You can find plastic containers storing food in just about every grocery store. But a new study makes a strong case for never eating out of a plastic container, especially those meant to be heated, ever again.
The new study, published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, found that eating out of plastic containers, even for a short period of time, is alarmingly dangerous for heart health. The research demonstrated that particles from plastic containers were able to leach into food products, and those particles had a clear, and very fast-moving impact on changes that lead to heart failure.
The study was performed in two parts. The first polled 3,000 people on their plastic exposure and heart disease status. The second part studied rats after they ingested water that had been boiled in plastic containers.
In the first part of the study, researchers found a strong correlation between people who had more exposure to plastic, such as eating out of plastic containers, and a risk for developing congestive heart failure. The subjects with higher plastic exposure were 13% more likely to develop the heart condition.
In part two of the study, researchers studied rat’s feces after ingesting the water for a three-month period. They found that both their gut biome had been altered and their heart tissue was damaged.
The water was boiled for different intervals: one minute, five minutes, and 15 minutes. But it didn’t seem to matter how long the water had been boiled, either. Even the shorter exposure time heeded the negative results for the rats.
“The results indicated that ingestion of these leachates altered the intestinal microenvironment, affected gut microbiota composition, and modified gut microbiota metabolites, particularly those linked to inflammation and oxidative stress,” the study found. “Additionally, this exposure resulted in damage to the heart muscle tissue of the rats, alongside increased markers of myocardial injury, inflammation, and oxidative stress.”
Past studies have raised concerns about the risks that come with plastic containers. Plastics contain endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) like bisphenol A (BPA), phthalates (PAEs) and plasticizers, which are linked to higher CVD risk,” the study researchers cited from an earlier study. However, the new study, which showed just how quickly heart health can be impacted by plastic exposure has the study authors advising to be vigilant about avoiding eating from plastic containers.
The authors say more research is needed but noted in the study that in order “to prevent ongoing harm from plastic products to human health, it is essential to avoid using plastic containers for high-temperature food, reduce the use of plastic products in daily life, and implement timely plastic pollution control measures.”
Wikipedia has faced political threats for years, but this time, it may be at a breaking point.
Republicans have ramped up attacks against Wikipedia as yet another “woke” institution. Leaked documents from The Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank that, show a plan for exposing specific Wikipedia editors. In January, Elon Musk, the billionaire-turned-government-efficiency-czar, called the online library an extension of legacy media propaganda. (He also once offered to pay $1 billion for the site if it changed its name to Dickipedia.)
Conservatives have long accused Wikipedia of political prejudice. (And it’s not just staunch Republicans: Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger, who has never publicly identified himself as a Republican, turned on the digital library almost immediately after leaving in 2002, claiming it had a top-down left-wing bias.) In 2006, critic Andrew Schlafly even founded his own iteration of the site, Conservapedia. That conversation of bias continued for the following 20 years, and conservative think tanks have continually pumped out reports about Wikipedias supposed liberal tilt.
Musk is in the middle of the latest controversy
But those were complaints, not attacks. Now, Musk and the MAGA movement could effectively kill Wikipedia. This cycle started with Musks inauguration arm-raise, which his Wikipedia page said was compared to a Nazi salute, but added that Musk denied any meaning behind the gesture. That particular entry sent Musk into a tirade on his social media platform X, first posting about Wikipedia as propaganda, and later saying that we should defund it. (Wikipedia is supported by individual and corporate donationsnot federal funds.) Wikipedias cofounder Jimmy Wales shot back: I think Elon is unhappy that Wikipedia is not for sale.
While Musk is the public face of the latest crusade, there’s been plenty of behind-the-scenes discussion about Wikipedia. According to documents obtained by Forward, The Heritage Foundation aims to target not just Wikipedia, but the sites editors. These individual contributors often work under online pseudonyms but, using strategies like digital fingerprinting and edit-tracking, The Heritage Foundation seems to promote finding these editors’ real-life identities. It’s still unclear how The Heritage Foundation would use the information tracked, but the idea of being targeted itself could spook editors off the platform.
