By DEVI SHASTRI and LAURA BARGFELD

MILWAUKEE (AP) — Feel like you can’t focus? Like you’ll never finish a book again? Like the only way to keep your mind and hands busy is to scroll on social media for hours?

Related Articles

Glioblastoma brain cancer research: Study provides glimmer of hope

Dum Dums lollipops stands by bright dyes, despite RFK Jr.’s push

The US hasn’t seen a human bird flu case in 3 months. Experts are wondering why

Suicide rate in Minnesota for 2024 similar to ’23

In the Deep South, health care fights echo civil rights battles

You’re far from alone. One body of decades-long research found the average person’s attention span for a single screen is 47 seconds, down from 2.5 minutes in 2004. The 24/7 news cycle, uncertainty about the state of the world and countless hours of screen time don’t help, experts say.

“When my patients talk to me about this stuff there is often a feeling of helplessness or powerlessness,” said Dr. Michael Ziffra, a psychiatrist at Northwestern Medicine. “But you can change these behaviors. You can improve your attention span.”

Here are ways to start that process. As you read, challenge yourself to set a 2.5 minute timer and stay on this article without looking at another device or clicking away.

How did we lose focus?

A shifting attention is an evolutionary feature, not a bug. Our brains are hardwired to quickly filter information and hone in on potential threats or changes in what’s happening around us.

What’s grabbing our attentions has changed. For our ancestors, it might have been a rustle in the bushes putting us on guard for a lurking tiger. Today, it could be a rash of breaking news alerts and phone notifications.

The COVID-19 pandemic warped many people’s sense of time and increased their screen usage like never before, said Stacey Nye, a clinical psychologist at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Technology isn’t the only thing that influences our attention, experts say, but the effects of those pinging notifications or hours scrolling through 30-second long videos can build up over time.

“Our attention span has really been trained to only focus in those little, small blips and it interrupts our natural focus cycles,” she said.

Give your wandering mind ‘active breaks’

Experts say “active” breaks are among the best way to retrain your mind and your attention. They only take about 30 minutes, Nye said, and can be as simple as taking a walk while noticing things around you or moving to another room for lunch.

Don’t be afraid to get creative. Develop a list of alternative activities or randomly choose ideas out of a fish bowl. Try craft projects, a short meditation, fixing a quick meal or talking a walk outside. All the better if you can involve a friend as well.

The break needs to be a physical or mental activity — no passive phone-scrolling.

When the brain is understimulated and looking for change, it’ll usually grab onto the first thing it sees. The smartphone, an “ever-producing change machine,” is an enticing option, said Cindy Lustig, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Michigan.

Turn off unnecessary notifications and put that “do not disturb” mode to good use, especially before bedtime. Better yet, put your phone in a whole different room, Lustig said.

Say no to multitasking

Multitasking may make you feel like you’re getting more done, but brain experts recommend against it.

“Be a single tasker,” Nye said. “Work on one thing at a time, for a specified period of time and begin to work your way up.”

Lustig is a big fan of the “Pomodoro technique,” in which you set a timer and work on something for 25 or 30 minutes before taking a five-minute break.

She tells herself: “I can do anything for this amount of time,” and the world will still be waiting for her at the end.

Start with something you actually like and set a goal

It’s not enough to just have a hobby, Lustig said. It helps to choose hobbies that include deliberate practice and a goal to strive toward, whether it’s playing guitar for an audience or improving in a sport.

It helps to pick something that you enjoy as well.

“You don’t want to start with the heavy nonfiction or like ‘War and Peace,’” Lustig said. “If you need to start with the romance novel, then start with the romance novel. You can work your way up.”

It’s also important to be kind to yourself. Everyone has good and bad days, and attention needs are different — and even vary from task to task.

The key is to make an intentional effort, experts say.

“It is in many ways similar to a muscle in the sense that we can build it up with practice and exercises,” Ziffra said. “Conversely, it can weaken if we’re not exercising it.”

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

By JENNIFER McDERMOTT, Associated Press

For the first time in the United States, a utility is asking federal regulators for a permit to build a small nuclear reactor.

The nation’s largest public power company, the Tennessee Valley Authority, announced Tuesday it submitted a construction permit application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a small, modular nuclear reactor. It wants to develop next-generation nuclear power in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, at its Clinch River site.

TVA President and CEO Don Moul said that by going first, they can show other utilities a way to accelerate the development of small nuclear reactors.

“Nuclear is very reliable, very resilient. It is carbon free,” he told The Associated Press in an exclusive interview Monday. “It is, what I would consider, one of the highest quality generating sources we have. And so starting a path forward not only helps others in America follow, but it can also help America lead the world in the new technology.”

