SyloSpace

Everyday health risks: real or overblown?

Long-term fine-particle air pollution is the best-established everyday environmental risk, while arsenic shows a clear dose-response for cancer and uranium and microplastics show mostly low modelled risk.

Updated 4 days ago5 min readVersion 2
CommentsFollow

Covers: This page examines common environmental exposures (e.g., air pollution, pesticides, plastics, radiation, household chemicals) and evaluates the strength of evidence linking them to health effects. It distinguishes well-established risks from those with weak or inconsistent evidence, and does not cover occupational exposures or rare industrial accidents.

3 free full reads left this month. Join or upgrade

Image: Wikipedia

The short answer

Interpretation AI-prepared starting map

The strongest and most consistent evidence in this set concerns air pollution: long-term exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is linked to higher risks of multimorbidity, venous thrombosis, and elevated blood pressure in children, and short-term PM2.5 exposure is linked to higher all-cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory mortality. Inorganic arsenic shows a clear dose-response relationship with bladder cancer and other conditions. Evidence on uranium in soil and dust and on microplastics in surface water points to regional hotspots but generally low estimated human health risks under the modelled exposure scenarios.1234567

What this rests on8 independent sources
  • Evidence 17
  • Interpretation 3

In brief

  1. Air pollution — especially long-term PM2.5 — is the best-established everyday environmental risk in this evidence, linked to multimorbidity, venous thrombosis, higher blood pressure in children, and increased mortality.1234

    Interpretation
  2. Inorganic arsenic shows a clear dose-response relationship with bladder cancer and is also associated with hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and adverse fetal outcomes.5

    Evidence-backed
  3. Uranium in soil and dust and microplastics in surface water show regional hotspots, but modelled human health risks are generally low under the assumed exposure scenarios.67

    Evidence-backed
  4. Air quality improvements in China cut PM2.5 substantially between 2013 and 2022, yet health risks persist, with some regions still seeing more than 80 medium- and high-risk days annually.4

    Evidence-backed
  5. Several everyday exposures remain under-studied — indoor air pollution, older adults, and populations outside Europe and Asia — so gaps in evidence should not be read as proof of safety.1

    Interpretation

At a glance

The picture in numbers

Live · updated just now

Global estimate from air pollution review

98,233 events

98,233 events: Venous thrombotic events preventable by meeting WHO air quality guideline2
Estimated for 2023

6,985 deaths

6,985 deaths: Deaths that could be averted by eliminating high-risk air days in China4
Found dose-response for bladder cancer

36 reviews

36 reviews: Systematic reviews in arsenic umbrella review5

The evidence behind it

8 sources
  • Reviews of many studies6
  • Other studies and data1
  • Background1

Published in 2026

Sources on this page by kind and year
SourceKindYear
Levels of Uranium in Soil and Dust and Their Associated Chemical Risks to Human Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Reviews of many studies2026
Occurrence, distribution, and ecological risk of microplastics in Chinese surface waters: a systematic review and multi-model assessment.Reviews of many studies2026
Health risk assessment of inorganic arsenic: an umbrella review.Reviews of many studies2026
Association between air pollution, multimorbidity and polypharmacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Reviews of many studies2026
Venous Thrombosis and Air Pollution: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 1.4 Million Adult Patients.Reviews of many studies2026
Association between long-term exposure to air pollution and blood pressure in children: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Reviews of many studies2026
Health Risk of Fine Particulate Matter Across China with a Pollutant-Specific Index from 2013 to 2023.Other studies and data2026
Environmental health (Wikipedia)BackgroundUnknown

The community around it

Contributions
0
People
0
Following
0

Nobody has added anything yet. Experience, evidence or a different view would show up here.

What it means for you

Which fits you?

Pick the situation closest to yours. Each answer says what it rests on.