These threats have Wikimedia executives worried. According to 404 Media, the leaders hosted a series of calls in the past few weeks about their ongoing political struggles, with Wales saying that he’s “keeping an eye on the rising noise of criticism from Elon Musk and others.” Considering that The Heritage Foundation was behind Project 2025the legislative blueprint that has made its way into the White House during Trump’s second termtheir fears may be justified.
Wikipedia at the center of language politics
The left has gotten in some jabs against Wikipedia, too. Liberals have struggled with the site’s glacial conversations around potential edits to sensitive subjects. Should Ernest Hemingways trans daughter be referred to as Gloria or their birth name, Gregory? Should the term “squaw,” which the federal government deemed derogatory, be removed from the names of notable locations? These conversations can take weeks. Pro-Palestine activists have also been frustrated with the sites language surrounding Israel.
Our politics has centralized around language. The left and the right have spent years squabbling over just which words are appropriatebut now, under Trump, the right is turning that fight into legislative shutdowns. Any site that traffics in words is under threat, from the online databases that Trump has shut down to the trans terminology Trump scrubbed from the Stonewall Monument.
The culture wars have come for our public information sources. And Wikipedia is on the chopping block.
UnitedHealth Group, Americas largest insurer, is facing yet another crisis. The companys stock price (NYSE: UNH) plummeted in early trading this morning after a new report alleged that the private insurance provider is facing a probe from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) over its Medicare billing practices, a claim UnitedHealth Group denies. Heres what to know:
UnitedHealths Medicare billing practices
Shares in UnitedHealth Group fell this morning after the Wall Street Journal published a report stating that the $400 billion company was under investigation by the DOJ over its Medicare billing practices. The report states that the investigation is a civil fraud case and not a criminal one.
At the heart of the investigation are DOJ concerns that UnitedHealth is recording patient diagnoses that generate additional payments to its Medicare Advantage plans.
As the WSJ notes, UnitedHealth Group (aka UHG) and other insurers get lump sum payments from the federal government via the Medicare Advantage system. If patients have certain conditions, those lump sum payments can increase, generating more profit for insurers.
Fast Company reached out to the DOJ for comment.
The alleged investigation follows a December report from the WSJ in which the publication looked at billions of Medicare records. Those records allegedly showed that patients who joined Medicare Advantage plans saw huge increases in diagnoses that were more lucrative to UnitedHealth.
Doctors said UnitedHealth . . . trained them to document revenue-generating diagnoses, including some they felt were obscure or irrelevant, the Journal reported. The company also used software to suggest conditions and paid bonuses for considering the suggestions, among other tactics, according to the doctors.
In short, the DOJ may be concerned that UHG is trying to pad its bottom line by assigning unneeded diagnoses to patients in order to increase their taxpayer-fueled payments from the federal government.
Reached for comment by Fast Company, a UnitedHealth Group spokesperson sent the following statement:
“The Wall Street Journal continues to report misinformation on the Medicare Advantage (MA) program. The government regularly reviews all MA plans to ensure compliance and we consistently perform at the industrys highest levels on those reviews. We are not aware of the launch of any new activity as reported by the Journal. We are aware, however, that the Journal has engaged in a year-long campaign to defend a legacy system that rewards volume over keeping patients healthy and addressing their underlying conditions. Any suggestion that our practices are fraudulent is outrageous and false.”
Yet another crisis for UHG
The alleged DOJ civil fraud investigation is the second major recent crisis for UnitedHealth Group. On December 4, a gunman fatally shot Brian Thompson, CEO of UHG’s UnitedHealthcare unit, as he arrived for an early-morning investors conference in midtown Manhattan.
Yet the murder of UnitedHealthcares CEO did not generate an outpouring of support for the company, as might be expected. Instead, it generated widespread glee on social media from Americans increasingly angry about the state of the countrys private healthcare industry, which many find unfair and unaffordable. That glee saw UnitedHealthcare and many other health insurers remove photos of their executives from their websites.
UnitedHealth received further scorn after UnitedHealth Group CEO Andrew Witty published an ill-received op-ed in the New York Times, which generated an outpouring of new responses from Americans conveying the challenges theyve faced trying to get needed treatmentor getting UnitedHealth to pay for the treatment.
