Donald Trump has accused Beijing of breaching last month's deal to cut steep tit-for-tat tariffs. Could a much-awaited call between the US and Chinese presidents break the deadlock?

Nashville Zoo flamingos reveal the oddball birds generate many types of vortices to eat. The swirls could be an inspiration to human engineers.

Question Presented: What is an “emergency” for legislative purposes?

Brief Answer: Whatever the legislature says it is.

In March, the Idaho Legislature declared that an “emergency” existed in that state requiring it to immediately criminalize the public exposure of (among other things) any human breast. Many of you are probably thinking, “wasn’t that already illegal in Idaho?” and the somewhat surprising answer is no. But it is now, and I guess … not a moment too soon?

House Bill 270, which the governor has since signed into law, amended and expanded the state’s “indecent exposure” statute. Previously, it criminalized only the exposure of what I will refer to as one’s “business” in any public place “or in any place where there is present another peron or persons who are offended thereby….” Idaho Code § 18-4116. But the bill expands this to punish one who similarly displays “toys or products intended to resemble” male or female business, or exposes “developed female breasts,” real or artificial. The concern about “toys or products intended to resemble” human business is what seems to have gotten the bill dubbed “the truck nuts bill,” following mockery to that effect by Melissa Wintrow, Idaho’s Senate Minority Leader.

“They’re gross, they’re offensive, and kids on the road see them. So why wouldn’t the police get a call and say, ‘That offends me, pull it off the truck?’” Wintrow said. “Because now this bill will allow it. And I talked to police and they said, ‘Indeed it would.’”

Well, the Idaho Supreme Court will be the ultimate judge of that, or at least I certainly hope it will. But set aside for a moment what this bill covers, or requires to be covered. In what universe, you may be asking, does any of this constitute an emergency? Were there signs that Idaho was about to collapse into ruin and savagery due to wanton displays of the human breast? Or truck nuts? And what does a declaration of said emergency even mean? Well, I’m glad you asked, if you did.

Here, the “emergency” declaration relates only to when new legislation takes effect. Usually, it doesn’t take effect immediately. In California, for example, new laws usually take effect on the following January 1 or 90 days after enactment; in Idaho, it’s July 1 or 60 days after the end of the session; whichever is later. But those are just default rules that a legislature can change if it wants a law to take effect immediately.

In California, this is called “urgency” and there are some limits on it. It takes a two-thirds vote; the bill must contain “a statement of facts constituting the necessity”; and this is only supposed to happen if it’s “necessary for immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety.” Cal. Const. art. 4, § 8. If a bill is “urgent,” it takes effect immediately, though there’s generally a minimum 72-hour “notice” requirement. Even that can be suspended in case of a real “emergency,” but in California an “emergency” has to be declared by the governor. 

In Idaho it’s sort of the other way around: there is a 72-hour requirement apparently meant to ensure notice to legislators, but a two-thirds majority can dispense with that in case of “urgency.” Idaho Const. art III, § 15. An act can take effect immediately upon passage “in case of emergency,” but in Idaho the legislature just has to use the word: the “emergency shall be declared”—not necessarily explained—”in the preamble or in the body of the law.” Idaho Const. art III, § 22. A majority vote is enough, and, as you have probably guessed, there is no definition of “emergency.” 

In both states, laws have been challenged on the grounds that there was no “urgency” or “emergency,” but it appears this has never worked. That’s not surprising, because courts are going to defer to the executive or legislature most of the time due to separation-of-powers concerns. But in California, at least, the constitution limits “urgency.” In Idaho, a challenge would have to be based on the common meaning/dictionary definition of “emergency.” But even then it looks like the Idaho Supreme Court has basically said, that’s up to the legislature, period. If the “emergency” declaration infringed on someone’s civil rights, that might be different, but it would probably have to be pretty stark to get the court to do anything.

