- Joined
- 12 April 2007
- Posts
- 999
- Reactions
- 0
Researchers say that an extract made from broccoli sprouts may prevent skin cancer when applied directly to the skin. VOA's Jessica Berman reports scientists say broccoli contains a chemical that stimulates the body's natural anti-cancer ability.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-10-23-voa73.cfm
The researchers spread broccoli sprout extract on the skin of six people, then exposed them to high levels of ultraviolet (UV) radiation. The areas of skin covered by the extract had 37 percent less redness and sunburn than skin not covered -- both indications of skin damage that could lead to cancer.
Sunscreen, meanwhile, did not offer any protection against the UV rays, the researchers said.
Whereas sunscreen works by deflecting UV rays, and therefore must be reapplied often to work, broccoli sprout extract works by penetrating skin cells and stimulating their natural cancer-fighting mechanism.
Since sulphoraphane extract from broccoli sprouts appears to fight cancer in your skin, the researchers believe it may be effective against cancer in other organs as well.
interesting mmJapanese Consumers Will Not Accept GM Food
The evolution of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria is something that a Darwinian might have foreseen from the day antibiotics were discovered.
Next, Sir, I think you may have an exaggerated idea of the natural ness of 'traditional' or 'organic' agriculture. Agriculture has always been unnatural. Our species began to depart from our natural hunter-gatherer lifestyle as recently as 10,000 years ago - too short to measure on the evolutionary timescale.
Wheat, be it ever so wholemeal and stoneground, is not a natural food for Homo sapiens. Nor is milk, except for children. Almost every morsel of our food is genetically modified - admittedly by artificial selection not artificial mutation, but the end result is the same. A wheat grain is a genetically modified grass seed, just as a pekinese is a genetically modified wolf. Playing God? We've been playing God for centuries!
The large, anonymous crowds in which we now teem began with the agricultural revolution, and without agriculture we could survive in only a tiny fraction of our current numbers. Our high population is an agricultural (and technological and medical) artifact. It is far more unnatural than the population-limiting methods condemned as unnatural by the Pope. Like it or not, we are stuck with agriculture, and agriculture - all agriculture - is unnatural. We sold that pass 10,000 years ago.
Does that mean there's nothing to choose between different kinds of agriculture when it comes to sustainable planetary welfare? Certainly not. Some are much more damaging than others, but it's no use appealing to 'nature', or to 'instinct' in order to decide which ones. You have to study the evidence, soberly and reasonably - scientifically. Slashing and burning (incidentally, no agricultural system is closer to being 'traditional') destroys our ancient forests. Overgrazing (again, widely practised by 'traditional' cultures) causes soil erosion and turns fertile pasture into desert. Moving to our own modern tribe, monoculture, fed by powdered fertilisers and poisons, is bad for the future; indiscriminate use of antibiotics to promote livestock growth is worse.
Incidentally, one worrying aspect of the hysterical opposition to the possible risks from GM crops is that it diverts attention from definite dangers which are already well understood but largely ignored. The evolution of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria is something that a Darwinian might have foreseen from the day antibiotics were discovered. Unfortunately the warning voices have been rather quiet, and now they are drowned by the baying cacophony: 'GM GM GM GM GM GM!'
Moreover if, as I expect, the dire prophecies of GM doom fail to materialise, the feeling of let-down may spill over into complacency about real risks. Has it occurred to you that our present GM brouhaha may be a terrible case of crying wolf?
GM foods 'probably safer' than others: scientist
Posted Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:40am AEDT
A CSIRO scientist has told a Tasmanian parliamentary inquiry that genetically-modified (GM) foods are probably safer than conventionally-grown foods.
Tasmania has a ban on GM foodstuffs.
The CSIRO's Tom Higgins has told the joint select committee investigating gene technology that genetically-modified material is rigorously tested.
"I think it probably is true to say that that, that they are probably safer than conventional foods, just because they undergo so much more regulatory scrutiny," he said.
