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Dr Herberman said his warning was based on early findings from unpublished data.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

Finally, some sanity about eggs, drinking 8 glasses of water per day, and other health fears that our grandparents never thought twice about . . .

One of the things that boggles my mind is the fact that some people will do anything to be “healthier”, where “healthier” is a stand-in for one or all of the following:

1. Look younger.

2. Stave off aging in all forms. Haven’t you heard that 50 is the new 30? (Or so people who are 50 hope.)

3. Stay attractive to the opposite sex.

4. Remain fit enough and attractive enough to get laid, either before or after your divorce.

5. Never get cancer. Or anything else scary.

6. Live forever. No, seriously. Forever.

Obviously, these are impossible dreams.

One of my friends argued with me the other day about his parents, who are nearing 60, still being middle-age and “active”. Not unless they plan on living until 120 and hiking part of the Appalachian Trail. Which, as far as I know, is neigh-on impossible*. (*Note: not the hiking part, the living to 120 part.)

In New York, when I worked in fashion, I used to see skinny women dragging liter bottles of water around with them. Because it was healthy, and good for their skin and kidneys. Apparently, both myths.

So, it is with some sort of pride in my “common sense” attitude about things I eat, drink, and do to keep myself reasonably fit for my age, that I share with you the following myth-busting story. Enjoy. And enjoy the coffee and eggs for breakfast for once, why don’t you?

By Dorothy Foltz-Gray, Health

Myth #1: Drink eight glasses of water a day
In 1945, the U.S. Food and Nutrition Board told people to consume eight glasses of fluid daily. Before long, most of us believed we needed eight glasses of water, in addition to what we eat and drink, every day.

The truth: Water’s great, but you also whet your whistle with juice, tea, milk, fruits and vegetables — quite enough to keep you hydrated. Even coffee quenches thirst, despite its reputation as a diuretic; the caffeine makes you lose some liquid, but you’re still getting plenty.

Contrary to common belief, urine color is not a great sign of dehydration, says Rachel Vreeman, MD, a fellow in Children’s Health Services Research at the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis: “If you’re thirsty, you should drink.” But don’t overdo it. Drinking too much can lead to hyponatremia, in which sodium levels fall, causing an electrolyte imbalance that can make you very sick.

Myth #2: Stress will turn your hair gray
The carpool, the spilled milk, the deadlines. Who doesn’t believe that stress can shock her locks?

The truth: “Too much stress does age us inside and out,” says Nancy L. Snyderman, MD, chief medical editor for NBC News and author of “Medical Myths that Can Kill You.” It ups the number of free radicals, scavenger molecules that attack healthy cells, and increases the spill of stress hormones in your body. So far, though, no scientific evidence proves a bad day turns your locks silver. “We gray according to genetics,” she says. And, let’s face it, when you do get those gray strands, hair products make covering them a cinch.

Myth #3: Reading in poor light ruins your eyes
It’s the common-sense refrain of mothers everywhere — reading under the covers or by moonlight will ruin your eyesight.

The truth: “Reading in dim light can strain your eyes,” Snyderman explains. “You tend to squint, and that can give you a headache. But you won’t do any permanent damage, except maybe cause crow’s-feet.”

Your overtired eyes can get dry and achy, and may even make your vision seem less clear, but a good night’s rest will help your peepers recover just fine.

Myth #4: Coffee’s really bad for you
Surely something 108 million Americans crave so much each morning couldn’t possibly be good for you? Wrong.

The truth: Too much may give you the jitters, but your daily habit has a lot of positives. “Coffee comes from plants, which have helpful phytochemicals that act as antioxidants,” says Stacy Beeson, RD, a wellness dietitian at St. Luke’s Boise Medical Center in Boise, Idaho. One set of antioxidants appears to increase insulin sensitivity, which might explain a lowered risk of type 2 diabetes in people who sip java. A Harvard study of more than 125,000 coffee drinkers found that women cut their risk of type 2 diabetes by 30 percent. Other studies suggest that coffee cuts the risks of Parkinson’s disease, colon cancer, cirrhosis and gallstones. Drinking joe gives your brain a boost, too. And, despite the jolt of energy it provides, coffee has no effect on heart disease.

Two to three cups a day is fine for most people, Beeson says. But if you take your coffee with a racing heart, anxiety, or wide-eyed nights, cut back or switch to decaf. If you’re pregnant or low on calcium, talk to your doc about the best brew for you.

Myth #5: Feed a cold, starve a fever
The old wives’ tale has been a staple since the 1500s when a dictionary master wrote, “Fasting is a great remedie of feuer.”

The truth: “Colds and fevers are generally caused by viruses that tend to last 7 to 10 days, no matter what you do,” Vreeman says. “And there is no good evidence that diet has any effect on a cold or fever. Even if you don’t feel like eating, you still need fluids, so put a priority on those.” If you’re congested, the fluids will keep mucus thinner and help loosen chest and nasal congestion. A little chicken soup spoons in some nutrients, as well.

Myth #6: Fresh is always better than frozen
Ever since scientists honed in on the benefits of antioxidants, the mantra has been “eat more fresh fruits and veggies” — implying that frozen is second-rate.

The truth: “Frozen can be just as good as fresh because the fruits and vegetables are harvested at the peak of their nutritional content, taken to a plant, and frozen on the spot, locking in nutrients,” Beeson says. “They aren’t trucked far distances to sit on grocery shelves.” And, unless it’s picked and sold the same day, produce at farmers’ markets — though still nutritious — may lose nutrients because of heat, air, and water.

