via Instagram http://ift.tt/1zfGx3n
Monday, April 27, 2015
Sunday, April 19, 2015
Anti-vaxxers
Vaccines: helping to eradicate terrifying, fatal diseases since 1796
via Instagram http://ift.tt/1H5X24k
The largest measles and whooping cough outbreaks in the past 50
years are taking place in California and 17 other states thanks to the
anti-vaxxer movement.[1] Ironically, these diseases are especially
prevalent in rich areas of the state. As
Jeb Lund opines in his Rolling Stone editorial, “if you're doing well enough,
your bad decisions will probably only hurt someone else.”[2] And he’s exactly right: choosing not to
vaccinate your child against historically common, dangerous, and costly
epidemic diseases comes from a position of privilege in which one’s opinion is
weighed against and valued over others’ safety.
That’s what makes this movement especially insidious. Beyond all the misplaced paranoia regarding “Big
Pharma,” completely refuted claims of autism risks,[3] or
aspirations for “natural” parenting, this problem is rooted in a very
dearly-held American value. Anti-vaxxer’s
personal freedom of choice has led to a public health nightmare that affects
not just their own children but children of others. Interestingly, the insistence of personal
freedom outweighing the public good was the impetus for previous waves of the anti-vaccination
movement.
This issue has continually reared its ugly head ever since Edward
Jenner’s first vaccine in 1796.[4] England’s medical community quickly realized
the potential that compulsory vaccination had for public health initiatives and
in 1853 the country instituted The Vaccination Act. Arguments against it along with occasionally
violent protests immediately erupted.
This original anti-vaccination movement employed rhetoric uncannily
similar to today. Likewise, the medical experts
of the day reacted similarly to today.
Expressing frustration, the editorial staff of the British Medical
Journal published this in 1869:
“We fear it is not possible for any
argument or any form of suasion to stay the tide of folly and ignorance which
is now raging against one the most beneficent discoveries ever permitted to
man. The chief actors in the anti-vaccination movement are men upon whom all
statements of fact and argument would be wasted.
The platform spouters on
this question are beyond our hope, and almost beyond our pity. They must be
left to hug their darling folly; but for their deluded followers we do feel
real commiseration. The arguments which the agitators so boldly state are very
specious; they refer to matters concerning which their hearers have no real
experience; and they seem to be supported by a certain class of facts.
Numerous excellent
pamphlets and tracts have been published, with the hope of enlightening the
public mind. It is most unfair to those who have readily adopted the chance of
immunity which vaccination gives, that they should be exposed to risk on
account of their less careful or crotchety neighbours. If the immunity were
absolute and life-long, we might perhaps afford to let the foolish part of the
community do as it likes; but, unfortunately, such is not the case.”
Many of the anti-vaxxers were concerned with intrusive government
action on civil liberty. Misinformation
abounded, faulty statistics quickly spread, and irrational distrust of the
medical government grew.[5] Hmm, sounds familiar…
There’s one glaring difference between then and today. The “Big Pharma” that today’s detractors continually
cite was not present in mid-19th century England, yet the same fears
plagued the country. Right or wrong, the
anti-vaccination movement predates large drug companies. This is indicative of the movement’s shoddy
logic base. Lynchpin arguments of the
contemporary movement, like “Big Pharma,” are completely absent from the
original movement yet today’s abstaining parents hold the same apprehensions
and haughty claims of medical concurrence.
In an anti-vaxxer’s mind, one’s
personal fears, misguided or not, should or at least be allowed to take
precedence over statistically proven society benefits. And so the modern United States is facing
outbreaks of once conquered diseases.
Let’s hope polio and smallpox don’t come back like the measles and
whooping cough has.
[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/should-anti-vaxxers-be-shamed-or-persuaded/385109/
[2] http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/anti-vaxxers-enjoying-the-privilege-of-putting-everyone-at-risk-20150219
[3] http://www.vocativ.com/culture/science/no-link-autism-and-vaccines-mmr/
[4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200696/
[5] http://io9.com/19th-century-documents-show-how-little-the-anti-vaxxers-1658381223
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Antibiotics in our Meat
Perhaps more dangerous than we thought...
via Instagram http://ift.tt/1J1Do6S
A series of food shortage riots and protests in the early twentieth
century led American farmers, especially livestock and meat producers, to seek
ways to bolster their production output that would match exponentially rising
demand. After food crises during WW I, farmers
employed various natural growth enhancers including cod liver oil and fish meal
which provided animal protein in livestock feed to lead to heavier animals at
butchering maturity. These were
expensive and had to be imported. Once
World War II erupted, these imported ingredients became unavailable so the
federal government pushed for further research into growth enhancers for meat production. Plant-based protein still proved to be
insufficient in boosting animal growth. Serendipitously,
the addition of vitamin B 12 from residues of antibiotic production into animal
feed led to animals growing 50% faster than the control group. However, the researchers at the Lederle
laboratories soon realized that it wasn’t the B 12 so much as the trace amounts
of the antibiotic Aureomycin still present in the refuse that was enhancing the
growth so much. Some possible
explanations have since surfaced, including that the drug kills intestinal
flora allowing the animal to absorb all of its feed’s nutrients for itself.[1] The post-war boom of the 1950’s once again led
to high unprecedented demand for meat.
