/PRNewswire/ -- The University of Michigan's Monitoring the Future study (MTF) – the largest survey on teen drug abuse tracking over 46,000 8th, 10th and 12th graders – found a huge falloff in teens' recalled exposure to drug abuse prevention messages over the past seven years. The new data from the MTF study have been released at a time when teens themselves report finding the drug-prevention messages to be effective.
Comparing 2003, the year in which kids and teens' recalled exposure to drug prevention messages from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)'s National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign (NYADMC) peaked, to today, the proportion of 8th graders that reported daily/or more often exposure dropped from 54 percent to 18 percent, a dramatic decrease of two-thirds among the youngest group surveyed. Similar declines occurred among 10th graders (50 percent in 2003 to 17 percent in 2010) and 12th graders (32 percent to 10 percent). According to Lloyd Johnston, the principal investigator of the study, the rates of teens' recalled exposure of drug abuse prevention messages are lower in 2010 than they have been since his research team began tracking all three grades nearly two decades ago.
"At a time when teen drug use is at relatively low levels, historically, and children are not learning as much through the news media about the health consequences of using many dangerous drugs, it is important that we get that information to them by other means – through prevention ads, in schools and through their families," said Johnston. "If they don't get those messages, teens will come to view drug use as less dangerous than their predecessors did and that misconception will leave them vulnerable to having their own epidemics of drug abuse. In fact, we are already seeing these signs beginning to happen now for teen use of drugs like marijuana, Ecstasy and LSD."
Support for prevention programs like the state grants portion of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Program, which was zeroed out in the 2011 budget, and the federal NYADMC, has dwindled significantly over the past decade. In fiscal year 2003, which marked the peak year for recalled exposure of drug abuse prevention messages among teens, federal support of the NYADMC was $145 million, compared to only $45 million for fiscal year 2010. The kinds of extracurricular activities – programs in sports, civics and the arts – that states and localities have funded to engage kids' positive energies and help prevent substance abuse continue to collapse under relentless budgetary pressure.
"Our prevention infrastructure is disappearing before our eyes and the result of all this is not fair, but it's undeniable: the additional burden is increasingly falling on the shoulders of parents and caregivers," said Steve Pasierb, President of The Partnership at Drugfree.org. "The slashing of funds and lack of support, coupled with the discussion of further cuts for effective prevention programs, are going to have a direct impact on the 35 million American families with children at risk of abusing drugs or alcohol."
Teens Seeing/Hearing Less Drug-Prevention Messages, But Find Them Effective
While recalled exposure among teens is down significantly, perceived effectiveness of the drug-prevention messages did not reflect the same dramatic drops and, for the most part, remained constant. Between 2003 and today, the proportion of 8th, 10th, and 12th graders that agreed "the commercials made them, to a great extent, less favorable toward drugs" remained fairly stable. Among 8th graders, 42 percent in 2003 and 36 percent in 2010; among 10th graders, 26 percent in 2003 and 23 percent in 2010; and among 12th graders 22 percent in 2003 and 21 percent in 2010.
Similarly, the percentage of teens who agreed that drug-prevention messages made them less likely to use drugs in the future also remained stable, although they reported they are exposed to fewer messages.
"There is evidence of a correlation between decreased drug use among teens and their exposure to drug abuse prevention messages," said Pasierb. "The alarming drops in the number of messages teens are seeing or hearing today is especially disturbing because the kids themselves report these messages are effective in keeping them from using drugs."
Increases in Teen Use of Illicit Drugs Correlate with Decreased Support for Anti-Drug Messages
The MTF survey also measures teen attitudes about drug and alcohol use, including perceived harmfulness and disapproval, factors that can predict future substance abuse. The perception among teens that regular marijuana use is harmful decreased among 10th and 12th graders, but declined the most among the youngest group of 8th graders. The study also confirmed a new uptick in teen Ecstasy use, especially, among 8th and 10th graders, following drastic declines of this drug of abuse over the past decade. As teen anti-drug attitudes erode and move in the wrong direction, increases in drug use are sure to follow.
