FRIDAY,
AUGUST 16, 2002
Report:
Water Diseases On Rise
By Colleen Valles
Associated Press
Writer
The Associated
Press
Friday, August
16, 2002
As many as 76 million people — mostly children — could die
from water-related diseases by 2020 if changes aren't made worldwide,
according to a California think tank.
The United Nations ( news
- web
sites) has set a goal of 2015 for cutting in half the number
of people who can't reach or afford safe drinking water. Even
if that goal is met, 34 million to 76 million people could die
of water-related illnesses, said a report for release Friday
by the independent Pacific Institute for Studies in Development,
Environment and Security.
More people die of diarrheal diseases, such as dysentery, than
other water-related diseases, and children are extremely vulnerable
to them.
"All of these diseases are associated with our failure
to provide clean water," said Dr. Peter Gleick, director
of the institute. "I think it's terribly bleak, especially
because we know what needs to be done to prevent these deaths.
We're doing some of it, but the efforts that are being made
are not aggressive enough."
The problem is many people, especially those in developing
countries in sub-Saharan Africa and southern Asia, don't have
access to clean water or basic sanitation, Gleick said.
While most of the deaths are projected to occur in developing
nations, Joan Rose, professor of water microbiology at the University
of South Florida, said every country is vulnerable. She pointed
to a recent deadly outbreak of E. coli in Canada that came from
a contaminated well.
"We look at our political agreements like NAFTA, and they've
been economically beneficial to South America because we have
allowed them to export their vegetables to the United States,"
she said. "But none of that finance has been reinvested
in sanitation, and in fact, we may be getting vegetables — we
already have — that bring diseases into the United States."
The United Nations says 1.1 billion people worldwide live without
access to safe drinking water and 2.5 billion lack proper sanitation.
The institute will send the report to the World Summit on Sustainable
Development being held Aug. 26 through Sept. 4 in Johannesburg,
South Africa.
On the Net:
Pacific
Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security:
www.pacinst.org
BACK TO TOP
CDC
Team Gauges Risk of West Nile Spread Via Blood
By Mary Beth Nierengarten
Reuters Health
Friday, August
16, 2002
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - West Nile virus ( news
- web
sites) infection, the mosquito-borne illness now spreading
across the US, could be transmitted through blood transfusions,
researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
( news
- web
sites) (CDC) report.
But the risk--while relatively high--would only exist for blood
donated during peak times of infection, they conclude.
West Nile virus is carried by certain birds, and can be passed
to humans via mosquitoes. The virus--which originated in Africa
and was first spotted in the United States in New York in 1999--has
quickly spread west and south across the US.
West Nile risk would be highest for blood donated at times
and places when the infection was most common--for example the
northeastern US in late August, the CDC researchers say. If
patients given blood that was donated during such periods exhibit
West Nile virus-like symptoms, they add, doctors should consider
the possibility that the patient has contracted the infection
from the blood donation.
It is particularly important to determine if West Nile could
be spread by transfusion, Dr. Brad J. Biggerstaff from the CDC's
National Center for Infectious Diseases in Fort Collins, Colorado
and Lyle R. Petersen note, because people infected with the
virus usually don't have symptoms. But among those who do develop
severe illness, fatalities range from 3% to 30%, with the highest
death rate among the elderly. There is no cure for the infection.
To investigate the theoretical risk that West Nile virus could
be spread by donated blood from infected individuals, Biggerstaff
and Petersen conducted a statistical analysis of the 1999 outbreak
in Queens, New York. They report the findings in the August
issue of the journal Transfusion.
The researchers examined the date of onset for people infected
with the West Nile virus during the 1999 epidemic and estimated
the number of people who had the virus in their blood throughout
the outbreak. To infer the transfusion-transmission risk based
on these data, the investigators then estimated the inapparent-to-apparent
infection ratio, the proportion of asymptomatic infections,
and the size of the population.
