[Nick HeyRee]

The more common controversy over here is the age at which schools should first tough on matters of sex education, along with what level of approval parents should have over their child's participation in such classes.

"Why don’t we just be honest with them upfront that sex outside marriage is devastating?"

Are they still hunting down witches in Utah or something? Jeez.

Originally Posted by Isa_DS (View Post) I didn't go to my doctor yesterday because I know think that you can find all the info on the Internet. I mean, what is the point of paying someone for some info when you can get it for free on the web ?

How much would you have had to have paid out of interest? An appointment with the doctor is free over here you see.

Internet diagnoses can lead to unnecessary worry though.

[Cristofle]

It's getting increasingly frustrating to see people like this claim that their religious freedom is being violated if they can't shove their religious beliefs onto everyone else and force said beliefs to become law, particularly in the field of health- first birth control coverage and now this. This proposed law is almost criminally irresponsible and seemingly based entirely on a personal (almost certainly religious) belief that one should not be allowed to have sex before marriage. That has no business being a law.

[Isa_DS]

Originally Posted by Nick HeyRee (View Post) How much would you have had to have paid out of interest? An appointment with the doctor is free over here you see. Internet diagnoses can lead to unnecessary worry though.

That s true. But generally, I think going to the doctor is becoming more and more a waste of time and money. Doctors are here on the internet ! That being said, when things get more serious than an headache and doesn't disapear by itself after a few days, you should go to a doctor for an live check.

[sunnykerr]

That s true. But generally, I think going to the doctor is becoming more and more a waste of time and money. Doctors are here on the internet ! That being said, when things get more serious than an headache and doesn't disapear by itself after a few days, you should go to a doctor for an live check.

It's a very good point, but it also goes back to Nick's question of how much it costs you all to go see a doctor.

Nick's in the UK. I'm in Canada. We both live in countries where booking an appointment with a doctor might be a gallactical waste of time, but it will never be a waste of money since health services are free.

Sometimes, wasting one's time isn't that bad because, especially when it comes to a doctor, at least you know there's nothing to worry about.

It's getting increasingly frustrating to see people like this claim that their religious freedom is being violated if they can't shove their religious beliefs onto everyone else and force said beliefs to become law, particularly in the field of health- first birth control coverage and now this. This proposed law is almost criminally irresponsible and seemingly based entirely on a personal (almost certainly religious) belief that one should not be allowed to have sex before marriage. That has no business being a law.

I agree with you. Especially in the context of this specific law.

By and large, I tend to have a lot of compassion for people in health who are fundamentally opposed to abortion. For one thing, I wouldn't want one of them to be in charge of helping a woman procure an abortion, you know? If they can't be objective about it, who knows who that would go.

But, also, it's hard for me to impose something that goes against a person's principles on them. Of course, no law does that. In fact, at this point in time, laws are all about preventing anyone from being forced to perform or to assist a doctor who is performing an abortion.

To the point where abortion services are quite scarce. It's in Kansas that there are only three abortion providers, right? Not clinics. Three doctors willing to perform abortions.

So while I have nothing against a person following their conscience in that regard, I do think there are other jobs so a person who feels that strongly about an issue should perhaps not work in obstetrics. There are other fields of medicine.

But, back to the law about contraception education... that just takes the cake, doesn't it? I mean, if one had to sit and think of the quickest way to decrease abortion rates... I would imaging proper sex ed would be near the top of a very short list.

[Barstool Prophet]

Playground smoke ban closer

Playground smoke ban closer EDMONTON JOURNALMARCH 6, 2012 A proposed ban on smoking near playgrounds and sports fields passed another hurdle Monday. Under new amendments to the city bylaw, anyone caught smoking within 10 metres of a spray park, ice rink or sports field or other children's play area would be fined $250. Councillors passed the motion at the community services committee meeting Monday. It goes to city council next week. If smoking near children's outdoor spaces is banned, the city would also launch a $75,000 public awareness strategy.

I think this is taking things too far. First it's outside. Who owns the air? If we are so concerned with health, lets deal with all the things we are pumping into the atmosphere.
Second, how are smokers going to take their kids to the park?

