Having pumped billions of dollars into building the next generation of computer chip factories in the US, the Biden administration is facing new pressure over the health and safety risks those facilities could pose. Environmental reviews for the new projects need to be more thorough, advocates say. They lack transparency around what kinds of toxic substances factory workers might handle, and plans to keep hazardous waste like forever chemicals from leaching into the environment have been vague.
Technology
Do we know enough about the health risks of new semiconductor factories?
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25578757/2092447526.jpg?ssl=1 "Do we know enough about the health risks of new semiconductor factories?")
A coalition of influential labor unions and environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, have since submitted comments to the Department of Commerce on draft environmental assessments, saying that the assessments fall short. The coalition’s comments flag lists of potential issues at several projects in Arizona and Idaho, including how opaque the safety measures that manufacturers will take to protect both workers and nearby residents are.
“We aren’t objecting to the existence of these plants. We know that they’re going to have to use hazardous substances.”
The groups don’t want to stop the projects from moving forward, they say. Their aim is to make sure that the industry avoids missteps it made when the US used to make a lot more semiconductors. America’s first generation of semiconductor factories, or fabs, left Silicon Valley pockmarked with toxic Superfund sites that are still being cleaned up decades later. That’s why they say it’s crucial to assess the environmental risks now and give communities a chance to weigh in on new fabs springing up across the nation.
“We aren’t objecting to the existence of these plants. We know that they’re going to have to use hazardous substances. Obviously, we’re pushing for substitutes when they can, but one of our biggest problems is the lack of transparency,” says Lenny Siegel, executive director of the Center for Public Environmental Oversight (CPEO).
Federal dollars come with strings attached
Siegel is part of CHIPS Communities United, a coalition that has formed over the past year working to hold semiconductor manufacturers accountable to communities where they set up shop. The group is also spearheaded by some big-name unions including Communications Workers of America, United Auto Workers, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
The coalition has formed at a pivotal time in the US. The CHIPS and Science Act, which passed in 2022, created $52.7 billion in funding for chip manufacturing. That’s supposed to help build up a domestic supply chain for computer chips in high demand for everything from cars and gaming to AI. As of June, more than half of that money had been distributed to eight companies building factories in 10 states. Private companies have committed an additional $395 billion to new semiconductor and electronics manufacturing in the US since 2021, according to the Biden administration.
If a company accepts federal funds, it can be subject to added environmental regulation on top of any local rules it has to follow at a construction site. A bedrock environmental policy in the US is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires federal agencies to conduct environmental reviews of major projects and share its findings with the public.
If NEPA applies, the agency will initially put together a document called an environmental assessment to determine if there could be “significant” environmental effects. If it finds no significant impact, then the review process ends. But if it deems there to be significant risks, it has to prepare a more detailed environmental impact statement and open up the process for more public engagement.
“There’s no guarantee”
So far, the Department of Commerce has released draft environmental assessments for three specific project sites: Micron’s plans in Boise, Idaho, as well as Intel’s and TSMC’s facilities in Arizona. All three drafts generally describe potential environmental effects as minor or stipulate that there would be “no significant effects” — as long as there are controls in place. (The jargon they use is “best management practices,” or BMP.)
CHIPS Communities United isn’t convinced. It submitted comments to the Department of Commerce calling on it to craft a more robust environmental impact statement for each of the projects. One of the key things they’re calling out is that there isn’t enough transparency on what those best management practices are and how they’d be monitored or enforced.
“These are huge projects, and they will have an environmental impact. The draft environmental assessments make assumptions about what is going to be done to mitigate those impacts, but there’s no guarantee that those mitigations will be carried out,” Siegel says.
Computer chips have a toxic history
A longtime activist, Siegel also served as mayor of Mountain View, California, in 2018 — where chip factories contaminated soil and water sources before manufacturing started to move abroad. Santa Clara County, where Mountain View is located, has more Superfund sites than any other county in the US. Arsenic, chloroform, and lead are just a few of the many hazardous substances that leached into groundwater and are still being cleaned up at old manufacturing sites.
Today, manufacturers use an ever-evolving chemical cocktail when making computer chips. The industry has taken strides to prevent pollution and replace certain substances that have been linked to miscarriages and other health risks. But toxicologists say the chemical mix is often changing faster than it takes to suss out the potential dangers. To make things harder, companies generally don’t like to share what kinds of chemicals they’re using, protecting them as trade secrets despite pressure from advocates to notify workers of the substances they’re handling.
“We also want to see workers empowered in the facilities, not just to know what they’re working with, but to have a voice in health and safety protocols, to have the right to stop production if things are dangerous,” says Judith Barish, coalition director for CHIPS Communities United. “And we want to know that workers won’t be retaliated against if they speak out.”
Forever chemicals have become a bigger concern lately with chip manufacturing. That encompasses thousands of different kinds of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that were used for years to make all kinds of products, from fabrics to nonstick pans, more durable. The US is just starting to craft regulations for the most common kinds of PFAS now, but there are still thousands of other forever chemicals for which there are no mandated exposure limits. Scientists are still scrambling to understand how exposure affects the human body, but there’s already evidence that high exposure can increase the risk of certain kinds of cancer, liver damage, high cholesterol, and some reproductive health issues. The semiconductor industry has also created its own PFAS consortium to study the chemicals and minimize pollution.
How to get rid of forever chemicals is another area of active research since they earned their name by being particularly hard to destroy. It’s no surprise that CHIPS Communities United is worried about how new semiconductor fabs will handle hazardous waste, including PFAS. All three draft assessments conclude that hazardous materials on-site pose “no significant effects” — but only if those so-called best management practices take place.
CHIPS Communities United wants to know how exactly those practices would be implemented. When it comes to forever chemicals, the assessments for TSMC and Intel say that the companies will separate PFAS from other waste streams and send it to off-site disposal facilities. What happens once those chemicals are off-site still worries the coalition. PFAS has been known to leak from landfills and even persist in the air after being incinerated.
A more detailed environmental impact statement for each of the proposed projects can help fill in the gaps, they contend. It’ll also give nearby communities more opportunities to weigh in on what kinds of solutions they’d like to see. Beyond that, they’d also like to see manufacturers enter into legally binding community benefits agreements. They also say that the Commerce Department should stipulate specific environmental and health protections in contracts with companies.
Those kinds of agreements can go a long way in the absence of up-to-date regulations. New federal rules for PFAS focus on drinking water rather than wastewater. And most chemical exposure limits set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) haven’t been updated since the 1970s. OSHA says on its website that its exposure limits “are outdated and inadequate for ensuring protection of worker health.” Attempts to update them have repeatedly faced quick backlash from industry leaders and lawmakers with a deregulatory agenda.
Proposed rules for cutting down greenhouse gas emissions are similarly in peril after several Supreme Court rulings and the prospect of another Donald Trump presidency. The coalition is also concerned about how these new fabs will keep their climate pollution in check. How much water these facilities will use is another point of contention, especially in places like Arizona that grapple with worsening drought. The comments CHIPS Communities United sent to the Department of Commerce for plants being built by Intel, Micron, and TSMC cover a range of issues, including climate change and air quality, hazardous substances and waste, and the cumulative effects of building multiple manufacturing facilities near each other.
“In the absence of enforceable, transparent requirements to address such impacts, the applicant’s promise to address the impacts does not eliminate them,” the coalition’s responses to Micron and Intel projects say.
Intel declined to provide an on-the-record response to The Verge. It’s building two new chip factories and updating an existing fab at its Ocotillo campus in Chandler, Arizona. TSMC, which is building three new semiconductor fabs in Phoenix, didn’t respond to requests for comment. Micron is building a new 1.2-million-square-foot fab at its headquarters in Boise. In an email to The Verge, Micron said that questions regarding the draft environmental assessment should be directed to the CHIPS Program Office (CPO) within the Department of Commerce.
“We posted the draft [environmental assessments] for public comment to provide transparency and facilitate the public’s input in this process. CPO will carefully consider all public comments received during the comment period as we work to finalize the NEPA process,” CHIPS communications director, Geoff Burgan, said in a statement.
In other words, the Department of Commerce has to take all of these concerns into consideration as it finalizes its environmental reviews. That in itself is what makes federal review under NEPA a powerful tool. Last year, there was a failed attempt to exempt new chip factories from NEPA altogether.
