “I’ve seen pictures of trainers doing heat education not only at work sites but in their homes, at Tupperware gatherings, in Zumba classes, and in many other places where you wouldn’t expect people to take the opportunity to spread the message.”

Beyond educating workers about heat, Cornelio noted the importance of this initiative in providing individuals with the knowledge, skills and confidence to become leaders their communities. Many training session participants concurred. “The course made me relive past experiences working in heat but also to learn about workers’ rights,” Sanchez said. “We learned valuable techniques for sharing this information with the public and to develop our leadership skills.”

Asked what message she now has for outdoor workers, Sanchez didn’t hesitate to respond: “Your health comes before everything else. You have to be healthy to work and feed your family.”

See the original article at UCLA Newsroom

 
Tags:

Media Contact

Is Cheap Makeup Bad for Your Skin [Health]? COEH's Shane Que Hee weighs in.

You’re standing in the checkout line at Forever 21, arms overflowing with crop tops and maxi dresses, taking full advantage of this weekend’s end-of-summer sale. You give yourself props: You cut yourself off after your third pair of high-waisted jeans—or so you thought. A highlighter palette tempts you from the rack near the register. What better way to complete your new look than with a pair of poppin’ cheekbones that will only set you back six bucks?

But a slew of questions stops your impulse purchase in its tracks. Why is that highlighter so cheap? Are the ingredients low-quality? Will they make you break out? A swarm of whiteheads starts to invade the sculpted, sun-kissed Chrissy Teigen-esque cheekbones of your daydreams.

Is cheap makeup any worse for your skin than expensive makeup?

The short answer: Not really. Debra Jaliman, a New York City-based dermatologist, says the products her patients suspect might be causing irritation and other reactions run the gamut price-wise. “Sometimes they’re really expensive, and sometimes they’re really cheap.”

The factors that go into making a product expensive often lie outside of its actual quality—think pretty packaging or a brand name affiliation. In fact, “many of the luxury brands are made at the exact same house as the over-the-counter brands to the point of having the exact formulation in a different package,” says Dendy Engelman, a dermatologist also based in New York City. Indeed, big companies often own a number of different brands, drugstore and luxury alike. For instance, L’Oréal owns not only Lancôme, Urban Decay, and Shu Uemura, but also the more affordable Maybelline New York and NYX.

Is there such a thing as too cheap, though? What about makeup from the dollar store?

There’s drugstore cheap, and then there’s dollar store cheap. While Dan Aires, director of dermatology at the University of Kansas Health System, warns against “blindly trusting brand name products,” which drugstores primarily carry, he’s wary of the no-name brands often found in dollar stores. With brand names, there’s at least a decent amount of accountability. “You’re a lot less likely to have problems. They really want to protect their reputation,” he says. “Dollar stores are a good place to stock up on party decorations…but for things that go directly [on and] into your body, it’s worth spending a little more.”

While the Food and Drug Administration doesn’t require that companies run any specific safety tests on their makeup ingredients, those that are reputable and have many physicians on their boards will test their ingredients, says Aisha Sethi, an associate professor of dermatology at the Yale School of Medicine, backing Aires. So while you might pat yourself on the back for scoring that lipstick you swear looks exactly like Fenty’s Mattemoiselle in Candy Venom for only a dollar, know that you also run a greater risk of a rash or other reaction.

What about the makeup at cheap clothing stores?

Aires has similar concerns as he does with dollar store makeup. But some of these retailers do sell the same trusted brands found in drugstores. Forever21, for instance, carries drugstore brands e.l.f. and NYX. Old Navy also sells e.l.f. makeup.

If the price tag isn’t great at predicting whether a product will mess up my skin, what should I look at instead?

“You should read the ingredients on the label,” Jaliman says. And if a product’s label doesn’t list any ingredients? Skip those products altogether, Sethi says. (If you have the time, she suggests searching the company’s website for an ingredient list. Still nothing? Pass.)

What ingredients should I avoid if I have sensitive skin?

If you have sensitive or eczema-prone skin, steer clear of fragrance, which Jaliman and the other dermatologists interviewed for this article all tell me is linked to contact dermatitis, or a red, flaky, itchy rash that emerges in response to direct contact with a substance. Most companies label the mixtures of scent ingredients in their products using umbrella terms like “fragrance,” “cologne,” “essential oil,” “masking fragrance” or “parfum.” Indeed, the FDA doesn’t require companies to list the specific ingredients in these mixtures—but some do, typically toward the end of the ingredients list. (Some examples include citral, geraniol, hydroxycitronellal and lyral.) Fragrances can be hard to avoid, though. Look for products labeled “fragrance-free”—not to be confused with “unscented,” which could actually indicate the addition of a fragrance to mask the product’s scent, Engelman says.

