Friday, April 29, 2011

The world, she is a dangerous place

If I were mother earth, I'd be pretty pissed off at humankind. And if I believed in a mother earth, I'd totally believe she's pretty pissed off. I mean, how else would you explain the glut of tornadoes in the south? That's clearly retribution for the fact that there's still a giant hole in the ozone layer (Side note: Is it shocking that until recently I did not realize that the ozone hole is still a problem?). Or, you know, the tornadoes might just be retribution for climate change in general. Or not. We don't know.

This is actually what I'm most concerned about in general: We don't know. All things considered, caveatting this statement with my rudimentary understanding of science and nature, we barely know anything about the ultimate consequences of what we're doing to the world. Even scarier, if my friends are at all representative of most people, we don't much care to know. I can't tell you the number of times I've tried to tell someone something about disease or climate change or death or disaster (I'm a great person to invite to parties, by the way) only to hear, 'I don't want to know! Stop talking!' People: Ignorance may be bliss, but complacency kills. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence! (Side note: I'm getting a lot of new catch phrases from the reading I've been doing for this blog. I like it. Almost time to make a cartoon about me! ...Or unfriend me, as the case may be.)

Related: Want to know where (in America) you are most likely to die from weather-related incidents? There's a map for that! (Ha, good pun, self.)

****

In non-weather related news, I learned yesterday about some new ways to contract illness and/or get paralyzed:

1. Touching armadillos = leprosy.

Yep, according to a study that I read about on the NPR website, touching raw armadillo meat can give you leprosy. Finally, vindication for my fear of touching raw meat! Not that I've ever touched raw armadillo. But that would fall under my "ew" category just as much as chicken and beef. (Funniest part of the NPR article: right after warning you to avoid touching armadillo, they link to an armadillo chili recipe on some website...called yumyum.com.)

Related: Want to know where the most cases of leprosy occur in the US? There's a map for that too! (Less funny pun the second time, but still a true statement.)

2. Trying surfing for the first time = paralyzed.

While idly surfing the net last night, I came across a website I probably shouldn't know about called OMG Facts. One of the facts that I read actually did make me go OMG, so I shall share it with you: There's a documented medical condition called surfer's myelopathy, in which, when you try surfing for the first time, you could end up paralyzed. (To be fair, the condition can actually be caused by any activity in which you hyper-extend your back, but is most often (or most sensationally?) caused by surfing for the first time. I know! OMG, right??)

I don't want to sound alarmist (ha! of course I do!), but my discovery of this disorder means I am likely never to go in the ocean again. Not that I often go in it at the moment--I am already scared of the ocean, what with jellyfish and sharks and weird fish and all. AND, believe it or not, I have already been kind of worried about ocean-related paralysis, thanks to the "community water safety" segment I had to take in my 12th grade gym class (taught by Ms. Miller, she of the four-inch-long bedazzled fingernails). I vividly remember sitting in the humid pool room, on the bleachers, watching a video in which a man describes (and an actor reenacts) running into the ocean, encountering a wave, and ending up paralyzed (here's a similar story). The lesson I learned from this video was not to be careful, but rather to avoid the ocean at all costs. At that point in my life I had only ever been swimming in the ocean once (actually, the gulf of Mexico), and I found it to be an extremely unpleasant, salty experience. So avoiding the ocean, which I've done fairly successfully since 12th grade (three Hawaii trips excluded), really isn't too difficult for me. I might live in Los Angeles, but I think I've gone within an eighth of a mile of the ocean maybe ten times in the five years I've been here. Do I want to go to the beach? You mean, do I want to sit out on a swath of sand with hoards of people, roasting in the cancerous sun, sand getting in everything, wind whipping the pages around on the book I'm trying to read, with the risk of paralysis (or shark bite) if I try to get in the water? I'll pass, thanks.

With that happy thought, I wish you a tornado-, paralysis- and armadillo-free weekend! XOXO.

Did you know armadillos can swim? Me neither!

Thursday, April 28, 2011

What's at stake

This is what we are destroying with our ignorance and greed.*


The Mountain from Terje Sorgjerd on Vimeo.


*The natural world, I mean. Not the ability of humans to capture such beautiful images using hunks of (probably toxic) plastic.

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Well isn't this just the pits!*

Not many people know this about me, but body odor is one of my least favorite smells ever. I have extremely vivid memories of the first time I ever smelled BO...I was standing behind Stephanie Whateverhenamewas, in the Boynton middle school gym, and when she raised up her arms to shoot a basketball I almost keeled over and died. I simply did not understand how a single human being could release so much stench--I didn't even know it was possible. That fateful and smelly gym class has forever etched itself in my memory, and ever since then I have been an avid deodorant/antiperspirant user. Mostly because I'd like to avoid scarring others like Stephanie scarred me...but also because I hate sweating. A lot.

Of course, I've spent over a decade now slathering mysterious white goo on my armpits, and I've never bothered to find out what kind of awful chemicals are in the deodorant I use. And then yesterday I see this on my Google reader. Turns out deodorant is full of all kinds of things that no good human being should have in or on their body...or so I gathered from the ten seconds I spent reading that Good article and some other random sites, including this one about "body burden," before I had to quit out of despair.

