www.skfriends.com
Copyright © 2002 Singles Konnexion. All rights reserved.
SkFriends Worlds Largest FREE Non-Profit Singles Group
Friends are what SkFriends are all about.
We are not a dating service. We are much more.
We're changing singles ideas and making friends for life.
http://www.k4a4.com/1108/

For more site articles, see also Index 1 - Index 3 - Index 4  - Index 5  and Links

Can people have abnormal sex while sleeping?  
Wed Apr 3, 2002 11:20 AM ET

A series of case reports shows that sleep disorders can also involve unconscious, sometimes aggressive, sexual behavior while sleeping.

NEW YORK (Reuter Health) - Unusual behavior during sleep, such as walking, eating and even violence, is well-recognized. But a series of case reports shows that sleep disorders can also involve unconscious, sometimes aggressive, sexual behavior while sleeping.

In a study of 11 patients with "atypical sexual behavior during sleep," researchers at Stanford University in California found that the patients' actions--which ranged from "annoying" sexual moaning to actual sexual assault of a bed partner--were related to several types of sleep disorders and, in many cases, psychiatric conditions.

Dr. Christian Guilleminault and colleagues at Stanford's Sleep Disorders Center report the cases in the March/April issue of Psychosomatic Medicine.

In all cases, the researchers found evidence of a sleep disorder, and a majority of the patients had a history of sleep-related problems, including sleepwalking and night terrors. The two patients whose sexual behavior during sleep was limited to loud moaning had no history of sleep disorders, however.

For the other nine patients, abnormal sexual behavior ranged from violent masturbation to sexual assault of the bed partner while remaining asleep. Patients had no memory of the events after they awoke, and if awakened by their partners during an episode would appear confused and disoriented.

One 29-year-old man had sexually assaulted his partner between certain hours of the night for at least 6 years, according to the report. This patient had a family history of psychiatric illness, although he himself was not diagnosed with a mental disorder. The patient was treated for the sleep disorder REM behavior disorder.

Seven of the other patients were diagnosed with psychiatric conditions, including major depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder and anxiety. In some cases, patients had a history of sexual abuse. One man with a long history of sleep disturbances had been "very affected" by his father's revelation of his homosexuality, and the patient's own "strict religious convictions" had led him to abstain from sex and other behaviors he thought inappropriate, the researchers report.

The good news, according to Guilleminault's team, is that the abnormal sexual behavior was "eliminated" in most patients when their sleep disorders and psychiatric conditions were treated.

It is unclear how common this sleep-related problem is, according the researchers, noting that it is "seldom reported in medicine."

SOURCE: Psychosomatic Medicine 2002;64:328-336.

Also: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020403/hl_nm/sleep_sex_1

For more site articles, see also Index 1 - Index 3 - Index 4  - Index 5  and Links

April 2, 2002

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/02/science/02DRIV.html

For more site articles, see also Index 1 - Index 3 - Index 4  - Index 5  and Links

Belittling, Shaming Child Causes Lasting Damage
Mon Apr 1,2002 11:47 AM ET

By Melissa Schorr

NEW YORK (Reuter Health) - Parents need to shower their children with kudos and kisses rather than harsh criticism, according to newly released guidelines from pediatricians on psychological abuse.

"Physical wounds heal, but psychological scars can last a lifetime," Dr. Charles Johnson, professor of pediatrics at Ohio State University in Columbus and chairman of the American Academy of Pediatrics' (AAP) committee on child abuse, told Reuter Health.

The report, entitled "The Psychological Maltreatment of Children," is the first set of guidelines issued by the AAP to address the issue of psychological mistreatment of children. Published in the April issue of the journal Pediatrics, the report aims to help pediatricians screen for and spot this form of abuse.

The report's authors define a variety of ways that parents can psychologically damage a child, including belittling, shaming, or exploiting; terrorizing, such as threatening violence against them or a loved one; denying emotional responsiveness, such as rejecting or denying affection; and acting inconsistently, for example by making contradictory or unrealistic demands.

According to Johnson, of the million instances of child abuse reported annually, around 5% to 7% of all reported cases consist exclusively of this form of psychological abuse.

The report helps pediatricians spot children experiencing psychological mistreatment by advising which are at greater risk: those whose parents are involved in a contentious divorce, those who were unwanted or unplanned, those whose parents abuse drugs or alcohol, and those who are mentally or physically handicapped.

Children who are mistreated are at greater subsequent risk of suffering a variety of ailments, including depression and suicidal thoughts, low self-esteem, impulse control problems, eating disorders, substance abuse problems, antisocial behavior, delinquency, learning impairments and poor health.

In addition to being on the lookout for children being abused in this way, pediatricians should attempt to guide parents towards more appropriate parenting techniques, Johnson noted.

"A lot of parents say, 'I love my child,"' notes Johnson. "But do they love their child as it is--or as they want it to be?" He encouraged parents to put themselves in their child's shoes and try to reinforce positive behavior rather than to criticize negative behavior. "The way to shape behavior is to reward what you want to see," he said.

SOURCE: Pediatrics 2002;109:e68.

Source: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020401/hl_nm/shame_children_1
 

For more site articles, see also Index 1 - Index 3 - Index 4  - Index 5  and Links

March 29, 2002 New York Times

Fireproofing, sprinkler systems and the water supply for hoses were all disabled in the twin towers on Sept. 11 in the face of a blaze so intense that it drove temperatures as high as 2,000 degrees and generated heat equivalent to the energy output of a nuclear power plant, a federal report on how the towers fell has concluded.

The fire, combined with these failures, brought down the towers even after they had shown surprising and lifesaving resiliency to massive structural damage caused by the impact of two hijacked airliners, the report says.

The report's findings detail for the first time the horrific series of events that led to the collapse of two of the world's tallest buildings. They are contained in a draft of a report commissioned by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers.

The draft describes a structure that showed both remarkable strength and critical weaknesses. As was obvious to television viewers worldwide, the towers sustained the initial impact of the planes. But the buildings were able to redistribute loads away from damaged columns so well that they could probably have remained standing indefinitely if not for the fires, an earthquake or a windstorm, the report said. Team members are still debating the delicate question of whether the tremendous fires could have brought the towers down on their own.

"The ability of the two towers to withstand aircraft impact without immediate collapse was a direct function of their design and construction characteristics, as was the vulnerability of the two towers to collapse as a result of the combined effects of the impacts and ensuing fires," the report concludes.

The report, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, is not due to be released officially until late April or early May. It provides documentary evidence that simultaneously supports and rejects many of the theories about what happened to the towers on Sept. 11.

What is already clear is that the jet fuel played a role somewhat different, though still critical, than some experts had speculated. After the planes slammed into the towers, the fireballs that burst over Lower Manhattan consumed perhaps a third of the 10,000 gallons of fuel on board each plane, for example, but did little structural damage themselves, the report says.

