Short-term exposure to high concentrations of tiny airborne particles does not hurt heart function, according to new research.
In earlier studies, people’s blood pressure spiked after even brief exposures to concentrated particulate air pollution. Taken together, the new work and previous studies suggest that the size and chemical makeup of the particles are more important indicators of health risk than the overall concentration in the air.
Scottish scientists tested 12 middle-aged men who had previously experienced a heart attack or undergone heart surgery and 12 age-matched, healthy men. Participants from each group were randomly assigned to sit for two hours in a chamber and breathe either filtered ambient air from Edinburgh or similar air with much higher concentrations of particles.
The team then measured heart rate, blood pressure and markers of inflammation in all the men. Those inhaling high concentrations of fine particles had similar markers of heart function as those breathing filtered air, the team reported in the June Environmental Health Perspectives.
Past studies have shown that similar exposure to high concentrations of particles from diesel exhaust raises blood pressure and constricts blood vessels, says Robert Brook, a cardiologist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor who was not involved in the study. Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire “This suggests that particulate matter source, composition or chemistry may play an important role in determining the cardiovascular health implications of exposure,” he says.
Edinburgh sits on the edge of the North Sea, and strong winds carry most pollutants away from the city. So sea salt formed the bulk of airborne particles in this study, says Nicholas Mills a physician at the Edinburgh University Center for Cardiovascular Science and the lead author of the new paper. And sea salt may be more innocuous than particulates formed by combustion, such as diesel particles, he says.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
teaching 6.tea.9 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
Larissa Patel dreamed of teaching English at a Brooklyn public school this fall, motivated by a desire to help low-income children. But instead, on Friday, Ms. Patel spent the day filling out applications for 30 jobs at private schools.
Ms. Patel’s abrupt change in plans was precipitated by a new citywide ban on hiring teachers from outside the school system.
“Suddenly, overnight, I am rethinking my entire career,” said Ms. Patel, 30, a student at St. John’s University who left a job in the digital imaging industry to work as a substitute teacher and pursue an education degree. “It’s a very bleak point in time. It’s forced me to sort of look in a new direction.”
In an effort to cut costs and avoid teacher layoffs, the Department of Education on Wednesday ordered principals to fill vacancies with internal candidates only. As a result, aspiring teachers at education schools and members of programs like Teach for America — a corps of recent college graduates — and the city’s Teaching Fellows — which trains career professionals to become teachers — are scrambling for jobs.
Many are forwarding their résumés to charter schools and private schools; others are looking to the suburbs and across state lines. Some are reconsidering the teaching profession altogether.
“This was a pretty big bomb that dropped,” said Pam Ritchie, 43, a substitute teacher in Park Slope, Brooklyn, who had hoped the connections she developed would land her a permanent job in the fall. “I’m devastated.”
Ms. Ritchie was looking to leave behind the on-call lifestyle of a substitute teacher and finally have her own classroom with regular students and regular pay. “I have to stick with this until I get a job,” she said. “This is what I want to do.”
The Department of Education typically hires thousands of teachers for the start of school each September. In 2008, it hired 5,725 educators — 1,792 from the Teach for America and the Teaching Fellows programs, and 3,933 who, by and large, came from schools of education.
But this year, the department anticipates fewer openings and will not hire externally except in certain high-needs areas like speech therapy and bilingual special education. Instead, principals can fill spots only with internal candidates, including teachers from a reserve pool made up of those whose jobs have been eliminated and many who have earned unsatisfactory ratings.
Schools that opened in the past two years and are still expanding their ranks are also exempt from the hiring restrictions, as are charter schools.
Vicki Bernstein, executive director of teacher recruitment and quality for the Department of Education, said the news came as a surprise to many prospective teachers who had considered New York City an attractive option because of its historically high demand for teachers.
Ms. Bernstein’s office informed job seekers on Thursday that some hiring restrictions could be lifted by the end of the summer if there was a dearth of internal candidates in certain neighborhoods or subjects.
“They should remain committed and flexible,” Ms. Bernstein said, “so when and if there are opportunities, they are poised to be considered.”
It remains unclear how long the ban on outside hires will last.
Teachers from traditional pathways like education schools are likely to suffer the most under the new hiring restrictions. The city still plans to hire about half the usual number of educators from Teach for America and the Teaching Fellows program, but it has not made similar guarantees for other teachers. (Breaking with past practice, however, the city will not pay the salaries of Teach for America and Teaching Fellows educators if they do not find jobs by the fall.)
