The Good, The Bad, & The Vigorously Debated
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
This week in health news sees some pretty varied topics:
One more reason to care about the gut-brain axis
Stroke is a top killer in much of the industrialized world, usually making it into the top-few list on a per-country basis. And, it’s rising in prevalence, too. This is partly because our longevity is increasing so age-related things kill us more often, statistically, than age-unrelated things. But that’s only part of the reason; another is that our lifestyle (on the national level) is becoming more conducive to stroke. Diet is a large contributor to that, and gut health has now been identified as a key factor.
What recent research has shown is that minutes after a stroke occurs, normal gut anatomy is disrupted, and cells responsible for gut barrier integrity are eroded, and bugs from the gut get into the blood, and arrive at the (newly damaged) brain vasculature, where the blood-brain barrier is often also compromised on account of the stroke.
Because of this, critical to reducing post-stroke neuroinflammation (something that makes stroke damage more severe and recovery a lot harder) is improving the gut’s ability to heal itself quickly.
This can be helped with a dose of Insulin-like Growth Factor (IGF-1), but there are other things that can help or hinder, and those other things are modifiable by us as individuals in our lifestyle choices (e.g. a gut-healthy diet with plenty of fiber, and avoiding gut-unhealthy things like sugar and alcohol that feed C. albicans growths that will put roots through your intestines and make holes as they do), because the better/worse your gut barrier integrity is to start with, the easier/harder it will be for your gut to repair itself quickly:
Read in full: Healing the gut can reduce long-term impact of stroke
Related: Stop Sabotaging Your Gut
How about that seasonal lead-spiced hot drink?
Lead contamination in ground spices has become a bit of an issue, ground turmeric has had quite some flak in this regard, and now the spotlight is on cinnamon.
These reports, by the way, do not specify what kind of cinnamon (i.e. cassia vs Ceylon), however, clicking through to assorted sources and then doing our own digging finds that all cinnamon products we found listed as contaminated, were cassia cinnamon. This is unsurprising, as a) it’s cheaper b) it’s the kind most readily found on shelves in the US. That said, when it comes to Ceylon (sweet) cinnamon, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so that doesn’t mean they got the all-clear on lead contamination, but rather, that they haven’t received the same scrutiny as yet.
It’s worth noting that cinnamon sticks have been found to have less contamination than ground cinnamon, though.
It’s also worth noting that since some adulterated products have had lead added deliberately in increase the weight and darken the color, this is more likely to happen to cassia cinnamon than sweet cinnamon because cassia cinnamon is visibly darker, so adding a darkening agent to sweet cinnamon would just make it look like cassia (which no seller would want to do since cassia is the cheaper of the two).
Read in full: Why lead-tainted cinnamon products have turned up on shelves, and what questions consumers should ask
Related: Sweet Cinnamon vs Regular Cinnamon – Which is Healthier? ← this also covers toxicity issues, by the way
A matter of life and death
Assisted dying is currently legal in 10/40 US states, and Canada. Over in the UK, it’s being debated (and voted on) in Parliament today, at time of writing.
While bodily autonomy discussions are usually quite straightforward arguments between the very separate camps of
- “my body, my choice” vs
- “they shouldn’t be allowed to do that”,
…this one comes with a considerable middleground, because
- “people should have to right to end things without extra suffering and on their own terms”, and
- “many disabled people fear being placed in a position of having justify why they are not exercising their right to die when it might be cheaper and easier for others if they did”
…are positions with a lot of potential overlap.
In any case, we know most of our readers are in the US, but with a 10/40 split in US states (and some recent controversies in Canada), it’s likely a topic that’ll come up for most people at some point, so it’s good to understand it, and this is as good an opportunity as any:
Read in full: How would the assisted dying bill work and what issues might it create?
Related: Managing Your Mortality ← this talks about psychological/social considerations, as well as end-of-life care, palliative care (which is not quite the same thing!) and euthanasia in various forms, including the unofficial kind that you might want to be aware of if you want to avoid that happening.
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
11 Things That Can Change Your Eye Color
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Eye color is generally considered so static that iris scans are considered a reasonable security method. However, it can indeed change—mostly for reasons you won’t want, though:
Ringing the changes
Putting aside any wishes of being a manga protagonist with violet eyes, here are the self-changing options:
- Aging in babies: babies are often born with lighter eyes, which can darken as melanocytes develop during the first few months of life. This is similar to how a small child’s blonde hair can often be much darker by the time puberty hits!
