death

James Lovell, the steady astronaut who brought Apollo 13 home safely, has died

apollo 13, apollo 8, astronaut, death, died, Gemini 12, Gemini 7, James Lovell, Jim Lovell, moon voyager, NASA, obituary, Shaky, Space, Space exploration, space history, Tom Hanks / DJ Henderson / August 9, 2025

Gemini and Apollo astronaut

Lovell was the first person to fly to the Moon twice.

Astronaut Jim Lovell takes a self-portrait aboard NASA’s Gemini 12 spacecraft during the final mission of the program in 1966. Credit: NASA

James Lovell, a member of humanity’s first trip to the moon and commander of NASA’s ill-fated Apollo 13 mission, has died at the age of 97.

Lovell’s death on Thursday was announced by the space agency.

“NASA sends its condolences to the family of Capt. Jim Lovell, whose life and work inspired millions of people across the decades,” said acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy in a statement on Friday. “Jim’s character and steadfast courage helped our nation reach the moon and turned a potential tragedy into a success from which we learned an enormous amount. We mourn his passing even as we celebrate his achievements.”

A four-time Gemini and Apollo astronaut, Lovell was famously portrayed in the 1995 feature film Apollo 13. The movie dramatized his role as the leader of what was originally planned as NASA’s third moon landing, but instead became a mission of survival after an explosion tore through his spacecraft’s service module.

“I know today when I came out many of you were expecting Tom Hanks, but you’re going to have to settle for little old me,” Lovell often said at his public appearances after the movie was released.

two men in tuxedos talk to each other while one stands and the other sits on a stage — Astronaut Jim Lovell (right) addressing Tom Hanks at the premiere of *Apollo 13: The IMAX Experience* at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex in November 2002. Credit: collectSPACE.com

Practicing for the moon

Selected with NASA’s second group of astronauts in 1962, Lovell first launched aboard Gemini 7, the first mission to include a rendezvous with another crewed spacecraft (Gemini 6). Lifting off on a Titan II rocket on December 4, 1965, Lovell and the mission’s commander, Frank Borman, had one goal: to spend two weeks in Earth orbit in preparation for the later Apollo missions to the moon.

“It was very exciting to me,” said Lovell in a 1999 NASA oral history interview. “I mean, it was tedious work, you know, two weeks. We did have a break when [Wally] Schirra and [Tom] Stafford came up [on Gemini 6] and rendezvoused with us. And then they were up, I think, 24 hours and they went back down again. And we stayed up there for the full time. But it was quite rewarding.”

At 13 days, 18 hours, 35 minutes and one second, Gemini 7 was the longest space flight until a Russian Soyuz mission surpassed it in 1970. Lovell and Borman continued to hold the US record until the first crewed mission to Skylab, the nation’s first space station, in 1973.

Lovell then commanded Gemini 12, the final flight of the program, which launched on November 11, 1966. Only four days long, the mission stood out for demonstrating all of the skills needed to send astronauts to the moon, including rendezvousing and docking with an Agena target and the first successful spacewalks conducted by crewmate Buzz Aldrin.

“Buzz completed three spacewalks of about 5.5 hours and everything was fine,” said Lovell. “[We did] everything we were supposed to do, and [had] no problem at all. So, it was a major turning point in the ability to work outside a spacecraft.”

First and fifth

Lovell made his first trip to the moon as a member of the first-ever crew to fly to another celestial body. Reunited with Borman and joined by William “Bill” Anders, Lovell launched on Apollo 8 on December 21, 1968. The mission was also the first crewed flight of the Saturn V, the massive rocket designed to send astronauts from Earth to the moon.

“You had to pinch yourself,” Lovell said of the journey out. “Hey, we’re really going to the moon!” I mean, “You know, this is it!”

a man is seen wearing a white coveralls and brown head cap inside a spacecraft — A still from a 16mm motion picture film shows Jim Lovell during the Apollo 8 mission, the first flight by humans to the moon. Credit: NASA

Lovell and his Apollo 8 crewmates were the first to see the far side of the moon with their own eyes and the first to witness “Earthrise”—the sight of our home planet rising above the lunar horizon—their photographs of such were later credited with inspiring the environmental movement.

