Stories tagged health
A bin of spares: for future-babies.
Courtesy Max SparberIn many respects, the people of my country—we call it “Futureland” or “Futureworld,” depending on the state—are much like Lego men (minifigs). We have round, cheerful faces, chunky, clunky legs, and square, tapering shoulders. And the women… oh, the women of Futureland are the most beautiful in the world, with their round, cheerful faces, chunky, clunky legs, and square, tapering shoulders. Some might argue that they’re only distinguishable from us men by painted on lipstick and eyelashes… but I don’t see why that has to be a bad thing.
And, like Lego people, our arms are removable and replaceable. We can mix and match! Unfortunately, the process of arm removal is often extremely painful and bloody, and arm replacement involves extensive surgery, an anti-rejection drug regimen, and years of physical therapy. Still… replaceable arms! Yes, life in the future is fine indeed.
Oh? You don’t believe me? Well, put on your chronohats and futurnaut undies and join me up here for a moment, so that we might consider the case of one Karl Merk.
Karl was a German dairy farmer until six years ago, when he elected to have his arms removed. Although… Maybe “elected” isn’t totally accurate. Mr. Merk’s arms were detached just below the shoulders by a combine harvester, and he was screaming “Kill me, kill me!” when he was later discovered by a colleague. So it seems possible that the arm-removal could have been an accident.
Regardless, it wasn’t until just recently that a suitable set of new arms could be found to click back into Karl’s shoulders.
It took a team of 40 surgeons, specialists, and support staff 15 hours to reattach the arms of a donor who had died only hours earlier. The arms were filled with “a cooled preservation solution,” and then detached from the donor’s shoulders at the exact point Mr. Merk’s arms were severed. Merk’s arm stumps were then cut open to expose the bone, muscle, nerve tissue, and blood vessels.
The bones were joined first, followed quickly by arteries and veins, to ensure blood flow. Muscles and tendons were then attached, followed by the nerves, and then the skin was finally sewn together.
Click. Click.
I recommend checking out the video in the page linked to above (under “the case of one Karl Merk”). It has a video of Karl with his new arms. The arms are paler than the rest of Karl, and they look kind of muscley. They’re also kind of wet and shiny looking, which is gross. But they work, and over the next couple years Karl should be able to regain full use of the hands and everything. Because so much of his arms were cut off in the accident, there’s a greater risk that Karl’s body won’t accept the new limbs, but so far there doesn’t signs of rejection.
And that’s life in the future. Tons of painful surgery. And maybe some slightly disproportionally large arms.
Buzz has plenty on organ transplants and the like. Check in out here.
Tags : Elephantitis: not real. Elephantiasis: real, but on the ropes.
A leg. With elephantiasis.: Or lymphatic filariasis, if you will.
Courtesy otisarchives1Y’all know about elephantitis, right? Sever thickening of the tissue in the legs and genitals, to the point of developing massive, lumpy appendages (like and elephant, I suppose). Not a condition you’d want to develop, right?
Well don’t sweat it, kids and adults—elephatitis doesn’t actually exist. There’s a big weight off your back (and legs and genitals).
Unfortunately, this silver cloud has a rainy lining: while elephantitis isn’t a real thing, elephantiasis is. And elephantiasis is pretty much exactly what I described above, only it’s often mispronounced as “elephantitis.” Oh, fudge.
Elephantiasis, basically, results the body’s own response to some foreign agent—sometimes irritants in the soil, but usually parasitic worms cause the massive inflammation. And maybe the worms sometimes prevent it too… (for more on that, take a look at this Buzz post from last month)
When you get tight down to it, elephantiasis isn’t great to have. It hurts, and it makes life more difficult. Millions of people around the world have the disease, and about 1.3 billion people (a fifth of the world’s population) are considered “at risk” for contracting the disease that causes elephantiasis.
However, the World Health Organization is making a push to distribute a cheap and simple cure for the disease to all at risk areas (the effort was described in a BBC piece today). It’s estimated that the project has prevented 6.6 million children from developing the condition, and halted its progression in another 9.5 million people.
The treatment is based on a couple different drugs, neither of which are mentioned in the BBC article, but I’m guessing that it’s referring to albendazole and ivermectin. These drugs are anti-parasitic, attacking the worms that cause elephantiasis. Getting rid of your worms is generally a good thing, and it should prevent the development of elephantiasis, but I bet that—as the article implies—it won’t eliminate elephantiasis once it’s in its severe form. So, you know, catch it early.
