Long-term exposure to common air pollutants may significantly raise the risk of developing substance use disorders, while living surrounded by greenery appears to offer a measure of protection, according to a large new population-based study drawing on nearly a quarter of a million participants from the UK Biobank.

The research, published in BMC Psychiatry, analyzed data from 247,138 UK Biobank participants who were free of substance use disorders at baseline, tracking them over a median follow-up period of 10.9 years. During that time, 4,982 participants went on to develop a substance use disorder, providing the researchers with a robust dataset to examine the relationship between environmental exposures and mental health outcomes.

The study, led by Huan Liu and Bolun Cheng of Xi’an Jiaotong University in China, along with colleagues including Feng Zhang, represents one of the most comprehensive investigations to date into how the air people breathe and the greenness of their neighborhoods may influence vulnerability to addiction. The findings arrive at a moment when urban planners and public health officials are increasingly recognizing that the built and natural environments shape health in ways that extend well beyond respiratory and cardiovascular disease.

To assess air pollution exposure, the team employed Land Use Regression modeling to estimate concentrations of five pollutants at each participant’s residential address: fine particulate matter known as PM2.5, coarse particulate matter classified as PM2.5−10, the larger particulate fraction PM10, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and nitrogen oxides (NOX). These pollutants, produced primarily by traffic, industry, and combustion sources, have long been associated with a range of physical health problems, but their role in psychiatric and behavioral conditions has remained far less certain.

For residential greenness, the researchers turned to the 2005–2007 Land Cover Map, measuring three distinct aspects of the environment within a 300-meter buffer around each home: the proportion of green space, the presence of a domestic garden, and the extent of natural environment. This tripartite approach allowed the investigators to distinguish between different types of vegetation and their potentially different effects on health.

Using Cox proportional hazards models, the team calculated hazard ratios with 95 percent confidence intervals to quantify the association between each exposure and the risk of developing a substance use disorder. The results were striking in their consistency. All five air pollutants were positively associated with incident SUD in fully adjusted models that controlled for a wide range of potential confounders.

Fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, showed the strongest effect, with a hazard ratio of 1.111 (95 percent CI: 1.081–1.142), followed by PM10 with a hazard ratio of 1.070 (95 percent CI: 1.054–1.086). These figures indicate that higher exposure to particulate pollution was associated with a measurable increase in the likelihood of developing a substance use disorder over the follow-up period, even after accounting for demographic, socioeconomic, and behavioral factors.

On the protective side of the ledger, two of the three greenness measures emerged as significant. Green space was inversely associated with SUD risk, showing a hazard ratio of 0.997 (95 percent CI: 0.996–0.998), and the natural environment measure produced an identical finding, with a hazard ratio of 0.997 (95 percent CI: 0.995–0.998). While these effect sizes appear modest on a per-unit basis, they represent population-level signals across a very large cohort, suggesting that even incremental increases in neighborhood greenness may contribute to reduced vulnerability.

Perhaps the most intriguing finding of the study concerns the interaction between pollution and greenery. The researchers tested whether residential greenness modified the association between air pollutants and SUD risk by introducing cross-product terms into their models and evaluating them with likelihood-ratio tests. The results pointed to a buffering role for domestic gardens specifically. Among participants in the high-exposure subgroup, the presence of a domestic garden attenuated the positive associations between pollutants and SUD, with cross-product terms of 0.979 (95 percent CI: 0.963–0.996) for PM2.5 and 0.987 (95 percent CI: 0.980–0.995) for PM10.

In practical terms, this suggests that having access to a private garden may partially offset some of the harm associated with living in areas of elevated particulate pollution, offering a form of environmental resilience that public health advocates have long hypothesized but rarely demonstrated with prospective cohort data.

The associations were not uniform across the population. The positive relationships between air pollution and substance use disorder risk were most pronounced among males, participants aged 65 and older, and individuals with a history of smoking. These findings highlight the importance of considering demographic and behavioral modifiers when assessing the health consequences of environmental exposures, and they suggest that certain subgroups may benefit disproportionately from interventions aimed at reducing pollution or increasing green cover.

To ensure the robustness of their findings, the team conducted a series of sensitivity analyses. These included restricting the sample to long-term residents to minimize exposure misclassification from relocation, using alternative outcome definitions based on ICD-10 codes F10-F19 and F11-F19 to capture different ranges of substance-related diagnoses, and recomputing greenness measures at a wider 1000-meter buffer around each residence. The core conclusions held across these variations, strengthening confidence in the results.

The study was performed in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was registered with the UK Biobank under application number 46478. Ethical approval for the UK Biobank was granted by the North West Multi-centre Research Ethics Committee under approval reference 11/NW/0382. All participants provided written informed consent before any study-related procedures were initiated.

The work was supported by the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation, the Natural Science Basic Research Plan in Shaanxi Province of China, and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. Corresponding authors are Bolun Cheng and Feng Zhang, both affiliated with Xi’an Jiaotong University, with Zhang also holding a position in the Department of Psychiatry at the First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University.

The findings come amid growing scientific interest in the neurological and psychiatric consequences of air pollution. Particulate matter, particularly PM2.5, is small enough to cross the blood-brain barrier and has been implicated in neuroinflammation, oxidative stress, and alterations in brain structure and function. These biological mechanisms could plausibly influence reward processing, impulse control, and stress reactivity, all of which are central to the development and perpetuation of substance use disorders.

Conversely, greenness has been associated with stress reduction, improved mental well-being, greater opportunities for physical activity and social interaction, and lower levels of psychological distress, each of which may buffer against the onset of addictive behaviors. The current study adds a significant piece of evidence to this emerging picture by demonstrating the relationship prospectively in one of the world’s largest and most deeply phenotyped biobanks.

The authors conclude that long-term exposure to ambient air pollutants was associated with a higher risk of incident substance use disorders and that residential greenness showed protective associations, with the most pronounced patterns observed among older males and individuals with a smoking history. They argue that the findings support integrating greenness exposure into environmental frameworks for the prevention of substance use disorders, a recommendation that carries implications for urban design, housing policy, and environmental regulation.