“We were so curious, so excited about being at the moon that we were like three school kids looking into a candy store window, watching those ancient old craters go by from—only 60 miles [97 kilometers] above the surface,” said Lovell.

Splashing down on December 27, 1968, the Apollo 8 mission brought to a close a year that had otherwise been troubled with riots, assassinations, and an ongoing war. A telegram sent to the crew after they were home said, “You saved 1968.”

“I was part of a thing that finally gave an uplift to the American people about doing something positive, which was really—that’s why I say Apollo 8 was really the high point of my space career,” said Lovell.

Even before launching on Apollo 13 on April 11, 1970, Lovell had decided it was going to be his last. At 42, he was the first person to launch four times into space. Had the flight gone to plan, he would have become the fifth person to walk on the moon and the first to wear red commander stripes while do so.

a man in a white spacesuit stands in front of a launch pad where a rocket is being prepared for his mission — Jim Lovell, commander of the Apollo 13 mission, poses for a photo with his Saturn V rocket on the launch pad in April 1970. Credit: NASA

Instead, there was a “problem.”

“I don’t know why I did this, but I looked out the right window, and that’s when I saw that at a high rate of speed, gas was escaping from the spacecraft. You could see a little plume of it,” said Lovell in an April 2000 interview with collectSPACE. “I then glanced at the oxygen gauges and one read zero and another was in the process of going down.”

“That is when I really felt we were in a very dangerous situation,” he said.

Lovell and his Apollo 13 crewmates Fred Haise and John “Jack” Swigert splashed down safely on April 17, 1970. In total, Lovell logged 29 days, 19 hours and three minutes on his four spaceflights.

Lovell was the 22nd person to enter orbit, and the 28th to fly into space, according to the Association of Space Explorers’ Registry of Space Travelers.

From the cockpit to the board

Born on March 25, 1928, in Cleveland, Ohio, Lovell achieved Eagle Scout as a member of the Boy Scouts and studied engineering as part of the US Navy’s “Flying Midshipman” program at the University of Wisconsin in Madison from 1946 to 1948. Four years later, he was commissioned as an ensign and graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree from the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.

Lovell reported for flight training at Naval Air Station Pensacola in October 1952, and he was designated a naval aviator on February 1, 1954. He served at Moffett Field in Northern California and logged 107 deck landings during a deployment aboard the aircraft carrier USS Shangri-La.

In July 1958, Lovell graduated at the top of the class at the Naval Air Test Center (today, the US Naval Test Pilot School) at Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Maryland. He was one of 110 candidates to be considered for NASA’s original Mercury 7 astronauts but was turned away due to a temporary medical concern. Instead, Lovell became the program manager for the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II supersonic jet.

In 1962, Lovell was serving as a flight instructor and safety engineering officer at Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia Beach when he was chosen for the second class of NASA astronauts, the “Next Nine.”

In addition to his prime crew assignments, Lovell also served on the backup crews for the Gemini 4, Gemini 9, and Apollo 11 missions, the latter supporting Neil Armstrong as backup commander. He also served on a panel studying what could be done in case of an in-flight fire after a fire on the launch pad claimed the lives of the Apollo 1 crew in 1967.

After the Apollo 13 mission, Lovell was named the deputy director of science and applications at NASA’s Manned Spacecraft Center (today, Johnson Space Center) before retiring from both the space agency and Navy on March 1, 1973. Lovell became chief executive officer of Bay-Houston Towing Company in 1975 and then president of Fisk Telephone Systems in 1977.

On January 1, 1981, Lovell joined Centel Corporation as group vice president for business communications systems and, 10 years later, retired as executive vice president and a member of the company’s board of directors.