- Aging in adults: eyes may continue to darken until adulthood, while aging into the elderly years can cause them to lighten due to conditions like arcus senilis
- Horner’s syndrome: a nerve disorder that can cause the eyes to become lighter due to loss of pigment
- Fuchs heterochromic iridocyclitis: an inflammation of the iris that leads to lighter eyes over time
- Pigment dispersion syndrome: the iris rubs against eye fibers, leading to pigment loss and lighter eyes
- Kayser-Fleischer rings: excess copper deposits on the cornea, often due to Wilson’s disease, causing larger-than-usual brown or grayish rings around the iris
- Iris melanoma: a rare cancer that can darken the iris, often presenting as brown spots
- Cancer treatments: chemotherapy for retinoblastoma in children can result in lighter eye color and heterochromia
- Medications: prostaglandin-based glaucoma treatments can darken the iris, with up to 23% of patients seeing this effect
- Vitiligo: an autoimmune disorder that destroys melanocytes, mostly noticed in the skin, but also causing patchy loss of pigment in the iris
- Emotional and pupil size changes: emotions and trauma can affect pupil size, making eyes appear darker or lighter temporarily by altering how much of the iris is visible
For more about all these, and some notes about more voluntary changes (if you have certain kinds of eye surgery), enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
Understanding And Slowing The Progression Of Cataracts
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Led by RFK Jr., Conservatives Embrace Raw Milk. Regulators Say It’s Dangerous.
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
In summertime, cows wait under a canopy to be milked at Mark McAfee’s farm in Fresno, California. From his Cessna 210 Centurion propeller plane, the 63-year-old can view grazing lands of the dairy company he runs that produces products such as unpasteurized milk and cheese for almost 2,000 stores.
Federal regulators say it’s risky business. Samples of raw milk can contain bird flu virus and other pathogens linked to kidney disease, miscarriages, and death.
McAfee, founder and CEO of the Raw Farm, who also leads the Raw Milk Institute, says he plans to soon be in a position to change that message.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the anti-vaccine activist President Donald Trump has tapped to run the Department of Health and Human Services, recruited McAfee to apply for a job as the FDA’s raw milk standards and policy adviser, McAfee said. McAfee has already written draft proposals for possible federal certification of raw dairy farms, he said.
Virologists are alarmed. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends against unpasteurized dairy that hasn’t been heated to kill pathogens such as bird flu. Interstate raw milk sales for human consumption are banned by the FDA. A Trump administration that weakens the ban or extols raw milk, the scientists say, could lead to more foodborne illness. It could also, they say, raise the risk of the highly pathogenic H5N1 bird flu virus evolving to spread more efficiently, including between people, possibly fueling a pandemic.
“If the FDA says raw milk is now legal and the CDC comes through and says it advises drinking raw milk, that’s a recipe for mass infection,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist and co-editor-in-chief of the medical journal Vaccine and an adjunct professor at Stony Brook University in New York.
The raw milk controversy reflects the broader tensions President Donald Trump will confront when pursuing his second-administration agenda of rolling back regulations and injecting more consumer choice into health care.
Many policies Kennedy has said he wants to revisit — from the fluoridation of tap water to nutrition guidance to childhood vaccine requirements — are backed by scientific research and were established to protect public health. Some physician groups and Democrats are gearing up to fight initiatives they say would put people at risk.
Raw milk has gained a following among anti-regulatory conservatives who are part of a burgeoning health freedom movement.
“The health freedom movement was adopted by the tea party, and conspiracy websites gave it momentum,” said Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who has studied the history of the anti-vaccine movement.
Once-fringe ideas are edging into the mainstream. Vaccine hesitancy is growing.
Arkansas, Utah, and Kentucky are weighing legislation that would relax or end requirements for fluoride in public water. And 30 states now allow for the sale of raw milk in some form within their borders.
While only an estimated 3% of the U.S. population consumes raw milk or cheese, efforts to try to restrict its sales have riled Republicans and provided grist for conservative podcasts.
Many conservatives denounced last year’s execution of a search warrant when Pennsylvania agriculture officials and state troopers arrived at an organic farm tucked off a two-lane road on Jan. 4, 2024. State inspectors were investigating cases of two children sickened by E. coli bacteria and sales of raw dairy from the operation owned by Amish farmer Amos Miller, according to a complaint filed by the state’s agricultural department.
