Trees give us a unique glimpse into our past. An examination of tree rings can show us what the climate was like in a given year. Was it a wet winter? Were there hurricanes in the summer? Did a forest fire ravage the area?
An ancient tree in New Zealand is the first to provide evidence of the near reversal of the Earth’s magnetic field over 41,000 years ago.
Over the past 83 million years there have been 183 magnetic pole reversals, a process that takes about 7,000 years to complete.
“It’s not a sudden flip, but a slow process, during which the field strength becomes weak, very probably the field becomes more complex and might show more than two poles for a while, and then builds up in strength and [aligns] in the opposite direction,” Monika Korte, the scientific director of the Niemegk Geomagnetic Observatory at GFZ Potsdam in Germany, said according to Live Science.
During this process, the Earth can be bombarded with dangerous cosmic rays shot out of the sun.
The last time this happened was 772,000 years ago and, since, the magnetic field has almost reversed 15 times.
One of these near reversals was during the lifespan of an ancient Agathis australis — better known as its Māori name kauri — that was recently unearthed 26-feet below ground during the construction of a geothermal power plant in New Zealand.
The tree lived for 1500 years from between 41,000 and 42,500 years ago during a period known as the Laschamp Excursion.
“There’s nothing like this anywhere in the world,” Alan Hogg, from New Zealand’s University of Waikato, said according to Newsweek. “This Ngawha kauri is unique.”
The kauri’s rings contain a complete record of the near reversal and it’s the first time a tree that lived through the entire event has been discovered.
Samples of the tree are being analyzed by a team led by ChrisTurney from the University of South Wales. By understanding the near reveral’s effect on the tree, scientists hope to learn what to expect next time it happens.
“We will have increased cosmic radiation. It will take out satellites and it might take out other communication infrastructure,” Alan Hogg, from New Zealand’s University of Waikato, said.
The effects of a magnetic field change are of increasing interest to scientists after reports last September showed the Earth’s northern magnetic pole moved at an unexpectedly fast rate tate towards Siberia.
“Because the Earth’s magnetic field has a major effect on how much radiocarbon carbon is formed in the upper atmosphere, these precious analyses will allow us to investigate the magnitude and rate of change when the magnetic field reversed during the Laschamp; something not possible before and of great interest given recent changes in the Earth’s magnetic field,” Turney said.
Many Americans think of sunscreen at the beach. Fewer consider wearing it for the drive there. And many are questioning if they should wear sunscreen at all.
These trends, uncovered in a new national survey from the nonprofit Melanoma Research Alliance (MRA), highlight a central challenge in skin cancer prevention.
Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States, according to the CDC. Nine in 10 skin cancers, including melanoma, are linked to exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, according to the MRA. Reducing exposure to UV radiation lowers the risk of skin cancer, making sunscreen a key part of prevention.
A survey of 2,000 adults found that most Americans have a basic understanding of the risks of sun exposure, but that awareness doesn’t always translate into action. More than 8 in 10 recognize that spending long hours in the sun contributes to melanoma risk, yet roughly one-quarter say they rarely or never use sunscreen when spending time outdoors.
Then there are those everyday moments that most people don’t recognize as risky. The light coming through the window over the sink. The short walk from the parking lot. The hour in the bleachers with the sun hitting one side of your face. A single sunburn can be dangerous, but it’s the accumulation of exposure over time that often drives risk.
Sunscreen is widely recognized as an effective tool for skin cancer prevention, yet confusion and misinformation persist, especially on social media. Fifty-three percent of respondents say they have seen claims that sunscreen ingredients may be harmful. Fifty-nine percent say they are concerned about what’s in sunscreen, and 38% don’t believe sunscreen is safe and effective.
Many Americans also say they aren’t sure how sunscreen works. Only about a third can correctly explain the difference between types of sunscreens, while a much larger share reports being unsure.
Sunscreen works by absorbing or blocking UV radiation from reaching the skin, preventing DNA damage that can cause skin cancer. In the United States, the active ingredients in sunscreen undergo rigorous review by the Food and Drug Administration, which evaluates them as over-the-counter drugs. This drug-level standard requires extensive testing and contributes to a more limited set of approved UV filters compared with Europe, where sunscreens are regulated as cosmetics. The FDA is currently evaluating additional methodologies for assessing sunscreen ingredients, a process that could expand the number of approved UV filters available to U.S. consumers.
All of this is unfolding during a period of real progress in melanoma research. While melanoma remains the deadliest form of skin cancer, more than 8,500 Americans are expected to die from it in 2026, roughly one person every hour, according to the American Cancer Society. Recent advances are improving outcomes for many patients with advanced disease, though approximately 50% of patients do not respond to current treatments, according to MRA, underscoring why prevention and early detection remain critical.
