CANCER CONSULTANTS.COM: A drug treatment called Bonefos (sodium clodronate) – that blocks the function of the cells which reabsorb bone – reduces the risk of death by 23% in men with metastatic prostate cancer, report UK researchers. READ MORE>

A futile exercise – on the same scale as trying to teach Jed to bark ‘Happy Birthday’ – is keeping the house clean with a dog. Approximately three seconds after hoovering/mopping, the floor is covered in shredded twigs, earth-sculptures of paw-prints, half-chewed pig’s ears and the entrails of various stuffed toys and electronic items.

I had not vacuumed since Husband left, but eventually succumbed when I was ankle-deep in small, fine, curly brown hairs. The house looked like the set of a hobbit porn film after shooting the orgy scene.

It is possible that, in common with many dog owners, Husband and I are immune to the distinct aroma that accompanies a dog: a delicate blend of slobber, swamp mud, rancid meat and canine pheromones. Regardless whether I am susceptible or not, I am paranoid about our house smelling like a giant den – particularly the upper stair landing which was Jed’s favourite bathroom spot until he realized it resulted in being fired out the door at mach speeds.

Back in the eighties, our TV screens were pillaged with a brutal advert for Shake ‘n’ Vac carpet freshener. In case you weren’t around in the eighties, or spent that decade in a submarine, the advert featured a disproportionately happy woman frenziedly shake ‘n’ vaccing, singing and wriggling around with a circa 1960 vacuum cleaner which apparently didn’t have to be plugged in to work.

I suspect Jenny Logan was sprinkling around cocaine rather than carpet freshener. I mean, who vacuums in high heels? With clothes on? Who gets that chuffed about doing the hoovering? I could understand if she was advertising, say, ice-cream or condoms. But where vacuuming is concerned, the only time I wriggle is when trying to get out of it. It is a tedious chore that should be approached with a spareness of movement and economy of verbalization to minimize the risk of death.

I was never sure what angle Glade’s advertising agency was pitching. That hoovering will fulfill you? That using Shake n Vac gives you a slightly hysterical singing voice? That having a fragrant house is what you have always secretly dreamed of but never realised?

Yet I still remember the jingle in all its macabre glory:-

It’s all you. Have. To. Do.
Do the shake n vac n put the freshness back!
Do the shake n vac n put the freshness back!
When your carpet smells fresh, your room does too!
Every time you vacuum, REMEMBER WHAT TO DO!

Nearly thirty years later, I finally allowed myself to be seduced by Glade’s advert and bought a tub of Shake ‘n’ Vac. This morning, I sprinkled toxic yet delicious smelling powder all over the carpeted areas of the house, with a concentrated application on the upper stairs landing. Then I hoovered.

The house smells like a little preview of spring. And do you know what?

It did; it made me feel like wriggling

A few extra pounds helps you live longer, study finds  Telegraph.co.uk - 

 Carrying a few extra pounds may actually be good for you, according to a new study which found overweight people live longer than their more slender peers. While the obese or underweight are at greater risk of death, people marginally overweight have longer life spans than those considered to be of “healthy” weight, researchers claim. The findings defy the commonly held belief that staying slim is the secret to healthy and long life.  Scientists examined the relationship between body mass index and death among 11,326 adults in Canada over a 12-year period. They discovered that underweight people were 70 per cent more likely than people of normal weight to die, and extremely obese people were 36 per cent more likely to die. However, modestly overweight individuals were 17 per cent less likely to die, the study showed.  The relative risk for obese people was nearly the same as for people of normal weight, the report concluded. The research was conducted by experts at Statistics Canada, Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland State University, Oregon Health & Science University, and McGill University. Commenting on the findings, David Feeny from the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, said: “It’s not surprising that extreme underweight and extreme obesity increase the risk of dying. “But it is surprising that carrying a little extra weight may give people a longevity advantage.” However, the researchers also warned people of normal weight not to try to put on extra pounds in the hope of improving their health.” I would not interpret our results as suggesting that if you are normal you should gain weight and get into the overweight category,” Mr Feeny said. Fellow researcher Mark Kaplan, professor of Community Health at Portland State University, added: “Our study only looked at mortality, not at quality of life. “There are many negative health consequences associated with obesity, including high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and diabetes.” The researches said carrying slightly more weight than normal may be beneficial in later life because it prevents people from becoming dangerously underweight when faced with health problems.