"While we recognize the current constraints on the federal budget, we urge Congress to fund ONDCP's National Youth Media Campaign at the highest possible level and restore the funding cuts that have eroded the impact of this program and have most likely contributed to increases in teen drug abuse," said Pasierb. "We would welcome the opportunity to work with Congress and the Administration to increase the frequency with which teens receive anti-drug messages, while demanding full accountability for the program and its outcomes."
The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, administered by ONDCP, is aimed at reducing drug use among American teens. The Partnership at Drugfree.org assists in facilitating the creative development of the drug abuse prevention messages used by the NYADMC.
To learn more about how to help parents prevent, intervene in and find treatment for drug and alcohol use by their children, please visit drugfree.org
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP
Showing posts with label exposure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label exposure. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Studies Link Range of Major Diseases to Pesticides, New Database Launched
/PRNewswire/ -- Links to pesticide exposure are being found in a growing number of studies that evaluate the causes of preventable diseases -- including asthma, autism and learning disabilities, birth defects and reproductive dysfunction, diabetes, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, and several types of cancer. A new database, released today, tracks published epidemiologic and real world exposure studies. The studies challenge the effectiveness of risk-assessment-based regulation which is intended to manage adverse disease outcomes, but is criticized for allowing the uses of chemicals that can be replaced by green technologies and practices.
To capture the range of diseases linked to pesticides through epidemiologic studies, the national environmental and public health group Beyond Pesticides launched in the summer issue of its newsletter, Pesticides and You, the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database to track the studies. "A read through the scientific literature on pesticides and major preventable diseases afflicting us in the 21st century suggests that one of the first responses called for is an all out effort to stop using toxic pesticides," said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. The database begins an ongoing effort by Beyond Pesticides to maintain this comprehensive database of the studies that the group says "supports an urgent need to shift to toxic-free practices and policies."
The group is calling for alternatives assessment in environmental rulemaking that creates a regulatory trigger to adopt alternatives and drive the market to go green. "Under risk assessment, we constantly play with 'mitigation measures' that the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database tells us over and over is a failed human experiment," said Mr. Feldman.
The alternatives assessment approach differs most dramatically from risk assessment in rejecting uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations, but unnecessary because of the availability of safer alternatives. For example, in agriculture, where the database shows clear links to pesticide use and multiple types of cancer, it would no longer be possible to use hazardous pesticides, as it is with risk assessment-based policy, when there are clearly effective organic systems with competitive yields that, in fact, outperform chemical-intensive agriculture in drought years. This same analysis can be applied to home and garden use of pesticides where households using pesticides suffer elevated rates of cancer.
Earlier this year Beyond Pesticides released its Organic Food: Eating with a Conscience guide that explains how foods grown with hazardous chemicals contaminate water and air, hurt biodiversity, harm farmworkers, and kill bees, birds, fish and other wildlife even though the finished commodities, often referred to as "clean," may have minimal or nondetectable residues. The guide can be found at www.eatingwithaconscience.org.
The Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, which currently contains 383 entries of epidemiologic and laboratory exposure studies, will be continually updated to track the emerging findings and trends. To view the database, go to www.beyondpesticides.org/health.
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
To capture the range of diseases linked to pesticides through epidemiologic studies, the national environmental and public health group Beyond Pesticides launched in the summer issue of its newsletter, Pesticides and You, the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database to track the studies. "A read through the scientific literature on pesticides and major preventable diseases afflicting us in the 21st century suggests that one of the first responses called for is an all out effort to stop using toxic pesticides," said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. The database begins an ongoing effort by Beyond Pesticides to maintain this comprehensive database of the studies that the group says "supports an urgent need to shift to toxic-free practices and policies."
The group is calling for alternatives assessment in environmental rulemaking that creates a regulatory trigger to adopt alternatives and drive the market to go green. "Under risk assessment, we constantly play with 'mitigation measures' that the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database tells us over and over is a failed human experiment," said Mr. Feldman.
The alternatives assessment approach differs most dramatically from risk assessment in rejecting uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations, but unnecessary because of the availability of safer alternatives. For example, in agriculture, where the database shows clear links to pesticide use and multiple types of cancer, it would no longer be possible to use hazardous pesticides, as it is with risk assessment-based policy, when there are clearly effective organic systems with competitive yields that, in fact, outperform chemical-intensive agriculture in drought years. This same analysis can be applied to home and garden use of pesticides where households using pesticides suffer elevated rates of cancer.