[sunnykerr]

Well, as someone who's allergic to cigarette smoke and whose historically had a really hard time encouraging her brothers in their sporting endeavours because of smokers...

I say this is awesome.

I can't imagine that smokers can't possibly walk a little further when they already have to walk outside in the workplace.

[Avatar]

While I think the smoking law here is great - no smoking inside restaurants, bars and clubs - I think you should normally be able to smoke in the free without any restrictions. Though to be fair, ten meters is not a long distance - and if it prevents kids and onlookers from passive smoke then it may be worth it after all.

[Barstool Prophet]

I think it's taking it a little too far.. but I am extremely biased.

[sunnykerr]

I really, really get that.

But, again, as someone who chokes on air almost daily just walking on the sidewalk, because of smokers, I also have my own bias.

I have no desire to impinge on anyone's rights, but I also don't particularly enjoy feeling like I'm about to cough up a lung every time I cross someone who is smoking.

Plus, on the health thread? I don't know, I'm gonna side with the kids playing sports here and say that, perhaps, keeping smokers ten metres away is for the greater good.

[sunnykerr]

Coke and Pepsi alter recipe to avoid cancer warning Coca-Cola and Pepsi are changing the recipes for their drinks to avoid being legally obliged to put a cancer warning label on the bottle. The new recipe for caramel colouring in the drinks has less 4-methylimidazole (4-MEI) - a chemical which California has added to its list of carcinogens. The change to the recipe has already been introduced in California but will be rolled out across the US. Coca-Cola says there is no health risk to justify the change. 'No risk' Spokeswoman Diana Garza-Ciarlante told the Associated Press news agency they wanted to ensure their products "would not be subject to the requirement of a scientifically unfounded warning". The chemical has been linked to cancer in mice and rats, according to one study, but there is no evidence that it poses a health risk to humans, said the American Beverage Association, which represents the wider industry. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) claims a person would need to drink more than 1,000 cans of Coke or Pepsi a day to take in the same dose of the chemical that was given to the animals in the lab test. Coca-Cola and PepsiCo account for nearly 90% of the US fizzy drink market, according to one industry tracker, Beverage Digest. The companies say changing their recipes across the whole of the US, not just in California, makes the drinks more efficient to manufacture. In a statement Coca-Cola added that the manufacturing process across Europe would not change. It said that apart from California "not one single regulatory agency around the world considers the exposure of the public to 4-MEI as present in caramels as an issue".

Source

Methinks that, if they bothered to change the formula, they either anticipate that the risk is higher than it is or they feel their clientele is litigeous.

I mean, I understand that you can't recoup from a negative association to the brand name. But, let's face it, pop can dissolve a tooth given the time, so it's not like anyone is walking around thinking pop is good for you.

We all know the only think pop is good for is to take the gunk off your car battery.

[sunnykerr]