In the aftermath of Thompsons killing and the public outcry from Americans about the struggles theyve faced with UnitedHealthcare, UnitedHealth Groups stock fell and hasnt recovered since.
UNH shares fall again
Before the public outcry against UnitedHealthcare began in early December, the UnitedHealth Groups stock price was trading at over $600 per share. By mid-December, it had fallen to below $500 per share.
Today, the companys stock is even lower. As of the time of this writing, UNH shares are down nearly 9% on news of the alleged DOJ probe. Shares are currently trading below $460 each.
As of todays fall, UNH shares are now down over 9.4% year-to-date. Over the past 12 months, UNH shares have fallen over 12%.
The prospect of banning the sale of so-called lab-grown meat might seem like a no-brainer in Nebraska, where beef is king, but some of the proposal’s staunchest opposition has come from ranchers and farming groups who say they can compete without the government’s help.Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen one of the largest pork producers in the country is behind the push to ban cultivated meat, saying he wants to protect ranchers and meat producers. The Republican governor signed an executive order last August to keep state agencies and contractors from procuring lab-created meat, even though it could be years before such products are on store shelves.A number of ranchers and meat industry groups are pushing back on the governor’s plan.Dan Morgan is a fourth-generation cattle rancher from central Nebraska who supplies high-end beef to all 50 states and six countries. He welcomes companies seeking to produce lab-grown meat to “jump into the pool” and try to compete with his Waygu beef. Stifling competition in a free market should be anathema in a Republican-dominated state like Nebraska, he said.“It sounds like a bunch of right-wing Republicans echoing a bunch of left-wing Democrats,” he said, adding that the government should be limited to regulating the new product’s labels and inspecting its facilities to ensure food safety.“After that, it’s up to the consumer to make the decision about what they buy and eat.”Nebraska is among about a dozen states that have introduced measures to ban the manufacture, sale or distribution of lab-grown products. Two states Florida and Alabama have already enacted such bans.The target of the bills is “cell-cultivated” or “cell-cultured” meat, which is grown from the cells of animals in bioreactor steel tanks. The cells are bathed for weeks in nutrients, prompting them to grow and divide, turning them into skeletal muscle, fat and connective tissues.The push to ban cultivated meat comes well before the innovation could be considered an industry. While more than two dozen companies are working to develop such meat products, only two Upside Foods and Good Meat, both based in California have been approved by the federal government to sell cultivated chicken in the U.S. Even then, none of the companies are close to mass producing and selling the products on store shelves.In recent weeks, supporters of the Nebraska bill have shifted their arguments from industry protection to questions of safety surrounding cell-cultured meat. That includes its sponsor, state Sen. Barry DeKay, a Nebraska rancher, and Sherry Vinton, the director of the Nebraska Department of Agriculture. Both testified in support of the bill at a committee hearing earlier this week, calling cultured meat “synthetic food” and voicing concern about possible health implications from eating it.But it’s been no secret that the push for a ban is rooted in shielding Nebraska’s traditional meat industry. Nebraska tops all other states for beef production and beef exports, according to the Nebraska Department of Agriculture.Pillen named the ban among his top priorities during his State of the State address last month.“The backers of these products are cut from the same cloth as the anti-farmer activists who want to put our agriculture producers out of business, and we need to recognize them as such,” he said.The Association for Meat, Poultry and Seafood Innovation, the lobbying group for the emerging cultured meat industry, disputes Pillen’s insistence that it’s a threat to the traditional meat industry, noting studies that show global demand for meat-based protein will double by 2050.“We’re really a complementary component here,” said Suzi Gerber, executive director of the association. “So it’s a little bit mystifying to me why any individual stakeholder would see this as a threat.”Several farm organizations, including Nebraska Farm Bureau, Nebraska Cattlemen and the Nebraska Pork Producers, agree they’re not worried about competition from the emerging industry. Those groups prefer a sister bill that would only require they be clearly labeled as lab-grown products to separate them from traditional meat. More than a dozen states have also issued similar labeling bills, and some like Colorado have seen ban efforts abandoned in favor of labeling measures.Paul Sherman is an attorney with the Institute for Justice, which is representing Upside Foods in its lawsuit challenging the Florida ban. He said it’s no surprise most of the proposed bans are being pushed by those with connections to traditional agriculture.“I think it certainly shows that the purpose of these laws isn’t about protecting public health and safety,” he said. “It’s about protecting traditional agriculture from economic competition. And that is not a legitimate use of government power.”