Earlier this year Beyond Pesticides released its Organic Food: Eating with a Conscience guide that explains how foods grown with hazardous chemicals contaminate water and air, hurt biodiversity, harm farmworkers, and kill bees, birds, fish and other wildlife even though the finished commodities, often referred to as "clean," may have minimal or nondetectable residues. The guide can be found at www.eatingwithaconscience.org.
The Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, which currently contains 383 entries of epidemiologic and laboratory exposure studies, will be continually updated to track the emerging findings and trends. To view the database, go to www.beyondpesticides.org/health.
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Saturday, June 05, 2010
Gulf Coast Poison Centers Respond to Oil Spill
/PRNewswire/ -- More than 100 people have called Gulf region poison centers since the Deepwater Horizon oil platform caught fire in the Gulf of Mexico April 20, either to receive information or to report side effects from the resulting oil spill.
Dr. Mark Ryan, managing director of the Louisiana Poison Center, said he expects to see that number rise as the oil continues to leak and spread.
"Louisiana is a particularly difficult area to clean because the marshes are grassy with muddy bottoms that have very low oxygen content," he said. "It's not conducive to breaking oil down. We may be dealing with this for decades."
As of June 2, Gulf region centers reported a total of 45 calls reporting a poison exposure related to the spill. An additional 64 callers have contacted their poison center to seek medical information about the spill.
The U.S. Coast Guard and the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals are among the agencies urging those exposed to toxins related to the spill to call their local poison center for guidance, and the Louisiana center is working with the state's Center for Epidemiology and Environmental Toxicology to gauge the number of poison exposures related to the spill. "We are collaborating to obtain the most comprehensive picture of the exposures that are occurring," Ryan said.
In addition, the Gulf region poison centers are providing data to federal agencies including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institutes of Health.
Poison centers provide information about calls to the American Association of Poison Control Centers National Poison Data System. When someone calls a poison center after being exposed to an oil spill-related poison, be it skin contact with oil, inhalation of fumes, or exposure to the dispersants used to treat the spill, staff at the centers enter a "tracking code" that links the call to the oil spill. This marks the first time one code has been used to track the varied exposures and medical outcomes stemming from a disaster with potentially wide-reaching consequences.
So far, the most common symptom reported to centers has been throat irritation, followed by headaches. Other callers have reported symptoms including nausea, chest pain, dizziness and coughs. Most calls so far have involved inhalation of fumes. Poison centers in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri and Mississippi have received calls about poison exposures related to the spill.
"Poison centers are perfectly poised to be a go-to health care resource during a disaster," said Jim Hirt, executive director of the American Association of Poison Control Centers. "There's a reason that state and federal health agencies are relying on information from Gulf region poison centers - these centers provide an invaluable public health service."
Poison centers are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Their services are free and confidential. If you have a question about medical effects of the oil spill or any other poison exposure, call your local poison center at 1(800) 222-1222.
About the American Association of Poison Control Centers: The American Association of Poison Control Centers is a non-profit, national organization founded in 1958 that represents the poison control centers of the United States, the interests of poison prevention and the treatment of poisoning.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Dr. Mark Ryan, managing director of the Louisiana Poison Center, said he expects to see that number rise as the oil continues to leak and spread.
"Louisiana is a particularly difficult area to clean because the marshes are grassy with muddy bottoms that have very low oxygen content," he said. "It's not conducive to breaking oil down. We may be dealing with this for decades."
As of June 2, Gulf region centers reported a total of 45 calls reporting a poison exposure related to the spill. An additional 64 callers have contacted their poison center to seek medical information about the spill.
The U.S. Coast Guard and the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals are among the agencies urging those exposed to toxins related to the spill to call their local poison center for guidance, and the Louisiana center is working with the state's Center for Epidemiology and Environmental Toxicology to gauge the number of poison exposures related to the spill. "We are collaborating to obtain the most comprehensive picture of the exposures that are occurring," Ryan said.
In addition, the Gulf region poison centers are providing data to federal agencies including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institutes of Health.