Daily aspirin 'prevents and possibly treats cancer' Taking a low dose of aspirin every day can prevent and possibly even treat cancer, fresh evidence suggests. The three new studies published by The Lancet add to mounting evidence of the drug's anti-cancer effects. Many people already take daily aspirin as a heart drug. But experts warn that there is still not enough proof to recommend it to prevent cancer cases and deaths and warn that the drug can cause dangerous side effects like stomach bleeds. Prof Peter Rothwell, from Oxford University, and colleagues, who carried out the latest work, had already linked aspirin with a lower risk of certain cancers, particularly bowel cancer. But their previous work suggested people needed to take the drug for about 10 years to get any protection. Now the same experts believe the protective effect occurs much sooner - within three to five years - based on a new analysis of data from 51 trials involving more than 77,000 patients. And aspirin appears not only to reduce the risk of developing many different cancers in the first place, but may also stop cancers spreading around the body. The trials were designed to compare aspirin with no treatment for the prevention of heart disease. But when Prof Rothwell's team examined how many of the participants developed and died from cancer, they found this was also related to aspirin use. Halting cancer spread Taking a low (75-300mg) daily dose of the drug appeared to cut the total number of cancer cases by about a quarter after only three years - there were nine cancer cases per 1,000 each year in the aspirin-taking group, compared with 12 per 1,000 for those taking dummy pills. It also reduced the risk of a cancer death by 15% within five years (and sooner if the dose was higher than 300mg) And if patients stayed on aspirin for longer, their cancer death risk went down even further - by 37% after five years. Low-dose aspirin also appeared to reduce the likelihood that cancers, particularly bowel, would spread (metastasise) to other parts of the body, and by as much as half in some instances. In absolute numbers, this could mean for every five patients treated with aspirin one metastatic cancer would be prevented, the researchers estimate. At the same time, aspirin cut the risk of heart attacks and strokes, but it also increased the risk of a major bleed. However this elevated bleeding risk was only seen in the first few years of aspirin therapy and decreased after that. Critics point out that some of the doses given in the study were much higher than the 75mg dose typically given in the UK. Also, some very large US studies looking at aspirin use were not included in the analysis. The researchers acknowledge both of these points in their published papers. Prof Rothwell says for most fit and healthy people, the most important things they can do to reduce their lifetime cancer risk is to give up smoking, take exercise and have a healthy diet. After that aspirin does seem to reduce the risk further - only by a small amount if there is no risk factor, but if there is a family history for something like colorectal cancer, it tips the balance in favour of aspirin, he said. Prof Peter Johnson, of Cancer Research UK, said it was still a good idea for people thinking of taking aspirin to discuss it with their GP because of the possible side effects. But he said the work was exciting and suggested aspirin might be beneficial for treating and preventing cancer, which is something the charity is exploring in its own research. "We now need some definitive advice from the government as to whether aspirin should be recommended more widely," he said. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), which issues treatment guidelines for the NHS, has not yet been asked by the government to look at the topic but a spokesman for the Department of Health said they were considering how best to advise the public about the benefits and risks of aspirin.

Source

I know the test runs don't sound like much at present, but they're satistically significant.

Mind you, as someone who has recurring stomach issues, the side effects discussed are just as important.

Still, I thought this was neat information to share.

[i never learn]

new hope for breast cancer patients that opt for reconstruction thanks to akron researcher akron, ohio - a university of akron researcher, who watched a loved one die from cancer, took charge of the deadly disease in her mind. She couldn't stop thinking of how to beat it, so no one has to go through what she watched her family suffer from. After years of working closely with big name cancer experts across the country, she is now developing a safer breast implant for women who opt for reconstruction after a breast cancer diagnosis. During the process of reconstruction following mastectomy, a new kind of implant could actually fight infection, scarring and even cancer. Dr. Judit puskas from the university of akron has designed a new material to help prepare the breast for reconstruction. What's different about this procedure is the implant will have a polymer coating on it that could actually help destroy cancer cells. She also envisions having the option of adding more or taking away the medication depending on the needs of the patient. Dr. Puskas said, "normally, they have the dosage per kilogram of body weight, so this is how they dose the cancer drug. You can add less drugs and it's right there at the vicinity of the cancer cells so it will be more effective." she also said she feels that can possibly be done through a simple shot. But that is still in the working phase of this ground-breaking medical development in breast cancer. This coating that will be embedded in the breast implant will help fight infection and inflammation, but dr. Puskas said that's not all. "the implant will also directly target and destroy cancer cells all around the original cancer site, like a bullet." board certified plastic surgeon for the akron plastic surgeon's and akron general hospital, dr. John pedersen, said there is a real need for this new implant. Dr. Pendersen said, "you can almost liken this to a smart implant where the implant is actually tailored beyond what we have now as a static instrument for reconstruction or augmentation. It's something that will actually treat and see cancer. There's not always 100-percent assurance necessarily of every bit of every cell of cancer gone. This allows that to be detected and treated." tuesday, this discovery and idea was highly recognized. Dr. Judit puskas received international recognition from ge healthcare as one of five of the most exciting and innovative ideas in the battle against breast cancer. The “ge healthymagination cancer challenge” will provide initial funding, mentorship and incubation in order to try to bring dr. Puskas’ discoveries to market. She’s also eligible to receive more funding in the coming months. So far, tests being done in the lab are showing great promise. Especially because right now, chemotherapy can only go through the body, and try to destroy the cancer cells, it can't go to the direct target which in this case is the breast and tissue around it. Dr. Puskas hopes to see a prototype of the implant on the market in the next few years, and the final product completed in the next 10 years. Ua holds the patent application on this process of delivering drugs through the new implant. source

this was such a hopeful read for me since my mom has breast cancer, so i thought i'd share. i'm definitely more and more blown away by the waves people are trying to make to battle all types of cancer though.