That’s why, unfortunately, a challenge to the Truck Nuts Bill on this basis would fail, even though there is no universe, not even this one, in which this bill involves any sort of “emergency” as non-legislators understand that term. The people of Idaho don’t seem to have suffered greatly, or really at all, from the occasional public display of a breast or the nuts of a truck before now, so it seems like it would’ve been safe to wait a few months to make these things a crime.

But wait … could there be something else going on? The bill also criminalizes, for the first time, the exposure not only of female breasts but also “adult male breasts … that have been medically or hormonally altered to appear like developing or developed female breasts….” Hm. What could that possibly be about? Well, some have suggested it is intended to target transgender Idahoans, a suggestion apparently based on the lack of any other plausible way to interpret the language used by the bill’s GOP sponsors. I have seen no reference to any incidents in which one or more transgender Idahoans has actually exposed the relevant thing or things, and suspect this is just as much an “emergency” as the non-situation recently mentioned in the Texas F.U.R.R.I.E.S. Act. See “Assorted Stupidity #168,” ¶ 7 (May 16, 2025).

I also suspect that the new law may be selectively enforced. But if one day the Idaho Supreme Court’s parking lot is filled with indecent pickup trucks, we’ll know that didn’t happen.

Amid the brutal cuts across the federal government under the Trump administration, perhaps one of the most gutting is the loss of experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who respond to lead poisoning in children.

On April 1, the staff of the CDC's Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program was terminated as part of the agency's reduction in force, according to NPR. The staff included epidemiologists, statisticians, and advisors who specialized in lead exposures and responses.

The cuts were immediately consequential to health officials in Milwaukee, who are currently dealing with a lead exposure crisis in public schools. Six schools have had to close, displacing 1,800 students. In April, the city requested help from the CDC's lead experts, but the request was denied—there was no one left to help.

Read full article

Comments

From the Louisiana bureau comes this report of a new case filed on May 11:

The summary above—which, if the image is missing, says “Plaintiffs’ children suffered injuries when a prosthetic leg flew though the air off of [sic] a guest patron riding a separate ride and struck the children while on a ride”—turns out to be not quite accurate. Thanks to Courthouse News Network for posting the complaint (having also immediately realized the newsworthiness of this particular item).

Two initial things to note about the complaint: (1) Louisiana seems to still be using “legal-size” paper for its filings, which may not be high on the list of crimes against humanity but is there somewhere; and (2) the caption above contains only the parents’ names, not those of the minor children, or else I’d have redacted them. And now let us move immediately to the relevant paragraph.

Paragraph five tells us that “[o]n or about May 12, 2024,” the three children were “guest patrons of the Terry Town Spring Fair located at the Oakwood Center Parking Lot” in Jefferson Parish. Then:

suddenly and without warning, a prosthetic leg came flying through the air from a guest patron on a nearby ride operated by Defendant, JOHN DOE. The prosthesis then struck the ground, bounced up, and struck the minor children, [NAMES REDACTED]…. Additionally, the prosthesis then also fell to the ground once again, bounced up, and struck the minor child [NAME REDACTED].

Happily, it doesn’t sound like the injuries were serious, but sadly, those are all the facts we get.

Based on these allegations, it would appear the summary above was wrong to suggest that the children were struck directly by the prosthesis as it flew through the air. Said prosthesis allegedly hit the ground first and connected with two of the children only on the bounce. The bounce would have reduced the force of the impact, but it’s hard to say by how much. (I do know that at least two experts will have at least two opinions on it.) Nor does the complaint allege that the children were themselves on a ride at the time, as the summary also suggests. They seem to have been on the ground nearby.

In what seems like an even less plausible allegation, the paragraph goes on to say that after bouncing and then striking the first two children, the prosthesis then “also fell to the ground once again,” bounced again, and only then hit the remarkably unlucky third child who happened to be standing at the end of its final vector.