Some teachers had already received informal offers from principals but now find themselves dusting off their résumés and backing out of housing arrangements.
As news of the hiring restrictions trickled out, many education school students left frantic messages for principals asking for work. Others fired off anxious messages to e-mail lists and online discussion boards.
Aida Sanchez, a student at Teachers College at Columbia University who hopes to work with children in Harlem, Washington Heights or the Bronx, said that it was unfair to give an advantage to educators from nontraditional backgrounds like Teach for America. Ms. Sanchez is waiting to see how the city’s school budgets look when they are released this month, but said she was considering getting certified to teach in New Jersey. In the meantime, she is pursuing certification in special education in the hope of being hired under the exception.
“I am really eager to go in the teaching direction,” she said. “Now it’s kind of like you really don’t know where you’re going to be.”
Joshua P. Stager, 24, a high school teacher in Oregon who is looking for work in New York City because his wife is starting piano studies at Manhattan School of Music in the fall, said the hiring restrictions did not surprise him, given the state of the economy. For the past several months, he has made a morning ritual out of typing “New York schools” and “budget” into Google and waiting for the headlines. On Thursday, he said, “I had a little freak-out moment.”
“I’m opening up to the possibility of not getting an education job,” said Mr. Stager, adding that he and his wife had started limiting expenses as a precaution.
On Thursday, Ms. Patel, the St. John’s student who hopes to teach English, made a final pitch to principals at her four dream schools in Brooklyn. They said they did not have openings. Until she finds a permanent job, Ms. Patel plans to continue as a substitute.
“The stability in teaching was something that was I looking for,” she said. “That has been turned on its head.”
Larissa Patel dreamed of teaching English at a Brooklyn public school this fall, motivated by a desire to help low-income children. But instead, on Friday, Ms. Patel spent the day filling out applications for 30 jobs at private schools.
Ms. Patel’s abrupt change in plans was precipitated by a new citywide ban on hiring teachers from outside the school system.
“Suddenly, overnight, I am rethinking my entire career,” said Ms. Patel, 30, a student at St. John’s University who left a job in the digital imaging industry to work as a substitute teacher and pursue an education degree. “It’s a very bleak point in time. It’s forced me to sort of look in a new direction.”
In an effort to cut costs and avoid teacher layoffs, the Department of Education on Wednesday ordered principals to fill vacancies with internal candidates only. As a result, aspiring teachers at education schools and members of programs like Teach for America — a corps of recent college graduates — and the city’s Teaching Fellows — which trains career professionals to become teachers — are scrambling for jobs.
Many are forwarding their résumés to charter schools and private schools; others are looking to the suburbs and across state lines. Some are reconsidering the teaching profession altogether.
“This was a pretty big bomb that dropped,” said Pam Ritchie, 43, a substitute teacher in Park Slope, Brooklyn, who had hoped the connections she developed would land her a permanent job in the fall. “I’m devastated.”
Ms. Ritchie was looking to leave behind the on-call lifestyle of a substitute teacher and finally have her own classroom with regular students and regular pay. “I have to stick with this until I get a job,” she said. “This is what I want to do.”
The Department of Education typically hires thousands of teachers for the start of school each September. In 2008, it hired 5,725 educators — 1,792 from the Teach for America and the Teaching Fellows programs, and 3,933 who, by and large, came from schools of education.
But this year, the department anticipates fewer openings and will not hire externally except in certain high-needs areas like speech therapy and bilingual special education. Instead, principals can fill spots only with internal candidates, including teachers from a reserve pool made up of those whose jobs have been eliminated and many who have earned unsatisfactory ratings.
Schools that opened in the past two years and are still expanding their ranks are also exempt from the hiring restrictions, as are charter schools.
Vicki Bernstein, executive director of teacher recruitment and quality for the Department of Education, said the news came as a surprise to many prospective teachers who had considered New York City an attractive option because of its historically high demand for teachers.
Ms. Bernstein’s office informed job seekers on Thursday that some hiring restrictions could be lifted by the end of the summer if there was a dearth of internal candidates in certain neighborhoods or subjects.
“They should remain committed and flexible,” Ms. Bernstein said, “so when and if there are opportunities, they are poised to be considered.”
It remains unclear how long the ban on outside hires will last.
