Bottom Line Personal, in its August 15, 2010 issue, reports on a recent study that found that bacteria thrive in reusable shopping bags.
Bacterial growth was found on 50% of the bags; 12% contained E. coli bacteria.
Charles P. Gerba, a professor of soil, water, and environmental science at the University of Arizona in Tucson, led the study.
The main lesson:
Wash reusable bags regularly with soap and water.
For those wanting more specifics of the study and of its recommendations, see:
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/06/reusable-shopping-bags-and-food-safety/
Monday, August 16, 2010
Plastic containers - which are safe and unsafe?
Plastic containers have a number stamped on the bottom - from 1-7.
I keep a note on my refrigerator listing which are safe and unsafe.
The online information is somewhat inconsistent, but this is what most sources say:
#1 is apparently ok but only for single use. Some sources recommend avoiding it entirely.
#2 is good.
#4 and 5 are ok.
#3, 6, and 7 are NOT safe.
Never microwave any of these.
I keep a note on my refrigerator listing which are safe and unsafe.
The online information is somewhat inconsistent, but this is what most sources say:
#1 is apparently ok but only for single use. Some sources recommend avoiding it entirely.
#2 is good.
#4 and 5 are ok.
#3, 6, and 7 are NOT safe.
Never microwave any of these.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Dietary Supplements: Warnings and Recommendations
Consumer Reports has an article in their latest issue, September 2010, called Dangerous Supplements. Since they almost always do a fine job of evaluating products, I was interested.
A bit of history concerning this interest of mine. I had been disturbed by what looked like too much unnecessary regulation of over the counter products. I had started taking red yeast rice at the recommendation of my primary care provider as an alternative to taking a prescription statin drug to lower my cholesterol. Her patients had had success with this product with fewer side effects than with prescription statin drugs.
After purchasing it online and being on it for a few months, my cholesterol dropped and was in the normal range for the first time in many years. I was delighted as was my PCP. Then, at the next blood check, my cholesterol started going back up. After some checking, we concluded that it was probably because the company manufacturing the red yeast rice had been forced to remove its effective statin-like ingredient. It seemed to me at the time that this was about profits and control rather than safety, and I was not at all happy, especially since I was being monitored closely to make sure there were no problems.
In a case like this, it is easy to have a knee-jerk reaction of anger, not look at all sides of the question, and generalize from one experience. Consumer Reports points out that there are products that have caused damage and require regulation.
As for the article, it looks at both dangerous supplements and at other supplements worth considering.
First comes the list of the dangerous ‘dirty dozen’: Aconite, Bitter Orange, Chaparral, Colloidal Silver, Coltsfoot, Comfrey, Country Mallow, Germanium, Greater Celandine, Kava, Lobelia, and Yohimbe. In the magazine, there is a chart that gives more detail about the uses, dangers, and other comments about each.
Next are their supplements to consider. These have apparently been shown to likely be safe for most people and possibly or likely to be effective for certain conditions.
Calcium, Cranberry, Fish Oil, Glucosamine Sulfate, Lactase, Lactobacillus, Psyllium, Pygeum, SAM-e, St. John’s Wort, and Vitamin D. Again, the article gives more details about each of these supplements.
I plan to to print the names of both on an index card to keep on hand while browsing through vitamin catalogs or at the drug store when considering a purchase.
Also rated in the article were multivitamins. They found most of the products to be of decent quality and to contain the ingredients in the amounts stated on the containers. They were also found to dissolve properly so that they could be absorbed into the system. The overriding message, however, was that most people do not need or benefit from multivitamins unless they are suffering from severe nutritional deficiencies. The irony is that it may look like there are benefits to taking them because the very people who are healthiest are often the ones who take them. It is easy to see how this would skew study results.
One thing I have learned is that all of this information needs regular revisiting and reevaluation. We can only work with our best current information and then be willing to discard it when new and solid research comes to the fore. And rather than jumping at every news item that touts another miracle product, there needs to be time for sifting and evaluating carefully with the help of sources such as CR and others.
A bit of history concerning this interest of mine. I had been disturbed by what looked like too much unnecessary regulation of over the counter products. I had started taking red yeast rice at the recommendation of my primary care provider as an alternative to taking a prescription statin drug to lower my cholesterol. Her patients had had success with this product with fewer side effects than with prescription statin drugs.
After purchasing it online and being on it for a few months, my cholesterol dropped and was in the normal range for the first time in many years. I was delighted as was my PCP. Then, at the next blood check, my cholesterol started going back up. After some checking, we concluded that it was probably because the company manufacturing the red yeast rice had been forced to remove its effective statin-like ingredient. It seemed to me at the time that this was about profits and control rather than safety, and I was not at all happy, especially since I was being monitored closely to make sure there were no problems.
In a case like this, it is easy to have a knee-jerk reaction of anger, not look at all sides of the question, and generalize from one experience. Consumer Reports points out that there are products that have caused damage and require regulation.
As for the article, it looks at both dangerous supplements and at other supplements worth considering.