Maregery A. Beck, Associated Press
In a James Bond shakeup that stirred the film industry, Amazon MGM announced Thursday that the studio has taken the creative reins of the 007 franchise after decades of family control. Longtime Bond custodians Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli said they would be stepping back.Amazon MGM Studios, Wilson and Broccoli formed a new joint venture in which they will co-own James Bond intellectual property rightsbut Amazon MGM will have creative control.Financial terms weren’t disclosed. The deal is expected to close sometime this year.“With my 007 career spanning nearly 60 incredible years, I am stepping back from producing the James Bond films to focus on art and charitable projects,” Wilson said in a statement. “Therefore, Barbara and I agree, it is time for our trusted partner, Amazon MGM Studios, to lead James Bond into the future.”Amazon bought MGM Studios in 2022 for $6.1 billion, a purchase that was significantly motivated by the acquisition of one of the movies’ most beloved and long-running franchises. Since the Daniel Craig era of 007 concluded with 2021’s No Time to Die, Broccoli and Wilson have reportedly clashed with Amazon MGM over the direction of Bond.The announcement Thursday means that for the first time in the more than half a century of Bond, a Broccoli won’t be greenlighting the next 007 film, or picking who inherits his tux. Amazon MGM also anticipates expanding the franchise beyond movies.“We are grateful to the late Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Saltzman for bringing James Bond to movie theaters around the world, and to Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli for their unyielding dedication and their role in continuing the legacy of the franchise that is cherished by legions of fans worldwide,” said Mike Hopkins, head of Prime Video and Amazon MGM Studios. “We are honored to continue this treasured heritage, and look forward to ushering in the next phase of the legendary 007 for audiences around the world.”Bond had been a family business since Albert “Cubby” Broccoli secured the rights to adaptations of Ian Fleming’s novels and kicked off a run of 25 Bond films produced by Eon Productions, beginning with 1962’s Dr. No. Those movies have accrued $7.6 billion in box office.In 1995, the elder Broccoli handed over control of Eon to his daughter, Broccoli, and stepson, Wilson. In recent years, the 64-year-old Broccoli has largely taken the lead as Wilson, 83, has aged into retirement.“My life has been dedicated to maintaining and building upon the extraordinary legacy that was handed to Michael and me by our father, producer Cubby Broccoli,” Broccoli said in a statement. “I have had the honor of working closely with four of the tremendously talented actors who have played 007 and thousands of wonderful artists within the industry. With the conclusion of ‘No Time to Die’ and Michael retiring from the films, I feel it is time to focus on my other projects.”Broccoli and Wilson’s previous standoff with Amazon MGM had essentially frozen development on the next Bond movie. No script, director or star has yet been announced for the next installment, an unusually long break for a franchise that has typically spaced films two or three years apart. Broccoli also produced the 2022 film Till and the musical Buena Vista Social Club, opening next month on Broadway.A key point for the producers in the Amazon acquisition of MGM was a commitment to theatrically release James Bond films. That Bond’s future is now in the hands of an e-commerce giant with one of the leading streaming services will immediately prompted doubts from some fans about Bond’s new corporate overloads. Other billion-dollar movie franchises, such as the Disney-owned Star Wars and Marvel brands, have in recent years struggled with over-saturation.Even Joe Russo, codirector of four Marvel Cinematic Universe films including Avengers: Endgame, pleaded to Amazon MGM: “DON’T cinematic universe James Bond.”“It is one of our last, great theatrical events,” Russo said on X. “Don’t dilute that with a plethora of streaming spin-offs.”In an interview last fall ahead of receiving an honorary Oscar alongside her brother, Broccoli told the Associated Press that, in an era of upheaval in the movie industry, boldness was necessary.“People are playing it very safe,” Broccoli said. “I think in times of crisis like this, you’ve got to be brave.”
Jake Coyle, AP Film Writer
T-Mobile is making moves to make sure its first among first responders.
