Our rivers have been contaminated with medications for years. The EU has a solution: let the pharmaceutical companies pay

When we read that one of the great environmental challenges of our time is the state of our rivers, our imagination travels directly to the fecal waterindustrial pollution or, lately, microplastics. In what we don’t usually think It’s in the medications. But the problem is real and the European Union is determined to solve it. How can medications ‘contaminate’? Drugs (whether for medical or veterinary use) have a very long life after consumption. And, inevitably, a good part of the medications end up being expelled from the body and entering wastewater. From there, despite the efforts of treatment systems, they reach rivers, lakes and seas. An increasingly solid scientific consensus. Although it is difficult to get a complete idea of ​​the impact of this type of pollution on the environment, the investigations that are appearing They make it clear that it is very far from being an anecdote. In fact, at least 631 pharmaceutical substances (human or veterinary) have been found in more than 71 countries on five continents. Many of them, at levels higher than those considered safe. In 2022, the CSIC analyzed 258 rivers and, after cataloging the Manzanares River as “the most contaminated by drugs in Europe”, warned that we were in the face of “a global threat to the environment and human health.” “Global threat (…) to human health”? Are we not exaggerating? In the case of antibiotics, to use an example we are all familiar with, this is clearly seen. We have been warning for years that the abuse of these medications leads to the emergence of multiresistant bacteria. That’s true on the consumption part, yes; but also in the part in which enormous quantities of them are dumped into nature every year (with the problems that this causes for ecosystems and the risks that it poses). Why is this news now? Because the European Union wants to take action on the matter and, as Oriol Güell explainsis introducing a whole new battery of measures in the renewed Directive on Urban Wastewater Treatment. The goal is to “reduce the compounds discharged into the environment by more than 80%”; the environment, the introduction of a whole series of “quaternary treatments” (ozone, activated carbon, new membranes, etc…) in the treatment systems. The problem? that the EU wants them to pay the affected industries: above all, pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. An idea that the sector has not liked. As expected, the application of the “polluter pays” principle in these terms has not pleased the sectors involved. Above all, because of the costs. According to the employers’ associations of both sectors, the application of the European directive would lead to an increase of about 500 million euros in Spain alone. And, beyond the expected conflicts between companies and administration, it is true that the movement is paradoxical. Not because it is not reasonable to charge the costs of water treatment to those who produce them; but because just a couple of years ago, Europe announced its intention to bet on having drug factories on the continent (and thus reduce its dependence on international supply lines). Towards a culture of responsible drug use. Be that as it may, in the end we always return to the same thing: the drug industry is heading straight into a very complex crisis in which health, economic, environmental and cultural issues intermingle so as not to lead us to a dead end. One in which we risk our health, the future and our lives. Image | manuel mv | Joshua Goge In Xataka | The Ozempic boom is so big that US pharmacies have decided to do something unusual: start manufacturing it themselves

pay people to get married

According to demographers one of the main factors What is behind the drop in birth rates around the world is that people are not getting married. And yes, I am aware. I can also think of a lot of counterarguments, but the truth is that “marriage and fertility move together with extraordinary regularity“. And, being so, some demographers saywhy don’t we pay people to get married? Pay people to get married? The idea may seem crazy, but it is based on a rather curious issue: that men’s income predict the number of marriages. That is, in places where men earn more, there are more marriages. This is not an extremely strong correlation, but it is very clear (and, as soon as we correct it, it gains strength). The question is why. And is the marriage market actually an insurance market? As? As it sounds. From a sociodemographic point of viewhusbands are a kind of insurance policy. It doesn’t mean that people get married. only for money: but what marriage has traditionally been a widespread solution to the problems and disruptions of having children. A process in which, it goes without saying, women run more risks (health risks, yes; but also work, social and economic risks) than men. put up with a husband (someone who can “reduce” the impact of possible problems that arise) is in a way like paying for insurance: we do it with greater or lesser pleasure in the hope of having it if we need it in the future. Men are many more things, of course.. However, as Lyman Stone points outsalary is usually a pretty good ‘proxy’ for many positive people skills. And, in fact, it works like this even if we are not fully aware of it. It’s something that culturally seeps into our judgments about others. But what happens if insurance covers us less and less? That is the central question: if we look at the US data, we can see that “American incomes are increasing, but this increase is concentrated entirely in women and/or people over 40 years of age, not by young” men. In fact, “men’s real incomes showed no growth or even a decline at almost all ages below 35 years.” As insurance coverage decreases (men can contribute less and less) and monthly payments remain the same (because, well, in the last 20 years the nature of marriages has not changed much), taking out the policy (getting married) It is becoming less and less attractive. It seems silly… but as Lyman Stone saysthe casual effect is there. “When women win the lottery, there is little to no effect on their marriage rates. But when men win the lottery, they get married . Seriously, they (buy houses and) they get married“. It is not the only factorof course: but it is surprisingly important. And surprisingly easy to fix. Because marriage benefits work. Above all, they work much better than maternity benefits work. Image | Photo Pettine | Stock Birken In Xataka | The demographic crisis in the West is no accident: most people do not have children simply because they do not want to.

Netflix increases its prices: this you must pay now

Bad news for subscribers Netflix: the platform streaming announced a price increase in each of its subscription plans. Although it is not a dramatic increase, now you will have to pay a little more to continue enjoying the catalog of movies and series. The company argued that the increase is due to a significant increase in the number of subscribers, obtaining 19 million new users in the last quarter of 2024. What you should pay now for your Netflix subscription Through its official website, in the plans and prices sectionNetflix detailed the price of each package and the content it offers. These are the new costs: Standard with ads: $7.99/month With all mobile games and most series and movies available. Unavailable titles are displayed with a lock icon. Likewise, you can watch simultaneously on two compatible devices and download content. Standard without ads: $17.99 per month Offers unlimited movies, shows and games, without advertising. You also have the option to log in on two devices simultaneously and add an extra member who is away from home for $8.99 (no ads) Premium or top quality: $24.99 The difference with the previous plan is that the premium version allows you to log in on up to four devices simultaneously, in addition to 4K resolution available and the possibility of downloading on six devices. Additionally, you can add two members who don’t live at home for $8.99 (no ads). Netflix clarified that the “basic plan” has been discontinuedso any user who paid for this plan must move to the new ones to continue enjoying the content. The platform of streaming He detailed that the massive increase in his subscribers, which entails the increase in prices, was thanks to three events that drew powerful attention: the boxing match between Mike Tyson and Jake Paul, the NFL Christmas games and the premiere of the second season of the “Squid Game”.

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.