To quote the girl who pulled the stunt that ultimately brought the issue to my attention:
Ingredients in...deodorants are linked to developmental and reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity, and organ system toxicity. Specifically, Secret Deodorant contains Butane, a chemical linked to allergies, immunotoxicity, and organ system toxicity, and 18% Aluminum Chlorohydrate, which is linked to developmental and reproductive toxicity and neurotoxicity. The product also contains Dimethicone, a silicone emollient, which coats the skin not allowing toxins out. It may promote tumors and accumulate in the liver and lymph nodes.

Secret is the brand of deodorant I've always used! Oh god! I don't know what to do! Do I poison myself and not smell, or smell and not poison myself? It's a classic catch 22. (Wait...maybe not....wow I just spent half an hour clicking links off of that Wikipedia page; there is some interesting stuff out there. Why can't my job be reading Wikipedia? (Related.))

This morning while I was getting ready to start my day, I spent a good long minute staring at my deoderant, wondering if I should put it on at the risk of poisoning my organs. I ultimately did use it because at the moment I have no viable alternative (letting myself smell and sweat is unacceptable), but I don't know if I can in good conscience continue to use a toxic tube of cancer much longer. What to do, people? What to do? (To make a sad story sadder, I just bought a new tube of deodorant over the weekend. Of course.)

Alas alack, I suppose it was only a matter of time before this blog started to terrify me for real...all I can say is I'm just glad I don't wear makeup, or use many skin care products at all. Just imagine what is in that stuff--I'm sure it's not good. Take that, everyone who ever told me I should wear makeup!

***

Wait! A! Second!! The problem is solved! Joan Rivers uses vodka as deodorant. Yes, really. That totally seems like something I can get behind, as long as I don't end up smelling like a drunk hobo. Maybe I'll look into using vodka to make my own deodorant this weekend. Lest you think I'm kidding, I assure you that I wouldn't put it past me. It certainly sounds better than writing my dissertation.




*It's a pun! Get it? Har har!

Thursday, April 21, 2011

More like speed-up-the-spread-of-communicable-diseases day

Apparently today is national high-five day...I know, I didn't know such a thing existed either. Yet it does. It even has a logo.


I think I will refrain from partaking in the high-fiving festivities. If there's one motto that defines my general queasiness of touching anything, it's "Who knows where people's hands have been?" I shudder just thinking of the palms of the most prolific high-five whores.


Air fives are more my style.


Peru, 2007

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Try to get the first appointment after lunch; barring that, bring snacks.

Sometimes it's startling to think of how much of our lives are controlled by the whims of another human being. For example, getting a correct diagnosis at the doctor is something we simply assume will happen, and if you have a common disease--strep throat, chlamydia, pinkeye, whatever--it probably will. But more complicated "medical mysteries" will not necessarily be solved your physician. As I learned several years ago in Atul Gawande's excellent book Complications: A Surgeon's Notes on an Imperfect Science, sometimes a correct diagnosis in a difficult case happens only because a doctor has recently read something or heard something about the ailment in question; had the patient come the day before or a week after, the doctor might never have made the connection, or the diagnosis. Rather sobering if you think about it.

(Side note: This is actually why I'm pretty jazzed on the idea I heard (on Nova, of course, my favorite TV show) of using a computer like Watson to do medical diagnoses. With a computer full of every symptom of every disease ever recorded, improbable diagnoses will become a lot easier. Of course, an unintended consequence of building computers smart enough to diagnose human diseases might, eventually, be a computer takeover of the world, but I'm not really too worried about that. If they diagnose us as well as I think they will, humans will be healthy enough to pull the plug before too much happens. Plus, we'll probably run out of electricity before machines become self-aware.)

Back to the point. Recently a few items in the news have made me stop and think again about how easy it would be our lives to be inexorably altered (or cut short) by a simple human mistake, or an accident of timing. First, I'm sure you've heard about the spate of air traffic controllers who have been found, quite literally, to be asleep on the job? Yeah. And it turns out they're not just sleeping--sometimes they also get locked out of the tower, or watch movies on duty.

Hilarious picture stolen from Wikipedia
All of which is to say, there's sometimes nobody directing the planes while people like you and me are hurtling towards the airport at terrifying speeds in what is essentially a tin can with wings. Safe to land? Who knows, let's just go for it. (Oh god, we're all gonna die.)

(Related: Wikipedia has a nice long list of additional ways to die in an airplane. Swell.)

The other fate-hanging-in-the-balance-of-a-capricious-human news item I saw recently has less potential for fatality, but it is interesting nonetheless because it involves justice, who, it turns out, can be blind to no ill effect, but who definitely shouldn't be hungry. As I learned in an article in The Economist, if you want a favorable decision from a judge, it's best to be the first appointment after lunch. Yes, really - according to recent research, if you're the last appointment before lunch, you have a significantly lower chance of having your case decided in your favor than if you're the first appointment after...at least if you're an Israeli criminal seeking parole, that is.

As one might expect, I went to the online home of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and read through the study discussed in the Economist article, which is entitled "Extraneous factors in judicial decisions" (abstract here). In the study, researchers in Israel examined the parole decisions of "experienced judges" over the course of 50 days.  Most of the parole cases involved requests from prison inmates to change the terms of their incarceration, and the researchers recorded not only the outcomes of these cases (all of which were decided by one judge), but also many additional details, such as severity of the crime committed, months served, availability of rehabilitation programs for the inmate, religion of the criminal, and so on. Time of day in which the request was considered, meal breaks, and the temporal sequencing of the case for the relevant day were also recorded.