Like a giant well of lighter fluid, though, the remaining fuel burned within minutes, setting ablaze furniture, computers, paper files and the planes' cargo over multiple floors and igniting the catastrophic inferno that brought the towers down.

Under normal circumstances, fire suppression systems are designed to allow a high-rise blaze to burn itself out before the building collapses. But the report concludes that there were across-the-board failures in the towers' fire suppression systems, raising disturbing questions about the safety and integrity of other tall buildings in out-of-control fires. But the ultimate significance of those failures is extremely difficult to gauge, the report says, because of the extraordinary circumstances of the attack.

In fact, besides just setting the fires, the impact of the jets may have jarred loose the light, fluffy fireproofing that had been sprayed on steel columns, and flying debris almost certainly sliced through the vertical pipes that supplied water for the hoses and sprinklers.

Because of those uncertainties, the report says, building codes and engineering practices should be studied extensively to consider changes, a step the federal government is already planning, with a $16 million two-year inquiry by the National Institute of Standards and Technology now getting under way. The final version of the FEMA report may recommend specific changes in building codes and standards.

The report is also significant for what it does not include. With the exception of a few contorted steel beams from 5 World Trade Center, a nine-story office building that also burned and had localized collapses because the beams failed where they were bolted together, little evidence collected from the piles of debris contributed in a meaningful way to the report's conclusions.

That absence could intensify criticism of an early decision by the city to re-cycle steel from the trade center rather than make it immediately available for collection and analysis by the research team. About 60 pieces of trade center steel are being sent to the technology institute for the investigation, so future analysis could provide additional answers.

The draft report also does not contain any discussion of what could become a contentious new issue in attempts to explain why the south tower, though struck after the north tower, fell first. That question involves a program, started after the 1993 bombing of the towers, to increase the thickness of the fireproofing on the lightweight steel joists that held up the floors.

At the time of the attack, 18 floors on the north tower and 13 floors in the south tower had been upgraded, by increasing the thickness of the fireproofing from three-quarters of an inch to an inch and a half. As it happened, the planes hit floors in the north tower where fireproofing thickness had already been increased, and floors in the south that had not been upgraded — with one exception, the 78th floor.

Team members are carefully debating what role that difference may have played in the length of time the towers stood after impact: 56 minutes, 10 seconds for the south tower and 102 minutes, 5 seconds for the north. But there are several other possible explanations. The plane that struck the south tower was moving at least 100 miles an hour faster than the other one, heightening the energy upon impact. And it hit 10 floors lower, resulting in far more weight from above bearing down on the damaged area.

Whatever its thickness, much of the fireproofing was probably dislodged by the impact of the planes, the investigators concluded. One official knowledgeable about the fireproofing said the woolly, mineral-based material could be brushed away with the wipe of a finger.

Stripped of its fireproofing, a steel column heats up much more quickly in a fire. The hotter the steel, the less it is able to support loads, as it eventually becomes as soft as licorice. Investigators believe that the structural steel was also greatly imperiled because the sprinklers and standpipes supplying water for firefighting were almost certainly disabled, their supply pipes cut by debris sent flying in the initial crash.

The sprinklers were installed by about 1990 and tanks were stored as high as the 110th floor of the buildings. Witnesses below the areas of impact, and therefore below the primary fires, described water cascading down the stairwells where pipes from those tanks ran. The hoses that firefighters carried on their backs up the same stairwells would therefore have been largely useless, since the standpipes used the same supplies.

The report cites the tight clustering of the exit stairways, three per tower, as a factor that may have made it easier to cause damage to all of them with one blow. These exit stairwells also had relatively lightweight gypsum board sheathing, providing little armor. Partly for these reasons, thousands of people above the floors of impact were trapped.

Most of the tenants in the floors below impact, to the credit of the building and the emergency lighting in the stairwells, escaped. More than 400 firefighters, police officers and other rescue personnel and dozens of tenants who stayed behind during the evacuation were also killed when the buildings finally collapsed. An estimated 2,830 people are considered dead or missing in the collapse.

Against the Manhattan skyline, the gleaming towers looked nearly identical, except for the television tower atop the north tower. But the inquiry found that the forces that toppled them had distinct differences.

Their basic structures before the attacks were extremely similar, even if they were not quite perfect twins. Each tower was supported against the downward force of gravity by a tightly arranged matrix of columns at its core and another palisade of columns, spaced just 40 inches apart, around its exterior.

The core and perimeter columns were connected by lightweight, weblike floor supports called trusses at each floor. The trusses held up corrugated metal decks on which the concrete floors were poured. The same trusses provided lateral support for all the vertical columns, preventing them from buckling under the tremendous force of gravity.

Wide plates called spandrels tied the exterior steel columns together, creating a rigid surface that could resist hurricane-force winds.

These structural elements would become fateful as the jets plowed into the north tower at 8:46 a.m. and the south tower at seconds before 9:03 a.m.

The report — assembled with data collected at ground zero, in scrapyards, in laboratories, by analyzing more than 100 hours of videotape and by talking to witnesses — turned up the greatest amount of detail on the south tower attack.

The United Airlines jet, its wings slightly canted, angled into the south facade of the south tower, slicing through about 30 of the 59 exterior columns on that face. The immediate damage, probably including unseen devastation to the steel core, stretched from the 78th to the 84th floors.

The impact of the plane, which had been traveling as fast as 586 miles an hour, was so great that it gathered office material like a snowplow and apparently forced it toward the northeast corner of the building. Parts of the plane came to rest there and others punctured the far wall, soaring as far as six blocks to the north before hitting the ground near the intersection of Murray and Church Streets.

A fuel-fed fireball emerged from three sides of the tower and consumed roughly one-third of the estimated 10,000 gallons on the plane. Some of the rest flowed down the face of the building and into elevator shafts and stairwells. What remained burned ferociously, setting acres of office space afire as well as the plane's cargo.

The incredible energy generated by this blaze was estimated to be three to five gigawatts at its peak. A typical nuclear power plant generates about one gigawatt. All of that energy was converted to deadly heat that began weakening the steel.

But the tower did not fall immediately. Preliminary calculations by the engineering team have revealed that the tight spandrel connections, built to resist the wind, gave the building a remarkable ability to redistribute loads from severed columns to those that remained intact.

This rearrangement was so efficient, the calculations show, that stresses on columns no more than 20 feet from the hole punched in the tower's face were barely higher than what they were before the impact. Like a horse with a bum leg, the buildings, though wounded, still stood.

But the fires continued to burn. Black smoke poured from shattered windows on floor after floor, fresh oxygen sucked in from the gaping holes caused by the impacts. In the northeast corner of the south tower's 80th floor, where office furniture had been shoved by the plane, the fire burned so hot that a stream of molten metal began to pour over the side like a flaming waterfall.

