“Should I Worry About Extreme Heat?”

Posted on June 13, 2013 by admin

Ah, summer: the season of picnics, beach trips, barbecues…and dangerous heat waves. Every year, an average of 658 deaths nationwide are caused by extreme heat—a deadly weather condition characterized by unusually hot temperatures that last for at least a few days. Sweltering sucks, but you’d better get used to it. Because of climate change, periods of extreme heat are expected to become much more common.

Heat-related deaths aren’t the only consequence of oppressive temps. Over the past decade, there’s been a substantial increase in the number of people treated for heat-induced conditions in emergency rooms, says Rebecca Noe, MPH, an epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control. The most dangerous of these include heat exhaustion, which happens when there’s a plunge in sodium levels due to excess sweating; and heatstroke, which occurs when you get so hot, your body can no longer cool itself down without medical intervention.

You’d think that with cold drinks and AC available pretty much everywhere, extreme heat isn’t something that should be on your radar. But it needs to be—particularly if you work out outdoors. It can take just minutes for your body to become seriously overheated even if you’re only being moderately active; and this can set you up for heat exhaustion or heat stroke.

If you can’t bear the thought of working out in a gym, cut your heat-related illness odds by taking a few precautions, such as getting your sweat on early in the a.m. or closer to dusk, when temps are cooler. Wear loose clothes, and switch to cooler activities, such as swimming or hiking in the mountains, says Noe. And of course, swill lots of liquids while you’re being active or working out outside—about two to four eight-ounce cups of water or another low-sugar, caffeine-free beverage per hour—whether you’re thirsty or not. Seem extreme? It’s not really since you’ll be sweating out that amount of liquid, says Noe, but staying hydrated and sipping consistently is what’s important—so you don’t need to stress over the exact amount of water you’re drinking.

And what if you don’t work out outdoors? You can still get overheated—so you should be aware of the symptoms (for your sake and in case you spot them in friends). They include heavy sweating; feeling weak or faint; pale, clammy skin; rapid resting heart rate; or even nausea or vomiting. If you notice any of these, immediately loosen your clothes (or your friend’s) and seek shade, cold water, and/or a blasting AC. If symptoms continue, head to the ER—heatstroke is a medical emergency.

The verdict: Heat-related health conditions caused by stretches of crazy-high temps are a concern for anyone who spends time outdoors or sans AC—but it can be extra dangerous if you’re exercising outside. In either case, it’s smart to take a few precautions to stay as safe as possible.

javahut healthy feed

“Should I Worry About…Dry Cleaning?”

Posted on June 6, 2013 by admin

Every week, the Scoop examines alarming new claims to help you make sense of the latest health research.

There’s nothing like putting on a crisp blouse or freshly laundered dress straight from the cleaners, but could slipping on dry-cleaned clothes be dangerous? A new study from the Danish Cancer Society Research Center suggests that exposure to Tricholoroethylene (TCE), a chemical used in dry cleaning since the 1950s, may increase your chances of getting cancer.

While TCE is known to be carcinogenic to animals, a U.S. Department of Human and Health Services Report on Carcinogens released in 2011 speculated that it may also cause cancer in humans—yet the chemical is still used in dry cleaning, white out, paint thinners, adhesives, and other cleaning products. Even more worrisome, trace levels of TCE have been detected in drinking water.

To determine TCE’s effect on humans, researchers at the Danish Cancer Society Research Center followed more than 40,000 people from 1947 to 1989 and monitored their TCE levels and any incidences of cancer. During that time, researchers noticed that men who’d been exposed to TCE were 8 percent more likely to get cancer and—disturbingly—women were 23 percent more likely to get the disease.

So should you toss your dry clean-only duds? Not just yet. Study subjects were exposed to much higher levels of TCE than people typically are today. “Nowadays, [TCE] is normally only used for spot removal in dry cleaning shops,” says lead study author Johnni Hansen, PhD. In fact, the dry-cleaning industry is no longer a major source of TCE exposure, says Hansen. Since the chemical is used in much larger quantities as a degreaser in the metal industry, people who work in that field should be much more concerned about their exposure levels, says Hansen.