The minimum risk of a donor transmitting the West Nile virus
through his or her blood during the 1999 outbreak was found
to be 1.8 in 10,000 donations, with a maximum risk of 2.7. The
risk of transmission was time-limited, peaking during the months
of August and September, the period in the northeastern US with
the highest rate of infections. Estimates of infection entering
the blood supply before August or after September fell to nearly
zero.
Elsewhere in the US, the time of highest activity of West Nile
virus may start earlier, Biggerstaff noted, "as with the
current outbreak in Louisiana. In other parts of the US where
West Nile virus is new, we just don't know yet."
Although the estimates indicate a theoretically low risk of
transmitting the West Nile virus through transfusion, they are
relatively high compared to transfusion-transmitted viruses
regularly screened for, such as HIV ( news
- web
sites). Estimates for HIV, for example, range from 1 per
200,000 to 2 million.
"While the estimates we give are relatively high,"
explained Biggerstaff, "it's important to remember that
the average rate we give is during the outbreak only and for
the area of the outbreak only, and that the rate is lower outside
this time frame and locale."
Implications of this study suggest that doctors should consider
the possibility of transfusion-transmitted West Nile virus in
patients with unexplained symptoms suggestive of this virus,
particularly if the blood donation was obtained when the activity
of the virus is highest. "But they should also be aware
of the level of risk or chance of such an occurrence when making
a clinical decision," Biggerstaff added.
Source: Transfusion 2002;42:1019-1026.
BACK
TO TOP
Smoking
During Pregnancy Increases Kid's Asthma Risk
HealthScoutNews
Friday, August
16, 2002
FRIDAY, Aug. 16 (HealthScoutNews) -- Children whose mothers
smoked during pregnancy have an increased chance of getting
asthma if they don't have a certain type of enzyme.
The enzyme also exists as a variation, and the variation is
so common in children that it affects the ability of the lungs
to protect themselves, according to a study in the latest edition
of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care
Medicine. And if mothers were smoking while they were pregnant,
their children were more susceptible to asthma and other respiratory
illnesses, the researchers conclude.
The variation involves a gene called glutathione S-transferase
M1 (GSTM1), which creates an enzyme that helps the lungs protect
themselves from pollutants. The enzyme detoxifies some tobacco
pollutants and defuses oxidants before they can damage lung
tissue.
Children with the GSTM1 null genotype who were exposed
to cigarette smoke while in the womb were much more likely to
have asthma, wheezing and breathing-related emergency room visits
compared to children with the GSTM1 present genotype,
the study says.
Researchers at the Keck School of Medicine at the University
of Southern California studied 2,950 children in grades 4, 7
and 10. Their parents were asked about whether the mother smoked
when she was pregnant, and whether their kids had suffered breathing
problems.
More than 16 percent of the children had mothers who smoked
during pregnancy, and more than 45 percent of the children had
the GSTM1 null genotype.
When the researchers looked at the children with the null genotype
whose mother smoked during pregnancy they found:
There was no increased risk for respiratory problems in children
with the GSTM1 present genotype who were exposed to cigarette
smoke in the womb.
"Findings show that exposure to smoke in the womb for
certain genetically susceptible children may have long-term
health effects," says study author Dr. Frank D. Gilliland,
professor of preventive medicine.
"Maternal smoking is common, and the null genotype is
found in nearly half of the population, so this high-risk group
might be an important population to target for prevention,"
he says.
More information
Nicotine addition is one of the hardest habits to kick. But
if ever there was reason to quit, pregnancy has to be at the
top of the list.
This useful
question-and-answer page from the American Lung Association
explains the risks a woman runs by continuing to smoke during
pregnancy.
BACK
TO TOP
Stimulation
Boosts Brain Cells in Aging Mice: Study
Reuters Health
Friday, August
16, 2002
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - A stimulating environment in middle
to late life may be just the trick to bolster a region of the
brain associated with memory and learning, according to the
results of a study in mice.