Poison centers provide information about calls to the American Association of Poison Control Centers National Poison Data System. When someone calls a poison center after being exposed to an oil spill-related poison, be it skin contact with oil, inhalation of fumes, or exposure to the dispersants used to treat the spill, staff at the centers enter a "tracking code" that links the call to the oil spill. This marks the first time one code has been used to track the varied exposures and medical outcomes stemming from a disaster with potentially wide-reaching consequences.
So far, the most common symptom reported to centers has been throat irritation, followed by headaches. Other callers have reported symptoms including nausea, chest pain, dizziness and coughs. Most calls so far have involved inhalation of fumes. Poison centers in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri and Mississippi have received calls about poison exposures related to the spill.
"Poison centers are perfectly poised to be a go-to health care resource during a disaster," said Jim Hirt, executive director of the American Association of Poison Control Centers. "There's a reason that state and federal health agencies are relying on information from Gulf region poison centers - these centers provide an invaluable public health service."
Poison centers are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Their services are free and confidential. If you have a question about medical effects of the oil spill or any other poison exposure, call your local poison center at 1(800) 222-1222.
About the American Association of Poison Control Centers: The American Association of Poison Control Centers is a non-profit, national organization founded in 1958 that represents the poison control centers of the United States, the interests of poison prevention and the treatment of poisoning.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Thursday, May 06, 2010
President's Cancer Panel Report Finds True Burden of Environmentally Induced Cancer Greatly Underestimated
/PRNewswire/ -- Even with the growing body of evidence linking environmental exposures to cancer in recent years, a report released today by the President's Cancer Panel finds that the true burden of environmentally-induced cancer is greatly underestimated. The Panel's report, "Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now," concludes that while environmental exposure is not a new front on the war on cancer, the grievous harm from this group of carcinogens has not been addressed adequately by the National Cancer Program.
"There remains a great deal to be done to identify the many existing but unrecognized environmental carcinogens and eliminate those that are known from our daily lives - our workplaces, schools and homes," said LaSalle D. Leffall, Jr., M.D., chair of the Panel. "The increasing number of known or suspected environmental carcinogens compels us to action, even though we may currently lack irrefutable proof of harm," he added.
Key Findings
With nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market in the US, many of which are used by millions of Americans in their daily lives and are un- or under-studied and largely unregulated, the report finds that exposure to potential environmental carcinogens is widespread. Yet, the public remains unaware of many of these carcinogens as well as their own level of exposure, especially to many common environmental carcinogens such as radon, formaldehyde and benzene.
In addition to environmental carcinogens, the report found that while improved imaging technologies have facilitated great strides in diagnosing and treating diseases, including cancer, some of these technologies also carry risks from increased radiation exposures. Many health care professionals, as well as the public, are unaware of the radiation dose associated with various tests or the total radiation dose and related increased cancer risk individuals may accumulate over a lifetime.
In addition, the report found that health care providers often fail to consider occupational and environmental factors when diagnosing patient illness. Physicians and other medical professionals ask infrequently about patient workplace and home environments when taking a medical history, thereby missing out on information that could be invaluable in discovering underlying causes of disease.
The report also recognizes the United States military as a major source of toxic occupational and environmental exposures that can increase cancer risk. Information is available about some military activities that have directly or indirectly exposed military and civilian personnel to carcinogens and contaminated soil and water in numerous locations in the United States and abroad, such as radiation exposure due to nuclear weapons testing. Nearly 900 Superfund sites are abandoned military facilities or facilities that produced materials and products for, or otherwise supported, military needs. In some cases, these contaminants have spread far beyond their points of origin because they have been transported by wind currents or have leached into drinking water supplies.
The Panel concluded that Federal responses to the plight of affected individuals have been unsatisfactory, and that those affected lack knowledge about the extent of their exposure or potential health problems they may face.
Recommendations
The Panel recommends concrete actions that government; industry; research, health care, and advocacy communities; and individuals can take to reduce cancer risk related to environmental contaminants, excess radiation and other harmful exposures. Key recommendations include -
-- Increase, broaden and improve research regarding environmental
contaminants and human health.
-- Raise consumer awareness of environmental cancer risks and improve
understanding and reporting of known exposures.
-- Increase awareness of environmental cancer risks and effects of
exposure among health care providers.
-- Enhance efforts to eliminate unnecessary radiation-emitting medical
tests, and to ensure that radiation doses are as low as reasonably
achievable without sacrificing quality.