Myth #7: Eggs raise your cholesterol
In the 1960s and 1970s, scientists linked blood cholesterol with heart disease — and eggs (high in cholesterol) were banished to the chicken house.

The truth: Newer studies have found that saturated and trans fats in a person’s diet, not dietary cholesterol, are more likely to raise heart disease risk. (An egg has only 1.6 grams of saturated fat, compared with about 3 grams in a cup of 2 percent milk.) And, at 213 milligrams of cholesterol, one egg slips under the American Heart Association’s recommendation of no more than 300 milligrams a day. “Eggs offer lean protein and vitamins A and D, and they’re inexpensive and convenient,” Beeson says. “If you do have an egg for breakfast, just keep an eye out for the amount of cholesterol in the other foods you eat that day.”

Myth #8: Get cold, and you’ll catch a cold
It must be true because your mother always said so. Right?

The truth: Mom was wrong. “Chilling doesn’t hurt your immunity, unless you’re so cold that your body defenses are destroyed — and that only occurs during hypothermia,” Vreeman says. “And you can’t get a cold unless you’re exposed to a virus that causes a cold.” The reason people get more colds in the winter isn’t because of the temperature, but it may be a result of being cooped up in closed spaces and exposed to the spray of cold viruses. Staying warm may not prevent a cold, but staying cheerful might. A study at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh says positive people exposed to cold viruses have a 13 percent lower risk of getting a cold than gloomier souls.

Myth #9: Your lipstick could make you sick
In 2007, an environmentalist group, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, had 33 lipsticks tested for lead. Although there’s no lead limit for lipstick, one third of the tubes had more than the limit allowed for candy. That started a scare that spread like wildfire.

The truth: “The reality is that lead is in almost everything,” says Michael Thun, MD, head of epidemiological research for the American Cancer Society. “It’s all around us. But the risk from lead in lipstick is extremely small.” In fact, lead poisoning is most commonly caused by other environmental factors — pipes and paint in older homes, for instance. The bottom line, Thun says: The risk from lipstick is nothing to worry about.

4 big health whoppers
Most of us want to believe in “miracle” cures. But if it sounds too good to be true, it is.

Weight-loss formulas
The National Institutes of Health warns against taking any drug combos sold without U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, including herbal mixes that promise big results. “The problem is that many contain stimulants and may be dangerous for people with underlying heart disease, high blood pressure, and other chronic illnesses they may not be aware of,” says Marc Siegel, MD, a New York City physician and author of “False Alarm: The Truth About the Epidemic of Fear.” “And you may not know how much stimulant you’re getting.” It’s far better to ask your doctor about FDA-approved appetite suppressants or, best of all, exercise and watch what you eat.

Arthritis fixes
Copper bracelets, shark cartilage, honey-and-vinegar mixtures, magnets. If only they would cure arthritis. But it just isn’t so, Siegel says. In fact, copper can cause an allergic reaction. Although there’s no cure for arthritis, rest, exercise, heat and drugs recommended by your doctor can help.

Colon cleansers
Colonics have been hawked as everything from a toxin remover to a cancer cure. But they only do what your intestinal system does already. Enemas, laxatives, or passing a rubber tube through your rectum and pumping water in and out can be expensive and dangerous. “There’s no evidence that colon cleansing is necessary,” Siegel says. And experts say long-term cleansing can cause anemia, malnutrition, infection, intestinal damage and even heart failure.

Alzheimer’s cures
Removing silver fillings, zapping your brain with electricity, or taking smart pills won’t keep your memory intact, says Stephen Barrett, MD, a retired psychiatrist who operates www.quackwatch.org. “Reputable drugs for slowing memory loss are only in their infancy. If brain tissue is dead, you can’t revive it with something in a bottle.”

People in New England and NY, prepare to buy a lot of Off! . . .

I’m sure that this story in the Times whizzed by a lot of people, but I’m scared.

Bats, which normally hibernate in the winter in caves in New York, Vermont, New Jersey, are dying in droves. They are flying out of their caves in winter – odd enough – and then dying right there in front of the caves in the snow. Literally dropping dead.

I know, for most of us bats are terrifying. They are associated with vampires, deadly nights, and scary monsters at Halloween. But I like bats.

They’re cute, really, if you ignore the wings.

Although I know that most people picture something more like this:

It’s a bit like sharks and spiders. Humans have a knee-jerk reaction to things flying in their hair, even if it’s accidental.

Anyway, bats are dying in droves, to the point where scientists are saying that up to 90% of bats will be dead by spring. The bats that do survive might be too skinny to procreate in the spring. Bats have a fairly slow reproductive rate. One female bat only has one pup per spring.

The true downside? They have absolutely no clue what’s killing the bats. A fungus? No, probably just a side effect. A virus or bacteria? Who knows. Pesticides? Maybe they played a role in depressing the bats’ immune systems. Can we catch it? Again, no idea. They are warning people to stay away from bat caves, as people might accidentally help to spread whatever is killing the bats.

This is bad news for us. And the planet.

Bats can eat up to half their weight in bugs every single day. That’s a lot of bugs. And mosquitoes.

I think that if you live on the East Coast, you should probably stock up on bug spray and pray for a really low season of West Nile virus. Because you will be bitten – a lot. And not by bats. By bugs.

Personally, I think this is just another sign that we’ve thrown the balance off. And, unfortunately for bats, they don’t reap the benefits of IVF therapy, or antibiotics, or antivirals, or antifungals. So, we’re probably looking at the demise of countless species of bats, that we will never see in such great numbers again in our lifetimes. Probably because of something we’ve done inadvertently.

And people wonder why I don’t have kids.  I’d rather save the bats.

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.