LOS ANGELES – It looks like few shows have been as successful this 12 months as “Nobody Wants This.” The romantic comedy received near-unanimous praise from critics – one even called it “as funny as Harry and Sally” – and secured the highest spot on Netflix's top 10 TV series list just hours after its debut. (It's also already spawned a whole bunch of thirsty Adam Brody memes on social media.)

But amid the love for Erin Foster's recent series, some within the Jewish community have raised questions on whether or not the show perpetuates problematic stereotypes about Jewish women.

“Nobody Wants This” centers on agnostic podcast host Joanne (Kristen Bell), who falls in love with Noah (Brody), a non secular leader often called the “hot rabbi” in his temple the couple As Joanne finds her way in her recent relationship, she is initially met with contempt from the rabbi's Jewish family. Noah's Russian immigrant parents – especially his mother – are hesitant to embrace her, even after she tells them she is able to convert to Judaism. And Noah's sister-in-law stays so loyal to his Jewish ex that she even yells “whore” at Joanne outside a bar. (By the best way, this ex was so eager to marry Noah that she preemptively found an engagement ring he had hidden and began wearing it before he proposed.)

“I can't imagine a man watching this show and saying, 'I really want to date a Jewish girl!'” wrote Jessica Radloff in Glamour. “We seem like controlling, marriage-hungry women who plan dinner parties and want to alienate anyone who doesn’t share those dreams.”

The series was inspired by Foster real romance: She fell in love with a Jew who desperately desired to marry someone who was also Jewish and converted. It's been nearly five years since Foster accomplished that process — she took a 10-week course on the American Jewish University in West L.A. — but as she walked into the writers' room, she said she intentionally surrounded herself with colleagues who were born as Jews. “I’m Jewish, but I didn’t grow up Jewish. This is something different,” said Foster, 42.

During the press tour leading as much as the premiere of “Nobody Wants This,” questions were raised concerning the show’s portrayal of Judaism. In an interview with The Times – where she was later joined by her husband Simon Tikhman – Foster spoke about her approach to portraying the culture on screen.

Q: What do you concentrate on critics calling a few of the Jewish characters on the show stereotypical?

A: I feel we’d like positive Jewish stories now. I feel it's interesting when you have got a rabbi on the helm, people concentrate on, “Oh, that's a stereotype of the Jewish people.” A hot, cool, young rabbi who smokes weed. That's the alternative of how people see a Jewish rabbi, right? If I made the Jewish parents appear like two granola hippies on a farm, someone would write: “I've never met a Jewish person like that.” You obviously don't know how one can write about Jewish people, you don't know what you do, and that doesn’t represent us well.”

Q: This series is inspired by your relationship along with your husband. Was it difficult so that you can be accepted into his Jewish family?

A: In real life, Simon's parents and I even have a terrific relationship. We at all times did that, and truthfully they never had an issue with me since it was a terrific honor for them to convert to Judaism. Bringing someone to the Jewish faith was the last word daughter-in-law move; It brought us together in such a terrific way.

But in a television show there needs to be conflict. It is very important that Noah's parents are immigrants within the series since the culture of immigrants may be very different from the culture of American Jews. Simon's parents fled the Soviet Union because they were Jews. That's a really different experience than someone who grew up in LA and wasn't exposed to the sort of anti-Semitism that he was exposed to. It means something different. It's a rather more sensitive topic and it's much closer to home.

That's why I don't have the sensation that the parents have so many stereotypical ideas. Immigrant culture will be very insular and scared of outsiders, and there’s a very good reason for this. I wanted to deal with this since it represents an extra layer of cultural differences between these two people.

Q: Was it necessary to you that the actor playing Noah actually be Jewish?

A: I assumed it was really necessary. We literally auditioned every Jewish actor on the face of the earth.

I feel it's okay to speak openly about it and make it clear that you simply're on the lookout for a Jewish actor to play a rabbi. And the reality is, nobody felt right – not even close [but Brody].

And I feel it's ridiculous to think that an actor needs to be all the pieces he plays. I imagine that a gay man can play a straight man. A straight person can play a gay person. But I felt that somebody who isn't Jewish would feel improper playing a rabbi within the lead role in a show that shines a positive light on Jewish culture. That didn't suit me.

Q: What do you concentrate on “Nobody Wants This” coming out amid a heightened climate of anti-Semitism?

A: We're definitely not the show that deals with the political climate of what's happening on this planet immediately. That's not why people come to our show to observe it, and it wouldn't be appropriate for me to deal with that topic because I wasn't raised Jewish. I even have my very own opinion about it as an individual, but it surely shouldn't be a part of the show. I don't think it's okay to talk for therefore many individuals. What I actually desired to do was to shine a positive light on Jewish culture from my perspective – my positive experiences that I dropped at Jewish culture, with a little bit little bit of fun, [and] teachable moments about things in Judaism that I like without being heavy-handed. Because I don't think people want that on the show.

Q: How has your relationship with Judaism modified since your conversion?

A: I remember this panicked feeling as I left the mikvah [a ritual bath that occurs at the end of the conversion process]. I assumed, “I don't feel Jewish yet.” I used to be dunked under a hot tub and thought something magical was going to occur, like “Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo!”

But I didn't feel anything and I used to be very scared. “Am I really Jewish? I don’t feel any different.”