If you live in a region with persistently high PM2.5 levels

the evidence links long-term exposure to higher risks of multimorbidity and venous thrombosis, and short-term exposure to higher mortality, so reducing personal exposure is supported by the findings.124

Evidence-backed

If you are concerned about drinking water or food contaminated with inorganic arsenic

the dose-response evidence for bladder cancer and other conditions supports treating arsenic as a well-established risk rather than an overblown one.5

Evidence-backed

If you are worried about uranium in local soil or dust

the pooled hazard quotients and cancer-risk estimates are mostly far below common thresholds, though the authors recommend better exposure assessment and age-specific evaluation.6

Evidence-backed

If you are worried about microplastics in your local surface water

the modelled target hazard quotient and cancer risk are low under the assumed exposure scenarios, but hotspots warrant further monitoring.7

Evidence-backed

If you are a parent of young children

the evidence links long-term PM2.5 exposure to small but consistent increases in systolic blood pressure in children, while PM10 and NO2 associations were weaker or not sustained.3

Evidence-backed

If you want to know which pollutants to prioritise

the evidence is strongest for PM2.5 and PM10, with weaker or absent associations for gaseous pollutants in the multimorbidity and venous thrombosis analyses.12

Evidence-backed

The full story · 4 chapters

01

Air pollution: the best-established everyday risk

AI summary:Long-term PM2.5 exposure is linked to multimorbidity, venous thrombosis, and higher blood pressure in children, and short-term exposure to higher mortality.

Evidence-backed

Evidence-backed: Long-term exposure to ambient PM2.5 was associated with a pooled adjusted risk ratio of 1.15 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.23) for multimorbidity per 5 µg/m³ increase, and PM10 with 1.27 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.47) per 5 µg/m³ increase. NO2 showed a weaker association (aRR 1.12, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.26), and no associations were found for nitrogen oxides, black carbon, sulphur dioxide, ozone, or carbon monoxide.1

Evidence-backed

Evidence-backed: For venous thrombosis, long-term particulate exposure was associated with increased risk: a 10 µg/m³ increase in PM2.5 gave a relative risk of 1.0804 (95% CI 1.0015–1.1656) and PM10 gave 1.0369 (95% CI 1.0260–1.0479) over averaging periods of one year or more. Short-term particulate exposure and gaseous pollutants showed no association. The authors estimated that meeting the WHO air quality guideline of 5 µg/m³ annual PM2.5 would prevent 98,233 venous thrombotic events globally.2

Evidence-backed

Evidence-backed: In children, long-term PM2.5 exposure was associated with higher systolic blood pressure (0.59 mmHg per 10 µg/m³; 95% CI 0.28–0.90). PM10 associations with systolic and diastolic pressure were not sustained in sensitivity analyses, and NO2 showed no significant association. Several pollutants were linked to higher odds of hypertension, but the authors note limited longitudinal data and complex multipollutant exposures.3

Evidence-backed

Evidence-backed: In China, PM2.5 concentrations fell from 55.06 µg/m³ in 2013 to 26.50 µg/m³ in 2022, with a slight rebound to 27.46 µg/m³ in 2023. Each 10 µg/m³ increase in short-term PM2.5 exposure within three days was associated with increased all-cause (0.42%), cardiovascular (0.61%), and respiratory (0.84%) mortality. Northern and southwestern regions still experienced more than 80 medium- and high-risk days annually, and eliminating high-risk days could avert an estimated 6,985 deaths in 2023 (7.42% of the PM2.5-attributable all-cause mortality burden).4

Participant opinion · poll

Which of these everyday environmental exposures worries you most for your own health?

Which of these everyday environmental exposures worries you most for your own health?Air pollution (traffic, industry, wildfire smoke)Chemicals in food, water or household productsMicroplastics and plastic additivesRadiation, heavy metals or naturally occurring contaminantsNone of these worry me much
Sign in to respond.

Your individual response is private. Only totals are shown.

02

Inorganic arsenic: clear dose-response for cancer and cardiovascular outcomes

AI summary:Inorganic arsenic shows a clear dose-response relationship with bladder cancer and is also linked to hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and fetal outcomes.

