Cholera Treatment Hospital Protest Erupts in Haiti

In St. Marc, Haiti, a cholera treatment center was attacked by protestors yesterday. The protest is a response to the fear many people are feeling to this disease that they most didn't know existed until it began infecting their citizens by the thousands. There were about 300 protestors, and their goal was to stop the clinic run by Doctors Without Borders-Spain from opening because they didn't want it to bring more of the disease to their town. Already it has been one of the hardest hit towns in this outbreak that has killed 284 people and infected 3,769. Multiple rocks and even a Molotov cocktail was thrown. To stop the violence, peace makers from Argentina can with riot shields to help back up the police. Warning shot were also fired, but no one was injured. The protestors were then told by Haitian health officials that the clinic would not open in their neighborhood. It had been meant to help rehydrate and treat over 400 people infected with the cholera. The country chief of the Doctors Without Borders-Spain has now talked with local authorities and explained how the clinic is important for combating the disease and that they would try to open in another area of St. Marc. But in order to do that, there will need to be good communication between health officials and the Haitian citizens so that they know there is no risk in locating a hospital in their city. The majority of cases have been occuring near the Artibonite River and in Haiti's central plateau. One of the first places to widely alert the epidemic to the world was St. Marc's main hospital, as it soon became overflowing with people who were sick and dying. U.N. staff can only enter areas of heavy infection if they are given special permission. To enforce this police have been set up to guard check points. The neighboring country of the Dominican Republic is also now announcing that everyone who crosses the border must wash their hands and fill out a medical form. In addition, military supervision is be used and markets between the countries have been closed. Everyone is trying to do whatever possible to avoid the disease that is continuing to spread like wildfire across the country.

First of all, I don't blame those Haitians for protesting against the hospital. I can't imagine how terrified they must feel with this potentially fatal disease running rampant through their country, as if the catastrophic hurricane wasn't enough earlier this year. Cholera is a disease they haven't seen in generations and all they know about it is that it kills. I'm sure they feared that the hospital, with all its infected patients would only attract more sick people to their area, causing the disease to continue to spread even faster than before. It makes sense. What I really hope though, is that these health officials can effectively get the word out that the hospitals will help combat and stop the disease, not spread it. The doctors will be able to treat people and hopefully save lives, which would not be possible if the Haitians were just left alone to fight the disease themselves. Communication needs to be drastically better between the government, those giving aid, and the citizens so that they can work together and stop the disease before everyone dies. I also think more doctors need to be sent to Haiti so more people can be helped. Those doctors will have to be extremely brave, but I believe the work they can do would make all the difference in the world. These Haitian people have already suffered so much, and although the world may be getting tiring of sending aid and money, it still needs to be done. People are dying, and Haiti needs all the countries and people working together so that the dealth, disease, starvation, and poverty can be put to an end. Haiti deserves to get back on its feet.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39867288/ns/health-infectious_diseases/

Runners Beware of Your Usage of Common Pain Pills

The advantages of taking a pill before a race has been found to not be worth the risk. A women named Stephanie Ehret landed herself in an emergency room following a 24-hour track run win in record time after taking pain pills. She was throwing up her digestive tract lining. According to her, she had never felt so bad and was sure she was dying. What she had was diagnosed as rhabdomyolysis, which is a precurser to kidney failure. And she was not in this state solely because of dyhdration and overexhaustion from the race, but because she had downed 12 ibuprofen pills during the course of the race. Of course this was from overuse because when used properly pain medication can be very helpful. Many pains can be eased by an acetaminophen drug such as Tylenol, and non-sterodal drugs such as ibuprofen and aspirin can reduce both pain and swelling during the first few days of an injury. The problems come with overdose. Many runners think that because they're exerting their bodies the more ibuprofen pills they take, the better they will feel. This is definitely not the case. Overdose does not have to be as extreme as in Stephanie Ehret's case either. Even just one pill before a race doesn't outweigh the risks. The drugs can inhibit hormones that help regulate blood flow to the kidneys, raise your blood pressure, block enzymes that normally protect the heart, lessen protection in the stomach lining from digestive acids that can cause nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and intestinal bleeding, and increase the risk for hyponatremia that can cause swelling in the brain that can even lead to death. Also, studies go against the belief that pain meds cause an increase in pain tolerance. David Nieman, Dr. P.H., from Appalachian State University in Boone, North Carolina did a study on ibuprofen use in Western States. He found that 70% of the runners said they took the pills to have less discomfort while racing. What he found was that when measuring pain and muscle soreness in both the pill takers and the nonusers that there was, in fact, no reduction of pain. The ibuprofin takers actually had more inflamation. What has been found to be the most helpful and safe for pain is acetaminophen drugs such as Tylenol since they work differently than drugs such as ibuprofen. Still, however, with overdosage there is a risk of liver failure. These pill should also not be used to treat long-term injuries because it slows down the healing process for soft-tissue. Bottom line is that more is not better in this case, and dosage instructions must be followed very carefully.