For 11 years, from 1967 to 1978, Lovell served as a consultant and then chairman of the Physical Fitness Council (today, the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness and Nutrition). He was a member of the board for several organizations, including Federal Signal Corporation in Chicago from 1984 to 2003 and the Astronautics Corporation of America in Milwaukee from 1990 to 1999. He was also chairman of the Astronaut Scholarship Foundation from 1997 to 2005.

Appearances and awards

From 1999 to 2006, Lovell helped run “Lovell’s of Lake Forest,” a restaurant that he and his family opened in Illinois. (The restaurant was then sold to Jay, Lovell’s son, but ultimately closed in 2015.)

In 1994, Lovell worked with Jeffrey Kluger to publish Lost Moon: The Perilous Voyage of Apollo 13, which was later retitled Apollo 13 after serving as the basis for the Ron Howard movie.

In addition to being played by Hanks and having a cameo in Apollo 13, Lovell was also portrayed by Tim Daly in the 1998 HBO miniseries From the Earth to the Moon and Pablo Schreiber in the 2018 Neil Armstrong biopic First Man. Lovell also made a cameo appearance in the 1976 movie The Man Who Fell to Earth.

a man in a blue flight suit and ball cap shakes hands with a man in a business suit outside under a clear blue sky — Jim Lovell, Apollo 13 commander, shakes hands with President Richard Nixon after being presented with the Presidential Medal of Freedom at Hickham Air Force Base, Hawaii, in 1970. Credit: NASA

For his service to the US space program, Lovell was awarded the NASA Distinguished Service and Exceptional Service medals; the Congressional Space Medal of Honor, and Presidential Medal of Freedom. As a member of the Gemini 7, Gemini 12, and Apollo 8 crews, Lovell was bestowed the Harmon International Trophy three times and, with his Apollo 8 crewmates, the Robert J. Collier and Dr. Robert H. Goddard Memorial trophies and was named Time Magazine’s Man of the Year for 1968.

Lovell was inducted into the International Space Hall of Fame in 1982, the US Astronaut Hall of Fame in 1993, and National Aviation Hall of Fame in 1998.

A crater on the far side of the moon was named for Lovell in 1970. In 2009, he was awarded a piece of the moon as part of NASA’s Ambassador of Exploration Award, which Lovell placed on display at the Patuxent River Naval Air Museum in Lexington Park, Maryland.

A statue of Lovell with his two Apollo 13 crewmates stands inside the Saturn V building at Johnson Space Center’s George W.S. Abbey Rocket Park in Houston.

Lovell’s legacy

In 2005, Lovell donated his personal collection of NASA memorabilia to the Adler Planetarium in Chicago, where it is on display in the “Mission Moon” exhibition.

With Lovell’s death, only five out of the 24 people who flew to the moon during the Apollo program remain living (Buzz Aldrin, 95; Fred Haise, 91; David Scott, 93; Charlie Duke, 89; and Harrison Schmitt, 90).

Lovell is survived by his children, Barbara Harrison, James Lovell III, Susan Lovell, and Jeffrey Lovell; 11 grandchildren; and nine great-grandchildren. Lovell was preceded in death by his wife Marilyn Lovell and parents James Lovell, Sr, and Blanche Lovell (Masek).

“We are enormously proud of his amazing life and career accomplishments, highlighted by his legendary leadership in pioneering human space flight,” said Lovell’s family in a statement. “But, to all of us, he was dad, granddad and the leader of our family. Most importantly, he was our hero. We will miss his unshakeable optimism, his sense of humor and the way he made each of us feel we could do the impossible. He was truly one of a kind.”

A memorial service and burial will be held at the Naval Academy in Annapolis on a date still to be announced.

Robert Pearlman is a space historian, journalist and the founder and editor of collectSPACE, a daily news publication and online community focused on where space exploration intersects with pop culture. He is also a contributing writer for Space.com and co-author of “Space Stations: The Art, Science, and Reality of Working in Space” published by Smithsonian Books in 2018. He is on the leadership board for For All Moonkind and is a member of the American Astronautical Society’s history committee.