The federally owned utility provides electricity to seven states and operates three traditional, large nuclear power plants, which provide 40% of the Tennessee Valley’s power. The region’s population is growing, industries are replacing fossil fuels with electric alternatives and there’s more manufacturing. The TVA is planning for the demand for electricity to increase by up to 26 gigawatts by 2035, which is enough to power roughly 15 million homes.

Its board launched a program in 2022 to develop and fund small modular nuclear reactors as part of its strategy to dramatically reduce planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions, and has provided $350 million for it so far.

U.S. electric utilities have been reluctant to invest in new nuclear construction because of large cost overruns and delays in Georgia, as Georgia Power Co.’s Plant Vogtle was expanded from two of the traditional large reactors to four, said Jacopo Buongiorno, professor of nuclear science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The TVA decision is meaningful because it may be the start of a trend, Buongiorno added.

The United States does not have any next-generation reactors operating commercially. The NRC is currently reviewing applications from companies that want to build these reactors to begin providing power in the early 2030s. A project to build the first was terminated in 2023, as costs increased and not enough local power providers signed up to be part of it.

This month, the power company in Ontario, Canada, began building the first of four small nuclear reactors. Ontario Power Generation chose the same reactor the TVA wants to build, GE Hitachi’s design for a small modular reactor that uses light water like all large U.S. commercial reactors.

In Ontario, they’re expecting the first to cost $6.1 billion, along with $1.6 billion for equipment to build all four. The cost is expected to decline with each subsequent reactor. TVA’s cost estimates are in the same range, Moul said, but he declined to give specifics and said the utility is looking for partners to help with the initial costs.

The nonprofit Environmental Working Group says far cheaper, safer and cleaner electricity can be delivered much faster through investments in proven renewable sources like solar rooftops, battery storage and wind power. There’s “no bigger example of a money pit than the fantasy of small modular reactors” as a viable source of energy in the U.S., said Alex Formuzis, spokesperson for the research and advocacy organization.

The Biden administration announced a $900 million investment in these reactors last year. The Trump administration also supports building small modular reactors for flexible, reliable power for energy-intensive sectors like industry and data centers as electricity demand soars. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said in March that the $900 million would be awarded, but applicants had to submit new proposals to be judged solely on technical merit, without consideration for past diversity, equity and inclusion practices.

The TVA and its industry partners applied for $800 million in federal funding, which they say will help speed up the development of the technology by about two years.

The NRC has already said the Clinch River site is suitable for a new nuclear plant. There’s enough room for a total of four small reactors. If the NRC and the TVA board approve the plans to build the first reactor there, it could begin operating around 2032, providing 300 megawatts of power, which is enough for about 175,000 homes.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

The Trump administration recently announced a plan for steep port fees on Chinese-built vessels, which dominate global trade and are frequently in San Diego Bay.

The idea is to limit China’s dominance in the seas by making it more expensive to use their vessels and, in theory, push the nation’s importers into the arms of the comparatively small U.S. shipbuilding industry.

The new Chinese levies, which wouldn’t take effect until mid-October, could cost an importer roughly $150 a car, according to estimates from the Port of San Diego. There is concern from the shipping industry that the levies, on top of tariffs, could significantly impact global trade.

U.S. shipbuilding is practically nonexistent compared to China and others. Critics argue there is no way (at the moment) for the U.S. to catch up and the whole plan will just mean increased costs for consumers. President Donald Trump has argued it is vital for national security that America builds up its shipbuilding industry.

Question: Is the Chinese-built vessel levy proposal a good one?

Economists

Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy

NO: It will act as yet another tax on the U.S. consumer without spurring investment in shipbuilding. Shipbuilding is a huge, complex endeavor and expanding capacity would take many years. Trump’s record of on-again, off-again tariffs means that this policy is unlikely to promote any new investment, since the levy could be gone tomorrow. Moreover, China would likely retaliate with a tax on U.S.-built aircraft, hurting the U.S. aerospace industry and its workers.

David Ely, San Diego State University

NO: The U.S. cannot quickly create the capacity to produce ships at a volume sufficient to replace Chinese-built vessels that are now docking at U.S. ports.  A levy imposed now would drive up transportation costs that will be passed onto consumers. Policies to incentivize capital investment in the U.S. shipbuilding industry, and grow the workforce, should be emphasized in the near term. The levies should be delayed until the restoration of the industry is underway.

Ray Major, economist

YES: The vessel levy is another tool in the tool box that the U.S. can use to encourage China and other countries to adopt a more fair trade policy. They can easily be removed when a trade deal is in place. The levy amounts to 0.00375% of the value of a $40,000 car.

Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research

NO: Attempts at micromanaging the economy are unproductive and detrimental. Top-down manipulation of shipping production will cause unintended consequences and dysfunction. Imposing complicated rules and tariffs for shipping goods and services makes trade more expensive and lessens productivity of all. Voluntary exchanges of “free trade” benefit all participants and facilitate the specialization and division of labor. Economic development is not zero-sum where one gains at the expense of others losing. Put “free” back into free trade.

Alan Gin, University of San Diego

NO: The economic infrastructure is not here for more shipbuilding in the U.S. One problem is that not enough steel is produced in this country. Another is that labor is more expensive here, and there is less desire to work in manufacturing. Those situations could improve in the future, but it would take a long time, and the U.S. is not likely to approach China’s shipbuilding capacity. In the meantime, consumers will be hurt as prices for products carried by Chinese ships will increase.

James Hamilton, UC San Diego

NO: It would be hard to find a business or consumer in America who would not be affected through the goods they try to produce, buy or sell by this policy. Any effects on U.S. shipbuilding would be years down the road. And the very long-term investments that are required to build more ships are difficult to influence with policies that come out of nowhere and may have changed by the time these words hit print.

Norm Miller, University of San Diego

YES: Nothing says “free market economy” like a special fee slapped on vessels built somewhere else. It’s a genius idea. Why compete by building better and bigger ships or planning ahead? Who needs cheaper shipping and global trade stability anyway? After all the tariffs, consumers and businesses will barely notice the extra costs. Of course, I’m sure China will just graciously accept the new levy with no retaliatory measures that could hurt the U.S. exporters. (Sarcasm noted).

Executives

Phil Blair, Manpower

NO: All tariffs and “port fees” will clearly increase the cost of goods for Americans. Both new expenses will be passed on directly to consumers. The U.S. shipbuilding industry is so expensive compared to the rest of the world due to very high wages compared to wages paid in other countries for equal skills. That spread in wages may be acceptable to Americans to encourage well paid jobs, but consumers need to know why certain industries in the U.S. cannot compete with other countries on price.

Gary London, London Moeder Advisors

NO: I am sympathetic to measures that are designed to reduce Chinese dominance across broad sectors. However, the more realistic approach would be policies that incentivize shipbuilding elsewhere across the globe. This is not different than the other tariff-led domestic manufacturing goals. The economics of manufacturing mostly don’t work here, primarily due to the cost (and shortage) of labor. Why don’t we spread more business to other nations rather than indiscriminately slap everyone with tariffs?

Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth

NO: A levy on Chinese-built vessels will raise costs for U.S. importers and consumers without offering any strategic benefit. China dominates shipbuilding due to infrastructure that our domestic producers abandoned decades ago. Rebuilding a competitive ship industry would take years, require major government subsidies and yield higher-cost products. Punitive fees will not change these fundamentals, they will further disrupt trade and shift demand to other low-cost countries, not revive U.S. shipbuilding.

Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere

YES: If it’s being used as a negotiation tactic in the trade war. If not, while national security, stability, and local shipbuilding growth are important, adding levies to tariffs this year may not be wise. A measured approach is needed — too much too soon risks U.S. supply chain disruptions, higher costs, job losses, and higher prices. Rebuilding U.S. shipbuilding requires significant time and investment. Implemented too soon, new levies could do more harm than good without strong domestic infrastructure.

Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health

NO: Like many of President Trump’s ideas, it could be very good as a long-term strategy, but not good as a short-term economic decision. It would take many years to build up our own ship construction capabilities and in the meantime, prices consumers pay now will be increased. Let’s develop a long-term strategic plan, not a short-term reaction that will not benefit the average person or business.

Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates

YES: The levy aims to revive U.S. merchant shipbuilding, which has declined in recent decades. With China controlling more than 50% of global shipbuilding, the policy could encourage diversification and counter market abuses. While industry stakeholders worry about costs and trade disruptions, fees apply only to Chinese-linked or Chinese-built vessels. The long-term impact remains uncertain, but the policy signals a strategic shift toward reducing reliance on Chinese-built ships.

Have an idea for an Econometer question? Email me at phillip.molnar@sduniontribune.com. Follow me on Threads: @phillip020

 

By MOGOMOTSI MAGOME, Associated Press

BOTHAVILLE, South Africa (AP) — Days before South Africa’s president meets with U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House this week, Afrikaner farmers at the center of an extraordinary new U.S. refugee policy roamed a memorial to farm attacks in their country’s agricultural heartland, some touching the names of the dead — both Black and white.

Here in Bothaville, where thousands of farmers gathered for a lively agricultural fair with everything from grains to guns on display, even some conservative white Afrikaner groups debunked the Trump administration’s “genocide” and land seizure claims that led it to cut all financial aid to South Africa.

The bustling scene was business as usual, with milkshakes and burgers and tow-headed children pulled in wagons.