Bundled in flannel shirts and winter jackets, the inspectors put orange stickers on products detaining them from sale, and they left toting product samples in large blue-and-white coolers, online videos show. The 2024 complaint against Miller alleged that he and his wife sold dairy products in violation of state law.
The farm was well known to regulators. They say in the complaint that a Florida consumer died after being sickened in 2014 with listeria bacteria found in raw dairy from Miller’s farm. The FDA said a raw milk sample from the farm indicates it was the “likely source” of the infection, based on the complaint.
Neither Miller’s farm nor his lawyer returned calls seeking comment.
The Millers’ attorney filed a preliminary objection that said “shutting down Defendants would cause inequitable harm, exceed the authority of the agency, constitute an excessive fine as well as disparate, discriminatory punishment, and contravene every essential Constitutional protection and powers reserved to the people of Pennsylvania.”
Regulators in Pennsylvania said in a press release they must protect the public, and especially children, from harm. “We cannot ignore the illnesses and further potential harm posed by distribution of these unregulated products,” the Pennsylvania agricultural department and attorney general said in a joint statement.
Unpasteurized dairy products are responsible for almost all the estimated 761 illnesses and 22 hospitalizations in the U.S. that occur annually because of dairy-related illness, according to a study published in the June 2017 issue of Emerging Infectious Diseases.
But conservatives say raiding an Amish farm is government overreach. They’re “harassing him and trying to make an example of him. Our government is really out of control,” Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Doug Mastriano said in a video he posted to Facebook.
Videos show protesters at a February 2024 hearing on Miller’s case included Amish men dressed in black with straw hats and locals waving homemade signs with slogans such as “FDA Go Away.” A court in March issued a preliminary injunction that barred Miller from marketing and selling raw dairy products within the commonwealth pending appeal, but the order did not preclude sales of raw milk to customers out of state. The case is ongoing.
With Kennedy, the raw milk debate is poised to go national. Kennedy wrote on X in October that the “FDA’s war on public health is about to end.” In the post, he pointed to the agency’s “aggressive suppression” of raw milk, as one example.
McAfee is ready. He wants to see a national raw milk ordinance, similar to one that exists for pasteurized milk, that would set minimal national standards. Farmers could attain certification through training, continuing education, and on-site pathogen testing, with one standard for farms that sell to consumers and another for retail sales.
The Trump administration didn’t return emails seeking comment.
McAfee has detailed the system he developed to ensure his raw dairy products are safe. He confirmed the process for KFF Health News: cows with yellow-tagged ears graze on grass pastures and are cleansed in washing pens before milking. The raw dairy is held back from consumer sale until it’s been tested and found clear of pathogens.
His raw dairy products, such as cheese and milk, are sold by a variety of stores, including health, organic, and natural grocery chains, according to the company website, as well as raw dairy pet products, which are not for human consumption.
He said he doesn’t believe the raw milk he sells could contain or transmit viable bird flu virus. He also said he doesn’t believe regulators’ warnings about raw milk and the virus.
“The pharmaceutical industry is trying to create a new pandemic from bird flu to get their stock back up,” said McAfee, who says he counts Kennedy as a customer. His view is not shared by leading virologists.
In December, the state of California secured a voluntary recall of all his company’s raw milk and cream products due to possible bird flu contamination.
Five indoor cats in the same household died or were euthanized in December after drinking raw milk from McAfee’s farm, and tests on four of the animals found they were infected with bird flu, according to the Los Angeles County Department of Health.
In an unrelated case, Joseph Journell, 56, said three of his four indoor cats drank McAfee’s raw milk. Two fell sick and died, he said. His third cat, a large tabby rescue named Big Boy, temporarily lost the use of his hind legs and had to use a specialized wheelchair device, he said. Urine samples from Big Boy were positive for bird flu, according to a copy of the results from Cornell University and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
McAfee dismissed connections between the cats’ illnesses and his products, saying any potential bird flu virus would no longer be viable by the time his raw milk gets to stores. He also said he believes that any sick cats got bird flu from recalled pet food.
Journell said he has hired a lawyer to try to recover his veterinary costs but remains a staunch proponent of raw milk.