The researchers made a fascinating discovery, which is that the order of the case matters, even when controlling for confounding factors. Just look at this chart:


As described by the researchers, "The plot shows that the likelihood of ruling in favor of a prisoner spikes at the beginning of each session--the probability of a favorable ruling steadily declines from ≈0.65 to nearly zero and jumps back up to ≈0.65 after a break for a meal."

Isn't that amazing? Your future in jail might depend on whether a judge has eaten recently or not.

(Hey-Maybe there is something to the popular belief in my department that the best time to talk to my adviser is while she is eating lunch or immediately thereafter...hm. Fascinating.)

***

Well, that's about all I have to say about that. I guess the take-away message of this somewhat rambling post is this: It might not be a bad idea to send a pizza to the air traffic control tower shortly before your flight is scheduled to land. Just sayin.

Monday, April 18, 2011

We're All Gonna Die: Recommended Reading

Get excited...It's time for the next installment of my intermittent feature, "We're All Gonna Die: Recommended Reading." I've just finished a book that is an excellent addition to the bookshelves of you out there who don't want to avoid the terrible truth about the world we live in. It's titled The Blue Death, subtitled The Intriguing Past and Present Danger of the Water You Drink, and it's by Robert Morris. As might be expected from the title, the book is about our drinking water, and the invisible dangers lurking therein.

I apologize in advance for the length of this post. I just couldn't stop myself.


Now, I should probably say at the outset that I did not much care for the writing in the book, which is largely in the style of a thriller, a genre I do not as a rule read or like. That aside, the information contained in the book is fascinating, and when I was done with it I became briefly convinced that epidemiology is my true calling...so in the end I do heartily recommend it.

The Blue Death is broken up into three parts, the first of which I found extremely confusing because it didn't fit with my conception of what the book was going to be about...I clearly didn't understand the "past danger in the water you drink" part of the subtitle. Anyway, the first section covered European cholera epidemics (mostly in London) in the 1800's, and the work a man named John Snow, who (fascinatingly) is considered both the father of modern epidemiology and of modern anesthesia. As cholera decimated London, Snow developed a theory, radical at the time, that the cause of the disease could be found in contaminated drinking water. Although this notion was roundly pooh-poohed at the time, it turns out that he was right. The discussion of Snow's work and the London cholera epidemic(s) contains some interesting tidbits about what it was like to live, drink water, and do science in London in the 1800's. But, as it is firmly placed in the past, it's not too terrifying for the modern day. It didn't make me think we're all going to die.

Cue the second section of the book, entitled "Thirsty cities and dirty water," which covers more modern material, beginning with the building of water treatment and delivery systems in Chicago, New Jersey, and maybe some other places I forgot about, in the 1900's. The description of how these systems were built is quite fascinating. For example, Morris describes how laborers dug blind tunnels from opposite ends of lake Michigan towards each other, and didn't miss(!), and how, harrowingly, an early scuba diver got trapped in a dam in New Jersey trying to dislodge something from a water intake pipe.

The last part of the second portion of the book is where the narrative begins to get scary. In particular, I am referring to the description of a massive outbreak of waterborne disease in Milwaukee, in 1993 (that's within my lifetime!). This outbreak almost didn't get identified as waterborne, but public health officials eventually (thankfully) figured out that the illness sweeping the city was due to something called a cryptosporidium oocyst, which was not removed from the water at the treatment facility--despite the fact that the water met federal cleanliness standards. Chew on that for a second. Or drink some water and then chew; you might be masticating oocysts.

The third and final portion of the book, "At war with the invisible" is the most terrifying. I marked up at least 30 pages that contain horrifying information about our "modern-day" water purification and delivery systems. I place "modern day" in quotation marks because, a Morris describes, the vast majority of the treatment facilities, pipes, and other related water infrastructure in the US are up to 100 years old, and are extremely outdated, rusting, and inefficient (at one point our water pipes are described as a "dark and corroded underworld [that] offers uncounted and unseen opportunities for the degradation of our drinking water"). On top of all this, the federal government, which is also discussed in this section of the book, has not done a whole lot to improve the safety of the nation's water supply. To quote Morris, "Washington rushes to correct environmental problems with all the speed and agility of a glacier on quaaludes."

I don't want to describe everything the book talks about, because then you won't read it. But let me share with you just some of the startling things I learned:

1. The number one method that the United States uses to clean water of killer bacteria is chlorination, followed by filtering. But mostly chlorination. Many municipal water suppliers--for example those supplying New York City--do not filter their water. Instead, they rely on dilution to minimize health risks. Yes, dilution. Let me let Robert Morris explain:
New York City depends on dilution and delay to reduce to the health risk from the treated sewage. Any pathogens in the water are assumed to disappear in the vast reservoirs or to die before they can reach the intake pipe. New York City's Department of Environmental Protection is so confident in its ability to protect this watershed that they do not filter the water....[and] New York is not alone. A handful of other major cities around the country including Boston, Seattle, San Francisco, and Portland, Oregon, do not filter their drinking water. Instead, they rely on watershed protection and chemical disinfectant to ensure the purity of their water.
Does it work? Ehhh...sometimes:
Even those who manage the watershed must occasionally admit that the protection is imperfect. As recently as June 2005, after a heavy rain caused a sharp spike in turbidity, New York's health department warned city residents with compromised immune systems to boil their drinking water.
Even if your water supplier does filter your water, don't be too content about its potability. As it turns out,
The filtration systems do not remove 100 percent of pathogens, and many of those pathogens are to some degree resistant to chlorine, the chemical used almost exclusively to disinfect drinking water in the United States. To make matters worse, the chlorine used to protect us from waterborne disease may threaten our health in other ways including cancer, still-births, and birth defects.
Yep, turns out chlorine is not really that good for you. And hey, the news is just getting worse:
Accumulating evidence about the possible risks from the by-products of chlorination, together with the appearance of pathogens that resist chlorine, have prompted a new look at our reliance on chlorine. A recent study suggesting that the cancer risk may arise from inhalation rather than ingestion of volatile by-products makes this problem even more daunting.
2. This brings me to my next point, which I (obviously) must make to tie into my whole antimicrobial-resistant disease coverage. Chlorine is not killing all the dangerous pathogens in our water. Furthermore, no one is really taking notice of these chlorine-resistant diseases, as they haven't become big enough problems yet. As Morris writes, "the history of drinking water is a story of disaster and response...the improvements...have almost always looked backwards." Perhaps the biggest takeaway from this book is this:

