Heavy metals pollute Hyderabad and its suburbs

March 19, 2008
By Syed Akbar
Hyderabad, March 18: Rapid industrial and urban development in and around Hyderabad has taken a heavy toll of soils in neighbouring Ranga Reddy district with heavy metal contamination.
This is the first time that heavy metals have been found in considerable quantities in parts of Ranga Reddy district. A study by the city-based National Geophysical Research Institute revealed that soils in Ranga Reddy district are polluted by heavy metal, which are dangerous to the health of human beings and animals. Besides industrial growth, extensive use of agrochemicals in the last several decades has led to the accumulation of these metals in the surface soils, between 5 cm and 15 cm.
"These metals can infiltrate through the soil thereby causing ground water pollution," the study conducted by D Sujatha points out.
Heavy metals have a density of at least five times that of water and thus cannot be metabolised in the body. They go on accumulating in the body leading to major health problems. They affect mental functions, kidneys and lungs.
As part of the study, surface soil samples were obtained from south-eastern part of Ranga Reddy and analysed for the presence of 14 heavy metals like arsenic, barium, cobalt, chromium, copper, molybdenum, nickel, lead, rubidium, strontium, vanadium, yttrium, zinc and zirconium. The contamination of the soils was assessed on the basis of enrichment factor (ratio of metal), geoaccumulation index, contamination factor and degree of contamination.
The results reveal that variations in heavy element concentrations in the soil analysed have both geogenic (natural) and anthropogenic (human) contribution, due to the long period of constant human activities in the study area.
"The concentration of the metals like barium, rubidium, strontium, vanadium, yttrium and zirconium are interpreted to be mainly inherited from parent materials (rocks) and arsenic, cobalt, copper, chromium, molybdenum, nickel, lead and zinc concentrations show contribution from geogenic and anthropogenic sources. The major element variations in soils are determined by the composition of the parent material predominantly involving granites," the NGRI study said.

Toilet seat 400 times cleaner than desktop

March 12, 2008
By Syed Akbar
Hyderabad: Which is cleaner, telephone receiver or toilet
seat?
A toilet seat is about 400 times cleaner than the desktop and several hundred times cleaner than the telephone receiver.
According to Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, physician-surgeon and popular science author from Australia, in terms of bacteria per square inch, telephone receiver is the filthiest with 25,127 bacteria per sq. inch. This is followed by the desktop at 20,961, the computer key board at 3295 and the computer mouse at 1676. The least contaminated surface was the toilet seat with only 49 bacteria per square inch, making it about
400 times cleaner than the desktop.
"For bacteria the desk is really the laptop of luxury. They can feast all day from breakfast to lunch and even dinner. Your desk is the second `germiest' place in the office," he says.
Explaining why the toilet seat is always the cleanest site, Dr Karl, who is currently in Hyderabad to popularise science and clear "myth conceptions", said the toilet seat is too dry to provide a good home to a large population of bacteria. "If you went to the trouble of using their sponsor's antibacterial wipes in toilets, you could drop the bacteria count by about 99.9 per cent".
Referring to lie-detectors and truth serum tests, Dr Karl says an innocent person is at more risk of being caught by lie-detectors and truth serum than professional criminals and habitual liars. "There's no truth in truth serum and lie-detector is a great lie," he points out. Since these equipment work on the heart beat and breathing of a person being subjected to such tests, an innocent person develops anxiety and the results become positive, he said in an exclusive interview with this
correspondent.
One of the great summer myths is that a fan will cool a room. A fan cannot cool a room. It can only cool the people who are sitting in the room.
"Think about a day when the air is cooler than your skin. On average, your body generates about 100 watts of waste heat (about as much as a light bulb). If there's no wind, this heat creates a thin layer of warm air that sits next to your skin. Once this layer has warmed up to skin temperature, it becomes a very good heat barrier. Heat cannot pass into this layer from your skin, because heat cannot normally travel only from a hot place to a cooler place. As your skin temperature increases, you begin to feel uncomfortable. The only way out of this cycle is to
move around, or to sweat. But when a fan blows wind across your skin, it pushes away this warm layer of air and you will feel cooler."
He also clears the popular myth that people will lose eye sight if they look at the sun during eclipses. During eclipses the sun does not emit new and strange forms of damaging radiation but continues to squirt out what it always has.
"But many people when given the chance never enjoy the free cosmic thrill of a total solar eclipse, because they believe the myth that looking at a solar eclipse or even being outdoors when it happens, will make you go blind. In fact a total eclipse of the Sun can be pretty harmless.
However, a partial eclipse, however, is far more dangerous as the sun still emits 99 per cent of its light."
And what about the so-called diet soft drinks? Aspartame, the common sweetener in low-calorie diet drinks, has not had an easy run since the FDA approved it in 1981. Aspartame is produced by combining two amino acids. These amino acids are, like the other 18 or so common amino acids, found in the proteins we eat as part of our regular food intake.
Some studies show that diet drinks with artificial sweeteners can stimulate the appetite, thus defeating the whole purpose of the diet drink.

Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani, Homoeopathy: Just don't dump alternative medicine

March 10, 2008
By Syed Akbar
Hyderabad, March 9: Complementary and alternative medicine plays its own role in controlling diseases and keeping the nation healthy. One should not dub these alternative systems of medicine as "fake" or "unscientific" without making a proper scientific study and assessment of their role in disease treatment. The importance of complementary and alternative medicine more popularly known as CAM in the West is
growing by the day as more and more patients are showing interest in it.
Health experts in the city are of the view that "when so many people use alternative treatments and derive benefit, it is not correct to lump them all together and throw them out".
But what is needed is that CAM should be studied in a proper scientific manner to know how exactly the alternative system of medicine works. Once such a scientific basis is established no one will ever dare to dub CAM as useless, they point out.
Not only in India but also in the USA and the UK, CAM is increasingly becoming popular. If statistics are to be believed more number of US and UK citizens are adopting CAM than Indians (percentage wise), where the CAM actually had its origin. The more popular CAM systems in India are Ayurveda, Unani and Siddha, besides
Homoeopathy.
On the other hand, CAM in the West parlance comprises acupuncture, Ayurvedic medicine and Homoeopathy or any diverse group of treatments, ranging from symptomatic interventions to be used in conjunction with allopathic therapies. Interestingly more and more patients are looking towards CAM to avoid chemotherapy and surgical procedures. Even taking a specific dietary supplement to lower blood
pressure or blood lipid concentrations also forms of CAM.
Studies reveal that nearly 33 per cent of patients in the USA use CAM therapy in conjunction with allopathy. For patients in the West, leading CAM therapies include natural products, meditation, chiropractic and massage.
"Symptoms most commonly treated with CAM therapies are musculoskeletal, respiratory and psychological symptoms," experts say.
Unfortunately, CAM therapies are generally not covered by medical insurance companies. Only a select few CAM treatment procedures fall under the purview of mediclaim policies. Despite being not covered under mediclaim, CAM therapies are increasingly becoming popular as patients are willing to pay from their pocket to keep themselves healthy and sound.
The major problem with CAM, as Dr Douglas Kamerow, former US assistant surgeon-general, says is the nature of CAM treatment. "They can be hard to quantify and hard to specify, and often they do not lend themselves to stand research techniques such a placebo controlled trials. I think a sensible approach is for doctors to inquire of patients what non-traditional treatments they are using, both for conditions that
the doctor knows about and is treating and for others that have not been dealt with. This will at least allow discussion and investigation of possible adverse interactions," he says.
Moreover, doctors should discuss truly complementary symptomatic CAM treatments for chronic pain, allergies or the like so that their scientific basis can be investigated and understood by the patient and the doctor, if possible. Alternative treatments for serious or life threatening diseases such as cancer, doctors should assess the scientific evidence for the treatment and try to understand the range of benefit the patient expects to receive from it, Dr Douglas suggests.

The truth about cosmetic surgery

March 10, 2008
By Syed Akbar
Hyderabad, March 9: "The desire to look better, younger and attractive to the opposite sex is what can be achieved by various cosmetic surgery procedures," says an advertisement of a hospital dealing with so-called cosmetic surgery.
No doubt, every person has a right to look good, but is cosmetic surgery needed for all to pep up one's image? "No", say senior doctors.
"Cosmetic surgery is needed for those in the glamour industry. After all fair image is their bread and butter. But does a physician or a teacher or a shop-keeper need cosmetic surgery? The need for cosmetic surgery arises only in the case of
deformities. Not everyone requires it," they argue.
Cosmetic surgery should not be confused with plastic surgery. While the former is performed to "pep up" the image, plastic surgery deals with rectifying natural deformities.
Cosmetic surgery, particularly the breast enhancement one, is wrought with
complications. The surgical results are not as rosy as they are projected by doctors. The usual complications include skin death or necrosis, asymmetry, slow healing, permanent loss of sensation and skin irregularities. Skin death may follow
an infection or hematoma and is much more likely among smokers. In such cases the skin is excised affecting the cosmetic outcome.
A second cosmetic surgery is required in case of moderate to severe asymmetries. If the cosmetic surgeon errs, the person undergoing cosmetic treatment may actually end up with skin irregularities, dimples, puckers, and divots. Fluid can collect
under the skin and can occur after breast augmentation, liposuction or a
tummy tuck.
However, not many know about the complications the cosmetic surgery throws up. Often the patients are kept in the dark by unscrupulous doctors or hospitals. Statistics show that about 20 per cent of women and five per cent of men in India undergo some kind of cosmetic enhancement procedures during their lifetime. And the percentage is increasing in India.
They point out that plastic surgery is needed in cases of commonest birth defects or congenital deformity involving paring or cleft of the upper lip on either or both sides, cranio facial defects, defects of ears or limb deformities. Facial
enhancement, however, is waste of money for those who actually do not require it.
India, moreover, does not need a large number of cosmetic surgeons. What the country really needs is general physicians, experts in cardiology, general surgery, neurology and other specialised areas where the country is behind other developing
nations.