“Exposure levels have decreased perhaps five- to 10-fold during the last 40 years,” he says.

While it’s hard to say what amounts of exposure are “safe,” higher levels clearly pose a higher risk, says Hanson. So people who work at a job that forces them to be exposed to TCE every day (like metal workers) should be much more concerned about their cancer risk being impacted than someone who dry cleans some of their clothing regularly.

And as for the TCE you may be exposed to when drinking water? “It’s in extremely low concentrations,” says Hansen, so it’s unlikely to affect your cancer risk. (The EPA actually regulates the amount of TCE allowed in drinking water to ensure it remains at or below safe levels.)

The Verdict: Don’t worry about dropping your duds off at the cleaners. Only small amounts of TCE are used in dry cleaning, and many cleaners don’t use it at all anymore. If you really want to avoid the chemical as much as possible, there’s an easy fix: Just ask your dry cleaner if they use TCE or find a chemical-free green dry cleaner in your area at nodryclean.com.

photo: Stockbyte/Thinkstock

javahut healthy feed

“Should I Worry About Eyelash Extensions?”

Posted on May 29, 2013 by admin

Every week, the Scoop examines alarming new claims to help you make sense of the latest health research.

Forget false eyelashes you apply at home—the latest lash trend (inspired by stars like Heidi Klum, Rihanna, and Kim Kardashian) is eyelash extensions. To get them, an aesthetician uses tweezers to glue individual strands of silk, synthetic material, or mink to each of your natural lashes one by one. The process takes about two hours, costs from $ 200 to $ 1,000, and can last about three weeks before they grow out and need to be removed or replaced.

While the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) generally recommends that false eyelashes be applied by a professional for safety reasons, earlier this month the AAO warned consumers that even eyelash extensions obtained in a salon may cause infections of the cornea and eyelid, as well contact dermatitis caused by an allergic reaction to the type of glue salons use. “I’m seeing more and more patients with injuries caused by extensions, some of which can threaten a woman’s vision,” explains Rebecca Taylor, MD, an ophthalmologist in Nashville, Tennessee, and a clinical spokesperson for the AAO.

Infections and allergic reactions aren’t the only problems. Another danger is the temporary or permanent loss of your natural eyelashes, which can happen if the extensions damage the lash follicle or are so heavy they put tension on the lash, causing breakage. “Eyelashes have an important function: They sweep dirt and debris away from your eyes, preserving vision,” says Taylor. Losing yours temporarily is harmful enough, but if they never grow back, you set yourself up for a lifetime of eye issues.

That said, if you’ve been thinking of getting them—the Bambi eyes look can be seriously sexy—you can lower your risk of complications by taking a few precautions. First, hit up a reputable salon, and have the procedure done by a certified experienced aesthetician. “An inexperienced aesthetician can easily cut the eyeball or cornea,” says Taylor. Ouch. Also, a salon with an iffy reputation may not encourage staffers to wash their hands and utensils properly between customers, and that can spread infection-causing microbes.

Next, ask the aesthetician not to use glue that contains formaldehyde. “Many of the glues used for extensions contain this chemical, which can cause an allergic reaction resulting in stinging, burning, swelling, and a rash on contact or up to a week later,” says Taylor. Even if you don’t think you’re allergic to formaldehyde, play it safe and insist on a glue without it.

Once the extensions are on, watch for symptoms such as pain, itching, or redness, says Taylor. If these develop, resist the urge to scratch or tug the extensions, which can make things worse, and see an ophthalmologist, who can diagnose the issue and prescribe any necessary meds, she says. And be vigilant about lash breakage: Should the fake lashes start causing your real ones to fracture and fall off, get the extensions removed by a professional and score seductive eyes the safer way—with a mascara wand.

The verdict: Eyelash extensions can pose a serious health threat to your eyes and even cause permanent damage. While your best bet is to avoid them, make sure to take the necessary safety precautions if you feel like you absolutely have to try them.

photo: iStockphoto/Thinkstock

javahut healthy feed

Should I Worry About… Driving After a Drink?

