World happiness map

For what it's worth, here is a map that reports to show relative rates of "subjective well-being" around the globe. It claims to be the "first published map of world happiness."

Read more...

Eggs and diabetes

Startling results from a recent study:

Specialists at Harvard Medical School in Boston found eating an egg every day may increase the risk of type 2 diabetes by about 60 per cent.

Women were most susceptible, with females consuming seven eggs or more a week increasing their risk by 77 per cent.

Eating just one egg a week carried no increased risk, Dr Michael Dr Gaziano wrote in the journal Diabetes Care.

It's hard to believe an egg-a-day could really be that risky.

Read more...

Australia exposes fluoridation fraud

This video documents the public outcry in Queensland over the state's plans to bring water fluoridation to more communities. Listen to state Department of Human Services representative John Carnie tell Australians that people like him know what's good for them. He is well cast for the role. Why Australians obey the dictates of people like Carnie is a mystery to me:



Why do Australians allow their government to be bought off by industry? Why do Aussies allow men like Carnie -- pictured in the above video -- to dictate what is good for them? To think that toxic waste is added to the water supply in spite of the weight of the scientific evidence indicating this is a stupid thing to do. What is wrong with Australia? What is wrong with us?

Read more...

Florida exposes fluoride deception

Would you believe that the American Dental Association has warned parents in Florida not to make baby formula with tap water -- due to the dangers associated with the fluoride in the drinking water?

Remind me, what was the purpose of fluoridation in the first place?



To avoid fluoride, I don't drink tap water in when I am in the US or Singapore.

Read more...

Why?

Read more...

Vitamin D deficiency and the flu

The flu season is associated with the time of the year with the sunshine. So a new theory holds that a lack of vitamin D might be associated with incidence of the flue. Here's the abstract of a recent journal paper:*

The epidemiology of influenza swarms with incongruities, incongruities exhaustively detailed by the late British epidemiologist, Edgar Hope-Simpson. He was the first to propose a parsimonious theory explaining why influenza is, as Gregg said, "seemingly unmindful of traditional infectious disease behavioral patterns." Recent discoveries indicate vitamin D upregulates the endogenous antibiotics of innate immunity and suggest that the incongruities explored by Hope-Simpson may be secondary to the epidemiology of vitamin D deficiency. We identify – and attempt to explain – nine influenza conundrums: (1) Why is influenza both seasonal and ubiquitous and where is the virus between epidemics? (2) Why are the epidemics so explosive? (3) Why do they end so abruptly? (4) What explains the frequent coincidental timing of epidemics in countries of similar latitude? (5) Why is the serial interval obscure? (6) Why is the secondary attack rate so low? (7) Why did epidemics in previous ages spread so rapidly, despite the lack of modern transport? (8) Why does experimental inoculation of seronegative humans fail to cause illness in all the volunteers? (9) Why has influenza mortality of the aged not declined as their vaccination rates increased? We review recent discoveries about vitamin D's effects on innate immunity, human studies attempting sick-to-well transmission, naturalistic reports of human transmission, studies of serial interval, secondary attack rates, and relevant animal studies. We hypothesize that two factors explain the nine conundrums: vitamin D's seasonal and population effects on innate immunity, and the presence of a subpopulation of "good infectors." If true, our revision of Edgar Hope-Simpson's theory has profound implications for the prevention of influenza.

It should be an easy theory to test.
__
* John J Cannell et al. On the epidemiology of influenza. Virology Journal 2008, 5:29. Hat-tip Mercola.

Read more...

Waist fat ups mortality risk -- regardless of your weight

USN reports:

But, those who tend to collect their weight around the middle -- apple-shaped -- face an even higher risk of death than those whose excess weight tends to settle in their hips and thighs -- pear-shaped.

"We found that a large waist circumference is related to a higher risk of death even for individuals who have the same BMI [body mass index, a ratio of weight to height]," said the study's lead author, Dr. Tobias Pischon, of the German Institute of Human Nutrition. "Therefore, you could say that adipose [fat] accumulation in the abdominal region is even more detrimental than just having an elevated BMI level," he added.

Previous research had linked abdominal fat with a higher risk of chronic diseases. But past research generally hadn't assessed the risk of death in those who were overweight and those who were overweight with more abdominal fat, according to background information in the study.

The WSJ report on the study notes:

The researchers also calculated that, for a five-centimeter, or about two-inch, increase in waist size for patients with any given BMI score, the risk of death increased by 17% for men and by 13% for women. The researchers found similar trends when they compared waist-to-hips ratios.

Rob M. van Dam, a Harvard Medical School professor not involved with the research, said that while the European study doesn't break new ground, its size and breadth make it a "very important" contribution to the field. "They really put it on the table in a very convincing way," said Mr. van Dam, who has been involved in similar research.

Dr. Pischon, the study's lead author, said in an email that the research didn't focus on why larger waists mean a higher death rate, but added that the fat in the abdomen tends to be so-called visceral fat, which builds up around the organs and secretes certain hormones that contribute to the onset of various diseases.

No more inner-tubing.

Read more...

Toxic chemical fumes from new mattresses?

Salon's Rebecca Clarren reports on the damage done to America's Environmental Protection Agency under the Bush Administration.

The point of the article?

