Broccoli protect from a lung cancer

Tweet



Broccoli helps the immune system to remove from lung disease-causing bacteria, experimentally established staff at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore (Maryland, USA).

To ensure proper operation of the lungs, white blood cells - macrophages - remove foreign matter and bacteria that can accumulate there and cause infection. This "purification system" is faulty in smokers and people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, a combination of emphysema and bronchitis), which suffer from frequent infections.

Researchers have established that the chemical path in the lungs called NRF2, involved in the activation of macrophages, is destroyed by smoking. It was also found that sulforaphane - plant chemicals produced by broccoli, cauliflower and other cruciferous vegetables is damaged - is able to restore the path NRF2.

At the first stage of the experiment, scientists have defective macrophages from the lungs 43 people with COPD and treated them with two strains of bacteria commonly causing infections associated with COPD. In the presence of sulforaphane way NRF2 became stronger, and the ability of macrophages to recognize and absorb the bacteria recovered.

In the second phase, researchers exposed mice to environmental tobacco smoke for a week or six months. The result showed that both groups increased bacterial colonization of the lung, similar to that observed during COPD. But after treatment, mice sulforafanom their lungs became more clear in the bacterial respect. According to experts, not only sulforaphane activated a greater number of macrophages, but also improves the functionality already present cells.

Sulforaphane "lives " in the broccoli in the form of a substance precursor is converted into an active part under the influence of enzymes present in saliva, and intestinal bacteria. The concentration of this enzyme in all people are different, and the dose of sulforaphane, derived from food, each also has its own. To definitively determine whether a beneficial effect of sulforaphane-containing products on the immune defense is required to conduct experiments on humans.

Baltimore team of specialists has already begun the second phase of clinical trials of sulforaphane in patients with COPD. The purpose of this study - to determine whether this substance improves lung function and the results will be obtained no earlier than three years.

Big beer drinkers at big risk for stomach cancer

Heavy beer drinkers have an increased risk of gastric cancer, especially if they possess a certain gene variant, a new study suggests.

People who drink two to three beers a day for many years have a 75 percent increased risk of gastric cancer, and those who have the gene variant called rs1230025 but aren't heavy drinkers have a 30 percent higher risk of gastric cancer, compared with people who drank less than a beer daily, the study showed.

But people who are both chronic heavy beer drinkers and possess rs1230025 have a more than 700 percent increased risk of gastric cancer compared with people who consume less than one drink a day and don't have the gene variation, said study researcher Eric Duell, a senior epidemiologist at the Catalan Institute of Oncology in Barcelona, Spain. The gene variant is common and is present in about 20 percent of the general population, he said.

However, wine and liquor don't seem to carry the same gastric cancer risks, Duell said.

"The share of the risk from total alcoholic beverages seems to be dominated by the alcohol contributed from beer consumption," Duell told MyHealthNewsDaily. "Consumption of wine and liquor did not show elevated risk of gastric cancer," which could be because heavy drinkers may be more likely to drink beer than other alcoholic beverages.

The findings are correlated, meaning there is a link between beer drinking and gastric cancer risk, but the results can't speak to whether one caused the other or some other factor is responsible.

Duell and his colleagues analyzed the alcohol consumption and gastric cancer status of 521,000 people ages 35 to 70, who were part of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition in 1992 and 1998. Researchers noted whether the study participants consumed wine, beer or liquor regularly, and the location and severity of their gastric cancer, if any.

Researchers found that people who regularly consumed more than 60 grams of alcohol (equivalent to four to five beers) a day had a 65 percent higher risk of developing gastric cancer over the study period than people who regularly drank 0.1 to 4.9 grams of alcohol a day (less than a beer ).

When researchers looked purely at beer consumption (instead of general alcohol consumption), gastric cancer risk increased, as it did when the researchers looked at people who were heavy drinkers and had the gene variant rs1230025.

