- BASIL & SPICE OPINION

Entries in Kneidel, Sally (5)

Thursday

12Nov2009

When H1N1 Is Fatal, Mexican Study--41% Of The Critical Died

Nov 12, 2009

Sally Kneidel Ph.D.--

As I wrote about a couple of weeks ago, my daughter and her boyfriend both had H1N1 recently. They both had fever, headache, severe muscle aches, fatigue, a sore throat and dry cough. They were both pretty miserable for a few days, but then made a very speedy recovery. Neither one of them ever went to a doctor, because by the time we figured out what they had, it was too late for Tamiflu to have any effect. A nurse told me that Tamiflu is effective only if taken in the first day or two of a viral illness, because all it does is shorten the duration and severity of the illness. My daughter and her boyfriend did take elderberry extract capsules (800 mg, 3 times a day) which they felt hastened their recovery.

The same nurse friend I mentioned above also told me that, of all the people she sees in her job, those with H1N1 are in general not as sick as those with the seasonal flu. The population she treats is mostly teens.

When H1N1 Can Be Fatal

But soon after my daughter and her boyfriend recovered, the college-age son of a friend became ill with H1N1. He went to the college infirmary, and was soon in the hospital. I'm not sure exactly what symptoms he had at first, except that they included a cough, sore throat, and runny nose. Then, within just a couple of days, I got the word that he was in critical condition, in the ICU with pneumonia!! There was a day or two after that where no one was sure whether he would live or die. It was very frightening. He was able to breathe, but due to fluid in his lungs he was not getting enough oxygen, which can lead to organ failure and death.

So he was put on a respirator, which forces air into the lungs. The respirator was put on a high setting, meaning that a lot of air was being forced into his lungs. He was teetering on the brink of life for a couple of days, then I heard that the respirator had been turned down a notch, which was good. After another day or two, a tracheotomy was performed and the respirator was attached to that instead of being stuck in his mouth. I'm not sure what the purpose of that procedure was, except that it was a considered a step toward healing, and he was more comfortable having the respirator out of his mouth. He started writing notes to the nurses, texting his friends, and generally coming around. Next thing I heard, the respirator was removed, the tracheotomy was closed up and he was going home! Seems like as soon as he began to get better, the recovery was remarkably fast.

Studies say my friend's experience was typical of serious cases of H1N1

I just recently read articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and in Science News that detailed a typical scenario in the most serious cases of H1N1. They described cases remarkably similar to that of my friend's son. The articles said that young adults are the most vulnerable. The most critical patients are those who get pneumonia. The article said inflammation in the lungs leads to fluid build-up in the airways and the lungs.

Says Dr.Robert Fowler of the University of Toronto, "Most patients are still able to take breaths, but those breaths are ineffective." In a Canadian study reported in JAMA, 168 patients critically ill with H1N1 (average age 32) received intensive treatment, including antivirals such as tamiflu and ventilators, but 17% of them died. In another study, patients in Australia and New Zealand with an average age of 34 who were critically ill with H1N1 had a mortality rate of 21%. In a third study, this time in Mexico, critically ill patients with H1N1 had a mortality rate of 41%, although these patients too were treated with ventilators and antivirals such as Tamiflu or Relenza. In one final study, in California, 11% of patients who became critically ill with H1N1 died - the most common cause of death was "viral pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome." Note that these percentages are percentages of people who were already critically ill with H1N1, not just percentages of all people who had H1N1.

The most important factor seems to be pneumonia. I am not sure what steps can be taken to keep H1N1 from turning into pneumonia, but if I had H1N1, I would see a doctor as fast as possible to get a prescription for an antiviral, and I would stay home and rest, drink lots of fluids, and do whatever the doctor said to help keep my lungs clear.

The CDC and other sources recommend these steps for keeping well and keeping others well:

Wash hands frequently.
Don't touch eyes, nose, mouth.
Leave the room if someone else is coughing, because inhaling airborne droplets can lead to infection, and that factor is more likely in cold weather. (See my previous post below on why that's true.)
If you are sick, cover your mouth or nose with a tissue when you cough and throw it away, or with the inside of your elbow, not with your hands.
Stay home if you're sick until you've had no fever for at least 24 hours.
Try to avoid touching doorknobs or things that other people touch constantly when out in public or at work. Use your own pen to sign receipts.