James Lovell, the steady astronaut who brought Apollo 13 home safely, has died Read More »

For real, we may be taking blood pressure readings all wrong

blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, death, health, heart failure, lying down, mortality, sitting, stroke / DJ Henderson / January 24, 2025

For people who had high blood pressure readings only when sitting (normal readings while lying down), there was no statistically significant difference in risk of coronary heart disease, heart failure, or stroke compared to people with normal blood pressure. The only statistically significant differences were a 41 percent higher risk of fatal coronary heart disease (compared to the 78 percent seen in those with high readings lying down) and an 11 percent higher risk of all-cause mortality.

(In this study, high blood pressure readings were defined for both positions as those with systolic readings (the top number) of 130 mm Hg or greater or diastolic readings (the bottom number) of 80 mm Hg or greater.)

The people with the highest risks across the board were those who had high blood pressure readings while both sitting and lying down.

“These findings suggest that measuring supine [lying down] BP may be useful for identifying elevated BP and latent CVD risk,” the researchers conclude.

Strengths and hypotheses

For now, the findings should be considered preliminary. Such an analysis and finding should be repeated with a different group of people to confirm the link. And as to the bigger question of whether using medication to lower supine blood pressure (rather than seated blood pressure) is more effective at reducing risk, it’s likely that clinical trials will be necessary.

Still, the analysis had some notable strengths that make the findings attention-worthy. The study’s size and design are robust. Researchers tapped into data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, a study established in 1987 with middle-aged people living in one of four US communities (Forsyth County, North Carolina; Jackson, Mississippi; suburban Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Washington County, Maryland).

For real, we may be taking blood pressure readings all wrong Read More »

More cancer, less death? New alcohol-risk reviews offer conflicting takeaways

alcohol, cancer, cardiovascular disease, death, drinking, health, injuries, mortality / 9u50fv / January 18, 2025

Two big, somewhat conflicting studies on alcohol risks will influence new guidelines.

Heavy drinking is clearly bad for your health. But it’s long been questioned whether moderate drinking is also risky—and, if so, how risky, exactly.

Health researchers have consistently found links between alcohol consumption and several types of cancers (namely mouth, throat, colon, rectal, liver, and breast), as well as liver diseases, injuries, and traffic accidents. But nailing down the health risks from the lower levels of drinking has been tricky. For one, much of the data on moderate drinking is from observational studies in different countries, cultures, and populations. They cannot determine if alcohol is the direct cause of any given association, and they may be swayed by other lifestyle factors. The resulting data can be noisy and inconsistent.

Moreover, many studies rely on people to self-report whether they drink and, if so, how much, which is problematic because people may not accurately assess and/or report how much they actually drink. A related problem is that studies in the past often compared drinkers to people who said they didn’t drink. But, the trouble is, non-drinking groups are often some mix of people who are lifelong abstainers and people who used to drink but quit for some reason—maybe because of health effects. This latter group has the potential to have lingering health effects from their drinking days, which could skew any comparisons looking for health differences.

Then there’s the larger, common problem with any research focused on food or beverages: some have been sponsored or somehow swayed by industry, casting suspicion on the findings, particularly the ones indicating benefits. This has been a clear problem for alcohol research. For instance, in 2018, the National Institutes of Health shut down a $100 million trial aimed at assessing the health effects (and potential benefits) of moderate drinking after it came to light that much of the funding was solicited from the alcohol industry. There was a lot of questionable communication between NIH scientists and alcohol industry representatives.

With all of that in the background, there’s been clamorous debate about how much risk, if any, people are swallowing with their evening cocktail, gameday beer, or wine with dinner.

Currently, the US dietary guidance recommends that if adults drink, they should stick to drinking in moderation, defined as “alcohol intake to two drinks or fewer in a day for men and one drink or fewer in a day for women.” But recently, health experts in the US and abroad have started calling for lower limits, noting that more data has poured in that fortifies links to cancers and other risks. In 2023, for instance, Canada released recommendations that people limit their alcohol consumption to two drinks or fewer per week—that’s down significantly from the previously recommended limit of 10 drinks per week for women and 15 drinks per week for men.