I found this article very interesting because I am a runner. I mostly run just to stay and shape and for fun, and usually only go somewhere between 3-5 miles. I've never done any big races, but I have had my struggles with injuries and pain medicine usage. One year when I tried distance track I soon found myself with terrible shin splint after about three weeks. Mostly likely the cause was from almost doubling my usual weekly mileage right from the get-go and not stretching as I ought. After spending another three weeks corss-training on the elliptical with no improvement, I decided I had to quit and just give my legs rest. During this cross-training time and when I first began running again, I relied on pain medicine quite a bit. What I usually used was Aleve, which after I looked on the back, is a NSAID drug like ibuprofen. That kind of scares me. I never experienced any scary side-effect, but I was also careful to follow the dosage instructions too. I would think a lot of it also depends on how much you are running because I'm sure with more exertion, the higher the risks of the high blood pressure, nausea, internal bleeding, brain swelling, etc. At the time I was "taking it slow," so that's probably why I didn't experience any of what was mentioned in the article. I do think it's important for every runner to read this though, because pain meds are used all the time and it's important that we know how to use them properly so that they can help us, not hurt us.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37341523/ns/health-pain_center/

Jailed Chinese Nobel Prize Winner Meets His Wife

On Sunday a jailed Chinese man who was just awarded the Nobel Prize was finally able to meet his wife. A day earlier he was notified of the award by his jailers. He was very emotional and said he would dedicate the prize to award the victims of the 1989 military crackdown on pro-democracy protests. The Nobel committee chose him because of his over twenty years of advicating human rights and peaceful democratic change. These acts ranged from demonstrations for democracy at Tiananmen Square in 1989 to a public display of political reform in 2008 that was the cause of his current arrest. This man's wife, Liu Xia, wanted to meet with him on Friday after the Nobel announcement, but she was refused until Sunday. Now there is controversy between the country that gave out the award, Norway, and China. People in the pursecuted communites are cheering and other countries including the United States and Germany have called for the man's (Liu Xiaobo) release. Beijing in response was very angry. They warned Norway that its government relations would suffer because they awarded someone the Nobel Prize who is a criminal in the eyes of Beijing's government. Liu Xiaobo is a 54 year old man and is in his 2nd year of an 11 year prison term. The news of his award was kept secret by China's state-controlled media. They also forbade Liu Ziaobo's wife from telling him of his nomination for the award in her visit in September. She was also put on house arrest on Friday when the award was announced and she couldn't make or receive calls on her cell phone either. In response to this, a Washington-based legal rights association pleaded world leaders to call for her release. Then she had to negotiate with the police to visit her husband and tell him the news. The police escourted her until other policemen put up a road block about 1.5 miles from the prison. It was removed on Sunday, but Chinese authorities are still putting pressure on activists and Liu's supporters. Some the most prominent activist lawyers are being harrassed by police as they are trying to use to award to patch up differences amoungst themselves. On Sunday there was a group of 20 protestors in Hong Kong who celebrated his prize by drinking champagne and eating Norwegian salmon in front of the Chinese government's local liaison office while they demanded release of  Liu Xiaobo and his followers. Now his wife's plan is to go to Norway to get the Nobel medal and the $1.5 million prize money.