See the CDC's website for more information on staying well.

Sources:

Anand Kumar, MD, et al. "Critically Ill Patients with 2009 Influenza A(H1N1) Infection in Canada". 2009. Journal of the American Medical Association 302(17):1872-1879. Published online October 12, 2009

Janice K. Louie, MD, et al. "Factors Asssociated with Death or Hospitalization Due to Pandemic 2009 Influenza A(H1N1) Infection in California". 2009. Journal of the American Medical Association 302(17):1896-1902.

Nathan Seppa. "Reviewing H1NI flu's worst cases: Antivirals, ventilators help, but fatalities show lungs hit hard." Nov 7, 2009. Science News.

Sally Kneidel, PhD, is the author of eleven books on nature, conservation, and science topics. Two books from Fulcrum co-authored by Sally and Sadie Kneidel are Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet (May, 2008) and Veggie Revolution: Smart Choices for a Healthy Body and A Healthy Planet (Nov, 2005). Sally Kneidel can be found online at www.veggierevolution.blogspot.com and at SallyKneidel.com

Veggierevolution.blogspot.com/2009/05/why-is-flu-winter-disease-not-because.html

Black Elderberry And The H1N1 Flu

1 Comment | |

Email Article |

Permalink

tagged

CDC,

H1N1,

elderberry,

fatal,

icu,

pneumonia,

tamiflu,

ventilator in

CDC,

Flu,

Kneidel, Sally,

Pneumonia

Sunday

06Sep2009

Neurologic Study: Swearing--Relieves Stress, Pain

Sep 6, 2009

Sally Kneidel, Ph.D.--

So there is some merit in swearing. I remember as 9-year-olds, my best friend Tina and I had a hiding place in the woods where we went to "practice" the forbidden swear words we were learning at school. Looks like they may come in handy after all!

A new study published in the August 5 NeuroReport suggests that cursing may alleviate pain. Scientist Timothy Jay says "Swear words are unique. They're really the link between the language system and the emotional system."

The author of the new study, psychologist Richard Stephens of Keele University, said the idea came to him after listening to his wife in labor. I can relate!! I was mortified when my husband told me the bleeps I yelled at the doctor during the final stages of childbirth.

Richard Stephens designed an experiment to test his suspicion that swearing might change pain perception. He had college students immerse one hand in very cold water for as long as they could stand it, up to 5 minutes. Some students were told to repeat particular swear words (f-word, s-word, etc.) during the hand immersion. Other students were told to repeat a neutral word.

Stephens found that those who repeated a swear word were able to keep their hand in the cold water longer; they also reported less pain. Cursing also increased the heart rate of the experimental subjects.

Scientists think that the increased pulse of the experimental swearers may have been the beginning of the fight-or-flight syndrome that often kicks in in response to pain or fear. (A full-blown fight-or-flight response includes increased respiration, increased heart rate, pupil dilation, increased blood flow to skeletal muscles - responses that prepare the body to flee or to fight.) It could be that an increased tolerance of pain, or the ability to ignore pain, could be adaptive components of a fight-or-flight response.

Maybe. My own opinion is that swearing relieves stress, in the same way that describing frustrations to a trusted friend can relieve stress. Venting anger in solitude or in an appropriate setting, in a socially acceptable manner....can alleviate stress, and I imagine, reduce pain. The link between stress and pain is well established, which is one reason childbirth classes help with pain management; many such classes include relaxation techniques.

I think too, at least for women, swearing can create a feeling of personal power or defiance, and reduce feelings of victimization. I was powerless in the delivery room, in a way, because the baby was stuck, and I was almost delirious with pain and exhaustion. Somehow swearing made me feel less passive, and helped me endure the experience. Even though at the time I had no idea what I was saying.

And my practicing at swearing with my childhood friend - I think the very forbidden nature of it made us feel more powerful, more in control of our own lives - something I needed as the youngest of four children and the only girl.

Which brings me back to scientist Timothy Jay, who remarked, "When you try to describe swearing in moral terms - is it good or bad - it keeps you from getting at the deeper evolutionary links." I guess he means the fight-or-flight syndrome. But in my opinion, those deeper evolutionary links are our need to vent frustration, relieve stress, and exert our own personal power.