The late President Nelson Mandela — South Africa’s first Black leader — stood in Bothaville over a quarter-century ago and acknowledged the increasing violent attacks on farmers in the first years following the decades-long racial system of apartheid. “But the complex problem of crime on our farms, as elsewhere, demand long-term solutions,” he said.

Some at the agricultural fair said fleeing the country isn’t one of them.

Visitors at the Nampo agricultural fair, one of the largest in the southern hemisphere, ride past the wall of remembrance, a tribute to farmers killed since 1961, near Bothaville, South Africa, May 15, 2025. (AP Photo/Jerome Delay)

“I really hope that during the upcoming visit to Washington, (President Cyril Ramaphosa) is going to be able to put the facts before his counterpart and to demonstrate that there is no mass expropriation of land taking place in South Africa, and there is no genocide taking place,” John Steenhuisen, minister of agriculture, told The Associated Press. He will be part of the delegation for Wednesday’s meeting.

The minority white Afrikaner community is in the spotlight after the U.S. granted refugee status to at least 49 of them claiming to flee racial and violent persecution and widespread seizures of white-owned land — despite evidence that such claims are untrue.

While many at the agricultural fair raised serious concerns about the safety of farmers and farm workers, others were quick to point out that crime targeted both Black and white farmers and farm workers, as shown by South Africa’s crime statistics.

Thobani Ntonga, a Black farmer from Eastern Cape province, told the AP he had been attacked on his farm by criminals and almost kidnapped but a Black neighbor intervened.

“Crime affects both Black and white. … It’s an issue of vulnerability,” he said. “Farmers are separated from your general public. We’re not near towns, we are in the rural areas. And I think it’s exactly that. So, perpetrators, they thrive on that, on the fact that farms are isolated.”

Other farmers echoed his thoughts and called for more resources and policing.

Visitors at the Nampo agricultural fair, one of the largest in the southern hemisphere, walk past the wall of remembrance, a tribute to farmers killed since 1961, near Bothaville, South Africa, May 15, 2025. (AP Photo/Jerome Delay)

“Crime especially hits small-scale farmers worse because they don’t have resources for private security,” said Afrikaner farmer Willem de Chavonnes Vrugt. He and other farmers wondered why they would leave the land where they have been rooted for decades.

Ramaphosa, himself a cattle farmer, also visited the agricultural fair for the first time in about 20 years — to buy equipment but also do outreach as many in South Africa puzzle over the Trump administration’s focus on their country.

“We must not run away from our problems,” the president said during his visit. “When you run away, you’re a coward.”

Applying to be a refugee

The fast-tracking of the Afrikaners’ refugee applications has raised questions about a system where many seeking asylum in the U.S. can languish for years, waiting.

The State Department has not made details of the process public, but one person who has applied to be resettled told the AP the online application process was “rigorous.”

Katia Beeden, a member of an advocacy group established to assist white South Africans seeking resettlement, said applicants have to go through at least three online interviews and answer questions about their health and criminal background.

They are also required to submit information or proof of being persecuted in South Africa, she said. She said she has been robbed in her house, with robbers locking her in her bedroom.

“They’ve already warned that you can’t lie or hide anything from them. So it’s quite a thorough process and not everyone is guaranteed,” she said.

By the numbers

Violent crime is rife in South Africa, but experts say the vast majority of victims are Black and poor. Police statistics show that up to 75 people are killed daily across the country.

Related Articles

While Trump overhauls FEMA, Mississippi tornado survivors await assistance

Thomas Friedman: My first thought when I heard Joe Biden’s news

US sends 68 migrants back to Honduras and Colombia in first voluntary deportation

Nebraska to ban soda and energy drinks from SNAP under first USDA waiver

Trump administration to pay nearly $5M to settle suit over Ashli Babbitt’s fatal shooting in Capitol

Afrikaner agriculture union TLU SA says it believes farmers are more susceptible to such attacks because of their isolation.

Twelve murders occurred on farms in 2024, police statistics show. One of those killed was a farmer. The rest were farm workers, people staying on farms and a security guard. The data don’t reflect the victims’ race.

Overall across South Africa last year, 6,953 people were killed.

Government data also show that white farmers own the vast majority of South Africa’s farmland — 80% of it, according to the 2017 census of commercial agriculture, which recorded over 40,000 white farmers.

That data, however, only reflects farmers who have revenue of $55,396 a year, which excludes many small-scale farmers, the majority of them Black.

Overall, the white minority — just 7% of the population is white — still owns the vast majority of the land in South Africa, which the World Bank has called “the most unequal country in the world.”

According to the 2017 government land audit, white South Africans hold about 72% of individually owned land — while Black South Africans own 15%.

Associated Press writer Michelle Gumede in Johannesburg contributed to this report.