The mobile giant announced that as a part of its T-Priority solutiona portion of T-Mobiles 5G network thats set aside specifically for use by first responders, to avoid network congestion and slowdowns during emergenciesit’s signed a contract with the City of New York to be the single carrier for the citys public safety network comprising more than 40,000 personnel, and is allowing free limited-time access to T-Priority through its first responder rate plans.
Additionally, the company is partnering with others in the industry to create an advanced 5G ecosystem, which should help numerous tools such as drones and AI-powered deployables perform better in the field. That partnership includes companies like Samsung and Skydio. T-Mobile is also making a $2 million donation to the Tunnel to Towers Foundation, which supports the families of fallen first responders.
These are big investments, and its incredibly important work, said Callie Field, president of T-Mobile Business Group, at an event in New York City on Thursday announcing the news. “We launched T-Priority for a reason. It was time to get this community better options . . . Even in 2025, when we expect instant communication, there are times when they cant connect. Field went on to say that almost two-thirds of first responders say they are concerned about network connectivity.
As such, Field said T-Mobile saw the announced moves as the companys responsibility.
T-Mobiles moves may be significant for emergency services, as first responders can find it difficult to communicate when cell service goes down. While fire and police departments generally do have other ways to get in touch with one anothervia walkie-talkies or pagers, which should work in the event that cell service is downwhen carrier networks are clogged up or otherwise crippled, it can hamper responses and potentially cost lives.
T-Mobiles data says that T-Priority can offer up to 40% more 5G capacity to ensure first responders can stay connected, and its designed to emphasize speed for data-intensive communications. T-Priority also meshes with T-Mobiles plan to launch T-Mobile Starlink this year, which will help get signals through to parts of the country that are not reachable by cell towers.
The Trump administration is once again targeting California’s controversial high-speed rail project, with federal transportation officials on Thursday announcing an investigation and possible withdrawal of about $4 billion in federal funding.Voters first approved $10 billion in bond money in 2008 for a project designed to shuttle riders between San Francisco and Los Angeles in less than three hours. It was slated to cost $33 billion and be finished by 2020. But the project has been beset by funding challenges, cost overruns, and delays.Now, state officials are focused on a 171-mile (275-kilometer) stretch connecting the Central Valley cities of Bakersfield and Merced, which is set to be operating by 2033. The entire San Francisco to Los Angeles line will now cost an estimated $106 billion to finish and officials hope to complete it in the next 20 years if there is money.“I am directing my staff to review and determine whether the (California High-Speed Rail Authority) has followed through on the commitments it made to receive billions of dollars in federal funding. If not, I will have to consider whether that money could be given to deserving infrastructure projects elsewhere in the United States,” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said at a news conference in Los Angeles.President Donald Trump canceled nearly $1 billion in federal funding for the high-speed rail project in 2019, during his first term. The Biden administration later restored the funding and, in December 2023, allocated $3.3 billion more.Losing that money would be a major blow to the project. The rail authority’s most recent business plan counts on receiving up to $8 billion in federal money to help close a funding gap.Ian Choudri, CEO of the California’s High-Speed Rail Authority, which oversees planning and funding for the project, said he welcomes the investigation.“With multiple independent federal and state audits completed, every dollar is accounted for, and we stand by the progress and impact of this project,” Choudri said.He said the project has created nearly 15,000 jobs and that more than 50 major structures have been completed so far.Several Republican Congress members have taken aim at the project over its costs. On Thursday, Republican Rep. Kevin Kiley, who represents 3rd Congressional District that stretches alongside much of the state’s border with Nevada and includes Sacramento’s northeastern suburbs, called the California high-speed rail “the worst public infrastructure failure in U.S. history.”“There is no plausible scenario where the cost to federal or state taxpayers can be justified. It is past time to stop throwing good money after bad, and we must formally end this project,” said Kiley, who introduced a bill earlier this year to make the project ineligible for further federal funding.Kiley joined Duffy in Los Angeles’s Union Station for the announcement of the probe. Those present were interrupted at times by booing by about 30 demonstrators. The protesters also chanted “build the rail!” and held up signs that read “CA has no king” and “Don’t delay our train.”Eli Lipmen, executive director of Move LA, an organization that advocates for efficient public transit systems, said the high-speed train project remains popular among many Californians.“They said they’re going to start an investigation, but come on, this is a sham investigation,” Lipmen, who was at Union Station during the announcement, told KABC-TV.Greg Regan and Shari Semelsberger, president and secretary-treasurer of the Transportation Trades Department coalition that includes all the country’s rail unions, said the project is the most ambitious and innovative transportation project in the country and urged Trump to become “a Builder-in-Chief by bringing high-speed rail to America.”“Building ambitious projects requires bold leadership and a commitment to getting the job done. Just last year, President Trump complained that the United States does not have bullet trains similar to Japan. We agree with him that it is past time for our country to have these kinds of modern, efficient, high-capacity transportation systems,” they said in a statement.
