A new study suggests that frequent consumption of food from plastic takeout containers significantly increases the risk of congestive heart failure due to gut biome changes that trigger inflammation and circulatory damage. The Guardian reports: The authors used a two-part approach, first looking into the frequency with which over 3,000 people in China ate from plastic takeout containers, and whether they had heart disease. They then exposed rats to plastic chemicals in water that was boiled and poured in carryout containers to extract chemicals. “The data revealed that high-frequency exposure to plastics is significantly associated with an increased risk of congestive heart failure,” the authors wrote. […] They put boiling water in the containers for one, five or 15 minutes because plastic chemicals leach at much higher rates when hot contents are placed in containers — the study cited previous research that found as many as 4.2m microplastic particles per sq cm can leach from plastic containers that are microwaved.

The authors then gave rats the water contaminated with leachate to drink for several months, then analyzed the gut biome and metabolites in the feces. It found notable changes. “It 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 authors wrote. They then checked the rats’ heart muscle tissue and found it had been damaged. The study did not find a statistical difference in the changes and damage among rats that were exposed to water that had been in contact with plastic for one minute versus five or fifteen. The study has been published in the journal Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Leveraging AI tools like RFDiffusion and PLACER, researchers were able to design a novel enzyme capable of breaking down plastic by targeting ester bonds, a key component in polyester. Ars Technica reports: The researchers started out by using the standard tools they developed to handle protein design, including an AI tool named RFDiffusion, which uses a random seed to generate a variety of protein backgrounds. In this case, the researchers asked RFDiffusion to match the average positions of the amino acids in a family of ester-breaking enzymes. The results were fed to another neural network, which chose the amino acids such that they’d form a pocket that would hold an ester that breaks down into a fluorescent molecule so they could follow the enzyme’s activity using its glow.

Of the 129 proteins designed by this software, only two of them resulted in any fluorescence. So the team decided they needed yet another AI. Called PLACER, the software was trained by taking all the known structures of proteins latched on to small molecules and randomizing some of their structure, forcing the AI to learn how to shift things back into a functional state (making it a generative AI). The hope was that PLACER would be trained to capture some of the structural details that allow enzymes to adopt more than one specific configuration over the course of the reaction they were catalyzing. And it worked. Repeating the same process with an added PLACER screening step boosted the number of enzymes with catalytic activity by over three-fold.

Unfortunately, all of these enzymes stalled after a single reaction. It turns out they were much better at cleaving the ester, but they left one part of it chemically bonded to the enzyme. In other words, the enzymes acted like part of the reaction, not a catalyst. So the researchers started using PLACER to screen for structures that could adopt a key intermediate state of the reaction. This produced a much higher rate of reactive enzymes (18 percent of them cleaved the ester bond), and two — named “super” and “win” — could actually cycle through multiple rounds of reactions. The team had finally made an enzyme.

By adding additional rounds alternating between structure suggestions using RFDiffusion and screening using PLACER, the team saw the frequency of functional enzymes increase and eventually designed one that had an activity similar to some produced by actual living things. They also showed they could use the same process to design an esterase capable of digesting the bonds in PET, a common plastic. The research has been published in the journal Science.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Bruce66423 shares a report from The Guardian: Microscopic particles emitted from brake pads can be more toxic than those emitted in diesel vehicle exhaust, a study has found. This research shows that even with a move to electric vehicles, pollution from cars may not be able to be eradicated. The researchers found that a higher concentration of copper in some commonly used brake pads was associated with increased harmful effects on sensitive cells from people’s lungs, as a result of particles being breathed in.

Exposure to pollution generated by cars, vans and lorries has been previously been linked to an increased risk of lung and heart disease. While past attention has mainly concentrated on exhaust emissions, particles are also released into the air from tyre, road and brake pad wear. These emissions are largely unregulated by legislation and the study found that these âoenon-exhaustâ pollution sources are now responsible for the majority of vehicle particulate matter emissions in the UK and parts of Europe, with brake dust the main contributor among them.

[…] The scientists examined the effects on lung health of particulate matter from four different types of brake pad with differing chemical compositions; low metallic, semi-metallic, non-asbestos organic and hybrid-ceramic. Results showed that of the four types of brake pads, non-asbestos organic pads were the most potent at inducing inflammation and other markers of toxicity, and were found to be more toxic to human lung cells than diesel exhaust particles. Ceramic pads were the second most toxic. Dr. Ian Mudway, senior lecturer at the school of public health at Imperial College London, cautioned that while the research on brake pad emissions appears sound, it is premature to conclude they are worse than diesel exhaust due to “uncontrolled variables” like brake disc types and particle composition.

Slashdot reader Bruce66423 also notes it “doesn’t discuss the significance of regenerative breaking, which is a feature of at least some electric cars [that reduces brake pad wear by using the electric motor to slow down the vehicle and recover energy].”

The research has been published in the journal Particle and Fibre Technology.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Most virtual meeting platforms these days include AI-powered notetaking tools or bots that join meetings as guests, transcribe discussions, and/or summarize key points. “The tech companies behind them might frame it as a step forward in efficiency, but the technology raises troubling questions around etiquette and privacy and risks undercutting the very communication it’s meant to improve (paywalled; alternative source),” writes Chris Stokel-Walker in a Weekend Essay for Bloomberg. From the article: […] The push to document every workplace interaction and utterance is not new. Having a paper trail has long been seen as a useful thing, and a record of decisions and action points is arguably what makes a meeting meaningful. The difference now is the inclusion of new technology that lacks the nuance and depth of understanding inherent to human interaction in a meeting room. In some ways, the prior generation of communication tools, such as instant messaging service Slack, created its own set of problems. Messaging that previously passed in private via email became much more transparent, creating a minefield where one wrong word or badly chosen emoji can explode into a dispute between colleagues. There is a similar risk with notetaking tools. Each utterance documented and analyzed by AI includes the potential for missteps and misunderstandings.

Anyone thinking of bringing an AI notetaker to a meeting must consider how other attendees will respond, says Andrew Brodsky, assistant professor of management at the McCombs School of Business, part of the University of Texas at Austin. Colleagues might think you want to better focus on what is said without missing out on a definitive record of the discussion. Or they might think, “You can’t be bothered to take notes yourself or remember what was being talked about,” he says. For the companies that sell these AI interlopers, the upside is clear. They recognize we’re easily nudged into different behaviors and can quickly become reliant on tools that we survived without for years. […] There’s another benefit for tech companies getting us hooked on AI notetakers: Training data for AI systems is increasingly hard to come by. Research group Epoch AI forecasts there will be a drought of usable text possibly by next year. And with publishers unleashing lawsuits against AI companies for hoovering up their content, the tech firms are on the hunt for other sources of data. Notes from millions of meetings around the world could be an ideal option.

For those of us who are the source of such data, however, the situation is more nuanced. The key question is whether AI notetakers make office meetings more useless than so many already are. There’s an argument that meetings are an important excuse for workers to come together and talk as human beings. All that small talk is where good ideas often germinate — that’s ostensibly why so many companies are demanding staff return to the office. But if workers trade in-person engagement for AI readbacks, and colleagues curb their words and ideas for fear of being exposed by bots, what’s left? If the humans step back, all that remains is a series of data points and more AI slop polluting our lives.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.