[sunnykerr]

New thread time... as you were...

[Comfortably Numb]

Postmortem: Death of anorexic model Isabelle Caro — How? Why? - Philadelphia eating disorder | Examiner.com

This is so sad.

[sunnykerr]

Thanks for the update on the story!

I repeat, it's so horrible that this is an illness that, by the time you realize you have it, it's almost always too late.

[sunnykerr]

Dioxin animal feed scare shuts German farms More than 4,700 German farms have been closed after large amounts of animal feed were found to be contaminated with dioxin, a poisonous chemical. Officials insist the levels of dioxin do not pose a risk to humans, and that the closures are only a precaution. Most of the affected farms are in Lower Saxony region, north-west Germany. Meanwhile, the EU has warned that eggs from farms affected by dioxin have entered the UK in processed products destined for human food. Last week, more than 1,000 farms were banned from selling eggs after dioxin was found in eggs and poultry. Dioxin is linked to the development of cancer in humans. It is believed that the poison reached the animal feed after being distributed by a company in northern Germany which supplies additives for animal feed. The dioxin was discovered in late December, but the extent of the problem was only revealed earlier this week when German officials said 3,000 tonnes of feed had been affected. Germany's agriculture ministry said on Thursday that most of the closed farms were ones raising pigs. The ministry said the farms would not be allowed to make any deliveries until they had been checked and found to be clear of contamination. And European Commission health spokesman Frederic Vincent told a news conference how the problem had now reached Britain. "Those eggs were then processed and then exported to the United Kingdom... as a 14-tonne consignment of pasteurised product for consumption," he said. "Whether it went into mayonnaise, pastries, I don't know. So we will probably take a look at this with the UK authorities and see what was done with these eggs."

Source

So it looks like North America isn't the only place where food product recalls (is this qualifies as such) happen.

I don't know if I would call this slow to panic or nicely proactive, but either way, I like the matter-of-fact and cautious approach being used. It sounds like they're aware of the danger and are proceeding forward in a reasonable manner.

[sunnykerr]

Down's syndrome DNA blood test 'better screening offer' A DNA blood test for Down's syndrome could save nearly all pregnant women from invasive tests like amniocentesis, say experts. Invasive testing takes place in 3% to 5% of pregnant women in the UK - some 30,000 women - and increases the risk of miscarriage. The new DNA blood test could bring this down to 0.1%, according to a study in the British Medical Journal. Around one woman in every 100 who has an invasive test will miscarry. Some faced with the dilemma choose not to go for a diagnostic test - which involves having a needle inserted into their bump to draw off a sample of placenta cells or some of the fluid that bathes the baby - particularly if their estimated risk of having a child with Down's syndrome is smaller than the chance of miscarriage. The non-invasive DNA blood test could offer another option. How it works Babies with Down's syndrome have an extra copy of chromosome 21, causing physical and intellectual impairments. As DNA can cross the placenta from the baby to the mother, the blood test can look for this extra chromosome. Scientists believe it should be rolled out as a screening test in the future based on their findings. The latest study - the largest to date, based on 753 pregnant women in Hong Kong, the UK and the Netherlands - shows that it could bring the number of invasive tests down significantly, by about 98%. This is because current NHS screening has a "false positive" rate of about 5%, meaning 5% will be told they are carrying a baby with Down's when they are not. If these women were given the DNA blood test instead, almost all invasive procedures could be avoided, according to the researchers. For example, each year in the UK some 30,000 pregnancy women undergo invasive testing and around 10% of these end up with a diagnosis of Down's. Doing a DNA blood test beforehand would mean fewer than 4,000 women would still need an invasive test. Professor Kypros Nicolaides of King's College London, who led the research along with colleagues from The Chinese University of Hong Kong, said the test would be welcomed by many women. "Some women, understandably, are fearful of invasive tests. "This extra screen is non-invasive and would save many from needing further investigation. "Our study shows it is feasible to use in clinical practice." He said the test was still too expensive and needed further study before it could be rolled out to be used routinely - something that could take 10 years. The ultimate goal is to make it 100% accurate so that invasive tests could be dispensed with completely. Currently, three women in every hundred that test positive would not actually have a baby with Down's. Professor Lyn Chitty of University College London has also been trialling Down's DNA blood tests. She said: "I suspect there are many women who would welcome such a test and it may lead to a lot more women accepting the offer for screening." But she said it would be important to counsel women about the shortcomings of test. "As yet, the results are not accurate enough to inform important decisions, like whether to continue the pregnancy."