The risk we must fear is the one we have never seen.

As Morris notes:
When you look at the world from the perspective of a pathogen, human success in beating back most infectious diseases from the industrialized world has created a vast, underexploited ecological niche. A pathogen that can find its way past the detergents, filters, disinfectants, and antibiotics that we throw up in front of it has hit the mother lode. In terms of evolution, this means that a pathogen with the characteristics necessary to get around these barriers will have the greatest chance of reproducing and infecting others. In other words, when we place a barrier in front of a pathogen, we simply redefine the criteria for success.

The emergence of chlorine-resistant pathogens such as cryptosporidium or toxoplasma as agents of waterborne disease provide clear evidence that treatment-resistant organisms can and will emerge. The appearance of a strain of cholera that exhibits a degree of chlorine resistance suggests that even an old and fearsome waterborne nemesis may have the capacity to reinvent itself.
You guys, we might all start getting cholera again! And yet it is proving politically unpopular to create systems and regulations that might prevent such an event. Not only does the issue of water purification "lack political sex appeal," but "the rusting cast iron pipes beneath our streets have all the allure of a fungal infection." Sigh. (Side note: Robert Morris sure can turn a nice phrase now and then.)

3. Think the American water supply, in our nice industrialized modern country, won't make you sick except when something goes horribly wrong? THINK AGAIN.
So how much waterborne disease is there in the United States? The truth is that we don't know, but several lines of evidence suggest that millions of cases of waterborne disease, perhaps more than ten million, may be occurring every year in the United States.
And that's not all! Not only is our water treatment infrastructure outdated and inadequate, letting pathogens and sometimes raw sewage through, but our water is also, perfectly legally, full of industrial chemicals. Writes Morris:
Conventional water filtration as relied on by most American cities was never intended to remove chemical contaminants from drinking water, and for most utilities chemical removal remains a low priority...modern industry produces and releases tens of thousands of different chemicals. Most, if not all, of them find their way at some level into our water supplies. The EPA regulates fewer than one hundred out of tens of thousands of chemicals that can appear in our water supplies, selecting candidates based on their toxicity and prevalence.
What about those they do regulate?
Regulators focus on single chemicals as they evaluate risk and set standards. Logistics and costs tend to limit risk assessments to a small set of health outcomes, primarily cancer. It is impossible to look at the full range of human diseases when evaluating health risks. As a consequence, we make the implicit assumption that unexamined risks do not exist.
That assumption sure seems to be working out well for us, huh.

4. If we don't act now, things will not stay at the status quo. Because remember climate change? Well, to the extent to which climate change affects the weather systems, it will also likely affect water safety:
Some have suggested that global climate change lies behind the record hurricane season that spawned Katrina. Whether or not this is true, increasing global temperatures will certainly raise sea levels and make coastal cities more vulnerable. The increase in severe storms predicted by most climate scientists will also increase the frequency of flooding, the flow of contaminated runoff into our water supplies, and the frequency with which raw sewage flows into our rivers, lakes, and streams...Heavy rains can send contaminated runoff and raw sewage rushing toward the intake of water supplies downstream. Dry conditions, on the other hand, reduce the amount of water available to dilute treated contaminants flowing into the lake or river.
5. Think the dangers in our drinking water are due only to ignorance, laziness, and/or natural forces? Think again! We haven't even talked about terrorists yet! I'm not going to belabor this point, but i think it's significant that Morris devotes a section of his book to the issue. As he writes:
Much has been made of the risk from the air borne release of weaponsized anthrax spores, but there is no more efficient way to deliver biological and chemical agents to every home and workplace than through a water pipe...Al Qaeda operatives have...conducted extensive research on US water supplies and their control systems and indicated that these are potential targets of their attacks.
Swell.

6. A final point. I suspect that, like me, you are thinking about switching to bottled water. This is addressed as well, and Morris comes out on the side of 'not really a good idea.'
Even if we set aside concerns about the environmental impact of the bottles, the water inside may not offer the benefits we imagine. Despite the fact that it costs almost a thousand times more than tap water, there is no guarantee that bottled water is safer. Bottled water is less closely regulated than tap water and is not required to meet stricter standards for purity.
Honestly, probably the best thing you can do is filter your tap water, and filter it good. Don't let your Brita go several months past its expiration. Change it regularly, and you will, most likely, be fine. For now, at least.

