A $657.5 million settlement reached between the city and 9/11 rescue and cleanup workers on March 11 must be renegotiated, a U.S. District Court Judge said.
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein rejected the proposed settlement on March 19 and stated, in court, that he did so because the settlement did not offer enough compensation to the workers for the illnesses they have suffered since they worked at or near Ground Zero.
Hellerstein added that he – as opposed to a claims administrator – would supervise any new renegotiation and that the lawyer’s payout, about a third of the settlement, should come out of the same fund that will pay the lawyers for the city, leaving more for the injured worke
“I think the grounds on which [Hellerstein] rejected [the settlement] was strong,” said Daniel Coates, an immigration organizer at the community group Make The Road New York, who has worked with many Queens-area cleanup workers. “But now the process will take longer given the dire situations some of these workers find themselves in.”
According to reports, close to 10,000 workers took part in the lawsuit against the city. These workers claimed that because of the toxins and chemicals – such as cement, glass dust, asbestos, fiberglass, alkaline, and lead – in the air at Ground Zero, they developed respiratory problems including asthma, sinusitis, rhinitis, persistent cough, chronic bronchitis and emphysema, as well as lung scarring, lung cancer, gastrointestinal tract cancer, heart disease and mesothelioma.
As of March 31, 2009, more than 51,000 World Trade Center (WTC) responders nationwide had met eligibility and enrolled in the World Trade Center medical monitoring and treatment programs, according to Fred Blosser, a National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) spokesperson.
Some of these workers have had to quit work because they are too sick. As of September 11, 2009, at least 817 had died…. (more…)
Easter eggs and other chocolate may be good for you – at least in small quantities and preferably if it’s dark chocolate – according to research that shows just one small square of chocolate a day can lower your blood pressure and reduce your risk of heart disease. The study is published online today in the European Heart Journal
Researchers in Germany followed 19,357 people, aged between 35 and 65, for at least ten years and found that those who ate the most amount of chocolate – an average of 7.5 grams a day – had lower blood pressure and a 39% lower risk of having a heart attack or stroke compared to those who ate the least amount of chocolate – an average of 1.7 grams a day. The difference between the two groups amounts to six grams of chocolate: the equivalent of less than one small square of a 100g bar.
Dr Brian Buijsse, a nutritional epidemiologist at the German Institute of Human Nutrition, Nuthetal, Germany, who led the research said: “People who ate the most amount of chocolate were at a 39% lower risk than those with the lowest chocolate intakes. To put it in terms of absolute risk, if people in the group eating the least amount of chocolate (of whom 219 per 10,000 had a heart attack or stroke) increased their chocolate intake by six grams a day, 85 fewer heart attacks and strokes per 10,000 people could be expected to occur over a period of about ten years. If the 39% lower risk is generalised to the general population, the number of avoidable heart attacks and strokes could be higher because the absolute risk in the general population is higher.”[2]
However, he warned that it was important people ensured that eating chocolate did not increase their overall intake of calories or reduce their consumption of healthy foods. “Small amounts of chocolate may help to prevent heart disease, but only if it replaces other energy-dense food, such as snacks, in order to keep body weight stable,” he said.
The people in the study were participants in the Potsdam arm of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer (EPIC). They received medical checks, including blood pressure, height and weight measurements at the start of the study between 1994-1998, and they also answered questions about their diet, lifestyle and health. They were asked how frequently they ate a 50g bar of chocolate, and they could say whether they ate half a bar, or one, two or three bars. They were not asked about whether the chocolate was white, milk or dark chocolate; however, the researchers asked a sub-set of 1,568 participants to recall their chocolate intake over a 24-hour period and to indicate which type of chocolate they ate. This gave an indication of the proportions that might be expected in the whole study. In this sub-set, 57% ate milk chocolate, 24% dark chocolate and 2% white chocolate. Ads by Google
In follow-up questionnaires, sent out every two or three years until December 2006, the study participants were asked whether they had had a heart attack or stroke, information which was subsequently verified by medical records from general physicians or hospitals. Death certificates from those who had died were also used to identify heart attacks and strokes.
