How many cups of caffeinated coffee are safe to drink each day?

Up to five cups of coffee per day OK for heart health. Energy shots, not so much

American Heart Association

The latest research indicates that consuming up to 400 mg of caffeine/day (equivalent to up to 5, 8-ounce cups of caffeinated coffee per day) is generally safe for most adults and appears to be linked to a lower risk of several cardiovascular conditions, including heart failure, heart disease and stroke in some individuals.

However, higher amounts of caffeine, such as levels found in energy drinks including energy shots, may increase the risk of high blood pressure and/or irregular heart rhythm or arrhythmia.

 
More research is needed to better understand caffeine’s impact on the body, how different sources of caffeine impact heart health and how its impact may vary among different people, according to the scientific statement.

Previous studies have found that caffeine is the world’s most popular stimulant and psychoactive sub­stance, and coffee is the most common way people consume caffeine. The latest research supports the conclusion that for most adults, consuming up to 400 mg of caffeine/day (or up to 5, 8-ounce cups of caffeinated coffee per day) is safe and appears to be linked to a lower risk of cardiovascular disease for some individuals. 

However, higher doses of caffeine, such as levels found in energy drinks including energy shots, may cause cardiovascular harm, according to a new American Heart Association scientific statement, “Caffeine and Cardiovascular Disease,” published today in the American Heart Association’s flagship peer-reviewed scientific journal Circulation.

MAGA declaring war on seniors — and it could be their downfall

Is Trump testing to see how much he can take away from seniors before they rebel?

Alex Henderson

According to data from the Roper Center at Cornell University, 50 percent of U.S. seniors — those who are 65 or older — voted for Donald Trump in 2024 compared to 49 percent for Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris. 

The senior vote was close in 2024, and seniors, Roper says, played an important role in getting Trump past the finish line. But according to Salon's Heather Digby Parton, seniors could be the ones who doom Republicans in the 2026 midterms.

Parton notes that because so many seniors vote GOP, "it's always been a mystery" to her "why Republicans have always been so bent on destroying the safety net that brought the elderly out of poverty and assured them a baseline level of subsistence and medical care." And she points that crucial safety-net programs used by seniors — Social Security and Medicare — came from liberal Democratic presidents.

"From the moment Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act in 1935 to the day Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Medicare and Medicaid Act 30 years later," Parton explains, "the right has been trying to destroy them. In the early days, it sprang from their obsession with anti-communism, arguments that the country couldn't afford it, and that individuals and their families are rightfully responsible for their own care in old age.

“In a 1961 radio address — 20 years before he became president — Ronald Reagan said, 'One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine' ... Before Medicare was created, only 54 percent of elderly people had health insurance, and that could be cancelled without cause when they got sick — which, as you know, tends to happen when you get old."

Parton continues, "Three years after it was enacted, 96 percent of people over 65 had hospital insurance. It was literally a life saver. Over the years, Medicaid, created at the same time to assist people living below the poverty line, came to cover many of the health expenses that Medicare didn't for elderly people, most importantly for nursing homes and caregivers. The GOP has been hacking away at these vital programs ever since, and yet, senior citizens have been voting for them in greater numbers than any other age cohort."

Westerly culture war erupts again

After victory for trans student rights in Cumberland, all eyes turn to Westerly

Steve Ahlquist

Credit: Mel Woods/Xtra

As the Cumberland School District wrestled with and ultimately declined to pass changes to its transgender student policies last week, Westerly School Committee Solicitor William Nardone provided a freewheeling and imaginative overview of a recent United States Supreme Court decision, West Virginia v. B.P.J., regarding the eligibility of transgender athletes in female sports at last Wednesday’s meeting during his “solicitor’s report.”

In the decision, SCOTUS ruled that under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, schools may maintain women’s and girls’ sports teams based on “biological sex.” The decision permits—but does not strictly mandate—the exclusion of trans girls from female sports, said Solicitor Nardone. The solicitor advised the School Committee that the district should align itself with the court’s decision, even though the ruling did not affect Rhode Island General Laws or the Department of Education’s mandated Guidance for Rhode Island Schools on Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students.