[sunnykerr]

A cancer-fighting breast implant... I hope that works.

It would certainly be good news for women who have to deal with breast cancer.

[sunnykerr]

US obesity 'higher than thought' The obesity problem in the US may be much worse than previously thought, according to researchers. They said using the Body Mass Index or BMI to determine obesity was underestimating the issue. Their study, published in the journal PLoS One, said up to 39% of people who were not currently classified as obese actually were. The authors said "we may be much further behind than we thought" in tackling obesity. BMI is a simple calculation which combines a person's height and weight to give a score which can be used to diagnose obesity. Somebody with a BMI of 30 or more is classed as obese. The US Centers for Disease Control says at least one in three Americans is obese. Many more? Other ways of diagnosing obesity include looking at how much of the body is made up of fat. A fat percentage of 25% or more for men or 30% or more for women is the threshold for obesity. One of the researchers Dr Eric Braverman said: "The Body Mass Index is an insensitive measure of obesity, prone to under-diagnosis, while direct fat measurements are superior because they show distribution of body fat." The team at the New York University School of Medicine and the Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, looked at records from 1,393 people who had both their BMI and body fat scores measured. Their data showed that most of the time the two measures came to the same conclusion. However, they said 539 people in the study - or 39% - were not labelled obese according to BMI, but their fat percentage suggested they were. They said the disparity was greatest in women and became worse when looking at older groups of women. "Greater loss of muscle mass in women with age exacerbates the misclassification of BMI," they said. They propose changing the thresholds for obesity: "A more appropriate cut-point for obesity with BMI is 24 for females and 28 for males." A BMI of 24 is currently classed as a "normal" weight. "By our cut-offs, 64.1% or about 99.8 million American women are obese," they said. It is not the first time BMI has been questioned. A study by the University of Leicester said BMIs needed to be adjusted according to ethnicity. Last year in the BBC's Scrubbing Up column, nutrition expert Dr Margaret Ashwell advocated using waist-to-height ratio to determine obesity. She said: "It is a real worry that using BMI alone for screening could miss people who are at risk from central obesity and might also be alarming those whose risk is not as great as it appears from their BMI."

Source



I'm not sure how reliable this story is, but it clearly doesn't take into consideration that very big women can be perfectly healthy. That has also been proven.

There are big people who have significant health risks, such as high blood pressure and diabetes, and there are big people who are active and healthy and who are just big.

Mind you, that's just my opinion. Any thoughts?

[Cristofle]

Well, this is encouraging, and certainly an argument for increased sexual education regarding contraception in schools.

The new numbers elaborate on federal data released in November that found the teen birthrate dropped 9% from 2009 to 2010, to a historic low of 34.3 births per 1,000 teens. That's down 44% from 61.8 in 1991. The all-time high was 96.3 during the Baby Boom year of 1957. The new analysis, based on 2010 preliminary data, shows a range in birthrates among racial and ethnic groups, from 10.9 for Asians to 23.5 for whites, 51.5 for blacks and 55.7 for Hispanics. "The fact that states with high Hispanic populations still show declines speaks to the more general pattern of increasing contraceptive use and declining teen births," says Laura Lindberg, a senior research associate with the non-profit Guttmacher Institute in New York. Her analysis of federal data for a report in December found no change in the percentage of sexually active teen girls but significant increases in use of contraception, which suggests contraception is driving the numbers. Contraceptive use the first time a girl has sex "has gone up dramatically," she says, noting that the elimination of pelvic exams before receiving prescriptions for hormonal methods, as well as use of long-acting methods such as IUDs, suggest teens are taking contraception seriously.

Birthrate for U.S. teens is lowest in history – USATODAY.com