When I first read this story, it completely shocked me. I guess I didn't realize that these things still happen today. Here is a man who has stood up for what he believes in, and has tried to make changes in peaceful ways, and he gets put in jail. As far as I know, he has never hurt a soul. The Chinese government has put him in jail because they must believe he is a threat to how they want to run the country. It's not right. I'm very glad that Norway was brave enough to see the courage in this man, Liu Xiaobo, and award him the Nobel Prize. From what I have learned in the article, he sounds like he was very deserving of it if he was willing to give up his own freedom in order to try to gain more freedom and fairness for others. It's really sad if the government relations between Norway and China suffer because of this, but they probably will. I think China need to re-examine their current policies and take into consideration the protests this man has made and the calls they have been recieving from other countries for his release. The man in my eyes definitely deserves to be freed. This whole situation reminds me of Martin Luther King, Jr and how he was put in jail many times for his peaceful protests and attempts for civil rights. Parts of our government were not pleased with him at the time, but because of his bravery and hard work he helped make our country into the one it is today with equal rights for people of every race. In the same way, hopefully the efforts of this Chinese man, Liu Xiaobo, will also create positive change in China for the future too.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39600507/ns/world_news-asiapacific/

Topic #3-Social Insecurity

Summary: The United States Social Security System is not in good shape. It is about to go bankrupt as soon as the year 2017, because it will be giving out more money than it takes in. The reason for this is that the amount of Americans who are nearing retirement age is much higher than the amount of people who will take their place in the workforce. The Social Security System was established in 1935 to fight poverty and has indeed reduced the senior citizen poverty rate from 50% to 10%. It is also now the main income source for many retired Americans. However, 1/3 of the fund is also used for disabled workers, families of dead workers, and children. A general rule is that people who have earned lower salaries receive more of their incomes percentages in Social Security Benefits than those who earned higher salaries. From 1983 to the present, Social Security has taken in more money through taxes than it needs to pay in benefits. That extra money has been used for other programs and acts as an IOU to the Social Security Trust Fund. The only way Social Security would be able to provide full benefits for people eligible into 2041, the government would have to pay back the money it borrowed from the Social Security system, which is not an easy thing to do. Most likely Social Security will only be able to pay for 60-80% of the current benefits promised through payroll taxes. In an attempt to address this problem, Pres. Bush proposed to allow Americans to put their Social Security payroll money into private investment accounts. His idea was not very popular. There is also another system for the elderly called medicare. People who are 65 or older, or have a disability are eligible for it. It operates just like social security with a trust fund, but it's in even worse shape than social security. Already it is taking paying out more money than it is taking in. By 2019 it is expected to be depleated. For all of these reasons, the debate on when and how to fix social security is a very heated topic. People who want big changes believe that because the system is going bankrupt, it is also affecting our nation's economy. They think that it needs a major overhaul because it has promised retirees more than it can give if programs are not cut and taxes aren't raised. According to them, the Social Security System was never suppose to be a national retirement program, and they believe in Pres. Bush's plan for private investment accounts and cutting benefits for everyone except those in dire need. This is what they think will save the system. But others say the system is still going strong and shouldn't be huge changes. People pay into it and later reep the benefits in return. It's currently still in a surplus and brings financial help to millions of Americans. All that is needed is a small change on raising the cap on earnings that can be taxed and raising the retirement age. Both sides of view has valid points to back them up, and the future is up to the lawmakers we elect.

Opinion: I believe in most of the 2nd opinion mentioned in the previous paragraph. I think that social security is very important to keep because it is what so many older people rely on to live. For example, without social security my grandma wouldn't have been able to pay for my grandpa's assisted living/nursing home fees and medicines for his disease. My grandpa had a high paying job, but even if he hadn't, I don't think it would have been fair for his benefits to be cut, as in Pres. Bush's belief that benefits should be cut for everyone except for those in dire need. The wealthy should help those in need, because lots of those people are those who have also worked hard and deserve to have benefits as good as the wealthy's. In my opinion, Social Security could be fixed by raising the cap on earnings. If we all pay just a little more each month I believe the shortfall could be fixed. There are millions of citizens in America, and even a small change can make a huge difference. Social Security has worked for over 75 years and has done a lot of good in the country-it dropped the senior citizen poverty rate by 40%! And that's been done by payroll taxes, which in my opinion will still work into the future if we up the rate to compensate for the higher percentage of Americans retiring and the lower percentage of workers replacing them. What I do not think should happen is a raise in retirement age. That is crazy. Right now I believe the retirement age is on average about 65, and no way should it be increased. People spend years and years and years of their life working long hours at their jobs, and everyone deserves to spend the last years of their lives being able to enjoy family, traveling, or just plain relaxing. At age 65, a person usually has a good 10 years at least to do that. If the retirement is upped even to just 70, those years for enjoyment are cut in half. Eventually a person would work until they died, and how sad it that!? My opinions can be validated by our current President Obama. If you would like to read more information about him and his opinion on this issue follow this link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21739271/


