Tag Archives: environmental

Unexpected discovery of the ways cells move could boost understanding of complex diseases

The study appears June 23, 2013 in an advance online edition of Nature Materials. "We were trying to understand the basic relationship between collective cellular motions and collective cellular forces, as might occur during cancer cell invasion, for example. But in doing so we stumbled onto a phenomenon that was totally unexpected," said senior author Jeffrey Fredberg, professor of bioengineering and physiology in the HSPH Department of Environmental Health and co-senior investigator of HSPH’s Molecular and Integrative Cellular Dynamics lab. Biologists, engineers, and physicists from HSPH and IBEC worked together to shed light on collective cellular motion because it plays a key role in functions such as wound healing, organ development, and tumor growth. …

Scientists say new study shows pig health hurt by GMO feed

Pigs fed a diet of only genetically modified grain showed markedly higher stomach inflammation than pigs who dined on conventional feed, according to a new study by a team of Australian scientists and U.S. researchers. The study adds to an intensifying public debate over the impact of genetically modified crops, which are widely used by U.S. and Latin American farmers and in many other countries around the world. The study was published in the June issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Organic Systems by researchers from Australia who worked with two veterinarians and a farmer in Iowa to study the U.S. pigs. Lead researcher Judy Carman is an epidemiologist and biochemist and director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research in Adelaide, Australia. The study was conducted over 22.7 weeks using 168 newly weaned pigs in a commercial U.S. piggery. One group of 84 ate a diet that incorporated genetically modified (GM) soy and corn, and the other group of 84 pigs ate an equivalent non-GM diet. The corn and soy feed was obtained from commercial suppliers, the study said, and the pigs were reared under identical housing and feeding conditions. The pigs were then slaughtered roughly five months later and autopsied by veterinarians who were not informed which pigs were fed on the GM diet and which were from the control group. Researchers said there were no differences seen between pigs fed the GM and non-GM diets for feed intake, weight gain, mortality, and routine blood biochemistry measurements. But those pigs that ate the GM diet had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation - 32 percent of GM-fed pigs compared to 12 percent of non-GM-fed pigs. The inflammation was worse in GM-fed males compared to non-GM fed males by a factor of 4.0, and GM-fed females compared to non-GM-fed females by a factor of 2.2. As well, GM-fed pigs had uteri that were 25 percent heavier than non-GM fed pigs, the study said. The researchers said more long-term animal feeding studies need to be done. Biotech seeds are genetically altered to grow into plants that tolerate treatments of herbicide and resist pests, making producing crops easier for farmers. Some critics have argued for years that the DNA changes made to the transgenic plants engineer novel proteins that can be causing the digestive problems in animals and possibly in humans. The companies that develop these transgenic crops, using DNA from other bacteria and other species, assert they are more than proven safe over their use since 1996. CropLife International, a global federation representing the plant science industry, said more than 150 scientific studies have been done on animals fed biotech crops and to date, there is no scientific evidence of any detrimental impact.source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/06/12/scientists-say-new-study-shows-pig-health-hurt-by-gmo-feed/