Evidence-backed

Evidence-backed: An umbrella review of 36 systematic reviews found a significant dose-response relationship between inorganic arsenic and bladder cancer, with relative risks of 2.70, 4.20, and 5.80 at 10, 50, and 150 µg/L respectively. Each 10 µg/L increase in arsenic raised bladder cancer risk by 3.11% (p=0.003). Arsenic exposure was also associated with hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and adverse fetal outcomes, with dose-dependent increases in bladder cancer, lung cancer, and hypertension risks.5

03

Uranium and microplastics: regional hotspots, mostly low modelled human risk

AI summary:Uranium in soil and dust and microplastics in surface water show regional hotspots, but modelled human health risks are generally low.

Evidence-backed

Evidence-backed: A meta-analysis of 18 studies from 13 countries found pooled mean uranium concentrations of 3.49 mg/kg in soil and 5.10 mg/kg in dust. The WHO South-East Asian Region had the highest mean soil concentrations (5.26 mg/kg) and the Western Pacific Region the highest dust concentrations (11.69 mg/kg). Non-carcinogenic hazard quotients ranged from 3.1 × 10⁻¹³ to 1.47, and carcinogenic risks from 3.54 × 10⁻²¹ to 2.17 × 10⁻⁹ — values that fall below common regulatory thresholds, though the authors call for better exposure assessment and age-specific evaluation.6

Evidence-backed

Evidence-backed: A systematic review of 40 studies on Chinese surface waters found microplastics widely present, with hotspots in northwestern inland rivers, northern industrialized basins, and the southeastern coast. Fibers dominated (47.6–59.5% of particles). Human health risk assessment estimated a target hazard quotient of 0.019 and a cancer risk of 1.32 × 10⁻⁵ under the assumed exposure scenarios, indicating low modelled risk while the authors call for further monitoring at hotspots.7

04

What environmental health covers

AI summary:Environmental health studies how the natural and built environment affects human health.

Evidence-backed

Evidence-backed: Environmental health is the branch of public health concerned with all aspects of the natural and built environment affecting human health, drawing on environmental science, toxicology, environmental epidemiology, and environmental and occupational medicine.8

Reporting up to this Sylo

From its subtopics

Each subtopic is its own Sylo with its own sources and contributors. Their current findings are shown here as reports, not counted as extra evidence for this page.