Posted on May 24, 2013 by admin

Drinking and driving is serious business. Last week, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommended that states lower the current blood alcohol concentration limit of 0.08 percent to 0.05 percent or lower.

“We continue to kill 10,000 people annually in these crashes (involving alcohol), injuring 173,000, and 27,000 of those injuries are debilitating, life-altering injuries,” says NTSB chairman Deborah Hersman. Lowering the legal driving BAC limit was one of 19 recommendations released in a NTSB report titled “Reaching Zero: Actions to Eliminate Alcohol-Impaired Driving.”

Experts say it’s tough to provide a number of drinks per hour that would set you above the legal limit of 0.08 (or the suggested limit of 0.05) because there are just so many factors that go into how your drinking affects your body. The strength of the drink (a strong beer versus a light one, for example), whether or not you have food in your stomach, how quickly you’re going through drinks, and your weight all come into play, says Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD, professor of health outcomes and policy at the University of Florida College of Medicine.

Another big factor is serving size; think about the heavy pours you get at certain restaurants, and check out this infographic to see how the serving sizes of different drinks compare.

Alcohol can also affect women differently than men: When you drink alcohol, the ethanol diffuses into all the water-soluble parts of the body, explains Wagenaar, who has been doing research on road safety and alcohol issues since the early 1980s. In general, women naturally have a higher percentage of fat tissue than men—which means less water-based tissue for the ethanol to diffuse into. So even if a woman and a man of the same weight consume the same amount of alcohol, the woman will end up with a slightly higher BAC.

Under normal circumstances, if you’re 200 pounds, it’s unlikely that you’ll hit the proposed 0.05 limit after two drinks—”but that assumes some time passes between the drinks,” says Wagenaar. “If you weigh 90 pounds, at the other extreme, well then it’s possible—and not at all unlikely—that one drink on an empty stomach could hit a woman to the (proposed) 0.05 limit,” he adds.

For a 140-pound woman, one drink would probably put her around the 0.03 BAC level, says Wagenaar.

Those are all rough estimates, of course; since you probably don’t carry a breathalyzer around in your clutch, there’s really no way to know exactly how a drink will affect you on any given night.

In its recent report, the NTSB cited research showing that by 0.05 BAC, most people experience visual and cognitive impairments. The report also notes that more than 100 other countries—including the majority of European countries—have a BAC limit of 0.05 or lower. “The risk is very definitely there, and it’s not insignificant at 0.05,” says Wagenaar. “That’s why 0.05 is a logical legal standard that’s in place in most developed countries in the world.”

At 0.05 BAC, people are 38 percent more likely to be in a crash than people who are completely sober, according to research cited in the NTSB report. At 0.08 BAC, people are 169 percent more likely to be in a crash than people who haven’t had anything to drink.

Here’s the deal, though: Regardless of whether the legal BAC limit is set at 0.08 or 0.05, the fact remains that even a little bit of alcohol does affect your ability to drive safely. “When you need to cognitively attend to more than one thing at a time—which is a clear part of driving—those types of abilities begin to deteriorate even at the low levels of drinking,” says Wagenaar. “So the safest is to not drink and drive at all—I mean zero BAC.”

If you’re planning to drink, have a designated driver with you, or take a cab home (save taxi numbers in your phone beforehand!). There are even apps and websites out there for connecting you with a designated driver that will get you and your car home safely, like StearClear and this National Directory of Designated Driver Services.

The verdict: A glass of wine or a beer over a long dinner probably won’t put you over the proposed legal limit of 0.05 BAC—depending on your weight, how big/strong the drink is, and other factors. But of course the safest personal policy is not getting behind the wheel after any drinks. And if you educate yourself now about the resources available to get you home safely, you should be able to avoid driving yourself there—even if you end up drinking when you hadn’t planned on it.

photo: iStockphoto/Thinkstock

javahut healthy feed

“Should I Worry About Arsenic in Chicken?”

Posted on May 16, 2013 by admin

Every week, the Scoop examines alarming new claims to help you make sense of the latest health research.

When you eat a grilled chicken sandwich, you expect it to pack a lot of protein and some fat. But recent research suggests it might have another, more sinister ingredient: Conventional chicken may contain inorganic arsenic, according to a new study from Johns Hopkins University.