"It is common sense and backed by epidemiological data
that to lead an 'active' life is beneficial for mind and brain,"
report Dr. Gerd Kempermann of Humboldt University in Berlin,
Germany and colleagues.
However, the study authors note that there is a dearth of scientific
evidence about what's happening at a cellular level in the stimulated
brain.
In their study, published in the August issue of Annals of
Neurology, the research team studied 10- to 20-month-old mice.
The animals were middle-aged to elderly, as most mice go through
menopause at 10 to 13 months of age and generally have a life
span of 2 years.
One group of mice lived in standard cages and the other lived
in "enrichment housing"--cages filled with running
wheels, tunnels, toys and choices of food.
After 10 months, mice living in the enriched environment were
found to have five times the number of new brain cells in their
hippocampus--a region of the brain associated with memory and
learning--as mice living in bland surroundings. What's more,
the mice in the standard cages had 50% more cells containing
aging-related deposits as rodents living in the enriched environment.
The results, according to the authors, suggest that enriched
environments may help the brain maintain a certain level of
plasticity, which in turn could keep memory and mental function
intact as a person ages.
Nonetheless, Kempermann and colleagues note that "the
concept of environmental enrichment in studies with inbred rodents
cannot be easily applied to the human condition."
Source: Annals
of Neurology 2002;52:135-143.
BACK
TO TOP
Mohs
Surgery: Gold Standard for Skin Cancer
By Irene S. Levine
HealthScoutNews Reporter
HealthScoutNews
Friday, August
16, 2002
FRIDAY, Aug. 16 (HealthScoutNews) -- It's called the Mohs procedure,
and it's considered the gold standard for treating many skin
cancers, but few people have ever heard of it.
Some doctors think the painstaking procedure is not always
necessary, but surgeons trained in the practice note it's critical
to remove tumors completely the first time around since they're
tougher to treat if they return.
According to the American Cancer Society ( news
- web
sites), about 1.3 million cases of non-melanoma skin cancer
are diagnosed each year. In 2002 alone, 2,200 people will die
of these cancers.
The good news is this type of skin cancer is almost 100 percent
treatable when found early. The goal of treatment is to remove
or destroy the cancer completely, with as small a scar as possible.
Options include surgery, curettage and electrodessication,
cryosurgery, laser therapy, radiation and topical chemotherapy
and Mohs surgery.
Over the past 30 years, a growing number of patients and doctors
are opting for the Mohs technique, which was first developed
by Dr. Frederic Mohs at the University of Wisconsin in 1936.
"It's a relatively new surgical procedure in medicine,
but it has now become the standard of care for certain tumors,"
says Dr. Matthew Brett Quan, a Mohs surgeon at the Center for
Dermatology, Cosmetic and Laser Surgery in Mount Kisco, N.Y.
Quan spent a year studying the procedure, and has been a Mohs
surgeon since 1996.
The Mohs procedure is used when a doctor doesn't know the shape
or depth of a tumor; when the tumor is in a hard-to-treat area
such as the nose, eyelid or face; or when the tumor is a recurrence.
In these instances, many insurers will cover the costs of the
procedure.
Surgery generally takes place in an outpatient setting. After
applying a local anesthetic to the affected area of the skin,
the Mohs surgeon removes a thin layer of skin, marks its location,
and examines it under a microscope.
The tissue is mapped on a color-coded grid so the surgeon can
pinpoint the corresponding location on the wound. If cancerous
tissues are still found, the process is repeated until the slides
are cancer-free.
Because it can take up to an hour to examine each slide, the
procedure can take half a day or more to complete. If the tumor
is extensive, it may take more than a day.
The major difference between the Mohs technique and conventional
surgery is the precision achieved by using the microscope to
inspect samples of skin. This conservative approach maximizes
the saving of healthy tissue, resulting in faster healing and
better cosmetic results. Reconstructive surgery isn't needed
unless the wound is very large.