Gastric cancer, also known as stomach cancer, caused 10,570 deaths in the United States last year and usually strikes people ages 65 and older, according to the National Cancer Institute. One in 114 people will be diagnosed with the cancer in their lifetime.

Researchers aren't sure why only beer seems to produce this gastric cancer risk and not wine or liquor, Duell said, but it could be a combination of higher consumption of beer than wine or liquor, and the specific carcinogens that are produced when beer is metabolized.

When alcohol is metabolized in the body, a known carcinogen called acetaldehyde is produced. Beer in particular also contains low levels of a known animal carcinogen called N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA). Prolonged exposure to both acetaldehyde and NDMA, via daily beer drinking, could play a role in gastric cancer risk, Duell said.

And if heavy drinkers tend to drink more beer than wine or liquor, then those low amounts of acetaldehyde and NDMA could build up to increase gastric cancer risk, he said.
Because of these risks, people should avoid heavy consumption of alcohol, Duell said, though light to moderate consumption of alcohol is OK.
Next, Duell and his colleagues hope to do additional research to find more gene variants that could have an effect on gastric cancer risk.

Tweet

Berry, raspberry and simple seeds are killing the cancer

Properties of berries, raspberries studied American scientists from Clemson University. The result was obtained by a unique result: it turned out that Berry is endowed with a number of useful properties. One of them - anti cancerous.

Experts have created a raspberry extract, after which he worked on the tumor cells in the rat intestine. It was finally destroyed at least 90% of malignant cells. The fact that the berry in its composition contains antioxidants, has been known previously. But doctors say with confidence that it is not they are working on cancer, and the unknown substance. To find out exactly what will be carried out further investigations.

On the anti-cancer properties of black raspberry has been known for a long time. Now experts clarify helpful if all varieties of raspberries, and whether the forces of all the cells to neutralize the deadly disease.

But that's not all. Those American scientists, but the University of Illinois, conducted the study, the results showed: number of tumors - colon, ovarian, breast, skin and lungs - are able to inhibit simple seeds.

Study were smokers. Throughout the year birds were added to the diet simple seeds. As a result, the number of tumors in chickens, even late-stage disease, decreased significantly. In addition, it was markedly reduced dissemination of ovarian cancer. All the birds regained normal weight, reaching optimal performance.

Experts say that if these studies will be further confirmed, in the future, sunflower seeds may be able to use as an adjuvantfor the treatment for cancer.

As previously reported, in the prevention of formation of cancer cells showed a high efficiency retinoic acid - a derivative of vitamin A. This acid has shown correlation with beta-receptor acid RAR-H, which indicates an increase in the positive dynamics in the fight against cancer.

Tweet

How does RADIATION ON THE HUMAN BODY

Disaster in Japan has forced humanity to speak again with anxiety about the dangers of radiation. But the real horror is that to understand this without special knowledge is impossible.

Fear is all incomprehensible. To sort out what on television telling the experts, the ordinary man more difficult because the measuring radiation levels and to assess its risks are still using a dozen different units. X-rays, bery (the biological equivalent of radiation), curie, Grays, Becquerel, Sievert - they are so many precisely because for many decades, all work on nuclear issues, strictly confidential, and each country has its unit of measurement.

In recent years, to measure radiation levels to apply the new international unit - the sievert and thousands and millions of shares. In these units report to the data on the situation and the Japanese. The true meaning of this unit only understand physicists, but we need to know that the maximum safe dose for humans is 100 millisieverts per hour. Natural background radiation is from 12 to 16 micro sievert per hour.

Now, the real danger. Radiation dose of 1-2 Sievert per hour (ie 1-2 million micro sievert!) Can cause radiation sickness. Single irradiation dose of 3.5 sievert damages the bone marrow so much that without adequate care for a month or two are killed every other person. Higher doses of damaging the lungs and gastrointestinal tract - the death occurs within 10-20 days. A dose higher than 15 sievert can kill a person in a matter of days.