Researchers bought chicken from grocery stores in 10 different U.S. cities and tested each of the samples for roxarsone, a drug sometimes added to chicken feed to encourage weight gain. Why? Previous research suggest that it may degrade into toxic inorganic arsenic during cooking. (Arsenic also occurs naturally in water, air, soil, and food, but is less toxic when it’s organic.)

Roxarsone was detected in 20 of the 40 conventional samples and none of the 25 USDA-certified organic samples—which might help explain why the conventional chicken contained about four times the inorganic arsenic of the organic chicken.

Scary, right? Well, not exactly. The cooked conventional chicken contained about two parts per billion of inorganic arsenic, while the cooked organic chicken contained about half a part per billion—and both levels are way, way under the FDA standard that allows for 500 parts per billion. “I don’t think there is any reason to limit chicken consumption on the basis of this study,” says Melina Jampolis, MD, an internist and board certified physician nutrition specialist based in Los Angeles.

In fact, lead researcher Keeve Nachman, PhD, director of the Center for a Livable Future’s Farming for the Future program at Johns Hopkins University, says the study was conducted to encourage the FDA to ban the use of roxarsone and the similar animal drug nitarsone—not to discourage consumers from eating chicken.

While exposure to this amount of inorganic arsenic could, over time, very slightly increase the risk of diseases like lung and bladder cancer, the levels found in the chicken tested were so small that they’re unlikely to cause problems, says Jampolis. What’s more, the poultry used in the study was purchased before July 2011, when the drug company Alpharma voluntarily suspended sales of roxarsone. So while the FDA has not gone as far as to ban the use of roxarsone, it’s also not in any of the poultry you’d buy today. Nachman and Jampolis say they hope that this study encourages the FDA to keep potentially detrimental animal drugs off the market.

The verdict: There’s definitely no need to stop eating chicken or limit your consumption—only very small amounts of inorganic arsenic were found in the samples tested, and the likely cause of it is no longer being consumed by chicken.

photo: iStockphoto/Thinkstock

javahut healthy feed

“Should I Worry About Wearing Lipstick?”

Posted on May 8, 2013 by admin

Every week, the Scoop examines alarming new claims to help you make sense of the latest health research.

Listen up before you pucker up: Your lipstick and lip gloss may contain a concerning amount of toxic metals, suggests new research from UC Berkeley.

While this isn’t entirely new news—past studies have examined the existence of metals in lipstick and lip gloss—this research compared the probable intakes of the metals in 32 common brands. Since there aren’t existing guidelines about how much of these metals are allowed in cosmetics, researchers compared the levels in lipsticks to the current guidelines for drinking water.

What they found: Using many of these products liberally or reapplying them multiple times could potentially result in overexposure to aluminum, cadmium, and manganese. Lead was also detected in some of the products, but its levels generally didn’t exceed the acceptable daily intake.

So while most products contain pretty small concentrations of these metals, excessive use could possibly lead to health issues like stomach tumors and nervous system damage. Eek.

Lead study researcher Sa Liu, PhD, says that these findings should raise a red flag for the FDA to conduct more extensive research. “We found most of metals in all 32 products tested, which indicates to us that this is a general problem for lipsticks and lip glosses,” she says. Liu also says they did not find a pattern indicating certain brands or products contain more of the metals than others, so she couldn’t advise which to avoid—especially since “there are hundreds of products out there, and they are constantly changing.”

Michelle L. Bell, PhD, a professor of environmental health at Yale University, agrees that this study shows cosmetics should likely be examined more closely. “The findings suggest that lipstick and lip gloss may pose health risks, but as the study was small, more research is needed with a larger sample,” she says.

The verdict: While this research definitely doesn’t prove that lipstick use leads to dangerous health consequences, it does suggest that you may be ingesting a small amount of toxic metals each time you apply your favorite shade. You don’t have to ditch your lipsticks and glosses completely, but you may want to aim for lighter use and avoid applying more than necessary. And if you have any kids at home, make sure they don’t play with your lip products, says Liu and Bell. No levels of some of these metals are safe for children, whose bodies and systems are still developing.

photo: iStockphoto/Thinkstock

javahut healthy feed

“Should I Worry About Driving When I’m Tired?”