“Raw milk is good for you, just not if it has bird flu in it,” he said. “I do believe in its healing powers.”
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.
This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Share This Post
-
From banning junk food ads to a sugar tax: with diabetes on the rise, we can’t afford to ignore the evidence any longer
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
There are renewed calls this week for the Australian government to implement a range of measures aimed at improving our diets. These include restrictions on junk food advertising, improvements to food labelling, and a levy on sugary drinks.
This time the recommendations come from a parliamentary inquiry into diabetes in Australia. Its final report, tabled in parliament on Wednesday, was prepared by a parliamentary committee comprising members from across the political spectrum.
The release of this report could be an indication that Australia is finally going to implement the evidence-based healthy eating policies public health experts have been recommending for years.
But we know Australian governments have historically been unwilling to introduce policies the powerful food industry opposes. The question is whether the current government will put the health of Australians above the profits of companies selling unhealthy food.
benjamas11/Shutterstock Diabetes in Australia
Diabetes is one of the fastest growing chronic health conditions in the nation, with more than 1.3 million people affected. Projections show the number of Australians diagnosed with the condition is set to rise rapidly in coming decades.
Type 2 diabetes accounts for the vast majority of cases of diabetes. It’s largely preventable, with obesity among the strongest risk factors.
This latest report makes it clear we need an urgent focus on obesity prevention to reduce the burden of diabetes. Type 2 diabetes and obesity cost the Australian economy billions of dollars each year and preventive solutions are highly cost-effective.
This means the money spent on preventing obesity and diabetes would save the government huge amounts in health care costs. Prevention is also essential to avoid our health systems being overwhelmed in the future.
What does the report recommend?
The report puts forward 23 recommendations for addressing diabetes and obesity. These include:
- restrictions on the marketing of unhealthy foods to children, including on TV and online
- improvements to food labelling that would make it easier for people to understand products’ added sugar content
- a levy on sugary drinks, where products with higher sugar content would be taxed at a higher rate (commonly called a sugar tax).
These key recommendations echo those prioritised in a range of reports on obesity prevention over the past decade. There’s compelling evidence they’re likely to work.
Restrictions on unhealthy food marketing
There was universal support from the committee for the government to consider regulating marketing of unhealthy food to children.
Public health groups have consistently called for comprehensive mandatory legislation to protect children from exposure to marketing of unhealthy foods and related brands.
An increasing number of countries, including Chile and the United Kingdom, have legislated unhealthy food marketing restrictions across a range of settings including on TV, online and in supermarkets. There’s evidence comprehensive policies like these are having positive results.
In Australia, the food industry has made voluntary commitments to reduce some unhealthy food ads directly targeting children. But these promises are widely viewed as ineffective.
The government is currently conducting a feasibility study on additional options to limit unhealthy food marketing to children.
But the effectiveness of any new policies will depend on how comprehensive they are. Food companies are likely to rapidly shift their marketing techniques to maximise their impact. If any new government restrictions do not include all marketing channels (such as TV, online and on packaging) and techniques (including both product and brand marketing), they’re likely to fail to adequately protect children.
Food labelling
Food regulatory authorities are currently considering a range of improvements to food labelling in Australia.
For example, food ministers in Australia and New Zealand are soon set to consider mandating the health star rating front-of-pack labelling scheme.
Public health groups have consistently recommended mandatory implementation of health star ratings as a priority for improving Australian diets. Such changes are likely to result in meaningful improvements to the healthiness of what we eat.
Regulators are also reviewing potential changes to how added sugar is labelled on product packages. The recommendation from the committee to include added sugar labelling on the front of product packaging is likely to support this ongoing work.
But changes to food labelling laws are notoriously slow in Australia. And food companies are known to oppose and delay any policy changes that might hurt their profits.
Health star ratings are not compulsory in Australia. BLACKDAY/Shutterstock A sugary drinks tax
Of the report’s 23 recommendations, the sugary drinks levy was the only one that wasn’t universally supported by the committee. The four Liberal and National party members of the committee opposed implementation of this policy.
As part of their rationale, the dissenting members cited submissions from food industry groups that argued against the measure. This follows a long history of the Liberal party siding with the sugary drinks industry to oppose a levy on their products.
The dissenting members didn’t acknowledge the strong evidence that a sugary drinks levy has worked as intended in a wide range of countries.
