Well, at least I’m not crazy . . .

Today was my ultrasound.

I went to the Alta Bates medical center here in Berkeley. Their ultrasound and “imaging” department is – thankfully – separate from the main hospital. I haven’t been inside a hospital since I needed 40 stitches in my knee at the age of 14. I hope to keep my good record.

Standing in line to check in was the worst part of the entire experience. First, everyone in the room was obese and old. At least half had walkers and needed to be helped from place to place. It was like seeing an image of the future, being time-warped into a doctor’s office in Florida in 2038.

For anyone who hasn’t had an ultrasound, you should know that they force you to drink a lot of water and then not relieve yourself before the exam. They need a full bladder in order to see everything clearly. Great. I had to urinate so badly that I didn’t even have time to feel nervous about anything except accidentally peeing my pants while waiting. 

I flipped through an “Alameda” magazine.

I tried not to stare at the older ladies, and wonder if they were there for a bone density test or a cancer screening.

Then, my name was called and I marched down an oddly pleasing hallway, with arched ceiling and dramatic lighting. Inside the exam room, there were low lights – like the kind in the room when you get a massage at a nice day spa. I didn’t even have to undress.

As she spread the warm goo on my stomach, I said, “This isn’t exactly as fun as being pregnant.”

“No, it most certainly is not,” the woman replied.

She began clicking and clacking at her keyboard slash lighting board, flipping switches and moving the probe over my lower abdomen. Then, she checked my kidneys. When she told me that she did, in fact, see something, I felt both relieved and horrified. 

The good news was that I wasn’t having some sort of stress-related psychosomatic episode. In medical anthropology, we would call this “somatization”, or expressing psychological difficulties as physical symptoms.

The bad news was that there was something there.

I had to have an internal ultrasound to get a better look. It wasn’t that unpleasant, until she got near my left ovary. Then, ouch.

The absolute worst part was getting dressed and sitting down on the crackly white paper covering the exam table. Waiting. The lady performing my exam had to let the radiologist see my results, “just in case I need to keep you here for another test.”

I didn’t want to cry, but I felt like it. 

I’m writing a memoir about how every close family member died before I turned 24; each one had an early death under strange circumstances. I couldn’t help but think what a fitting end chapter it would make to announce my own bout with cancer – God forbid. I have a macabre sense of humor in these moments, and I’m almost positive that I’m not alone.

Thankfully, when the woman returned she said that the radiologist’s analysis was “hemorrhagic cyst”. Follow-up appointment in three weeks, to see if it’s taken care of itself. If not, then who knows. More tests?

At least it’s not (whispered voice) cancer. (Readers born after 1980, please watch St. Elmo’s Fire for reference.)

Cell phones and cancer risk, I knew there was something fishy in Denmark.

Ok, so as a medical anthropologist, I read just enough science to make me nervous, but not enough to make me qualified to say anything meaningful about the results of tests and/or experiments.

But, when I read that an expert is nervous, it makes me even more nervous.

Here is a story from the BBC – quoted in full – about not waiting for the final judgment, so to speak (I’m fond of gallows humor). I’ve always used a headset with my mobile phone – and not a bluetooth which might only exacerbate the problem – so I’m not exactly running to make my early funeral arrangements, but . . .

Truth be told, I take these things with a grain of salt. We are all – eventually – bound for the grave. The top leading causes of death might change, but there will always be top leading causes of death. Because, umm, we have to die (a shock for some scientists and pretty much everyone under the age of 30, I know).

And, to put it back into perspective, only 100 years ago people didn’t live long enough to get cancer. They died of things like scarlett fever, typhus and diptheria instead. By 40.

Anyway, I thought that this was an interesting story, and highlights how much we do and do not know about the science of medicine. Which is, now that I think about it, part of the point of my own work on epidemics. And a fitting send-off to the biological threats conference/boot camp I’m attending next week. . . .

US cancer boss in mobiles warning

But a study of 500 Israelis found this year that heavy mobile phone use might be linked to an increased risk of cancer of the salivary gland.

Further studies are looking into possible long-term effects

The director of a leading US cancer research institute has sent a memo to thousands of staff warning of possible higher risks from mobile phone use.

Ronald Herberman, of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, said users should not wait for definitive studies on the risk and should take action now.

He said children should use mobiles in emergencies only and adults should try to keep the phone away from the head.

No major academic study has confirmed a link to higher brain-tumour risks.

Electromagnetic fields

Dr Herberman said his warning was based on early findings from unpublished data.

“We shouldn’t wait for a definitive study to come out, but err on the side of being safe rather than sorry later,” he says.

[There is a] growing body of literature linking long-term cell phone use to possible adverse health effects including cancer Ronald Herberman Q&A: Mobile phone safety

“I am convinced that there are sufficient data to warrant issuing an advisory to share some precautionary advice on cell phone use,” the memo says.

Dr Herberman’s warning to 3,000 staff says children should be protected as their brains are still developing.

He lists tips including switching sides regularly while talking on mobiles.

A major six-year research study in the UK said last year that there were no short-term adverse effects to brain and cell function from mobile phone use.

However, the UK Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme (MTHR) said there was a “hint” of a higher cancer risk in the long term and that its research would look into the effects over a 10-year period.

Programme chairman Professor Lawrie Challis said: “We can’t rule out the possibility at this stage that cancer could appear in a few years’ time.”

Evidence ’still confused’

Prof Alan Preece, Emeritus Professor of Medical Physics at the University of Bristol, said the evidence for harmful effects was “still confused and inconclusive”.