However, unless a patient has had skin cancer before or knows
someone who has, how likely are they to find a Mohs surgeon
or look for one?
"Unfortunately you totally rely upon your dermatologist,
your family practitioner, or whoever did your biopsy to tell
you where to go and what to do," Quan says.
He suggests patients educate themselves through the Internet,
and cautions that some dermatologists are doing the procedure
with only minimal training.
Dr. Robert Greenberg is a dermatologist in Vernon, Conn., and
a member of the American Academy of Dermatology. He believes
the surgery is appropriate under certain circumstances and refers
patients, as necessary, to qualified Mohs surgeons. However,
he says many non-melanoma skin cancers can be treated adequately
with conventional techniques.
"These procedures are much less costly, less invasive
and easier on the patient," Greenberg says.
Moh's is time-consuming, labor-intensive and generally costs
more than twice the price of any treatment except radiation,
leading some critics to call the procedure "fee-effective."
Quan disagrees: "You get a smaller scar and a higher cure
rate. Why not do it? They're harder to get out the second time
around."
What To Do
Visit the Mohs
College of Surgeons for more on the procedure and how to
find Mohs surgeons.
The American Academy of Dermatology has more on skin
cancer.
BACK
TO TOP
Alcohol
Initially Packs Bigger Punch for Some
By Keith Mulvihill
Reuters Health
Friday, August
16, 2002
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - People with a family history of
alcoholism may respond more intensely to alcohol's initial intoxicating
effects and develop a tolerance within a few hours, new study
finding suggest.
This may cause them to drink more alcohol so they can get back
the initial buzz they were feeling when they first started drinking,
explained Dr. Sandra L. Morzorati of the Indiana University
School of Medicine in Indianapolis, in an interview with Reuters
Health.
In the current investigation, Morzorati and colleagues wanted
to know how people with a family history of alcoholism respond
to feelings of intoxication compared to those from families
without the drinking disorder. Their study results are published
in the August issue of the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and
Experimental Research.
To do so, the team looked at 58 adults who had at least two
members of their family--be it a parent, sibling, cousin, aunt
or uncle--that were alcoholics and compared them with 58 adults
from non-alcoholic families. None of the participants were alcoholics
themselves.
The researchers administered alcohol directly into the participants'
blood and gave them breath tests that measured the amount of
alcohol in their system. Blood alcohol levels were held constant
at 0.06, slightly below the legal limit of 0.08.
After 20 minutes, those with a family history of alcoholism
reported "more intense levels of intoxication" compared
to the other group, Morzoroti explained. "At 2 hours, when
they had adapted to the alcohol, they were not feeling as big
of a punch as they were after just 20 minutes," she said.
The experiment, noted the researcher, revealed that people
with a greater risk of alcohol dependence appear to have a distinct
response to moderate alcohol consumption.
"It's been known for some time that people with a family
history of alcohol (abuse) are more likely to have a genetic
predisposition for alcoholism. The findings of our study support
that further," she said.
Source: Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research
2002;26:1299-1305.
BACK
TO TOP
How
Much Water Should You Drink?
By Adam Marcus
HealthScoutNews Reporter
HealthScoutNews
Friday, August
16, 2002
FRIDAY, Aug. 16 (HealthScoutNews)-- The mantra on daily water
consumption may be a washout.
When you ask for advice on how much of the clear, cool liquid
you should swig each day, there's a good chance you'll hear
the following: At least eight 8-ounce glasses, or 64 ounces,
of water each day.
But a New Hampshire doctor says that advice is hogwash, a national
myth with no basis in physiologic fact.
Dr. Heinz Valtin, of Dartmouth Medical School, has researched
the matter of adequate water intake and found a desert of evidence
in support of the "8 x 8" theory.
Instead, Valtin says, those 64 ounces a day will get you little
farther than the bathroom. In rare cases, people who drink too
much may suffer "water intoxication" by overloading
their kidneys. This phenomenon has been seen in athletes, Ecstasy
users and even healthy people.