Nardone went even further than the court’s decision, interpreting the ruling’s “umbrella” to apply to spaces such as locker rooms and bathrooms. Christian nationalist Committee member Peter Nero was quick to point out the difficulties of enforcing a ban based on “biological sex,” noting that birth certificates can be legally altered in many states. Solicitor Nardone dismissed the concern and noted that the Supreme Court decision does not address the issue of verification, and that the “day-to-day” policing of the policy is up to the district administration.

Committeemembers Seth Logan and Lori Wycall cited Mirabelli v. Bonta, the case that was at the center of the kerfuffle in Cumberland. Unaware that Cumberland would conclude that altering their policy was, at the very least, premature (if not dangerous for the health and well-being of students), they suggested the district ensure parents are informed if a student begins to socially transition at school (that is, adopt names, pronouns, or the dress of a gender different from the one assigned at birth. Committeemember Logan is fairly new to the Committee, but Committeemember Wycall has long wanted to impose policies to discriminate against trans children. (See: here, here, and here.)

Though the opponents of trans girls playing sports couch their arguments in terms of competitiveness, safety, and fairness, their true agenda is Christian Nationalism, complete with Christian prayers and Bibles in public schools.

Committeemember Peter Nero formerly served as the Superintendent of the Cranston Public Schools until his retirement in 2012. During his tenure, an atheist student, Jessica Ahlquist (full disclosure, Jessica is my niece), was a plaintiff in a successful case brought against the city by the RI ACLU to remove a Christian prayer banner from the auditorium wall of Cranston High School West:

“We wanted to keep the banner,” said Committeemember Nero at Tuesday night’s meeting. “We thought it was the relic. It was Christian, and I’m a practicing Catholic, so I didn’t find a problem with it. We ended up getting a pro bono [lawyer] from the Diocese, but the [ACLU] won the case…

“…if the Supreme Court was empowered back in 2012, that prayer banner would still be up … because you can see now they’re putting Bibles in some schools, Bible studies… I had the prayer banner cut down from the wall, and I’ve had it hidden. And someday, if [the Supreme Court] turns that around, I’ll have it put back up.”

Here’s the transcript of the relevant parts of the committee meeting. You can watch the video here.

Begone

New MAGA merch

More testosterone won’t make a better soldier or a tougher man

Pete Hegseth's 'Roid Rage

Adam Stanaland, University of Richmond

How low is too low when it comes to testosterone levels? 

When Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced in July 2026 that U.S. service members ages 30 and older will have their testosterone tested every year, neither he nor the Pentagon specified what level of the hormone would be considered “low” enough to require treatment – a telling omission, since where “low” begins depends on the lab conducting the test and the guidelines your doctor follows.

The announcement lands amid a national testosterone craze: Prescriptions have climbed to nearly 12 million in 2025, up 154% since 2020, and fastest among men in their late 30s and 40s. Online clinics that sell testosterone as a lifestyle upgrade have largely driven this rise in prescriptions.

As a psychologist who studies masculinity, I’m certain that while the idea that more testosterone makes a man tougher and more fit to fight seems intuitive, it’s also mostly wrong.

This looks like the perfect challenge for ICE

“Weird Clams” Reveal a New Invasion Along the U.S. Northeast Coast

By University of Massachusetts Amherst

Empty Manila clam shells blanketing the
 intertidal zone in Boston Harbor’s Spectacle
Island. Credit: Aly Putnam

A stretch of Atlantic shoreline that had remained free of Manila clams now appears to support reproducing populations of the invasive shellfish.

Biologists led by the University of Massachusetts Amherst, MIT Sea Grant at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Center for Coastal Studies confirmed that Ruditapes philippinarum has established itself along the northwestern Atlantic coast. Published in Biological Invasions, the findings capture a rarely documented stage of biological invasion, when a species is first becoming established and beginning to spread through a new region.

Manila clams are native to waters extending from Russia’s Sakhalin Islands through Japan and southern China. Since at least the early 20th century, however, people have introduced them both intentionally and accidentally to the Pacific coast of North America and to Europe, allowing the species to spread across much of the Northern Hemisphere.

The clams are widely valued as food and support an industry worth about $7 billion annually. At the same time, dense populations can compete with native shellfish, hybridize with related species, and alter surrounding ecological communities.

