Cancer death rates in the U.S. have fallen by approximately one-third since the 1990s when adjusted for age, according to data cited in a new analysis of global cancer trends. The decline represents a steady, year-over-year reduction that began in the early 1990s and continues across developed countries. Prevention efforts have contributed substantially to the decline. Reduced smoking rates in wealthy nations prevented more than 3 million cancer deaths since 1975 in America alone. Britain's HPV vaccination program, launched in 2008 for teenage girls, produced a 90% reduction in cervical cancer rates among women in their 20s within 15 years. Treatment advances have transformed outcomes for specific cancers. Childhood leukemia, once virtually fatal, now has a five-year survival rate above 90%. Researchers have identified inexpensive drugs with cancer-prevention properties, including aspirin, which cuts bowel cancer risk in half for patients with Lynch syndrome. Future progress faces obstacles, however, including high treatment costs and planned cuts to the National Cancer Institute under the Trump administration. China overtook America as the primary source of cancer research in 2025.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Automakers selling cars in the United States now have even less incentive to care about fuel economy. As Ars has noted before, the current administration and its Republican allies in Congress have been working hard to undermine federal regulations meant to make our vehicle fleet more efficient.

Some measures have been aimed at decreasing adoption of electric vehicles—for example the IRS clean vehicle tax credit will be eliminated at the end of September. Others have targeted federal fuel economy regulations that require automakers to meet specific fleet efficiency averages or face punishing fines for polluting too much. At least, they used to.

According to a letter seen by Reuters, sent to automakers by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the federal government has decided it will not levy any fines on companies that have exceeded the corporate average fuel economy limits dating back to model year 2022.

Under the Biden administration, CAFE fines were increased to $17 per vehicle for each 0.1 mpg below the standard, and between model years 2011-2020, OEMs paid more than $1.1 billion in fines—money that will now no longer be collected. For automakers like Stellantis, which has paid almost $600 million in fines over the last decade, the change will be significant.

"Average fuel economy has doubled over the last 50 years, meaning drivers save thousands in gas money every year thanks to this program. Weakening this program, either by changing the rules or repealing it outright, means everyday Americans will have to buy more gas, and more demand for gas means higher gas prices. That’s not what we need right now," said Albert Gore, executive director of the Zero Emission Transportation Association.

"[Department of Transportation]’s interpretation attempts to retroactively alter existing regulations, creating uncertainty for manufacturers that have strived to comply with these achievable standards. It also fails to acknowledge the transformation in the American auto market, as more than 19 percent of current new vehicle sales have alternative drivetrains—including hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and fully electric vehicles. Meanwhile, the Senate’s proposal to not enforce federal regulations harms manufacturers that have made investments to comply with the current rule," Gore said in a statement.

Not every automaker will love the changes. As a result of no more CAFE targets, there's no longer a reason for OEMs that pollute too much to purchase carbon credits from Tesla. As we have seen in recent quarters, these carbon credits are increasingly important to Tesla with regards to maintaining its profitability, which has nosedived over the past few years as consumers have grown tired of the company's small and stale product range as well as being turned off by CEO Elon Musk's right-wing politics.

That is, in part, by design: Reuters notes that Senator Bernie Moreno (R-OH)—who happens to own car dealerships—called the sums paid by other OEMs to Tesla for carbon credits "outrageous."

Read full article

Comments

As the One Big Beautiful Bill Act squeaked its way through Congress earlier this month, its supporters heralded what they described as a new era for American energy and echoed what has become a familiar phrase among President Donald Trump’s supporters.

“Congress has taken decisive action to advance President Trump’s energy dominance agenda,” said American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Mike Sommers in a statement after the House passed the bill.

Republicans concurred, with legislators ranging from Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks of Iowa, chair of the Conservative Climate Caucus, to Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Brett Guthrie of Kentucky releasing statements after the bill’s passage championing its role in securing “energy dominance.”