As cities around the world continue to grapple with the twin challenges of air quality and mental health, studies of this scale provide an evidence base for interventions that address both simultaneously. The prospect that something as tangible as a garden could offer measurable protection against the psychiatric consequences of polluted air adds a compelling dimension to ongoing debates about how the environments we build shape the minds that inhabit them.

The article is published open access under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, permitting broad sharing and adaptation with appropriate credit to the original authors and source. It was received on 08 December 2025, accepted on 28 August 2026, and published on 09 September 2026.

In one of the most comprehensive investigations of its kind, researchers have taken a major step toward untangling the biology underlying suicide risk, moving the field beyond long-standing debates about whether suicidal behavior is simply a consequence of psychiatric illness. By integrating large-scale genetic data with cutting-edge approaches that map how genes act in specific brain cells and circuits, an international team has identified shared genetic liability that cuts across psychiatric diagnoses while also pinpointing druggable biological pathways that could one day inform prevention strategies. The study, published in Translational Psychiatry, offers a sweeping synthesis of how inherited risk factors may translate into molecular vulnerabilities, and it does so with a level of resolution that previous candidate-gene approaches could never achieve.

Suicide remains one of the leading causes of death worldwide, claiming more than 700,000 lives each year according to global health estimates. Despite decades of research, clinical prediction remains stubbornly imprecise, and biological models of suicidal behavior have historically been hampered by small sample sizes, inconsistent findings, and a tendency to conflate suicide risk with the psychiatric disorders with which it so often co-occurs. Major depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and substance use disorders all carry elevated suicide risk, yet most people with these conditions never attempt suicide, while some individuals who die by suicide have no diagnosed psychiatric illness at all. This paradox has long suggested to researchers that suicidal behavior may possess partially distinct biological underpinnings, and the new study set out to test that hypothesis with unprecedented statistical power.

At the heart of the work lies genome-wide association study methodology, or GWAS, which scans hundreds of thousands to millions of genetic variants spread across the entire genome in very large groups of people, comparing individuals who have experienced suicidal thoughts or behaviors with those who have not. Each variant is tested for statistical association with the outcome, and the results can be combined into polygenic risk scores, numerical summaries of a person’s inherited liability based on the cumulative small effects of thousands of variants. Because no single common variant exerts a large effect, the field depends on aggregating data across massive biobanks and cohorts, a strategy that has only become feasible in the past decade as datasets containing hundreds of thousands of individuals became available.

The research team took particular care to address a central confound: psychiatric disorders themselves are highly heritable, and any genetic signal linked to suicide could simply reflect inherited liability to depression or schizophrenia rather than to suicide specifically. To disentangle this, the investigators applied sophisticated statistical techniques, including genetic correlation analysis and conditional modeling, which allow researchers to ask how much genetic overlap remains between suicidal behavior and psychiatric conditions after accounting for their shared heritability. Their findings revealed a complex architecture. Substantial genetic correlations confirmed that suicide risk shares a meaningful fraction of its inherited basis with major psychiatric disorders, supporting the idea of a common pool of genetic liability. Yet the analyses also uncovered signals that persisted beyond what could be explained by those disorders, pointing to biological mechanisms that may be more specific to the emergence of suicidal thoughts and actions.

A key conceptual innovation of the study is its framing of “shared genetic liability” as a bridge between diagnoses. Rather than treating suicide as an epiphenomenon of any single disorder, the researchers modeled it as a transdiagnostic phenomenon, one whose risk emerges partly from inherited vulnerabilities that cut across diagnostic categories. This perspective aligns with a growing movement in biological psychiatry that emphasizes symptom dimensions and mechanisms over traditional diagnostic boundaries. From this vantage point, the genetic variants that raise risk for depression, PTSD, and schizophrenia may do so partly because they converge on shared molecular pathways, and those same pathways may govern an individual’s threshold for suicidal crises regardless of which diagnosis they carry.

Identifying genetic variants, however, is only the first step. A GWAS signal typically points to a genomic region rather than a specific causal gene or mechanism, since many associated variants fall in non-coding stretches of DNA that regulate gene activity from a distance. To translate statistical associations into biological insight, the team deployed a battery of functional genomics approaches. Transcriptome-wide association studies, known as TWAS, integrate gene expression data to identify genes whose genetically predicted expression levels are linked to suicide risk. Tissue and cell-type enrichment analyses then ask whether the implicated genes are unusually active in particular organs or cell populations. The results converged strikingly on brain tissue, and more specifically on neuronal populations, providing support for the idea that inherited suicide risk is mediated largely through gene regulation within the central nervous system.

The study’s most clinically provocative findings concern druggable biology. Using databases that catalog the protein targets of approved and investigational medications, the researchers examined whether genes implicated in suicide risk were over-represented among known drug targets. The analysis identified several classes of candidate targets, including components of neurotransmitter signaling systems, ion channels, and intracellular signaling cascades that are already the focus of pharmacological development for other conditions. This “druggable genome” approach, which has gained traction in genetics research across many diseases, offers a pragmatic shortcut for translational science: rather than waiting decades for entirely new therapeutic classes to be invented, researchers can prioritize existing or in-development compounds whose molecular targets intersect with genetically implicated pathways.

Among the pathways receiving attention in the analysis were those involving glutamatergic and GABAergic neurotransmission, the primary excitatory and inhibitory systems of the brain, which have repeatedly surfaced in studies of mood disorders and stress response. The endocannabinoid system and inflammatory signaling pathways also appeared in the convergent analyses, consistent with a broader literature linking immune dysregulation and allostatic load to suicidal ideation. Importantly, the authors emphasize that these findings identify hypotheses rather than ready-made treatments. Genetic association with a drug target does not guarantee that modulating that target will reduce suicide risk, and any therapeutic application would require extensive preclinical validation and carefully designed clinical trials. Nevertheless, the work provides a principled, data-driven map for where to look, replacing decades of largely failed candidate-gene speculation with a genome-wide evidence base.