Two reviews

Now, it’s America’s turn to decide if they’ll set the bar lower, too. This year, the US will update its dietary guidelines, which are carried out by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture every five years. The federal government has requested two big scientific reviews to assess the current knowledge of the health effects of alcohol, which will both inform any potential revisions to the alcohol guidelines. Now, both studies have been released and are open for discussion.

One is from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies), which was tasked by Congress to review the current evidence on alcohol with a focus on how moderate drinking potentially affects a specific set of health outcomes. The review compared health outcomes in moderate drinkers with those of lifelong abstainers. For the review, the National Academies set up a committee of 14 experts.

The other report is from the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking (ICCPUD), which set up a Technical Review Subcommittee on Alcohol Intake and Health. For its report, the subcommittee looked not just at moderate drinking but health outcomes of a range of alcohol consumption compared to lifelong abstainers.

Based on top-line takeaways and tone, the two reports seem to have very different findings. While the National Academies review found a mix of benefits and harms from moderate drinking (one drink per day for women, and two per day for men), the ICCPUD review suggested that even the smallest amounts of alcohol (one drink per week) increased risk of death and various diseases. However, a closer look at the data shows they have some common ground.

The National Academies review

First, for the National Academies’ review, experts found sufficient evidence to assess the effects of moderate drinking on all-cause mortality, certain cancers, and cardiovascular risks. On the other hand, the reviewers found insufficient evidence to assess moderate drinking’s impact on weight changes, neurocognition, and lactation-related risks.

For all-cause mortality, a meta-analysis of data from eight studies found that moderate drinkers had a 16 percent lower risk of all-cause mortality (death from any cause) compared with lifelong abstainers. A meta-analysis of three studies suggested the risk of all-cause mortality was 23 percent lower for females who drank moderately compared to never-drinking females. Data from four studies indicated that moderate drinking males had a 16 percent lower risk of all-cause mortality than never-drinking males. Additional analyses found that the risk of all-cause mortality was 20 percent lower for moderate drinkers less than age 60 and 18 percent lower for moderate drinkers age 60 and up.

“Based on data from the eight eligible studies from 2019 to 2023, the committee concludes that compared with never consuming alcohol, moderate alcohol consumption is associated with lower all-cause mortality,” the review states. The reviewers rated the conclusion as having “moderate certainty.”

Cancer and cardiovascular disease

For a look at cancer risks, a meta-analysis of four studies on breast cancer found that moderate drinkers had an overall 10 percent higher risk than non-drinkers. An additional analysis of seven studies found that for every 10 to 14 grams of alcohol (0.7 to one standard drink) consumed per day, there was a 5 percent higher risk of breast cancer. The data indicated that people who drank higher amounts of alcohol within the moderate range had higher risks than those who drank lower amounts in the moderate range (for instance, one drink a day versus 0.5 drinks a day).

For context, the average lifetime risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer in non-drinking females is about 11 to 12 percent. A 10 percent relative increase in risk would raise a person’s absolute risk to around 12 to 13 percent. The average lifetime risk of any female dying of breast cancer is 2.5 percent.

Overall, the reviewers concluded that “consuming a moderate amount of alcohol was associated with a higher risk of breast cancer,” and the conclusion was rated as having moderate certainty.

A meta-analysis on colorectal cancer risks found a “statistically nonsignificant higher risk” in moderate drinkers compared to non-drinkers. However, studies looking at alcohol consumption at the highest levels of moderate drinking for males (e.g., two drinks per day) suggested a higher risk compared to males who drank lower amounts of alcohol in the moderate range (one drink per day).

The review concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support a link between moderate drinking and oral cavity, pharyngeal, esophageal, and laryngeal cancers.

Finally, for cardiovascular risks, meta-analyses found moderate drinking was associated with a 22 percent lower risk of heart attacks and an 11 percent lower risk of stroke (driven by lower risk of ischemic stroke, specifically). The reviewers rated these associations as low certainty, though, after noting that there was some concern for risk of bias in the studies.