To find information about issue #1 on War Dollars check out my classmate's post at:
http://kellimontbriand.blogspot.com/2010/10/issue-1war-dollars.html

To find information about the issue #2 on spending what we can't afford check out my classmate's post:
http://katieireneiverson.blogspot.com/2010/10/issue-2-spending-what-we-can-afford.html

Is it Possible to be Fat and Fit at the Same Time?

 A new study in the September issue of Diabetes Care has found that obese people who are metabolically healthy can still benefit from weight loss. This goes completely against an earlier study that showed that if people who are obese, but yet healthy, lose weight it may be negative thing. Each obese person is affected by excess weight differently. A person who is considered obese has a BMI of 30 or higher, which takes into account your height and weight. What it doesn't take into account is your body ratio of muscle to fat. Beginning in the 1960's some researchers were finnding that some obese individuals were not inflicted with weight-releated issues because they had normal cholesterol, blood pressure, and insulin levels. They were metabolically healthy. In 2001 there was a study that found that out of 43 obese women, 17 of them were metabolically healthy. The key difference between the two groups was that the 17 "healthy" women had less than half of the deep belly fat that the metabolically unhealthy women had. This deep belly fat is considered really bad because it is much more likely to spew fat into the bloodstream. The healthy obese women in this study also were found to be more active than those who were considered unhealthy. Now the big question that researchers are wondering is if these obese, but metabolically healthy individuals should still try and lose weight. A 2008 study said no. It found that out of 20 metabolically healthy women and 24 metabolically unhealthy women, there was a 13% decrease of insulin sensativity in the "healthy" women after dieting for 6 months. This is not a good thing because lower amounts of insulin sensativity can lead to heart disease and type 2 diabetes. However, a more recent study that included other weight loss methods, such as exercise, in obese men and women both metabolically healthy and unhealthy showed that the metabolically healthy people's insulin sensativity levels increased by 18.5%, while the metabolically unhealthy individual's increased even more. One of the researchers in this study, named Janiszewski, says this, "You certainly won't get any worse with diet and exercise, and you have the likelihood of improving some metabolic risk factors." The researcher of the earlier 2008 study says that more research is definitely needed and that the two studies are hard to compare because they used different measurements and methods. Obesity is a major public health issue and even the obese people who are metabolically healthy are still at risk for things such as joint pain and depression. Also, obese individuals who are metabolically healthy and unhealthy have no difference in life expectancy. The main idea is that no matter how much you weigh, eating healthy and exercising is extremely important and reduces your risks for disease.

I believe that although metabolically healthy individuals are in much better health than those who are metabolically unhealthy, it is still extremely important for both groups to work on losing weight. Eating healthy and exercising regularly is good for anyone, even for people of normal weight, and there's no reason a person who is obese but metabolically healthy should think they don't need to do that. Even if it doesn't make a huge difference in the stats of their health, I think the emotional changes would be enourmous. I know that whenever I get finished with a run or a long, grueling tennis match, I feel so good. The endorphines kick in and can always put me in a positive mood, even if I had previously been having a really horrible day. These obese, but "healthy" individuals could feel much healthier and become much more happier if they worked hard on exercising and eating right. Depression rates would go way down I would think, because along with the feel good emotions that endorphines create in people, it always feels good to get a compliment like, "Wow, you've lost weight! You look awesome!" I'm pretty sure anybody would rather be a size 6 than a size 25. And as for the study that found that the metabolically healthy people who lost weight and their insulin sensativity levels went down, I think that was caused by the way in which they lost weight. To just drink protein shakes or three saltine crackers at every meal or something, is not a good way to loose weight. But, if you eat healthy with whole grains, low-fat foods, and lots of fruits and vegetables with exercise, I really have a hard time believing anything bad could come from that. I guess all we can do is wait and see for more research to be done to see for sure.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39466130/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/