The idea and rhetoric of energy dominance has its roots in the first Trump administration, although a formal definition for the phrase is hard to come by. When Trump signed an executive order this February establishing the National Energy Dominance Council, he included expanding energy production, lowering prices and reducing reliance on foreign entities among the council’s goals, while also emphasizing the importance of oil production and liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports.

The phrase has become something of a battle cry among the president’s supporters, with EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin writing in the Washington Examiner on July 8 that “Trump is securing America’s energy future in a modern-day version of how our Founding Fathers secured our freedom.”

“Through American energy dominance, we’re not just powering homes and businesses,” Zeldin said. “We’re Powering the Great American Comeback.”

But despite claims from Republican officials and the fossil fuel industry that the megabill will help secure energy dominance, some experts worry that the legislation’s cuts to wind and solar actually undermine those goals at a time when electricity demand is rising, limiting America’s ability to add new generation capacity, raising prices for consumers and ceding global leadership in the clean energy transition.

Dan O’Brien, a senior modeling analyst at the climate policy think tank Energy Innovation, said the bill will increase domestic production of oil and gas by increasing lease sales for drilling—mostly in the Gulf of Mexico, onshore and in Alaska, O’Brien said.

A January study commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute reported that a legislatively directed offshore oil and natural gas leasing program, which API says is similar to the measures included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act months later, would increase oil and natural gas production by 140,000 barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) per day by 2034.

That number would rise to 510,000 BOE per day by 2040, the study says.

Losses likely to outweigh the gains

However, O’Brien said the gains America can expect from the fossil fuel industry pale in comparison to losses from renewable energy.

Energy Innovation’s analysis projects that less than 20 gigawatts of additional generation capacity from fossil fuels can be expected by 2035 as a result of the bill, compared to a decrease of more than 360 gigawatts in additional capacity from renewable energy.

The difference between those numbers—a decrease of 344 gigawatts—is roughly equivalent to the energy use of about 100 million homes, O’Brien said.

According to O’Brien, if the One Big Beautiful Bill had not been passed, the US could have expected to add around 1,000 gigawatts of electricity generation capacity in the next 10 years.

But as a result of the bill, “around a third of that will be lost,” O’Brien said.

Those losses largely stem from the bill’s rollback of incentives for wind and solar projects.

“Solar and wind are subject to different—and harsher—treatment under the OBBB than other technologies,” according to the law firm Latham & Watkins. Tax credits for those projects are now set to phase out on a significantly faster timeline, rolling back some of the commitments promised under the Inflation Reduction Act.

Lucero Marquez, the associate director for federal climate policy at the Center for American Progress, said that removing those incentives undercuts America’s ability to achieve its energy needs.

“America needs affordable, reliable, and domestically produced energy, which wind and solar does,” Marquez said. “Gutting clean energy incentives really just does not help meet those goals.”

New projects will also be subject to rules “primarily intended to prevent Chinese companies from claiming the tax credits and to reduce reliance on China for supply chains of clean energy technologies,” the Bipartisan Policy Center wrote in an explainer.

However, those rules are “extremely complex” and could lead to “decreased U.S. manufacturing and increased Chinese dominance in these supply chains, contrary to their goal,” according to the think tank.

Surging energy prices

O’Brien said Energy Innovation’s modeling suggests that the loss in additional generation capacity from renewable energies will lead existing power plants, which are more expensive to run than new renewable energy projects would have been, to run more frequently to offset the lack of generation from wind and solar projects not coming online.

The consequences of that, according to O’Brien, are that energy prices will rise, which also means the amount of energy produced will go down in response to decreased demand for the more expensive supply.

An analysis by the REPEAT Project from the Princeton ZERO Lab and Evolved Energy Research similarly predicted increased energy prices for consumers as a result of the bill.

According to that analysis, average household energy costs will increase by over $280 per year by 2035, a more than 13 percent hike.

One of the authors of that analysis, Princeton University professor Jesse D. Jenkins, did not respond to interview requests for this article but previously wrote in an email to Inside Climate News that Republicans’ claims about securing energy dominance through the bill “don’t hold up.”