“We believe that the people who work in the plants and live nearby have a right to know what they’re using,” Siegel says. So do others trying to figure out where to build a new home or childcare center, he adds. “People and planners need to have this information.”
Continue Reading
This is Optimizer, a weekly newsletter sent every Friday from Verge senior reviewer Victoria Song that dissects and discusses the latest gizmos and potions that swear they’re going to change your life. Opt in for Optimizer here.
These days, it seems I cannot escape peptides. Online, I’ve been assaulted by videos of shirtless Chads injecting dubiously sourced bottles of the so-called “Wolverine stack.” On the New York City subway, I’m haunted by Serena Williams’ Ro ads for easy GLP-1 access. Silicon Valley seems to be a parade of peptide parties. In Washington, RFK Jr. has said he’s pro-peptide and wants to expand access. In July, the FDA will meet to possibly reclassify 14 peptides so they can be eligible for compounding.
And in Hollywood, Gwyneth Paltrow — mother Goop, one of the original wellness influencers — is selling a series of peptide skincare products. Except, after some research, I’m not sure Paltrow actually understands what peptides are.
You might be wondering why I’m fixating on a Goop product in Optimizer. The short answer: While researching peptides for a forthcoming feature, I’ve descended into madness.
The longer answer is that peptide mania is central to Silicon Valley’s current fixation with longevity and metabolic optimization. As I’ve recently written, wellness trends increasingly inform new health tech features and gadgets that make up the wearable surveillance state. Peptides are also being framed on social media as an innovation that democratizes healthcare. (A similar rhetoric used to describe wearables!) It’s part of the wellness Wild West feedback loop that’s fueling Silicon Valley’s obsession with self-optimization. With that in mind, it’s worth examining how “peptide washing” has crept into various corners of the internet — and the resulting ripple effects.
While peptide shots are a relatively new trend, we’ve known about peptides and how they work for decades. They’re short chains of amino acids, which, in turn, make up proteins. In other words, building blocks for the building blocks. Because a peptide can be a chain ranging from two to roughly 100 amino acids, there are potentially trillions of peptides. Their main function is to act as messengers for various bodily functions. Some are naturally occurring and often come from the foods you eat. Others are made synthetically in a lab. The most famous ones include insulin and GLP-1 medications like semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound and Mounjaro).
What’s taking social media by storm are peptides that exist in legal gray areas. They’re not widely tested or FDA-approved drugs, and are sometimes sourced from dubious suppliers. I’ve previously written about retatrutide — another popular weight loss peptide — in Optimizer, but there’s a whole slew of others with names that sound vaguely like Star Wars droids. The most popular ones include BPC-157, TB-500, GHK-Cu, and CJC1295. These peptides are touted as biohacks for ailments ranging from fat loss and muscle growth, to faster wound healing, anti-aging, and increased energy. Essentially, everything associated with living a longer, healthier life. Lumped alongside these is NAD+, which is not a peptide but is often marketed as one. That’s partly because it’s frequently consumed as an IV drip and is thus an injectable substance.
But just because you can inject something, that doesn’t make it a peptide.
Do you have experience using peptides?
Or extremely strong feelings about this trend? I’m researching this phenomenon and I’d love to chat with you. Hit me up at victoria.song@theverge.com or on Signal at @ vicmsong.14.
NAD stands for nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide. It’s a coenzyme — basically an enzyme booster — that’s found in every cell. Its primary job is to help convert food into energy. It does this by shuttling electrons from one chemical reaction to another. As you age, your NAD levels naturally decline. This can lead to an array of conditions associated with aging, like Type 2 diabetes, lower energy levels, and saggy skin. Not to get too weedsy, but the + in NAD+ simply denotes one of two versions of the NAD molecule. (The other is NADH.)
Which, finally, brings me to the Goop Youth Boost NAD+ Peptide Rich Cream and whether Gwyneth Paltrow actually knows what a peptide is.
In my research, I was looking into influential people who have spoken out about peptide injections. There’s a long list, but in Hollywood, Paltrow’s name kept popping up. Cue this recent Elle interview, in which Paltrow plays a “fuck, marry, kill” game with wellness trends.