The one-bedroom cottage with a woodsy vibe reminded Heather McAlpine of the home she lost to the brutal Los Angeles-area wildfires. But only two hours after seeing the listing, the rental was snapped up.She is one of tens of thousands of people displaced by the fires who is now competing for housing in a region that is among the most expensive and competitive in the country, partly due to lack of supply.McAlpine, had lived in her Altadena house for four years and is now staying with her boyfriend. She isn’t surprised by spiking rents.“I know they’re expensive, and it sucks,” she said.Tenants who were just getting by before the fires now face a daunting housing search after the January fires leveled entire neighborhoods. The L.A. fires destroyed more than 16,000 homes, businesses and other structures in upscale Pacific Palisades and working-class Altadena, where the U.S. Census reports 22% of homes were occupied by renters.It’s hard to quantify exactly how the wildfires are affecting the rental market, but L.A. rents rose faster than prices nationwide in January compared to the previous month, according to housing platform Zillow.The added competition from residents displaced by the fires is likely to worsen housing affordability, increase overcrowding and contribute to homelessness, says Sarah Karlinsky, research director at the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at the University of California, Berkeley. Already, more than half of all renter householdsor a little over one million householdsin L.A. County spend 30% or more of their income on rent.Shane Phillips, housing initiative project manager at the UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies, expects prices to increase significantly for months, if not a few years.“There’s only so many people moving at any given time, and suddenly adding another 20,000 households to that amount is just an extraordinary pressure,” he said.Rental pageviews in L.A. County on the real estate platform Redfin are up 50% from a year ago, said Daryl Fairweather, the company’s chief economist.She said people will feel the impact of “shorter supply, more fierce competition for rentals.”Egregious rents cropped up soon after the fires broke out, prompting an ad-hoc group of tenant organizers, web programmers and others to crowdsource examples. The Rent Brigade found more than 1,300 examples of illegal rent increases advertised between January 7 and January 18. Many have since been removed or relisted at lower prices.California Attorney General Rob Bonta has warned repeatedly of the state’s anti-gouging laws, which limits price increases to no more than 10% from whatever the price was before the emergency. His office has so far filed three misdemeanor criminal price-gouging charges.A 10% cap is still too high for Wendy Dlakic. She was paying about $3,000 a month for a now uninhabitable two-bedroom condo in Altadena, a community she loved. She’s searched rental websites, but for now is staying with friends, family and at Airbnbs.“It was already expensive,” said Dlakic, an educator who moved to Southern California two years ago. “It’s tough to be in L.A. on one income. You’re right on the edge, you know?”The “typical rent” in the U.S. was $1,968 as of January 31up 0.2% from the previous month, according to Zillow. But in the L.A. metro area, the typical rent was up 0.8% to $2,954. Zillow calculates the typical rent figure by averaging the middle 30% of rents.Daniel Yukelson, executive director of the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, says fears of rent-gouging have been overblown by tenant advocates and he’s angry that Bonta has filed criminal charges.“Some mistakes were unknowingly made,” he said. “If these infractions were pointed out to these few owners, corrections would have surely been made immediately.”McAlpine, the displaced tenant, realized the Eaton Fire was coming for her in-law unit while she was helping to evacuate neighbors as a Altadena Mountain Rescue Team volunteer. She scooped up her cat, ski gear and camera equipment and fled the 300-square-foot (28-square-meter) cottage.She’s grateful for donations through GoFundMe, which will help with essentials, but is worried about finding a standalone unit close to nature and within her monthly budget of $1,800 for rent and utilities.The cottage that McAlpine, a photographer, and her boyfriend wanted was listed for $2,750 a month. Even though they have a bigger budget together, the hunt has been dispiriting.“I’m quickly looking for the photos. ‘Oh, does this look sketchy or not?’ Or, ‘you know, is this the right price?'” she said. “It’s just very different from how I would normally look for a place to live.”