UnderstandAre gas stoves bad for indoor air and health?Gas stoves release indoor air pollutants through both combustion and gas leakage. A systematic review found evidence of nonzero emissions for at least 41 toxic air contaminants from fossil gas appliances, including form…Changed 7 hours ago · AI-prepared Starting Map from live research.Open ›UnderstandAre PFAS forever chemicals harmful to health?Major reviews and agency-style syntheses converge on a set of adverse health associations with PFAS exposure rather than a single effect. Reported outcomes include increased cholesterol and liver enzymes, immune dysfunc…Changed 4 hours ago · AI-prepared Starting Map from live research.Open ›DebateAre seed oils bad for you?The best available evidence does not support the claim that omega-6 fats in seed oils are broadly harmful. A Cochrane review of randomised trials concluded that increasing omega-6 fats probably has little or no effect o…Changed 4 days ago · Initial Starting Map on whether omega-6-rich vegetable and seed oils harm health, built from three sources: a Cochrane review of randomised trials, a BMJ re-analysis of recovered Minnesota Coronary Experiment data, and a Circulation pooled analysis of biomarkers. No reader contributions are available yet, so the map rests on the evidence alone.Open ›DecideDo blue light glasses work?Across systematic reviews and state-of-the-art reviews, blue-light filtering spectacle lenses have not been shown to produce clinically meaningful average reductions in short-term digital eye strain, and their effects o…Changed 8 hours ago · Adds newer reviews (2026) that sharpen the picture: no clinically meaningful average reduction in short-term digital eye strain, small and inconsistent sleep effects with subjective improvements often not confirmed objectively, and no support for routine preventive use. Adds detail on filter spectrum, colour/contrast trade-offs, sparse adverse-event reporting, and melanopic filtering density as more relevant than label colour.Open ›UnderstandDo mobile phones cause brain cancer?Mobile phones emit non-ionising radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF), and the parts of the head nearest the antenna can absorb this energy as heat. The World Health Organization has sponsored 13 extensive revi…Changed 4 hours ago · AI-prepared Starting Map from live research.Open ›UnderstandDoes air pollution harm the brain and memory?Across recent reviews and one field study, higher exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is consistently associated with poorer cognitive function, faster cognitive decline, and higher risk of cognitive impairment…Changed 7 hours ago · AI-prepared Starting Map from live research.Open ›UnderstandDoes cash incentive reduce smoking?Financial incentives — cash or vouchers — appear to help some groups quit or stay quit, but the effect depends heavily on who is offered them, how long they run, and how the program is delivered. A systematic review of…Changed 15 hours ago · Added a new randomized trial of contingency management among adults experiencing homelessness (higher 6-month abstinence with incentives), a health-economics perspective on three implementation challenges (reach, short-lived effects, funding), and a commentary arguing contingency management has robust trial support for perinatal smoking cessation. Updated the finding, uncertainty, open questions and guidance to reflect these; kept the existing pregnancy, postpartum and implementation material.Open ›UnderstandDoes cold weather cause colds?The common cold is caused by viruses, not by cold weather itself. Cold temperatures and low humidity can change how well some respiratory viruses survive and spread through the air, and cold weather is widely believed t…Changed yesterday · AI-prepared Starting Map from live research.Open ›UnderstandDoes damp and mould in homes harm health?The evidence points one way: living in damp or mouldy homes is consistently associated with worse respiratory and allergic health, especially in children. A scoping review of questionnaires used with asthma patients fou…Changed 4 hours ago · AI-prepared Starting Map from live research.Open ›UnderstandDoes fluoride in drinking water affect children's IQ?The body of observational research points in one direction: higher fluoride exposure in pregnancy and childhood is associated with slightly lower IQ scores in children, but the size of the effect, the exposure level at…Changed 4 days ago · AI-prepared Starting Map from live research.Open ›UnderstandDoes red light therapy work?Red light therapy (photobiomodulation, also called low-level laser therapy) has clinical trial support for several of its marketed uses, but the evidence is uneven: strongest for skin rejuvenation and some pain conditio…Changed 4 days ago · AI-prepared Starting Map from live research.Open ›UnderstandDoes sunscreen prevent skin cancer?Sunscreen use is consistently linked to fewer squamous cell cancers and precancerous lesions, and one randomized trial found roughly half the melanoma rate a decade after daily-use assignment, but the evidence for basal…Changed 8 hours ago · Added a 2026 systematic review of 11 randomized trials (n=7355) quantifying actinic keratosis reduction with daily sunscreen (24–51% across three trials), plus new sources on chemoprevention, homemade sunscreens, and an outdoor-worker intervention. Expanded uncertainty and open questions accordingly.Open ›UnderstandHow dangerous is radon gas in homes?Radon (222Rn) is a colourless, odourless radioactive gas produced by the decay of radium in soil and rock, and it is recognised as the second leading cause of lung cancer after smoking. Residential exposure varies enorm…Changed 4 hours ago · AI-prepared Starting Map from live research.Open ›DebateIs moderate drinking actually good for you?The evidence points in two directions. Large observational meta-analysis finds no significant mortality benefit from light drinking once former-drinker bias and other confounders are adjusted for, while heavier drinking…Changed 4 days ago · Copy edit: capitalisation in the guidance.Open ›UnderstandIs road traffic noise linked to heart disease?Long-term exposure to road traffic noise is consistently associated with a modestly increased risk of cardiovascular disease in epidemiological studies. A meta-analysis of 11 prospective cohorts (1,353,481 participants)…Changed 4 hours ago · AI-prepared Starting Map from live research.Open ›UnderstandIs vaping safer than smoking cigarettes?The sources agree that vaping is generally less harmful than smoking combustible cigarettes, but they differ sharply on how well-established that conclusion is and on how it is understood in practice. A Wikipedia overvi…Changed 7 hours ago · AI-prepared Starting Map from live research.Open ›UnderstandMicroplastics in our bodies: how worried should we be?Microplastics are clearly inside us: in bottled water at hundreds of thousands of particles per litre, in arterial plaque and in brain tissue. Whether they harm health is not yet established. One striking study linked p…Changed 4 days ago · Added a reader poll shown alongside published survey figures.Open ›UnderstandUltra-processed foods: how bad are they, really?The evidence points in two directions at once. In a four-week inpatient crossover trial of 20 adults, an ultra-processed diet matched to an unprocessed diet on presented calories, sugar, fat, fibre and macronutrients le…Changed 15 hours ago · Added two newer sources: a 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials (10 studies) finding significantly greater weight gain and eating rate in ultra-processed arms but energy-intake effects that varied with energy density and low evidential certainty; and a 2026 narrative review cataloguing proposed mechanisms and the field's unresolved controversies (NOVA classification, heterogeneity, processing vs nutrient profile).Open ›