Vitamin supplements are harmful

March 10, 2008
By Syed Akbar
Hyderabad, March 9: Vitamin and antioxidant supplements do more harm than good. In fact, daily consumption of vitamins and supplements from artificial (pharmaceutical) sources may lead to dangerous health complications including cancers of lung.
City health experts argue that what is prescribed as daily dosage of vitamins and minerals is actually sufficient for a month. "We require vitamin and mineral supplements in minute quantities. The dosage is often more than what is required. This unnecessary intake of vitamins is not good for people," they say.
Almost 10 per cent of Indians take supplements of antioxidant vitamins and trace minerals. Often, the consumption is based more on prescription by physicians. Vitamin supplements are, in fact waste of money and invitation to needless health complications. A well-balanced food contains all that's essential for the healthy living of an individual. Nature simply takes care of all human, animal and plant requirements through its natural sources. Only in extreme cases do human beings need these supplements.
Studies on the efficacy or otherwise of vitamin supplements in different parts of the world including India reveal that supplements containing vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, beta carotene, and selenium in any dose and in any combination will not help people live longer, or at least a healthier life.
What is horrifying is that these supplements actually increase the mortality rate, i.e. taking people closer to death.
"A study in the US showed that the relative risks for all cause mortality
ranged from 1.04 for vitamin E to 1.16 for vitamin A. Typically, the least
rigorous trials reported the most positive effects," they said.
Conservative research studies estimate that antioxidant supplements
increase mortality by about five per cent compared with placebo. Higher
intake of Vitamin E supplements do not protect against lung cancer, and
may in fact increase the risk of developing it.

Doctor-drug firm nexus robs patients

March 10, 2008
By Syed Akbar
Hyderabad, March 9: Doctors get more than what you pay as consultation fee
every time you visit them.
They get commission from pharmaceutical companies for prescribing their
products, including those which are classified as "irrational" medicines.
The "commission" or "gift" is directly proportional to the number of
prescriptions the doctors write a month. The higher the number of prescriptions, the more the valuable the gift is. There are instances of drug companies luring doctors with cars and expensive cell phones or even "bearing" the tuition fee of their
children. The expenditure they incur on gifts is made up in the form of higher MRPs for the medicines.
Such doctor-drug firm nexus is limited not just to a "poor" nation like India. But it extends to highly developed and "rich" nations like the USA and the UK too.
The Indian National Commission on Macroeconomics and Health conducted a study some time back on how pharmaceutical companies hustle their products. Its report revealed
that doctors are prescribing drugs that are "irrational or non-essential or (even) hazardous." Taking a close look at India's 25 top-selling medicines, the Commission's study found that 10 of the 25 fell into that category.
Even if pharma companies do not offer direct incentives to doctors, they make up the shortfall in their relationship through sponsoring medical conferences or continuing medical education programmes. Health experts say, "medical conferences are unfortunately becoming into a sort of melas. The presence of drug industry is felt everywhere at the venue, from their advertisement on the walls to offering free lunches and gifts".
"The drug industry, immensely powerful and profitable, spends more than 11 billion US dollars each year in promotion and marketing. It has succeeded in tightening its grip over the medical community over the last two decades. It tempts doctors by such offers as expensive gifts and foreign junkets, which often leads to the unscientific, costly and irrational use of drugs," points out Dr SP Kalantri, associate editor of the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics.
In a bid to check the doctor-drug firm nexus which is taking a heavy toll of the patient's pockets, the World Medical Association has come out with a set of guidelines for its members all over the world.
The guidelines suggest that no individual doctors should receive direct
payment from commercial companies to cover travelling expenses, room and board at
a conference, or compensation for their time. Drug companies should have no influence on the content, presentation, choice of speakers, or publication of results.
The names of any companies providing financial support should be publicly disclosed.
Funding for a conference can be accepted as a contribution to the general costs of the meeting but not as payment for any specific lecturer or participant. Physicians should not accept gifts, hospitality, services, and subsidies from industry if acceptance might diminish, or appear to others to diminish, the objectivity of
professional judgement.
But are doctors listening?