Janie Har and Damian Dovarganes, Associated Press
The termination letters that ended the careers of thousands of U.S. Forest Service employees mean fewer people and less resources will be available to help prevent and fight wildfires, raising the specter of even more destructive blazes across the American West, fired workers and officials said.The Forest Service firingson the heels of deadly blazes that ripped through Los Angeles last monthare part of a wave of federal worker layoffs, as President Donald Trump’s cost-cutting measures reverberate nationwide.Workers who maintained trails, removed combustible debris from forests, supported firefighters and secured funds for wildfire mitigation say staffing cuts threaten public safety, especially in the West, where drier and hotter conditions linked to climate change have increased the intensity of wildfires.“I’m terrified of that,” said Tanya Torst, who was fired from her position as a U.S. Forest Service partnership coordinator in Chico, California, on February 14. Torst, whose probationary period was set to end in March, worked with groups to bring in nearly $12 million for removing dead trees and other fuels in the Mendocino National Forest.“This is 100% a safety thing,” she said of her concerns, recalling the deadly Paradise blaze that killed 85 people east of Chico in 2018. “That’s why I’m speaking out.”The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the Forest Service, said in a statement that Secretary Brooke Rollins supports Trump’s directive to fire about 2,000 “probationary, non-firefighting employees,” which he said was for efficiency’s sake. Rollins is committed to “preserving essential safety positions and will ensure that critical services remain uninterrupted,” the statement said.The statement didn’t address the fired workers who were responsible for removing combustible fuels and other projects aiming to lower a wildfire’s intensity.The Trump administration has frozen funds for wildfire prevention programs supported by legislation championed by former President Joe Biden, the Associated Press reported. Programs not funded by that legislation can continue, an Interior Department statement said.U.S. Rep. Kim Schrier, a Washington state Democrat, said on the social platform X that the Forest Service layoffs are already hurting the state, “and it is only going to get worse. Fire season is coming.”The Washington state Department of Natural Resources said the firings forced them to develop contingency plans to deal with a “degraded federal force this coming fire season.”Melanie Mattox Green, who was fired from her land management and environmental planning job at the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest in Montana, said their fire-prevention efforts prioritized areas where towns border forest lands. Staffing cuts put those towns at risk, she said.“If a fire breaks out now without these projects occurring, that fire is going to be far more dangerous to our local communities,” she said.The cuts also mean fewer people will keep trails free of fallen trees and other debris, she said. Maintaining trails is critical in remote areas that firefighters access by foot.“Without those trails being cleared, it means that now firefighters cannot easily and more effectively get to these fires to fight them,” she said.Many Forest Service workers who don’t occupy official firefighter positions still have firefighting certifications, known as a “red card,” that must be renewed annually. Josh Vega, who maintained 1,100 miles (1,770 kilometers) of trails as a forestry technician in the Bob Marshall Wilderness in Montana before being fired, said his crew was the first to arrive at a wildfire that broke out in 2023.For about two days, Vega’s crew monitored the blaze before firefighters arrived. “We spent the next few days keeping an eye on the fire, making sure that the trailheads were all closed and that the public knew what was happening so that they wouldn’t find themselves in a predicament.”Many Forest Service operations involve supporting firefighters beyond fire season, including surveying areas for prescribed burns or ensuring trail access, said Luke Tobin, who was fired from his forestry technician role in Idaho’s Nez Perce National Forest.“Everybody helps with fire in some aspect, some way, shape or form,” he said.Gregg Bafundo, who was fired last week from his post as a wilderness ranger and wildland firefighter at the Okanogan Wenatchee National Forest, said the staffing cuts came at a critical time.“This is the time of year when they hire everybody,” he said during a press conference organized by Washington Sen. Patty Murray. “It’s the time of year when firefighters renew their red cards and practice redeploying their fire shelters. This is when they train to be ready to fight next summer’s fires.“We can’t train while the fire is burning over the hill.”
