, astronomers say.

The full moon is expected to slide into Earth's shadow tomorrow night (Aug. 27-28), casting an eerie red glow over 96% of the lunar surface. At the same time, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has issued a moderate (G2) geomagnetic storm warning for 9:03 p.m. EDT (1303 GMT) Thursday night (Aug. 27) — 20 minutes before the eclipse starts. According to NOAA, the resulting auroras may be visible over several states, ranging from New York to Idaho.

However, skywatchers farther north have better odds of catching both spectacular sights together.

"Though it's unlikely the moon and aurora would occupy the same part of the sky, observers in Canada and Alaska have the best chance to see them together," Tom Kerss, an astronomer and co-author of the "Little Book of Eclipses: An essential companion to solar and lunar events" (Octopus Publishing Group, 2026), told Live Science. "The further west you are, the lower the moon will be in the East during the deepest part of the eclipse, where it may overlap with the brightest region of the auroral oval."

The aurora borealis, also known as the northern lights, is an atmospheric phenomenon caused by the solar wind ‪—‬ clouds of electrically charged particles spewed from the sun. Most of these particles are deflected by the geomagnetic shield that surrounds our planet, but some get swept into Earth's magnetic field and channeled toward the planet's poles.

Once there, the particles collide with atoms and molecules in the atmosphere, causing them to heat up and glow and producing the mesmerizing light show we know as the northern lights.

The intensity of these lights depends on the strength of the solar wind that hits our planet. Yesterday (Aug. 25), a powerful M-class solar flare — the second-strongest class of solar flare — flashed from a restless sunspot called 4513, according to Live Science's sister website Space.com. This was followed by a large ejection of solar plasma known as a coronal mass ejection.

This cloud of electrified, magnetic gas is expected to reach our planet between Aug. 27 and 28, with NOAA forecasting moderate (G1 and G2) geomagnetic storm conditions from 5 p.m. to 11 p.m. EDT on Aug. 27. Meanwhile, the lunar eclipse will begin at 9:23 p.m. EDT, peak just after midnight, and end around 3 a.m. EDT Friday (Aug. 28).

The moon won't fall totally under Earth's shadow, so we can't officially call it a "blood moon," but it will be the deepest lunar eclipse anywhere in the world until the next total lunar eclipse on Dec. 31, 2028. This could allow for particularly unusual viewing conditions.

"Typically, a full moon competes with aurorae by brightening the sky, but when submerged in the Earth's shadow, it will be relatively dark, increasing the odds of spotting the northern lights," Kerss said.

The contrasting green of the auroral bands and coppery-red surface of the moon should make for striking views on their own. But with G2-class geomagnetic storms on the horizon, some viewers may catch a glimpse of an even rarer sight.

"If the northern lights are occurring over your horizon, you may even witness the high-altitude red auroras in concert with a reddened moon," Kerss said.

The colors of the northern lights are influenced by the different gases in Earth's atmosphere — primarily nitrogen and oxygen — and where these gases sit in the atmosphere, according to NASA. At lower altitudes, for example, oxygen usually glows green. However, during more intense geomagnetic storms, an aurora may reach oxygen particles high in our planet's atmosphere. At these altitudes, above 120 miles (200 kilometers), oxygen glows red.

Meanwhile, the moon appears coppery red due to the way Earth's atmosphere bends and absorbs light. Sunlight comprises a spectrum of colors, and the blue and yellow parts of this spectrum are absorbed by the atmosphere. However, red light gets bent, or refracted, by Earth's atmosphere, which directs it toward the moon and lights up our rocky satellite like a blood-red flashlight beam, according to the European Space Agency.

'> Rare red northern lights may be visible alongside red moon during tomorrow night's partial lunar eclipse

The doctors attempted to perform a cystoscopy, a procedure in which a tube fitted with a lens enables doctors to look inside the urethra. But the obstruction prevented them from inserting the tube far enough to see anything, and they decided to perform emergency surgery to remove the mass of hardened glue.

The treatment: Surgeons made an 0.8-inch (2 centimeters) incision in the glans, the bulb at the end of the penis. For 15 minutes, they bathed the urethra with 0.8 gallons (3 liters) of saline solution to saturate the glue plug and thus separate it from the walls of the urethra ‪—‬ a feat they eventually accomplished through "certain maneuvers," they wrote.

Finally, the glue broke loose. The doctors extracted a rod-shaped solid glue block measuring nearly 4 inches (10 cm) long.

After the patient recovered from surgery, his urination and urine analysis were normal. He was discharged five days later with a catheter that remained in place for 10 days, and he received prescriptions for antibiotics to prevent infection. At a follow-up visit in the sixth week after surgery, his urination was normal and he had no further complications.

The doctors did not identify the cause of the patient's prior incontinence.