***

I shall leave you with a final thought. Want to ignore this post, or the whole issue? Think your water is safe because you've never gotten sick? That's cute. But it's not going to make things better:
The staunch belief in the adequacy of the status quo and the dismissal if not outright derision of those who challenge the prevailing belief has...set the table at which disaster dined.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again...it's become my new mantra: Complacency kills.

Go out and get yourself a copy of The Blue Death!

Friday, April 15, 2011

I might need to change my middle name to "Prescient"

I wasn't even looking for blog fodder today, but while reading a book review on the NPR website a link on the side of the page caught my eye. Just look what NPR is reporting today:


I kid you not.  To quote a Google Chat buddy and work colleague, "your blog is coming true sooner than we all thought." Indeed. Readers, I won't protest if you start calling me prescient.

According to a new study by the Translational Genomics Research Institute (TGen), the meat you buy at the supermarket has a significant chance of being contaminated by bacteria, and a slightly lower but not insignificant chance of being contaminated by multiple drug-resistant bacteria.

How did the researchers discover this? Simple. They went out, bought some meat, and tested it, as this press report describes. Specifically, researchers at TGen collected 136 samples of beef, chicken, poultry and turkey (covering 80 brands) from 26 retail grocery stores in Los Angeles, Chicago, Fort Lauderdale, Flagstaff, and Washington, DC. (Side note: how did they pick these five cities? They seem kind of random...maybe they had friends there?) (Second side note: in case you were wondering about what specific cuts of meat, the (open access!) article published on this study in Clinical Infections Diseases specifies that the beef was ground, the chicken in the form of breasts and thighs, the pork both in chops and ground form, and the turkey ground and in cutlets).

Anywho, they bought this meat and then they did some fancy scientist stuff and looked for bacteria (specifically staphylococcus aureus).  And oh, did they find it!  (Third side note: I do NOT recommend Google-imaging "staphylococcus aureus." Cannot. Unsee.) (Fourth side note: Staph infections kill more people than AIDS in the US). (Fifth and final side note: the large portion of killer staph infections are picked up in hospitals, not from meat.)

Back to the point. As NPR reports, of the samples tested "47 percent had evidence of Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) contamination. More than half of the bacteria they found were resistant to at least three classes of antibiotics."

I actually read through the four-page source study in Clinical Infections Diseases and it gives the breakdown of S. aureus contamination by meat type. First comes turkey (77% of samples were contaminated), followed by pork (42%), chicken (41%), and beef (37%). NINETY-SIX PERCENT of the S. aureus bits discovered were "resistant to at least 1 antimicrobial," including most commonly tetracycline, ampicillin, penicillin, and erythromycin, but also quinupristin/dalfopristin, fluoroquinolones, oxacillin, daptomycin, and vancomycin.

Multi-drug resistant strains of S. aureus--defined as "intermediate or complete resistance to 3 or more antimicrobial classes"--were "common," and was most prevalent among turkey, followed by pork, beef, and chicken.  In total, 52% of the S. aureus isolates they found were multi-drug resistant.

Because there were distinct strands of the bacteria on each different kind of meat, it suggests that food animals are the predominant source of contamination, not human handling after the fact. This is not particularly surprising. To quote the authors of the study, "Conventional concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) provide all the necessary components for the emergence and proliferation of multidrug-resistant zoonotic pathogens."

Now, before you panic and stop eating meat, the authors concede that "the public health relevance" of their study is "unclear," and as NPR notes, "most Staph found in meat can be eliminated by cooking food thoroughly." Nevertheless, "it can still pose a risk to consumers if handled unsafely or if it cross-contaminates with other things in the kitchen." And we in America should all be a at least a little bit worried, because we eat a ton of meat. And our meat eats a ton of antibiotics, as this chart demonstrates (chart taken from here, data from the FDA):


More thoughts about the way we make meat, a topic I am sure I will come back to, can be found here and here. More about antibiotic resistance here.

Until the next dispatch, be sure to cook your meat just a little more than you think is necessary.

Thursday, April 14, 2011

And you thought traffic was simply annoying

Remember when I posted a study suggesting that breathing might kill you?  Well, it turns out it might also (or alternately) give you brain damage.  Breathing in traffic, that is.

A study recently published in the journal Environmental Health and reported on in Time and the Los Angeles Times has discovered that freeway air pollution can cause brain damage in mice.

(Ain't that just swell, says the girl living in the city of a million freeways.)

In the study in question, researchers at USC exposed mouse-brain cells in test tubes and live mice to air laced with nanoparticles akin to those resulting from "burning fossil fuels and bits of car parts and weathered pavements" (to quote Time). These nanoparticles are truly nano, perhaps one-thousandth the width of a human hair. You can't see them, and more jarringly, your car can't filter them out of the air you're breathing. After only 10 weeks and 150 hours, "Both the in vitro brain cells and the neurons in the live mice showed similar problems, including signs of inflammation associated with Alzheimer's disease and damage to cells associated with learning and memory" (quoting Time again).

One of the major concerns coming out of this research is for the development of  children living and attending school near highways.  For not only could young people's brain functioning be altered by the nanoparticles constantly found in the air they breathe, but freeway pollution may be in part responsible for autism, and lung development could be stunted by breathing pollution as well.  And that's just what I found out by clicking on USC press releases. Imagine what researchers at other schools are discovering about the dangers of breathing!

What's to be done?  To quote the team that looked at the mouse brains, "That's a huge unknown."

I suppose not living in Los Angeles, Phoenex or Bakersfield would be a good start. Also, stay away from China.

And if you live near a freeway, think about moving! 

