The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention claims that cigarette smoking causes 90% of lung cancers, and smokers are 15 to 30 times more likely to get or die from lung cancer. The relative risk seems insanely high, so I decided to research what the risk for getting lung cancer is for a non-smoker.

The American Cancer Society states that 16,000-24,000 “never smoker” Americans die of lung cancer each year. They define a “never smoker” as someone who has smoked fewer than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime. It seems interesting that you could smoke 99 cigarettes and still be put in the same category as someone who has never touched one. This seems to be an inherent flaw in the research already, but cancer.org may have a slight bias in order to try and convince people to quit or never start smoking. Either way, these numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt.

The important thing is, if there were a separate category for lung cancer in “non-smokers” (notice the quotations), it would be in the top 10 deadliest cancers in the US. The leading causes of lung cancer in non-smokers are secondhand smoke, gas and carcinogen exposure as well as air pollution. Looking at the numbers, it is interesting to note that the American Cancer Society estimates 3,400 people die per year from secondhand smoke. I stated above that they also said 16,000 to 24,000 non-smokers die per year from lung cancer. What accounts for the other tens of thousands of deaths?

The answer, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, is radon gas exposure. An estimated 20,000 people per year die in the US from lung cancer caused by radon gas exposure in the workplace or elsewhere. The reason I am giving you these statistics is for perspective. According to an article from LiveScience.com, “fewer than 10 percent of lifelong smokers will get lung cancer”, and you apparently are “more likely to have a condom break than get cancer from smoking”.

You have to look at the facts objectively or else they can become extremely ambiguous. As you cans see, the statistics I gave in the first part of this blog would make you wonder why anybody would ever pick up a cigarette in the first place. The information from this article attempts to explain the different risks and percentages that get thrown around in the cigarette danger conversation. It is important to note that if the CDC or the American Cancer Society posted the stats on how many smokers beat lung cancer and survived, it wouldn’t make for a very good anti-smoking platform.

The problem with trying to research hard data on topics like this is the amount of bias and statistical manipulation that goes on. It really does feel like walking in circles, with one pro-smoking website giving one number and an anti-smoking website giving the inverse of that. This just furthers the importance of learning the skills like we have in class so that we can become more educated in how to see through the smoke and mirrors and identify the true facts.  I am curious if anybody else can find a true, unbiased number of deaths occurring from lung cancer in smokers and non smokers. 

It is a fact that firearms and firearm injuries are responsible over 30,000 deaths annually in the United States. There have been an increasing number of firearm laws being put into place to try and bring those numbers down…but are firearm laws and firearm death rates really linked?

In a study named “Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Fatalities in the United States”, researchers tied to prestigious institutions such as the Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School decided to examine US data to determine the answer to that question. More specifically, they wanted to know if more firearm laws in a state are associated with fewer firearm fatalities. They cross-referenced data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web-based Injury Statistics Query in order to identify and analyze all firearm-related deaths in the US from 2007-2010. Then, the researchers assigned a legislative strength score out of a possible 28 points based on the current state-level firearm laws in 5 categories. The data was compared to try and find a possible association between the strength of gun legislation and the death rates for each state annually.

The average mortality rate across the 4 years was highest in Louisiana, with an average of 17.9 deaths per 100,000 citizens per year. The lowest was in Hawaii, at 2.9. Utah had the lowest legislative score out of all of the states (0), while Massachusetts had the highest with a score of 24.

The data pointed to a correlation between stricter gun laws and less gun-related deaths. The study was observational, however, and therefore cannot be proven either way. The researchers state at the end of the abstract that no cause-and-effect conclusion can be made, so further research is required.

I personally have a problem with the studies’ claims, as the process for reaching the conclusion was somewhat flawed. First of all, the study only gathered and analyzed data from one source. The fact that the study does not collect sample data from any other source indicated that there is potential for the results to be tainted by this misleading sample. In addition, the average firearm death rate for the United States has been completely stagnant over the past 15 years. It looks much worse to look at the rates for individual states as compared to the country as a whole.