Ask this Sylo

Still wondering about something?

Answers come only from this page's reviewed material, with citations, and say plainly when the page doesn't cover it yet.

Behind this page

Who's adding to it, where it comes from, how it changed and what would make it better. Always open to everyone.

Discussion

Nobody has added anything yet. If you have experience, evidence or a different view, you could be the first.

Sources

Numbers match the citations in the article. A working link isn't proof that a page supports a claim; check the quoted passage and date.

  1. 1
    Association between air pollution, multimorbidity and polypharmacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
    BMJ public health (Zhang et al.)Published Sep 3, 2026Checked Sep 30, 2026
    “After excluding incompatible effect estimates (increment other than per 5 µg/m3, 10 µg/m3 or IQR increase) and studies using overlapping datasets, four, three, two and four were included in the main meta-analysis, respectively, with a pooled adjusted risk ratio (aRR) of 1.15 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.23; I 2 =93.0%) per 5 µg/m³ particulate matter (PM)2.5 increase, a pooled aRR of 1.27 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.47; I 2 =99.5%) per 5 µg/m³ PM10 increase, a pooled aRR of 1.07 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.09; I 2 =0.0%) per 5 µg/m³ PM1 increase and a pooled aRR of 1.12 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.26; I 2 =96.6%) per 5 µg/m³ nitrogen dioxide (NO2) increase. There was no evidence of associations between other air pollutants (nitrogen oxides (N=3), black carbon (N=1), sulphur dioxide (N=3), ozone (N=4), carbon monoxide (N=3)) and multimorbidity. No eligible studies on polypharmacy, indoor air pollution, older adults, American and Oceanian populations were identified.ConclusionsLong-term exposure to ambient PM2.5 and NO2 may elevate the risk of multimorbidity. Future research should prioritise household air pollution, rural areas, older populations as a target group, continents other than Europe and Asia and polypharmacy.”
  2. 2
    Venous Thrombosis and Air Pollution: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 1.4 Million Adult Patients.
    Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH (Fang et al.)Published Sep 19, 2026Checked Sep 30, 2026
    “Meta-analysis showed that occurrence of venous thrombosis was positively associated with long-term particles exposures, but not with short-term particles exposures or with any metrics of gaseous pollutants. Specifically, the increased risk of VTE was associated with a 10 μg/m3 increase in PM2.5 (RR 1.0804, 95% CI: 1.0015-1.1656) and PM10 (RR 1.0369, 95% CI: 1.0260-1.0479) during average pollutant concentrations of one year or more. Subgroup analyses further indicated that the associations with PM2.5 remained statistically significant for DVT and among older participants. We estimated that reducing the annual average of PM2.5 concentrations to meet the World Health Organization Air Quality Guideline of 5 μg/m3 would prevent 98,233 venous thrombotic events globally.ConclusionThis analysis suggest that particulate matter air pollution might be a risk factor for venous thrombosis, highlighting that environmental policies to reduce population exposure levels may mitigate the burden of venous thrombotic events.”
  3. 3
    Association between long-term exposure to air pollution and blood pressure in children: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Reviews on environmental health (Çulpan et al.)Published Aug 10, 2026Checked Sep 30, 2026
    “Meta-analysis was limited to PM2.5, PM10, and NO2 because cohort data for other pollutants were limited, and exposure increments and hypertension definitions varied across studies.SummaryLong-term PM2.5 exposure showed the most consistent association with higher systolic BP (0.59 mmHg per 10 μg/m3; 95 % CI: 0.28-0.90). PM10 was initially associated with higher systolic (0.28 mmHg per 10 μg/m3; 95 % CI: 0.25-0.31) and diastolic (0.27 mmHg; 95 % CI: 0.24-0.30) BP, but these associations were not sustained in sensitivity analyses. NO2 showed no significant association with systolic or diastolic BP. Several pollutants, including PM2.5, PM10, SO2, O3, and CO, were associated with increased odds of hypertension.OutlookCurrent evidence suggests that exposure to fine particulate matter may contribute to early-life elevation in blood pressure; however, given the paucity of longitudinal data and the complexity of multipollutant exposures, further research employing standardized exposure metrics, harmonized outcome definitions, and multipollutant models are needed to clarify independent pollutant effects.”
  4. 4
    Health Risk of Fine Particulate Matter Across China with a Pollutant-Specific Index from 2013 to 2023.
    Environmental science & technology (Li et al.)Published Aug 1, 2026Checked Sep 30, 2026