The methodological rigor underpinning the study deserves emphasis, because the genetics of suicidal behavior has a troubled history. Early candidate-gene studies, which typically examined a handful of variants in genes related to serotonin signaling, produced findings that largely failed to replicate and in some cases were later shown to reflect statistical artifacts, small samples, and publication bias. The field has since undergone a reckoning, and modern efforts adhere to far stricter standards: preregistered analyses, very large and ancestrally diverse cohorts, replication in independent samples, and conservative multiple-testing corrections that demand genome-wide significance thresholds on the order of five times ten to the negative eighth power. The new study reflects these lessons, applying sensitivity analyses to guard against confounding from psychiatric comorbidity and examining whether findings generalize across ancestral groups, an issue of considerable importance given that most genetic discovery to date has been conducted in populations of European ancestry.

The implications for clinical practice, while still distant, are worth considering. Polygenic risk scores for suicide-related outcomes currently explain only a small fraction of individual differences in risk, far too little to be used as stand-alone screening tools, and their predictive performance is degraded in populations not represented in the discovery data. Researchers in the field are careful to stress that genetic risk is not destiny: suicidal behavior arises from an intricate interplay of inherited vulnerability, mental illness, trauma, substance use, social isolation, access to lethal means, and the availability of support. What genetics offers is not a crystal ball but a window into mechanism, and mechanistic knowledge is the raw material from which better biomarkers, risk stratification tools, and ultimately targeted interventions are built. In the near term, the druggable pathway findings are most valuable as a guide for laboratory science, directing neurobiologists toward molecular systems whose manipulation might alter suicide-relevant phenotypes in animal models and cellular assays.

Looking forward, the study signals where the field must go next. Sample sizes for suicide-specific genetic analyses remain smaller than those for major psychiatric disorders, and expanding representation across ancestries is essential if the benefits of this research are to be shared equitably. Integrating genetic data with longitudinal measures of life stress, neural imaging, and digital phenotyping may eventually allow researchers to model how inherited liability interacts with environmental triggers across the lifespan. Functional experiments in induced pluripotent stem cell-derived neurons and brain organoids could test whether the implicated genes genuinely alter stress-response circuitry or resilience. And randomized trials in patients carrying high genetic liability, though ethically and logistically complex, represent the logical endpoint of the druggable-target approach.

What the study ultimately delivers is a reframe. Suicide risk, in this analysis, is not an amorphous clinical outcome but a measurable, partly heritable trait whose genetic architecture is now being resolved with the same tools that have transformed our understanding of heart disease, diabetes, and schizophrenia. By demonstrating that shared genetic liability links suicide risk across diagnostic boundaries and by mapping that liability onto specific, pharmacologically tractable biology, the researchers have converted a long-standing clinical puzzle into a concrete research agenda. The path from genetic correlation to effective prevention is long, and no genetic finding will soon replace the human work of crisis intervention, connection, and care. But for a problem that has defied biological explanation for generations, the identification of shared, druggable mechanisms represents a genuine and hard-won advance, one that may shape suicide research for years to come.

Police have finally dropped a year-long investigation into three hero passengers who tackled a man exposing himself in front of children on a train – though only because the CPS has refused to take the case forward.

The post Police Drop Year-Long Case Against Heroes Who Tackled Tube Flasher appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

Wildfire scientists have unveiled a new rapid risk-assessment tool that shows substantial wildfire danger to homes and buildings in three major Arctic communities, revealing that between 14% and 26% of structures in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Whitehorse face high or very high risk from approaching flames. The study, led by Jennifer I. Schmidt of the University of Alaska Anchorage together with Robert H. Ziel, Monika P. Calef, Anna Varvak, and Julio C. Postigo, was published in the International Journal of Disaster Risk Science. Rather than relying on complex fire-behavior simulations that demand specialist analysts and expensive software, the approach combines datasets that most local governments already possess: building footprints, zoning maps, and readily available vegetation layers. The result is an updatable, affordable portrait of which buildings face the greatest threat and where mitigation dollars can do the most good.

The urgency behind the work is hard to overstate. Wildfire costs and damages in the United States alone are now estimated at between USD 394 billion and 893 billion annually, and the 2019 to 2020 Australian fire disasters cost nearly USD 100 billion. The Arctic, often imagined as too cold and wet to burn, is not immune: since 1980, wildfires have cost Alaska between USD 2 billion and 5 billion, with projections suggesting costs could rise 68% by the end of the century. Canadian suppression expenses are expected to climb by 60 to 110% relative to the 1980 to 2009 baseline. Meanwhile, structure loss from wildfire has doubled over the past two decades in the western United States, and western Canada has suffered major structure-loss events in four of the last eight fire seasons. Nearly half the global population now lives within the wildland-urban interface, the zone where people and forests meet or intermingle, making tools that translate fire science into actionable local maps increasingly vital.

The researchers’ central premise is conceptually simple but technically consequential: for a structure to be at high risk, a flammable hazard must exist nearby, within roughly 500 meters, and the surrounding landscape must exhibit high wildfire exposure. The method begins with a flammability hazard layer at 30-meter resolution, built from a modified version of NASA’s ABoVE Landcover dataset in which generic evergreen classes were refined to reflect locally flammable species such as black spruce, white spruce, lodgepole pine, and subalpine fir, each assigned hazard ratings from 0 to 100. Critically, the team treated structures themselves as fuel. Each building contributes three fuel units to the surrounding flammability score, a value chosen after systematic testing of one through ten fuel units; three proved optimal, nudging densely built environments up a hazard category without causing wholesale reclassification. Structure density was computed at 90-meter resolution, multiplied by three, and added to the vegetation-based hazard to produce an enhanced flammability hazard layer.