True, some of us may indeed need that half-gallon of water
on some days -- when we're working out in the heat or flying
for long distances in a dry airplane cabin. However, those situations
appear to be the exceptions, not the norm.
"I have found no scientific proof that absolutely every
person must drink at least eight glasses of water a day,"
says Valtin, a kidney specialist, in a statement. His review
of the subject appears in the latest Internet edition of the
American Journal of Physiology.
Valtin says the 64 ounces-a-day figure might have been a bastardization
of recommendations from the National Research Council ( news
- web
sites)'s Food and Nutrition Board, which in 1989 called
for roughly a milliliter of water coming in for every calorie
of energy expended.
However, the guidelines go on to state that most of that amount
-- 64 ounces to 80 ounces, on average -- can be obtained in
prepared foods that are rich in fluids.
Items like juice, milk, soda and coffee are almost entirely
water and may be reasonable substitutes for glasses of the plain
stuff, Valtin says.
Yet, while the origins of the 8 x 8 myth are murky, the booming
bottled water industry is clearly a driving force behind its
promotion. Witness water.com,
which boasts of being "the first e-commerce site for the
purchasing and delivery of high quality spring water."
A "Live Healthy" section of the site, part of the
Suntory Water Group in Atlanta, declares that "most experts
agree that eight 8-ounce glasses is a good rule of thumb. But
every individual has his or her own needs, and the amount of
water needed from person to person varies, depending on their
weight and level of activity."
However, it seems the only variable is how much more
than 64 ounces a day you need. On a water intake calculator
water.com provides, a 160-pound person who got no exercise is
advised to drink 80 ounces, or between six and seven 12-ounce
glasses, a day. Adding a 20-minute workout to the routine ups
that figure to 84 ounces.
Stephen Kay, a spokesman for the International Bottled Water
Association, says the 8 x 8 recommendation "certainly was
not invented by the bottled water industry, nor is it a bottled
water issue only. The issue overall is really water and water
consumption" for proper hydration.
While a variety of foods have fluids, Kay says water is the
"most direct source" of, well, water. It also happens
to be free of calories, caffeine and other potentially undesirable
substances. A statement on the group's Web site in response
to Valtin's paper says it "remains supportive" of
the 8 x 8 guidelines.
The Food and Nutrition Board is now reviewing daily water consumption.
Its recommendations should be released in March 2003, says Paula
Trumbo, a nutritionist who's in charge of the project.
Trumbo says her group is not relying on Valtin's paper, since
it's a review not a study. However, she adds she agrees so far
with his conclusion that there's little data supporting the
conventional water wisdom.
"No one really knows the scientific basis for" the
8 x 8 rule, Trumbo says. "It's kind of hard to say whether
it's credible or not."
The panel is conducting a study to clear up the question of
how much water a person needs. Whatever answer emerges is sure
to vary by weight or climate, for example, she says.
They're also looking at how, if at all, water intake affects
certain health outcomes, from kidney stones to heart ailments,
and whether the fluid in foods such as fruits and vegetables
is an adequate source of H2O.
"We will be very specific in saying what this value is
for," Trumbo says.
What To Do
For more on water and health, try the University
of Iowa. For the water industry's perspective, visit the
International
Bottled Water Association.
BACK
TO TOP
Obesity
Linked to Increased Breast Cancer Rates in Hispanic Women
HealthScoutNews
Friday, August
16, 2002
FRIDAY, Aug. 16 (HealthScoutNews) -- Obesity may be a contributing
factor to increasing cases of breast cancer ( news
- web
sites) among Hispanic women.
While Hispanic women have been known to be at lower risk than
most other women for developing breast cancer, the rates are
climbing, according to a study in the August issue of the Annals
of Epidemiology. The increasing risk of breast cancer for
Hispanic women before and after menopause may be due to the
weight they gain in adulthood and their percentage of body fat,
the research suggests.