For cardiovascular disease mortality, meta-analyses of four studies found an 18 percent lower risk of death among moderate drinkers compared with non-drinkers. Broken down, there was a 23 percent lower risk in female drinkers and 18 percent lower risk in male drinkers. The lower risk of cardiovascular disease mortality was rated as moderate certainty.

The ICCPUD review

The ICCPUD subcommittee’s report offered a darker outlook on moderate drinking, concluding that “alcohol use is associated with increased mortality for seven types of cancer (colorectal, female breast, liver, oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, esophagus [squamous cell type]),” and “increased risk for these cancers begins with any alcohol use and increases with higher levels of use.”

The review modeled lifetime risks of cancer and death and relative risks for a long list of problems, including infectious diseases, non-communicable diseases, and injuries. Also, it didn’t just focus on non-drinkers versus moderate drinkers, but it assessed the relative risk of six levels of drinking: one drink a week; two drinks a week; three drinks a week; seven drinks a week (one a day); 14 drinks a week (two a day), and 21 drinks a week (three a day).

Overall, the analysis is very much a rough draft. There are some places where information is missing, and some of the figures are mislabeled and difficult to read. There are two figures labeled Figure 6, for instance and Figure 7 (which may be Figure 8), is a graph that doesn’t have a Y-axis, making it difficult to interpret. The study also doesn’t discuss the level of potential bias of individual studies in its analyses. It also doesn’t make note of statistically insignificant results, nor comment on the certainty of any of its findings.

For instance, the top-line summary states: “In the United States, males and females have a 1 in 1,000 risk of dying from alcohol use if they consume more than 7 drinks per week. This risk increases to 1 in 100 if they consume more than 9 drinks per week.” But a look at the modeling behind these estimates indicates the cutoffs of when drinkers would reach a 0.1 percent or 1 percent risk of dying from alcohol use are broad. For males, a 0.1 percent lifetime risk of an alcohol-attributed death is reached at 6.5 standard drinks, with a 95 percent confidence interval spanning less than one drink per week and 13.5 drinks per week. “This lifetime risk rose to 1 in 100 people above 8.5 drinks per week,” the text reads, but the confidence interval is again between one and 14 drinks per week. So, basically, at anywhere between about one and 14 drinks a week, a male’s lifetime risk of dying from alcohol may be either 0.1 or 1 percent, according to this modeling.

Death risks

Regarding risk of death, the study did not look at all-cause mortality, like the National Academies review. Instead, it focused on deaths from causes specifically linked to alcohol. For both males and females, modeling indicated that the total lifetime risk of any alcohol-attributed death for people who consumed one, two, three, or seven drinks per week was statistically non-significant (the confidence intervals for each calculation spanned zero). Among those who have 14 drinks per week, the total lifetime risk of death was about 4 in 100 from all causes, with unintentional injuries being the biggest contributor for males and liver diseases being the biggest contributor for females. Among those who have 21 drinks per week, the risk of death was about 7 in 100 for males and 8 in 100 for females. Unintentional injuries and liver diseases were again the biggest contributors to the risk.

Some experts have speculated that the lower risk of all-cause mortality found in the National Academies’ analysis (which has been seen in previous studies) may be due to healthy lifestyle patterns among people who drink moderately rather than the protective effects of alcohol. The line of thinking would suggest that healthy lifestyle choices, like regular exercise and a healthy diet, can negate certain risks, including the potential risks of alcohol. However, the ICCPUD emphasizes the reverse argument, noting that poor health choices would likely exacerbate the risks of alcohol. “[A]lcohol would have a greater impact on the health of people who smoke, have poor diets, engage in low physical activity, are obese, have hepatitis infection, or have a family history of specific diseases than it would other individuals.”