Swap out soda to take control of your teeth

Soda, we’ve long been told, is bad for us. Various studies have linked significant soda consumption with alarming health concerns, such as an increased risk of having a stroke, getting certain cancers, and being one of the main causes for this country’s obesity epidemic. Yet countless people around the world consume soda on a near-daily basis, often multiple times a day. It seems as much an addiction as anything else, only perfectly legal, freely available, and comparatively cheap. Its most recent bout of bad press indicated that regular diet soda consumption does as much damage to the teeth as years of smoking crystal meth or crack cocaine. Though it is free of sugar, diet soda is highly acidic, and acid wears away at teeth’s protective enamel layer, leaving your pearly whites more prone to cavities, cracks or discoloration.   The case study comparing soda drinking to hard drug use only used three test subjects, and the results were not terribly conclusive.  However, it raises the question of how what we eat or drink affects our teeth; how the health of our teeth affects the rest of the body; and the most natural options for oral hygiene care. As your dentist (and mom) probably always told you, sugary, starchy foods and beverages cause tooth decay. This covers a large part of the food spectrum that is unhealthy in other ways, too. Sugary, starchy foods and beverages can lead to weight gain, diabetes and heart disease. Fill your mouth and your tummy with calcium-rich foods like organic dark leafy greens, yogurt, or soybeans.  Studies have shown that calcium re-mineralizes damaged teeth, as does phosphorous. You can find the latter in broccoli, garlic, nuts and beans. Coincidentally, all of these foods are great for the rest of your body, providing hefty amounts of vitamins, probiotics and antioxidants that fight and prevent disease. Poor oral hygiene affects the rest of your body as well, as bacterial infections generated in the mouth can spread to other parts of your body, like your heart. According to the Mayo Clinic, research also suggests that heart disease, clogged arteries and stroke might be linked to inflammation caused by oral bacteria. Additionally, people who have gum disease appear to have a harder time controlling their blood sugar levels, which can lead to diabetes. Those looking to take control of their teeth can try implementing a holistic approach to oral care. Natural health expert Dr. Joseph Mercola recommends a wholesome diet of unprocessed, low-sugar, organic foods to start. As for toothpaste, there has long been a debate over the safety and efficacy of fluoride, a chemical added to toothpaste, mouthwash, and floss to strengthen teeth and prevent cavities.  It is often added to city and community water supplies for the same purpose. But even the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency notes that excessive exposure to fluoride may increase the likelihood of bone fracture in adults or cause “pits” to develop in the tooth enamel of children.  If you’re concerned about fluoride’s possible health implications, opt for fluoride-free toothpaste or those with the cavity-fighter xylitol, which are easier than ever to locate.  Many types of toothpaste also contain chemical sweeteners like sorbitol and saccharin; look for those made instead with natural sugar substitutes like stevia or xylitol. We spend so much time and energy thinking about the health of our hearts, lungs, brains, bones and other more obvious body parts. Spend a little more time thinking about your teeth, and chances are you’ll feel better everywhere else, too. Note: Information provided herein is not intended to treat or diagnose any health condition. As always, consult your health care provider with any questions or health concerns.Deirdre Imus, Founder of the site devoted to environmental health, dienviro.org, is President and Founder of The Deirdre Imus Environmental Health Center™ at Hackensack & University Medical Center and Co-Founder/Co-Director of the Imus Cattle Ranch for Kids with Cancer. She is a New York Times best-selling author and a frequent contributor to FoxNewsHealth.com, and Fox Business Channel. Check out her website at dienviro.org. 'Like' her Facebook page& here.source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/06/10/swap-out-soda-to-take-control-your-teeth/

Disinfecting robot zaps superbugs

A new breakthrough in superbug fighting technology is changing the way patients view hospitals—and it goes by the name TRU-D. The Total Room Ultraviolet Disinfector uses a modified germicidal light to zap bacteria and viruses, and with just one use, it has 99.9 percent disinfection of bacteria and spores, such as influenza and norovirus. “It stops the bacterial organisms from reproducing, and any organism that can't reproduce can't colonize on a patients’ body,” said Michael Hossary, director of environmental services at Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital in New Brunswick, N.J. The TRU-D robot is used in patient isolation areas like the operating room and intensive care unit. After being placed in the room, all drawers are opened, all doors are closed and safety signs are put outside the room to ensure no one enters. The robot is then activated remotely. TRU-D’s Sensor360 technology automatically calculates the UV dose required to disinfect a room. It takes anywhere from 30 minutes to 2.5 hours and can destroy deadly superbugs like C. difficile and MRSA. According to the Centers for Disease Control, C. difficile is linked to 14,000 American deaths each year. TRU-D is only used after traditional hospital cleaning methods are used. “Traditional cleanup methods for isolation patients usually include use of germicidal chemicals on all high touch point surfaces, replacement of the curtains, washing of the walls to ensure patient safety and reduce infection rates,” Hossary said. Over 100 devices are now being used in hospitals across the U.S. and Canada, and Hossary said it’s just one more step to keep patients healthy – especially since most people who visit the hospital are already apprehensive. “It's not easy knowing that you have to go to the hospital,” Hossary said. “Whether it’s for elective surgery or some unexpected event that happens in your life where you have to end up in the ER. So the uncertainty is definitely there, and we want to give patients a piece of mind for that.”source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/06/05/disinfecting-robot-zaps-superbugs/