In an emailed statement responding to questions about those analyses and how their findings align with the administration’s goals of attaining energy dominance, White House assistant press secretary Taylor Rogers wrote that “since Day One, President Trump has taken decisive steps to unleash American energy, which has driven oil production and reduced the cost of energy.”

“The One, Big, Beautiful Bill will turbocharge energy production by streamlining operations for maximum efficiency and expanding domestic production capacity,” Rogers wrote, “which will deliver further relief to American families and businesses.”

In an emailed statement, Rep. Guthrie said that the bill “takes critical steps toward both securing our energy infrastructure and bringing more dispatchable power online.”

“Specifically, the bill does this by repairing and beginning to refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that was drained during the Biden-Harris Administration, and through the creation of the Energy Dominance Financing program to support new investments that unleash affordable and reliable energy,” the Energy and Commerce chairman wrote.

Cullen Hendrix, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, also said that the bill “advances the administration’s stated goal of energy dominance,” but added that it does so “primarily in sunsetting, last-generation technologies, while ceding the renewable energy future to others.”

“It wants lower energy costs at home and more U.S. energy exports abroad—for both economic and strategic reasons … the OBBB delivers on that agenda,” Hendrix said.

Still, Hendrix added that “the United States that emerges from all this may be a bigger player in a declining sector—fossil fuels—and a massively diminished player in a rapidly growing one: renewable energy.”

“It will help promote the Trump administration’s ambitions of fossil dominance (or at least influence) but on pain of helping build a renewable energy sector for the future,” Hendrix wrote. “That is net-negative globally (and locally) from a holistic perspective.”

Adam Hersh, a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, argued that he sees a lot in the bill “that is going to move us in the opposite direction from energy dominance.”

“They should have named this bill the ‘Energy Inflation Act,’ because what it’s going to mean is less energy generated and higher costs for households and for businesses, and particularly manufacturing businesses,” Hersh said.

Hersh also said that even if the bill does lead to increased exports of US-produced energy, that would have a direct negative impact on costs for consumers at home.

“That’s only going to increase domestic prices for energy, and this has long been known and why past administrations have been reluctant to expand exports of LNG,” Hersh said. “That increased demand for the products and competition for the resources will mean higher energy prices for U.S. consumers and businesses.”

“Pushing against energy dominance”

Frank Maisano, a senior principal at the lobbying firm Bracewell LLP, said that although the bill creates important opportunities for things such as oil and gas leasing and the expansion of geothermal and hydrogen energy, the bill’s supporters “undercut themselves” by limiting opportunities for growth in wind and solar.

“The Biden folks tried to lean heavily onto the energy transition because they wanted to limit emissions,” Maisano said. “They wanted to push oil and gas out and push renewables in.”

Now, “these guys are doing the opposite, which is to push oil and gas and limit wind and solar,” Maisano said. “Neither of those strategies are good strategies. You need to have a combination of all these strategies and all these generation sources, especially on the electricity side, to make it work and to meet the challenges that we face.”

Samantha Gross, director of the Brookings Institution’s Energy Security and Climate Initiative, said that while she isn’t concerned about whether the US will build enough electricity generation to meet the needs of massive consumers like data centers and AI, she is worried that the bill pushes the next generation of that growth further towards fossil fuels.

“I don’t think energy dominance—not just right this instant, but going forward—is just in fossil fuels,” Gross said.

Even beyond the One Big Beautiful Bill, Gross said that many of the administration’s actions run counter to their stated objectives on energy.

“You hear all this talk about energy dominance, but for me it’s just a phrase, because a lot of things that the administration is actually doing are pushing against energy dominance,” Gross said.

“If you think about the tariff policy, for instance, ‘drill, baby, drill’ and a 50 percent tariff on pipeline steel do not go together. Those are pulling in completely opposite directions.”

Aside from domestic energy needs, Gross also worried that the pullback from renewable energy will harm America’s position on the global stage.