Excess Pounds, but Not Too Many, May Lead to Longer Life New York Times

Study: Overweight People Live Longer WebMD

The Canadian Press - Reuters - CBC.ca - Ontario Now

all 85 news articles »

 

A few extra pounds after 45 years of age now tends to help  you live longer, maintain your health, and I happened to know that this is really true even due to a recent experience of one of my relatives, who was in the 80’s  and they had a sudden large loss of weight due to unexplained blood loss, anemic and they next were unable to regain quickly their strength, weight and faced more health difficulties as a result.

 

Irrespective all persons should still watch what they eat,  cut back on their salt and sugar intake, and use salt,  sugar substitutes now as well

 

Washington (IANS) :- The presence of anaemia in patients with chronic heart failure is linked to a significantly higher risk of death.

Heart failure is a common and serious chronic illness. A large number of patients with heart failure also have anaemia, which is most likely a complication from poor heart function.

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of anaemia on the clinical outcomes of chronic heart failure (CHF) by a meta-analysis and systemic review of published literature.

A total of 97,699 patients with CHF were identified from the published studies. From a collective analysis, researchers found that when anaemia occurs, it worsens patient prognosis, making them more likely to be hospitalized or die from heart failure.

“Health professionals may need to improve current practices to better treat anaemia in patients with chronic heart failure” said Lexin Wang, study co-author and head of the cardiovascular group at Charles Sturt University (CSU), in Australia.

Even with contemporary medical treatment, the mortality rate from CHF is still high, reaching 40 percent in very sick patients, said a CSU release.

Given the clear association between anaemia, mortality rate and hospitalization rate, optimal treatment of anaemia, on top of other heart-failure-specific therapies, may reduce the rate of mortality and further improve patient’s prognosis.

These findings will appear in Congestive Heart Failure journal.

Source :- Anemia linked with higher death risk in heart patients

vitalis news

It recommended consideration of alternatives to Innohep when treating these patients for deep vein thrombosis with or without pulmonary embolism.

FDA has received information about the clinical study: Innohep in Study (IRIS) that was stopped in February, 2008 by the study’s Data Safety Monitoring Committee because of an interim finding of an increase in all-cause mortality in patients who received Innohep. Information on the patients enrolled in the study, on the heparin used to manufacture Innohep, and on the heparin used in the study is still being collected and analyzed. READ ON

I live and work near a known terrorist target so I’m anxious to answer the question: Will I survive a nuclear blast just three miles from ground zero?

I’m not a nuclear scientist or a ballistics expert or military strategist, but I’m surfing the web looking for those guys. This exercise is more back-of-the-napkin than doctorial thesis as I don’t think even a room full of Noble laureates could guarantee an answer. I’m simply looking at probabilities to help me define my risk.

In the next post I estimate the most likely bomb size.

In the post that follows the next post I’ll get started on estimating the risk of death and injury from both the blast and the radiation. I’ll come to a partial conclusion but there are many variables to check so I’ll be fleshing out this answer over time.

Eventually, I’ll look into the probability of an attack, weighing the specific risk to my local target, which will help me decide if I should move to safer ground. Even if I can survive a nuke in good health, I have no doubt that the post-apocalyptic quality of life will suck for a long, long time, so that too will affect my decision to stay or split. I’ll also consider the possibility that a nuclear attack anywhere in the U.S. may create a nationwide syndrome of fear of future attacks.

If you live or work near a target and want to assess your risk, sorry to be glib but I believe a nuke is most likely to explode during business hours, 9AM to 5PM. Not only will there be maximum amounts of people near the target, the most likely bombers are media savvy and want good press coverage. Planning for a potential nuke attack needs to consider both work and home, but the emphasis should probably be on where you work.

SUBSCRIBER NOTE: I added a new “feed” for newsreader subscribers, which you can update to by clicking on the orange subscribe button on the right.