Topline:
If you’re heading to Big Bear Lake to beat the heat — keep people and pets out of the water.
Why now: Officials have confirmed harmful algal blooms throughout the lake that are showing up as discolored water with a green sheen, scum and floating algae.
Why it matters: The blooms can produce potent toxins that could cause you and your furry friends to get sick.
Read on ...for more of what you need to know.
If you’re heading to Big Bear Lake to beat the heat — keep people and pets out of the water.
Officials have confirmed harmful algal blooms throughout the lake that are showing up as discolored water with a green sheen, scum and floating algae.
The blooms can produce potent toxins that could cause you and your furry friends to get sick.
Marisa Van Dyke, a senior environmental scientist with the State Water Resources Control Board, told LAist these conditions in California’s lakes and streams are primarily caused by tiny bacteria that grow into big, flower patch-like blooms.
“When you inadvertently swallow some of that water, it can contain those toxins,” she said. “It can be quite severe and cause you to need to have some hospitalization or even visit an animal veterinarian to get treatment."
People are being urged to avoid swimming, eating shellfish from the lake and drinking or cooking the water. Officials said boiling or filtering the water won't make it safe.
For anglers on the lake, Van Dyke recommends rinsing the fish off before handling and only eating the filets.
Dogs and children are especially vulnerable to exposure because they’re more likely to swallow water while playing and swimming, according to the State Water Resources Control Board.
Do not let pets in Big Bear Lake or near scum along the shore.
“If [the water] looks a little bit more green … and there's a little bit more growth of something that looks kind of like a plant but not quite, there might be a harmful algal bloom occurring,” Van Dyke said. “So keep an eye on children and pets so that they don't get in contact with that material.”
If you do have to dip your toes in, rinse yourself, your family and your furry friends with clean water after. Van Dyke also recommends drying off and changing into a pair of clothes as an extra precautionary measure.
You can learn more about healthy water habits here.
If you come into contact with harmful algal blooms and start showing symptoms such as eye irritation, rash, headache and vomiting — contact your doctor right away. It could also cause neurological effects, Van Dyke noted.
For dogs, the symptoms can include loss of energy and appetite, diarrhea, seizures and vomiting. You should reach out to a vet immediately if they start showing any signs.
People are asked to report any potentially related illness to state officials here.
Warning signs have been posted around Big Bear Lake, but when in doubt, stay out.
It’s prime time for harmful algal blooms in California. They’re most common between late May through October, although they can pop up year round, according to officials.
Van Dyke said research has shown that in the last decade, harmful algal blooms have been showing up more in lakes and reservoirs.
“There's many things that are driving that, including climate change,” she said. “So it's not just the warmer temperatures, but also less precipitation.”
California has a harmful algal bloom map that shows if any outbreaks have been reported in the area.
Topline:
AI juggernauts Anthropic and OpenAI were set to sponsor the two-day "Mathathon" competition. Critics objected.
What's next: Caltech students redesigned a math competition, initially sponsored by big AI companies, after facing backlash from the math community.
Why it matters: Mathematicians opposed to the event argued that using AI for research would have little value to students and lead to ‘slop mathematics.’
Why now: While AI has helped solve decades-old problems, the mathematics community is navigating a thorny debate over the technology’s role in research and education.
“40 hours, $2M+ AI credits, solve an open problem.”
So read the splashy announcement for the “Mathathon” at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. Dozens of teams would work to solve vexing math problems with the help of artificial intelligence as part of “the first hackathon ever devoted to research level mathematics,” according to the early September post. AI juggernauts Anthropic and OpenAI were set to sponsor the two-day competition.
The backlash came swiftly. Critics objected not only to using AI to tackle open problems, but also to the involvement of AI companies whose models and research practices they have criticized.
Within days, current and former Caltech mathematicians published an open letter calling on the undergraduate organizers to suspend the event. The Mathathon, they argued, would only fuel the creation of “slop mathematics” and serve as public relations for the companies.
Instead of canceling the event, Caltech student organizers responded as any mathematician would — they tried to solve the problem.
The undergraduates redesigned the competition. Instead of trying to solve open mathematical problems, teams will now aim to develop alternative proofs for existing, yet unsatisfying solutions. The November event will also no longer be sponsored by the companies that develop proprietary AI models.
“We came to the decision that we want to put up an event that unites the math community, rather than divides it,” Brian Zhao, one of the Mathathon organizers and a junior studying applied mathematics at Caltech, told EdSource.
The controversy over the Mathathon event laid bare the growing tensions unfolding in the mathematics community over what role AI should play in advancing the field.