“It’s pretty clear which way the world is going,” Gross said. “I worry that we’re giving up … I don’t like the term ‘energy dominance,’ but future leadership in the world’s energy supply by pulling back from those.”

“We’re sort of ceding those technologies to China in a way that is very frustrating to me.”

Yet even in the wake of the bill’s passage, some experts see hope for the future of renewable energy in the US.

Kevin Book, managing director at the research firm ClearView Energy Partners, said that the bill “sets up a slower, shallower transition” toward renewable energy. However, he added that he doesn’t think it represents the end of that transition.

“Most of the capacity we’re adding to our grid in America these days is renewable, and it’s not simply because of federal incentives,” Book said. “So if you take away those federal incentives, there were still economic drivers.”

Still, Book said that the final impacts of the Trump administration’s actions on renewable energy are yet to be seen.

“The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is not the end of the story,” Book said. “There’s more coming, either regulatorily and/or legislatively.”

This story originally appeared on Inside Climate News.

Read full article

Comments

A sweeping analysis of health data from more than 1.2 million children in Denmark born over a 24-year period found no link between the small amounts of aluminum in vaccines and a wide range of health conditions—including asthma, allergies, eczema, autism, and attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

The finding, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, firmly squashes a persistent anti-vaccine talking point that can give vaccine-hesitant parents pause.

Small amounts of aluminum salts have been added to vaccines for decades as adjuvants, that is, components of the vaccine that help drum up protective immune responses against a target germ. Aluminum adjuvants can be found in a variety of vaccines, including those against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), and hepatitis A and B.

Despite decades of use worldwide and no clear link to harms, concern about aluminum and cumulative exposures continually resurfaces—largely thanks to anti-vaccine advocates who fearmonger about the element. A leader of such voices is Robert F. Kennedy Jr, the current US health secretary and an ardent anti-vaccine advocate.

In a June 2024 interview with podcaster Joe Rogan, Kennedy falsely claimed that aluminum is "extremely neurotoxic" and "give[s] you allergies." The podcast has racked up nearly 2 million views on YouTube. Likewise, Children's Health Defense, the rabid anti-vaccine organization Kennedy created in 2018, has also made wild claims about the safety of aluminum adjuvants. That includes linking it to autism, despite that many high-quality scientific studies have found no link between any vaccines and autism.

While anti-vaccine advocates like Kennedy routinely dismiss and attack the plethora of studies that do not support their dangerous claims, the new study should reassure any hesitant parents.

Clear data, unclear future

For the study, lead author Niklas Worm Andersson, of the Statens Serum Institut in Copenhagen, and colleagues tapped into Denmark's national registry to analyze medical records of over 1.2 million children born in the country between 1997 and 2018. During that time, new vaccines were introduced and recommendations shifted, creating variation in how many aluminum-containing vaccines children received.

The researchers calculate cumulative vaccine-based aluminum exposure for each child, which spanned 0 mg to 4.5 mg at age 2. They then looked for associations between those exposures and 50 chronic conditions. Those chronic conditions spanned autoimmune, allergic, atopic, and neurodevelopmental disorders.

The results were clear across the board; there was no statistically significant increased risk for any of the 50 conditions examined. The study's stats couldn't entirely rule out the possibility of very small relative increased risks (1 percent to 2 percent) for some rare conditions analyzed, but overall, they did rule out meaningful increases over the range of conditions. Aluminum adjuvants are not a health concern.

Still, it's uncertain if the fresh data will keep aluminum-containing vaccines out of Kennedy's crosshairs. Last month, Bloomberg reported that Kennedy was considering asking his hand-picked vaccine advisory committee to review aluminum in vaccines. The committee—the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)— shapes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's immunization schedule, which sets vaccination recommendations nationwide and determines which vaccines are covered by health insurance plans.