The researchers allocated the participants to four groups (quartiles) according to their level of chocolate consumption. Those in the top quartile, eating around 7.5g of chocolate a day, had blood pressure that was about 1mm Hg (systolic) and 0.9mm Hg (diastolic) lower than those in the bottom quartile. [3]
“Our hypothesis was that because chocolate appears to have a pronounced effect on blood pressure, therefore chocolate consumption would lower the risk of strokes and heart attacks, with a stronger effect being seen for stroke,” explained Dr Buijsse…. (more…)
The authors base their assessment on the results of relevant studies, the recently published S1 guideline of the German Society for Occupational and Environmental Medicine and a current publication from the German Commission on Radiological Protection. These indicate that radon within residential buildings makes a major contribution to the radiological exposure of the general population. Thus, measurements in residential areas found radon radiation levels of more than 100 Bq/m3 in 36% of cases and more than 200 Bq/m3 in 18% of cases. This should be compared with the range of 1 to 15 Bq/m3 found for the concentration of radon in the outside air in Germany.
Exposure within houses is predominantly due to release of radon-containing subsurface air from the soil into the building. Radon can penetrate into houses through leaks in the base plate or in the walls in contact with the soil.
It is thought that 300 cases of lung cancer per year could be prevented in Germany if the maximum radon concentration in residences was reduced to 100 Bq/m3. It is also necessary to identify buildings with high radon levels and to take structural measures if necessary.
Occupational physicians have long known that radon can cause lung cancer, particularly in uranium miners. For individuals without occupational exposure, radon is regarded as the second most important cause of lung cancer after smoking.
For decades, the medical field has been searching tirelessly for answers to the callously fatal efficiency of lung cancer, a disease that kills more than 150,000 people in the U.S. every year, making it the nation’s deadliest cancer.
Despite the considerable efforts put forth by dedicated lung cancer specialists, progress in the fight against the disease has been measured in frustratingly tiny increments — until now.
Spearheaded by a research team at the University of Colorado Cancer Center, miraculous new results are being discovered, giving patients a previously absent asset in their ordeal: hope.
A multidisciplinary institution that features radiation treatment, surgical procedures and extensive scientific research, the center has made some of the biggest strides in the clinical testing of lung cancer drug treatments.
Unlike in previous practices, when doctors and researchers sought a single pill or protocol of drugs to be a panacea for all lung cancer patients, the University of Colorado team has focused on identifying specific genetic forms of the disease that can be more efficiently targeted.
The first series of breakthroughs began three years ago following the licensing of Tarceva, a drug used to treat lung cancer patients. The pill had a marginal effect in most cases, but it’s proved to be incredibly effective with a specific group of people, whom researchers realized had a specific gene mutation.
Armed with that knowledge, specialists at the Cancer Center began performing a battery of molecular tests on lung cancer patients, eager to see which clinical trial could work effectively with specific forms of the disease.
Following that work, center researchers made another advancement, this time with patients who had a gene rearrangement that’s found in about 3 to 4 percent of all lung cancer cases. Called the ALK inhibitor (named after the gene rearrangement it suppresses), the drug has recorded previously unheard of results, in some cases completely eliminating advanced stages of lung cancer within three months.
“I think we can go two ways with this type of research,” said Dr. David Ross Camidge, who’s leading the center’s clinical efforts. “We can identify a group of people that have one dominant molecular identity and find the right drug for that, which is like finding the right key to the right lock to turn the cancer off. Or, we might need a combination of drugs to combat the various forms of resistance that lung cancer cells are sure to possess.”
Camidge heads the successful clinical research results, but he emphasizes that the strength of the Cancer Center research is its excellence in all fields of oncology, including advanced chemotherapy practices and state-of-the-art surgical work. World-class leaders from each field frequently meet with each other to discuss manners of combating lung cancer using a holistic approach.
The results at the center are telling. Patients diagnosed with advanced forms of cancers usually have a 25 percent chance of survival past one year, but at the center that rate is 56 percent.
“There is a relatively short list of world-class lung centers, and I don’t think any center can say, ‘Oh, we’re the best,’” Camidge said. “But we’re up there, and I think that’s because we have a perfect storm of things going on.”