Survey methodology: The Melanoma Research Alliance commissioned Atomik Research to conduct an online survey of 2,000 U.S. adults between March 27 and April 1, 2026. The sample is nationally representative based on gender, age, and geography. Margin of error: ±2 percentage points at a 95% confidence level. Atomik Research, part of 4media group, is a creative market research agency.
To truly understand the context of a household’s income, it must be compared to local costs and long-term goals, which both may fluctuate over time. For most people, the same pillars will make up the biggest nonnegotiables in their budget. These include basic necessities like housing, groceries, utilities, and transportation, and likely some discretionary spending on hobbies, activities, and other enrichment. In an attempt to secure this lifestyle for the future, many households aim to save some of their income for emergencies, investments, retirement, education, and other long-term goals. A common budgeting technique that encapsulates these three pillars is called the 50/30/20 rule: 50% of your post-tax income goes to needs, 30% to your wants, and 20% gets set aside for the future.
With this in mind, SmartAsset assessed the salary needed to reach this 50/30/20 ideal — designated as a comfortable salary — based on the local costs in 100 of the largest U.S. cities.
Key Findings
A single adult needs to earn $150,000 to live comfortably in these places. New York has the highest individual salary needed to live comfortably at $158,954. San Jose, California, follows closely at $158,080. Orange County cities Irvine, Anaheim, and Santa Ana require an estimated $151,965 in income for a single adult.
These cities have the lowest salary needed to live comfortably. San Antonio has the lowest salary threshold for both single adults and families of four at $83,242 and $192,608, respectively. New Orleans has the second-lowest salary needed for a single adult to live comfortably at $84,406, followed by Memphis, Tennessee, at $86,320.
The Bay Area is the most expensive place for a family to live comfortably. Bay Area cities make up the top four of the five places with the highest salary needed for a family of four to live comfortably. Incomes across two parents are projected at $407,597 in San Francisco, $402,771 in San Jose, and $371,488 in both Fremont and Oakland. Boston rounds out the top five at $368,742.
Families in these Texas cities are closest to a comfortable salary. In Frisco, the median household earns $145,444 — substantially higher than the national median of $83,730. This figure also accounts for 63.1% of the $230,464 income a family of four in Frisco needs to live comfortably. In McKinney, the $124,177 median household income accounts for 53.9% of the $230,464 needed.
10 Cities With the Highest Salary Needed to Live Comfortably
1. New York, New York
Salary needed for a single adult: $158,954
Salary needed for a working family of four: $337,875
Median household income: $81,228
2. San Jose, California
Salary needed for a single adult: $158,080
Salary needed for a working family of four: $402,771
Median household income: $148,226
3. (tie) Irvine, California
Salary needed for a single adult: $151,965
Salary needed for a working family of four: $327,226
Median household income: $145,731
3. (tie) Anaheim, California
Salary needed for a single adult: $151,965
Salary needed for a working family of four: $327,226
Median household income: $101,145
3. (tie) Santa Ana, California
Salary needed for a single adult: $151,965
Salary needed for a working family of four: $327,226
Median household income: $95,118
6. Boston, Massachusetts
Salary needed for a single adult: $139,776
Salary needed for a working family of four: $368,742
Median household income: $97,791
7. (tie) San Diego, California
Salary needed for a single adult: $136,781
Salary needed for a working family of four: $312,915
Median household income: $111,032
7. (tie) Chula Vista, California
Salary needed for a single adult: $136,781
Salary needed for a working family of four: $312,915
Median household income: $105,101
9. San Francisco, California
Salary needed for a single adult: $134,950
Salary needed for a working family of four: $407,597
Median household income: $139,801
10. (tie) Fremont, California
Salary needed for a single adult: $134,410
Salary needed for a working family of four: $371,488
Median household income: $175,816
10. (tie) Oakland, California
Salary needed for a single adult: $134,410
Salary needed for a working family of four: $371,488
Median household income: $102,235
10 Cities With the Lowest Salary Needed to Live Comfortably
San Antonio, Texas
Salary needed for a single adult: $83,242
Salary needed for a working family of four: $192,608
Median household income: $66,176
New Orleans, Louisiana
Salary needed for a single adult: $84,406
Salary needed for a working family of four: $197,766
Median household income: $58,821
Memphis, Tennessee
Salary needed for a single adult: $86,320
Salary needed for a working family of four: $193,939
Median household income: $52,679
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Salary needed for a single adult: $86,861
Salary needed for a working family of four: $213,325
Median household income: $70,040
Baltimore, Maryland
Salary needed for a single adult: $87,485
Salary needed for a working family of four: $224,224
Median household income: $64,778
Louisville, Kentucky
Salary needed for a single adult: $88,234
Salary needed for a working family of four: $212,742
Median household income: $67,251
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Salary needed for a single adult: $88,317
Salary needed for a working family of four: $215,238
Median household income: $60,930
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Salary needed for a single adult: $88,442
Salary needed for a working family of four: $205,421
Median household income: $57,758
Tucson, Arizona
Salary needed for a single adult: $88,899
Salary needed for a working family of four: $218,400
Median household income: $60,483
Fort Wayne, Indiana
Salary needed for a single adult: $88,982
Salary needed for a working family of four: $233,126
Median household income: $61,436
Data and Methodology
SmartAsset used MIT Living Wage Calculator data to gather the basic cost of living for an individual with no children and for two working adults with two children. Data includes the cost of necessities, including housing, food, transportation, and income taxes. It was last updated to reflect the most recent data available on Feb. 15, 2026.