This of course is not impossible. I don’t think of prosthetic legs as being likely to “bounce,” but if this happened in a parking lot and not a grassy field, that surface would have been more likely to yield at least one ricochet. But could the leg have had enough energy after bouncing four times (ground, child, child, ground) to still inflict injury on its fifth impact? Maybe. But that would depend heavily on the circumstances of its launching, facts we are not given.

And those facts are going to be quite important. Plaintiffs are blaming the ride operator for this incident, and of course his employer through vicarious liability. In paragraph eight, the complaint briefly alludes to what I think could be a major problem for the plaintiffs: the contention that the employer “had a duty … to ensure that its employees did not create any hazardous conditions that could be reasonably foreseen,” emphasis added. In my experience, that would come down to whether there is evidence of prior similar incidents that could have put the employer on notice that something like this would be reasonably likely. None are alleged. Nor could I find any.

It frankly surprised me to find that a Westlaw search for “struck /s ‘prosthetic leg'” yielded not a single case. But that was the result. Expanding the search a little yielded two reported cases in which someone allegedly beat or threatened to beat the owner of a prosthetic leg after forcibly removing it, and one less plausible case in which a defendant removed his own leg and then somehow remained upright while beating the victim with it. (It was a group assault so he may have had help.) Such things do happen. See, e.g., “Third Man Beaten With Own Leg by Leg-Wielding Girlfriend” (Apr. 17, 2019) (with links to the first two incidents).

But I found no prior cases, and have reported no incidents, in which someone was allegedly struck by a prosthetic leg that had been inadvertently detached and flung through the air by the forces generated during a carnival ride, regardless of the number of bounces involved. So I think foreseeability is going to be an issue here.

I would not be entirely sorry to learn otherwise, I have to admit.

Research & Developments is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the flurry of news regarding law and policy changes that impact science and scientists today.

The EPA plans to reconsider drinking water limits for four different PFAS chemicals and extend deadlines for public water systems to comply, according to The Washington Post. 

PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of chemicals that are widely used for their water- and stain-resistant properties. Exposure to PFAS is linked to higher risks of certain cancers, reproductive health issues, developmental delays and immune system problems. The so-called “forever chemicals” are ubiquitous in the environment and widely contaminate drinking water.

A rule implemented last year by President Joe Biden set drinking water limits for five common PFAS chemicals: PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and GenX. Limits for PFOA and PFOS were set at 4 parts per trillion, and limits for PFHxS, PFNA, and GenX were set at 10 parts per trillion. The rule also set limits for mixtures of these chemicals and a sixth, PFBS.

Documents reviewed by The Washington Post show that the EPA plans to rescind and reconsider the limits for PFHxS, PFNA, GenX, and PFBS. Though the documents did not indicate a plan to reconsider limits for PFOA and PFOS, the agency does plan to extend the compliance deadlines for PFOA and PFOS limits from 2029 to 2031.

In the documents, Lee Zeldin, the agency’s administrator, said the plan will “protect Americans from PFOA and PFOS in their drinking water” and provide “common-sense flexibility in the form of additional time for compliance.”

PFOA is a known carcinogen and PFOS is classified as a possible carcinogen by the National Cancer Institute.

The EPA plan comes after multiple lawsuits against the EPA in which trade associations representing water utilities challenged the science behind Biden’s drinking water standard. 

Experts expressed concern that rescinding and reconsidering limits for the four chemicals may not be legal because the Safe Drinking Water Act requires each revision to EPA drinking water standards to be at least as strict as the former regulation. 

“The law is very clear that the EPA can’t repeal or weaken the drinking water standard. Any effort to do so will clearly violate what Congress has required for decades,” Erik Olson, the senior strategic director for health at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group, told The Washington Post. 

—Grace van Deelen (@gvd.bsky.social), Staff Writer

These updates are made possible through information from the scientific community. Do you have a story about how changes in law or policy are affecting scientists or research? Send us a tip at eos@agu.org.

Text © 2025. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.