Sources:
Laura Sanders. '%&*#$!' makes you feel better: new study finds swearing like a sailor may alleviate pain. Science News. August 1, 2009.

Richard Stephens et al. Swearing as a response to pain. NeuroReport. August 5, 2009.

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder--From The Inside Out

Life In Africa, Limited Resources

Village Co-operative Promotes 2010 World Cup in South Africa

New Study Says Local Food NOT The Greenest Choice

May 16, 2009

Sally Kneidel--

"Local" is the mantra in sustainable food these days. But should it be? Is eating locally-produced food the most powerful thing we can do to reduce our ecological "foodprint?"

A new study from Worldwatch Institute says no indeed. I love Worldwatch. They crank out study after study with lots of hard data, evaluating the environmental impact of various consumer choices. So useful! So fun to quote!

Don't get me wrong - I'm all in favor of local food. We definitely should support small-scale farmers in our own communities who are growing food organically and sustainably. For years now, I've been writing and speaking in support of them, on this blog and in our books and at various conferences.

There's no question that, all other things being equal, buying food grown nearby is better than buying food that's been trucked for long distances. Less transported food means fewer emissions and a smaller carbon footprint. But as Sarah DeWeerdt points out in this new Worldwatch article, we need to look at the whole production picture - not just how far food was transported from producer to market.
Dairy cows' rear-ends: bad news for our climate. Photo by Sally KneidelAs it turns out, when we look at life-cycle analysis, a "cradle-to-grave perspective" on food products, food miles are "a relatively small slice of the greenhouse-gas pie," says DeWeerdt. In fact, according to a comprehensive analysis last year by Christopher Weber and H. Scott Matthews of Carnegie Mellon University, final delivery from the producer or processor to the retailer accounts for only 4% of the U.S. food system's greenhouse-gas emissions! Materials required for cultivation and processing must be transported too; this transport is considered part of the "upstream" miles and emissions. Such materials include fertilizer, pesticides, animal feed, etc. But the transport of these items, together with transport to market, still accounts for only 11% of the food system's emissions.

What's the source of all the other greenhouse gases associated with agriculture? Production. Primarily, production of livestock. Weber and Matthews from Carnegie Mellon found that a whopping 83% of food-related emissions occur before the food leaves the farm. Tara Garnett, in a recent analysis of a U.K. food system reached similar conclusions.

What you eat may matter more than where it came from

Numerous studies reviewed by DeWeerdt have found that livestock production generates a much higher volume of greenhouse gases than does plant production. Beef and dairy cattle are the worst culprits; DeWeerdt calls them "agriculture's overwhelming 'hotspots' " in terms of greenhouse-gas emissions. A group of Swedish researchers has calculated that meat and dairy account for 58% of that country's total food emissions. In Garnett's study, meat and dairy accounted for half of the U.K. food system's greenhouse gases. Garnett writes, "Broadly speaking, eating fewer meat and dairy products and consuming more plant foods in their place is probably the single most helpful behavioral shift one can make" to reduce food-related greenhouse gases. Weber and Matthews reached a similar conclusion: "No matter how it is measured, on average red meat is more GHG-intensive than all other forms of food. " The dairy industry, in their study, was the second-biggest contributor to greenhouse-gas emissions.

A large proportion of emissions associated with beef cattle and dairy cows are the greenhouse gases methane and nitrous oxide. Methane is 23 times more potent at trapping solar heat than is carbon dioxide; nitrous oxide is 296 times more potent (molecule per molecule). Methane comes from the rear-ends of ruminants such as cows. Both methane and nitrous oxide come from manure, especially the vast, open "waste lagoons" associated with factory farms.

Well then, just how much does food contribute to the planet's overall carbon footprint? I reported on that in a previous post. In 2006, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization published a live-wire of a paper entitled "Livestock's Long Shadow." According to that research document, livestock account for 18 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. And here's the kicker - that's more than all forms of transportation combined! You can easily google that document for yourself. Just read the 3-page Executive Summary in Part I, which summarizes the the whole 400 page report.

After concluding that red meat and dairy are emissions hot-spots, DeWeerdt does go on to review the merits of buying local food. One clear advantage, which Sadie and I talk about in our presentations, is that local food is in general grown by small-scale farmers who are openly accountable for their treatment of the environment and their livestock. The farmers I know who sell food to their own communities welcome visitors to inspect their methods. This is a far cry from industrial producers who keep their exploitive and often abusive operations shielded from public view.