-- Aggressively address the toxic environmental exposures the US military
has caused, and improve response to associated health problems among
both military personnel and civilians.
Additional recommendations that are underscored in the report include those related to the needs for a comprehensive and cohesive policy agenda on the issue, stronger regulation and safer alternatives to many currently used chemicals, among other highlights.
The Panel concluded, "Just as there are many opportunities for harmful environmental exposures, ample opportunities also exist for intervention, change, and prevention to protect the health of current and future generations and reduce the national burden of cancer."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
"There remains a great deal to be done to identify the many existing but unrecognized environmental carcinogens and eliminate those that are known from our daily lives - our workplaces, schools and homes," said LaSalle D. Leffall, Jr., M.D., chair of the Panel. "The increasing number of known or suspected environmental carcinogens compels us to action, even though we may currently lack irrefutable proof of harm," he added.
Key Findings
With nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market in the US, many of which are used by millions of Americans in their daily lives and are un- or under-studied and largely unregulated, the report finds that exposure to potential environmental carcinogens is widespread. Yet, the public remains unaware of many of these carcinogens as well as their own level of exposure, especially to many common environmental carcinogens such as radon, formaldehyde and benzene.
In addition to environmental carcinogens, the report found that while improved imaging technologies have facilitated great strides in diagnosing and treating diseases, including cancer, some of these technologies also carry risks from increased radiation exposures. Many health care professionals, as well as the public, are unaware of the radiation dose associated with various tests or the total radiation dose and related increased cancer risk individuals may accumulate over a lifetime.
In addition, the report found that health care providers often fail to consider occupational and environmental factors when diagnosing patient illness. Physicians and other medical professionals ask infrequently about patient workplace and home environments when taking a medical history, thereby missing out on information that could be invaluable in discovering underlying causes of disease.
The report also recognizes the United States military as a major source of toxic occupational and environmental exposures that can increase cancer risk. Information is available about some military activities that have directly or indirectly exposed military and civilian personnel to carcinogens and contaminated soil and water in numerous locations in the United States and abroad, such as radiation exposure due to nuclear weapons testing. Nearly 900 Superfund sites are abandoned military facilities or facilities that produced materials and products for, or otherwise supported, military needs. In some cases, these contaminants have spread far beyond their points of origin because they have been transported by wind currents or have leached into drinking water supplies.
The Panel concluded that Federal responses to the plight of affected individuals have been unsatisfactory, and that those affected lack knowledge about the extent of their exposure or potential health problems they may face.
Recommendations
The Panel recommends concrete actions that government; industry; research, health care, and advocacy communities; and individuals can take to reduce cancer risk related to environmental contaminants, excess radiation and other harmful exposures. Key recommendations include -
-- Increase, broaden and improve research regarding environmental
contaminants and human health.
-- Raise consumer awareness of environmental cancer risks and improve
understanding and reporting of known exposures.
-- Increase awareness of environmental cancer risks and effects of
exposure among health care providers.
-- Enhance efforts to eliminate unnecessary radiation-emitting medical
tests, and to ensure that radiation doses are as low as reasonably
achievable without sacrificing quality.
-- Aggressively address the toxic environmental exposures the US military
has caused, and improve response to associated health problems among
both military personnel and civilians.
Additional recommendations that are underscored in the report include those related to the needs for a comprehensive and cohesive policy agenda on the issue, stronger regulation and safer alternatives to many currently used chemicals, among other highlights.
The Panel concluded, "Just as there are many opportunities for harmful environmental exposures, ample opportunities also exist for intervention, change, and prevention to protect the health of current and future generations and reduce the national burden of cancer."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Headache May Linger Years Later in People Exposed to World Trade Center Dust, Fumes
/PRNewswire/ -- Workers and residents exposed to dust and fumes caused by the collapse of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 frequently reported headache years later, according to research released today that will be presented at the American Academy of Neurology's 62nd Annual Meeting in Toronto April 10 to April 17, 2010.
"We knew that headaches were common in people living and working near the World Trade Center on and immediately after 9/11, but this is the first study to look at headaches several years after the event," said study author Sara Crystal, MD, with the NYU School of Medicine in New York City.