In the UK, for example, a levy on sugary drinks implemented in 2018 has successfully lowered the sugar content in UK soft drinks and reduced sugar consumption.
The dissenting committee members argued a sugary drinks levy would hurt families on lower incomes. But previous Australian modelling has shown the two most disadvantaged quintiles would reap the greatest health benefits from such a levy, and accrue the highest savings in health-care costs.
What happens now?
Improvements to population diets and prevention of obesity will require a comprehensive and coordinated package of policy reforms.
Globally, a range of countries facing rising epidemics of obesity and diabetes are starting to take such strong preventive action.
In Australia, after years of inaction, this week’s report is the latest sign that long-awaited policy change may be near.
But meaningful and effective policy change will require politicians to listen to the public health evidence rather than the protestations of food companies concerned about their bottom line.
Gary Sacks, Professor of Public Health Policy, Deakin University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
White Potato vs Sweet Potato – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing white potatoes to sweet potatoes, we picked the sweet potatoes.
Why?
In terms of macros, sweet potatoes are a little lighter on carbs and calories, though in the case of sugar and fiber, sweet potato has a few grams more of each, per potato. However, when an average sweet potato’s 7g of sugar are held against its 4g of fiber, this (much like with fruit!) not a sugar you need to avoid.
See also: Which Sugars Are Healthier, And Which Are Just The Same?
The glycemic index of a sweet potato is also lower than that of a white potato, so the sugars it does have are slower-release.
Sweet potatoes famously are good sources of vitamin A and beta-carotene, which important nutrients white potatoes cannot boast.
Both plants are equally good sources of potassium and vitamin C.
Summary
Both are good sources of many nutrients, and any nutritional health-hazards associated with them come with the preparation (for example, frying introduces unhealthy fats, and mashing makes the glycemic index skyrocket, and cooking with salt increases the salt content).
Baking either is great (consider stuffing them with delicious well-seasoned beans and/or tomatoes; if you make it yourself, pesto can be a great option too, as can cheese if you’re so-inclined and judicious with choice and quantity) and preserves almost all of their nutrients. Remember that nearly 100% of the fiber is in the skin, so you do want to eat that.
The deciding factor is: sweet potatoes are good sources of a couple more valuable nutrients that white potatoes aren’t, and come out as the overall healthiest for that reason.
Enjoy!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Why Lung Cancer Is On The Rise In Women Who’ve Never Smoked
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
It’s easy to assume that if you’ve never smoked, lung cancer is just not a risk for you, unless you got very unlucky with an asbestos-laden environment or such.
And yes, smoking is indeed the most overwhelmingly strong risk factor:
❝It is estimated that cigarette smoking explains almost 90% of lung cancer risk in men and 70 to 80% in women❞
Which is a lot (and we’ll address that discrepancy by sex shortly), but meanwhile first let’s mention:
❝Compared with non-smokers, smokers have as much as a 30-fold increased risk of developing cancer.
31% and 26% of all cancer deaths in men and women, respectively, result from lung cancer in the United States.
Overall 5-year survival is only 15%, and 1-year survival is approximately 42%.
In total, lung cancer is responsible for more deaths than prostate, colon, pancreas, and breast cancers combined❞
Source: Smoking and Lung Cancer
Sobering statistics for any smoker, certainly.
But, “smoking is bad for the health” is not the breaking news of the century, so we’ll look now at the other risk factors.
Before we do though, let’s just drop this previous main feature of ours for anyone who does smoke or perhaps who has a loved one who smokes:
Which Addiction-Quitting Methods Work Best? ← it’s not specific just to smoking, but it does cover such also
So, Why the extra risk for women, even if we don’t smoke?
Let’s reframe that first statistic we gave, now presenting the same information differently:
Women who do not smoke are 2–3x more likely to get lung cancer than men who do not smoke.
So… why?
There are three main reasons:
Genetic risks
Cancer often arises from genetic mutations. In the case of lung cancer, genes such as ALK, ROS1, TP53, KRAS, and EGFR are implicated, and some of those are much more likely to mutate in women than in men.
In some cases, it’s because if you have XX chromosomes (as most women do), there are genes you have redundant copies of that people with XY chromosomes don’t. Other less common karyotypes, such as XXY, probably carry higher risks, but that’s just a hypothesis we’re making based on “more copies of a gene = more chances for it to mutate”.