The apparent source of this waterfall: molten aluminum from the jet's wings and fuselage, which had also piled up in that corner. Within minutes, portions of the 80th floor began to give way, as evidenced by horizontal lines of dust blowing out the side of the building. Seconds later, near the heavily damaged southeasterly portion of this same floor, close to where the aircraft had entered, exterior columns began to buckle.

Fifty-six minutes and 10 seconds after it was hit, the top of the south tower tilted horribly, to the east and then to the south, and initiated the collapse of the entire tower, floor upon floor.

Unfolding at a slower pace, the disaster at the north tower will require study before it can be explained in such detail. The plane entered the north tower between the 94th and 98th floors, the report says, destroying about 35 columns on its north face and wreaking indeterminate but probably substantial damage to the core.

The building stood for more than an hour and a half. Videos of the north tower's collapse appear to show that its television antenna began to drop a fraction of a second before the rest of the building. The observations suggest that the building's steel core somehow gave way first, pulling down the rest of the tower with it.

For a few unreal moments, after the north tower had plummeted to the ground, a giant spearlike fragment of the facade remained standing, as if defiantly, still looming above the lesser skyscrapers around it. Then the last shard of the tower fell, leaving behind only its arched, cathedral-like base and a narrow trail of smoke to trace its path to the ground.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/29/nyregion/29TOWE.html

For more site articles, see also Index 1 - Index 3 - Index 4  - Index 5  and Links

March 31, 2002

For more site articles, see also Index 1 - Index 3 - Index 4  - Index 5  and Links

Mathematicians Solve Egg-Spin Mystery
Wed Mar 27, 2002 2:02 PM ET

Mathematicians have cracked the mystery of why a hard-boiled egg spun on a tabletop rises on one end and whirls like a top.

By MARGIE MASON, Associated Press Writer

Just in time for Easter, mathematicians have cracked the mystery of why a hard-boiled egg spun on a tabletop rises on one end and whirls like a top.

The explanation, in an eggshell: Friction.

Mathematicians from England and Japan spent six months filching eggs from their families' refrigerators and trying to explain the mysterious forces controlling this behavior. Their findings appear in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature (see below).

Keith Moffatt of the University of Cambridge in England and Yutaka Shimomura of Keio University in Japan believed that demonstrating how this effect works would be a simple, fun exercise. Instead, it "turned out to be very subtle and quite tricky," Moffatt said.

Their report contains no fewer than 16 equations in less than two pages.

Here is an explanation for the spinning Easter egg conundrum, without the mathematics:

Imagine an egg spinning on its side on a tabletop. Because of the curve of its shell, it is touching the table at only one point. But the contact point is not fixed; it slides in a small circle around an imaginary vertical axis.

As the egg slides across the table, the friction created slows the egg's rotation slightly, and the contact point with the table moves off-center. The egg begins to twist as it spins. One end slowly rises until the egg stands vertically. For a few seconds, anyway.

The egg can be any size or type. But it must be hard-boiled.

"When you try to spin a soft egg on a table the liquid fluid inside lags behind the shell," Moffatt said. "You set the shell in motion but the fluid doesn't want to spin up. By the time the fluid is spinning at the same time as the shell, it's lost a lot of kinetic energy and it's just not got enough remaining to stand up on its end."

Or in non-scientific terms: Splat.

Source: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020327/ap_on_sc/egg_mystery_1

Egg mystery cracked for Easter
Wednesday, 27 March, 2002, 20:47
BBC New

It took six months to come up with this explanation

Spin a hard-boiled egg on a table and, if you are lucky, the egg will rise to spin on the flatter end instead of on its side.

But do the same with a raw egg and it definitely will not.

This mystery and apparent contradiction of the laws of physics has been explained by a Cambridge mathematician and a Japanese physicist.

They describe in the journal Nature (see below) how friction plays a key role in this peculiar phenomenon.

Jerky rise

The trick works only if the egg is spun with the right force and if the friction between the table top and the egg is just right.

Under these conditions, the axis of the spinning egg moves in a series of jerks until it reaches the vertical.

The phenomenon appears to contradict the laws of gravity, as the centre of gravity of the egg actually moves upwards, but, say Keith Moffatt of Cambridge University, UK, and Yutaka Shimomura of Keio University, Yokohama, Japan, there is a mathematical explanation.

That explanation took six months of the pair's spare time to work out, and the equations cover two pages of the scientific journal.

What it boils down to is that when friction conditions are just right, some of the spinning energy of the egg is translated into a horizontal force which begins to move the egg towards the vertical.

'Amusing problem'

The trick does not work with a raw egg because the fluid inside it dissipates much of the spinning energy.

Dr Moffatt admits there is unlikely to be an application for this interesting piece of science.

"You never know with these things," he said.

"I just thought it was a nice, amusing problem, especially at Easter time, when people are rolling eggs, and that's really why we did it.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1897000/1897002.stm

1. Moffatt, H.K. & Shimomura, Y. Spinning eggs - a paradox resolved. Nature, 416, 385 - 386, (2002).

Source: http://www.nature.com/nsu/020325/020325-6.html

Abstract:
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v416/n6879/abs/416385a_fs.html

For more site articles, see also Index 1 - Index 3 - Index 4  - Index 5  and Links

UNDERSTANDING MEN (Humor)

Mar 26, 2002

"IT'S A GUY THING" means "There is no rational thought pattern connected with it, and you have no chance at all of making it logical."

"I'M GOING FISHING" means "I'm going to drink myself dangerously stupid, and stand by a stream with a stick in my hand, while the fish swim by in complete safety."

"CAN I HELP WITH DINNER?" means "Why isn't it already on the table?"

"UH HUH," "SURE, HONEY," or "YES, DEAR..." means "Absolutely nothing. It's a conditioned response."

"IT WOULD TAKE TOO LONG TO EXPLAIN" means "I have no idea how it works."

"I WAS LISTENING TO YOU. IT'S JUST THAT I HAVE THINGS ON MY MIND" means "I was wondering if that redhead over there is wearing a bra."

"TAKE A BREAK HONEY, YOU'RE WORKING TOO HARD" means: "I can't hear the game over the vacuum cleaner."

"THAT'S INTERESTING, DEAR" means: "Are you still talking?"

"YOU KNOW HOW BAD MY MEMORY IS" means: "I remember the theme song to 'F Troop,' the address of the first girl I ever kissed, and the vehicle identification numbers of every car I've ever owned, but I forgot your birthday."

"I WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT YOU, AND GOT YOU THESE ROSES" means "The girl selling them on the corner was a real babe."

"OH, DON'T FUSS, I JUST CUT MYSELF, IT'S NO BIG DEAL" means "I have actually severed a limb, but will bleed to death before I admit that I'm hurt."