When hydrogen explosion at a Japanese nuclear power plant in the atmosphere were radioactive iodine and cesium. The half-life of iodine - 8 days, that is, a week later the dose is reduced exactly by half. And after 40 days it will be completely safe. The half-life of cesium is 30 years old, which means that, falling to the ground from the atmosphere, it will be a long time to accumulate in the environment - plants, animals and humans. In the body it penetrates the respiratory system and digestion, accumulates in muscle and liver. Biological half-life of cesium from the body considered equal to 70 days.

That is, if he ceases to act in person with air and food, we finally cleared the organism from him about a year. But in reality, this time may be more or less - a lot depends on health, nutrition, use of different sorbents that bind him and excreted. In this capacity, using barium sulfate, sodium alginate, and others. To calculate the radiation dose specifically to each individual, to the radiation background is multiplied by the time that people spent in contaminated areas.

For emergency prevention of radiation sickness usually applied iodine. He quickly accumulated in the thyroid gland, radioactive iodine, and there's just no room left. That is why the Japanese authorities have ordered to give tablets containing iodine, all the evacuees from the area of the accident.

FDA OKs new 3-D breast scan, risks unclear

Better detection carries trade-off of more radiation exposure. U.S. health officials have approved Hologic Inc's 3-D mammogram system in hopes that it may help doctors better detect and diagnose breast cancer, even though women may be exposed to more radiation.

The device, an upgrade to the company's already approved 2-D system, offers physicians a more detailed look at the breast to see any possible anomalies, the Food and Drug Administration said on Friday.
Shares of Hologic were up 1.3 percent at $19.98 in afternoon Nasdaq trading after the news.

Traditional mammograms are still the best way to find breast cancer, the FDA said in a statement, but the limited technology requires some women to have additional testing. Reviewing an additional 3-D image helped doctors find more cancers than with 2-D images alone, it said.
However, the additional 3-D testing does double the amount of radiation given to patients and "there is uncertainty for radiation risk estimates," FDA said.

Still, the more-detailed scans "improved the accuracy with which radiologists detected cancers, decreasing the number of women recalled for a diagnostic work-up."

Death rate for lung cancer among women declines

Decline is small -- under 1 percent -- but anticipation for continuing drop is great. For the first time, women's death rates from lung cancer are dropping, possibly a turning point in the smoking-fueled epidemic.

It's a small decline, says the nation's annual report on cancer — just under 1 percent a year. And lung cancer remains the nation's, and the world's, leading cancer killer. But the long-anticipated drop — coming more than a decade after a similar decline began in U.S. men — is a hopeful sign.
"It looks like we've turned the corner," said Elizabeth Ward of the American Cancer Society, who co-authored Thursday's report. "We think this downward trend is real, and we think it will continue."

Overall, death rates from cancer have been inching down for years, thanks mostly to gains against some leading types — colorectal, breast, prostate and, in men, lung cancer. Preventing cancer is better than treating it, and the country has documented smaller but real declines in new cases as well.
The report shows death rates falling an average of 1.6 percent a year between 2003 and 2007, the latest data available. Rates of new diagnoses declined nearly 1 percent a year, researchers reported in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

But progress is mixed, with diagnoses and deaths still on the rise for other cancer types including melanoma, liver, kidney and pancreatic cancer.
Moreover, cancer is primarily a disease of older adults and the population is graying rapidly, a challenge in maintaining the gains.Lung cancer is expected to kill more than 159,000 Americans this year, nearly 70,500 of them women. So even a small improvement in survival is welcome, and can add up over time, said Ward.

Smoking became rampant among men long before women, and thus men's lung cancer deaths soared first. But in the early 1990s, death rates began dropping among men as older smokers died and fewer younger men took up the habit. Those rates were dropping 3 percent a year between 2005 and 2007, the new report said.

Researchers had long anticipated the same pattern would appear among women, and had been tracking signs that women's death rates had begun inching down for a few years. But only now with a solid five-year trend are they confident that the decline is real, said National Cancer Institute statistician Brenda Edwards, a report co-author.