See also: Frequency and Distinctive Spectrum of KRAS Mutations in Never Smokers with Lung Adenocarcinoma
In other cases, it’s because estrogen interacts with the gene mutations, making lung cancer more likely to develop in women over time:
Hormonal risks (but not what you might think)
When something affects women more, it’s easy to blame hormones, but, as researchers have concluded…
❝A reduced lung cancer risk was found for OC and HRT ever users. Both oestrogen only and oestrogen+progestin HRT were associated with decreased risk. No dose-response relationship was observed with years of OC/HRT use. The greatest risk reduction was seen for squamous cell carcinoma in OC users and in both adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma in HRT users.❞
OC = oral contraceptive
HRT = hormone replacement therapyNote: we snipped out the statistical calculations for readability and brevity, so if you are interested in those, check out the paper below:
Meanwhile, another research review of 22 studies with nearly a million participants found:
❝Current or ever HRT use is partly correlated with the decreased incidence of lung cancer in women.
Concerns about the incidence of lung cancer can be reduced when perimenopausal and postmenopausal women use current HRT to reduce menopausal symptoms.❞
So, the problem seems to at least a lot of the time be not estrogen (notwithstanding what we mentioned previously about mutations—sometimes a thing can have both pros and cons), but rather, untreated menopause being the higher risk factor.
This is very reminiscent of what we talked about in one of our main features about Alzheimer’s disease:
Alzheimer’s Sex Differences May Not Be What They Appear ← Women get Alzheimer’s at nearly 2x the rate than men do, and deteriorate more rapidly after onset, too.
Chronic inflammation
For reasons that have not been tied to genetics or hormones*, women suffer from autoimmune diseases at much higher rates than men.
*presumably it is at least one or the other, because there aren’t a lot of other options that seem plausible, but (as with many “this thing mainly affects women” maladies), science hasn’t yet determined the cause.
Because cancer is in part a disease of immune dysfunction (cells fail to kill cells they should be killing), having an autoimmune disease, or indeed chronic inflammation in general, will result in a higher risk of cancer.
For general theory, see: Cancer and Autoimmune Diseases: A Tale of Two Immunological Opposites?
For specifics, see: Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: Role of the Immune System and Potential for Immunotherapy
And this one is the most likely explanation of why lung cancer in women who’ve never smoked is on the rise—it’s because chronic inflammation in women is on the rise. While people regardless of gender are getting chronic inflammation at increased rates nowadays (probably due in large part to the rise of ultra-processed food, as well as the higher stress of modern life, but again, we’re hypothesizing), if all other factors are equal, women will still get it more than men.
However!
Like the consideration of HRT’s protective effects (and unlike the genetic factors), this is one we can do something about.
For how, check out: How to Prevent (or Reduce) Inflammation
Want to know more?
For lung health in general, see:
Seven Things To Do For Good Lung Health!
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Human, Bird, or Dog Waste? Scientists Parsing Poop To Aid DC’s Forgotten River
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
KFF Health News Peggy Girshman reporting fellow Jackie Fortiér joined a boat tour to spotlight a review of microbes in the Anacostia River, a step toward making the river healthier and swimmable. The story was featured on WAMU’s “Health Hub” on Feb. 26.
On a bright October day, high schoolers from Francis L. Cardozo Education Campus piled into a boat on the Anacostia River in Washington, D.C. Most had never been on the water before.
Their guide, Trey Sherard of the Anacostia Riverkeeper, started the tour with a well-rehearsed safety talk. The nonprofit advocates for the protection of the river.
A boy with tousled black hair casually dipped his fingers in the water.
“Don’t touch it!” Sherard yelled.
Why was Sherard being so stern? Was it dangerously cold? Were there biting fish?
Because of the sewage.
“We get less sewage than we used to. Sewage is a code word for what?” Sherard asked the teenagers.
“Poop!” one student piped up.
“Human poop,” Sherard said. “Notice I didn’t say we get none. I said we get what? Less.”
Tours like this are designed to get young people interested in the river’s ecology, but it’s a fine line to tread — interacting with the water can make people sick. Because of the health risks, swimming hasn’t been legal in the Anacostia for more than half a century. The polluted water can cause gastrointestinal and respiratory illnesses, as well as eye, nose, and skin infections.
The river is the cleanest it’s been in years, according to environmental experts, but they still advise you not to take a dip in the Anacostia — not yet, at least.