Some preservatives, meant to prevent bacteria, mold, and other microbes from growing on products, can also cause contact dermatitis. Formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing chemicals can have irritating effects too, says Shane Que Hee, professor of environmental health sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles. You can find quaternium-15, a formaldehyde-releasing chemical commonly added to makeup, in mascara, eyeliner, and powder. Que Hee adds that butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT)—preservatives often found in eyeliner, eyeshadow, lip gloss, lipstick, foundation and blush—can cause skin allergies for some people.

While many of the dermatologists I interviewed for this article note that preservatives known as parabens, such as methylparaben and butylparaben, can irritate skin, the chemical exposure researchers I spoke to were more skeptical. Most studies on parabens have focused on their potential to disrupt hormone signaling “but not so much on the allergy-type effects,” says Dana Boyd Barr, a research professor of environmental health at Emory University. If you’re still concerned, though, look for products labeled “paraben-free.”

Barr does caution against phthalates, such as diethyl phthalate (DEP), used to hold color, fragrance, or shine, or to impart flexibility. Moderately-sized human studies have associated them with allergic effects, like wheezing, coughing, and asthma, “so they may be able to exert skin effects, as well.” But she notes that few studies on phthalates have looked specifically at skin irritation. The problem is, “phthalates are rarely listed” on cosmetic products—and the FDA doesn’t require them to be, since they’re not active ingredients, she says. If you’re worried, choose products labeled “phthalate-free.”

What ingredients should I avoid if I have acne-prone skin?

There are a few scenarios in which makeup can trigger an acne breakout, says Susan Taylor, an associate professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine, but the most common scenario results from comedogenic ingredients. “That means they’re oil-based and they’re going to plug the hair follicles”—a.k.a. pores—“and that’s going to generate acne.”

Some of the most common comedogenic ingredients include oils—like almond oil, wheat germ oil, and cocoa butter—as well as waxes and petrolatum, Taylor says. She notes that coal tar, a black pigment used in mascara and eyeliner, can also cause breakouts. The same goes for coal tar-derived pigments , whose names start with FD&C or D&C (D&C Red 21, for example), especially red ones. Avoid silicones, too, which often have“–oxane” or “–methicone” tacked onto the ends of their name, Jaliman says. They allow products to glide on easily but can also clog pores. For extra reassurance, shop for products labeled “non-comedogenic.”

What makes a product bad for my lips? Whenever I wear a heavy lipstick or lip gloss, my lips get flaky and irritated.

Lip stains and other long-wear lip products, which tend to have a thicker, denser consistency, can be “really irritating,” says Lisa Airan, a dermatologist in New York City. “Some people can’t tolerate the long duration.” Engelman adds that these products “are not very hydrating” and made with lots of pigment, giving them potential for more of an allergy response.

Okay, and what about that whole endocrine disruption thing? Can I get cancer from using cheap makeup?

Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that interfere with hormone function—and parabens, arguably the most notorious, have been detected in female breast cancer tissue, Que Hee says. But while there seems to be a correlation between endocrine disruptors in hair products and breast cancer risk in African American women, epidemiological studies on endocrine disruptors in makeup alone are still ongoing. That said, the concentrations of parabens in makeup are probably not all that different from what you might find in hair products, he says. Other ingredients, like octinoxate and a group of chemicals known as siloxanes, can also interfere with hormone function, although their correlations with breast cancer are less clear. Keep in mind that using a lot of products that contain potential endocrine disruptors (and using them often) ups your risk. Using these products once in a while is not likely to cause any issues.

If it worries you though, avoid products whose labels or safety data sheets list these ingredients, Que Hee says. Again, if you’re worried about parabens, many companies explicitly label their products “paraben-free”—although Barr would rather use products that contain known ingredients than their less-studied alternatives. But she realizes “a lot of people feel differently about that.” She suggests asking companies about the ingredients in their products and deciding for yourself whether you’re willing to accept the possible risks associated with them.

So what you’re saying is that $6 highlighter won’t necessarily make my face explode into a hot, itchy, or pimply mess?

In the end, “it’s all about the ingredients,” Jaliman says. As long as the product lists the ingredients on the label—and you don’t recognize any that could cause your skin problems—then go ahead and glow up. But if you want to be extra cautious, heed Aires’ advice, and make sure it also comes from a well-known brand you’d find at a drugstore.

 

Article by Melissa Pandika, originally published August 22, 2018 in Tonic at https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/ne55d7/is-cheap-makeup-bad-for-your…

Photo by Jennie Robinson Faber