AI has already helped to solve elusive math problems. OpenAI announced this month that it used an internal AI model “significantly more capable” than the latest publicly available models to solve one of the remaining six Millennium Prize Problems. But mathematicians have warned about AI’s negative impact on mathematics students, and criticized these companies’ approach to solving high-profile problems.
“To put it bluntly, AI companies are engaging in research misconduct,” wrote the authors of the open letter, which gained the signatures of 2,038 academics as of this week.
Earlier this summer, Zhao and his roommate came up with their idea of a fun weekend: lock themselves in a basement and try to solve math problems for 40 hours straight. He was inspired by hackathon-style competitions in which programmers and designers compete to build hardware or software under deadline.
The idea of using AI to try to solve open math problems was two-fold. With mathematics undergoing one of the biggest changes in decades because of AI, the Caltech undergrads wanted to organize an event to experiment with AI and better understand how the field may evolve by the time they start graduate school.
Also, the students hoped that advertising the event with flashy statements — like suggesting teams would have access to $2 million in AI credits — would attract high-profile professors as judges and big lab sponsors.
“What is the role of a mathematician when AI can solve conjectures faster?” Mathathon organizers initially asked on the event’s website.
The AI-infused premise of Mathathon drew the ire of current and former Caltech mathematicians.
“I found it pretty outrageous, taking $2 million worth of sponsorships from OpenAI and Anthropic (and) partnering with these companies that have been, in my opinion, and many other mathematicians’ opinion, very disrespectful to our field,” said Yujin Kim, a postdoctoral fellow in Princeton University’s math department.
Kim had been critical of OpenAI’s approach to solving elusive mathematics problems in viral social media videos. The companies’ sponsorship of the event “felt like aligning with the empire,” Kim said.
“I can’t imagine [the Mathathon] would go any way other than just essentially button pressing and prompting,” Kim said. “That’s not the culture of mathematics. That’s not how we operate.”
After the backlash, OpenAI pulled its support from the event.
“We recognize that the rapid progress of AI in mathematics is disruptive,” Dan Roberts, OpenAI’s research lead, said in a social media post after the open letter was published. A spokesperson for Anthropic declined to comment.
The updated Mathathon competition will allow participants to use AI, but highly encourage them to use open-source tools that can be modified by the public instead of proprietary models run by private entities like OpenAI.
“We are proud of all of our students for the passion, drive, and maturity they have shown throughout this development,” Caltech spokesperson Emily Velasco said in a statement. “The spirit of open inquiry is central to the scientific process, and we hope to see a continued exchange of ideas as the math community charts its course forward.”
Zhao said he and his fellow organizers are determined to move forward with hosting the event. He said organizers hope the Mathathon will allow students to discover ways to use the technology responsibly, and build a bridge between AI developers and the math community.
AI has conjured much debate in the math community, some of which has been overdue, said Dimitri Shlyakhtenko, a UCLA math professor who has followed Mathathon developments but did not sign the open letter.
From the outside, it may look like AI is upending the field by solving high-profile problems that have stumped mathematicians for decades. But the reality is more nuanced, Shlyakhtenko said.
“It is very rare that some result in mathematics is obtained out of nothing,” he said. “It usually builds on a mountain of other works that happen, and usually there’s a community of people that care about a particular set of problems.”
Mathematics problems aren’t about the destination of finding a solution, he said. Rather, mathematicians develop new techniques and understandings along the journey to solve a problem. He likened it to hiking to a waterfall. The end goal is to see the waterfall, but the things you discover along the journey are also quite interesting and of value.
With AI, he said that “what we’re seeing right now is that it is sometimes possible to take a kind of a direct shortcut.”
Some mathematicians worry that using AI to solve problems robs training opportunities from younger mathematicians.
Training problems provide opportunities for graduate students to learn skills and approaches to mathematics, but “if those just get solved, then the motivation to do it is kind of gone, right?” Shlyakhtenko said.
Over the past several months, as the Mathathon drama unfolded, Zhao said he has learned two important lessons: Be ambitious and be humble.
Maintaining the lofty goal of the event — of trying to help unravel the thorny debate of AI’s role in mathematics — has helped the team persist in the face of challenges, Zhao said. He added that it also developed the event into something more than just a fun, competitive weekend. The conversations with mathematicians around the world about the event have also taught him to be wary of flashy statements.
“If we just present ourselves honestly as undergrads who are curious about AI, we actually attract more sympathy,” Zhao said. “We actually attract more mathematicians who are willing to help us.”
EdSource is an independent nonprofit organization that provides analysis on key education issues facing California and the nation. LAist republishes articles from EdSource with permission.