The second problem I have is that they only selectively compared the firearm death rates of the individual United States, as opposed to the rates of the US against other countries. Recent and shocking events such as the Columbine and Sandy Hook shootings cause a huge uproar in the American public about stricter gun control laws. If you compare the US to the rest of the world, America is number 7 in murders and outside of the top 20 in gun suicides. Although these events are tragic, the sensationalism surrounding the events causes people to assume America is more violent than it actually is.

A Harvard study found that the rate of gun ownership is in fact not connected to the murder rate. The study concluded that the data is there, and it is up to the people who believe less guns = less violence to prove they are correct before justifying stricter gun control. Do you think if we take more guns off the street, people will be safer? Or will they be unable to protect themselves?

A growing concern in the US is the possible connection between how much TV a child watches in their early years and the development of attention disorders in their adolescence. Dimitri Christakis, a professor of paediatrics at the University of Washington, made a significant observation while spending time with his infant son in 1998. He noticed that while he was watching television, his two-month-old son was also extremely engaged in the program. His son couldn’t understand what the show was saying, but he was completely glued to the screen. Dimitri made the conclusion that the images were triggering his son’s attention reflexes rapidly, and pondered upon the implications of the stimulation at such a young age.

Dimitri wanted to know if this overstimulation would condition a young child to expect it more frequently, thus causing everyday activities to seem mundane and boring. If a connection was found, it could help identify the cause of the increased number of ADHD diagnoses in recent years.

Christakis gathered a team of researchers to try and shed some light on the topic. They looked at data on over 1300 children, and found that those who watched two hours of television per day before the age of 3 were 20% more likely to develop attention problems by the age of 7. When they published their data in 2004, it caused a stir in the national media.

The problem with this study is that it is observational, and thus cannot prove that the amount of TV watched really does lead to attention impairment.  The researchers only looked at the data they had available to them, and had no idea if there were confounding variables that led to the results. This article describes how socio-economic status could have been a contributing factor to the correlation, but a host of other variables could be at play.  Some of these variables include overstimulation by other means. For example, a child could watch a decent amount of TV, but the results could be because that child spends the majority of his time on his GameBoy. In addition, a lack of parent-child interaction could be a cause. A parent who plops their child down in front of the television instead of interacting and playing with them could cause a development problem in that child. Another problem I had with the study was that they compared the children who watched 2 hours of TV per day to children who watched no TV at all. I can’t necessarily say for certain what the numbers were like when the study was conducted, but I find it hard to believe in this day and age that there was a large sample of children who hadn’t watched any TV in their lives.

While these findings were enough for the national media to gobble up and distribute, Dimitri knew that more research had to be done before it was considered conclusive. He conducted another study in which a link was established between watching cartoons and attention disorders, whereas the link between educational programming and attention was found to be much less. Still, this was an observational study, and therefore couldn’t necessarily prove anything one way or another.

Dimitri and his colleague Fred Zimmerman were convinced that the amount of TV a child watched was absolutely a factor in the development of ADHD, and with that they wanted to explore how the different types of programming affected development in young children. They decided the best way to truly prove a more concrete conclusion was to conduct an experiment. They proposed to have two randomly assigned groups of children: the first group would watch a small amount of educational TV, while the second group would watch whatever their parents normally allowed. The National Institute of Health turned down his proposal, and no further study has been done on the matter.

I do believe that educational programming at a young age is beneficial to a developing brain. Slow paced shows like Sesame Street and Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood are designed to teach young children cognitive skills without bombarding them with visual queues and loud, flashy images. It’s seriously almost sickening to see the kinds of shows that are targeting young children these days. Next time you’re flipping through channels, turn on Cartoon Network for a few minutes. I guarantee that you probably won’t be able to make it through one episode of “Uncle Grandpa” (what?) or the annoying Orange show without questioning your sanity. They are exactly the kind of shows that Dimitri Christakis’ research warned us would be harmful to the development of our youth. In my own personal opinion, a greater emphasis should be placed on monitoring what children are watching, especially at a young age.

I can see why the NIH turned down Christakis’ proposal. If there were even a chance that his research is true, and some programs are harmful to the development of children, why would a parent intentionally put their child at risk? I feel as though this is another one of those areas of science where experimental research is questionably unethical, and a creative way to conduct the study needs to be found in order for it to be approved. Would you have been willing to volunteer your child to Dimitri’s study for the sake of scientific research?