Posted on May 1, 2013 by admin

Every week, the Scoop examines alarming new claims to help you make sense of the latest health research.

You obviously know not to get behind the wheel when you’re intoxicated—but what about when you’re exhausted? Fatigue was the cause of 20 percent of all documented crashes in a recent study from the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute Center for Vulnerable Road User Safety.

Researchers recruited 100 drivers who commute into or out of the Northern Virginia/Washington D.C. area and equipped their cars with unobtrusive sensors and video cameras to study naturalistic driving behavior. They also collected 20,000 randomly selected 6-second video segments, which let them notice signs of sleepiness—including closed eyes, head bobbing, and even drivers falling asleep at the wheel.

The result: In 20 percent of all car crashes and 16 percent of all near crashes documented in the study, the driver showed signs of fatigue. While that number is definitely shocking, this was a relatively small study—so it’s unclear whether the stats hold up for the entire country. The latest data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Association (NHTSA) shows that only 2.5 percent of fatal crashes in 2010 were the result of drowsy driving, but that doesn’t tell the whole story, either, since it doesn’t account for fender benders or serious but non-fatal accidents. What we do know is that there were 750 fatal crashes due to drowsy driving in 2010 alone, and the recent study indicates that number of less-severe accidents may be even higher.

Unfortunately, there is no legal limit when it comes to sluggish driving, so you’ll have to monitor yourself for signs of extreme drowsiness. If you’re sleep deprived—whether it’s from not enough sleep or poor-quality sleep—you shouldn’t get behind the wheel, says sleep expert Michael Breus, MD. So how can you tell the difference between your usual morning grogginess and being too drowsy to drive? If you fell asleep in less than five minutes the night before, it’s a sure sign you’re deprived, says Breus. Other signs include having trouble focusing or misplacing objects like your phone or keys. If you want a quick litmus test, Breus suggests lying down and closing your eyes for 30 seconds before getting behind the wheel. If you feel like you could truly fall asleep and you have trouble getting up, you shouldn’t be driving.

If you’re already in the car, watch for warning signs like incessant yawning, frequent blinking, trouble keeping your eyes open and focused, and not being able to remember driving the last few miles, says Jose Ucles, from the Office of Communications and Consumer Information at the NHTSA. If you notice any of these cues or happen to hit the rumble strips on the side of the road, it’s definitely time to get off the road. “The results are staggering,” says Breus. “If you’re going 60 miles per hour and close your eyes, it takes just three seconds to go off the road. You really don’t have a lot of time to react.”

It’s also important to remember that if you’ve taken any sleep aids in the last 24 hours, they may still be in your system. And avoid all alcohol if you’re already groggy. Just one glass of wine can multiply the effects of sleep deprivation—even though you may be under the legal alcohol limit, says Breus.

So what if you are driving when you realize you shouldn’t be? The NHTSA suggests pulling over, drinking two cups of coffee, then taking a 15-20 minute nap so you get a little sleep before the caffeine takes effect. That said, sleeping in a parking lot or on the side of the road isn’t exactly the safest thing. If you can’t stop at a hotel, leave your car in a nearby parking lot and call a cab or take public transportation home. Worst-case scenario, stopping to grab two cups of coffee, then waiting 15-20 minutes for it to take effect before driving to the closest place where you can catch some Zzzz’s is your next best option.

The verdict: Drowsy driving may not be as dangerous as drunk driving, but it accounted for 750 fatal crashes in 2010. And without any true guidelines, it’s crucial to monitor yourself to make sure you’re alert enough to drive. If you’re unsure, opt to have someone else take the wheel.

photo: iStockphoto/Thinkstock

javahut healthy feed

“Should I Worry About Wearing a Bra?”

Posted on April 23, 2013 by admin

Every week, the Scoop examines alarming new claims to help you make sense of the latest health research.