(Or I suppose you could look into these attractive partial solutions offered by Amazon.com.)

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

We're all Gonna Die presents: The Top 10 Environmental Disasters of All Time, brought to you by TIME

Someone at Time Inc. apparently really likes making top ten lists. (Side note: how do I get that job?) Happily (by which I mean horrifically), one that I stumbled upon yesterday seems ideal fodder for this blog, so I shall re-post it here as filler while I work on my next book recommendation.

Without further ado, let's explore the TOP 10 ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS....as of May 2010.*  (Okay, a little more ado...I do want to clarify, because Time does not, that these are the top 10 man-made disasters. So of course we should be extra terrified.)
  1. Chernobyl: 1986 explosion of a nuclear power plant in Ukraine "that sent massive amounts of radiation into the atmosphere, reportedly more than the fallout from Hiroshima and Nagasaki." (Side note: A recent episode of This American Life has some strikingly sad stories about the fallout from Chernobyl. (Pun intended?))
  2. Bhopal: 1984 accident at a Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal, India that resulted in 45 tons of poisonous methyl isocyanate escaping from the facility, killing 15,000 and affecting more than half a million people.
  3. Kuwaiti Oil Fires: In 1991, Saddam Hussein sent men to blow up Kuwaiti oil wells, and approximately 600 were set ablaze.  The resulting fires, "literally towering infernos," burned for seven months. Writes Time, "The Gulf was awash in poisonous smoke, soot and ash. Black rain fell. Lakes of oil were created."
  4. Love Canal: In the 1940's and 1950's, a company near Niagara Falls, NY buried 1,000 tons of toxic industrial waste under the town of Love Canal. Subsequently, a town was unwittingly built on top of the waste dump, and "over the years, the waste began to bubble up into backyards and cellars." By 1978, the problem was so bad that hundreds of families had to sell their homes to the government and evacuate the area.
  5. The Exxon Valdez: In 1989, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground Alaska's Prince William Sound, spilling 10.8 million gallons of oil into the water.  This disaster taught schoolchildren (like me at the time) that dish detergent could clean oil off animals. Also, oil spills are bad.
  6. Tokaimura Nuclear Plant: 1999 nuclear accident in a facility northeast of Tokyo, Japan, which was the result of workers improperly mixing a uranium solution. I suspect that the newer Japanese nuclear explosion might top this one, but we may never know since Time has already made its "Top 10 environmental disasters" list.
  7. The Aral Sea: In the 1960's, the Soviet Union ill-advisedly started piping water out of the Aral Sea. By 2010, the Aral had shrunk 90%, and, writes Time, "what was once a vibrant, fish-stocked lake is now a massive desert that produces salt and sandstorms that kill plant life and have negative effects on human and animal health for hundreds of miles around. Scores of large boats sit tilted in the sand — a tableau both sad and surreal." I hate to say it, but this kind of reminds me of what Easter Island did to itself...
  8. Seveso Dioxin Cloud: 1976 explosion at an Italian chemical plant that released a giant cloud of dioxin that settled on the town of Seveso.  Writes Time, "First, animals began to die...One farmer saw his cat keel over, and when he went to pick up the body, the tail fell off. When authorities dug the cat up for examination two days later, said the farmer, all that was left was its skull." Today, there are giant underground tanks that "hold the remains of hundreds of slaughtered animals."
  9. Minamata Disease: This is the one that terrifies me the most, possibly because of the coverage of the disease in The Cove, and partly because I think we are all contaminated with Mercury these days. Minamata Disease is the result of "industrial poisoning of Minamata Bay by the Chisso Corp.....As a result of wastewater pollution by the plastic manufacturer, large amounts of mercury and other heavy metals found their way into the fish and shellfish that comprised a large part of the local diet. Thousands of residents have slowly suffered over the decades and died from the disease." Mercury is BAD NEWS, people. Bad. News.
  10. Three Mile Island: 1979 partial meltdown of a nuclear reactor near near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. I think this one made Time's list only because it happened in America. To quote the listmaker, "The ironic thing is that while it has become known as one of America's worst nuclear accidents, nothing much really happened. No one died, and the facility itself is still going strong." Time, may I suggest you replace this with something more dire?
If you think this list of the top 10 environmental disasters is in the wrong order, Time invites you to create your own list of horrible tragedies. Fun for the whole family!

The Aral "Sea"
 *Full disclosure: I'm pretty sure Time magazine just picked ten (mostly) horrific disasters to talk about; there's certainly no guarantee that more horrible things haven't happened.

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Let's talk about antimicrobial resistance, baby, let's talk about you and me...let's talk about all the good things and the bad things that may be. But mostly the bad things.

Remember when people used to die left and right from curable diseases, simply because we hadn't discovered antibiotics yet?

Of course you don't...that was way back in the middle ages (or thereabouts--I was never much good at history). You know, back when people believed diseases were caused by an imbalance of humours in the body, and/or god sending punishment. Plus nobody really knew that lack of proper sanitation could cause death.  So I guess there were other mitigating factors in the high death rate from theoretically curable diseases...but still, lack of antibiotics and other drugs didn't help the matter.

We in the developed world with our fancy medicine and cleanly hospitals like to feel smug because we no longer die from the same horrible diseases as they did in the middle ages, but we aren't actually as protected as we think.  I'm sure you have all heard about the controversy about feeding antibiotics to animals, the overperscritpion of antibiotics, and the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria? Well, that's today's fear-inspiring topic for "We're all gonna die."