As the US EPA has more or less stopped studying and regulating toxic chemicals for the past 8 years, then there are going to be all kinds of hazards out there that will take years to identify and fix.

Just the other day I came across a possible example of the trend. I was reading that as of 2007, all mattresses made in the US must be treated with a fire retardant that seems to be quite toxic. It is one example of the what the EPA's failure to regulate could mean for people living not only in the US, but all over the world:

Read more...

Cell phones pose cancer risk for children

I'm watching a congressional hearing on mobile phone use on C-Span. Some highlights of the testimony.

• David Carpenter, U Albany, is telling a Senate Committee that the government should put warnings on cell phones. Their use by children should be restricted. He says adolescents would also be at greater risk than adults.

• Ronald Herberman, Director U Pittsburgh, concurs with Carpenter. Children may be at risk from radiation, and advocates warning labels on cell phones.
  

• Latency period for cancer would likely longer than the 10 year maximum duration of most studies. "Maybe another 5 years or more before we see effects of almost ubiquitous use of cell phones."
  

• Dr. Robert Hoover, National Cancer Institute Epidemiology says he wants more information before supporting calls for warning labels about children and cell phones. Neglected to provide sub-committee with written testimony.
  

• Herberman: sperm counts lower in men who carry cell phones in pockets.

• Testimony from a citizen, apparently this woman whose husband has cancer attributed to phone use: she says 80-90% of children take cell phones to one elementary school. Many kids sleep with their cell phones. AT&T has a phone-message advertisement urging parents to restrict kids' cell phone use.

• David Carpenter says strongest evidence reason to be concerned is that there is association -- "really quite strong" -- between cell phone use and brain cancer use after 10 years of exposure. This evidence concerns me the most.
  

• Herberman: a number of studies animal and otherwise "several reports from credible scientists of damage to DNA which we know plays a role in tumor formation." Reactive oxygen species could be explanation.
  

• Rep. Denis Kucinich of Ohio: Current exposure limits assume 6 foot tall male. We just heard testimony that children at greater risk -- should allowable exposure be higher or lower?
  

• Fed Com Com Engin and Tech Dir. Julius Knapp responds to Kucinich: The FCC does not have the expertise to say whether standard is OK, need other agencies to tell us what to do.

• Herberman says having billing records from the cell phone companies could make more definitive studies possible. Sounds as if government's help might be required to force phone companies to provide these records for study participants. Wants the US government to press the cell phone industry to cooperate in studies.
  

• Carpenter: says FCC assumption no risk due to "heating" is flat-out wrong. These FCC people are engineers, not biologists. Government needs to take responsibility on this issue, can't be left to industry.
  

• Julius Knapp of FCC says applying standards based in part on other agencies' advice.
  

CNN did a story on this congressional testimony here.

Read more...

Stretching before exercise is harmful

I've always believed that stretching before exercise to be an annoyance -- basically a waste of time. I feel vindicated to discover that some studies show that stretching is not merely a boring ritual, but something that can actually harm you. The New York Times reports:

Researchers now believe that some of the more entrenched elements of many athletes’ warm-up regimens are not only a waste of time but actually bad for you. The old presumption that holding a stretch for 20 to 30 seconds — known as static stretching — primes muscles for a workout is dead wrong. It actually weakens them.

Rather than doing so-called "static stretching," the article recommends something called "dynamic stretching." This kind of a warm-up, of course, is not what most of us were taught to call "stretching" in gym class. It's not what people think of as stretching.

Although some studies suggest that dynamic stretches might reduce injury:

Controversy remains about the extent to which dynamic warm-ups prevent injury. But studies have been increasingly clear that static stretching alone before exercise does little or nothing to help.

The article lists some types of dynamic stretches. Basically these amount to exaggerated movements similar to those experienced during the sport. For example, the article suggests that if you play tennis:

“Spider-Man” is a particularly good drill: drop onto all fours and crawl the width of the court, as if you were climbing a wall.

To me it is interesting that so many activities related to fitness that experts have long insisted are "good for you" -- like drinking eight glasses of water -- turn out not to be so important. Expertise is over-rated.

Read more...

Exercise intensity and breast cancer risk

WaPo reports:

Vigorous activity can reduce the risk of breast cancer by about 30 percent in normal-weight women, according to an 11-year U.S. study of 32,269 postmenopausal women.

For the study, vigorous activity was defined as heavy housework (scrubbing floors, washing windows, demanding yard work, digging, chopping wood) and strenuous sports or exercise, such as running, fast jogging, competitive tennis, aerobics, bicycling on hills, and fast dancing.

While vigorous activity reduced breast cancer risk in normal-weight women, it had no effect in women who were overweight or obese, according to study leader Michael F. Leitzmann and colleagues.

They also found that non-vigorous activity, such as light housework (vacuuming, doing laundry, painting, general gardening) and light sports or exercise (walking, hiking, light jogging, recreational tennis, bowling) offered no protection against breast cancer.

For a long time, the medical establishment has backed the view that modest exercise is sufficient to realize the protective effects against a variety chronic illnesses. In fact, study after study is showing exercise to be far more effective in reducing the incidence of many chronic diseases than almost any dietary change -- except maybe frequent fasting or a calorie restricted diet.

This study is interesting because it suggests that only intense regular exercise is protective against breast cancer.

Read more...