The study involved 765 people who were enrolled in the Bellevue Hospital World Trade Center Environmental Health Center seven years after the building collapse and who did not have headaches prior to 9/11. Of those, about 55 percent reported having exposure to the initial World Trade Center dust cloud.
Headaches in the four weeks prior to enrollment were reported by 43 percent of those surveyed, suggesting that headache is a common and persistent symptom in those exposed to World Trade Center dust and fumes. People caught in the initial dust cloud were slightly more likely to report headaches than those not caught in the dust cloud, which may indicate that greater exposure may be associated with a greater risk of developing persistent headache. People with headaches were also more likely to experience wheezing, breathlessness with exercise, nasal drip or sinus congestion and reflux disease after 9/11.
"More research needs to be done on the possible longer-term effects of exposure to gasses and dust when the World Trade Center fell," Crystal said. "We also need additional studies to understand the relationship between headaches, other physical symptoms, and mental health issues."
More data will be presented by Crystal at the 62nd AAN Annual Meeting.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
"We knew that headaches were common in people living and working near the World Trade Center on and immediately after 9/11, but this is the first study to look at headaches several years after the event," said study author Sara Crystal, MD, with the NYU School of Medicine in New York City.
The study involved 765 people who were enrolled in the Bellevue Hospital World Trade Center Environmental Health Center seven years after the building collapse and who did not have headaches prior to 9/11. Of those, about 55 percent reported having exposure to the initial World Trade Center dust cloud.
Headaches in the four weeks prior to enrollment were reported by 43 percent of those surveyed, suggesting that headache is a common and persistent symptom in those exposed to World Trade Center dust and fumes. People caught in the initial dust cloud were slightly more likely to report headaches than those not caught in the dust cloud, which may indicate that greater exposure may be associated with a greater risk of developing persistent headache. People with headaches were also more likely to experience wheezing, breathlessness with exercise, nasal drip or sinus congestion and reflux disease after 9/11.
"More research needs to be done on the possible longer-term effects of exposure to gasses and dust when the World Trade Center fell," Crystal said. "We also need additional studies to understand the relationship between headaches, other physical symptoms, and mental health issues."
More data will be presented by Crystal at the 62nd AAN Annual Meeting.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
FDA Unveils Initiative to Reduce Unnecessary Radiation Exposure from Medical Imaging
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today announced an initiative to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure from three types of medical imaging procedures: computed tomography (CT), nuclear medicine studies, and fluoroscopy. These procedures are the greatest contributors to total radiation exposure within the U.S. population and use much higher radiation doses than other radiographic procedures, such as standard X-rays, dental X-rays, and mammography.
CT, nuclear medicine, and fluoroscopic imaging have led to early diagnosis of disease, improved treatment planning, and image-guided therapies that help save lives every day. The FDA continues to support a strong dialogue between patients and physicians over the medical necessity and risk associated with these types of imaging studies.
However, like all medical procedures, CT, nuclear medicine, and fluoroscopy pose risks. These types of imaging exams expose patients to ionizing radiation, a type of radiation that can increase a person’s lifetime cancer risk. Accidental exposure to very high amounts of radiation also can cause injuries, such as skin burns, hair loss and cataracts. Health care decisions made by patients and their physicians should include discussions of the medical need and associated risks for each procedure.
“The amount of radiation Americans are exposed to from medical imaging has dramatically increased over the past 20 years,” said Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “The goal of FDA’s initiative is to support the benefits associated with medical imaging while minimizing the risks.”
While there is some disagreement over the extent of the cancer risk associated with exposure to radiation from medical imaging, there is broad agreement that steps can and should be taken to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure.
For example, the radiation dose associated with a CT abdomen scan is the same as the dose from approximately 400 chest X-rays. In comparison, a dental X-ray calls for approximately one-half the radiation dose of a chest X-ray. Both diagnostics serve important, sometimes critical, public health needs.
Through the FDA’s regulatory oversight of medical imaging devices, such as CT scanners, and through collaboration with other federal agencies and health care professional groups, the FDA is advocating the adoption of two principles of radiation protection: appropriate justification of the radiation procedure and optimization of the radiation dose used during each procedure.
“Working together,” said Shuren, “the FDA and other organizations hope to help patients get the right imaging exam, at the right time, with the right radiation dose.”