Applying these costs to the 50/30/20 budget for 100 of the largest U.S. cities, MIT’s living wage is assumed to cover needs (i.e., 50% of one’s budget). From there, the total annual wage was extrapolated for individuals and families to spend 30% of the total on wants and 20% on savings or debt payments. Median household income data for cities comes from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 1 Year American Community Survey for 2024.
A teenager scrolls through their phone at the dinner table, barely looks up and answers questions with one-word replies. For many adults, that image has come to stand for a larger fear: that today’s young people are disconnected from others and may be uninterested in the world around them. Concerns about declining civic participation often deepen that worry.
As researchers whostudy adolescent development, we believe this picture is incomplete. Adults help shape the environments in which young people learn to contribute, or learn not to. In worrying that young people are disengaged from participating in civic society, adults may overlook both their own role in fostering engagement and the many ways young people are already contributing.
Youth civic and community engagement matters because it helps build skills, relationships and habits of participation that carry into adulthood. How do teens actually express their care for the world around them, and what helps them to do so?
What does engagement really look like?
When adults talk about “engaged” teens, they often picture a narrow set of activities: volunteering, joining clubs, leading student government, maybe attending a rally or organizing a fundraiser. Those forms of contribution to society matter. But they are not the whole story.
In two recent studies, we surveyed 723 American adolescents, with an average age of 15, to understand what predicts whether teens will contribute to society and what their contribution looks like.
In the first study, we identified four distinct patterns: Some teens were generally less engaged; this group represented 21% of our sample. Another 19% we called “Digital Advocates,” highly active online but less involved in face-to-face settings. A third group, 33% of our sample, we termed “Local Helpers,” more engaged in interpersonal and community-based helping. “Contributors” were our fourth profile type, making up 26% of our sample; they reported high engagement across all domains.
How do teens contribute to civic activities?
In a survey of 723 American adolescents, researchers noticed four distinct patterns of contribution. They divided the respondents into four profiles: those who were less engaged overall, those who engaged mostly online, those who focused on interpersonal helping, and those who were involved in multiple ways.
Our finding pushes back against a common adult assumption that “real” engagement has to look a certain way. It doesn’t. A teen sharing information online about where local families can access food assistance and a teen quietly checking in on a struggling friend are both contributing – just differently. Digital participation is not automatically shallow; for many young people, online spaces are where they learn about issues, form opinions and connect with others who share their concerns.
Crucially, these profiles were shaped less by demographics – age, gender or race and ethnicity – and more by whether our teen respondents had the personal and contextual supports that helped them act on what they cared about.
We were especially interested to see that purpose mattered not only when it was self-focused – wanting to succeed, build a career and so on – but also when it extended beyond the self, such as wanting to help others or contribute to something larger than one’s own interests.
That may sound obvious, but it has real implications. Adults often tell teens to “get involved” without helping them connect that involvement to a meaningful why. Our findings suggest young people are more likely to contribute when they feel hopeful about the future and when they see their lives as connected to others.
To help young people make a difference, first broaden your definition of contribution. The teenager organizing a school drive, the one helping a neighbor and the one making informative videos about a community issue are all contributing in real ways. Notice these efforts and support them in their chosen contribution.
You can also support adolescents in building the traits that make it easier for them to get involved and make a difference:
Help young people develop a sense of purpose that goes beyond themselves. Ask questions like: What do you care about? What kind of difference do you want to make? Purpose-driven engagement tends to be more durable than participation that’s driven by obligation.
Nurture hope. Young people are less likely to act when they feel that nothing will change. Adults can support hope by helping teens see realistic pathways for success and giving them opportunities to speak up or solve real problems in their schools and communities.
Make space for critical consciousness. After-school programs, classrooms and youth groups can create environments where conversations about social issues are taken seriously and connected to real action. Young people need chances to talk about the world they see – and the world they want.
Teens often make a difference in ways that reflect both what they care about and how they are beginning to understand the world around them. Contributing is about more than just involvement in civic institutions; it can also look like helping a neighbor, speaking up for others or creating social media content that raises awareness about an issue. Instead of expecting teens to be checked out, caring adults can help them develop the skills and resources to contribute in any and all of these meaningful ways.