Doctor leads disease hunt with a down-to-earth style
He holds degrees from two of the most prestigious universities in the world, has an encyclopedic knowledge of the most esoteric and obscure medical data, helms some of the nation’s most exciting research on lung cancer, and has an English accent that only adds a further sense of refinement to his impeccable résumé.
With those notable achievements, Dr. David Ross Camidge could be the epitome of the haughty, detached academic, but the chief medical oncologist at the University of Colorado’s lung cancer research center in Aurora, Colo., matches his boundless intelligence with an equal match of compassion, approachability and good-natured humor.
“There is a great balance with Dr. Camidge between a very sharp mind and the soothing bedside manner,” said Ellen Pulhamus, a patient of Camidge’s for the past year. “We’ve really bonded.”
The 43-year-old London native describes himself as the “quarterback of sorts,” leading efforts to coordinate new studies into radiation treatment, surgical practices and clinical trials at the center, an institution that has helped pioneer lung cancer research since it was founded in 1986.
And despite attending both Oxford University and Cambridge University, and possessing institutional knowledge few in the world can match, Camidge has no problem sitting down to a lunch of deli sandwiches with nursing assistants in the center’s team room.
“It doesn’t work like the movies, where there is just one person toiling away to find the cure,” Camidge said. “It takes a lot of very smart, very dedicated people who are really invested in trying to find the right treatments for the right people.”…. (more…)
“We want to improve community awareness of the importance of recognizing stroke symptoms and calling 911 immediately,” said Andrea Sekura, registered nurse and administrative clinical director of Winter Haven Hospital’s stroke and neurosurgery unit.
“We don’t want people to wait to see if the symptoms go away.”
TPA, the clot-busting drug most commonly given to stroke victims whose stroke comes from blockage of vital blood vessels to the brain, needs to be given within three hours.
Patients can be treated a little further out in time if they get to Lakeland Regional Medical Center and other hospitals with interventional radiologists using advanced tools to get into the vessel and remove the clots. Even then, the deadline only extends a couple of hours… (more…)
A sun protection intervention program that encouraged fourth-graders to wear hats outdoors as a skin cancer prevention measure significantly increased hat use at school, a study by researchers at the University of South Florida College of Medicine found. The program, however, had no effect on self-reported hat use at home or on measures of skin pigmentation.
The study is published online this month in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. The researchers report outcomes through the first year of a two-year follow-up from the Sun Protection of Florida’s Children program, a cluster randomized trial.
“This study shows it is possible to successfully put into place an educational program that leads to sustained use of hats for sun protection at school – an intervention that may limit sun damage early in life,” said principal investigator Richard Roetzheim, MD, MSPH, a professor in the USF Department of Family Medicine.
Getting children to wear hats and protective clothing to shade their skin is important, because people receive as much as 80 percent of lifetime sun exposure before age 18, Dr. Roetzheim said. “There is no such thing as a healthy tan. Tanning is the skin’s attempt to protect itself from damage done by the sun, and many skin cancers that adults develop are from exposures during childhood.”
USF researchers followed nearly 2,500 fourth-graders at 22 elementary schools in Hillsborough County, FL. Half of the schools (1,115 students) were assigned to the sun protection program and provided lightweight, tightly-woven hats with wide brims designed to shade the most vulnerable parts of the head, face and neck. The hats are worn while playing outside; one remains at school and another goes home with each student. Half of the schools (1,376 students) were in the control group and did not receive hats.
Students in the intervention schools received information about the importance of sunscreen, but educational sessions throughout the school year emphasized the added benefits of hats for sun protection. Researchers measured voluntary hat use at school by direct observation, and hat use at home was monitored by student self-report. A subgroup of 378 students (178 in the intervention group and 200 in the control group) were examined for any changes in skin pigment melanin and in number of moles on the skin. More melanin, or more or larger moles, indicates sun damage.
At control schools, the percentage of students observed wearing hats while playing outside (activities like recess, physical education and lunch) essentially did not change during the school year. At the intervention schools, overall hat use increased by 42 percent during the school year – ranging from little change at a few schools to a high of 75 percent.
