![]() |
Saturday, 4 June 2011
Lost in Translation?
Friday, 3 June 2011
Wednesday, 1 June 2011
Cell Phones Linked to Cancer
It is time to get serious about using your hands-free options for your mobile.
Whilst it has been speculated for some years now, the World Health Organisation has just announced officially that cell phone use may be carcinogenic to humans (2B classification). These findings show "an increased risk of glioma, a malignant form of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use".
The International Agency for Research on Cancer panel consisted of 31 of the leading experts in the field, spanning 14 countries. These scientists examined the exposure data, the studies of human cancer, studies in experimental animal models and other relevant data to come to this conclusion.
The Chairman of the working group, Dr. Jonathan Samet (University of Southern California, USA), concluded that "the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk."
IARC Director, Christopher Wild, states, "It is important that additional research be conducted....it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands-free devices or texting."
One study showed that there was a 40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users: and they classify heavy users are 30 minutes per day over a 10-year period. For some of us using our phones for work, this doesn't actually seem like a lot of talktime.
So dust off those ear pieces or start figuring out how to fix that hands-free gadget in your car.
More information can be found on the IARC website.
Whilst it has been speculated for some years now, the World Health Organisation has just announced officially that cell phone use may be carcinogenic to humans (2B classification). These findings show "an increased risk of glioma, a malignant form of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use".
The International Agency for Research on Cancer panel consisted of 31 of the leading experts in the field, spanning 14 countries. These scientists examined the exposure data, the studies of human cancer, studies in experimental animal models and other relevant data to come to this conclusion. The Chairman of the working group, Dr. Jonathan Samet (University of Southern California, USA), concluded that "the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk."
IARC Director, Christopher Wild, states, "It is important that additional research be conducted....it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands-free devices or texting."
One study showed that there was a 40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users: and they classify heavy users are 30 minutes per day over a 10-year period. For some of us using our phones for work, this doesn't actually seem like a lot of talktime.
So dust off those ear pieces or start figuring out how to fix that hands-free gadget in your car.
More information can be found on the IARC website.
Friday, 27 May 2011
Editing biology’s central dogma
Published just last week in Science (M. Li et al. Science doi:10.1126/science.1207018 ; 2011), new findings may call for the rewriting of the central dogma of molecular biology to include an RNA ‘editing’ step during the process of protein assembly. Such a step, which replaces individual letters in the genetic code to alter the resultant protein, would induce much more variety in protein production from the original DNA. The concept of RNA editing is not new, and many computational biologists are identifying flaws in these published observations. However, the extent of editing posited by the authors is large and, if the concept is confirmed, this could have major repercussions on the way we think about biology and genetics.
More information can be found:
Feature in Scientific American
Feature in Bio-IT world
Feature in Nature News
More information can be found:
Feature in Scientific American
Feature in Bio-IT world
Feature in Nature News
Monday, 23 May 2011
Premature births linked to busy roads.
![]() |
| Source: Click here for link |
Whilst some of you might be thinking that many doctors consider 38 weeks to be “full term”, a much larger study, conducted in 2009 in California, identified strikingly worse statistics. The group reviewed the births of more than 81 000 infants between 1997 and 2006. They found that women living near the worst traffic-generated air pollution have a staggering 128% increased risk of delivering a baby before 30 weeks. In addition, 42% of these women showed increased symptoms of preeclampsia, a pregnancy-induced high blood pressure condition in the mother that can be dangerous to both the mother and child. For less-severe premmie babies, the chances of delivery between 30-37 weeks were 30%.
Scientists are unsure how the increased air pollution can trigger premature delivery. They suspect that pollutants could either interfere with the placental delivery of nutrients to the foetus, or trigger oxidative stress, particularly from vehicle exhaust fumes.
Now, you probably can’t change where you live. However, this research can help to make pregnant women aware of the risks of air pollution, and arm them with the information they need to decide if it is worth venturing out into the more polluted areas – particularly during the later stages of pregnancy or if they are already pre-exposed or have a history of preeclampsia in previous pregnancies.
At the very least, keep the air con on in the car, and the windows shut!
Full article on the California study:
http://www.ecofriendlypack.com/eco-friendly/car-pollution/
Full article on the QUT study:
http://www.sciencewa.net.au/index.php?/health-and-medicine/health-and-medicine/premature-births-linked-to-busy-roads.html
Sunday, 22 May 2011
Best Illusions of 2011
Check out New Scientist's link to the Top 10 Best Illusions of 2011:
New visual illusions using colour and motion to trick your eyes! (The summary below each video).
Source:
http://www.newscientist.com/special/best-new-illusions-2011
New visual illusions using colour and motion to trick your eyes! (The summary below each video).
Source:
http://www.newscientist.com/special/best-new-illusions-2011
Dreams
Have you ever wondered why we remember some dreams and not others? A feature in New Scientist from a few weeks ago says that the mechanism by which memories are stored is the same whether we are awake or asleep - so if your dream is emotionally charged and deemed "important" by the brain, you will remember it!
More information can be sourced: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028114.300-why-do-we-remember-some-dreams-but-not-others.html
More information can be sourced: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028114.300-why-do-we-remember-some-dreams-but-not-others.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