So buy local. But, if you want to contribute to a liveable planet for your grandchildren, eat low on the food chain too. And join me in a tip of the hat to Worldwatch for another fine study.

Sources:
Sarah DeWeerdt. Is Local Food Better? Worldwatch Institute. Accessed May 15, 2009.

Livestock's Long Shadow. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome, 2006.

H1N1 Is Swine Flu: Roots In North Carolina

Less Meat....Smaller Footprint

New Study: Meat Impacts Climate Change More Than "Buying Local"

Southern Hemisphere: Testing Ground For Swine Flu

May 9, 2009

Sally Kneidel--

Swine flu is so far turning out to be a milder disease than was feared a couple of weeks ago. Although it continues to spread from person to person around the globe, in most places it has been no more lethal than more familiar and common flu strains. That could very well change though when autumn rolls around.

"Our evidence from all previous pandemics is you get two phases. So you get a first wave which is often very mild and then you get a much more serious wave that comes along in the autumn and the winter," said Alan Johnson, Great Britain's Health Secretary. He was quoted May 4 in Britain's Telegraph.

All flu outbreaks tend to be worse in cold weather, and so far this H1N1 swine flu hasn't really seen any cold weather. In the Northern Hemisphere flu season is November to March. But seasons are reversed in the Southern Hemisphere - the cool weather of autumn is starting up right now in South America, where flu season is May to September.

Although there haven't been many cases of H1N1 swine flu in the Southern Hemisphere yet, we may see that change shortly. We may get a preview of what's in store for us come November.

Why are flu outbreaks always worse during the colder months? I heard an explanation on NPR's Morning Edition on Friday (5/7/09) that was completely new to me. I had always heard that flu spreads in winter because we're all cooped up together indoors. Turns out, that's not it at all!

Dr. Peter Palese of Mount Sinai School of Medicine and his colleagues have been studying the transmission of flu between guinea pigs, which can get infected with human flu viruses. Palese's results over the last couple of years indicate that spending more time together inside is not the causative factor.

Palese says flu viruses are more stable [and last longer, presumably] in colder, drier conditions. What's more, the droplets of fluid that people spray with sneezes and coughs are much smaller at lower temperatures and lower humidity, so the droplets carry much farther and stay suspended in the air longer. The smaller droplets can be inhaled more deeply into the respiratory passages and lungs, Palese says. The opposite is true at warmer temperatures and higher humidity, when the droplets become much bigger and sink to the floor, reports Palese. These influences are so pronounced that "at 75 to 80 degrees, we don't see any transmission."

Wow! Who knew! But there's even more new data to debunk the old "crowded indoors" theory.

Palese and his colleagues also report that colder, drier air makes mammals' respiratory tracts more vulnerable to infection by airborne viruses.

In cold air, "the mucous is much more viscous," Palese explains. Sticky mucus clogs up the cilia, or tiny hairs, that normally move in waves to expel virus-laden particles from the breathing passages. So in cold weather, inhaled flu viruses tend to stay where they land, reproducing and infecting the unfortunate victim.

Well, it looks like this South American winter is going to be a testing ground for the H1N1 swine flu. We'll see whether it attacks with a real vengeance, spurring the next scary flu pandemic, or whether it fizzles out like some of its predecessors have done.

For constantly updated info, see the H1N1 page on the website of the Pan American Health Organization.

My previous posts on swine flu:

H1N1 Is Swine Flu: Roots In North Carolina

Smithfield Blamed For Swine Flu By Mexican Press

Sources:
Richard Knox. May 8, 2009. Flu heads south for the winter. NPR Morning Edition.

John Bingham and Auslan Cramb. May 4, 2009. Swine flu: the worst is yet to come in autumn, warns Alan Johnson. Telegraph.co.uk

2 Comments | |

Email Article |

Permalink

tagged

H1N1,

mucus,

testing ground in

Flu,

Kneidel, Sally

Monday

24Mar2008

Hillary's Gender VS. Obama's Race: Stereotype Liabilities?