“We’re trying to make wearing hats a cool and popular thing to do as well as an acceptable health behavior, so it was encouraging to see that hat use didn’t decline after the initial spike at the beginning. It actually increased as the school year wore on.” Dr. Roetzheim said…. (more…)
FLORENCE — Free breast cancer screening and diagnostic services are being offered to qualifying women through the Well Woman Health Check Program of the Pinal County Public Health Services District. The program is part of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Breast cancer screening is one of the best available methods to detect breast cancer early. It is important for women to practice preventive care for good breast health. Medical professionals and health officials recommend that women obtain regular mammography screening starting at age 40, obtain annual clinical breast exams, perform monthly breast self-exams and obtain a risk assessment from a physician.
“We know there are people who don’t have insurance or have insurance plans with high deductibles. Lack of insurance should not be a barrier to good breast health,” said Tom Schryer, Pinal County Public Health director. “We’re hoping that people will take advantage of this offer so they may remain healthy.”
Women who qualify can receive free breast and diagnostic services through the Pinal County Public Health Services District. The qualifying process is easy. Simply call your local public health clinic toll-free at 1-866-960-0633 to begin the qualification process. Breast examinations are available at the following local Pinal County Public Health Clinics:
The Michigan House of Representatives last night passed HB 4747, which would allow motorcyclists to ride without protective helmets. As a motorcycle accident attorney for the past 16 years, I feel adamantly that this is a terrible idea…. (more…)
Researchers have found that the pain-relieving medication morphine, often used on mesothelioma patients for pain management, may accelerate cancer growth.
Several studies have begun to present evidence that opiate-based drugs like morphine encourage cancer cell growth and metastasis. Morphine is a commonly prescribed pain reliever for malignant mesothelioma patients. Since treatment for mesothelioma patients tends to be palliative in many cases, pain management with morphine is a common practice.
A study from 2002 found cancer patients who received morphine via the spine, instead of systemically throughout the body, tended to live longer. Two Irish studies discovered that breast and prostate cancer patients who received regional rather than general anesthesia were less likely to report cancer recurrence…. (more…)
At a breast cancer conference Friday in Barcelona, experts discussed how to implement mammogram screening programs across Europe, balancing fighting cancer with the goal of targeting only those women who need to be screened.
For years, officials have promoted breast cancer screening as the best way to spot the disease and save lives. Yet mammograms are far from perfect and come with an unwelcome side effect: Up to a third of women treated for breast cancer after being identified by the test don’t actually need the biopsies and drugs.
The mammogram issue ignited a fierce debate in the United States last year when an influential panel recommended scaling back screening programs to begin at age 50 instead of 40 — guidelines very close to those already in Europe.
Doubt has also been cast on tests for other cancers like the prostate and colon. Those tests are not commonly recommended because of the high chance of a false positive finding and exposure to radiation.
Some cancers never cause any symptoms and grow too slowly to ever affect patients, but it’s impossible to distinguish between those cancers and more deadly ones. So any identified cancer is treated, which can cause harmful side effects and be psychologically scarring.
“The over-diagnosis problem has been downplayed because people really want to believe screening works,” said Karsten Jorgensen of the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Copenhagen, who has published several papers on the issue. “There is a lot of over-treatment happening, and it is time to re-evaluate whether the benefits really outweigh the harms.”
Yet others say doctors must work with the tests they have.
“Maybe in 20 years we will have a better test to tell us which cancers are the dangerous ones,” said Ingrid Kossler, president of the Swedish Breast Cancer Association, who chaired the session Friday on screening guidelines. “But until then, we have to use what we have and treat the cancers we find.”
Previous studies have shown breast cancer screening programs in countries including Britain, Canada, Denmark and Sweden routinely treat women unnecessarily. In those countries, and in much of Europe, women aged 50 to 70 get a mammogram every two years.
Until last year, U.S. recommendations were for women from age 40 to get a mammogram every year. But new proposals suggested women over 50 get a scan every two years — advice that was rejected by the American Cancer Society and other experts.
Jorgensen said screening has become more of a political issue than a medical one. Officials have spent so many years convincing women to get mammograms that it will be difficult to now change policies, especially with a very vocal and powerful breast cancer lobby.
“It would take a very courageous politician to go up against mammograms,” Jorgensen said…. (more…)