The three-pronged initiative the FDA is announcing will promote the safe use of medical imaging devices, support informed clinical decision-making, and increase patient awareness of their own exposure.
The FDA intends to issue targeted requirements for manufacturers of CT and fluoroscopic devices to incorporate important safeguards into the design of their machines to develop safer technologies and to provide appropriate training to support safe use by practitioners. The agency intends to hold a public meeting on March 30-31, 2010, to solicit input on what requirements to establish.
Examples could include a requirement that these devices display, record, and report equipment settings and radiation dose, an alert for users when the dose exceeds a diagnostic reference level (the optimal dose for most patients), training for users, and a requirement that devices be able to capture and transmit radiation dose information to a patient’s electronic medical record and to national dose registries.
In addition, the FDA and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are collaborating to incorporate key quality assurance practices into the mandatory accreditation and conditions of participation survey processes for imaging facilities and hospitals. These quality assurance practices will improve the quality of oversight and promote the safe use of advanced imaging technologies in those facilities.
The FDA recommends that health care professional organizations continue to develop, in collaboration with the agency, diagnostic radiation reference levels for medical imaging procedures, and increase efforts to develop one or more national registries for radiation doses.
A dose registry would pool data from many imaging facilities nationwide, capturing dose information from a variety of imaging studies. This registry will help define diagnostic reference levels where they do not yet exist, validate levels that do exist, and provide benchmarks for health care facilities to use in individual imaging studies.
In a bid to empower patients and increase awareness, the FDA is collaborating with other organizations to develop and disseminate a patient medical imaging history card. This tool, which will be available on the FDA’s Web site, will allow patients to track their own medical imaging history and share it with their physicians, especially when it may not be included in their medical records.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
CT, nuclear medicine, and fluoroscopic imaging have led to early diagnosis of disease, improved treatment planning, and image-guided therapies that help save lives every day. The FDA continues to support a strong dialogue between patients and physicians over the medical necessity and risk associated with these types of imaging studies.
However, like all medical procedures, CT, nuclear medicine, and fluoroscopy pose risks. These types of imaging exams expose patients to ionizing radiation, a type of radiation that can increase a person’s lifetime cancer risk. Accidental exposure to very high amounts of radiation also can cause injuries, such as skin burns, hair loss and cataracts. Health care decisions made by patients and their physicians should include discussions of the medical need and associated risks for each procedure.
“The amount of radiation Americans are exposed to from medical imaging has dramatically increased over the past 20 years,” said Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “The goal of FDA’s initiative is to support the benefits associated with medical imaging while minimizing the risks.”
While there is some disagreement over the extent of the cancer risk associated with exposure to radiation from medical imaging, there is broad agreement that steps can and should be taken to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure.
For example, the radiation dose associated with a CT abdomen scan is the same as the dose from approximately 400 chest X-rays. In comparison, a dental X-ray calls for approximately one-half the radiation dose of a chest X-ray. Both diagnostics serve important, sometimes critical, public health needs.
Through the FDA’s regulatory oversight of medical imaging devices, such as CT scanners, and through collaboration with other federal agencies and health care professional groups, the FDA is advocating the adoption of two principles of radiation protection: appropriate justification of the radiation procedure and optimization of the radiation dose used during each procedure.
“Working together,” said Shuren, “the FDA and other organizations hope to help patients get the right imaging exam, at the right time, with the right radiation dose.”
The three-pronged initiative the FDA is announcing will promote the safe use of medical imaging devices, support informed clinical decision-making, and increase patient awareness of their own exposure.
The FDA intends to issue targeted requirements for manufacturers of CT and fluoroscopic devices to incorporate important safeguards into the design of their machines to develop safer technologies and to provide appropriate training to support safe use by practitioners. The agency intends to hold a public meeting on March 30-31, 2010, to solicit input on what requirements to establish.
Examples could include a requirement that these devices display, record, and report equipment settings and radiation dose, an alert for users when the dose exceeds a diagnostic reference level (the optimal dose for most patients), training for users, and a requirement that devices be able to capture and transmit radiation dose information to a patient’s electronic medical record and to national dose registries.
In addition, the FDA and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are collaborating to incorporate key quality assurance practices into the mandatory accreditation and conditions of participation survey processes for imaging facilities and hospitals. These quality assurance practices will improve the quality of oversight and promote the safe use of advanced imaging technologies in those facilities.