Kennedy's reconstituted ACIP has little expertise in vaccines and has embraced anti-vaccine views. For instance, in its first meeting at the end of June, Kennedy's ACIP voted to drop long-standing CDC recommendations for flu vaccines that contain mercury-based preservative thimerosal based on an anti-vaccine presentation from the former president of Kennedy's anti-vaccine groups, Children's Health Defense. Thimerosal, like aluminum adjuvants, has been safely used for decades around the world but has long been a target of anti-vaccine advocates. If the new ACIP similarly reviews and votes against aluminum adjuvants, it would jeopardize the availability of at least two dozen vaccines, Bloomberg reported, citing sources familiar with the matter.

It’s unclear if Kennedy will pursue an ACIP review of aluminum-containing vaccines. The Department of Health and Human Services declined to comment on the matter to Bloomberg, and ACIP members did not specifically mention future plans to review aluminum adjuvants when they met in June.

Read full article

Comments

Marko Elez, a 25-year-old employee at Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has been granted access to sensitive databases at the U.S. Social Security Administration, the Treasury and Justice departments, and the Department of Homeland Security. So it should fill all Americans with a deep sense of confidence to learn that Mr. Elez over the weekend inadvertently published a private key that allowed anyone to interact directly with more than four dozen large language models (LLMs) developed by Musk’s artificial intelligence company xAI.

On July 13, Mr. Elez committed a code script to GitHub called “agent.py” that included a private application programming interface (API) key for xAI. The inclusion of the private key was first flagged by GitGuardian, a company that specializes in detecting and remediating exposed secrets in public and proprietary environments. GitGuardian’s systems constantly scan GitHub and other code repositories for exposed API keys, and fire off automated alerts to affected users.

Philippe Caturegli, “chief hacking officer” at the security consultancy Seralys, said the exposed API key allowed access to at least 52 different LLMs used by xAI. The most recent LLM in the list was called “grok-4-0709” and was created on July 9, 2025.

Grok, the generative AI chatbot developed by xAI and integrated into Twitter/X, relies on these and other LLMs (a query to Grok before publication shows Grok currently uses Grok-3, which was launched in Feburary 2025). Earlier today, xAI announced that the Department of Defense will begin using Grok as part of a contract worth up to $200 million. The contract award came less than a week after Grok began spewing antisemitic rants and invoking Adolf Hitler.

Mr. Elez did not respond to a request for comment. The code repository containing the private xAI key was removed shortly after Caturegli notified Elez via email. However, Caturegli said the exposed API key still works and has not yet been revoked.

“If a developer can’t keep an API key private, it raises questions about how they’re handling far more sensitive government information behind closed doors,” Caturegli told KrebsOnSecurity.

Prior to joining DOGE, Marko Elez worked for a number of Musk’s companies. His DOGE career began at the Department of the Treasury, and a legal battle over DOGE’s access to Treasury databases showed Elez was sending unencrypted personal information in violation of the agency’s policies.

While still at Treasury, Elez resigned after The Wall Street Journal linked him to social media posts that advocated racism and eugenics. When Vice President J.D. Vance lobbied for Elez to be rehired, President Trump agreed and Musk reinstated him.

Since his re-hiring as a DOGE employee, Elez has been granted access to databases at one federal agency after another. TechCrunch reported in February 2025 that he was working at the Social Security Administration. In March, Business Insider found Elez was part of a DOGE detachment assigned to the Department of Labor.

In April, The New York Times reported that Elez held positions at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) bureaus, as well as the Department of Homeland Security. The Washington Post later reported that Elez, while serving as a DOGE advisor at the Department of Justice, had gained access to the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s Courts and Appeals System (EACS).

Elez is not the first DOGE worker to publish internal API keys for xAI: In May, KrebsOnSecurity detailed how another DOGE employee leaked a private xAI key on GitHub for two months, exposing LLMs that were custom made for working with internal data from Musk’s companies, including SpaceX, Tesla and Twitter/X.

Caturegli said it’s difficult to trust someone with access to confidential government systems when they can’t even manage the basics of operational security.