From the get-go, the Elle article incorrectly identifies NAD+ as a peptide. Paltrow is then quoted as saying she uses NAD+ IV drips and an injectable NAD+ pen for impromptu energy boosts. She goes on to say that injectable peptides dealing with inflammation and brain health that are “being formulated for longevity” will be the next NAD+. In the fuck, marry, kill game, Paltrow is asked to choose between NAD+, B12, and peptide shots. She refuses, saying she’d marry them all.
What’s worrisome is the conflation of these treatments, even though they’re three separate things. It’s easy for the average person to read this article and think, “NAD+ is a type of peptide shot and a rich, glamorous celebrity like Gwyneth Paltrow does it, so this must be their secret to looking good.”
(For the curious: B12 is a vitamin. Supplementation can boost energy if you have a B12 deficiency, which is relatively common in the elderly, vegetarian, and vegan populations. As for NAD+, there’s considerable research interest, but limited clinical evidence for drips or supplements at the moment. I wrote a whole Optimizer newsletter about dubious peptide shots.)
From this interview, I get the sense that Paltrow knows that peptides are trendy, but she doesn’t actually admit to using any specific one. After some more digging, I found she has stated that she loves glutathione IV drips. Now, that is a peptide. However, she characterized her usage as “I love IV drips!” so, again, I’m not sure if Paltrow is aware that IV drips and peptides are not the same thing. Upon looking into her “peptide-rich” moisturizer, I’m even less certain.
Calling it a “Youth Boost NAD+ Peptide Rich Cream” would suggest this $105 moisturizer has both NAD+ and a bunch of peptides. Peruse the ingredient list, and you’ll find it doesn’t even have NAD+. It has NMN, or nicotinamide mononucleotide, a precursor (another kind of building block) for NAD+. As for its peptide content, the marketing claims the cream features “biomimetic plant-derived peptides.” Again, the list only refers to one true peptide molecule: arginine/lysine polypeptide. (A polypeptide is a longer peptide; this one supposedly helps with wrinkles.) It also appears last. In skincare, the ingredient list is generally ordered in terms of concentration. The top three to five ingredients make up the bulk of the formula. One hack is to find the so-called “one percent line”, which you can estimate from when the first preservative or fragrance appears. Given how this list is written, this is a standard moisturizer with a teeny sprinkle of a single peptide thrown in for marketing flavor. Even if there was a more potent amount, peptides are delicate molecules. Effectiveness for any topical skincare active — be it peptides or salmon sperm DNA — depends on stable formulation, concentration, whether the molecule can penetrate the skin barrier, and packaging that prevents degradation.
In any case, I reached out to Goop to clarify the peptide content in this cream. I have not heard back.
The only thing I can conclude is Paltrow isn’t afraid to try fringe wellness trends. (That and she loves an IV drip.) If someone handed her a peptide shot with the promise of energy and youth, I’d bet she’d do it. But do I think a peptide-curious person could ask her to explain the pros and cons of this trend based on her public statements? Now that’s a bet I would not take.
I could be wrong. In which case, I find her statements and her moisturizer to be disappointing given her status and influence. Case in point, the average person likely isn’t going to go through the trouble of accessing gray market peptide vials. They probably won’t be able to afford the same quality treatments as Paltrow, either. But a so-called peptide cream from a celebrity? That’s easily accessible. And in this particular case, that consumer wouldn’t be getting much of the thing they purportedly want to try.
More concerning is the flattening of any injectable as a peptide. Paltrow showing up to a podcast with an IV drip, speaking of peptides, phospholipids, and regular vitamins in a single breath? That’s confusing. It conflates relatively harmless therapies — like vitamin supplementation — with those that aren’t as well-studied. And the more influential people do this, the more regular people will too.
Peptides aren’t inherently dangerous. Injections aren’t evil. But the way peptide mania has made a more extreme, experimental trend as casual as taking a multivitamin? That feels like the slipperiest of slopes.
Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A new move from the Federal Communications Commission is being framed as a national security step. But if you already have a router at home, the bigger question is simple: how long will it keep getting security updates?
The FCC recently updated its “Covered List” to include routers produced in foreign countries, which blocks new models of that covered equipment from being approved for sale in the U.S.