Wildfire exposure, the second pillar of the assessment, captures the potential for hazard to travel. It is calculated as the average flammability hazard within a 100-meter or 500-meter radius, representing the likelihood that fire can reach and burn a given location even if the local fuels themselves are sparse. Exposure values, also ranging from 0 to 100, are classified into five tiers from very low to extreme, and concentrated pockets of flammable vegetation drive scores upward. The third ingredient is structure vulnerability, produced by multiplying the enhanced flammability hazard by a structure importance factor derived from zoning data: residential buildings and critical infrastructure such as hospitals, schools, and nursing homes receive the highest weight, followed by commercial and other structures. Where zoning was unavailable, as on military installations like Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage and Fort Wainwright and Eielson Air Force Base in Fairbanks, the team collaborated with base personnel or interpreted aerial imagery to classify neighborhoods. The final risk score synthesizes hazard, exposure, and vulnerability into six categories, from extremely low to very high.

The results paint a nuanced picture of Arctic fire danger. Fairbanks showed the greatest proportion of structures in the top two risk categories at 26%, followed by Whitehorse at 22% and Anchorage at 14%. Anchorage, paradoxically, had the highest share of buildings in the top vulnerability tiers, 42%, yet the lowest risk, a consequence of its large urban footprint where dense housing raises vulnerability but fragmented, less-flammable vegetation and abundant developed ground suppress exposure. Fairbanks and Whitehorse, with structures woven into spruce- and pine-dominated boreal landscapes, showed closer alignment between vulnerability and risk. Anchorage was also the only study area where more than 1% of cells jumped two or more flammability categories when buildings were counted as fuel, at 7%, reflecting its 27% share of structure area containing seven or more buildings per cell. The analysis also confirmed the primacy of exposure: when a structure’s wildfire exposure was extreme, at least 87% of such buildings landed in the highest risk category across all three communities.

A key innovation lies in how the team redrew the wildland-urban interface itself. Traditional WUI maps distinguish urban, interface, and intermix zones; the researchers added a fourth category, the transmission zone, marking areas roughly 2.4 kilometers beyond the WUI boundary where fire could move into a community and where fuel breaks might be sited. Within the 500-meter buffer around structures, urban areas were defined by exposure values of 20 or less, interface zones by 21 to 60, and intermix by values above 60, cross-referenced with Alaska and Yukon wildfire management designations that prioritize suppression from critical down to unplanned or wilderness levels. Fairbanks claimed the largest overall WUI footprint, and the transmission zone proved the largest category in every study area, spanning 23,347 square kilometers around Anchorage, 6,180 square kilometers around Fairbanks, and 665 square kilometers around Whitehorse. Across all sites, most structures fell within interface zones, 52 to 61%, followed by intermix at 20 to 35%. Thousands of buildings sit in the high-risk interface and intermix zones where mitigation should concentrate: 15,537 structures in Anchorage, 16,212 in Fairbanks, and 3,734 in Whitehorse.

The method faced its most demanding test against a real disaster. On 17 August 2019, during southcentral Alaska’s hottest and driest summer on record, the likely human-caused McKinley wildfire was driven by high winds across 13.3 square kilometers in three days, destroying 52 residential structures, 84 outbuildings, and three commercial buildings, affecting 1,028 properties and forcing roughly 350 to 400 people to evacuate. By comparing pre-fire aerial imagery from 2017 with post-fire imagery from 2020 at 0.3-meter resolution and linking vanished buildings to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough structure database, the team identified exactly which structures burned. The verdict was statistically compelling: burned structures had significantly higher wildfire exposure than those that survived, and the proportion of burned structures with exposure values above 60 was significantly larger than among unburned ones. Structure risk scores above 60 were also significantly associated with burning. Notably, the test held even under conditions so extreme that normally resistant, low-flammability fuels were igniting.

The study’s design was shaped by sustained community engagement. Through workshops in 2019, 2021, and 2023, along with 15 to 20 meetings organized by Anchorage community councils and landowner associations and public events ranging from wildfire awareness days to Arbor Day, residents and agency staff reshaped everything from color schemes to model parameters. One consequential example: Anchorage residents and fire managers insisted that the maps reflect the spruce beetle outbreak first detected in 2016 and peaking around 2020, which killed and removed many spruce trees. The team responded with rules derived from aerial detection surveys, reclassifying white spruce cells in areas of beetle intensity of 11% or greater to mixed forest, and shifting mixed forest cells to open shrub, while a succession model updated vegetation on areas burned within the last 30 years. This iterative dialogue ensured outputs that both wildfire practitioners and the general public can interpret, a prerequisite the authors see as central to building fire-adapted communities.

The practical implications for planning are direct. Because mitigation funding is often tied to officially designated WUI areas, the ability to rapidly recalculate boundaries from updated building layers expands funding opportunities and keeps pace with community growth. The framework also points to different interventions in different zones: structures in intermix areas, surrounded by vegetation, benefit most from fuel treatments, while those in interface zones, where flammable vegetation is scarcer, are better served by home hardening measures such as fire-resistant roofs, siding, decks, screens, and unburnable buffers. Given that wildfire activity tends to occur where exposure exceeds 60, the authors recommend concentrating resources on the top two risk categories. Where national products like wildfirerisk.org rely on generalized fuel layers that can overestimate unburnable area in WUI zones and are updated too slowly for annually burning landscapes, this approach trades complexity for transparency, using local data that governments already collect. The underlying wildfire exposure toolbox is publicly available on GitHub, and the team argues that empowered residents, equipped with accurate, current, neighborhood-scale information, are crucial to reducing wildfire risk, particularly where communities may prefer action without government intervention.

Macworld

Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon resigned over AI extinction fears, calling for pacing agreements between labs.

A team of scientists from Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Cleveland Clinic and IBM (NYSE: IBM), has calculated nine

💾

Like most of the rest of his frontbench, Andy Burnham has never had a proper job outside politics. No wonder his policy agenda – the little we know of it – is so unbearably light, says Madeleine Gillies.