    “The model achieved high predictive accuracy (cross-validation R2 = 0.88 spatially and 0.82 temporally at daily level). PM2.5 concentrations declined substantially nationwide from 55.06 μg/m3 in 2013 to 26.50 μg/m3 in 2022, followed by a slight rebound to 27.46 μg/m3 in 2023. Each 10 μg/m3 increase in short-term PM2.5 exposure within 3 days was associated with increased risks of all-cause (0.42%), cardiovascular (0.61%), and respiratory (0.84%) mortality. AQHIPM2.5 indicated persistent moderate-to-high health risk days in northern and southwestern China, with some regions experiencing more than 80 medium- and high-risk days annually. Eliminating high-risk days identified by AQHIPM2.5 could avert an estimated 6,985 (95% CI: 6,419 to 7,588) deaths in 2023, accounting for 7.42% of PM2.5-attributable all-cause mortality burden. These findings indicate that substantial health risks from PM2.5 persist despite improved air quality and demonstrate that integrating high-resolution exposure estimation with health risk assessment can support more targeted pollution control and public health interventions.”
  5. 5
    Health risk assessment of inorganic arsenic: an umbrella review.
    Reviews on environmental health (Leem et al.)Published Jul 23, 2026Checked Sep 30, 2026
    “An umbrella review framework was employed to synthesize and reinterpret findings across systematic reviews. The methodological quality of included systematic reviews was assessed using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 tool. Extracted data on study characteristics, exposure levels, and risk estimates were analyzed to evaluate the dose-response relationship between iAs exposure and health outcomes. From 922 systematic reviews, 36 were included and categorized into 10 health condition groups. For example, seven SRs found a significant dose-response relationship between iAs and bladder cancer, with one systematic review reporting relative risks of 2.70, 4.20, and 5.80 at 10, 50, and 150 µg/L, respectively. Individual study analysis further showed that each 10 µg/L increase in iAs raised bladder cancer risk by 3.11 % (p=0.003). iAs exposure is associated with hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and adverse fetal outcomes. Dose-dependent increases in bladder cancer, lung cancer, and hypertension risks were observed. These findings support more precise health risk assessments and regulatory strategies.”
  6. 6
    Levels of Uranium in Soil and Dust and Their Associated Chemical Risks to Human Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
    Environmental health insights (Kalumbi et al.)Published Aug 12, 2026Checked Sep 30, 2026
    “Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, applying the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal criteria for data extraction. Meta-analyses were performed, incorporating pooled estimates where appropriate. Narrative synthesis was applied to data unsuitable for meta-analysis. Eighteen studies from 13 countries met the inclusion criteria. The pooled mean uranium concentration was 3.49 mg/kg in soil and 5.10 mg/kg in dust. Regionally, the WHO South-East Asian Region (SEARO) reported the highest mean soil concentrations (5.26 mg/kg), while the Western Pacific Region recorded the highest dust concentrations (11.69 mg/kg). Non-carcinogenic hazard quotients ranged from 3.1 × 10-13 (children and adults) to 1.47 (adults), and carcinogenic risks spanned 3.54 × 10-21 (children) to 2.17 × 10-9 (adults). Uranium contamination in soil and dust varies by region, with SEARO and the Western Pacific as high-exposure areas. Risk ratios vary, influenced partly by age. Enhancing exposure assessment methods and age-specific risk evaluations is crucial for refining risk characterisation and informing public health interventions in uranium-affected areas.”
  7. 7
    Occurrence, distribution, and ecological risk of microplastics in Chinese surface waters: a systematic review and multi-model assessment.
    Environmental geochemistry and health (Zhou et al.)Published Aug 28, 2026Checked Sep 30, 2026
    “Microplastics are widely detected in Chinese surface waters, posing potential threats to ecosystems and human health. We conducted a systematic review of literature published from January 2014 to March 2026 based on predefined search and eligibility criteria, and integrated data from 40 eligible studies.Using the Pollution Load Index (PLI), the Potential Ecological Risk Index (PERI), the Species Sensitivity Distribution (SSD), and health risk models (Target Hazard Quotient, THQ; Cancer Risk, CR), we analyzed the spatial distribution, morphology, and multi-dimensional risks of microplastics. Results showed pronounced spatial heterogeneity, with hotspots in northwestern inland rivers, northern industrialized basins, and the southeastern coast. Fibers dominated (47.6-59.5%), particles -1. Human health risk assessment estimated THQ = 0.019 and CR = 1.32×10-5 under the assumed exposure scenarios. Overall, microplastic contamination and associated risks varied among regions, with hotspots requiring further monitoring. These findings provide useful information for ecological risk assessment and future management strategies.”
  8. 8
    Environmental health (Wikipedia)
    WikipediaPublished Sep 29, 2026Checked Sep 30, 2026
    “Environmental health is the branch of public health concerned with all aspects of the natural and built environment affecting human health. Its study determines the requirements for a healthy environment, with the goal of effective control over the factors that affect health. The major sub-disciplines of environmental health are environmental science, toxicology, environmental epidemiology, and environmental and occupational medicine.”