At the same time, the FCC made something else clear. This change does not affect routers you already own, and it does not stop retailers from continuing to sell models that were previously approved.
So nothing shuts off overnight. However, the policy introduces a new layer of uncertainty around how long some devices will continue receiving updates.
IS YOUR HOME WI-FI REALLY SAFE? THINK AGAIN
The FCC’s router move targets future approvals, not the device already running your home Wi-Fi. Existing models can still be used and sold while update rules keep evolving. (kazakova0684/Getty Images)
Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
- Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox.
- For simple, real-world ways to spot scams early and stay protected, visit CyberGuy.com – trusted by millions who watch CyberGuy on TV daily.
- Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide free when you join.
What the FCC router rule actually changed
The policy focuses on future device approvals, not the devices already in your home.
Here is what the FCC says in plain terms:
- Existing routers can still be used
- Previously approved models can still be sold and imported
- New covered models cannot receive FCC authorization
This action is tied to national security concerns about supply chain risks, not a product-by-product security test of individual routers. The key takeaway is this: your current router is not banned, recalled or disabled.
Why the FCC router rule raises update concerns
The real issue is not about using your router today. It is about future software and firmware updates. Alongside the policy change, the FCC issued a temporary waiver. That waiver allows existing routers to continue receiving updates that patch vulnerabilities, maintain functionality and ensure compatibility with operating systems. Right now, that waiver runs through at least March 1, 2027.
That date is not a guaranteed cutoff. The FCC has said it will re-evaluate the policy before then and may extend or modify the waiver. So the situation is still evolving.
How the FCC router rule could affect your router security
Your router is the gateway to everything connected in your home. Phones, laptops, smart TVs and cameras all depend on it. When a vulnerability is discovered, a software update is usually what fixes it.
If updates slow down or stop, the risk builds over time. That does not mean your router suddenly becomes unsafe. But it can become easier for attackers to exploit known flaws.
Even the FCC acknowledged this in its waiver, noting that continued updates help mitigate harm to consumers and support essential security functions. So the concern is not immediate. It is about what happens over time if support policies change.
BROWSER EXTENSIONS PUT MILLIONS OF GOOGLE CHROME USERS AT RISK
The FCC says home routers already in use can stay in use, but future support for some models now depends on waivers and conditional approvals. (deepblue4you/Getty Images)
Why the FCC is making exceptions for some routers
One important wrinkle is that the FCC has already begun granting conditional approvals for some devices. In April 2026, the agency approved certain products from NETGEAR and Adtran to continue operating under specific conditions through October 1, 2027.
That shows this is not a one-size-fits-all rule. Instead, it is an evolving policy where some devices may continue receiving support while others may face tighter restrictions.
What the FCC says about router risks and next steps
The FCC says the decision is based on national security concerns, including supply chain vulnerabilities and potential cybersecurity risks tied to certain foreign-produced equipment.
At the same time, the policy includes a path for exceptions. Companies can seek conditional approvals through federal agencies, and regulators can revisit the rules as more information becomes available.
That means the final impact will likely depend on how those decisions play out over time.
8 ways to protect your network after the FCC router rule
Until there is more clarity, a few simple steps can help keep your home network secure.
1) Check how long your router is supported
First, find your router’s exact model number. You can usually see it on a label on the bottom or back of the device. Next, go to the manufacturer’s website, such as NETGEAR, Linksys or TP-Link, and search for that model. Open its support page and look for sections like Support, Downloads, Firmware or End of Life. Then, check for a support timeline, the date of the most recent firmware update or any notes saying the product is no longer supported. If you cannot find clear information, that is a warning sign that your router may not receive regular security updates.
2) Keep your router updated
Next, log into your router settings. To do this, open a web browser and type your router’s IP address into the address bar. Common ones include 192.168.1.1 or 192.168.0.1. Then sign in using your admin username and password. Once you are in, look for sections labeled Firmware, Software Update or Administration. Check for available updates and install them if needed. If your router supports automatic updates, turn that on. This helps close security gaps quickly without you having to check manually. If you are not sure where to find these settings, you can also use your router’s mobile app if it has one, which often makes updates easier.