“One leak is a mistake,” he said. “But when the same type of sensitive key gets exposed again and again, it’s not just bad luck, it’s a sign of deeper negligence and a broken security culture.”

When it comes to concrete use cases for large language models, AI companies love to point out the ways coders and software developers can use these models to increase their productivity and overall efficiency in creating computer code. However, a new randomized controlled trial has found that experienced open source coders became less efficient at coding-related tasks when they used current AI tools.

For their study, researchers at METR (Model Evaluation and Threat Research) recruited 16 software developers, each with multiple years of experience working on specific open source repositories. The study followed these developers across 246 individual "tasks" involved with maintaining those repos, such as "bug fixes, features, and refactors that would normally be part of their regular work." For half of those tasks, the developers used AI tools like Cursor Pro or Anthropic's Claude; for the others, the programmers were instructed not to use AI assistance. Expected time forecasts for each task (made before the groupings were assigned) were used as a proxy to balance out the overall difficulty of the tasks in each experimental group, and the time needed to fix pull requests based on reviewer feedback was included in the overall assessment.

Experts and the developers themselves expected time savings that didn't materialize when AI tools were actually used. Credit: METR

Before performing the study, the developers in question expected the AI tools would lead to a 24 percent reduction in the time needed for their assigned tasks. Even after completing those tasks, the developers believed that the AI tools had made them 20 percent faster, on average. In reality, though, the AI-aided tasks ended up being completed 19 percent slower than those completed without AI tools.

Trade-offs

By analyzing screen recording data from a subset of the studied developers, the METR researchers found that AI tools tended to reduce the average time those developers spent actively coding, testing/debugging, or "reading/searching for information." But those time savings were overwhelmed in the end by "time reviewing AI outputs, prompting AI systems, and waiting for AI generations," as well as "idle/overhead time" where the screen recordings show no activity.

Overall, the developers in the study accepted less than 44 percent of the code generated by AI without modification. A majority of the developers reported needing to make changes to the code generated by their AI companion, and a total of 9 percent of the total task time in the "AI-assisted" portion of the study was taken up by this kind of review.

Time saved on things like active coding was overwhelmed by the time needed to prompt, wait on, and review AI outputs in the study. Credit: METR

On the surface, METR's results seem to contradict other benchmarks and experiments that demonstrate increases in coding efficiency when AI tools are used. But those often also measure productivity in terms of total lines of code or the number of discrete tasks/code commits/pull requests completed, all of which can be poor proxies for actual coding efficiency.

Many of the existing coding benchmarks also focus on synthetic, algorithmically scorable tasks created specifically for the benchmark test, making it hard to compare those results to those focused on work with pre-existing, real-world code bases. Along those lines, the developers in METR's study reported in surveys that the overall complexity of the repos they work with (which average 10 years of age and over 1 million lines of code) limited how helpful the AI could be. The AI wasn't able to utilize "important tacit knowledge or context" about the codebase, the researchers note, while the "high developer familiarity with [the] repositories" aided their very human coding efficiency in these tasks.

These factors lead the researchers to conclude that current AI coding tools may be particularly ill-suited to "settings with very high quality standards, or with many implicit requirements (e.g., relating to documentation, testing coverage, or linting/formatting) that take humans substantial time to learn." While those factors may not apply in "many realistic, economically relevant settings" involving simpler code bases, they could limit the impact of AI tools in this study and similar real-world situations.

And even for complex coding projects like the ones studied, the researchers are also optimistic that further refinement of AI tools could lead to future efficiency gains for programmers. Systems that have better reliability, lower latency, or more relevant outputs (via techniques such as prompt scaffolding or fine-tuning) "could speed up developers in our setting," the researchers write. Already, they say there is "preliminary evidence" that the recent release of Claude 3.7 "can often correctly implement the core functionality of issues on several repositories that are included in our study."

For now, however, METR's study provides some strong evidence that AI's much-vaunted usefulness for coding tasks may have significant limitations in certain complex, real-world coding scenarios.

Read full article

Comments