The WHO program hopes to more or less eliminate elephantiasis by 2020. Although there are no known cases of elephantitis, I’m afraid that one may stick around a little longer.
Take your time and think it through, guy: But don't worry about the MMR vaccine.
Courtesy paul+photos=moodyLet’s be careful how we put our words together, everybody.
I mean, when I get dressed in the morning, I know that I want to get underwear, socks, pants, and at least one shirt onto my body. However, if I were to forgo all rules of dressing order and arrangement, I might give off the wrong message: i.e., I’m crazy, and possibly dangerous to be around.
Why would I take any less care with my precious, precious words?
Because I’m pretty lazy, I don’t generally read most (any) of the articles on science that I come across every day. Instead, I read only the headlines. Or, better yet, I have them read to me—that way I can rest my head on my desk while I’m taking in the news. It’s very important, then, that all headlines are clearly worded. Otherwise I could dictate a Science Buzz post that is even more factually inaccurate than my posts normally are. That’s dangerous territory.
“Survey confirms parents’ fears, confusion over autism.”
I looked at that headline, saw the word “vaccine” in the body, and thought, “Oh, snap! Vaccines do cause autism?” Because, that’s what parents’ are afraid of, after all.
Nope. The existence of parents’ fear and confusion over autism is what has been confirmed here. The actual connection between vaccinations and autism remains non-existent.
A recent study found that a significant percentage of parents still believe that the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine can cause autism, or are at least uncertain and fearful that such a connection does exist. This is despite the fact that scientists can establish no connection between early childhood vaccines and the development of autism.
The fear that early childhood vaccinations lead to an increased risk for autism originated from a 1998 study that linked autism to a particular mercury-based preservative in the MMR vaccine. It was later revealed that the study was based on bad research, and it was retracted by most of its authors and disowned by its publisher. In 2001, manufacturers of the MMR vaccine began removing the preservative from their vaccines anyway—and that’s probably not a bad thing, but it hasn’t lead to any decrease in the occurrence of autism. And people are still worried about the vaccine anyway.
This confusion wouldn’t be such a big deal, except that the better-safe-than-sorry attitude towards not having children vaccinated has lead to a resurgence in diseases that had essentially been eradicated in areas where the vaccine is available.
Science Buzz has had a lot of conversation on this subject already, and, if you’re interested, I’d recommend you check out some of the other posts on autism and vaccinations.
It probably won't be ready for the winter flu shot season, but researchers in Japan are developing a new syringe that works without a needle. Here's a link to video about this new concept. I know, it takes all the thrills and danger out of visiting the clinic, but think of all the tears that will be saved by five-year-olds getting their pre-kindergarten vaccinations!
A thing of the past?: More and more colleges are moving away from serving up dorm meals on food trays to reduce waste and clean-up costs.
Courtesy bookgrlCollege is a place to learn new things. And at several Minnesota campuses this school year, students are learning new things in the dining hall along with in the classroom – like how to balance all their dinner items without using a tray.
A month into the school year, the reviews are mixed on this concept. This Star Tribune story gives the full round up on the tray-less dining phenomenon. Five Minnesota schools have gone totally trayless – the University of Minnesota, Hamline, Concordia-St. Paul, and Southwest Minnesota State, Marshall. Three other schools are trayless at least one day a week. Three other schools are considering following these leads.
Why do this? Saving food waste and expense is a big part of it. At Hamline, they estimate that smaller carrying capacity of a diner without a tray saves 12 cents a meal per student. Totaled up among all diners for an entire school year, and that savings will be $25,000 for a school year.
Plus, there’s less room for “eyes bigger than stomachs” action without trays. While thrown out food last year at Hamline filled two garbage cans per meal, this year without trays there’s just one garbage can full of food waste per meal.
Also, no trays reduces the amount of water and soap needed to clean trays and extra dishes with the smaller portions that students are eating.
But not everyone is happy.
Some students are stacking their servings three plates high. One University of Minnesota student upset with the idea has started an online protest group through his Facebook page.
So what do you think? Is this a good idea or taking efficiency too far? Share your thoughts here with other Buzz readers.
Mexico, the country, wants to loss 2 million pounds (more precisely 1 million kilos). Okay, insert your own anti-immigration joke here – I know you can't resist. Now click here to read the story about this national effort to keep obesity under control there. What an interesting concept for McCain or Obama to throw out there for our country in the final strecth of this year's election.