It was done by scientists from the University of Southern California
(USC), the University of New Mexico and Johns Hopkins University.
This is the first study to examine the relationship between
weight and breast cancer risk in Hispanic women.
"We know that breast cancer incidence and mortality have
been rising in Hispanic women, but no one knows why," lead
investigator Dr. Frank D. Gilliland, assistant professor of
medicine, USC's Keck School of Medicine, says in a statement.
"The thought was that perhaps these women were starting
to have fewer children, have having them later in life, which
may increase risk. But we looked at all the major reproductive
factors, and they explained only 5 percent of the increase in
risk. Something else must be going on," Gilliland adds.
The study included more than 1,500 Hispanic and non-Hispanic
white women with breast cancer in New Mexico in the early 1990s.
The researchers collected information about the women's current
weight, their weight at age 18, menopausal status and use of
hormone replacement therapy.
They found that obese Hispanic women had nearly twice the risk
of breast cancer, and that risk was greater regardless of whether
they had gone through menopause. Obese non-Hispanic white women
had increased breast cancer risk only after menopause.
Hispanic women whose weight at the time of the study was more
than 30 pounds heavier than their weight at age 18 more than
doubled their risk of breast cancer.
The study also found that breast cancers linked to weight gain
in Hispanic women and post-menopausal non-Hispanic white women
mostly were estrogen- and progesterone-receptor positive. Also,
breast cancer risk was higher in women who never used estrogen
and who gained the most weight.
Obesity in Hispanic women increased 80 percent from 1991 to
1998, the study says, with about 25 percent of that population
being classified as obese.
More information
Weight gain among Hispanic women also poses a risk for polycystic
ovarian syndrome, as this article from Columbia University
indicates.
BACK
TO TOP
Epidurals
Don't Cause Long-Term Back Pain
By Kathleen Doheny
HealthScoutNews Reporter
HealthScoutNews
Friday, August
16, 2002
FRIDAY, Aug. 16 (HealthScoutNews) -- Epidurals, used for pain
relief during labor, don't seem to cause the back problems later
on that many women fear.
British researchers have found no significant differences in
self-reported low back pain or disability in women who received
epidurals and those who got other kinds of labor pain relief.
The report appears in tomorrow's issue of the British Medical
Journal.
The researchers assigned 369 first-time mothers-to-be either
to a group that received an epidural for pain relief or to a
group that got various other forms of pain relief. An epidural
is a local anesthetic, delivered in the small of the back, just
outside the spinal canal. It lets a woman remain conscious during
childbirth.
Then, they asked the women to participate in a follow-up study
to track back pain and other problems; 151 from the epidural
group and 155 from the non-epidural group participated. The
researchers say they were prompted to do the study because several
studies on back pain and epidurals have produced inconsistent
results.
"We found no real surprises, and the study merely confirmed
what we already suspected: that there was no causal association
between epidurals for labor and long-term backache," says
lead author Dr. Charlotte Howell, a consultant anesthetist at
the North Staffordshire Hospital Trust, in Stoke on Trent, Staffordshire.
"But it was interesting to see how similar the groups
were in terms of the results," Howell adds.
Back pain, however, was common in both groups, who were interviewed
an average of 26 months after giving birth. More women in the
epidural group reported severe pain, the researchers found.
However, pain lasting more than a year was more common among
the women who did not receive an epidural, with 64 women in
the non-epidural group having pain for more than a year and
47 of those in the epidural group having pain that long.
"It is highly likely that long-term backache following
pregnancy is due to the pregnancy itself," Howell says.
"But this is difficult to establish because many women
have back pain and many women also use epidurals. They tend
to associate the two, and this will probably continue to be
the case."
Women wondering what pain relief is best for them during labor
should consult their anesthesiologist. "There is rarely
a good reason to advise a woman against an epidural for labor,
and no evidence to suggest that epidurals make established back
pain worse," Howell adds.