Co-author Bastidas in Squantum, Massachusetts,
holding a native quahog clam. Mussels and Manila
clams are visible in the tray. Credit: Carolina Bastidas

Their arrival may also bring some benefits. Manila clams can provide abundant food for seabirds, crabs, raccoons, and other animals that prey on shellfish.

“Given that Manila clams are everywhere else in the northern hemisphere, it was only a matter of time before they showed up here, and we’ve been keeping an eye out for them,” says marine scientist Aly Putnam, who is a postdoctoral researcher at UMass Amherst and lecturer at Smith College, as well as the paper’s lead author.

A text message starts the search

The Northeastern U.S. had represented the last major gap in the Manila clam’s Northern Hemisphere range. Evidence that the species had reached this coastline emerged from something remarkably ordinary: a text message.

During the summer of 2025, Putnam was leading a small workshop on intertidal biodiversity at Spectacle Island in Boston Harbor when El Fernekees Hartshorn sent her a photograph of an unfamiliar clam. Fernekees Hartshorn, a recent University of Rhode Island graduate who had worked with Putnam on regional Rapid Assessment Surveys for marine invasive species, suggested that the shellfish might be a Manila clam. Fernekees Hartshorn is also a co-author of the paper.

Rhode Islanders need to earn $33.95/Hour to afford housing

And that's if you can find it

Steve Ahlquist

A full-time worker in Rhode Island must earn $33.95 per hour — or $70,617 annually — to afford a modest two-bedroom apartment at today’s Fair Market Rent (FMR), up from $31.71 per hour in 2025. This is Rhode Island’s “2026 Housing Wage” according to Out of Reach, a report published jointly by the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) and the Housing Network of Rhode Island.

From a press release

Released annually, Out of Reach underscores the significant disparity that exists between actual wages and the wages people need to earn to afford their rents nationwide, reflecting the broader trend of rising income inequality across the U.S. The report’s “Housing Wage” is an estimate of the hourly wage full-time workers must earn to afford a rental home at FMR without spending more than 30% of their incomes.

In Rhode Island, the FMR for a two-bedroom apartment is $1,765. To afford this level of rent and utilities without paying more than 30% of income on housing, a household must earn $5,885 monthly or $70,617 annually.

This level of income translates into an hourly Housing Wage of $33.95. The average Rhode Island renter earns only $19.24 per hour. Minimum wage is just $16 an hour.

Rhode Island energy costs are soaring. So are political tensions.

Does not hold RI Energy responsible

By Nancy Lavin, Rhode Island Current

 (Photo by Nancy Lavin/Rhode Island Current)

In declaring a state of emergency over rising energy prices, Gov. Dan McKee simultaneously declared war on the environmental groups, lawmakers and state regulators who he alleges are standing in the way of relief for struggling families.

“Anybody who tells you that what we’re proposing is not helping people pay their utility bills, they’re basically advocating for their own personal self interests,” McKee said at a press conference at United Way of Rhode Island’s Providence office on Thursday.

He wasn’t talking about the cluster of social service agency leaders who surrounded him, cheering as he signed an executive order, authorizing $28 million in proceeds from the state’s gas cap-and-trade program to offset winter electricity bills for Rhode Island Energy customers. 

Instead, McKee was referring in broad terms to the people who spoke out during the 2026 legislative session against his proposed energy affordability plan. The proposal, which was largely dismantled by lawmakers in the final fiscal 2027 budget, sought to save ratepayers $1 billion on energy bills over five years in part by weakening state programs meant to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Environmental groups, solar developers, and Democratic lawmakers all cited concerns with McKee’s plan, arguing that the short-term savings came with long-term costs to climate change, energy independence and ratepayer savings. In signing the fiscal 2027 budget, which did not include these contested components, in June, McKee praised lawmakers for acknowledging many of his priorities, including energy affordability.

Six weeks later, barreling toward a contested Democratic primary against challenger Helena Buonanno Foulkes, the governor was quick to point fingers at the people who dismantled his energy plans.

“This was an all-out effort to water down the plan I put in place,” McKee said. “Anybody who was testifying and pushing back against energy savings that are needed right now, they are part of the cohort that said ‘let them pay more.’”

McKee declined to name who specifically made this statement or when.

Larry Chretien, executive director at Green Energy Consumers Alliance, which was one of the groups opposed to McKee’s energy proposal, said in an interview he was “shocked and saddened” by McKee’s accusations.