The post The Unbearable Lightness of Being Andy Burnham appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

Having a tooth removed creates a small wound that needs time to heal, so how to do tooth extraction aftercare. For people who vape, one of the most common questions is whether they can return to vaping immediately after the procedure or whether doing so could increase the chance of dry socket.

The short answer is that vaping during the early healing period is best avoided. The concern is not limited to nicotine. The act of inhaling can create suction inside the mouth, while vapor and other ingredients may irritate tissues that are already recovering.

A better approach is to give the extraction site time to stabilize before returning to your normal routine.

Why Dry Socket Happens After a Tooth Extraction

After a tooth is removed, a blood clot after tooth extraction normally develops inside the empty socket. That clot is important because it protects the underlying bone and nerves while new tissue begins to form.

If the clot breaks down or becomes displaced too early, the socket can be exposed. This condition is commonly called dry socket, or alveolar osteitis.

It is not simply normal post-extraction soreness. Dry socket can cause intense, throbbing pain that may become noticeable several days after the extraction. An unpleasant taste or bad breath can also occur.

Some NHS dental guidance notes that dry socket commonly develops around 3 to 5 days after extraction, particularly when the protective clot has been disturbed.

That timing is important because feeling better immediately after the procedure does not necessarily mean the wound has finished healing.

Why Vaping Can Be a Problem

Vaping after tooth extraction creates several potential concerns at the same time.

Suction can put the clot at risk

Taking a strong draw from a vape creates negative pressure in the mouth. A fresh extraction site is particularly vulnerable during the first stage of healing, so repeatedly creating suction is something worth avoiding.

This is one reason dental aftercare instructions commonly tell patients not to smoke after an extraction. Some guidance specifically includes vaping and e-cigarettes in the same recommendation.

Nicotine may interfere with recovery

Nicotine is another reason vaping is not ideal immediately after oral surgery. Nicotine can affect blood vessels and circulation, which are important to the healing process.

The issue becomes more significant when the mouth is already dealing with an open extraction wound. Even if a particular vape produces little visible irritation, that does not mean it is harmless to the healing socket.

Vapor can irritate sensitive tissue

Freshly treated oral tissue is more sensitive than normal. Heat, flavoring ingredients and aerosol exposure may feel irritating around the extraction area.

This does not mean every component of vape aerosol directly causes dry socket. Rather, vaping introduces unnecessary exposure at a time when the priority should be protecting the wound and allowing the clot to remain undisturbed.

How Long Should You Avoid Vaping?

There is no single number of hours that guarantees vaping is safe for everyone.

The appropriate recovery period can depend on the type of extraction, the location of the tooth, how difficult the procedure was and how the individual wound is healing.

Some NHS oral-surgery guidance recommends avoiding smoking for at least five days, while other extraction instructions advise avoiding smoking for at least 24–48 hours.

For vaping, the practical message is simple: do not treat the minimum waiting period as a guarantee that the socket is fully healed.

If your dentist or oral surgeon gives you a specific period for avoiding vaping, follow that instruction rather than relying on a general online timetable.

The First Few Days Matter Most

The period immediately after extraction deserves particular attention.

Instead of thinking, “When can I vape again?”, it is more useful to think, “What can I do to avoid disturbing the extraction site?”

During early recovery:

• Avoid vaping and smoking.
• Do not deliberately create suction around the wound.
• Avoid touching the socket with your tongue or fingers.
• Follow your dentist’s instructions for rinsing and cleaning.
• Choose foods that are comfortable and unlikely to disturb the area.
• Avoid activities your dental professional has told you to postpone.
• Take prescribed or recommended medication according to the instructions provided.

One NHS extraction guide specifically advises patients not to disturb the clot with the tongue, fingers or forceful spitting.

What About “Light” Vaping?

Some people assume that taking smaller puffs, using lower power or choosing a less irritating flavor makes vaping safe immediately after extraction.

That is not a reliable way to eliminate the risk.

A smaller puff may reduce suction, but it does not remove the basic problem of inhalation around a fresh extraction wound. Lower nicotine may reduce nicotine exposure, but it does not make the procedure’s healing period disappear.

For this reason, temporarily stopping is a more sensible strategy than trying to design a “safer” vaping technique immediately after surgery.

Does Nicotine-Free Vaping Solve the Problem?

Not completely.

Switching to a nicotine-free vape removes nicotine from the equation, but it does not remove the suction created when inhaling from the device. It also does not eliminate exposure to vapor or aerosol.

Therefore, nicotine-free vaping should not be viewed as a way to bypass post-extraction restrictions.

If protecting the blood clot is the priority, avoiding vaping altogether during the recommended recovery period is the simpler option.

What If You Already Vaped After an Extraction?

Do not automatically assume that you will develop dry socket because you took a puff.

A single mistake does not mean a complication is certain. The important thing is to stop further exposure and return to the aftercare instructions provided by your dental professional.

Watch for changes rather than relying only on how you feel immediately afterward.

Contact your dentist if you develop:

• Severe or increasing pain after the initial soreness starts improving
• Pain that spreads toward the ear, temple or jaw
• A persistent unpleasant taste
• Bad breath that seems unusual after the extraction
• An extraction site that appears unusually exposed
• Bleeding that does not settle as expected
• Fever, significant swelling or other symptoms that concern you

A sudden increase in pain several days after extraction deserves particular attention because it can be consistent with dry socket.

What If You Have Already Developed Dry Socket?

Dry socket should not be managed by simply waiting for it to disappear if the pain is significant.

A dentist can examine the extraction site and determine whether the symptoms are consistent with dry socket or another complication. Treatment may include cleaning the area and applying a dressing or other appropriate treatment to reduce discomfort.

Avoid attempting to scrape, clean or pack the socket yourself.

If pain is severe, worsening, or accompanied by other concerning symptoms, contact the dental practice that performed the extraction.

Does the Type of Extraction Make a Difference?

Yes.