Topline:
The Orange County Transportation Authority approved $10.5 million for Metrolink services for the second quarter of the fiscal year as the rail service faces a dip in ridership and budget constraints.
Background: In December, OCTA told Metrolink that its fiscal year 2026-27 contribution would need to remain at no more than $46 million. But in July, Metrolink submitted an operating budget draft that would exceed OCTA’s contribution limit by about $6 million. OCTA tasked Metrolink with coming back with a revised budget that is within its contribution limits.
Read on … for more on the rail service’s struggles.
The Orange County Transportation Authority approved $10.5 million for Metrolink services for the second quarter of the fiscal year as the rail service faces a dip in ridership and rising operational costs.
A majority of Metrolink’s budget is funded by Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties’ transportation departments.
The OCTA board’s approval this week follows a previous $14.5 million contribution in June to support Metrolink services for the first quarter of the fiscal year. Funding for the remainder of the year depends on a formal Metrolink budget request, board approval and approval from neighboring transportation authorities.
In December, OCTA told Metrolink that its fiscal year 2026-27 contribution would need to remain at no more than $46 million. But in July, Metrolink submitted an operating budget draft that would exceed OCTA’s contribution limit by about $6 million. OCTA tasked Metrolink with coming back with a revised budget that is within its contribution limits.
“Metrolink ridership has suffered since the pandemic began over six years ago,” Andrew Oftelie, OCTA's chief financial officer, said. “Metrolink ridership today is at about two-thirds of what it was prior to the pandemic. Lower ridership combined with higher costs has meant that Metrolink has asked member agencies like OCTA to fund a greater percentage of the service.”
The amount Metrolink asked for from OCTA has almost doubled since pre-COVID, Oftelie added, and OCTA’s contribution has not been a huge budget issue in the last five years because of a “significant amount of one-time” state and federal funds.
“Those one-time funds have all been exhausted at this point, which is why we gave Metrolink a budget target this year,” Oftelie said. “That budget target was commensurate with the amount of ongoing revenues we expect to receive from Metrolink service going forward.”
In a presentation to the OCTA finance and administration committee on Sept. 17, Metrolink CEO Darren Kettle said the Orange County line is the rail’s highest revenue generator.
Ridership has grown slightly over the last two years, he added, but challenges remain. In creating a budget for this fiscal year, Metrolink officials have made $16 million in budget cuts. In April, LA Metro also proposed to reduce its subsidy to Metrolink by 3%.
“The last thing I want to do … is pin this on our member agencies,” Kettle said. “The fact of the matter is we would have a challenging financial situation without those reductions from LA Metro and OCTA.”
Oftelie told the OCTA board that a revised budget request from Metrolink is expected this week.
Topline:
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law Sunday requiring California community colleges with health centers to provide access to abortion medication starting in 2029. A previous law already requires public universities in California to offer abortion pills.
Why it matters: Through the Community College Student Right to Access Act, California will extend the reproductive health service already required for public universities in the state. No specific dollar amount is mentioned in the new law, only that the implementation of abortion medication at community colleges will rely on the Legislature appropriating funding. Community colleges were left out of Senate Bill 24, a law that was signed in 2019 and took effect in 2023, requiring University of California and California State University campuses to provide on-campus abortion medication at their health centers.
Implementing the law: While the law requires community colleges with health centers to start offering abortion medication, it does not require that it happens on campus, unlike the law for UC and Cal State campuses. Instead, community colleges have multiple options.
Read on... for more on the new law.
Community colleges in California will be required to offer abortion medication through campus health centers starting in 2029, under a law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday.
Through the Community College Student Right to Access Act, California will extend the reproductive health service already required for public universities in the state. No specific dollar amount is mentioned in the new law, only that the implementation of abortion medication at community colleges will rely on the Legislature appropriating funding.
Community colleges were left out of Senate Bill 24, a law that was signed in 2019 and took effect in 2023, requiring University of California and California State University campuses to provide on-campus abortion medication at their health centers. The new law, authored by Assemblymember Catherine Stefani, a Democrat from San Francisco, will require abortion pill access at community college campuses with existing health centers. Today, 92 out of 115 community college campuses have health centers.
“We are closing a critical gap by ensuring that community college students, one of the most diverse and economically vulnerable populations in our state, have the same access to care as their peers at four-year institutions,” Stefani said during the Assembly Health Committee hearing in April.
Students at UC, Cal State and community college campuses on the Pro-Abortion Student Advisory Board supported the bill as part of Unite for Reproductive and Gender Equity, a national advocacy and reproductive justice organization. The student board works to expand education outreach for reproductive healthcare across the state.
“The system is clearly moving towards the better,” said Angelica Campos, a San Francisco City College student and advisory board member, in response to the governor’s signature.