Source

Between the fact that it reduces risks of miscarriage (which I don't think are necessarily all that great, but they are very real all the same) and the fact that these blood DNA tests seem more reliable, I think this is very good news for expectant mothers the world over.

[sunnykerr]

Smoking linked to earlier male deaths Smoking is the main reason why on average men die sooner than women across Europe, according to research. World Health Organization figures on death rates reveal tobacco-related illness accounts for up to 60% of the gender health gap in most countries. In the UK, women live an average of four years longer than men, although in recent years the gap has been closing. Second to smoking, alcohol accounts for about 20% of the disparity, the journal Tobacco Control reports. Some experts have claimed the difference is down to simple biology or the fact that women seek medical help more readily than men. But the latest findings suggest smoking is the main culprit. Across 30 European countries, which included the UK, deaths from all causes were higher for men than for women. Iceland and the UK ranked the lowest, with around 200 excess male deaths per 100,000 population each year, while Lithuania and Ukraine ranked the highest, at over 800 excess male deaths per 100,000. When the researchers looked at what had contributed to the deaths, they found smoking was behind 40% to 60% of the gender gap in all countries, except Denmark, Portugal and France, where it was lower, and Malta where it was much higher - at over 70%. In the UK, smoking-related diseases, such as lung cancer and heart disease, caused 60% of the excess male deaths. Dr Gerry McCartney, who led the research for the UK's Medical Research Council, said: "This study shows it's not simply a biological difference between men and women. "The fact that the gender gap varies between countries shows it is social causes, and largely smoking-related." He said it was promising that smoking rates were going down as more people decided to kick the habit. But he said there was a worrying trend of smoking and drinking now emerging among young women, which needed to be kept under close scrutiny. Although smoking is behaviour often tied up with other social factors - such as deprivation - that can impact on health, it is something that is relatively simple to tackle, say experts. Natasha Stewart, senior cardiac nurse at the British Heart Foundation, said: "It is never too late to give up smoking so it's important we invest in support services to help people quit the habit as well as ensuring our young people don't start smoking in the first place. "That's why we want to see the removal of displays of cigarettes from shops - a form of tobacco marketing which entices youngsters into a life addiction and health problems."

Source

Well, yeah, this is pretty obvious. Smoking is bad for you.

I wish they'd explored whether men die "more" (if that is the fact) because smoking affects them more or because they smoke more.

[Comfortably Numb]

Yep smoking kills.

[sunnykerr]

And alcohol, too. I know. Big shocker.

It's how they account for the gender disparity that was of interest to me. The overall conclusion wasn't so much of a shock.

[Comfortably Numb]

Results Highlights - Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey (CTUMS) 2009 - Health Canada


If these stats can be trusted it looks like less people are starting to smoke.

[sunnykerr]

Which would be a relief. And about freaking time.

[Comfortably Numb]

Really. It`s so much easier if you don`t start. Quitting is a real bitch.

[sunnykerr]

Wouldn't know. I've always been allergic and asthmatic. So, between column A and column B...

[Comfortably Numb]

I knew a guy in res who had asthma and he smoked. I thought he was even dumber than I was. People who have never been addicted to it can never truly understand trying to live without it.

[sunnykerr]

There's a whole thing, too, about having bigger odds of starting it up if your parents smoked. I'm not even sure that's a real fact, but everyone I know seems to take it for granted.

[Comfortably Numb]

I think so. My stepfather smoked and I started in the 7th grade. I think it`s related to access to cigarettes.

Current smoking

According to this it seems males smoke more. Females are more likely to be occassional smokers.