Anesthesia experts have mostly praise for the study.
"This is an obvious finding for those of us who practice
in this arena," says Christopher Stein, president of the
California Association of Nurse Anesthetists who works in pain
management and has experience in obstetrical pain relief.
Still, he says the study may help dispel misconceptions about
epidurals that persist among some women, who may avoid them
due to what they mistakenly think is a higher risk for lower
back pain.
"The study has a good random sample," Stein adds.
However, he does see a few flaws. "They didn't control
for who was doing the epidural," he says, although he concedes
that would be difficult to do. Still, the skill of the operator,
he adds, can make a difference. Also, they didn't ask about
preexisting back pain.
"Epidurals are very safe," adds Dr. Michael Ferrante,
an anesthesiologist at Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center and
co-director of the UCLA Spine Center. "There is no trauma,
except to the soft tissue and that heals within two weeks or
so."
He often hears concerns about epidurals raising the risk of
low back pain, but tells patients it is "pure superstition."
The latest study, he says, "is nice, though a little bit
flawed." He, like Stein, points out the researchers did
not control for preexisting back pain.
What To Do
For information on different forms of pain relief during childbirth,
see The
American Association of Nurse Anesthetists or the http://www.asahq.org/PublicEducation/childbirth.pdf";
American Society of Anesthesiologists.
BACK
TO TOP
Nothing
Corny About It -- It's Good For You
HealthScoutNews
Friday, August
16, 2002
FRIDAY, Aug. 16 (HealthScoutNews) -- Here's a kernel of good
news about sweet corn you can share with friends and neighbors
at your next corn roast.
Whether you eat it on the cob, steam it, or cream it, cooking
sweet corn unleashes beneficial nutrients that can substantially
reduce your risk of heart disease and cancer, Cornell University
food scientists report in the current issue of Journal of
Agriculture and Food Chemistry.
When you cook sweet corn, you actually boost its antioxidant
activity, their study says.
"There is a notion that processed fruits and vegetables
have a lower nutritional value than fresh produce," says
lead author Rui Hai Liu, assistant professor of food science.
"Those original notions seem to be false, as cooked sweet
corn retains its antioxidant activity, despite the loss of vitamin
C."
Liu and his colleagues cooked sweet corn kernels in batches
at 239°F for 10, 25 and 50 minutes. They found the antioxidants
in the corn kernels increased by 22, 44 and 53 percent, respectively.
Antioxidants are substances that protect you against free radicals,
which cause damage to your body from oxidation. Free radicals
increase the risk of cancer and heart disease and have been
linked to age-related diseases such as cataract and Alzheimer's
disease ( news
- web
sites).
More information
This article from the BBC's Web site explains why vegetables
sometimes are more beneficial cooked
than raw.
BACK
TO TOP
Need
a Specialist? Chance of Referral Higher in US
Reuters Health
Friday, August
16, 2002
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Patients are twice as likely to
receive referrals to see a medical specialist in the US as in
the UK, new study findings show.
Dr. Christopher B. Forrest of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore,
Maryland, and his colleagues found that, overall, between 30%
and 37% of Americans received referrals to see a specialist,
relative to only 14% of patients in the UK.
These results do not reflect nationwide differences in how
sick people are, the authors note; factoring the severity of
a patient's illness into the comparison did not change the result.
Specifically, the sickest patients in the UK were still half
as likely to receive referrals as US patients with an illness
that was just as severe.
There are many more medical specialists in the US than in the
UK, Forrest's group notes, a trend that may play a large role
in these results.
"The low availability of specialists, and resultant long
waiting lists, in the United Kingdom is an important explanation
for these differences," the authors write.
Forrest and colleagues obtained their results from the percentage
of patients who received new referrals to visit a medical specialist
during 1996 in the US, and 1997 in the UK. In the UK, general
practitioners would record if a patient received a referral,
while in the US, the investigators measured referral rates by
the percentages of patients who visited a specialist for the
first time at least once.