Removing a straightforward tooth is not necessarily the same as having a surgical extraction or wisdom tooth removed. The size and location of the wound, difficulty of the procedure and individual healing response can all affect recovery.

That is why generic advice such as “wait exactly 24 hours and vape again” can be misleading.

Your dentist has seen the extraction site and knows how complicated the procedure was. Their instructions should take priority over a general vaping timetable found online.

A Better Way to Think About Returning to Vaping

Instead of choosing a specific hour when you will resume vaping, look at the recovery as a process.

Stage 1: Protect the clot

Immediately after extraction, the main goal is to avoid disturbing the blood clot.

Stage 2: Let the wound settle

As the first several days pass, the extraction site begins progressing through the healing process. This is still not the time to assume the wound is fully recovered.

Stage 3: Follow your dentist’s clearance

If you are unsure when vaping can be resumed, ask the dental professional who performed the extraction. This is particularly important after wisdom tooth removal, surgical extraction or a difficult procedure.

This approach is safer than trying to find a vaping method that completely removes the risk.

Vaping After Tooth Extraction: The Bottom Line

Vaping and tooth extraction are not a good combination during the early healing period.

The main concern is protecting the blood clot that forms inside the extraction socket. Suction from vaping, nicotine exposure and irritation from inhaled aerosol can all make the recovery period less straightforward.

Dental aftercare guidance specifically recommends avoiding smoking and, in some instructions, explicitly includes vaping and e-cigarettes.

If you have recently had a tooth removed, the safest strategy is to pause vaping, follow your dentist’s instructions and give the extraction site time to heal. If pain becomes significantly worse after a few days instead of gradually improving, contact your dentist because that pattern can indicate dry socket or another complication.

This article provides general educational information and is not a substitute for advice from your dentist or oral surgeon.

The post Vaping After Tooth Extraction: How to Reduce Dry Socket Risk appeared first on IGeeKphone China Phone, Tablet PC, VR, RC Drone News, Reviews.

The MacVoices Live!  examines Apple’s transition from Tim Cook to John Ternus, weighing Cook’s legacy, Apple’s dramatic financial growth, Vision Pro, and criticism of his tenure. They consider what Ternus’ engineering background could mean for hardware and software, while discussing Phil Schiller, Eddie Cue, other executive changes, succession planning, and the importance of preserving institutional […]

💾

A ANACOM afirma que as plataformas da Meta foram responsáveis por mais de 50% das reclamações sobre serviços digitais recebidas durante o segundo trimestre do ano. Entre as plataformas que geram mais queixas em Portugal incluem-se ainda as da Google e a rede social X.

The post Queixas sobre serviços digitais aumentam 195%. Facebook e Instagram são as plataformas que geram mais reclamações appeared first on Tek Notícias.

The three Indian companies are accused of using hackers to steal information used to sway litigation.

Kepler Computing claims a new approach to chip design—and a proprietary material—can help end the supply bottlenecks that have sent memory prices surging.

Kepler Computing claims a new approach to chip design—and a proprietary material—can help end the supply bottlenecks that have sent memory prices surging.

What’s the weirdest thing you learned this week? Well, whatever it is, we promise you’ll have an even weirder answer if you listen to PopSci’s hit podcast. The Weirdest Thing I Learned This Week hits Spotify, YouTube, Apple, and everywhere else you listen to podcasts every-other Wednesday morning. It’s your new favorite source for the strangest science-adjacent facts, figures, and Wikipedia spirals the editors of Popular Science can muster. If you like the stories in this post, we guarantee you’ll love the show.

FACT: Hector the tickle robot is real, and they’re spectacular 

By Rachel Feltman

Have you ever wondered why humans are so ticklish? While many animals experience a type of tickle known as knismesis—a sort of moving itch caused by motion against your skin—the laugh-out-loud sensation called gargalesis is way less common. It’s a phenomenon that’s pretty unique to primates (though it’s possible that rats are a bit ticklish as well). And while there are plenty of theories, no one has a great explanation for why this ticklishness evolved—or at least not one that would be easy to confirm.

But while the origins and purposes of gargalesis remain mysterious, that hasn’t stopped scientists from studying how tickling works. In one recent study scientists surveyed adults from several distinct cultures to see how they felt about tickling. The results were surprisingly universal. Participants from The Netherlands, Greece and China gave comparable answers about their history of tickling and being tickled and reported being ticklish in the same locations. That hints at a deep evolutionary origin for this sensation (and our feelings about it). 

This most recent study relied on survey data, but other research projects have tried to take a more quantitative look at tickles. That’s where Hector the tickle robot comes in. He’s designed to deliver a perfectly-calibrated foot tickle on command, allowing scientists to track exactly what physiological changes occur post-tickle and exactly when they kick in. He’s also helping scientists understand why we can’t tickle ourselves—and how that can help us survive unwanted tickling from others. Listen to this week’s episode to learn more!

FACT: How prickly ash and chili pepper combine to create a fascinating taste explosion 

Featuring Priya Mani

This week’s episode features special guest Priya Mani. She’s a food historian, award-winning writer, and a designer who leads research-driven projects on ingredients and flavor. She joined us this week to share some facts from her upcoming book, “Spiced: Recipes Celebrating Spices from Around the World.” You can preorder it now! 

Priya took us on a historical, culinary and scientific journey to explain why sichuan peppercorns (and other berries from various species of prickly ash) make your mouth buzz instead of burn. It all comes down to a compound called sanshool. 

When you eat food that’s spicy—think a hot chili pepper—the compound called capsaicin binds to the same receptors in your skin that are stimulated by actual heat. WHen these TRPV1 receptors get activated, they signal to your brain that something dangerously hot is touching you. 

You might associate szechuan peppercorns and other kinds of prickly ash berries with spicy food, but these fruits don’t actually contain any of the aforementioned capsaicin—so they don’t trick your brain into sensing heat. Sanshool can trick your brain in an entirely different way by acting on potassium channels, which are tiny pores that let potassium flow out of your nerve cells. By giving positively-charged potassium ions an easy exit, nerve cells are able to maintain a slightly-negative charge that keeps them from randomly firing.