But Edwards noted that the cigarette industry targeted advertising toward women in late 1960s and '70s, what she calls "the Virginia Slims effect" that boosted smoking among young women at the time. It's possible that those women will temporarily bump up the death count again as they age, she said.

What about new lung cancer diagnoses? There are indications that that rate is dropping, too, but Edwards notes that the smoking rate varies widely geographically.
Perhaps more troubling is that progress at getting men and women to kick the habit has stalled in the past decade.
The news is "encouraging, but we have to be cautious," said Dr. V. Craig Jordan of Georgetown University's Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center.

As Congress considers how much money to budget for medical research this year and next, Jordan worried that cutting investments in cancer research and tobacco control could reverse hard-won gains.
"Like all battles, you just let up a little bit and it's all over," he said.
Among the report's other findings:
—Survival of childhood cancer is continuing a decades-long climb, but new diagnoses are continuing to inch upward, too.

—New cases of breast cancer had abruptly dropped in 2002 and 2003, as many women abandoned postmenopausal hormone therapy. That decline has leveled off.—Prostate cancer marked a small uptick in diagnoses between 2005 and 2007 but not enough to be statistically significant.
—Cancer death rates remain highest among black patients, but those patients also have experienced the largest drop in deaths over the past decade.
—Among men, incidence of melanoma, liver, kidney and pancreatic cancers continues to rise. Women show increases in melanoma, leukemia, kidney, thyroid and pancreatic cancer.
—Deaths continue to rise for melanoma in men, uterine cancer in women and liver and pancreatic cancer in both.

In addition, the report provides the first in-depth look at brain tumors since the nation formally began counting non-cancerous types in 2004. That's important, since even non-malignant brain tumors can require debilitating treatment and can kill.
Brain tumors are far more rare in children than in adults — but the tumors are more likely to be cancerous in children and non-cancerous in adults. The researchers couldn't explain why.
Nearly two-thirds of childhood brain tumors were malignant, compared to a third among adults.

Survival has improved for adults with any type of brain tumor and for children who experience non-cancerous kinds. But the past decade has brought no improvement in death rates for children with brain cancer.

In land of YouTube dislikes, Justin Bieber rules

Happy Friday, everyone. If you'll allow me, I'd like to take a moment to talk about something serious.

In a move I believe is best for everyone (but mostly me), I am switching gears to only cover facets of pop culture and toilet humor. I will also be switching focus to online education. It's come to my attention that this is a lucrative area, and leveraging my authority on information and data graphics, I believe I can become a rich man and retire by age thirty, quite possibly making four figures even sooner.

Yes, there are other types of data in the world, perhaps more serious, interesting, and worth knowing, but the Web is not for serious or sad things. The Web is a place of free-flowing ideas (therefore this site's name) that revolve around things that matter to today's youth such as Justin Bieber and his new haircut. Case in point: the nearing shut down of Data.gov.

Most of you are probably not even reading this since there are several pictures of the teen dream above. Plus there are quite a few words here. Lengthy.

The above graphic is my first step towards my goal. With data courtesy of ReadWriteWeb, you can see the top ten videos with the most dislikes on YouTube. Some videos, like Friday from Rebecca Black, are hated by many, while other videos simply have a ton of views, and there's no way to please everyone.

This brings up another point. I know that many of you will be displeased with my choice like when I quit data altogether, but again, I do believe this is for the best. When you have a dream, you have to go for it, or you'll end up wondering "what if...?" and that is no way to live, my friend.

And so one chapter ends and a new one begins in the book of Nathan. Today, April 1, will forever be known (to me) as the day I changed my life. I hope you'll join me in this journey, but if not, please still tell your friends to visit FlowingData for all their online education needs. Thanks.

Secrets of style Sharon Stone: as in 53 years old look at 30

The other day Sharon Stone celebrated its 53 anniversary and once again proved that she is able as ever to surprise and shock the public. To celebrate his birthday with friends the actress went to Hollywood nightclub «Voyuer». And involuntarily pleased with his appearance, not only the paparazzi, but for all fans of his undying beauty.