Relative risks

In terms of relative risk of the range of conditions, generally, the ICCPUD study found small, if any, increases in risk at the three lowest levels of drinking, with risks rising with higher levels. The study’s finding of breast cancer risk was in line with the National Academies’ review. ICCPUD found that pre-menopausal females who drink moderately (one drink per day) had a 6 percent higher risk of breast cancer than non-drinkers, while post-menopausal moderate drinkers had a 17 percent higher risk. (You can see the complete set of relative risk estimates in Table A6 beginning on page 70 of the report.)

For some cancers, moderate drinking raised the risk substantially. For instance, males who have two drinks per day see their risk of esophageal cancer more than double. But, it’s important to note that the absolute risk for many of these cancers is small to begin with. The average risk of esophageal cancer in men is 0.8 percent, according to the American Cancer Society. With the increased risk from moderate drinking, it would be below 2 percent. Still, alcohol consumption increased the risks of nearly all the cancers examined, with the higher levels of alcohol consumption having the highest risk.

As for cardiovascular risks, ICCPUD’s review found low risk in several of the categories. The risk of ischemic heart disease was lower than that of nondrinkers at all six drinking levels. The risk of ischemic stroke was lower among drinkers who had one, two, three, or seven drinks per week compared to non-drinkers. At 14 and 21 drinks per week, the risk of ischemic stroke rose by 8 percent.

Beth is Ars Technica’s Senior Health Reporter. Beth has a Ph.D. in microbiology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and attended the Science Communication program at the University of California, Santa Cruz. She specializes in covering infectious diseases, public health, and microbes.

More cancer, less death? New alcohol-risk reviews offer conflicting takeaways Read More »

After you die, your Steam games will be stuck in legal limbo

death, estate, gaming, inheritance, steam, vaslve, will / Shannon Garcia / May 24, 2024

Pushing digital daisies —

So much for your descendants posthumously clearing out that massive backlog…

Kyle Orland – May 24, 2024 4: 15 pm UTC

But... but I was just about to check out <em>Tacoma</em>.” src=”https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/GettyImages-485865905-800×533.jpg”></img><figcaption>
<p><a data-height=

With Valve’s Steam gaming platform approaching the US drinking age this year, more and more aging PC gamers may be considering what will happen to their vast digital game libraries after they die. Unfortunately, legally, your collection of hundreds of backlogged games will likely pass into the ether along with you someday.

The issue of digital game inheritability gained renewed attention this week as a ResetEra poster quoted a Steam support response asking about transferring Steam account ownership via a last will and testament. “Unfortunately, Steam accounts and games are non-transferable” the response reads. “Steam Support can’t provide someone else with access to the account or merge its contents with another account. I regret to inform you that your Steam account cannot be transferred via a will.”

This isn’t the first time someone has asked this basic estate planning question, of course. Last year, a Steam forum user quoted a similar response from Steam support as saying, “Your account is yours and yours alone. Now you can share it with family members, but you cannot give it away.”

Potential loopholes

As a practical matter, Steam would have little way of knowing if you wrote down your Steam username and password and left instructions for your estate to give that information to your descendants. When it comes to legal ownership of that account, though, the Steam Subscriber Agreement seems relatively clear.

“You may not reveal, share, or otherwise allow others to use your password or Account except as otherwise specifically authorized by Valve,” the agreement reads, in part. “You may… not sell or charge others for the right to use your Account, or otherwise transfer your Account, nor may you sell, charge others for the right to use, or transfer any Subscriptions other than if and as expressly permitted by this Agreement… or as otherwise specifically permitted by Valve.”

Eagle-eyed readers might notice a potential loophole, though, in the clauses regarding account transfers that are “specifically permitted by Valve.” Steam forum users have suggested in the past that Valve “wouldn’t block this change of ownership” via a will if a user or their estate specifically requests it (Valve has not responded to a request for comment).

Donating all those 3DS and Wii U games to someone else might be difficult for Jirard “The Completionist” Khalil.

There also might be a partial, physical workaround for Steam users who bequeath an actual computer with downloaded titles installed. In a 2013 Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal article, author Claudine Wong writes that “digital content is transferable to a deceased user’s survivors if legal copies of that content are located on physical devices, such as iPods or Kindle e-readers.” But if that descendant wanted to download those games to a different device or reinstall them in the case of a hard drive failure, they’d legally be out of luck.