GET FASTER WI-FI WITH THESE SIMPLE HOME FIXES
Security updates remain the key protection for home routers as the FCC blocks new authorizations for covered foreign-produced models. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
3) Plan ahead for replacement
If your router is already a few years old, start planning for a replacement. Do not wait until updates stop. Instead, look for models with clearly stated support timelines. Check out our picks for the Top Routers for best security at cyberguy.com
4) Secure your devices as a backup layer
Your router is the first line of defense. However, your devices matter too. Keep your phone, computer and tablet updated. Also, use strong antivirus software to help catch threats that slip through. Get my picks for the best 2026 antivirus protection winners for your Windows, Mac, Android & iOS devices at Cyberguy.com
5) Review connected devices
From time to time, check what is connected to your network. You can do this in your router settings under “Connected Devices” or in your router’s app. If you see anything unfamiliar, remove it right away.
6) Use strong passwords
Create a strong Wi-Fi password and a separate admin password for your router. Avoid using default credentials. A password manager can help you generate and store secure logins. Check out the best expert-reviewed password managers of 2026 at Cyberguy.com
7) Turn off remote access
First, log into your router settings using a web browser. Type your router’s IP address, such as 192.168.1.1 or 192.168.0.1, into the address bar and sign in with your admin credentials. Next, look for settings labeled Remote Access, Remote Management, Web Access from WAN, or Cloud Access. These are often found under sections like Advanced, Administration or Security. Then, turn that setting off and save your changes. This prevents your router from being accessed from outside your home network. If you cannot find the option, check your router’s mobile app or the manufacturer’s support page. Some routers hide this setting or disable it by default.
8) Restart your router regularly
First, unplug your router from the power outlet. Wait about 30 seconds to let it fully shut down. Next, plug it back in and wait a few minutes for it to reconnect to the internet. You can also restart your router through its settings. Log in, then look for options like Reboot or Restart under sections such as Administration or System. Doing this every few weeks can help apply updates and clear temporary issues that may affect performance or security. If your router supports scheduled reboots, you can turn that on to automate the process.
Kurt’s key takeaway
This is not a situation where your internet suddenly becomes unsafe. There is no recall. There is no shutdown. Your router will not stop working on a specific date. However, there is a new question mark that did not exist before. The Federal Communications Commission has created a system where future updates for some devices could depend on how the rules evolve. That puts more importance on something most people rarely think about: how long their router will stay supported. For now, you still have time. The current waiver runs into 2027, and regulators have signaled they may revisit the policy before then. The smart move is simple. Know what you own, keep it updated and stay aware as this situation develops.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
As policies around your home tech change, how much responsibility should fall on regulators versus the companies that keep your devices updated? Let us know by writing to us at Cyberguy.com
Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
- Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox.
- For simple, real-world ways to spot scams early and stay protected, visit CyberGuy.com – trusted by millions who watch CyberGuy on TV daily.
- Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide free when you join.
Copyright 2026 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved.
On or about January 6, 2026, for example, VAN DYKE asked Polymarket to delete his Polymarket account, falsely claiming that he had lost access to the email address to which the account had been associated. That same day, VAN DYKE changed the email registered to his cryptocurrency exchange account to an email address that was not subscribed to in his name, which email address was created on or about December 14., 2025.
-
World8 minutes agoMelissa McCarthy Hits on Mariska Hargitay as ‘Law & Order: SVU’ Guest Star: ‘I Know My Way Around a Pair of Handcuffs’
-
News14 minutes agoA New Worry for Republicans: Latino Catholics Offended by Trump
-
Politics20 minutes agoTariffs Raised Consumers’ Prices, but the Refunds Go Only to Businesses
-
Business26 minutes agoPolymarket Bets on Paris Temperature Prompt Investigation After Unusual Spikes
-
Science32 minutes agoCould an Earthly Fungus Contaminate Mars? NASA May Have Found One Hardy Enough.
-
Health38 minutes agoThis Is the Best Time To Eat Breakfast for Weight Loss After 50
-
Culture50 minutes agoBook Review: ‘Make Believe: On Telling Stories to Children,’ by Mac Barnett
-
Lifestyle56 minutes agoIt Started with a Midnight Swim and a Kiss Under the Stars