Sanshool manages to block one of those potassium channels, which means positive charge starts to build and the nerve cell gets closer and closer to firing. The result is a hyperactive neuron that starts stuttering out little bursts of irregular signals. Your brain does the best it can to interpret that information, and the result is a sense that something is literally buzzing inside your mouth. 

That’s why dishes that combine prickly ash berries with chili peppers are infamous for creating a culinary sensation like no other: your brain is basically telling you that there’s a hot bee bouncing around your mouth. And gosh, that fiery insect is delicious. 

You can find more of Priya’s fantastic food science on Instagram.

FACT: These shark have teeth in their eyeballs

By Laura Baisas, News Editor and co-host of Popular Science’s Ask Us Anything podcast

While interviewing marine biologist, Jaida Elcock (@sofishtication_) an MIT and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) PhD candidate and ace whale shark-tagger, she told me that whale sharks have teeth on their eyeballs. This sounded insanely painful to me, so I had to know more. 

Whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) are the biggest fish in the world. While their maximum size is still a mystery, they can grow as large as 60 feet and weigh about 11 tons. In addition to that girth, they really do have tiny teeth covering their eyeballs called dermal denticles. Dermal denticles themselves are found on several shark species and they cover their bodies like scales. They are small, V-shaped pieces and decrease drag and turbulence as they swim. While dermal denticles do help sharks swim faster, they also provide some defence against any other sharks that might try to take a bite of them

The dermal denticles on whale shark’s eyeballs, also called eye-teeth, likely help shield their eyes from the elements. A team in Japan first detailed this in a study published in 2020 in the journal PLOS One. They studied the eyes of both living and dead whale sharks and saw that a single whale shark eyeball could have over 3,000 dermal denticles around the eyes. They are also clustered around the iris.

Most sharks have poor eyesight, so much protection around their eyeballs means that their eyesight is likely pretty important for whale sharks. Evolution is cool. 

The post Yes, scientists really built a “tickle robot.” Here’s why. appeared first on Popular Science.

Storage Is No Longer the Cheap Part Storage used to be the line item nobody argued about. A

Starship 40’s Very Slow Journey Home Starship 40 covered thousands of miles from Texas to the Indian Ocean

Lost Vape Centaurus M120 S Kit takes a different approach to the modern vape kit. Instead of competing mainly on extreme wattage or oversized hardware, it combines a built-in 5,500mAh battery, up to 120W of adjustable output, several vaping modes, and a relatively straightforward control system.

That combination makes the Centaurus M120 S interesting for adult vapers who want the flexibility of a higher-powered device without having to carry spare batteries.

The kit also introduces a redesigned Centaurus form factor, an interchangeable-panel design, an on/off switch, and a large color display. According to current product specifications, the mod measures 108.6 × 40.7 × 15.7mm and weighs around 120g, while the built-in battery supports USB-C charging at up to 2A.

The Battery Is the Main Story

The most important feature of the Centaurus M120 S is arguably not its 120W maximum output. It is the 5,500mAh built-in battery.

A 120W mod can be attractive on paper, but high power also places greater demands on the battery. The M120 S approaches the problem differently by giving users a large internal battery designed around extended daily use.

For moderate-power vaping, 5,500mAh gives the device a substantial energy reserve. Users who normally operate at lower wattages may not need to recharge as frequently as they would with a smaller internal-battery pod system.

The battery is also built into the device, so there is no need to purchase or carry a separate 18650 or 21700 cell.

That is an important distinction. The M120 S is aimed more at convenience and endurance than at the battery-swapping flexibility associated with traditional external-battery mods.

120W Gives the Kit Plenty of Headroom

The Centaurus M120 S supports a power range of 5W to 120W vape device, giving it considerably more output headroom than a typical compact pod device.

However, the maximum number should not be interpreted as a recommendation to vape at 120W all the time.

The practical advantage of 120W is flexibility. A user can operate at a lower setting for a more controlled experience and still have additional power available when using compatible coils that require it.

This makes the M120 S more adaptable than a device designed around a narrow wattage range.

It is also worth remembering that actual performance depends on the coil, airflow, e-liquid, battery condition, and selected power level. Maximum output alone does not determine the quality of a vape.

Three Modes Change How the Device Feels

One of the more interesting aspects of the M120 S is its three operating modes: POWER, TURBO and MTL.

Rather than forcing every user into the same operating style, these modes give the device a broader range of possible applications.

POWER mode is the straightforward option for users who prefer direct control over their wattage.

TURBO mode is designed for users who want a more aggressive performance profile when their atomizer and coil setup are suitable for it.

The inclusion of an MTL vaping is particularly notable. The Centaurus name has traditionally been associated with more powerful box-mod hardware, so having a dedicated mode for a tighter, mouth-to-lung-oriented experience makes the M120 S more versatile.

The important point is that these modes are not simply extra menu options. They give the device different ways of responding to the same hardware setup.

The 1.47-Inch TFT Screen Is More Than Decoration

The Centaurus M120 S uses a relatively large 1.47-inch TFT display, giving the device enough screen space to present important vaping information clearly.

A larger display can be useful on a high-output device because users may want to check wattage, battery status and other settings without navigating through complicated menus.

The screen also helps distinguish the M120 S from simpler pod-style devices, where information is often reduced to a few basic indicators.

For a device designed around adjustable power and multiple operating modes, having a readable interface is more useful than simply having a larger screen for visual appeal.

The On/Off Switch Is a Small Feature With a Practical Benefit

One of the details that deserves more attention is the physical on/off switch.

Many modern vape devices rely on button combinations or automatic sleep functions. The M120 S instead uses a dedicated switch for turning the device on and off.

That sounds simple, but it can make everyday handling more intuitive.

It also reduces the number of steps needed when the device is not being used. For people who regularly carry their device in a bag or pocket, having a clearly defined power switch can be more reassuring than relying entirely on software controls.