Beyond personal estate planning, the inability to transfer digital game licenses has some implications for video game preservation work as well. Last year, Jirard “The Completionist” Khalil spent nearly $20,000 to purchase and download every digital 3DS and Wii U game while they were still available. And while Khalil said he intends to donate the physical machines (and their downloads) to the Video Game History Foundation, subscriber agreements mean the charity may have trouble taking legal ownership of those digital games and accounts.

“There is no reasonable, legal path for the preservation of digital-born video games,” VGHF’s then co-director Kelsey Lewin told Ars last year. “Limiting library access only to physical games might have worked 20 years ago, but we no longer live in a world where all games are sold on physical media, and we haven’t for a long time.”

After you die, your Steam games will be stuck in legal limbo Read More »

Ultra-spicy One Chip Challenge chip contributed to teen’s death, report says

capsaicin, Carolina Reaper pepper, death, died, health, heart defect, Naga Viper Pepper, One Chip Challenge, Paqui, Science, teen / Mike M. / May 17, 2024

Tragic —

The high dose of capsaicin paired with a heart defect appear to have contributed.

Beth Mole – May 16, 2024 10: 02 pm UTC

An autopsy report of a Massachusetts teen who tragically died hours after eating an ultra-spicy tortilla chip suggested that his death was due to the high dose of spice in the chip and a congenital heart defect, according to reporting by the Associated Press.

Harris Wolobah, a previously healthy 14-year-old from Worcester, died September 1, 2023 hours after eating the chip—a 2023 Paqui One Chip Challenge chip—which were sold individually, wrapped in tin foil, and seasoned with two of hottest peppers in the world, the Naga Viper pepper and the Carolina Reaper pepper. Paqui sold the chip with a challenge in which eaters were dared to consume the chip, wait as long as possible before eating or drinking anything, and post the aftermath on social media, where the challenge went viral.

Harris’ mother, Lois Wolobah, immediately suspected the chip was involved in his untimely death. At the time, she reportedly said she picked him up from school after getting a call from the nurse. He was clutching his stomach and, about two hours later, lost consciousness and was rushed to the hospital, where he died. She reported that he had no known medical conditions at the time.

According to the autopsy report, Harris died of cardiopulmonary arrest “in the setting of recent ingestion of food substance with high capsaicin concentration,” the AP reported. Capsaicin is the compound in peppers that gives them their heat.

The report also noted that Harris had an enlarged heart and a congenital anomaly called “myocardial bridging.” This is a common and generally benign condition in which one or more of the arteries delivering blood to the heart go through the heart’s muscle instead of lying on its surface, according to Stanford Medicine. In Harris’ case, the condition involved his left anterior descending coronary artery. An analysis on the American Academy of Cardiology’s website noted that myocardial bridging is “clinically silent” in the majority of cases.

Dr. James Udelson, chief of cardiology at Tufts Medical Center, confirmed to the AP that the chip could have played a role in the teen’s death. “It is possible that with significant stimulation of the heart, the muscle beyond the bridge suddenly had abnormal blood flow (‘ischemia’) and could have been a cause of a severe arrhythmia,” Udelson told the AP in an email. “There have been reports of acute toxicity with capsaicin causing ischemia of the heart muscle.”

A second expert, Dr. Syed Haider, a cardiologist at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, added to the AP that the large doses of capsaicin can increase how the heart squeezes, putting extra pressure on the artery.

Even if Harris’ heart defect made him more vulnerable to the effects of the chip, other case studies have found dangerous and life-threatening effects of high doses of capsaicin in people without heart anomalies. Ultra-hot peppers have also been linked to conditions in which arteries in the brain constrict, causing thunderclap headaches and neurological symptoms.

Paqui, a subsidiary of Hershey, pulled the chip from the market shortly after Harris’ death.

Ultra-spicy One Chip Challenge chip contributed to teen’s death, report says Read More »