The National Football League, or more recently dubbed “The No-Fun League”, has come under attack from both sides of the coin for their recent enhancement of penalties and fines for rough tackles and blows to the head.

On one side of the argument, former players and those affiliated with the sport are rallying for a safer game. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted a study of 3,400 retired players, which concluded that retired players have a higher-than-average risk of developing Alzheimer’s. A huge problem in the sport is the development of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE), which is caused by repeated head trauma. Analysis of the late great San Diego Chargers linebacker Junior Seau’s brain revealed that he had CTE when he ended his own life not too long ago. CTE is onset in large part by helmet-to-helmet contact. The NFL implemented a controversial rule by a large majority (31-1), which prohibits offensive and defensive players from lowering the crown of their helmet outside of the tackle box. Here is a visual representation of the tackle box: 

Many players and fans have taken polarized stances on this new rule. Marshall Faulk, from the formally dominant “greatest show on turf” St. Louis Rams, says the new rule is stupid and endangers the ball carrier rather than helps.

“It’s crazy. I think it’s a stupid rule. It’s all about suits — suits run our game. And now it’s on the zebras to make the call and make the call right. I’m just glad I don’t have to play under this rule, because I’m not quite sure how I would protect myself at times. A lot of things sound good when you’re just discussing it, but we’re talking about a game that’s played at a breakneck pace; officials have to make split-second decisions. 

Enforcement is the obvious concern, but I’m also thinking about the safety of players. When you run the football with your chin up in the air, you’re going to get knocked out. Look at Stevan Ridley in the AFC Championship Game — if he would’ve gotten low, I don’t see him getting knocked out by Bernard Pollard on that game-changing play. I know this: If you face contact with your eyes up, you will get hurt. As a ball carrier, the only thing you can do to protect yourself sometimes is getting down, and that now can be taken as lowering your helmet and using it as a weapon. You take that away from a guy, and now you have to run up in there chin-first.”

Marshall Faulk summarizes the views of many current players on the issue. Running backs simply cannot run head-up into traffic without greatly increasing their risk of serious injury. On the other side of the ball, many defensive players argue that it is becoming close to impossible to tackle a ball carrier without drawing a penalty and a hefty fine. The biggest problem with the new rules is that defensive players now have to tackle at the knees of the ball carrier. The effort to protect players from long-term head injury has brought on record-breaking numbers of ACL injuries. According to Kevin Seifert of ESPN, 30 players have been placed on injured reserve for ACL related injuries. The number is already greater than the total in 2011, and is on pace to break the 32 ACL injuries that occurred last season. He suggests that the increased number of injuries is a direct result of the movement to eliminate head-to-head contact.

Albert Breer from the NFL Network argues that the NFL had no choice but to implement the rule in the current state of the game. While he does state that it will be incredibly difficult for players to adjust to the new rule, and there will be an influx of backlash from players who are essentially paying a percentage of their salary simply to play the game, he makes a very pertinent point. The NFL is currently in the middle of a huge lawsuit in which 4,500 players were awarded $765 million as settlement for their concussion-related injuries that incurred while playing the sport.

The fact of the matter is, nobody really wins until the equipment players wear is safer. If there is no effort to stop helmet-to-helmet hits, then long-term injuries are prevalent and the NFL gets sued for millions. If the new rules stay in place, however, the rise of short-term injuries could potentially sideline key players for multiple weeks to a year. The only benefit to short term injuries is that players on contract will still get paid for the time they are injured. This is the only silver lining, though, because an ACL injury is still extremely painful and takes a lot of time and money to rehabilitate.

As a football fan, I constantly find myself watching the games on Sundays only to have frequent outbursts of “Ref let ’em play!” I believe that the new rules are ruining the sanctity of the sport; too many games are being decided by the officials rather than by the teams themselves. Football is a barbaric sport. The players know what they are signing up for when they choose to make their living playing football. Many may argue that NFL athletes are overpaid, but few consider the amount of physical trauma players experience and the number of years they take off of their life for our entertainment.