Who is this?: "My... brain tumor"? No, I think you must have the wrong number.
Courtesy MikeSchinkelI’m not sure if it has come up on Buzz before, but there has been a long-running disagreement in the scientific community as to whether or not cell phone use increases your chances of developing cancer. (“Long running” relative to how long cells have been around, anyway.) Industry studies done ten years ago even suggested that there may be a link between cell phones and brain tumors, but other research completed since then has cast some doubt on those findings. The idea we’ve been left with, for the most part, seems to be that cell phones are more or less safe.
The debate has just recently been reignited, however. A group of scientists has warned congress that the studies denying a cell phone/cancer link may be severely lacking, an that new studies are demonstrating a pretty solid connection between exposure to the magnetic fields emitted by cell phones and the development of brain tumors.
The majority of studies used in the argument against a health link, the scientists point out, define “regular cell phone use” as once a week—far less than the average cell phone use currently. The group also draws on the analogy of cigarettes: it took 50 years for the health community to establish a convincing link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, but that’s not something anyone would even question today. Scientists have had a far shorter time to study the long-term effects of cell phone use, and a brain tumor can take “dozens of years to develop,” so they argue that cell phone use should be treated with caution.
Several warning studies were shown to the congressional committee. Surveys from Scandinavia, where cell phones were first developed, showed that cell phone users were twice as likely to develop a tumor on the auditory nerves of the ear they usually held their phone to, compared to the other ear. An Israeli study showed that heavy cell phone users were 50 % more likely to develop salivary gland tumors. Recently published English research demonstrated that adolescents who started using cell phones before the age of 20 were five times more likely to develop brain cancer by 29 than those who didn’t use cell phones—all on the side of the head where they used their phones.
Kids are particularly vulnerable to cell phone emissions—the radiation penetrates far deeper into their brains than it does to adult users.
The goal of the scientists was to encourage further studies on the health effects of cell phone use, and to urge the Federal Communications Commission—in charge of monitoring setting limits to exposure to the radio spectrum—to review their standards.
It’s something to think about though, isn’t it, Buzzketeers? Something to think about while you’re trying to fall asleep, and you’ve got a head ache just on the right side…
What do you think? Would you change your cell phone use based on something like this? Or do you think people should wait for more information before they start changing their behavior? Or is this just a reason to text even more?
Depending on the variety: you may indeed end up a very different person.
Courtesy william c hutton jrYou know what’s bad? Animal cruelty.
Seriously. I mean, I don’t want to go out on a political limb here, but… I’m against it. You can put that on your head and call it a hat: JGordon is officially against animal cruelty.
Unfortunately, I’m also lazy and ignorant. What exactly constitutes animal cruelty? And, if I’m taking part in it, will it be too inconvenient for me to change my ways?
Is dressing my dog up in clothes that match my own considered “cruel”? What if I take him out on the town, and refer to him as my “twin” and “special friend”?
Reaching into fish tanks to flick the goldfish—cruel, or playful? Because the fish seem to like it, even if their owners don’t.
Screaming at pigeons? And does the language I use matter?
And how, really, should I feel about the dairy industry?
Well, that’s when I turn to PETA, or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. PETA is a non-profit animal rights organization that works to prevent animal cruelty in medical and cosmetic testing, factory farms, and fur farms (among other areas). It encourages activism, transparency in business’ use of animals, and community involvement. And changing the names of towns like Rodeo, California, and Hamburg, New York, to something “less suggestive of animal exploitation.” And comparing the treatment of animals to the Holocaust. And sending letters to celebrity babies, reminding them that they shouldn’t wear fur. Vital, heady stuff.
This week, PETA has sent a bold new letter to ice cream maker Ben and Jerry’s, with a message sure to resonate in the hearts of non-celebrity baby people around the world: stop using cruelty-tainted cow’s milk for your gourmet ice cream, and start using delicious, healthy, human breast milk.
The letter points out that, in addiction to the cruelty employed in obtaining cow’s milk, drinking milk can lead to anemia and diabetes in children, as well as allergies and obesity and heart disease. This may very well be the case, although the citation for all of these arguments is a link to another PETA website called “milksucks.com.” Milksucks.com points out that a glass of milk is about 49 % fat, which seems like an awfully dubious figure. (The USDA says that whole milk is about 3.25% fat. But they would, wouldn’t they.) A variety of studies show both increases and decreases in cancer, heart diseases, etc, from consuming milk (Here’s a link to wikipedia’s milk medical research section, which has links to the original studies cited, which I don’t want to take the time to post here.)