How it changed

Published 1 time since Sep 30, 2026.

  1. Version 2Sep 30, 2026Live now

    AI-prepared Starting Map from live research.

    • First published version.
Every version, side by side

Help improve it

The brief is open about what's uncertain. These are the specific gaps that new material would fill.

  • “Inorganic arsenic: clear dose-response for cancer and cardiovascular outcomes” rests on one independent source

    A second, independent source that confirms or challenges it would make this part more reliable.

  • “What environmental health covers” rests on one independent source

    A second, independent source that confirms or challenges it would make this part more reliable.

Open questions

  • How large are the health effects of indoor and household air pollution, which the air pollution review identified as an evidence gap?

    No answers yet

  • Do the air pollution associations hold for older adults and for populations outside Europe and Asia, where the review found no eligible studies?

    No answers yet

  • Do the low modelled microplastic risk estimates translate into measurable human health outcomes, or do they mainly reflect current exposure assumptions?

    No answers yet

  • How much do age-specific exposure factors change the uranium risk estimates, given the wide range of hazard quotients reported?

    No answers yet

Around this topic

Sylos connect: narrower topics report up to broader ones, so what's learned in one place shows up where it matters.

Add what you know

Sign in to add what you know. Reading stays open to everyone.

Ask this Sylo

Answers only from “Everyday health risks: real or overblown?”

Ask anything about this page. The AI reads only its reviewed brief, sources and contributions, cites what it used, and says when the page doesn't cover something.