The data are based on a sample of 384,693 Americans and 757,680
people from the UK.
With relatively few specialists in the UK, patients often need
to wait for long periods of time before receiving treatment,
an aspect of medical care that may discourage UK physicians
from giving patients referrals, the authors suggest. As an illustration,
only 1% of US patients wait at least 4 months for elective surgery,
an experience forced on 33% of patients in the UK.
"Absence of waits is likely to have lowered the US physicians'
referral thresholds," Forrest and his team write.
In addition, the researchers note, many UK physicians may also
have a "less intensive" style of practicing medicine
than those in the US, a trait that may help explain why they
are less likely to write referrals. Americans are also more
likely than UK patients to refer themselves to a specialist,
without seeking their doctors' permission, Forrest and his colleagues
point out.
Source: British Medical Journal 2002;325:370-371.
BACK
TO TOP
MSG
Myths
HealthScoutNews
Friday, August
16, 2002
(HealthScoutNews) --
If you think Chinese takeout causes you headaches because of
all the monosodium glutamate (MSG) that's used to bring out
the flavor of various foods, you'll be surprised at this Harvard
study.
According to the Journal of Nutrition, MSG may not cause
headaches after all.
University researchers found 130 people who complained of MSG
headaches and got them to try foods with and without MSG. They
also gave them samples of plain MSG.
Some of the people who had reported MSG headaches did react
when they were given pure MSG. But none of them had any reaction
when the MSG was mixed with food.
BACK
TO TOP
Depression
May Worsen Age-Related Vision Loss
Reuters Health
Friday, August
16, 2002
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Depression is common among older
adults whose vision is impaired by macular degeneration, and
it may make their vision seem worse than it is, researchers
report.
The investigators found that one third of the patients with
age-related macular degeneration (AMD) they studied had symptoms
of depression. And worsening depression over time was related
to a decline in self-reported visual functioning, regardless
of actual loss of vision, according to the report published
in the August issue of the Archives of Ophthalmology.
AMD is a common cause of deteriorating vision in older adults.
Over time there is a breakdown in light-sensitive cells in the
macula, the tissue in the center of the retina. AMD can make
it difficult to read, drive or perform other activities that
require sharp vision.
In the new study, Dr. Barry W. Rovner and colleagues at Thomas
Jefferson University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania followed
51 older patients with recent vision deterioration due to AMD.
At the study's start, 33% were diagnosed with depression. These
patients also tended to have worse corrected vision and more
general disability than the other AMD patients, the report indicates.
When Rovner's team examined the patients again 6 months later,
they found that those whose depression had worsened also had
a decline in vision function--meaning they reported more problems
with daily activities such as reading newsprint, recognizing
faces and watching TV.
However, there was no evidence that this decline in functioning
was actually related to worsening visual acuity, the researchers
note. They speculate that depression, without actual changes
in vision, may spark a functional decline in AMD patients.
"The psychological and (physical) symptoms of depression
probably account for its adverse effect on vision function,"
the study authors write. "Discouragement and helplessness
drain inner resolve and resiliency."
However, Rovner and his colleagues add, their findings also
suggest that treating AMD patients' depression might help.
"Recognizing that depression is not simply an understandable
consequence of vision loss but rather a distinct, treatable
disorder is a necessary first step," they conclude.
Source: Archives of Ophthalmology 2002;120:1041-1044.
BACK
TO TOP
THURSDAY,
AUGUST 15, 2002
Of
Mouse and Man and Cancer
HealthScoutNews
Thursday, August
15, 2002
THURSDAY, Aug. 15 (HealthScoutNews) -- A new finding about
a cancer-causing gene called Ras may offer researchers a new
target for anti-cancer drugs.
The study appears in today's issue of Genes and Development.
Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center re