This decade saw the introduction of antibiotics as a crucial part of the
nation’s agricultural system and worked it did.
So well, in fact, that farmers and scientists began claiming it as the
ultimate solution to food production and that we could kiss protein shortages
goodbye. Soon after though, Japanese and
American researchers began linking increased sub-therapeutic, growth-inducing antibiotic
use to resistant bacteria so dangerous that it could lead us back to an era
where antibiotics were non-existent for medicine.[2]
In 2011 the United
States devoted 80% of all its antibiotics (by weight) to livestock production.[3] 17 million tonnes of antibiotics are used in
sub-therapeutic doses strictly to speed up and enhance animal growth for the
meat industry. Eventually, the
antibiotics lead to resistant microbes in the meat and also in humans after consumption
of the meat. This poses serious public
health risks, not just because of resistant bacteria but also the un- or
under-researched side effects the accumulation of these drugs in humans can
cause. The European Union and Canada
have since banned the use of antibiotics for non-medical uses, and even the
World Health Organization has warned that farmers should drastically reduce
their use to protect public health. It
is still completely legal in America to do so and is the industry standard for
meat production. Meat producers argue
that the cheap, plentiful meat that antibiotics make possible outweigh the
risks and that those risks are not studied enough to warrant banning its use. Many studies have revealed that bacteria like
salmonella are prevalent in roughly 20% of ground beef and that 84% of that salmonella
was drug-resistant. This poses very immediate
risks to consumers. America needs to
decide whether to err on the side of caution or profit.
[1] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/safe/overview.html
[2] http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/09/03/riots-rage-and-resistance-a-brief-history-of-how-antibiotics-arrived-on-the-farm/
[3] http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/07/what-usda-doesnt-want-you-know-about-antibiotics-and-factory-farms
Sunday, April 5, 2015
Nanotechnology in Our Lives
One day this might not just be ordinary corduroy...
via Instagram http://ift.tt/1NVsDGJ
The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies recently
inventoried common consumer products in the country and tallied a staggering
1,600 products which contain nanoparticles, which are defined as particles between
one and 100 billionths of a meter in diameter.
And this inventory is not even comprehensive, leaving one to imagine how
many other products also contain such materials.[1] Clearly, nanotechnology is fast-becoming an
integral part of our daily lives.
Many
common applications of nanotechnology are found in some of our clothing. Fabric can be impregnated with anti-microbial
silver nanoparticles where their positive charge prevents bacterial cells from
multiplying. The particles’ minuscule
size means that the fabric remains soft and pliable. Silica nanoparticles can be sprayed on cloth
and other surfaces to create an ultra-hydrophobic layer. This layer causes any water to bead and roll
of the surface rather than penetrating it which waterproofs it more effectively
than any other method. Nanotechnology
can provide further protection from the elements in our clothing by providing
UV-protection. Light-scattering titanium
dioxide along with zinc oxide can be embedded in the material to prevent sun
damage to both skin and fabric.
Additionally, these nanoparticles conduct electricity and so help
disperse static charge and prevent uncomfortable shock. Some researchers convey concern over these
particles, particularly silver. Studies
have shown that it leaches from the fabric via sweat. The anti-microbial properties of silver nanoparticles
can seriously disrupt biotic processes.
Concerned scientists propose that once it is widely used in clothing,
very high concentrations of the substance will be present in waste water and
runoff leading to serious environmental problems for susceptible aquatic life. These researchers warn that the
commercialization of nanotechnology is continuing at a speed far ahead of crucially
important research into its potential risk.[2] Fabrics of the future may be made out of nano-filaments
and materials instead of just being embedded with them for specific uses.
Nanotechnology
is also drastically changing the electronics, computer, and medical
fields. Conductive ink made from
metallic nanoparticles allow for conductive circuits to be literally drawn
anywhere. Disposable, flexible and cheap
paper drawn circuitry may be near.
Graphene and other superconductors will revolutionize computer
technology. Even medication may be delivered
via site-specific nanoparticles, allowing for much smaller, much more effective
and much safer doses of medicine for patients.
Nanobots operating within the body could even act as an army of miniature
surgeons, performing medical procedures on a scale unattainable by human doctors.[3] However, the safety of these technologies
needs to be seriously studied and analyzed before we implement them in the
consumer market. The human and environmental
risks may be far larger than we've anticipated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)