What makes the case unique: Application of superglue in body cavities typically occurs in the ear or nose, according to past case reports. Usually, the glue can be dissolved with solvents, such as acetone. However, three other case reports in the medical literature describe patients intentionally inserting superglue into their urethras, and all of those cases required removal with endoscopy or surgery, the doctors in Iran reported.

Urethra tissue is very delicate, and inserting anything into this sensitive tube risks damaging it, which can lead to serious infection. The insertion of foreign bodies into the urethra can also be painful, making the practice "relatively rare," the report's authors wrote.

If a person chooses to do this, they added, it may be to satisfy curiosity or as a result of intoxication or mental illness, but the most common motivation is sexual stimulation. Despite the risks, numerous case reports describe people pursuing pleasure by introducing a wide range of diverse objects into their urethras, including magnets, pencils, earphones, a dining fork, a thermometer, the ink chamber from a ballpoint pen, the metal tip of a screwdriver, a USB cable, a tree branch and three AAA batteries.

For more intriguing medical cases, check out our Diagnostic Dilemma archives.

This article is for informational purposes only and is not meant to offer medical advice.

Can you guess the diagnosis in these strange medical cases? Find out with our diagnostic dilemma quiz!

'> Diagnostic dilemma: A man tried to self-treat his incontinence by gluing his urethra shut executive order on childhood vaccines has generated a predictable and understandable debate around public health needs, parental autonomy and the scientific justifications for the directive. The order proposes, among other things, altering the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule and splitting up the combined MMR vaccine into multiple shots. As an immunologist, my view is that the order contradicts established scientific consensus and instead backs narratives that are not supported by evidence.

However, the more important issue with the order may be something more fundamental: What happens when vaccine policy is divorced from the scientific processes designed to guide it?

For many decades, the U.S. relied on a transparent process in which scientists, physicians, public health experts and vaccine specialists reviewed evidence and developed recommendations for who should receive a given vaccine and when. Through this process, there would be disagreements, which is not only expected but welcomed. Constructive debate on policy can lead to the development of better policies. But replacing expert scientific review with political directives risks creating a precedent that extends well beyond vaccines.

It's very possible that the immediate impact of the executive order will be limited. Many pediatricians, state public health agencies and professional medical organizations are likely to continue following established immunization schedules that were developed through decades of scientific review and real-world experience. The order itself does not magically change how vaccines work, how doctors practice medicine, or how states set school vaccination requirements.

Indeed, while the order says a lot, it doesn't hold direct authority to change vaccine recommendations. These, at least for now, are still protected by federal laws. The order can set direction but not policy.

Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to conclude that the order does not matter, because the true risk it poses is that it creates confusion and uncertainty for parents and caregivers, who only want to protect their children as best they can.

Vaccination programs rely on something fragile: the public's confidence. This confidence can be destroyed easily. Parents deserve to have trustworthy information when making decisions about the health of their children. Physicians, too, must trust that vaccine schedules reflect the best available science. Weakening those foundations of trust will further contribute to declining vaccination rates, even if no formal mandates change.

We are seeing this right now. U.S. kindergarten vaccination rates have continued to drop, falling farther below the thresholds needed for herd immunity. This is especially concerning at a moment when the U.S. is experiencing one of its worst measles outbreaks in decades, while other preventable infectious diseases are making a resurgence.

The executive order proposes separating the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine into three individual vaccines — and this illustrates the problem. The proposal is framed as part of an effort to reduce the number of childhood immunizations, but it would do the opposite in practice.

Here's why. Today, during their first years of life, children receive two doses of the combined MMR vaccine, administered in two separate injections. Under the approach outlined in the executive order, children would need six separate injections to achieve the same protection.

The order also suggests that each immunization be administered at separate medical visits, thus tripling the number of visits needed to reach the same protection. For families, that translates into more time away from work, more missed school, more transportation costs, more co-pays for those whose insurance plans require them, and more opportunities for appointments to be postponed or missed altogether.

These practical consequences shouldn't be ignored. Every additional visit creates another chance for a child to fall behind on vaccinations. Every added logistical hurdle disproportionately affects families with fewer resources, less schedule flexibility or less access to healthcare.

What's more, the separate vaccines required to implement this policy are not even currently available in the U.S. Manufacturers would need to develop new production processes, conduct testing, navigate regulatory review and establish distribution systems for these separate vaccines, all to replace a combined vaccine with an extraordinary record of safety and effectiveness spanning more than half a century.

In short, the proposal would require substantial new costs and complexity just to replace a system that has been working exceptionally well and protecting children for decades. The combination MMR vaccine was developed precisely because combining vaccines reduces the number of injections, thus improving vaccination rates by ensuring children receive protection as early and efficiently as possible.