Martha Bellisle and Claire Rush, Associated Press
While having lunch with a few fellow business owners recently, our conversation turned to the topic on every entrepreneurs mindartificial intelligence. It turns out that AI tools have quietly woven themselves into our daily routines, whether we’re brainstorming, researching, or synthesizing data, were also using it in slightly different ways.
Tools like ChatGPT are like Swiss Army Knives for productivity and creativity. Its no surprise that in the latest McKinsey Global Survey on AI, 65% of organizations reported regularly using AIthe technology is here to stay.
That said, leaning too heavily on AI can go awry. If you delegate content creation to ChatGPT, for example, it runs the risk of plagiarizing. The generative AI tool is also a notorious liar. In 2023, one startup found that ChatGPT made things up about 3% of the time. That same year, a Google chatbots false claim caused the companys market value to tumble by around $100 billion.
The key is strategic integration with safeguards in place. If youre curious about how to integrate AI smartly into your business, here are some friendly tips to get you started while keeping things safe and effective.
Use AIs strengthswithout losing your own
ChatGPT can supercharge your creativity. Wharton professor Christian Terwiesch pitted the large language model (LLM) against humans to determine which group could generate better business ideas. (Spoiler alert: The robots came out victorious.) Commenting on his findings, Terwiesch said that everybody should be using ChatGPT to help them generate ideasif nothing else, your idea pool will improve. He called it a no-brainer. I like to use ChatGPT to get the ball rolling on creative brainstorming. Using simple prompts, you can ask ChatGPT to help you generate ideas and then choose and refine the best ones.
ChatGPT can also summarize dense, lengthy information in seconds. It can break down concepts in as simple terms as youd likejust begin your prompt with something like, Pretend you are explaining this to [a 12-year-old, a college kid, etc.].
Importantly, the best practices with ChatGPT entail using the LLM as a jumping-off point, without delegating your creativity entirely. To me, the idea is to assign ChatGPT the rote or manual parts of your work to make more time and space for wide swaths of impactful, deeply creative workthe work that leads to innovation and breakthroughs.
In sum, use ChatGPT for tasks like summarizing information and generating ideas, not as a replacement for your own critical thinking and expertise.
Always verify information from AI
Fact-checking is a practice that we sometimes take for granted. The New Yorker, known for its historically rigorous fact-checking department, employs around 30 people to verify the facts in every single story. As one former fact-checker explained, Each word in the piece that has even a shred of fact clinging to it is scrutinized.
ChatGPT, however, has no fail-safe in place. Thats why leaders must be skeptical of anything presented as a fact, verify information with sources, and encourage employees to do the same. If ChatGPT generates a summary of somethingfor example, the latest news on DeepSeekthe summary will include the names of sources hyperlinked to the corresponding web addresses. I recommend checking each one, as ChatGPT has a tendency to link to a source that does not contain the relevant information.
In short, never take information from ChatGPT at face value.
Be clear about how AI should be used
Finally, its critical for leaders to be transparent about how employees can use generative AI tools. For starters, this signals to employees that they should leverage LLMsif theyre not, the company’s competitors and their colleagues will. I regularly encourage Jotform employees to seek out new ways to automate their busywork, including using generative AI tools, to make more time for tasks that feel personally meaningful, motivating, and inspiring.
Failing to communicate corporate policies surrounding AI creates a risk that employees will misuse itfor example, handing over the reins for their creative work, or essentially copying and pasting other peoples work product based on the LLMs results. Without clear guidance, employees may encounter problems with data security, ethical concerns, and regulatory compliance issues.
Theres no shortage of fear and anxiety surrounding AI, especially regarding its potential to take human jobs. Transparency can help employees understand AIs role as a productivity and creativity booster, rather than a threat, fostering innovation and meaningful productivity.
By setting clear expectations, leaders create a culture where AI enhances work and advances individuals on their career paths, rather than disrupting them.