Recently, a super-antibiotic-resistant bacteria was found in the water supply in New Delhi. This bacteria is called NDM-1, and not only was it found in the water people drink, not only does it have its own website, but it also has the potential to give its antibiotic resistance to other bacteria! As a reporter for the Guardian writes:
The bacterium was found to be indifferent to even our most powerful antibiotics. To make matters worse, the genes that gave it this superpower were found on a small ring of DNA that is easily traded between different species of bacteria.

New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase (NDM-1) has since turned up in more than 16 countries across the world, including Britain. A study published in Lancet Infectious Diseases today shows the resistance factor has spread to 14 different species of bacteria, including pathogenic varieties responsible for dysentery and cholera. Most bacteria holding the NDM-1 plasmid are resistant to all but a couple of our most clumsy, brutal antibiotics. One strain is immune to all of them.
This news is quite alarming, and it (along with other similar concerns) has spurred worldwide alarms from the medical community. The World Health Organization made antimicrobial resistance the theme of World Health Day 2011, under the slogan (and I am not making this up, though I am bolding and italicizing it):
Antimicrobial resistance: no action today, no cure tomorrow.
A representative of the WHO posted a Q&A about the topic, and in response to the question "Is this the doomsday scenario of a world without antibiotics?" he answered:
Unfortunately yes, with these new multiresistant NDM1-containing strains and their potential for worldwide spread. Doctors will face a terrible dilemma when a pregnant woman develops a kidney infection that spills over into the bloodstream with a pan-resistant strain containing NDM1 and there are no treatment options. We are essentially back to an era with no antibiotics.
I don't think it's hasty if I say it is TIME TO PANIC!!

Diseases associated with antimicrobial resistance include but are certainly not limited to things like Staph (MRSA)Anthrax(!)Gonorrhea, and of course, Tuberculosis. (Side note: If you're interested in multi-drug resistant TB (and who wouldn't be), this is a really good book.)

WHO pamphlet released in conjunction with World Health Day 2011 has some fun facts about antimicrobial resistance (AMR):

  • About 440,000 new cases of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) emerge annually, causing at least 150,000 deaths. Extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR-TB) has been reported in 64 countries to date.
  • Resistance to earlier generation antimalarial medicines such as chloroquine and sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine is widespread in most malaria-endemic countries. Falciparum malaria parasites resistant to artemisinins are emerging in South-East Asia; infections show delayed clearance after the start of treatment (indicating resistance).
  • A high percentage of hospital-acquired infections are caused by highly resistant bacteria such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci.
  • Resistance is an emerging concern for treatment of HIV infection, following the rapid expansion in access to antiretroviral medicines in recent years; national surveys are underway to detect and monitor resistance.
  • Ciprofloxacin is the only antibiotic currently recommended by WHO for the management of bloody diarrhoea due to Shigella organisms, now that widespread resistance has developed to other previously effective antibiotics. But rapidly increasing prevalence of resistance to ciprofloxacin is reducing the options for safe and efficacious treatment of shigellosis, particularly for children. New antibiotics suitable for oral use are badly needed.
  • AMR has become a serious problem for treatment of gonorrhoea (caused by Neisseria gonorrhoeae), involving even “last-line” oral cephalosporins, and is increasing in prevalence worldwide. Untreatable gonococcal infections would result in increased rates of illness and death, thus reversing the gains made in the control of this sexually transmitted infection.
  • New resistance mechanisms, such as the beta-lactamase NDM-1, have emerged among several gram-negative bacilli. This can render powerful antibiotics, which are often the last defence against multi-resistant strains of bacteria, ineffective.

Just in case you didn't read through all of that dense text, the fun facts indicate that we may no longer be able to cure malaria, staphylococcus infections, bloody diarrhea, gonorrhea, and NDM-1 infections.

As the WHO notes, complacency kills.  I think I'll leave you with that.

Monday, April 11, 2011

Friday, April 8, 2011

Proof I'm probably wrong

This happened in 1990, and the world is still spinning:


I'm as surprised as you are. I would have thought this was a sure sign of the imminent destruction of mankind.

Thursday, April 7, 2011

Only eight months until 2012...

Call me a pessimist, but we might need to start preparing for the End Times like, now.* Just look at what has happened in the last day or so!

Another giant earthquake in Japan!

A pretty big earthquake in Mexico.

A less big earthquake in Arkansas.

Announcement of two Jersey Shore spin-off shows, featuring JWow/Snooki and DJ Pauly D.

Need I say any more?

On top of all this, I learned today that cats have been known to sleep with babies...on their faces...suffocating them. Evidently this is not news, however, as this New York Times article from 1909 attests:


Thank goodness I'm allergic to cats, is all I have to say about that (and we haven't even touched on toxoplasmosis!). Not that I have a baby, but still. If California gets hit by a giant earthquake, causing major societal collapse and disruption of the food supply, I'm going to recommend eating the cats first of all. We've got to save the babies!



Keep up with your earthquake sightings here.  And learn more about cats suffocating people, such as drunken college students, here.


*By preparing for the end times I mostly mean buying a gun and investing in some water filtration products. Don't want to get too crazy, now.

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Now I have to wear sunscreen when I drive?