He added: “Whilst I would agree that precaution for children is an excellent idea… it is only very long term heavy use that would seem to be sensible to avoid until there is positive evidence of harm.

“In any case, modern phones cause far less exposure than their counterparts 10 or 20 years ago, and hands-free devices effectively solve the problem by removing heavy exposure to the head.”

Prof Will Stewart of the University of Southampton, who is a Fellow of The Royal Academy of Engineering, said he would be intrigued to see the early research.

“One cannot refute the ‘early findings from unpublished data’ since we have not seen them – but there is enough published data, including the MTHR review, to make the advice sound alarmist.”

Long-term effects

An earlier UK report said in 2005 that mobile phone use by children should be limited as a precaution – and that under-eights should not use them at all.

Mobile phones emit radio signals and electromagnetic fields that can penetrate the human brain, and some campaigners fear that this could seriously damage human health.

A US analysis by the University of Utah this year of thousands of brain tumour patients found no increased risk as a result of mobile use, but added that the effects from long-term use “awaits confirmation by future studies”.

Research reported in 2006 by the British arm of an international project called Interphone concluded that mobile phone use did not lead to a greater risk of brain tumour.

Recent Danish and French studies also found no increased risk of cancer.

The Napoleon Complex and Suicide – a New Weird Study about Birth Length

So, I usually stay up late and get up rather late (one of the benefits of having no children), and I hadn’t yet had my first cup of coffee when I spotted a news story on the BBC about a new study out of Sweden. It’s about birth length and weight in boys, and their propensity for violent suicide attempts later in life. The shorter the baby, the bigger the risk.

Apparently, Napoleon might have just been trying to kill himself the hard way. (Side note: Napoleon was measured at his autopsy, before the metric system had been introduced. He wasn’t 5′2″, but probably more like 5′6″, slightly taller than his French compatriots.)

As someone interested in the culture of scientific knowledge, I find these reports fascinating. First of all, we are consumed by the double notions of risk and prediction. If only, we reason, we could know beforehand the whys and wherefores, we could change the outcome. But, can we? What good does it do to know that your short son might be more depressive than you’d like him to be when he’s a thinking adult? Do you schedule therapy for him now?

In other words, do you believe the science and the hype?

Short men have always been maligned. I wonder why, especially when Hollywood is full of them. What is so wrong with being shorter than average in a world where rough-and-tumble survival (at least in some places) is a relic of a by-gone era? Men no longer have to spear woolly mammoths or stalk their prey. Nor do they usually have to step into an arena to defend themselves against certain death. Soldiers have guns, so I’m not sure hand-to-hand combat skills even count anymore. It’s curious, then, why shorter is now considered inherently ‘badder’.

Two of my favorite sports legends of all time we’re all that ‘big’ compared to the people they played against, and yet they seemed to turn out just fine: Muggsy Bogues (5′2″), and Walter Payton (5′10″). (Walter is a personal god of mine, it still makes me tear up to watch this clip. They don’t make ‘em like this anymore, Charlie.)

But, then, there’s this:

Short babies ‘face suicide risk’

Boys who are short at birth have double the risk of attempting suicide as adults even if their growth “catches up” in childhood, a study suggests. Those under 47cm (18.5 inches) were found to be at highest risk.

The Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health says poor foetal growth may have long-term effects on brain chemistry.

The Swedish researchers said more should be done to help pregnant women and babies who were at risk.

Violent suicides

Researchers from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm looked at national data on male births between 1973 and 1980 and at suicide attempts up until 1999.

The shortest babies were compared to those with an average length of 50-51cm (19.6 to 20 inches).

Any research that throws light on the reasons why some people are more vulnerable than others is essential Margorie Wallace, Sane

There were 759 violent suicide attempts – defined as hanging, using a gun or a knife jumping from heights or in front of a vehicle or drowning, amongst the whole group.

The link between birth length and suicide risk was strongest, but a birthweight of under 2,500g (5.5lbs) was also linked to an increasing risk of suicide attempts.

The study also found men who were normal length babies, but who were short in adult life, were 56 per cent more likely than tall men to attempt to take their own lives.

Drug misuse

Low levels of the brain chemical serotonin, which have been linked to aggression and suicidal behaviour could be the key, the researchers say.

Dr Ellenor Mittendorfer-Rutz, who led the study, said it was possible poor growth in the womb – caused by maternal drug or alcohol use or a poor diet – affected both birth length and how the baby’s brain processed serotonin.

Both were determined during the second trimester, she suggested.

Dr Mittendorfer-Rutz said more should be done to help pregnant women and babies.

“It is possible to identify at-risk pregnancies and mothers who are in adverse situations, such as those with psycho-social problems, teenage mothers and those with a criminal record.

“There is already some evidence to show intervening with these mothers can have an effect on the child’s long-term outcome.

“We could also think about better pre-natal care for the mothers.”

Marjorie Wallace, chief executive of mental health charity Sane, said: “We believe that when someone’s mental and emotional fragility leads them to take their own life, the causes are like all conditions partly genetic and partly environmental, a mix of inner and outer stresses.

“Any research that throws light on the reasons why some people are more vulnerable than others is essential.

“With suicide rates, particularly among young men, still at a disturbingly high level, research of this kind is urgent to prevent the often unnecessary loss of life.”

Who knows. It’s food for thought, I suppose. But, still, I’m not going to start keeping a close eye out on my shorter friends just yet. My obviously depressed friends, maybe.