The FDA recommends that health care professional organizations continue to develop, in collaboration with the agency, diagnostic radiation reference levels for medical imaging procedures, and increase efforts to develop one or more national registries for radiation doses.
A dose registry would pool data from many imaging facilities nationwide, capturing dose information from a variety of imaging studies. This registry will help define diagnostic reference levels where they do not yet exist, validate levels that do exist, and provide benchmarks for health care facilities to use in individual imaging studies.
In a bid to empower patients and increase awareness, the FDA is collaborating with other organizations to develop and disseminate a patient medical imaging history card. This tool, which will be available on the FDA’s Web site, will allow patients to track their own medical imaging history and share it with their physicians, especially when it may not be included in their medical records.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Toxic Chemicals in Bodies Report From Centers for Disease Control: Environmental Health Advocates Respond
/PRNewswire/ -- The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) expected to be released today by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is on the right track with a focus on testing people's bodies for chemical contamination, say environmental health advocates working on chemical exposure issues.
According to Pamela K. Miller, executive director of Alaska Community Action on Toxics, "While we are very relieved the CDC is stepping up its focus on chemical exposure with important monitoring of toxics in people's bodies, we'd like them to collect data to reflect geographic location in order to assess regional exposure patterns." In Alaska, Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) - chemicals that can take many years to break down - drift North on wind and water and impact Indigenous people. Alaska has one of the highest rates of birth defects in the nation. Some scientists believe that the gender imbalance of more girls being born than boys in the Arctic is due in part to exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals that drift North.
Sharyle Patton, program director at Commonweal, says, "CDC should make individual results available to those they have tested. As the European Union begins its pilot biomonitoring study, it will be making plans to do just this, given EU legal support for the right to know. In the interests of transparency and access, and as leaders in national biomonitoring programs, surely we can do the same."
Margaret Reeves, Ph.D., senior scientist with Pesticide Action Network North America, who works with farmworker and rural communities says, "It is necessary for CDC to link time of year of specimen collection and the occupations of those tested to see patterns with pesticide applications and other exposures."
Peter Orris, MD, MPH, Professor and Chief of Service, Environmental and Occupational Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago Medical Center welcomes the report as important: "I would hope that CDC will continue to collect information and will also look at intergenerational comparisons to help protect women of child bearing age from those chemicals that may damage the developing fetus."
"Biomonitoring studies provide direct evidence that people are exposed to harmful chemicals, and these studies should be linked with policy actions to reduce and prevent exposures," according to Davis Baltz, M.S., a Senior Associate working on chemical policy issues with Commonweal.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
According to Pamela K. Miller, executive director of Alaska Community Action on Toxics, "While we are very relieved the CDC is stepping up its focus on chemical exposure with important monitoring of toxics in people's bodies, we'd like them to collect data to reflect geographic location in order to assess regional exposure patterns." In Alaska, Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) - chemicals that can take many years to break down - drift North on wind and water and impact Indigenous people. Alaska has one of the highest rates of birth defects in the nation. Some scientists believe that the gender imbalance of more girls being born than boys in the Arctic is due in part to exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals that drift North.
Sharyle Patton, program director at Commonweal, says, "CDC should make individual results available to those they have tested. As the European Union begins its pilot biomonitoring study, it will be making plans to do just this, given EU legal support for the right to know. In the interests of transparency and access, and as leaders in national biomonitoring programs, surely we can do the same."
Margaret Reeves, Ph.D., senior scientist with Pesticide Action Network North America, who works with farmworker and rural communities says, "It is necessary for CDC to link time of year of specimen collection and the occupations of those tested to see patterns with pesticide applications and other exposures."
Peter Orris, MD, MPH, Professor and Chief of Service, Environmental and Occupational Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago Medical Center welcomes the report as important: "I would hope that CDC will continue to collect information and will also look at intergenerational comparisons to help protect women of child bearing age from those chemicals that may damage the developing fetus."
"Biomonitoring studies provide direct evidence that people are exposed to harmful chemicals, and these studies should be linked with policy actions to reduce and prevent exposures," according to Davis Baltz, M.S., a Senior Associate working on chemical policy issues with Commonweal.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