Medication abortion can be taken 10 to 11 weeks after the day of a person’s last period. It accounted for more than half of all U.S. abortions in 2023, according to Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy organization committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health.
Community college health services leaders were initially concerned about implementation due to the locally controlled model of the community college system. For this reason, community college health centers do not operate in the same way as university health centers.
While the law requires community colleges with health centers to start offering abortion medication, it does not require that it happens on campus, unlike the law for UC and Cal State campuses. Instead, community colleges have multiple options. They can prescribe the medication onsite via a licensed provider on staff or telehealth. The health center can utilize partnerships with an offsite provider who can prescribe abortion medication. Or, they can offer a “warm handoff” directing students to resources off campus, with follow-up care on their campus. Implementation cost will depend on the model community colleges choose to adopt.
Some community colleges, like El Camino College in Torrance, already have a “robust” healthcare system, according to Susan Nilles, faculty coordinator of El Camino College Student Health Services and a nurse practitioner. While the campus doesn’t currently offer abortion medication, Nilles said she does not anticipate challenges to comply with the law.
“We’re fortunate enough to where we can handle something like this. It’s nice to know that legally, we’re backed,” Nilles said.
College of the Redwoods, located in the Northern California coast city of Eureka, is one of the 23 community college campuses in the state without an on-campus health center. That campus relies on telehealth services, community partnerships and referrals to local healthcare organizations. Students can currently access medication abortion services through referrals from their telehealth provider, TimelyCare.
Stephanie Freyermuth, manager of Basic Needs, Housing Insecurity & Wellness at the college, said due to campus size, rural location and lack of medical community resources, she does not believe College of the Redwoods will adopt in-person services, including abortion medication, in the immediate future.
Dr. Rosafel A. Nogra, who serves as director of De Anza College's Student Health Services in Cupertino, said the law is an opportunity to expand their health center’s reproductive healthcare. The campus doesn’t offer abortion medication onsite currently. Instead, it offers services through the Family Planning, Access, Care and Treatment Program provider that offers confidential reproductive health services at no cost to students who meet certain requirements.
The previous law requiring medication abortion services at public universities established the College Student Health Center Sexual and Reproductive Health Preparation Fund with private funds, which provided a $200,000 grant to each campus student health center to implement services. Community colleges were left out of that law because there was not enough capacity to extend funding to them all, Connie Leyva, a former Democratic state senator from Chino and the author of that bill, told CalMatters in a phone interview.
"Comfort is really important, and I think students sometimes feel more safe going to somewhere they're more familiar with, and oftentimes that's campus."
The cost for abortion medication at UC and Cal State campuses varies. Some Cal State campuses give it to students for free. For UC students, medication costs are covered by the required on-campus UC Student Health Insurance Plan.
Cal Poly Humboldt's costs are free due to grant funding from the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, while Sonoma State covers the cost with mandatory student health fees and part of the implementation funding. Cal State San Marcos charges students $20 to $28 for the prescription.
Sonoma State listed their cost as $50 on their health center website but Tim Grace, director of the student health center, told CalMatters in an email it was free. After CalMatters asked about the cost, the college confirmed the medication is free and the website was updated.
The cost for abortion medication at community colleges will depend on how much the Legislature appropriates in the state budget for 2029 and may vary among campuses.
The law will require all campuses, both community colleges and universities, to inform students that abortion medication services are offered at their health centers. This was another component left out of the previous law.
Four years after she left office, Leyva said that she still receives calls from people frustrated by the lack of advertising about reproductive health services on campuses.
“That part of the bill is tangible and I think that can make a big difference for a lot of young women,” said Leyva, who is now the executive director for KVCR public media in San Bernardino.
The new law will require all campuses to post about medication abortion availability on their websites. Currently, all UC campuses have abortion medication listed on their websites. All Cal State campuses have it on their websites except Chico State, which does not explicitly mention abortion medication and instead highlights birth control and “comprehensive care tailored to specific gender-related health needs” for men and women. Chico State Media Relations Coordinator Michael Drummond said the school will comply with the awareness requirements outlined in the law.
Cal Poly Humboldt student Kaylee Luna works as the Sex, Health and Body Educator at the Women’s Resource Center at her university. Luna connects students to sexual health and reproductive resources on campus. While she was aware abortion medication was provided on campus, she didn’t know it was free until she researched it for her job. From her personal perspective, she feels abortion medication and reproductive resources aren't talked about enough.
“I don't think that students on campus are really aware of that. I mean, no one's really talking about it or, you know, making (social media) posts or flyers,” Luna said. “I feel like it is still a touchy subject for some folks but I don't think there's much awareness and I think there should be.”