Now, five years later, I understand that you simply don't feel Jewish until you've been Jewish. When I see anti-Semitism, I feel I'm Jewish. I feel more Jewish since converting because I've had quite a bit more experiences than simply learning about it in a classroom and learning the date and meaning of a vacation. In 2024, given what is occurring on this planet, I feel Jewish.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — California regulators voted Wednesday to impose a drinking water limit for hexavalent chromium, a toxic chemical compound made infamous by the film “Erin Brockovich.”

The rule is the primary within the nation to specifically goal the heavy metal referred to as chromium-6 and is anticipated to scale back cases of cancer and kidney disease through long-term use, state officials say.

The proposal was unanimously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board but requires approval from the Office of Administrative Law to take effect.

The standard could encourage other states to adopt their very own. More than 200 million Americans are estimated to have the chemical compound of their drinking water, in response to an evaluation of federal water testing data by the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization.

Previously, California combined its drinking water standard for chromium-6 with the less toxic trivalent chromium, a necessary nutrient. California's latest limit for chromium-6 is 10 parts per billion – about 10 drops of water in a swimming pool.

“I know there are mixed feelings about this decision today … that we should have a lower standard,” board member Sean Maguire said before the vote. “But I want to step back and look at California compared to the rest of the country, and I think we're actually leading the way here.”

Community members and health advocates fear that California's limit doesn’t do enough to guard public health from the metal. They want the state to adopt a drinking water limit that’s closer to the health goal of 0.02 parts per billion, a level that scientists say poses no significant health risks.

“This really leaves many California communities unprotected from this really powerful carcinogen,” said Tasha Stoiber, senior scientist on the Environmental Working Group.

The Board is required by law to set a limit that approximates the general public health goal as economically and technically feasible.

Some public water utilities warned that the brand new standard would make customers pay more for water and the financial burden would disproportionately affect disadvantaged communities. And some chemical industry groups have said the limit shouldn’t be based on the most recent science.

The state water agency estimates the brand new limit will cost public water systems $483,446 million to $172.6 million annually to watch and treat water that exceeds the usual.

Cástulo Estrada, executive vp of the Coachella Valley Water District and utility manager for the town of Coachella, said the limit would have an “unprecedented” impact on residents and customers. He said all six of the town of Coachella's wells have chromium-6 levels above 10 parts per billion and that installing technology to scale back the degrees to the limit would cost an estimated $90 million. “That would increase the monthly bills.”

Ana Maria Perez, a Monterey County resident, urged the board to set a lower limit that may protect communities with chronic water pollution. “We have been waiting for a chromium-6 limit that protects our health,” she said in Spanish. “It’s not fair that a lot of people have to get sick.”

Water utilities must begin testing for chromium-6, which occurs naturally and is produced in industrial processes, inside six months of the expected entry into force, likely in October. If water tests are above the limit, they have to submit a compliance plan inside 90 days and comply with it inside two to 4 years, depending on how many purchasers are served.

Chromium occurs naturally in soils, plants, animals, rocks and more and might leach from the soil into groundwater. It is available in various forms, including chromium-6, and is utilized in electroplating, stainless-steel production, leather tanning, textile manufacturing and wood preservation, all of which might contribute to drinking water pollution, in response to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

While scientists have known for many years that inhaling chromium-6 could cause lung cancer, it has long been uncertain whether ingesting chromium-6 also can cause cancer.

Studies from the National Toxicology Program have modified that. The results showed that rodents that drank water high in chromium-6 for 2 years developed colon and oral cancer.

Some researchers criticized the studies, saying the chemical concentrations given to the rodents were 1000’s of times higher than U.S. drinking water supplies.

The California Environmental Health Agency is updating its health goal for hexavalent chromium, which was set at 0.02 parts per billion in 2011. At this level, the lifetime risk of cancer is one in 1,000,000, a figure widely accepted by health experts.

Some health advocates urged the board to attend to set a limit until an updated public health goal is released. But some environmental justice nonprofits that support a lower limit said the board shouldn't wait any longer.

With California's latest limit, the danger of cancer is 500 times higher than the general public health goal. One in 2,000 people exposed to drinking water containing 10 parts per billion of chromium-6 for 70 years could develop cancer, in response to a state water staff report.

Studies on the health effects of chromium-6 intake through drinking water are limited, said Maria-Nefeli Georgaki, an environmental health specialist who has studied the health effects of chromium-6 intake. However, she added that a maximum level of 10 parts per billion is a crucial place to begin, which should then be “adjusted at certain regular intervals both as public health issues emerge and as new research data emerge.”

Water staff must review standards every five years. But during Wednesday's meeting, Darrin Polhemus, deputy director of the water authority's drinking water division, said they’re continually reviewing standards.

In 2014, the state adopted a ten parts per billion limit, however it was repealed in 2017 since it didn’t consider whether the rule can be economically feasible.

The standard is the most recent chapter in a decades-long battle over regulation of the chemical that gained notoriety with the 2000 film “Erin Brockovich,” which won Julia Roberts the Oscar for best actress. In the Nineties, Brockovich helped investigate groundwater contaminated with chromium-6 that sickened a Southern California community. Residents ultimately won a $333 million settlement with Pacific Gas & Electric Co. over contamination of their water.