A French researcher made major waves last week when he dropped a shocker on the world, announcing a new study finds wearing a bra can cause premature bra droop. The question on everyone’s minds now: Is proud-to-be-bra-free Miley Cyrus onto something?

The 15-year French study looked at 330 young women and found that breasts constrained by bras didn’t develop the muscle and skin tone that can keep them naturally firm, according to the study author, who was interviewed by a French radio station earlier this month. Women in his study who ditched their boulder holders, however, saw measured improvement in the perkiness of their pair.

Don’t trash your underwires and demi-cups just yet, though. Experts have cast a skeptical eye on the unpublished study, which joins a long list of later-debunked research blaming bras for everything from circulation problems to breast cancer. “The preliminary results are intriguing, but it’s not clear if the researcher looked at women who only had smaller breasts, which don’t sag as much over time, or if he included women of all breast sizes,” says Mary Jane Minkin, MD, clinical professor of ob-gyn at Yale University School of Medicine. “And did he factor in that gravity naturally takes its toll on all body tissue? With so many variables to account for, it’s hard to accept the results.”

That’s not to say that bras have zero effect on your health. An ill-fitting brassiere can leave you with neck and shoulder pain, as well as stooped posture. Garments made of synthetic, non-breathable fabric can trap sweat-loving bacteria, leading to skin issues like rashes and breakouts, says Minkin. Also, if you’ve ever hit the gym sans sports bra, you know that even a little bit of boob bounce can result in serious breast and nipple pain.

Still worried about sag? There’s no solid proof that wearing a bra makes a difference, says Minkin. The real droopage offender is the breast growth and shrinkage that happens when a woman diets, gets pregnant, and/or breast-feeds. Anything that makes breasts expand and contract weakens the surrounding skin and tissues, which makes them lose elasticity and take on a deflated appearance, says Minkin.

The Verdict: Whether you prefer hanging loose or keeping your girls under wraps, wearing a bra is mostly about comfort. So no matter which side of the fence you fall on, there’s no need to freak out—your choice won’t have a major effect on your health.

photo: Brand X Pictures/Thinkstock

More From Women’s Health:
How to Measure Bra Size
History of the Bra
Bra Problems, Fixed!

javahut healthy feed

Should I Worry About Cell Phone Radiation?

Posted on April 16, 2013 by admin

Name five adults you know who don’t have a cell phone. Not possible, right? We take owning them for granted—but there’s also continued concern about the potential health risks of cell phone radiation. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently opened an inquiry to determine if it should update its current policies and limits on exposure to cell phones’ radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.

A phone’s Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) is a measure of the amount of radiofrequency (RF) energy absorbed by the body when the phone is being used. The FCC’s current limit for public exposure is set at an SAR of 1.6 watts per kilogram, and all cell phone manufacturers have to comply. This standard has been in effect since 1996—long before cell phones became so pervasive. The FCC’s website states, “While the FCC has continuously monitored research and conferred with experts in this field, and is confident in its RF exposure guidelines and the soundness of the basis for its rules, it is a matter of good government to periodically reexamine regulations and their implementation.”

One thing that should make you say hmmm: Your cell phone manual contains a warning about a safe distance at which you should keep your phone from your body—and it’s usually a fraction of an inch. Who knew, right? And that’s the problem: Most of us hold our cell phones right up to our ear or against our leg in our pocket—potentially increasing the amount of RF energy that’s being delivered to our bodies to beyond the tested and touted amounts.

So what’s the general consensus of research on the dangers (or lack thereof) of cell phone radiation? That’s the thing: There really isn’t one. While some studies say cell phones don’t cause harm, others indicate that they do. For example, analyses of data from the large and multi-national Interphone study, published in 2010, drew mixed conclusions about whether long-term cell phone radiation exposure had any association with the risk of developing glioma, a type of brain tumor, and no causation was established.

In 2011, a group of 31 scientists from 14 countries met at the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to evaluate the health effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, such as the ones emitted by wireless communication devices. In the end, they classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” That means that, while not conclusive, the evidence was strong enough to say that there could be a risk. “The ‘possible’ means we can’t give assurance of safety because there is some signal of harm, and yet it’s not so definite,” says Jonathan Samet, MD, MS, director of the University of Southern California Institute for Global Health and chairman of the IARC working group.