Faith Chinnapong says in her work alongside college students as a California-based organizer for Unite for Reproductive and Gender Equity, she sees the knowledge gap across campuses.
“It's common to meet a student who is completely unaware of the services on her own campus," Chinnapong said. “When campuses especially are in these rural areas, it makes it more difficult for these young people to be able to go and seek these services, especially when they're working multiple jobs and taking care of their family.”
Students like Campos working on the Pro-Abortion Student Advisory Board have heard student concerns first-hand. According to her, access can make all the difference, and going offsite can be a deterrent for some seeking care.
“Comfort is really important, and I think students sometimes feel more safe going to somewhere they're more familiar with, and oftentimes that's campus,” Campos said.
The new law won’t take effect for more than two years, and only upon appropriation of funds by the state Legislature.
“Even if we’re not gonna see the changes potentially overnight, it’s really good that we’re here doing the foundational work,” Campos said.
Now, groups like Pro-Abortion Student Advisory Board will work towards bringing more awareness about the law to students and campus health centers.
“Students should have the option to whatever they choose to decide on how to care for their bodies and having that access would just make it all the better on campus,” said Vanetta Godinez, a San Diego City College student and board member.
Noelle Doblado and Skylar Stock are contributors with the College Journalism Network, a collaboration between CalMatters and student journalists from across California. CalMatters higher education coverage is supported by a grant from the College Futures Foundation.
This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.
Topline:
Gov. Newsom signed a law prohibiting the sale of disposable vapes, a measure meant to prevent lithium battery fires at landfills and recycling centers.
Fines: Retailers and distributors found breaking the law would be fined $500 for the first violation and as much as $2,000 for subsequent violations.
The backstory: About 12 million disposable vapes are sold nationally every month, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2016, a lithium battery started a fire in a San Mateo County recycling facility, costing it $8.5 million and driving up its annual insurance cost by almost $3 million. In addition to anti-smoking and healthcare groups, waste management authorities and environmental advocacy organizations supported the measure.
Read on... for more on the new law.
Throwaway vapes will be illegal in California under a new law Gov. Gavin Newsom signed this week that’s aimed to reduce the risk of battery fires at landfills and recycling centers.
Retailers and distributors found breaking the law would be fined $500 for the first violation and as much as $2,000 for subsequent violations.
Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin, a Thousand Oaks Democrat, introduced the bill to curb the proliferation of hazardous waste — particularly the highly flammable lithium batteries inside e-cigarettes, which can ignite at trash facilities and put workers at risk.
The batteries “cannot easily be removed, so they pose costly and hazardous safety issues at every point in the waste stream,” she said during a June hearing. “We do not throw away our phones or our laptops after one week of use, and we should not treat other lithium devices any differently?”
About 12 million disposable vapes are sold nationally every month, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2016, a lithium battery started a fire in a San Mateo County recycling facility, costing it $8.5 million and driving up its annual insurance cost by almost $3 million. In addition to anti-smoking and healthcare groups, waste management authorities and environmental advocacy organizations supported the measure.
“The growing vape crisis is posing an existential threat to our waste and recycling system,” said Nick Lapis of Californians Against Waste, a co-sponsor of the bill. “Even if managed responsibly, this is a staggering waste of the finite natural resources that go into making them.”
Residents also end up absorbing the cost of the fires e-cigarettes cause in garbage facilities, through higher garbage rates and taxpayer-funded cleanups, Lapis said.
Law enforcement groups, business groups including the California Business Roundtable and the California Chamber Of Commerce and an industry group representing convenience stores and gas stations opposed the measure.
Referring to a June report from Zurich Insurance UK, an insurance company, that found that fires originating from vapes are still rising in the United Kingdom despite a 2025 ban on disposable vapes, Alessandra Brichetto of the California Fuels & Convenience Alliance said that disposable vapes that are already illegal are the source of most of the litter and fires the measure attempts to curb.
Banning the limited number of legal disposable devices would also push consumers to buy illicit vape products, said Brichetto.
“That’s the fundamental flaw in this bill,” she said. “It assumes eliminating the legal market eliminates the problem. It doesn’t.”
Most Republican lawmakers also voted against the bill. In her opposition to the bill, state Sen. Shannon Grove said that the true issue is burning batteries, like the 2025 fire at the Moss Landing battery storage facility, which “cause catastrophic health impacts to communities.”
“We need to start to make a real difference in the issue of climate change, contamination in our air,” said the Bakersfield Republican during an August floor vote. "So let's take on real challenges, colleagues, and not just banning vapes.”
This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.