But Dr Higgins also told the inquiry he abandoned an experiment using genetically modified material after mice were adversely affected.
Dr Higgins said he had tried to make peas resistant to weevils by transferring genetic material into them from beans, but when tested on mice the peas provoked an allergic response.
He says the response was only mild, and was not why he abandoned his research.
"Well, just because of the sensitivities, of people to, to this technology, it seemed to me that it would not be wise to carry on with the project, that had that associated with it.
"I think it was very important to be able to publish those results and say, well, this can happen."
New strain of TB surfaces in UK
Posted 10 hours 7 minutes ago
The first case has been discovered in Britain of a rare type of tuberculosis that is extremely resistant to drugs.
A strain of the disease, known as XDRTB, has been diagnosed in a Somali man in the Scottish city of Glasgow where he is now being treated in an isolation ward.
Since XDRTB was first identified by the World Health Organisation (WHO) two years ago there have been cases in Russia, South-East Asia and Africa.
....
the fatality rate is probably of the order of 50 per cent. .."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/22/2196698.htm?section=justin
yet another disease "extremely resistant to drugs"
gotta feeling that this is the sort of thing Dawkins was referring to.
actually I'm on antibiotics at the moment - whacked my thumb with some steel at work - no bludy choice but tablets - but my conscience is giving me hell.
- so tempting to stop the course of capsules now that the infection is almost sorted out - even if there's half a course left over - but apparently that's the very wrong thing to do ( not that I fully understand these things)
julia1. Why are you opposed to taking antibiotics and what is it to do with your conscience?
2. Re not taking the full course, have you asked your doctor?
My wife and I differ on the amount of medicine that should be given to kids. They have been fed a heap of antibiotics over the years (compared to what I had anyway) - and their general resistance (antibodies whatever) is a fraction of mine.Frequent and inappropriate use of antibiotics selects for strains of bacteria that can resist treatment. This is called bacterial resistance. These resistant bacteria require higher doses of medicine or stronger antibiotics to treat. Doctors have even found bacteria that are resistant to some of the most powerful antibiotics available today.
Antibiotic resistance is a widespread problem, and one that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calls "one of the world's most pressing public health problems." Bacteria that were once highly responsive to antibiotics have become increasingly resistant. Among those that are becoming harder to treat are pneumococcal infections (which cause pneumonia, ear infections, sinus infections, and meningitis), skin infections, and tuberculosis.
Ask your child's doctor about ways to treat the symptoms that are making your child uncomfortable, such as a stuffy nose or scratchy throat, without the use of antibiotics. The key to building a good relationship with your child's doctor is open communication, so work together toward that goal.
Use the medication properly. Antibiotics are only effective if taken for the full amount of time prescribed by the doctor
Deadly risks of antibiotic overuse warrant widespread education
BY SHARON DENT
Drugs that once guaranteed eradication of bacterial diseases are suddenly up against strains that don't respond as predictably. These bacteria have developed resistance in part because of overuse and misuse of the drugs, often in ambulatory settings. As a result, patients are getting sicker, and death rates for some communicable diseases, such as tuberculosis and malaria, are on the rise in regions where such diseases had been under control.
"Some doctors think of antibiotics as harmless placebos," said William Hueston, M.D., family medicine department chair at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. "You risk not only harming the patient when you prescribe unnecessary antibiotics, but also harming the community."
Antibiotics in poultry links to drug resistance.
CHICKENS destined for the dinner table are often given antibiotics - not to keep them well, but to make them bigger. Now new research in the Journal of Infectious Diseases shows that this practice increases the risk of potentially life-threatening antibiotic resistance in humans
PS Not that I think much of Monsanto's business ethics. - but that's sorta another matter.The evolution of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria is something that a Darwinian might have foreseen from the day antibiotics were discovered. Unfortunately the warning voices have been rather quiet, and now they are drowned by the baying cacophony: 'GM GM GM GM GM GM!'
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?