Teachers from traditional pathways like education schools are likely to suffer the most under the new hiring restrictions. The city still plans to hire about half the usual number of educators from Teach for America and the Teaching Fellows program, but it has not made similar guarantees for other teachers. (Breaking with past practice, however, the city will not pay the salaries of Teach for America and Teaching Fellows educators if they do not find jobs by the fall.)
Some teachers had already received informal offers from principals but now find themselves dusting off their résumés and backing out of housing arrangements.
As news of the hiring restrictions trickled out, many education school students left frantic messages for principals asking for work. Others fired off anxious messages to e-mail lists and online discussion boards.
Aida Sanchez, a student at Teachers College at Columbia University who hopes to work with children in Harlem, Washington Heights or the Bronx, said that it was unfair to give an advantage to educators from nontraditional backgrounds like Teach for America. Ms. Sanchez is waiting to see how the city’s school budgets look when they are released this month, but said she was considering getting certified to teach in New Jersey. In the meantime, she is pursuing certification in special education in the hope of being hired under the exception.
“I am really eager to go in the teaching direction,” she said. “Now it’s kind of like you really don’t know where you’re going to be.”
Joshua P. Stager, 24, a high school teacher in Oregon who is looking for work in New York City because his wife is starting piano studies at Manhattan School of Music in the fall, said the hiring restrictions did not surprise him, given the state of the economy. For the past several months, he has made a morning ritual out of typing “New York schools” and “budget” into Google and waiting for the headlines. On Thursday, he said, “I had a little freak-out moment.”
“I’m opening up to the possibility of not getting an education job,” said Mr. Stager, adding that he and his wife had started limiting expenses as a precaution.
On Thursday, Ms. Patel, the St. John’s student who hopes to teach English, made a final pitch to principals at her four dream schools in Brooklyn. They said they did not have openings. Until she finds a permanent job, Ms. Patel plans to continue as a substitute.
“The stability in teaching was something that was I looking for,” she said. “That has been turned on its head.”
Saturday, May 2, 2009
stigma 3.sti 8 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire We have a well-honed ability for branding the undesirable attributes of “others.” This natural human tendency has evolved and persists for a reason: The definition of an outcast group helps society to delineate its “normal” boundaries. But this inclination can also breed counterproductive stigmas that are rooted in ignorance and that too often translate into staggering individual, social and economic costs. http://Louis-j-sheehan.com This makes the need to understand and confront these types of stigmas much more than a purely academic goal.
Sociologists like Gerhard Falk are quick to distinguish between “existential” stigmas (spurred by conditions like mental illness, over which the target has little or no control) and “achieved” stigmas (perceived as earned by the subject’s own actions, like criminal behaviors). At first blush, this tidy classification appears to provide a satisfying framework for deciding the ethical, moral and even legal standing of stigmas. But sometimes it fails—for instance, when deciding how to assign drug abusing or addicted individuals to either category. Clearly, while substance-use disorders are themselves recognized psychiatric conditions, their trajectories begin with seemingly voluntary action, often tinged with criminal—or at least deviant—overtones. In other words, the stigma associated with these disorders displays both existential and achieved qualities, a thorny state of affairs that poses unique challenges for public health stakeholders and policymakers.
Fortunately, it is possible to sidestep what would otherwise be a paralyzing social stigma and leverage substantial resources for the good of all. For example, as biomedical advances prodded society to recognize that AIDS was preventable and treatable, attitudes toward the disease and its victims evolved. As a result, the stigma associated with HIV status may not have been eliminated, but it is no longer the roadblock to effective health policy that it once was. This lesson should serve us well as we refine our stance vis-á-vis drug abuse and addiction, where multiple lines of research support an approach based on science, not on stigma.
First, we have gathered incontrovertible evidence showing that addiction is a disease of the brain. Most drugs of abuse exert their initial reinforcing effects by inducing dopamine surges in the brain’s reward centers. If they persist, such disturbances eventually disrupt other circuits, many of which are critical to a person’s self-control. Second, we now know that abuse and addiction do not occur in a vacuum. A smart approach to managing these disorders must consider contributions from a bewildering array of predisposing or complicating factors, such as poverty, urban decay, child abuse and neglect, chronic stress, comorbid disease, and genetic background. Third, cost-effective and efficacious treatments are available that can be adapted to many community settings. Research shows, for example, that the integration of drug abuse treatment into the criminal justice system facilitates an individual’s successful reentry into society, with positive impacts on public health and safety.