Mar 24, 2008

Sally Kneidel, PhD. is part of a mother-daughter (Sadie Kneidel) writing team in North Carolina. She is the author or co-author of eleven books on nature, conservation, and science topics. Two books from Fulcrum co-authored by Sally and Sadie are Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet (May, 2008) and Veggie Revolution: Smart Choices for a Healthy Body and a Healthy Planet (Nov, 2005).

Sally Kneidel--

I've had enough of George Bush and his systematic un-doing of the environmental legislation enacted by the Clinton administration. I'm terrified at the prospect of another president who places corporate interests far above citizens' interests and way way way ahead of environmental interests.

I want a democrat yes, but this election has much more at stake then that. Our country will take a giant step forward, culturally and politically, if we can elect anyone who isn't a white male.

We've had 43 white males in a row as president. Right now, the ideal candidate would be a non-white female. But since that's not one of the choices, democratic voters will be choosing between a black male and a white woman to run against McCain.

I like Obama. What's not to like? He is reminiscent of the idealism and romance of the Kennedys, as everybody says. I have loved the Kennedys since I was a kid, and I still do greatly admire RFK Jr's prolific record of environmental accomplishments. When he wrote an endorsement for the jacket of our last book, I was so proud.

But....how can I not root for a candidate who is the first representative of my own gender to ever be a serious contender for the office of president? I pretended for awhile to weigh the merits of Obama and Hillary intellectually, and then one day, in one moment, it became crystal clear. I could never vote against Hillary. To do so, for me, would be a vote against women, against my own gender. Against this extraordinary chance that may not come for another 100 years.

If Hillary were not a woman, she would have bagged this nomination long ago.

In a country still beset by gender and race stereotypes, which one is more of a liability?

"Gender stereotypes trump race stereotypes in every social science test," says Alice Eagly, a psychology professor at Northwestern University.

Bias researchers such as Eagly have found that racial bias is strikingly changeable, and can be mitigated and even erased by everything from clothing and speech cadence to setting and skin tone.

Professor Eagly says that attitudes about women are harder to change.

Clinton's campaign has discovered for themselves that gender stereotypes are less changeable. Women can be seen as either ambitious and capable, or they can be seen as likable, but it's very unlikely for them to be seen as both. "The deal is that women generally fall into two alternatives: they are seen as either nice but stupid, or smart but mean," said Susan Fiske, a psychology professor at Princeton who specializes in stereotyping.

Although racial attitudes appear to be softening, there's little evidence that gender biases are.

Amy Cuddy, a psychologist at Northwestern, suggests the durability of gender stereotypes stems from the fact that most people have more exposure to people of the opposite gender than to people of other races. They feel more entitled to their attitudes about gender. "Contact doesn't undermine these stereotypes and it might even strengthen them," says Cuddy. "Many people don't believe seeing women as kind or soft is a stereotype. They're not going to question it because they believe it's a good thing."

Is it a good thing? Kindness and softness are good things in both men and women. But it's not a good thing to hold a candidate to impossible standards. I hear women I know talking about how mean or cold Hillary is, how much they "hate" her. Is she meaner or colder than George Bush or John McCain or Barack Obama or any other male candidate? Hardly. We want her to be momma and the general at the same time. It's the hardest task any candidate has ever faced. But some woman, some time, will have to break through and create a new precedent for female presidential candidates in the future. Most female heads of state around the world have had a family member who preceded them in office. We know that. That much precedent has already been created. Now is the time we can pop that glass ceiling. We're almost there! If not now, how much longer will it be until another opportunity arises?

I believe Hillary's presidency would profoundly change the status of women in this country. I for one am on-fire ready for that. How 'bout you?

Related: Diet Contributes to Global Warming More Than Your Car

Source:
Drake Bennett. Feb 19 2008. Gender vs. Race: Historic race may show biases of the American mind at work. The Boston Globe.

3* Movie Review: Dear John (Feb 2010) JOHN TRAVOLTA>>FROM PARIS WITH LOVE

FROM PARIS WITH LOVE --CLICK HERE FOR THE REVIEW

Randall Radic Takes On Commissioned Work. More Please Visit Our Sponsors WORKOUT DVDS

FITNESS & DIET 2010!

Entries in Kneidel, Sally (5)

3* Movie Review: Dear John (Feb 2010)

JOHN TRAVOLTA>>FROM PARIS WITH LOVE

Randall Radic Takes On Commissioned Work. More

Please Visit Our Sponsors

WORKOUT DVDS