Cancer and birth defects in Iraq: The nuclear legacy

The radioactive element uranium is widely dispersed throughout Earth’s crust and is much sought after as a fuel for nuclear power plants and for use in weapons. Depleted uranium (DU), commonly used in modern munitions such as defensive armour plating and armour-piercing projectiles, is 40 per cent less radioactive than natural uranium, but remains a significant and controversial danger to human health. The World Health Organisation (WHO) sets a maximum uranium exposure of 1 millisievert (mSv) per year for the general public, but environmental scientists at the University of Mosul and the Institute of Forest Ecology, Universitaet für Bodenkultur (BOKU), Vienna, Austria, led by Riyad Abdullah Fathi have measured significant levels of uranium in soil samples from three sites in the province of Nineveh in the north of Iraq. Writing in the journal Medicine, Conflict and Survival, Fathi and colleagues link their findings with dramatic increases in cancers reported to the Mosul Cancer Registry and the Iraqi national cancer registry (which began collecting data in 1975)…

Consumer group flags high SPF ratings on sunscreen as misleading

WASHINGTON – & Sunbathers headed to the beach this summer will find new sunscreen labels on store shelves that are designed to make the products more effective and easier to use. But despite those long-awaited changes, many sunscreens continue to carry SPF ratings that some experts consider misleading and potentially dangerous, according to a consumer watchdog group. A survey of 1,400 sunscreen products by the Environmental Working Group finds that most products meet new federal requirements put in place last December. The rules from the Food and Drug Administration ban terms like “waterproof,” which regulators consider misleading, and require that sunscreens filter out both ultraviolet A and B rays. Previously some products only blocked UVB rays, which cause most sunburn, while providing little protection against UVA rays that pose the greatest risk of skin cancer and wrinkles. Despite that broader protection, one in seven products reviewed by the watchdog group boasted sun protection factor, or SPF, ratings above 50, which have long been viewed with skepticism by experts. In part, that's because SPF numbers like 100 or 150 can give users a false sense of security, leading them to stay in the sun long after the lotion has stopped protecting their skin. Many consumers assume that SPF 100 is twice as effective as SPF 50, but dermatologists say the difference between the two is actually negligible. Where an SPF 50 product might protect against 97 percent of sunburn-causing rays, an SPF 100 product might block 98.5 percent of those rays. “The high SPF numbers are just a gimmick,” says Marianne Berwick, professor of epidemiology at the University of New Mexico. “Most people really don't need more than an SPF 30 and they should reapply it every couple of hours.” Berwick says sunscreen should be used in combination with hats, clothing and shade, which provide better protection against ultraviolet radiation. Some dermatologists say there may be some rationale for using higher SPF sunscreens, since users often don't apply enough of the lotion to get its full effect. “The challenge is that beyond 50 the increase in UV protection is relatively small,” says Dr. Henry Lim, chair of dermatology at the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit. The SPF number indicates the amount of sun exposure needed to cause sunburn on sunscreen-protected skin compared with unprotected skin. For example, a SPF rating of 30 means it would take the person 30 times longer to burn wearing sunscreen than with exposed skin. There is a popular misconception that the SPF figure relates to a certain number of hours spent in the sun. However this is incorrect, since the level of exposure varies by geography, time of day and skin complexion. The FDA itself said in 2011 that “labeling a product with a specific SPF value higher than 50 would be misleading to the consumer.” At the time the agency proposed capping all SPF values at 50 because “there is not sufficient data to show that products with SPF values higher than 50 provide greater protection for users.” But regulators have faced pushback from companies, including Johnson & Johnson, which argue that higher SPF products provide measurable benefits. As a result, the FDA says it is still reviewing studies and comments submitted by outside parties, and there is no deadline for the agency to finalize an SPF cap. It took the agency decades to put in place last year's sunscreen changes. FDA first announced its intent to draft sunscreen rules in 1978 and published them in 1999. The agency then delayed finalizing the regulations for years until it could address concerns from both industry and consumers. The FDA is also reviewing the safety of effectiveness of spray-on products, which use different formulations from other sun-protection solutions. Among other concerns, the agency is looking at whether the sprays can be harmful when inhaled. The survey by the Environmental Working Group found that one in four sunscreens sold in the U.S. is a spray product. “People like the sprays because they are quick to put on and cover a lot of area,” said Dr. Darrell Rigel, a dermatologist in New York.  ”The downside is that you usually have to apply two coats.” More than 76,000 men and women in the U.S. will be diagnosed with melanoma this year and 9,480 are expected to die from the aggressive form of skin cancer, according to the National Cancer Institute. The disease, which is often linked to ultraviolet exposure, is usually curable when detected early.source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/20/consumer-group-flags-high-spf-ratings-on-sunscreenas-misleading/