But other researchers already say they feel certain that cell phones are a cause for concern: Henry Lai, PhD, a research professor in the University of Washington’s bioengineering department, has been studying radiation for more than three decades. He says that, while a causal relationship hasn’t been established yet, “the bottom line is that there is some evidence suggesting that they’re not safe—and this is something that we use everyday.”

No one’s entirely sure yet what the long-term effects are—cell phones haven’t been around long enough. (Some tumors, for example, can take upwards of three decades to develop.) Many of the studies also have flaws—for example, with self-reported data, people may not be able to remember how often they really used their cell phones. So unfortunately, the only clear consensus from experts is that more research needs to be done.

What it’s safe to assume: It’s going to take a while for experts to reach any sort of formal conclusion. For that reason, it’s probably best to be on the safe side and adjust your cell phone habits. Consider putting these four ways to reduce your exposure to radiation while using your cell into action.

The verdict: You don’t have to give up your cell phone, but it’s probably smart to make some habit tweaks—like investing in headphones and not sleeping with it next to your bed. When there’s this much on the line, it’s definitely better to be safe than sorry.

photo: iStockphoto/Thinkstock

javahut healthy feed

Should I Worry About the Bird Flu?

Posted on April 10, 2013 by admin

Every week, the Scoop examines alarming new claims to help you make sense of the latest health research.

You’ve probably heard the scary news: A new strain of bird flu, known as avian influenza A (H7N9), has been identified in China. Twenty-eight people have been infected and nine have died, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Full disclosure: The CDC issued a health advisory on Friday to inform clinicians what they should do in terms of testing, infection control, and care if they suspect that someone returning from a trip to China may have the virus. The CDC is also working with vaccine manufacturers to develop a virus seed strain that could be used to produce a vaccine if necessary—as in, if there were evidence of human-to-human transmission.

It sounds scary, but before you call your doctor in a panic because you feel a cough coming on, know this: The CDC says it’s just taking these measures to dot all of its I’s and cross all of its T’s. No travel advisories are currently in effect, and right now there’s no evidence that you can get H7N9 from another person, says CDC press officer Jamila Jones. Direct contact with live poultry in China appears to be the greatest risk factor right now—there haven’t been any cases of the virus strain reported in the U.S., or even outside of China. So assuming you live in America and haven’t interacted with any chicken in China recently, you don’t have to change anything about your normal routine.

Flu viruses do constantly change, so it’s possible that this virus could become more transmissible, according to the CDC. Officials there say they’ll continue to monitor the situation and give updates as needed.

For now, though, you have no reason to worry: “There are no specific steps that people in this country need to take to protect themselves,” said Tom Frieden, MD, MPH, director of the CDC, in a telebriefing on Friday. “People can go about their daily lives.” While the numbers of cases and deaths have both risen since the telebriefing—at that time, there were 16 cases and six deaths—the CDC is still offering the same guidance: “Right now we’re still not recommending anything different,” says Jones. The same goes for people in the U.S. who work with poultry: At this time, Jones says you shouldn’t be concerned—and the CDC will send out more information if that should change.

The verdict: Pay attention to updates, but there’s definitely no need to freak out.

photo: iStockphoto/Thinkstock

More from Women’s Health:
How Long Should a Cough Last?
Flu-Catching Myths
Cold or Flu: Can You Tell?

javahut healthy feed

Athens Java Hut

Serving Jittery Joe's Coffee, Cecilia Villaveces, Cakes and Italian Gelato

Tag Archives: Worry

“Should I Worry About Extreme Heat?”

“Should I Worry About…Dry Cleaning?”

“Should I Worry About Eyelash Extensions?”

Should I Worry About… Driving After a Drink?

“Should I Worry About Arsenic in Chicken?”

“Should I Worry About Wearing Lipstick?”

“Should I Worry About Driving When I’m Tired?”

“Should I Worry About Wearing a Bra?”

Should I Worry About Cell Phone Radiation?

Should I Worry About the Bird Flu?