Apparently your car windows don't filter out cancer-causing deathly sun rays, says The New York Times:
In a study published last year in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, researchers at St. Louis University School of Medicine examined the records and histories of more than 1,000 patients referred to a local skin cancer clinic. They found that people who had spent the most time driving a car each week were more likely to develop skin cancers on the left sides of their bodies and faces — the side exposed to more sunlight while driving. In patients with malignant melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, 74 percent of the tumors were found on the left sides, compared with 26 percent on the right.
(Pubmed abstract here.)

This is reason #1,504 that I need to get out of Southern California. I can't escape the awful death rays!

****

Related: Below is a picture I drew during a boring meeting over the summer. It was so hot and so sunny that day, the memory still makes me shudder.

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

We're All Gonna Die: Recommended Reading

Because part of my fatalistic world outlook has resulted from some books I've read, I thought I'd start an intermittent feature called "We're All Gonna Die: Recommended Reading." I think if the world were going to end tomorrow, I might spend today reading...I love books that much.

Anywho, the first doomsday book I'm going to recommend to those of you who are in the market for such things is the one that got me started down the path that lead to this blog: Jared Diamond's Collapse.

It's been four or five years since I read this book, but I find myself thinking about it from time to time. While it doesn't quite live up to the "masterpiece" status of Guns, Germs, and Steel, Collapse does contain an interesting analysis of how environmental degradation contributes to societal downfall.

The basic premise of the book is that civilizations and societies often collapse not because of a cataclysmic event (like the meteor impact that might have doomed the dinosaurs), but rather because they choose to maintain themselves socially at the risk of ecological devastation.

Malcom Gladwell wrote a very nice book review of Collapse in the New Yorker and described the phenomenon (as it played out on Easter Island) thusly:
...Look...at Easter Island. Once, it was home to a thriving culture that produced the enormous stone statues that continue to inspire awe. It was home to dozens of species of trees, which created and protected an ecosystem fertile enough to support as many as thirty thousand people. Today, it’s a barren and largely empty outcropping of volcanic rock. What happened? Did a rare plant virus wipe out the island’s forest cover? Not at all. The Easter Islanders chopped their trees down, one by one, until they were all gone. “I have often asked myself, ‘What did the Easter Islander who cut down the last palm tree say while he was doing it?’ ” Diamond writes, and that, of course, is what is so troubling about the conclusions of “Collapse.” Those trees were felled by rational actors—who must have suspected that the destruction of this resource would result in the destruction of their civilization. The lesson of “Collapse” is that societies, as often as not, aren’t murdered. They commit suicide: they slit their wrists and then, in the course of many decades, stand by passively and watch themselves bleed to death.
In another section of the book, Diamond discusses the Norse settlement of Greenland, and how the Norse's stubbornness in insisting on replicating the European way of life--despite clear indications that Greenland could not support it ecologically--lead them to starve to death. The part that sticks with me about this is that the priests--who maintained high status until the end--were, Diamond says, "the last to starve."

Sometimes I think America is too complacent about what is happening to the world environmentally because we are going to be the last to starve.

Collapse also discusses more recent societal treatment of the environment, and its discussion of China, Australia, Rwanda, and Haiti are all fascinating. I highly recommend the book, although I must say the section covering the Greenland Norse gets a bit long and boring. Keep on going through it, as the rest of the book is worth it.

We're All Gonna Die gives four stars (of five) to Jared Diamond's Collapse. Read it before you are the last to starve!

Read more.

Don't like reading?

Saturday, April 2, 2011

File this one under "America might implode from stupidity"

Evidently, Rutgers University has paid Toni Morrison--Nobel Prize winner Toni Morrison--$30,000 to speak at their graduation this year. Seems a reasonable sum for a Nobel Lauriate.

Ah, but!

In almost the same breath, Rutgers also paid Snooki, yes, that Snooki--Jersey Shore Snooki--to speak. How much did Snooki fetch? $2k more than Toni Morrison, that's how much.

The funniest part of this story is that somebody called Toni Morrison for comment on this issue, and her response was "I don't know her, and I don't care." Zing!

Of course, there are many caveats here. First and foremost, the university paid for Morrison, while the student association paid for Snooki. And evidently, Morrison cut her fees in half as a special favor for Rutgers.

Still, I think this is emblematic of a larger problem in America. Don't you?

*****

Now for my part in contributing to America's downfall through stupidity: Who do you think would win in a fight, Toni or Snooki? As far as I'm concerned, it's a toss-up.


VERSUS


Friday, April 1, 2011

Stop feeding your children crap.

You might be giving your kid ADD just by feeding him or her.

A recent study published in the Lancet has demonstrated that a not insignificant proportion of ADHD cases might be induced by food. A summary of the article and associated press coverage can be found over at Civil Eats.

The part that scared me the most about the Civil Eats article was this:
There are a multitude of credible scientific studies to indicate that diet plays a large role in the development of ADHD. One study found that the depletion of zinc and copper in children was more prevalent in children with ADHD. Another study found that one particular dye acts as a “central excitatory agent able to induce hyperkinetic behavior.” And yet another study suggests that the combination of various common food additives appears to have a neurotoxic effect—pointing to the important fact that while low levels of individual food additives may be regarded as safe for human consumption, we must also consider the combined effects of the vast array of food additives that are now prevalent in our food supply.
Nobody knows the cumulative effect of the "safe" crap that food manufacturers add to food! The cynic in me says they don't want to find out, either...it's not good for business.

This is why I shop at Whole Foods. It might be taking me to the poorhouse, but at least I can pronounce and understand the ingredients in the food I'm eating.

Plus, they have a kickass selection of gluten free food.