Breast milk, it seems, is pretty good for babies, and may be good for folks with gastro-intestinal disorders. And it doesn’t come from sad cows, as far as I know.
PETA got the idea from a particular Swiss restaurant that plans to replace 75% percent of the cow’s milk they use with human milk. The obvious next step is to present the notion to a major ice cream maker, although I’m not sure that the massive breast milk infrastructure that will allow a Swiss restaurant to partially replace the cow milk they use exists in America. Still, the message was sent, and I think the American people heard it loud and clear: PETA has some ideas that we can relate to.
What to know and when to know it: Two mammography images show the difference between a non-cancerous (left) and cancerous (right) breast.
Courtesy National Institutes of HealthRecord numbers of women are opting for a test that checks if their genetic make-up makes them stronger candidates for breast cancer. Last year about 100,000 women were tested. Doctors generally recommend against testing anyone under the age of 25, the same age that mammograms are first recommended. That’s because little can be done to screen or prevent breast cancer before that age.
But a growing movement among young women wants to find out how their genetic make-up could impact their risk for breast cancer. And they want to find out that news at an earlier age.
It’s a hot ethical question in clinics across the country today, which is explained in full detail here.
On the one side, pro-testing people point out that young people armed with this information could make lifestyle choices that could reduce their cancer risk. There is some evidence that young women with a positive genetic test have quit smoking, for example. Others have limited alcohol intake or avoided using birth control pills, two other factors that can raise breast cancer risk.
On the other side of the debate, researchers say that young women have enough health issues to deal with at an early age. Ringing alarms for something they can’t be “officially” tested for until later in life is just one more worry that they really don’t need to deal with at the time.
The tests themselves cost around $3,000. More and more medical insurance companies are providing coverage for the test.
If the test shows a faulty gene, the patient’s risk of developing breast cancer is three to seven times higher. In a few cases, parents have tested the genes of their pre-adolescent children. One girl test was just four years old.
What do you think? Is this good genetic curiosity or being a genetic busy-body? Is it important to find out this information if nothing can be done to treat the situation for a number of years? Share your thoughts here with other Buzz readers.
Music medicine man: Jazz guitarist Stanley Jordan is a big proponent of the medicinal effects of music in helping cure people of illnesses.
Courtesy Official Stanley Jordan websiteSeveral years ago I encountered a wonderful situation. I was at the Wabasha Street Caves club here in St. Paul to see a big band featuring many veteran musicians perform for a group of swing dancers made up mostly of college students.
Charles, the leader of the band was well into his 80s and needed a walker to get across the dance floor before the show started. Other band members helped him take his seat smack dab in the middle of the saxophone section, where he played alto sax and also led the band.
Several songs into the set, it was Charles’ time for a solo. Caught up in the spirit of the music, he bounced up from his chair unassisted, wailed on his horn and was groovin’ like the hip cat he’s always been for decades. Needing a walker or assistance was the last thing his body needed at that time.
It was a truly remarkable moment and fueled my suspicions that music holds medicinal properties we don’t fully understand.
My belief was reinforced today after coming across this article about jazz guitarist Stanley Jordan. He thinks the same way I do.
After being sick with the flu, he spent and entire day surrounded by song and recovered nearly instantly, he related. And now he’s studying the theory academically to see how music can intentionally be used to help people get over physical ailments.
"In five to 10 years, music therapy is going to be a household term," Jordan is quoted in the USA Today article. "I say that because it's so holistic and versatile. It addresses every part of the body in some way or another."
In a nutshell, Jordan feels that there are four distinct dimensions to music’s healing power: physical, mental, emotionally and spiritual healing. Want to learn more? Here’s a link to his website where you can learn more about his thoughts on music therapy.
So what do you think? Are there untapped healing powers in music? Have you experienced this effect yourself? What types of music do you find especially rejuvenating? Share your thoughts here with other Buzz readers.
Recent comments
Which presidential candidate do you think will better advocate for the interests of science and technology?
Immaculate conception observed. In a shark.
Beware of boxelder bugs
Immaculate conception observed. In a shark.
Subscribe
I want to learn about
Science Buzz and all related activitiesScience Museum of Minnesota, 2004-2008,
except where otherwise noted.
Copyright Information
Add a new comment