Chretien stressed the merits of maintaining the state’s path to decarbonization, in turn protecting ratepayers from seasonal price volatility, refusing to play the blame game.

“He’s zigging while the rest of the world is moving toward this direction of renewables and energy efficiency,” Chretien said of McKee. “Look at what happened with the Strait of Hormuz. There’s no better example of why we need to have alternatives.”

This bill by local state Senators Victoria Gu and Sue Sosnowski would have capped RI Energy profits while McKee's administration currently guarantees RI Energy a 9.275% profit margin. This bill did not pass

Helping MAGA men overcome their fears

This is not a joke, though it seems that way...

Why we have the Second Amendment

 

Do the math

Domestic Cats Age Like Humans, New Study Shows

Learning from our cats

By SCi.News Staff

Cats can live relatively long lives and there is some evidence they may share aging patterns with humans.

According to An Age, the maximum lifespan in humans (i.e. 122.5 years) is nearly twice that of great apes (e.g. 68 years in chimpanzees).

Domestic cats, like humans, also have a longer maximum lifespan (30 years) than closely related species, e.g. the European wildcat (Felis silvestris) (19 years).

Also, there are an estimated 600 million cats worldwide.

“We focus on cross-species age alignments across the lifespan of humans and cats with a particular focus on aging because cats live long lives and they are numerous, suggesting we may study them in large enough samples to assess whether their ages can be mapped onto a human in their 80s and beyond,” said Auburn University researcher Christine Charvet and colleagues.

For the study, the authors examined 3,754 data points collected across humans, cats and other mammalian species.

These data point covered brain imaging, blood chemistry, disease-related patterns and behavioral milestones such as eye opening and the onset of playful behavior.

The MRI work showed cats and humans share similar age-related changes in brain structure, including overall shrinkage, expansion of the ventricles (the hollow spaces inside the brain filled with fluid), and other structural alterations.

These brain changes are found in conditions commonly associated with aging. Both humans and older cats can develop age-related neurodegenerative changes later in life.

Colorectal Cancer Is Rising Fast in Younger Adults, Reversing Decades of Progress

Prevention and screening needed at earlier age

By American Cancer Society

For much of the past century, colorectal cancer was considered a disease of older age. But that picture is changing rapidly. Nearly half of all new colorectal cancer diagnoses in the United States now occur in adults younger than 65, a dramatic increase from just over one-quarter in the mid-1990s, and the disease has become the leading cause of cancer death in adults under 50.

A new American Cancer Society (ACS) report shows that this generational shift is accelerating. While colorectal cancer rates continue to decline among older Americans, they are climbing in adults younger than 65, particularly those under 50, suggesting that the decades-long success against one of the nation’s deadliest cancers is becoming increasingly concentrated in older generations.

The trend is being driven largely by cancers arising in the distal colon, the final section of the colon, and the rectum. As a result, rectal cancer now accounts for nearly one-third of all colorectal cancer diagnoses, up from about one-quarter two decades ago. The findings were published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

Why Trump’s move to gut the Endangered Species Act likely won’t hold up in court

Trump seems to hate all animals

Patrick Parenteau, Vermont Law & Graduate School

Piping plovers lay their eggs on the ground. They
became an endangered species as development encroached
on their habitat and made it harder for their chicks
to survive. Under the Same Moon/Flickr, CC BY

The Trump administration has decided that destroying the habitat of endangered species is not harmful.

Think about that.

Habitat loss is the No. 1 reason species become endangered. Red-cockaded woodpeckers need mature long-leaf pine forests to reproduce. Endangered western monarch butterflies depend on pesticide-free milkweed for food. Pacific salmon must have clean, cool rivers for spawning. If coastal water becomes too polluted, manatees will starve.

Yet, on July 14, 2026, the U.S. Department of Interior formally rescinded the so-called harm rule under the Endangered Species Act, removing language that has protected species from losing millions of acres of habitat.

As a law professor who has followed these issues for over five decades and litigated early cases under the Endangered Species Act, I believe this effort to gut the nation’s premier wildlife conservation law is unjustified and unlawful.

I see several reasons the rule change is not likely to survive the legal challenges that have already begun.