What is the rationale behind the executive order? Administration officials have pointed to differences between U.S. vaccine recommendations and those from some other developed countries, such as Denmark, which recommends fewer routine vaccines than the U.S. does. On the surface, that argument may sound reasonable — if another country administers fewer doses, why shouldn't the U.S.?

The answer is that the timing and number of vaccines are developed to suit different countries' wildly different healthcare systems and public health realities. Countries differ in disease prevalence, healthcare access, vaccination delivery systems, screening programs and population demographics. Some countries have more centralized healthcare systems that allow for easier preventive care follow-up, while others face different infectious disease risks than the U.S.

It is therefore unsurprising that schedules vary among nations, and the motivation to match other countries' schedules is arbitrary, rather than science-led. What matters more is whether recommendations are supported by evidence and whether they effectively protect children in America, specifically.

It may be months or years before we see the consequences of this executive order and the wider attacks on vaccines. It will be reflected through declining confidence in public health institutions, growing uncertainty among families, and increasing difficulty in maintaining high vaccination rates, leading to higher rates of disease and death.

That is why this executive order matters.

Whether formal policy changes will be implemented now or in the future is less the issue. What's more at stake is whether the order will drive Americans to rely less on scientific evidence and expertise when they're making decisions that affect their children's health.

I believe immunology is one of the critical scientific infrastructures that underpins modern medicine. Vaccine policy should be built on the foundations of that infrastructure, with the science and evidence guiding public health recommendations. When this fails, the results will be measured in the lives lost to preventable illness, and that's a future we must avoid.

This article is for informational purposes only and is not meant to offer medical advice.

Opinion on Live Science gives you insight on the most important issues in science that affect you and the world around you today, written by experts and leading scientists in their field.

'> Trump's childhood vaccine order will threaten children's safety, even if it doesn't directly change policy

The moon won't fall totally under Earth's shadow, so we can't officially call it a "blood moon," but it will be the deepest lunar eclipse anywhere in the world until the next total lunar eclipse on Dec. 31, 2028.

Why does the moon turn red during a lunar eclipse?

A lunar eclipse happens when the moon passes directly behind Earth and falls into its shadow. But instead of going completely dark, the moon turns a deep shade of coppery red. This is because of the way Earth's atmosphere absorbs and bends light.

Sunlight is made up of a spectrum of colors. The blue and yellow parts of this spectrum are absorbed by Earth's atmosphere. But red light is bent, or refracted, by our planet's atmosphere and directed toward the moon, lighting it up like a blood-red flashlight beam, according to the European Space Agency.

The exact shade of red depends on what else is going on in Earth's atmosphere at the time. For example, volcanic ash and desert dust can significantly darken a lunar eclipse.

Unlike with a solar eclipse, you don't need eclipse glasses to safely see a lunar eclipse.

While the partial eclipse will be visible to the naked eye, even better views are possible if you use one of the best telescopes, best smart telescopes or best stargazing binoculars. If you're looking to photograph the moon, check out our picks for the best astrophotography cameras to capture the best shots of the lunar eclipse.

'> The moon is turning red tomorrow night — here's why, and how to watch continues to fall among kindergarteners and as the proportion of kindergarteners with vaccine exemptions is rising. The U.S. is likely to lose its "measles elimination status" later this year, which would mean the same outbreak strain had been consistently circulating in the country for over 12 months. Essentially, this suggests that although the U.S. officially eliminated measles in 2000, the disease is likely back in regular circulation.

According to the tracker, nearly all of the measles cases reported this year — 96% — have been among unvaccinated people or people with unknown vaccination status. Two doses of either the MMRV vaccine (which protects against measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox) or the MMR vaccine are about 97% protective against measles infections. (Both vaccines offer the same protection against measles, but the latter excludes protection against varicella, or chickenpox. Kids who receive the MMR shot get a separate chickenpox vaccine.)

Measles infections can cause rash; fever; cough; runny nose; and red, watery eyes. About 1 in 5 unvaccinated people who catch measles are hospitalized, and there's a risk of developing complications like pneumonia or brain inflammation. In the U.S., 1 to 3 in 1,000 people with measles die of the disease. Those who survive the infection can develop long-term health problems, such as neurological disease or "immune amnesia," where the immune system loses ability to fight off pathogens it's encountered in the past.

"Because measles was largely eliminated in the Commonwealth for more than three decades, people are not familiar with this disease and don't fully understand the potential severity of the illness," Dr. Debra Bogen, Pennsylvania's secretary of health, said in the statement. "We want to ensure every Pennsylvanian has the information they need to protect themselves, their loved ones and their communities."

The best way to protect against measles is to get fully vaccinated, DOH representatives said in the statement.

This article is for informational purposes only and is not meant to offer medical advice.

'> 2 people die of measles in Pennsylvania as vaccination rates drop across the nation