For a birthday, Sharon chose more than provocative attire: tight leather pants, black girdle and a top of a transparent purple fabric. Under the highly translucent blouse Sharon - either intentionally or because of coquetry - not wearing underwear. Free from the shackles of beauty actress clearly viewed through the transparent fabric, clearly proving: Sharon is still in great shape!

Sharon went to a nightclub in provocative attire: black leather pants, girdle, and a transparent purple top. Under a transparent blouse actress - whether intentionally, or unintentionally - not wearing underwear. Pleased with the paparazzi immediately clicked cameras. A mischievous child, Sharon did not think to be embarrassed, smiling radiantly photographers and signing autographs for everyone. Paparazzi and the party guests could see for themselves: in their 1953 actress in great form.

The main principle of the actress: Do not think about age and wear what suits you! At six decades, Sharon has steadfastly refused to grow old and looks much younger than his years. The main principle of the actress - forget about the age and wear what you-to-face. In the locker room, Sharon is no (or almost no) dark and dull dresses, which are usually transferred women of elegant age. "hooligan" Stone still does not deny myself the pleasure to walk down the street in mini-dresses or tight leggings, often buying for themselves frankly youth thing.

Of course, not every woman her age can boast a stunning figure, you can wear his short skirts and shorts. Nevertheless, some ideas from the wardrobe of Sharon is to adopt.

Half a million die from smoking yearly in U.S.

Smoking causes half a million deaths each year in the U.S., killing slightly more men than women, new statistics show. The rates of smoking-related deaths in men were comparable to what's been found in other recent analyses. The numbers for the women, however, were higher than expected.

The study, published in the journal Epidemiology, is "an important reminder that this huge epidemic...needs ongoing measurement," said Dr. Prabhat Jha, who studies smoking mortality and heads the Center for Global Health Research at St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto.
"We just can't assume that we know enough about where this epidemic is going," Jha, who was not involved in the current study, told Reuters Health.
For the new report, Dr. Brian Rostron, then of the University of California, Berkeley, used data from a national health survey that asked nearly 250,000 people if and how much they smoked currently and in the past.
Participants were tracked for 2 to 9 years after filling out the survey. By the time the study ended, in 2006, about 17,000 of them had died.
Rostron, who now works at the Food and Drug Administration, calculated the odds of dying for smokers and non-smokers of different ages and genders.

Then he applied the extra risks due to smoking to the total U.S. population. According to his calculations, there were an average of about 290,000 smoking-related deaths in men each year between 2002 and 2006 and 230,000 in women - a total of over half a million deaths.
In all, about 2.5 million people in the U.S. die every year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Among all current and former smokers, the greatest increase in risk of a tobacco-related death was seen between the ages of 65 and 74. Once other factors such as weight and alcohol consumption were taken into account, people in that age group were three times as likely to die from any cause if they currently smoked between one and two packs of cigarettes a day, compared to if they had never smoked.


As evidence of the risks of smoking has accumulated and spread, the number of current smokers in the U.S. has dropped over the past few decades.
A new study in The Journal of the American Medical Association confirms that trend: about 7 percent of adults in the U.S. were heavy smokers in 2007, compared to 23 percent in 1965. The researchers on that study, led by Dr. John Pierce of the University of California, San Diego, defined "heavy smoking" as 20 or more cigarettes a day.

Despite that good news, Jha said the new estimates show the need for more information on how smoking affects women. "It might well be that in women the effects are greater and more severe, but we need more evidence," he said.
Jha added that while rates of smoking and deaths from smoking have been falling over the long term in the U.S., they've been rising in low-income countries. Because of that, "overall the number of smoking-related deaths worldwide is bound to increase," Jha said.

Currently, there are about 5 to 6 million smoking-related deaths each year worldwide, he said.