These and other developments are the products of a new generation of interdisciplinary scientists who have transformed our understanding of psychiatric disorders like addiction. The message is unmistakable: Whether addiction stigma is existential or achieved or somewhere in between, it is time to replace outdated and failed thinking with approaches that work. The evidence demands that we:
* Develop and support naturally reinforcing alternatives to shield youth from dangerous forms of experimentation.
* Educate and engage the medical community so it can detect and address substance-use disorders early and act appropriately.
* Encourage and reward partnerships with the pharmaceutical industry to dramatically enhance the R&D success rate of addiction medications.
* Open up and broaden affordable access to available addiction treatments for every population that needs them, in a manner that guarantees privacy and that does not affect insurability.
This agenda is admittedly lofty, but the scientific method, which has been successful at shattering prejudices and enlightening societies, is on our side. If we can translate the fruits of research into policies that work, building public confidence in the science of addiction treatment, we will be well on our way to making the addiction stigma a relic of the past.
We are at a historical crossroads. We can continue playing the blame game, piling up unimaginable health and economic costs. Or, we can parlay the transformative power of scientific discovery into a brighter future for addicted individuals, for their families and for society at large. Let us choose wisely.
Sociologists like Gerhard Falk are quick to distinguish between “existential” stigmas (spurred by conditions like mental illness, over which the target has little or no control) and “achieved” stigmas (perceived as earned by the subject’s own actions, like criminal behaviors). At first blush, this tidy classification appears to provide a satisfying framework for deciding the ethical, moral and even legal standing of stigmas. But sometimes it fails—for instance, when deciding how to assign drug abusing or addicted individuals to either category. Clearly, while substance-use disorders are themselves recognized psychiatric conditions, their trajectories begin with seemingly voluntary action, often tinged with criminal—or at least deviant—overtones. In other words, the stigma associated with these disorders displays both existential and achieved qualities, a thorny state of affairs that poses unique challenges for public health stakeholders and policymakers.
Fortunately, it is possible to sidestep what would otherwise be a paralyzing social stigma and leverage substantial resources for the good of all. For example, as biomedical advances prodded society to recognize that AIDS was preventable and treatable, attitudes toward the disease and its victims evolved. As a result, the stigma associated with HIV status may not have been eliminated, but it is no longer the roadblock to effective health policy that it once was. This lesson should serve us well as we refine our stance vis-á-vis drug abuse and addiction, where multiple lines of research support an approach based on science, not on stigma.
First, we have gathered incontrovertible evidence showing that addiction is a disease of the brain. Most drugs of abuse exert their initial reinforcing effects by inducing dopamine surges in the brain’s reward centers. If they persist, such disturbances eventually disrupt other circuits, many of which are critical to a person’s self-control. Second, we now know that abuse and addiction do not occur in a vacuum. A smart approach to managing these disorders must consider contributions from a bewildering array of predisposing or complicating factors, such as poverty, urban decay, child abuse and neglect, chronic stress, comorbid disease, and genetic background. Third, cost-effective and efficacious treatments are available that can be adapted to many community settings. Research shows, for example, that the integration of drug abuse treatment into the criminal justice system facilitates an individual’s successful reentry into society, with positive impacts on public health and safety.
These and other developments are the products of a new generation of interdisciplinary scientists who have transformed our understanding of psychiatric disorders like addiction. The message is unmistakable: Whether addiction stigma is existential or achieved or somewhere in between, it is time to replace outdated and failed thinking with approaches that work. The evidence demands that we:
* Develop and support naturally reinforcing alternatives to shield youth from dangerous forms of experimentation.
* Educate and engage the medical community so it can detect and address substance-use disorders early and act appropriately.
* Encourage and reward partnerships with the pharmaceutical industry to dramatically enhance the R&D success rate of addiction medications.
* Open up and broaden affordable access to available addiction treatments for every population that needs them, in a manner that guarantees privacy and that does not affect insurability.
This agenda is admittedly lofty, but the scientific method, which has been successful at shattering prejudices and enlightening societies, is on our side. If we can translate the fruits of research into policies that work, building public confidence in the science of addiction treatment, we will be well on our way to making the addiction stigma a relic of the past.
We are at a historical crossroads. We can continue playing the blame game, piling up unimaginable health and economic costs. Or, we can parlay the transformative power of scientific discovery into a brighter future for addicted individuals, for their families and for society at large. Let us choose wisely.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