"HEY, I'VE GOT MY REASONS FOR WHAT I'M DOING" means "And I sure hope I think of some pretty soon."

"I CAN'T FIND IT" means "It didn't fall into my outstretched hands, so I'm completely clueless."

"WHAT DID I DO THIS TIME?" means "What did you catch me at?"

"I HEARD YOU" means "I haven't the foggiest clue what you just said, and am hoping desperately that I can fake it well enough so that you don't spend the next 3 days yelling at me."

"YOU KNOW I COULD NEVER LOVE ANYONE ELSE" means "I am used to the way you yell at me, and realize it could be worse."

"YOU LOOK TERRIFIC" means "Please don't try on one more outfit, I'm starving."

"I'M NOT LOST. I KNOW EXACTLY WHERE WE ARE" means: "No one will ever see us alive again."

"WE SHARE THE HOUSEWORK" means: "I make the messes, she cleans them up."

For more site articles, see also Index 1 - Index 3 - Index 4  - Index 5  and Links

Why Prozac Might Cause Cancer?
Tue Mar 26, 2002 1:41 AM ET

Prozac and related antidepressants could in theory pose a cancer threat by blocking the body's innate ability to kill tumor cells.

By Ben Hirschler, European Pharmaceuticals Correspondent

LONDON (Reuter) - Prozac and related antidepressants could in theory pose a cancer threat by blocking the body's innate ability to kill tumor cells, British scientists said on Tuesday.

But Professor John Gordon of the University of Birmingham, who led the research, said patients should keep taking their drugs since there was no evidence of any link in practice.

Working in the test-tube, Gordon and others found that the brain's mood-regulating chemical serotonin caused some cancer cells to self-destruct.

Eli Lilly and Co's Prozac, Glaxo SmithKline Plc's Paxil and Lundbeck's Celexa all "substantially blocked" this process. The finding reopens controversy about the widespread use of the class of antidepressants called selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) that first went on sale in the 1980s.

Millions of people with depression and anxiety have been prescribed the drugs, which have emerged as one of the biggest sellers for the international pharmaceutical industry. They work by stopping serotonin getting into cells.

Gordon's discovery that serotonin plays a role in killing a type of cancer called Burkitt's lymphoma was published in the online edition of the medical journal Blood.

"We've shown that, in the test-tube, the SSRIs stop the action of the serotonin on the cancer cells. But it's nigh on impossible to extrapolate to what's happening in the body," Gordon told Reuter.

"We must stress the effects shown for SSRIs on cancer cells is indirect and should cause no concern whatsoever to the many millions of people throughout the world who are prescribed this class of antidepressants."

A spokesman for Britain's Department of Health said the research was at a very early stage and no increased risk of cancer had been detected.

Rather than being alarmed, Gordon is in fact excited that a new class of anti-cancer drugs may one day be developed that exploit serotonin's ability to kill cancer cells.

"Because we know the mechanism, we are now in a position to develop drug analogs of serotonin that will do the same job but have better pharmacological properties," Gordon said.

His work also provides an intriguing insight into the way that "positive thinking" associated with serotonin levels may play a key part in effective cancer care.

The mechanism by which serotonin can get inside cancer cells and tell them to commit suicide -- a process known as apoptosis -- suggests there is a clear "dialogue" between the brain and the immune system, he said.

Prozac was the first SSRI to reach the market in 1987 but it has since been overtaken by Paxil, also known as Seroxat, which racked up sales last year of 1.86 billion pounds ($2.7 billion).

Drug company officials said they did not believe their pills caused any increase in cancer and questioned whether the high doses used in Gordon's experiments may have affected the results.

"These data are from an in vitro (test tube) study and as such they cannot be extrapolated to a clinical setting with any degree of certainty," said Martin Sutton, a spokesman for GSK.

Source: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020326/sc_nm/health_prozac_cancer_d

Blood, 1 April 2002, Vol. 99, No. 7, pp. 2545-2553

5-Hydroxytryptamine drives apoptosis in biopsylike Burkitt lymphoma cells: reversal by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (Abstract of full text article)

Adamantios Serafeim, Gillian Grafton, Anita Chamba, Christopher D. Gregory, Randy D. Blakely, Norman G. Bowery, Nicholas M. Barnes, and John Gordon

From the MRC Centre for Immune Regulation and the Department of Pharmacology, The Medical School, University of Birmingham; the School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Nottingham Medical School, United Kingdom; and the Department of Pharmacology, Center for Molecular Neuroscience, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.

Serotonin (5-HT), a well-known neurotransmitter of the central nervous system, has been implicated in diverse aspects of immune regulation. Here we show that 5-HT can efficiently drive programmed cell death in established Burkitt lymphoma (BL) lines that remain faithful to the original biopsy phenotype (group 1). Group 1 BL cells cultured in the presence of 5-HT exhibited marked suppression of DNA synthesis that was accompanied by extensive apoptosis -- serotonin-driven apoptosis was complete within 24 hours, was preceded by early caspase activation, and was accompanied by a decline in mitochondrial membrane potential. BL cells that had drifted to a lymphoblastic group 3 phenotype were relatively resistant to these actions of serotonin, and the forced ectopic expression of either bcl-2 or bcl-x_L provided substantial protection from 5-HT-induced apoptosis. 5-HT receptor antagonists (SDZ205-557, granisetron, methysergide) failed to inhibit serotonin-induced apoptosis, whereas the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) fluoxetine (Prozac), paroxetine (Paxil), and citalopram (Celexa) -- substantially blocked the monoamine actions. Western blot analysis showed that BL cells expressed protein for the 5-HT transporter, and transport assays confirmed active uptake of serotonin by the cells. Unlike what was suggested for neuronal cells, there was no evidence that intracellular oxidative metabolites were responsible for the 5-HT-induced programmed death of BL cells. These data indicate that serotonin drives apoptosis in biopsylike BL cells after its entry through an active transport mechanism, and they suggest a novel therapeutic modality for Burkitt lymphoma.

Source: http://www.bloodjournal.org

© 2002 by The American Society of Hematology.
 

Scientists find Prozac 'link' to brain tumours

By Steve Connor Science Editor, independent.co.uk

26 March 2002

Scientists have discovered that Prozac, the antidepressant taken by millions of people around the world, may stimulate the growth of brain tumours by blocking the body's natural ability to kill cancer cells.

An international team of researchers led by John Gordon, professor of immunology at Birmingham University, found evidence to suggest cancer cells can be killed by "positive thinking", which could be blocked when people take Prozac.

The study, to be published in the journal Blood next week, examined the effects of Prozac and other antidepressants on a group of tumour cells growing in a test tube. The researchers found that the drug prevented the cancer cells from committing "suicide", thereby leading to a more vigorous growth of the tumours.

Although an increased risk of cancer has not so far been detected in Prozac patients, the latest findings could lead to a global re-evaluation of the drug's long-term safety.

Prozac, a "happiness pill" that was first approved in the United States in 1987, is widely used for the treatment of depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder and bulimia nervosa. Doctors in Britain issue about three million prescriptions for it each year and worldwide sales reached £1.8bn in 1999.

Professor Gordon, whose study was jointly funded by Birmingham University and the Medical Research Council, emphasised that the results of his study cannot be taken as proof that Prozac stimulates the growth of tumours.

He said: "Although that extrapolation could be valid, there is no direct evidence from large-scale epidemiological studies currently to back it up. However, it's important that we look again and again."

The research work was designed to find new ways of treating lymphomas, a type of blood cancer, by investigating how the brain communicates with the immune system to induce "positive thinking" through a neuro-transmitter in the brain called serotonin.

"Serotonin is a natural chemical that regulates people's moods, keeping them balanced. Too much serotonin affects appetite and sleep and too little affects the mood – often causing depression," Professor Gordon said.

Prozac, along with other members of the class of antidepressants known as selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs), works by preventing serotonin from being quickly reabsorbed by nerve cells in the brain.

The scientists tested other SSRIs such as Paxil and Celexa and found they, too, had the same effect in stimulating the growth of a type of tumour known as Burkitt's lymphoma.

"An exciting property of serotonin is that it can tell some cells to self-destruct. We have found that serotonin can get inside the lymphoma cells and instruct them to commit suicide, thereby providing the potential for an effective therapy," Professor Gordon said.

The researchers found that Prozac blocked the entry of serotonin into the test-tube tumour cells and therefore stopped them from committing suicide. That raised the question of whether Prozac can do the same in the brains of people taking the drug.

Professor Gordon said it was still premature to suggest that the drug was unsafe. "We must stress the effects shown for the SSRI on cancer cells is indirect and should cause no concern whatsoever to the many millions of people throughout the world who are prescribed this class of antidepressants," he said.

Further work is underway to test Prozac further in this field. In particular, the scientists want to develop drugs that will mimic the cancer-destroying feature of serotonin which is blocked by Prozac.

A spokeswoman for Eli Lilly, the manufacturer of Prozac, said that the research is too new for the company to make a detailed response. "It's not something we can directly comment on because we haven't been involved in it," she said.

Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_medical/story.jsp?story=278505

For more site articles, see also Index 1 - Index 3 - Index 4  - Index 5  and Links

Why is talking on a mobile phone more dangerous than drunk driving?

Driving performance under the influence of alcohol was significantly worse than normal driving, yet significantly better than driving while using a phone.... Drivers who were using a hand-held mobile phone reacted a half second slower than when they were driving under normal conditions.... This study demonstrates beyond doubt that using a mobile phone when driving significantly impairs the drivers' attention to potentially hazardous situations, more so than having a blood alcohol level at the UK legal limit (80mg/100ml, 0 .08% U.S.)

22nd March 2002

by Transport Research Laboratory, Berkshire, England

See also: `Hands-Free' Cellphones Still May Be Road Risk

SHOCK new research published today (Friday, 22 March) reveals that talking on a mobile phone whilst driving is more dangerous than being drunk behind the wheel.

Tests carried out by scientists at the Transport Research Laboratory established that driving behaviour is impaired more by using a mobile phone than by being over the legal alcohol limit*. In 2000, more than 520 people lost their lives as a result of accidents involving drunk drivers.

Now leading insurer Direct Line, who commissioned the study, is hoping its findings will lend support to MP's calls for a total ban on the use of hand-held mobile phones while driving. A bill introduced by Janet Anderson, MP for Rossendale and Darwen, receives its second reading early next month.

The Direct Line study, carried out over three months by the TRL, involved testing the reaction times and driving performance of a panel of volunteers using a sophisticated driving simulator. Researchers tested how driving impairment was affected by talking on a hand-held mobile phone, a hands-free phone, and when drivers had consumed enough alcohol to be above the legal drink-drive limit.

The results demonstrate that drivers' reaction times were, on average, 30% slower when talking on a hand-held mobile phone compared to being drunk and nearly 50% slower than under normal driving conditions. According to the tests, drivers were less able to maintain a constant speed and found it more difficult to keep a safe distance from the car in front.

Using a hand-held mobile phone had the greatest impact on driving performance. On average it took hand-held mobile phone users half a second longer to react than normal, and a third of a second longer to react compared to when they were drunk. At 70 mph, this half-second difference is equivalent to travelling an additional 46 feet (14m) before reacting to a hazard on the road.

Using a hands-free mobile phone also proved to be a considerable distraction for drivers. In fact, participants in the study stated that they found it easier to drive drunk than when using a mobile phone (hand-held or hands-free)*2.

In addition, drivers using either a hands-free or hand-held mobile phone significantly missed more road warning signs than when drunk.

Direct Line commissioned the TRL research following a recent survey it conducted that found that four out of ten drivers - equivalent to around 10 million UK motorists - admit to using a mobile phone behind the wheel. Dominic Burch, Direct Line's road safety campaign manager, said:

"Most people accept that talking on a mobile phone while driving is distracting, however, many drivers don't appreciate how dangerous it is. That is why we chose to quanitfy the risk involved by comparing driving performance while using a mobile phone to driving while over the legal alcohol limit. Drink driving is clearly an established danger in the eyes of drivers.

"We were surprised to discover that talking on a mobile phone is actually more dangerous than being drunk behind the wheel. In effect, this means that 10 million drivers are partaking in a driving activity that is potentially more dangerous than being drunk.

"Based on these findings, we are supporting Janet Anderson MP in her attempt to introduce new legislation calling for a total ban on the use of hand-held mobiles while driving*3. In addition we are calling on the Government to conduct further research into the dangers of using hands-free mobile phones.

"We believe there needs to be a high profile public awareness campaign informing drivers of the dangers they face by using mobile phones. Eventually we would like to see the use of mobile phones when driving, both hands-held and hands-free, become as socially unacceptable as drink driving."

----------------ends------------------

*1 Previous research has shown that phone conversations while driving impair performance. It was difficult to quantify the risk of this impairment because the reference was usually made to normal driving without using a phone. "Worse than normal driving" does not necessarily mean dangerous. There was a need therefore to benchmark driving performance while using a mobile phone to a clearly dangerous level of performance. Driving with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit is an established danger.

Direct Line commissioned the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) to undertake extensive research on the dangers of using a mobile phone when driving. This study was designed to quantify the impairment from hands-free and hand-held phone conversations in relation to the decline in driving performance caused by alcohol impairment.

The TRL Driving Simulator was used to provide a realistic driving task in a safe and controlled environment. Twenty healthy experienced drivers were tested in a balanced order on two separate occasions. The drivers were males and females aged 21 to 45 years. Before starting the test drive, they consumed a drink, which either contained alcohol or a similar looking and tasting placebo drink. The quantity of alcohol was determined from the participant's age and body mass using the adjusted Widmark Formula (the UK legal alcohol limit 80mg / 100ml 0.08% U.S.).

The test drive had four driving conditions: on a motorway with moderate traffic; maintaining a safe distance when following another vehicle; attempting to negotiate a bend in the road, and; driving on a dual carriageway with traffic lights.

During each condition the drivers answered a standard set of questions and conversed with the experimenter over a mobile phone. The independent variables in this repeated measures study were normal driving, alcohol impaired driving, and driving while talking on hands-free or hand-held phone.

Main Findings

The results showed a clear trend for significantly poorer driving performance (speed control, following distance and reaction times) when using a phone in comparison to the other conditions.

Driving performance under the influence of alcohol was significantly worse than normal driving, yet significantly better than driving while using a phone. Furthermore, drivers reported that it was easier to drive drunk than to drive while using a phone.

Drivers who were using a hand-held mobile phone reacted a half second slower than when they were driving under normal conditions. Any significant delay in reaction times increases the risk of having a crash and the crash severity.

Hands-free impaired driving less than using a hand-held mobile phone. However, even hands-free phones impair driving more than alcohol.

This study demonstrates beyond doubt that using a mobile phone when driving significantly impairs the drivers' attention to potentially hazardous situations, more so than having a blood alcohol level at the UK legal limit (80mg/100ml, 0 .08% U.S.). In attempting to perform multiple tasks at the same time drivers subject themselves and other road-users to unacceptable dangers. This research for the first time uncovers just how great those dangers are and underlines the need for a change in the law.

*2 Statistics are based on a survey conducted by MORI Financial Services on behalf of Direct Line in July 2001 of 2,000 interviews among adults aged 17 and over, who are Driving License Holders and who have driven at least once in the last month. Further regional data available on request.

*3 Janet Anderson MP is introducing a bill making it an offence to use a hand-held mobile telephone while driving. The second reading of her bill will take place on 12th April 2002.

It is not currently a specific offence to use a mobile phone while driving, but drivers can be prosecuted under existing legislation. Regulation 104 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 states that the driver must have full control of the vehicle at all times. The maximum fine for failing to have control of your vehicle is £2,500.

Drivers using mobile phones can also be prosecuted for "careless driving" (section three of the Road Traffic Act 1988) if use of the phone results in their driving falling below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver. This carries a maximum fine of £2,500, license endorsements of three to nine points and discretionary disqualification.

If a driver's driving falls far below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver, while using a mobile phone, they can be charged with "dangerous driving". This charge carries a maximum penalty of two years in prison, an unlimited fine, disqualification from driving and an extended re-test.

"Causing death by dangerous driving" (section one of the Road Traffic Act 1998, as amended by section one of the Road Traffic Act 1991). This charge is brought for mobile phone use while driving if a driver whose driving falls "far below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver" kills someone. The maximum penalty is imprisonment for ten years and an unlimited fine. Anyone convicted is usually disqualified from driving for a minimum period of two years. In addition, the guilty person must take an extended driving test before they can regain their license.

Drink-drive penalties have been made more severe as public attitudes to drinking and driving have hardened. The offence of 'causing death by careless driving while unfit (under the influence of drink or drugs) now carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment and a disqualification of at least two years.

Driving or attempting to drive whilst above the legal limit or unfit through drink can result in six months imprisonment plus a fine of £5,000 and a disqualification of at least 12 months (three years automatic ban if convicted twice in 10 years)

Source: http://info.directline.com/

For further information please contact:

Scott Wilson, Countrywide Porter Novelli, tel: 020 7853 2248 (direct) Or 07720 277146 (mobile) Or, Dominic Burch or Mark Twigg, Direct Line Press Office, tel: 020 8256 2182

Out of hours: Call Direct Line reception on 020 8686 3313 ISDN interview quality line (available on request)

Website: www.directlinegroup.com
Email: feedback@directline.com

For more site articles, see also Index 1 - Index 3 - Index 4  - Index 5  and Links

High Relationship Expectations Tied to Depression
Fri Mar 22, 2002 5:23 PM ET

"It appears that when depressed, people have very high expectations for how others should behave in interactions with them," McCabe said. When others fail to live up to their standards, depressed people may become frustrated, irritable or hostile, according to the Canadian researcher. The expectations of the depressed person may be unreasonable in the other person's opinion, McCabe said, or they may be unknown to the other person.

By Merritt McKinney

NEW YORK (Reuter Health) - Young women who have feelings of depression are more likely to have unreasonable expectations in their personal relationships, researchers in Canada report.

In a study of female college students, women who fit the criteria for dysphoria--a mix of anxiety, depression and irritability--tended to have higher expectations and standards for themselves and others in their personal relationships than women without dysphoria who had never been depressed, the investigators found.

These higher expectations seem to explain why women with dysphoria are more hostile in their interpersonal relationships, according to the report in the Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology.

Feelings of depression can lead to many interpersonal problems, Dr. Scott B. McCabe, of the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, told Reuter Health. These problems often result from symptoms caused by depression, such as poor sleep and concentration, fatigue and irritability, according to McCabe, who is the senior author of the study.

In previous research, McCabe found that when depressed women try to solve a problem with their spouse, they often become more negative, although the spouse does not. In contrast, women who are not depressed do not tend to become more negative when they try to solve a problem in their relationship, according to McCabe.

In the new study, McCabe and a colleague, Robyn E. Wiebe, were interested in seeing how the irritability and hostility that often go hand-in-hand with depression and dysphoria are related to the difficulties women with feelings of depression have with other people.

"It appears that when depressed, people have very high expectations for how others should behave in interactions with them," McCabe said. When others fail to live up to their standards, depressed people may become frustrated, irritable or hostile, according to the Canadian researcher. The expectations of the depressed person may be unreasonable in the other person's opinion, McCabe said, or they may be unknown to the other person.

What depressed people can learn from the research, McCabe said, is to try to recognize "that their expectations for others are likely too excessive."

As for the people who are around depressed people, he said, "It is important to recognize that these behavioral styles are likely temporary and result from depressive symptoms rather than personality traits."

SOURCE: Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 2002;21:67-90.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020322/hl_nm/depression_women_1

For more site articles, see also Index 1 - Index 3 - Index 4  - Index 5  and Links

Why Do Older Men Make Better Lovers?
Fri Mar 15,2002 9:29 PM ET

LONDON (Reuter) - Older men are better lovers and have fewer impotence problems than their younger counterparts, with the "male menopause" a myth peddled by drug companies to sell their products, according to a British psychologist.

Dr. Lorraine Boule, from Sheffield University in northern England, told the British Psychological Society conference that men became more skilled sexually as they get older, British newspapers reported on Saturday.

"Older men sustain erections for longer, are longer coming to orgasm, and satisfy women better. Sexual activity does diminish with age, but the quality should get better," she was quoted as saying by the Daily Mail.

Boule's conclusions were based on a survey of 185 married professional men aged 30 to 60. While 22 percent of men under 46 suffered erectile problems, only 16 percent of those over 46 did.

She dismissed as nonsense the idea that men needed testosterone as a hormone replacement therapy in the same way that some women take estrogen to ease the effects of menopause.

The male menopause was a myth spread by drug firms to boost the multimillion dollar market for impotence treatments, she said.

"Life should really begin at 40 for those who have the right mindset," the Times quoted her as saying

Source: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020316/sc_nm/life_love_dc_1
 

For more site articles, see also Index 1 - Index 3 - Index 4  - Index 5  and Links

For more site articles, see also Index 1 - Index 3 - Index 4  - Index 5  and Links

For more site articles, see also Index 1 - Index 3 - Index 4  - Index 5  and Links

For more site articles, see also Index 1 - Index 3 - Index 4  - Index 5  and Links

Marijuana use damages brain memory and hinders concentration
Daily Telegraph
March 7, 2002

A study by a Sydney researcher has found that long-term cannabis users could be damaging their memory and hindering their ability to concentrate.

The impairment did not amount to serious brain damage but could be enough to interfere with simple tasks like reading, studying or shopping, Nadia Solowij of the University of NSW said.

Dr Solowij led a study by the US Marijuana Treatment Project Research Group which focused on patients seeking help for marijuana dependence in US clinics between 1997 and 2000

The study concluded that chronic heavy pot smokers displayed signs of cognitive impairments serious enough to affect their work, life and ability to learn.

"This study has found that there are long-term effects of cannabis use on memory and on attention, and that memory function gets worse with the number of years that cannabis is used," she said.

The study examined 51 people who had been using marijuana daily for an average 24 years and compared them to 51 shorter-term users and 33 non-users.

As part of the study, the subjects were presented with a list of 15 words and asked to recall them later.

"In general we found that the long-term heavy users were recalling approximately three words less than the non-users or shorter-term users," Dr Solowij said.

"We found that impairment in memory was there in the group that on average had used for 24 years, but we didn't find any significant difference in the group who had used for about ten years."

Dr Solowij said she hoped to determine whether the damage was reversible when she finalised follow-up studies of the subjects later this year.

Her findings sparked controversy overseas after her work was published in the March 6 issue of the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association.

Harrison Pope of Harvard Medical School disputed the findings in an editorial and subsequent statements.

Dr Pope said Dr Solowij's study had failed to take into account whether the subjects had been taking other drugs or suffered problems like anxiety or depression that could also affect cognitive ability.

"The safest thing to say at this point is that the jury is still out on the question of whether long-term marijuana use causes lasting impairment in brain function," he said.

While Dr Solowij concedes the jury may be out until her follow-up tests are concluded, her findings add weight to the adage: they don't call it dope 'cause it makes you smart".

Source: http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,3903652%255E421,00.html

For more site articles, see also Index 1 - Index 3 - Index 4  - Index 5  and Links

For more site articles, see also Index 1 - Index 3 - Index 4  - Index 5  and Links

Feb. 26, 2002

What's Wrong With Boomer Exercise?
By Katherine Spitz
Beacon Journal medical writer

Age affects the elasticity of tissue. Muscles tighten. The tendons that connect tissue to bone tighten.... The ligaments that bridge bone to bone or to joints tighten.... The boomer who wants to keep fit should mix up activities during the week, making sure to include some cardiovascular and strength exercises, and also stretching, experts say.

Bob Abramson, 55, lifting weights, has made changes in his longtime exercise program.

Baby boomers want to fight aging, but the body clock ticks on. Just ask Bob Abramson of Fairlawn.

Abramson, 55, has rigorously exercised for decades. In his 20s, he thought nothing of running eight miles, then working out with weights, and after that, playing a game of tennis.

Ah, the tendons and muscles of youth.

``Now, I can't do all that in one day,'' said Abramson, a financial consultant. He has to stretch before tennis, unless he wants his legs to tighten up mid-game. He runs less. And when he exercises, ``it's more of a pounding on my body.''

``I always felt if I kept doing this program, my body would not age,'' he said. ``That's not true, it does age.''

Many boomers don't want to accept that reality, said Dr. Tom Thompson, an orthopedic surgeon at the Akron Clinic Physician Group who treats many middle-aged patients for exercise-related aches, strains and generally ``not terrible, but nagging things.''

Thompson said the main reason is that age affects the elasticity of tissue. Muscles tighten. The tendons that connect tissue to bone tighten. The ligaments that bridge bone to bone or to joints tighten.

``These types of structures will continue to -- there's no other word for it -- degrade over time,'' said Thompson, 52, who has experienced his own exercise-related problems.

Boomers most commonly develop painful heel syndromes, knee cap problems, tightness and strain of calf muscles and pain in the front part of their feet, he said.

The culprits? Thompson blames walking and running -- the very same exercises lauded for their positive effects on the cardiovascular system.

``The problem is, a lot of people in society cannot accommodate even a moderate amount of routine walking and or running in their lives,'' he said.

People often don't get variety in their exercise program, and that also sets them up for a lot of problems, said physical therapist Jane Fruscella, who works at Akron General Medical Center. While someone in their 20s can get away with doing the same thing all the time, she said, when a boomer does that, she's setting herself up for trouble.

``People will say to us all the time, `I've been doing this for 20 years. Why didn't I have a problem before?' '' said Fruscella, a baby boomer who cross-trains when she exercises. ``That's the problem -- they've been doing it for years.''

When a person performs the same motion repeatedly at the same intensity, muscles get very efficient and no longer get stronger. That's why a boomer, even a very fit one, can get injured by even a seemingly innocent activity such as tying his shoes while sitting in the car, Fruscella said.

No stretching? Bad

Cross-training reduces the middle-aged person's chance of injury, Fruscella said. Here's how:

First, by varying routine, an exerciser is more likely to avoid repetitive-stress injuries, which are exactly what they sound like -- injuries that occur because of repeated stress on a tendon, muscle or other area of a body.

Also, since cross-training also continually taxes different muscles, the muscles are less likely to become overly efficient.

Not stretching is another reason that boomers get into trouble, Thompson said. Some of the more major tendon tears that take eons to heal -- in the Achilles tendon, the quadriceps tendon above the knee and the tendons in the rotator cuff -- come about because someone doesn't bother to stretch.

Thompson, 52, always stretches -- now.

Sedentary until his mid-40s, he said he partially ruptured an Achilles tendon because he didn't stretch before working out. Now, he follows his own advice and always stretches.

Before or after?

Experts disagree whether an exerciser should stretch before or after warming up, Fruscella said.

Thompson recommends about 10 minutes of light exercise, followed by stretching. ``Take a rubber band out in the snow and pull too quickly, it will snap,'' he said. ``But take the rubber band inside and it will have much more stretch.Our tissues aren't necessarily a whole lot different than that.''

When an injury happens, it's a wake-up call to change routines. But no one likes to change, especially baby boomers who are determined to remain forever young, Thompson said.

``There's a lack of reality with a lot of (boomers) who are exercising; they don't want to accept any reasonable limits. They don't want to accept any limit,'' Thompson said. ``They don't want to cross-train, they just want to keep on doing what they were doing when they were 20.''

Runners are the group most resistant to give up their exercise, Thompson said. He said about half of regular runners will see a doctor at least once a year for injury related to sport.

Walking also causes the same type of structural injuries, though not quite as often, Thompson said. For this reason, he, as does Fruscella, strongly endorses cross-training.

``Run or walk -- do it once a week,'' he said.

Mix things up

The boomer who wants to keep fit should mix up activities during the week, making sure to include some cardiovascular and strength exercises, and also stretching, experts say.

Some of the options: swimming or walking in water, elliptical machines that work both arms and legs, stair climbing machines and/or water exercises.

Mixing up the routine not only helps boomers avoid injuries now, but sets up a way of exercising that will be increasingly important as they continue to age, said Dr. David Bacha, chief of rheumatology at Summa Health Systems.

While most boomers in their 40s get symptoms from muscle- and tendon-related problems, as they move into their mid 50s and beyond, they will be more and more vulnerable to arthritis-related pain, Bacha said.

Cross-training helps arthritis symptoms. Nonweight-bearing exercises such as swimming will help protect the joints. Weight bearing exercises will help build muscle and strengthen bone, which will lessen the strain on joints.

Abramson, who has avoided injuries and rarely even pops an over-the-counter anti-inflammatory for soreness, started cross-training several years ago, specifically to avoid injuries.

He runs on a treadmill and rides a stationary bike each week, alternating the days, so he doesn't repeatedly stress his body the same way. He also works out with weights four times a week, again, varying the routine. He always stretches.

While he's one of the lucky ones who can still run, Abramson avoids running on concrete, and runs shorter distances at a slower pace than before.

``He's stretching, he's cross-training; he's doing everything appropriately, and genetically, he can get away with this,'' Fruscella said. ``For him, it's working.''

Source: http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/local/2746809.htm

For more site articles, see also Index 1 - Index 3 - Index 4  - Index 5  and Links

Letter to Dr. Laura about Leviticus

See also: The Bible may not be "literally" true say Jewish Conservatives

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

Leviticus 18 *
²²You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.

01. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord. (Lev. 1:9) The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

Leviticus 1 *
⁹but he shall wash its entrails and its legs with water. And the priest shall burn all on the altar as a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, a sweet aroma to the LORD.

02. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

Exodus 21 *
⁷"And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.

03. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness. (Lev. 15:19-33) The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Leviticus 15 *
¹⁹"If a woman has a discharge, and the discharge from her body is blood, she shall be set apart seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening. ²⁰Everything that she lies on during her impurity shall be unclean; also everything that she sits on shall be unclean. ²¹Whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. ²²And whoever touches anything that she sat on shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. ²³If anything is on her bed or on anything on which she sits, when he touches it, he shall be unclean until evening. ²⁴And if any man lies with her at all, so that her impurity is on him, he shall be unclean seven days; and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean.
²⁵"If a woman has a discharge of blood for many days, other than at the time of her customary impurity, or if it runs beyond her usual time of impurity, all the days of her unclean discharge shall be as the days of her customary impurity. She shall be unclean. ²⁶Every bed on which she lies all the days of her discharge shall be to her as the bed of her impurity; and whatever she sits on shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her impurity. ²⁷Whoever touches those things shall be unclean; he shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening.
²⁸"But if she is cleansed of her discharge, then she shall count for herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. ²⁹And on the eighth day she shall take for herself two turtledoves or two young pigeons, and bring them to the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of meeting. ³⁰Then the priest shall offer the one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering, and the priest shall make atonement for her before the LORD for the discharge of her uncleanness.
³¹"Thus you shall separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness, lest they die in their uncleanness when they defile My tabernacle that is among them. ³²This is the law for one who has a discharge, and for him who emits semen and is unclean thereby, ³³and for her who is indisposed because of her customary impurity, and for one who has a discharge, either man or woman, and for him who lies with her who is unclean."'

04. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

Leviticus 25 *
⁴⁴And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have--from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves.

05. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

Exodus 35 *
²Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh day shall be a holy day for you, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.

06. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Leviticus 11 *
¹⁰But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you.

07. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Leviticus 21 *
²⁰or is a hunchback or a dwarf, or a man who has a defect in his eye, or eczema or scab, or is a eunuch.

08. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

Leviticus 19 *
²⁷You shall not shave around the sides of your head, nor shall you disfigure the edges of your beard.

09. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

Leviticus 11 *
⁶the hare, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you; ⁷and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. ⁸Their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch. They are unclean to you.

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev. 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

Leviticus 19 *
¹⁹"You shall keep My statutes. You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind. You shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you.

Leviticus 24 *
The Penalty for Blasphemy
¹⁰ Now the son of an Israelite woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel; and this Israelite woman's son and a man of Israel fought each other in the camp. ¹¹And the Israelite woman's son blasphemed the name of the LORD and cursed; and so they brought him to Moses. (His mother's name was Shelomith the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.) ¹²Then they put him in custody, that the mind of the LORD might be shown to them.
¹³And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ¹⁴"Take outside the camp him who has cursed; then let all who heard him lay their hands on his head, and let all the congregation stone him.
¹⁵"Then you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying: "Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin. ¹⁶And whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land. When he blasphemes the name of the LORD, he shall be put to death.

Leviticus 20 *
¹⁴If a man marries a woman and her mother, it is wickedness. They shall be burned with fire, both he and they, that there may be no wickedness among you.

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Jack Ballinger

Writer confirmed:

My name is: Jack Ballinger

On your page (http://www.skfriends.com/02.htm#03) you have a
"Letter to Dr. Laura". You state that "Writer cannot be confirmed."
Well. here's confirmation! If possible, please do as other sites have and
include a link to my NYCHA Spotlight  site at http://NYCHA-Spotlight.com.
If that's a problem, forget it. Leaving the letter as is causes me no
problem.

Thanks!

Jack Ballinger
E-Mail = webmaster@nycha-spotlight.com
Web-Page = <http://NYCHA-Spotlight.com>