“Concussion” has become a buzzword in the sports world, with many people weighing in on the violent nature of American football. Commissioner Roger Goodell has implemented a $10 million incentive program to find more innovative ways to make the helmets players wear more shock-resistant. I feel as though this is the best way to make the sport safer without interfering with the rules that make the game what it is. What are your opinions on the safety of the sport? How can it be made safer without compromising the integrity of game? A good idea may just make you a ton of money.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2013/09/04/helmets-concussions-roger-goodell/2768237

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder is one of the most commonly diagnosed disorders in children, and the symptoms often carry into adolescence and adulthood. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, children are being diagnosed at ten times the rate they were in the 70’s. A big question that is raised in the scientific community is whether or not these children actually have a disorder, or if it is simply easier to calm down an overactive kid with drugs rather than parenting. That being said, the most important thing with any buzzword disorder such as ADD is awareness.

A lot of people think that they have ADD, or some at least a share of the symptoms. In fact, I am writing about this topic because I was on a science website and found myself looking at cool picture galleries instead of actually researching a topic. I thought to myself, “wow, I really can’t pay attention to anything for more than 5 minutes” and then realized what I wanted to write my blog about.

There is uncertainty as to what actually causes ADD, but it is believed to be a combination of predisposed genetic factors and various environmental situations. According to nih.gov, there have been studies involving twins which have led scientists to believe that ADD could run in the family. A child may be at greater risk to develop ADHD/ADD if their mother smoked cigarettes or practiced other unsafe activities during pregnancy. A common misconception is that sugar is a main contributing factor in childhood ADHD, however experimental studies have began to disprove the notion.

So what are the symptoms? A diagnosis is broken up into three different categories: Hyperactivity, inattentiveness, and “impulsivity”. People who have more of the hyperactive symptoms exhibit more of the stereotypical ADHD behavior, such as non-stop talking and constantly being in motion. Impulsivity is a mix of mild tourette’s syndrome and a large amount of impatience. Impulsive people will have a hard time waiting for their turn and may sometimes blurt out inappropriate comments without thinking about them. Inattentive symptoms may be harder to spot, as someone who is inattentive may not have as many problems developing relationships and will rarely act out. They will sit quietly, but are usually day dreaming or will get bored of something unless it is pleasurable to them. These cases are trickier to identify, and many go overlooked.

If you haven’t gotten diagnosed yet, you are most likely safe. The vast majority of ADD needs to be diagnosed in childhood in order to be considered legitimate. Many college aged students who think they have symptoms are actually just a product of our fast-paced everyday lifestyles. We spend so much time checking various social networks and stimulating our senses at a mile a minute that when we have to sit down and work without distraction, we don’t know what to do with ourselves.

sources-
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/attention-deficit-hyperactivity-disorder-adhd/index.shtml
 

Lightning strikes have caused 19 deaths so far in 2013 according to this Accuweather article. The odds of getting struck by lightning are very slim, however is still a risk whenever a bad storm rolls in. So where is the safest place to be during a storm? Many of us, myself included, have heard that the safest place to be during a thunderstorm is your car. We justify this by saying that since the car sits on rubber tires, it deters the electricity away somehow. If that’s the case, then wouldn’t the safest place in a storm be in a giant tire?

This has been debunked as simply an old wives tale. Mark Leberfinger from accuweather.com reports that we are safe in a car because the all-metal exterior cause the lightning to travel around the outside of the vehicle. You are only completely safe if you are not touching any metal objects in the car. A car is much safer than being out in the open, however. The Disaster Center website states that the best thing for you to do if you are in a severe storm while driving is to simply pull over and wait out the storm. You should turn on your flashers to let other drivers know you are stopped if there is low visibility, and sit with your hands in your lap away from all objects in the car.

The safest place to be during a storm is in an enclosed building away from wiring and plumbing. Patios and covered picnic areas are not safe and should be avoided if possible. A good general rule of thumb is to stay away from anything that can conduct electricity, such as sinks, bathtubs, wet porches, metal pipes, and even electrical outlets without surge protectors.

More tips on how to stay safe during a storm.