About 40 million people in the U.S. live in a community with a combined sewer system, where wastewater and stormwater flow through the same pipes. When pipe capacities are reached after heavy rains, the overflow sends raw wastewater into the rivers instead of to a treatment plant.
Federal regulations, including sections of the Clean Water Act, require municipalities such as Washington to reduce at least 85% of this pollution or face steep fines.
To achieve compliance, Washington launched a $2.6 billion infrastructure project in 2011. DC Water’s Clean Rivers Project will eventually build multiple miles-long underground storage basins to capture stormwater and wastewater and pump it to treatment plants once heavy rains have subsided.
The Anacostia tunnel is the first of these storage basins to be completed. It can collect 190 million gallons of bacteria-laden wastewater for later treatment, said Moussa Wone, vice president of the Clean Rivers Project.
Climate change is causing more intense rainstorms in Washington, so even after construction is complete in 2030, Wone said, untreated stormwater will be discharged into the river, though much less frequently.
“On the Anacostia, we’re going to be reducing the frequency of overflows from 82 to two in an average year,” Wone said.
But while the Anacostia sewershed covers 176 square miles, he noted, only 17% is in Washington.
“The other 83% is outside the district,” Wone said. “We can do our part, but everybody else has to do their part also.”
Upstream in Maryland’s Montgomery and Prince George’s counties, miles of sewer lines are in the process of being upgraded to divert raw sewage to a treatment plant instead of the river.
The data shows that poop is a problem for river health — but knowing what kind of poop it is matters. Scientists monitor E. coli to indicate the presence of feces in river water, but since the bacteria live in the guts of most warm-blooded animals, the source is difficult to determine.
“Is it human feces? Or is it deer? Is it gulls’? Is it dogs’?” said Amy Sapkota, a professor of environmental and occupational health at the University of Maryland.
Bacterial levels can fluctuate across the river even without rainstorms. An Anacostia Riverkeeper report found that in 2023 just three of nine sites sampled along the Washington portion of the watershed had consistently low E. coli levels throughout the summer season.
Sapkota is heading a new bacterial monitoring program measuring the amount of E. coli that different animal species deposit along the river.
The team uses microbial source tracking to analyze samples of river water taken from different locations each month by volunteers. The molecular approach enables scientists to target specific gene sequences associated with fecal bacteria and determine whether the bacteria come from humans or wildlife. Microbial source tracking also measures fecal pollution levels by source.
“We can quantify the levels of different bacterial targets that may be coming from a human fecal source or an animal fecal source,” Sapkota said.
Her team expects to have preliminary results this year.
The health risk to humans from river water will never be zero, Sapkota said, but based on her team’s research, smart city planning and retooled infrastructure could lessen the level of harmful bacteria in the water.
“Let’s say that we’re finding that actually there’s a lot of deer fecal signatures in our results,” Sapkota said. “Maybe this points to the fact that we need more green buffers along the river that can help prevent fecal contaminants from wildlife from entering the river during stormwater events.”
Washington is hoping to recoup some of the cost of building green spaces and other river cleanup. In January, the office of D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb filed a lawsuit seeking unspecified damages from the federal government over decades of alleged pollution of the Anacostia River.
Brenda Lee Richardson, coordinator of the Anacostia Parks & Community Collaborative, said the efforts to cut down on trash and sewage are paying off. She sees a river on the mend, with more plant and animal life sprouting up.
“The ecosystem seems a lot greener,” she said. “There’s stuff in the river now that wasn’t there before.”
But any changes to the waterfront need to be done with residents of both sides of the river in mind, she said.
“We want there to be some sense of equity as it relates to who has access,” she said. “When I look at who is recreating, it’s not people who look like me.”
Richardson has lived for 40 years in Ward 8 — a predominantly Black area on the east side of the river whose residents are generally less affluent than those on the west side. She and her neighbors don’t consider the Anacostia a place to get out and play, she said.
As the water quality slowly improves, Richardson said, she hopes the Anacostia’s reputation is also rehabilitated. Even if it’s not safe to swim in, Richardson enjoys boating trips like the one with the Anacostia Riverkeeper.
“To see all those creatures along the way and the greenery. It was comforting,” she said. “So rather than take a pill to settle my nerves, I can just go down the river.”
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.
This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: