Panel urges lower cutoff for child lead poisoning

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
In this Thursday, Feb. 23, 2006 photo, contractors Luis Benitez, foreground, and Jose Diaz, background, clean up lead paint in a contaminated building in Providence, R.I. A federal panel recommended Wednesday, Jan. 4, 2012 that the threshold for lead poisoning in children should be lowered. If adopted by government officials, hundreds of thousands of additional U.S. children could be classified as having lead poisoning. Recent research persuaded panel members that children could suffer harm from concentrations of lead lower than the old standard, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials said. (AP Photo/Chitose Suzuki) In this Thursday, Feb. 23, 2006 photo, contractors Luis Benitez, foreground, and Jose Diaz, background, clean up lead paint in a contaminated building in Providence, R.I. A federal panel recommended Wednesday, Jan. 4, 2012 that the threshold for lead poisoning in children should be lowered. If adopted by government officials, hundreds of thousands of additional U.S. children could be classified as having lead poisoning. Recent research persuaded panel members that children could suffer harm from concentrations of lead lower than the old standard, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials said. (AP Photo/Chitose Suzuki)eval("var currentItemd57851005a80479aaeeb90a12c70b9ff = 1;");eval("var nextd57851005a80479aaeeb90a12c70b9ff = 0;");eval("var previousd57851005a80479aaeeb90a12c70b9ff = 0;"); ATLANTA (AP) — For the first time in 20 years, a federal panel is urging the government to lower the threshold for lead poisoning in children.

If adopted, hundreds of thousands more children could be diagnosed with lead poisoning. Too much lead is harmful to developing brains and can mean a lower IQ.

Recent research persuaded panel members that children could be harmed from lead levels in their blood that are lower than the current standard, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.

While the number of cases has been falling, health officials think as many as 250,000 children have the problem, many of those undiagnosed. The proposed change could take it to 450,000 cases.

Wednesday's vote by the Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention would lower the definition of lead poisoning for young children from 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood to 5 micrograms. The CDC has accepted all of the panel's recommendations in the past.

Lead — a metal that for years was common in paint and gasoline — can harm a child's brain, kidneys and other organs. High levels in the blood can cause coma, convulsions and death. Lower levels can reduce intelligence, impair hearing and behavior and cause other problems.

Usually, the victims are children living in old homes that are dilapidated or under renovation, who pick up paint chips or dust and put it in their mouths. Lead has been banned in paint since 1978. Children have also picked up lead poisoning from soil contaminated by old leaded gasoline, and from dust tracked in from industrial worksites.

Lead poisoning is detected through a blood test, often when kids are toddlers. Most cases are handled by seeking out and removing the lead source, and monitoring the children to make sure lead levels stay down. A special treatment to remove lead and other heavy metals is used for very high levels.

But the problem has seemed to be diminishing, based on the old standard. In 2009, researchers reported that 1.4 percent of young children had elevated lead levels in their blood in 2004, the latest data available. That compares with almost 9 percent in 1988.

The lead poisoning threshold was last changed in 1991. The proposed level of 5 micrograms was calculated from the highest lead levels seen in a comprehensive annual U.S. health survey. The panel recommended that it be reassessed every four years.

"It's a moving target," said Perry Gottesfeld, co-chair of the group that came up with the advice.

Some groups celebrated the decision, saying medical evidence has been mounting that lower levels of lead poisoning can erode a child's ability to learn and cause behavior problems.

"This is long overdue," said Ruth Ann Norton, executive director of the Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning, a Baltimore-based organization.

The recommendation might be difficult to implement. In many places, it's up to city and county health departments to provide many of the services for lead poisoned kids, and those departments have lost more than 34,000 jobs in the last three years because of budget cuts. Meanwhile, Congress just slashed the CDC's lead program from more than $30 million to $2 million.

"The CDC should accept the recommendation," said Robert Pestronk, executive director of the National Association of County and City Health Officials.

"(But) the grim reality is that local health departments and other community agencies don't have the person-power to identify and follow up on all these children," he said.

The panel's Gottesfeld acknowledged the challenge the new recommendations may pose.

"It's certainly going to put a great strain on local departments," he said.

___

CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/

Associated Press

Technology

News

Read More

Brain Food: Eating Fish May Lower Your Risk of Alzheimer's

IP is over the quota
IP is over the quota

Eating fish is good for the heart, and now new evidence suggests it may do the brain some good as well.

In a study of 260 healthy elderly participants, researchers led by Dr. Cyrus Raji, a resident at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center's department of medicine, found that those regularly eating baked or broiled fish — but not fried — lowered their risk of developing Alzheimer's disease.

Raji and his colleagues took brain scans of all of the volunteers at the start of the study, then again many years later, tracking these changes over an average 10 years. They compared the changes they found in the brain scans with food questionnaires that the participants answered. Compared with non-fish-eaters, those eating fish at least once a week showed less brain-cell loss in the hippocampus and frontal cortex regions of the brain, which are responsible for regulating memory. These people also showed stronger working, or short-term, memory, which allowed them to perform tasks more efficiently.

People who ate fish at least once a week — most of whom consumed fish one to four times a week — were significantly less likely to develop Alzheimer's disease or mild cognitive impairment over the five years following their brain scans, compared with those who didn't eat fish.

But the association may have to do with lifestyle habits other than eating baked or broiled fish that could make people healthier overall. As Dr. Richard Lipton, a neurologist at the Albert Einstein Medical College of Medicine, told USA Today, "One has to wonder if there are other factors associated with fish consumption that they didn't measure that might be protective. Like maybe people who eat fish exercise more, or eat less total calories."

The fact that fish-eaters may experience brain benefits from seafood does make sense, however — other studies have suggested that the omega-3 fatty acids found in some fish such as salmon can lower the risk of dementia and Alzheimer's.

The new findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America in Chicago.

Alice Park is a writer at TIME. Find her on Twitter at @aliceparkny. You can also continue the discussion on TIME's Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME.

News

Debt Financing

Read More

Can eating fish lower the risk of strokes?

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

n">(Reuters) - People who eat fish a few times each week are slightly less likely to suffer a stroke than those who only eat a little or none at all, according to an international analysis.

The omega-3 fatty acids in fish may lower stroke risk through their positive effects on blood pressure and cholesterol, wrote Susanna Larsson and Nicola Orsini of Sweden's Karolinska Institute in the journal Stroke.

Their analysis was based on 15 studies conducted in the United States, Europe, Japan and China, each of which asked people how frequently they ate fish, then followed them for between four and 30 years to see who suffered a stroke.

"I think overall, fish does provide a beneficial package of nutrients, in particular the omega-3s, that could explain this lower risk," said Dariush Mozaffarian, a Harvard School of Public Health epidemiologist whose research was included in the analysis.

"A lot of the evidence comes together suggesting that about two to three servings per week is enough to get the benefit."

Vitamin D, selenium, and certain types of proteins in fish may also have stroke-related benefits, he added.

Data for the analysis came from close to 400,000 people aged 30 to 103.

Over anywhere from a few years to a few decades, about 9,400 people had a stroke. Eating three extra servings of fish each week was linked to a six-percent drop in stroke risk, which translates to one fewer stroke among a hundred people eating extra fish over a lifetime.

The people in each study who ate the most fish were 12 percent less likely to have a stroke than those that ate the least.

Mozaffarian's report separated the effects of different kinds of fish and found that people who ate more fried fish and fish sandwiches, not surprisingly, didn't get any stroke benefit.

But the research can't prove that adding more non-fried fish to your diet will keep you from having a stroke, Mozaffarian told Reuters Health.

People "could have healthier diets in other ways, people could exercise more, people could have better education that could lead them to see their doctors more," he added, all of which could decrease their risk of strokes.

Still, most studies have tried to take those other health and nutrition factors into account to isolate the effects of fish as much as possible -- and they suggest a cause-and-effect relationship, he said.

It's likely that people who start out eating no fish or very little probably have the most to gain by putting it on their plate more often.

"You get a lot of bang for your buck when you go from low intake to moderate, a few servings per week," Mozaffarian said.

After that, the benefit from each extra serving probably goes down.

Fatty fish such as salmon and herring are especially high in omega-3s, The American Heart Association recommends at least two servings of fatty fish in particular each week. SOURCE: bit.ly/oe88xL

(Reporting from New York by Genevra Pittman at Reuters Health; editing by Elaine Lies)

View the original article here

Peliculas Online

Read More

Food for thought: can fish lower your stroke risk?

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Fresh sardines, caught just after sunrise, are on display at a fish market on Croatia's largest Adriatic city of Split Aug 20, 2004.

Credit: Reuters/ Matko Biljak

By Genevra Pittman

NEW YORK | Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:35pm EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - People who eat fish a few times each week are slightly less likely to suffer a stroke than those who only eat a little or none at all.

That's the conclusion of an analysis of 15 studies, each of which asked people how frequently they ate fish, then followed them for between four and 30 years to see who suffered a stroke.

"I think overall, fish does provide a beneficial package of nutrients, in particular the omega-3s, that could explain this lower risk," said Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a Harvard School of Public Health epidemiologist whose research was included in the analysis.

"A lot of the evidence comes together suggesting that about two to three servings per week is enough to get the benefit."

Close to 800,000 people in the U.S. have a stroke each year, and 136,000 die from it. Smoking, drinking, being overweight and having high blood pressure and cholesterol are all linked to a higher risk of stroke.

Dr. Susanna Larsson and Dr. Nicola Orsini of the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden wrote in the journal Stroke that omega-3 fatty acids in fish might lower stroke risk through their positive effects on blood pressure and cholesterol.

Vitamin D, selenium and certain types of proteins in fish may also have stroke-related benefits, Mozaffarian added.

Data for the analysis came from close to 400,000 people age 30 to 103. The studies were done in the U.S., Europe, Japan and China.

Over anywhere from a few years to a few decades, about 9,400 people had a stroke. Eating three extra servings of fish each week was linked to a six-percent drop in stroke risk, which translates to one fewer stroke among a hundred people eating extra fish over a lifetime.

And the people in each study who ate the most fish were 12 percent less likely to have a stroke that those that ate the least.

Mozaffarian's own report separated the effects of different kinds of fish and found that people who ate more fried fish and fish sandwiches didn't get any stroke benefit, not surprisingly.

But the research can't prove that adding more non-fried fish to your diet will keep you from having a stroke. People who eat a lot of fish, Mozaffarian told Reuters Health, "could have healthier diets in other ways, people could exercise more, people could have better education that could lead them to see their doctors more." All of those things might decrease their risk of stroke.

Still, he added, most studies have tried to take those other health and nutrition factors into account to isolate the effects of fish as much as possible -- and they suggest a cause-and-effect relationship.

It's likely, Mozaffarian said, that people who start out eating no fish or very little probably have the most to gain by putting it on their plate more often. "You get a lot of bang for your buck when you go from low intake to moderate, a few servings per week," he said. After that, the benefit from each extra serving probably goes down.

Fatty fish such as salmon and herring are especially high in omega-3s. The American Heart Association recommends at least two servings of fatty fish in particular each week.

SOURCE: bit.ly/oe88xL Stroke, online September 8, 2011.

View the original article here

Peliculas Online

Read More

Study: IUD's lower cervical cancer risk

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
Women who use IUDs are roughly half as likely to develop cervical cancer as women who have never used one, a study found.Intrauterine devices (IUDs) prevent unwanted pregnanciesAs an added benefit, they may also help protect against cervical cancerWomen who use IUDs are roughly half as likely to develop cervical cancer

(Health.com) -- Intrauterine devices (IUDs) prevent unwanted pregnancies, and as an added benefit they may also help protect against cervical cancer, according to a new study in the Lancet Oncology, a British medical journal.

Women who use IUDs are roughly half as likely to develop cervical cancer as women who have never used one, the study found. Nor does IUD use appear to increase the risk of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, a known cause of cervical cancer.

European researchers combined and analyzed data from nearly 20,000 women around the world who participated in various studies and surveys between 1985 and 2007. The new analysis does not prove that IUDs directly prevent cervical cancer; it simply suggests that the devices are associated with a lower risk of cancer for reasons that aren't fully understood.

Health.com: Which birth control method is best for you?

"This study does not show cause and effect," says Mehdi Moslemi-Kebria, M.D., a gynecologic oncologist at the Cleveland Clinic who was not involved in the new research. "For that you would need a prospective, randomized study. But this does tell us with pretty good accuracy that an IUD is not a risk factor for cervical cancer."

Compared to women who had never used an IUD, the study participants who had used the devices had 44% lower odds of developing squamous cell carcinoma, by far the most common type of cervical cancer. They also had 54% lower odds of developing adenocarcinoma cancers and a mixed type of cancer known as adenosquamous carcinoma.

Roughly 12,000 women in the U.S. -- the majority of them over 30 -- receive a cervical cancer diagnosis each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most cases are caused by a persistent infection with HPV, a common sexually transmitted virus that is usually defeated by the body's immune system. (Pap smears can tell if HPV is damaging the cervix.)

Health.com: Top 10 myths about safe sex

In the study, which was funded by the World Health Organization (WHO) and several other government and philanthropic organizations, IUD use neither increased nor decreased the risk of HPV infection. The rates of infection were the same among women who had used an IUD as among those who hadn't, even after researchers took into account various risk factors for HPV, such as a woman's number of sexual partners, the number of Pap smears she'd had in her life, and her menopausal status.

Although they have no firm evidence, the researchers speculate that the contraceptive devices may disrupt HPV's cancer-causing mechanism. The devices may cause a low-level immune-system response that fights cancer cells, for instance, or their insertion and withdrawal may physically remove precancerous lesions, the study notes.

Health.com: 7 common birth control side effects

"More research is definitely needed to study the biological mechanisms by which IUDs may induce this risk reduction," says the lead author of the study, Xavier Castellsagué, M.D., a cancer epidemiology researcher at the Institut Català d'Oncologia, in Barcelona, Spain.

Whatever the mechanism, it seems to work quickly. Women who used an IUD for less than a year were no more likely to be diagnosed with cervical cancer than women who'd had an IUD implanted for several years.

There are two kinds of IUD available in the U.S., both of which are T-shaped and made from molded plastic. One uses copper as a contraceptive, and the other prevents pregnancy by releasing the hormone progestin into the uterus. Both are extremely effective forms of birth control, but because the study did not include data on the type of IUD used, the authors were unable to assess whether one type of IUD is more likely than another to lower the risk of cervical cancer.

Health.com: Amazing moments in birth control

The new findings do not mean that women worried about cervical cancer should be fitted for an IUD, says Karl Ulrich Petry, M.D., a gynecologic oncologist at the Klinikum Wolfsburg, in Germany.

Petry, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study, points out that HPV testing and Pap smears already reduce the risk of cervical cancer by 80% to 90%.

"Women in countries with screening programs are well protected," he says. "Cervical cancer is a preventable disease -- we have more tools to prevent this cancer than any other malignancy in humans. Women should really use [HPV] vaccine and screening to protect themselves from this cancer."

Copyright Health Magazine 2010

View the original article here

Peliculas Online

Read More

HEALTH MANAGEMENT. Study: IUD's lower cervical cancer risk

Women who use IUDs are roughly half as likely to develop cervical cancer as women who have never used one, a study found.Intrauterine devices (IUDs) prevent unwanted pregnanciesAs an added benefit, they may also help protect against cervical cancerWomen who use IUDs are roughly half as likely to develop cervical cancer
(Health.com) -- Intrauterine devices (IUDs) prevent unwanted pregnancies, and as an added benefit they may also help protect against cervical cancer, according to a new study in the Lancet Oncology, a British medical journal.
Women who use IUDs are roughly half as likely to develop cervical cancer as women who have never used one, the study found. Nor does IUD use appear to increase the risk of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, a known cause of cervical cancer.
European researchers combined and analyzed data from nearly 20,000 women around the world who participated in various studies and surveys between 1985 and 2007. The new analysis does not prove that IUDs directly prevent cervical cancer; it simply suggests that the devices are associated with a lower risk of cancer for reasons that aren't fully understood.
Health.com: Which birth control method is best for you?
"This study does not show cause and effect," says Mehdi Moslemi-Kebria, M.D., a gynecologic oncologist at the Cleveland Clinic who was not involved in the new research. "For that you would need a prospective, randomized study. But this does tell us with pretty good accuracy that an IUD is not a risk factor for cervical cancer."
Compared to women who had never used an IUD, the study participants who had used the devices had 44% lower odds of developing squamous cell carcinoma, by far the most common type of cervical cancer. They also had 54% lower odds of developing adenocarcinoma cancers and a mixed type of cancer known as adenosquamous carcinoma.
Roughly 12,000 women in the U.S. -- the majority of them over 30 -- receive a cervical cancer diagnosis each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most cases are caused by a persistent infection with HPV, a common sexually transmitted virus that is usually defeated by the body's immune system. (Pap smears can tell if HPV is damaging the cervix.)
Health.com: Top 10 myths about safe sex
In the study, which was funded by the World Health Organization (WHO) and several other government and philanthropic organizations, IUD use neither increased nor decreased the risk of HPV infection. The rates of infection were the same among women who had used an IUD as among those who hadn't, even after researchers took into account various risk factors for HPV, such as a woman's number of sexual partners, the number of Pap smears she'd had in her life, and her menopausal status.
Although they have no firm evidence, the researchers speculate that the contraceptive devices may disrupt HPV's cancer-causing mechanism. The devices may cause a low-level immune-system response that fights cancer cells, for instance, or their insertion and withdrawal may physically remove precancerous lesions, the study notes.
Health.com: 7 common birth control side effects
"More research is definitely needed to study the biological mechanisms by which IUDs may induce this risk reduction," says the lead author of the study, Xavier Castellsagué, M.D., a cancer epidemiology researcher at the Institut Català d'Oncologia, in Barcelona, Spain.
Whatever the mechanism, it seems to work quickly. Women who used an IUD for less than a year were no more likely to be diagnosed with cervical cancer than women who'd had an IUD implanted for several years.
There are two kinds of IUD available in the U.S., both of which are T-shaped and made from molded plastic. One uses copper as a contraceptive, and the other prevents pregnancy by releasing the hormone progestin into the uterus. Both are extremely effective forms of birth control, but because the study did not include data on the type of IUD used, the authors were unable to assess whether one type of IUD is more likely than another to lower the risk of cervical cancer.
Health.com: Amazing moments in birth control
The new findings do not mean that women worried about cervical cancer should be fitted for an IUD, says Karl Ulrich Petry, M.D., a gynecologic oncologist at the Klinikum Wolfsburg, in Germany.
Petry, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study, points out that HPV testing and Pap smears already reduce the risk of cervical cancer by 80% to 90%.
"Women in countries with screening programs are well protected," he says. "Cervical cancer is a preventable disease -- we have more tools to prevent this cancer than any other malignancy in humans. Women should really use [HPV] vaccine and screening to protect themselves from this cancer."

Read More