First comes the list of the dangerous ‘dirty dozen’: Aconite, Bitter Orange, Chaparral, Colloidal Silver, Coltsfoot, Comfrey, Country Mallow, Germanium, Greater Celandine, Kava, Lobelia, and Yohimbe. In the magazine, there is a chart that gives more detail about the uses, dangers, and other comments about each.
Next are their supplements to consider. These have apparently been shown to likely be safe for most people and possibly or likely to be effective for certain conditions.
Calcium, Cranberry, Fish Oil, Glucosamine Sulfate, Lactase, Lactobacillus, Psyllium, Pygeum, SAM-e, St. John’s Wort, and Vitamin D. Again, the article gives more details about each of these supplements.
I plan to to print the names of both on an index card to keep on hand while browsing through vitamin catalogs or at the drug store when considering a purchase.
Also rated in the article were multivitamins. They found most of the products to be of decent quality and to contain the ingredients in the amounts stated on the containers. They were also found to dissolve properly so that they could be absorbed into the system. The overriding message, however, was that most people do not need or benefit from multivitamins unless they are suffering from severe nutritional deficiencies. The irony is that it may look like there are benefits to taking them because the very people who are healthiest are often the ones who take them. It is easy to see how this would skew study results.
One thing I have learned is that all of this information needs regular revisiting and reevaluation. We can only work with our best current information and then be willing to discard it when new and solid research comes to the fore. And rather than jumping at every news item that touts another miracle product, there needs to be time for sifting and evaluating carefully with the help of sources such as CR and others.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Honor My Wishes
Almost everyone we know right now is dealing with elder care and end of life issues. One resource that we (Robin and Miriam) have both used in the past is called The Five Wishes. It is accepted as a legal document in the majority of U.S. states.
www.agingwithdignity.org/
Here is an excerpt from the website that describes the document.
"Five Wishes is an easy to use legal document that lets adults of all ages plan how they want to be cared for in case they become seriously ill.... Five Wishes helps you express how you want to be treated if you are seriously ill and unable to speak for yourself."
Since we live in Washington State, we have been looking at more local resources. One excellent all-volunteer organization is called Honor My Wishes. They are committed to raising public awareness about end of life issues. They promote discussions on health care choices and help in organizing important legal, financial and funeral planning information. Their main tool is a personal planning binder.
The binder and/or a Health Care Power of Attorney & Directive form for WA State are available for free download (although donations are appreciated) from the forms section of their website: www.HonorMyWishes.org
www.agingwithdignity.org/
Here is an excerpt from the website that describes the document.
"Five Wishes is an easy to use legal document that lets adults of all ages plan how they want to be cared for in case they become seriously ill.... Five Wishes helps you express how you want to be treated if you are seriously ill and unable to speak for yourself."
Since we live in Washington State, we have been looking at more local resources. One excellent all-volunteer organization is called Honor My Wishes. They are committed to raising public awareness about end of life issues. They promote discussions on health care choices and help in organizing important legal, financial and funeral planning information. Their main tool is a personal planning binder.
The binder and/or a Health Care Power of Attorney & Directive form for WA State are available for free download (although donations are appreciated) from the forms section of their website: www.HonorMyWishes.org
Friday, January 15, 2010
How much radiation exposure do you get every year?
We were wondering how much radiation exposure we get each year from various sources, including medical tests.
We came across a website of the American Nuclear Society which featured an 'interactive dose chart.'
They indicate that the average dose per person from all sources of radiation is about 360 mrems (millirems) per year.
Fill in your individual data, and it will come up with your annual dosage of radiation as well as the amount you get from each individual type of exposure.
Here is the link: http://www.ans.org/pi/resources/dosechart/
We noticed that cell phone usage was not included and found a website of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit organization that provides public information in order to protect public health and the environment. Among other things, their site provides information about various cell phones and their radiation outputs.
According to the EWG site, "cell phone radiation differs from the high-energy waves of X-rays and some nuclear waste emissions. Its lower energy 'non-ionizing' waves penetrate deeper into the body but lack the energy to break apart molecules.... More research is needed to pinpoint the ways that cell phone radiation could damage the body."
Here is the link to their website: http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/faq
We came across a website of the American Nuclear Society which featured an 'interactive dose chart.'
They indicate that the average dose per person from all sources of radiation is about 360 mrems (millirems) per year.
Fill in your individual data, and it will come up with your annual dosage of radiation as well as the amount you get from each individual type of exposure.
Here is the link: http://www.ans.org/pi/resources/dosechart/
We noticed that cell phone usage was not included and found a website of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit organization that provides public information in order to protect public health and the environment. Among other things, their site provides information about various cell phones and their radiation outputs.
According to the EWG site, "cell phone radiation differs from the high-energy waves of X-rays and some nuclear waste emissions. Its lower energy 'non-ionizing' waves penetrate deeper into the body but lack the energy to break apart molecules.... More research is needed to pinpoint the ways that cell phone radiation could damage the body."
Here is the link to their website: http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/faq
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)