Interchangeable Panels Add Personality Without Changing the Hardware

The M120 S continues the Centaurus family’s emphasis on customizable exterior panels.

The interchangeable-panel concept allows the appearance of the device to be changed without replacing the entire mod. This is primarily an aesthetic feature, but it also gives the M120 S a more distinctive identity than a conventional rectangular box mod.

Lost Vape has used customizable panels across parts of the Centaurus family before, including the Centaurus M200, where the company describes the design as using changeable face panels.

For the M120 S, the approach fits naturally with the redesigned body.

The 4ml Tank Keeps the Kit Practical

The kit is offered with a 4ml tank, giving the overall package a useful balance between capacity and portability. Current product listings identify the Centaurus M120 S kit as a 4ml, 5,500mAh configuration.

A 4ml capacity is large enough for regular use without turning the tank into an unnecessarily bulky component.

Of course, actual e-liquid consumption will vary significantly depending on coil resistance, wattage, airflow and vaping frequency. Someone running a higher-power setup will naturally consume liquid faster than someone using a lower-power configuration.

That is why tank capacity should always be considered alongside power output rather than viewed as an isolated number.

This Is Not Trying to Be an Ultra-Small Pod

The M120 S measures 108.6 × 40.7 × 15.7mm and weighs approximately 120g, according to current specifications.

Those dimensions make it more substantial than a basic pod system, but that is not necessarily a disadvantage.

The larger body provides space for the 5,500mAh battery, display, controls and tank connection. In other words, the size is partly a consequence of what the device is trying to accomplish.

The more useful question is therefore not whether the M120 S is small enough to disappear in a pocket. It is whether the additional size is justified by the battery capacity and functionality.

For users prioritizing battery life and adjustable performance, the answer may be yes.

USB-C Charging Makes the Large Battery Easier to Live With

A large internal battery would be less useful if charging were inconvenient.

The Centaurus M120 S supports USB-C charging at up to 2A, providing a modern charging interface and making it easier to recharge from commonly available USB-C power sources.

It is still worth using an appropriate charger and cable and following the manufacturer’s charging instructions.

The advantage of USB-C here is mainly convenience: there is no need to remove the battery or use an external charger.

Who Is the Centaurus M120 S Really For?

The M120 S makes the most sense for adult vapers who want a device somewhere between a compact pod and a traditional high-powered dual-battery box mod.

It is particularly interesting for users who prioritize:

• A large built-in battery
• Adjustable output up to 120W
• Multiple operating modes
• A larger TFT display
• USB-C charging
• A physical on/off switch
• Customizable exterior panels
• A 4ml tank
• A relatively manageable 120g body

It is less compelling for someone whose priority is an extremely lightweight pod that can disappear into a pocket.

The M120 S is ultimately built around battery capacity and versatility, not minimalism.

What Should You Consider Before Buying?

The built-in battery is both an advantage and a limitation.

There is no need to purchase external cells, but the battery cannot simply be swapped when its charge is depleted. Users who prefer carrying several charged batteries may therefore prefer a traditional external-battery mod.

The 120W output also does not mean every coil should be operated at high wattage. Coil specifications should always be followed, and the power level should be adjusted according to the installed coil and personal preference.

The tank and coil configuration also matters. A powerful mod can only perform as well as the atomizer setup attached to it.

Finally, buyers should check the vaping regulations that apply in their location before purchasing or using the device.

Lost Vape Centaurus M120 S Kit Specifications

Specification	Details
Product	Lost Vape Centaurus M120 S Kit
Maximum Output	120W
Power Range	5–120W
Battery	Built-in 5,500mAh
Charging	USB-C, up to 2A
Display	1.47-inch TFT
Operating Modes	POWER, TURBO, MTL
Tank Capacity	4ml
Dimensions	108.6 × 40.7 × 15.7mm
Weight	About 120g
Panels	Interchangeable
Power Control	On/Off switch
Manufacturer	Lost Vape

The core mod specifications above are based on current product information for the Centaurus M120 S.

Final Verdict

Lost Vape Centaurus M120 S Kit is interesting because it does not rely on one exaggerated specification to define the product.

Its strongest combination is the 5,500mAh internal battery + 120W maximum output + three operating modes. That gives the device enough range to serve different vaping preferences while keeping the hardware relatively straightforward to operate.

The large TFT screen, physical power switch, USB-C charging and interchangeable panels add useful touches around that core design.

For adult users who want a higher-powered kit but would rather avoid external batteries, the M120 S presents a practical alternative. Its biggest appeal is not simply the 120W number; it is the attempt to combine substantial battery endurance with adjustable performance in a single, relatively manageable device.

Note: Vape products contain nicotine when used with nicotine-containing e-liquid, and nicotine is addictive. This product is intended only for adults of legal purchasing age. Always follow the manufacturer’s instructions and local regulations.

The post Lost Vape Centaurus M120 S Kit Review: 5500mAh Battery, 120W Power and a More Practical Design appeared first on IGeeKphone China Phone, Tablet PC, VR, RC Drone News, Reviews.

A proposed ban on 'conversion therapy' in Northern Ireland could criminalise parenting, restrict religious freedom and "leave teachers fearful of expressing honestly held views", a DUP Minister has said.

The post Northern Ireland ‘Conversion Therapy’ Ban “Could Criminalise Parents, Preachers and Teachers” appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

Apple planned to introduce high-end in-ear AirPods with built-in cameras for analyzing the surrounding environment at today's event, but the launch has been pushed to next year, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman reports.

In early August, Gurman said the earbuds were progressing well enough to potentially ship before the end of the year. By mid-August, though, he reported that Apple had pulled the model from its 2026 road map, pushing the camera AirPods to a 2027 launch alongside the 20th-anniversary iPhone instead. Today's event will still include new AirPods 5 models.
This article, "AirPods With Cameras Were Supposed to Debut Today, Now Delayed" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums