ReportWire

Tag: Newswise

  • Economic Loss from U.S. Cigarette Smoking Topped Almost $900 Billion in 2020, New Study Shows

    Economic Loss from U.S. Cigarette Smoking Topped Almost $900 Billion in 2020, New Study Shows

    [ad_1]

    EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE – 6:30 p.m., EDT – September 28, 2022

    Newswise — ATLANTA, September 28, 2022 — New findings by the American Cancer Society (ACS) found cumulative economic losses from cigarette smoking topped $891 billion in 2020, or 4.3% of the United States Gross Domestic Product. The economic loss significantly outpaced the cigarette industry’s $92 billion revenue by nearly a ten-to-one ratio. The study was published today in the journal The Lancet Public Health.

    This economic modelling study is one of the first to provide a comprehensive measure of economic loss from cigarette smoking on a state-by-state level. On average, states lost $1,100.00 per capita income annually from cigarette smoking. Kentucky ($1,674.00), West Virginia ($1,605.00) and Arkansas ($1,603.00) suffered the largest per capita income losses, while Utah ($331.00), Idaho ($680.00) and Arizona ($701.00) had the smallest per capita income losses.

    “Economic losses from cigarette smoking far outweigh any economic benefit from the tobacco industry — wages, and salaries of those employed by the industry, tax revenue, and industry profit combined,” said Dr. Nigar Nargis, senior scientific director, tobacco control research at the American Cancer Society. “As a society, we can mitigate these economic losses through coordinated and comprehensive evidence-based tobacco control measures, which encourage people to quit smoking and prevent people from starting to smoke in the first place.”

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services set the Healthy People 2030 goal to reduce smoking from 14% of the adult population in 2018 to 5% by 2030. According to study authors, reaching this goal through tobacco control efforts at the national, state, and local levels would considerably reduce the economic loss attributable to smoking.

    “The Healthy People 2030 goal provides an important target that will help reduce smoking and correspondingly the negative economic impact of tobacco use,” said Nargis. “In addition, hitting this target will help divert scarce resources away from treating tobacco-related illnesses towards growing market productivity and household income.”

    “The damage this industry causes on individuals’ lives and our nation’s economy is horrifying,” said Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN). “It’s particularly alarming, but not surprising, to see some of the states with the highest economic loss have the weakest tobacco control policies in place. We know what works to reduce tobacco use and lessen this burden and it’s past time we get it done. Passing policies proven to reduce tobacco use including regular and significant tobacco tax increases, adequate funding for tobacco prevention and cessation programs and comprehensive smoke-free laws has a huge impact on reducing tobacco-related diseases like cancer and addressing the financial burden this product poses on state economies and the nation.”

    Dr. Ahmedin Jemal is senior author of the study. Other ACS authors include:  Dr. Samuel Asare, Zheng Xue, Dr. Anuja Majmundar, Dr. Priti Bandi, Dr. Farhad Islami, and Dr. Robin Yabroff.

    Resources from the ACS on quitting smoking can be found here.

     

                                                                                                   # # #

    About the American Cancer Society The American Cancer Society is on a mission to free the world from cancer. We invest in lifesaving research, provide 24/7 information and support, and work to ensure that individuals in every community have access to cancer prevention, detection, and treatment. For more information, visit cancer.org.

    [ad_2]

    American Cancer Society (ACS)

    Source link

  • The COVID pandemic is over? Not quite there, say scientists

    The COVID pandemic is over? Not quite there, say scientists

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — In widely covered remarks during an interview with 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley, President Biden claimed, “the pandemic is over.” Biden elaborated, adding, “we still have a problem with COVID, we’re still doing a lot of work on it, but the pandemic is over. If you noticed, no one’s wearing masks, everybody seems to be in pretty good shape. And so I think it’s changing, and I think this is a perfect example of it.” 

    According to the Washington Post, Biden’s remarks caught some senior officials off guard, particularly since the U.S. government has started its fall vaccination campaign. Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced more relaxed COVID-19 guidelines last month, the agency specifically said that the pandemic was not over in a press release issued on August 11th. Therefore, this statement has earned a rating of “Half True.”

    With the rollout of boosters of life-saving vaccines, new treatments, and a large population already infected, the U.S. is in a less vulnerable place than it was in 2020.  However, the death toll, while lower than before, is still at around 400 deaths per day from COVID-19 in the U.S. Many health experts say we’re not out of the woods yet.

    “Saying that the pandemic is over has much larger and more serious ramifications, it means we take away resources allocated by Congress and other agencies. We must be careful about saying it is over. We still need resources to continue vaccination and to address vaccine hesitancy.” says Bernadette Boden-Albala, MPH, DrPH, Founding Dean and Director of the UCI Program in Public Health.

    The end of masking restrictions and relaxing of other major guidelines has given many Americans a sense of moving on from the national health crisis that has festered for more than two years. Biden’s remarks, though perhaps an oversimplification, reflect national sentiment. However, COVID-19 is still very much evident in our U.S. population, and will likely continue for the foreseeable future. 

    “This is in great part due to human behaviors and motivations,” says Halkitis, “including subpar vaccination uptake, which continues to place all of us at risk for infection.” 

    [ad_2]

    Newswise

    Source link

  • Wind turbines recoup the energy required to build them within a year of normal operation

    Wind turbines recoup the energy required to build them within a year of normal operation

    [ad_1]

    There may be two sides to the debate about certain aspects of wind power, but the amount of oil they use is not one of them. 

    Despite the numbers, memes continue to make the rounds on social media claiming the technology is worthless because of the costs to produce them, and the oil required to lubricate its gears. 

    For example, one Twitter post reads, “the turbine has to spin continually [sic] for 7 years just to replace the energy it took to manufacture.” See other similar posts here, here and here. 

    The fact is that wind turbines recoup the energy required to build them within a year of normal operation, according to researchers, earning these claims a rating of False.

    Jack Brouwer is a  professor of mechanical & aerospace engineering at the University of California, Irvine. He is also the director of UCI’s Advanced Power and Energy Program and the National Fuel Cell Research Center.

    I refute the claim that “wind power is inefficient and unnecessarily expensive.”  Data regarding wind power costs has been published by many organizations, for example by the International Renewable Energy Association (IRENA) as presented below, which show that wind power costs have been dropping very significantly in the last decade and are becoming competitive with fossil fuel combustion power generation prices on an energy basis (note current prices for onshore wind less than $0.05/kWh and for offshore wind less than $0.10/kWh).  And these prices are likely to continue to decline into the future as the market size and turbine sizes continue to increase.  Regarding the inefficiency claim, wind turbines can convert wind energy into electricity at efficiencies in the range of 20-40%, but efficiency is an inconsequential metric that should not be used to determine the value of wind power since the input wind energy is renewable and available at zero cost, which is very different from the efficiency metric as applied to fuel generation for which fuel must be purchased.

    Stephen C. Nolet, Principal Engineer and Senior Director, Innovation & Technology at TPI Composites, Inc. has this to say…

    There are “notionally” many studies that have offered different conclusions (depending on the bias of the author). However, the consistent response I have seen which always contains a range of time (based upon turbine and siting conditions) report that the embodied energy of the installed turbine (which includes the entire energies in materials, transportation, erection and projected O&M over the life of the turbine) is returned in operation between 4 – 7 mo (120 to ~200 days).

    Mark Bolinger, an engineer at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has this to add…

    “With proper maintenance, wind turbines should be expected to operate for 20 years or longer (industry projections these days are more like 30 years), which means that over their lifetime, wind turbines repay their energy debt many times over.” 

    “Wind is one of the cheapest forms of electricity generation that exists today.”

     

    [ad_2]

    Newswise

    Source link

  • The UK did not ban the use of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for pregnant women

    The UK did not ban the use of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for pregnant women

    [ad_1]

    Posts on social media are circulating widely in recent days claiming that the United Kingdom government has changed its position on the recommendation for pregnant or breastfeeding women to get the COVID-19 vaccine, including the boosters made by Pfizer. See here, here and here for examples. An article published on the conservative Canadian site “The Counter Signal” also states this claim with the headline, “UK bans vax booster for pregnant mothers.” We rate this claim as false. The UK government did not change its position on the recommendation of the COVID-19 vaccine for pregnant or breastfeeding mothers. In fact, the National Health Service (NHS), the leading health organization in the UK says the vaccine is both safe and strongly recommended for this group. 

    From the NHS site, “Vaccinations in pregnancy”

    If you’re pregnant, or think you might be, it’s strongly recommended you get vaccinated against COVID-19 to protect you and your baby.

    You’re at higher risk of getting seriously ill from COVID-19 if you’re pregnant. If you get COVID-19 late in your pregnancy, your baby could also be at risk.

    It’s safe to have the vaccine during any stage of pregnancy, from the first few weeks up to your expected due date. You do not need to delay vaccination until after you have given birth.

    The COVID-19 vaccines do not contain any live viruses and cannot give you or your baby COVID-19.

    The Counter Signal article, and much of the claims on social media point toward a “Public Assessment Report” that states under the section “Toxicity conclusions,” that “sufficient reassurance of safe use of the vaccine in pregnant women cannot be provided at the present time.” However, this has been on the report since December 2020 (as confirmed by the internet archives). The UK has offered the shots to pregnant people since April 2021.

    As reported by AP Fact Check:

    The “Toxicity conclusions” section suggested that those who were pregnant or breastfeeding not be vaccinated, but also said that the recommendations “reflect the absence of data at the present time and do not reflect a specific finding of concern.”

    But that specific section was reflective of what was known nearly two years ago, when the vaccine was first rolling out — and before additional data became available.

    “The text referred to in social media posts comes from the Public Assessment Report (PAR) which reflects our assessment at the time of approval for the vaccine (2 December 2020),” the MHRA said in a statement provided to The Associated Press. “Since then new data has come to light (both non-clinical and post-authorisation ‘real world’ data) which supports the updated advice on vaccinating those who are pregnant and breastfeeding.”

    An archived version of the same page from December 2020 also confirms that the “Toxicity conclusions” section has remained the same.

    The MHRA specifically notes elsewhere online that the COVID-19 vaccines, including Pfizer’s, are safe for those who are pregnant and breastfeeding.

    Guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists states that COVID-19 vaccines are strongly recommended in pregnancy.

    Vaccination is the best way to protect against the known risks of COVID-19 in pregnancy for both women and babies, including admission of the woman to intensive care and premature birth of the baby.

     

    [ad_2]

    Newswise

    Source link

  • Images from the James Webb Telescope Do Not Disprove The Big Bang Theory

    Images from the James Webb Telescope Do Not Disprove The Big Bang Theory

    [ad_1]

    The Big Bang theory is currently the most popular model we have for the birth of our universe. Observations on the expanding universe, as well as observations of Cosmic background radiation, lingering electromagnetic radiation from the Big Bang, have helped back this theory. However, rumors have spread on the internet that the newly released images from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) somehow suggest the big bang is wrong. We find this claim to be mostly false. Although the spectacular images from JWST may have surprised scientists in how they might change theories on galaxy formation, they by no means negate the Big Bang theory.

    Much of the argument stems from an article written by Eric Lerner (author of the book “The Big Bang Never Happened”). Lerner’s article, published in IAI news, argues that the new James Webb Space Telescope images contradict The Big Bang Hypothesis. Lerner appears to suggest that the distant galaxies seen in the images are older than the Big Bang theory would allow since they seemed to resemble fully formed galaxies. However, the data from JWST suggest that galaxies form more quickly than we think, not that they necessarily contain elements from before the Big Bang or that the universe is not expanding. The observation of these well-formed galaxies at such an early time does not debunk a theory as well supported as the Big Bang. Lerner also cherrypicks quotes from astronomer Allison Kirkpatrick, who said in an article published in Nature, “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.” Kirkpatrick has since explained that she was reacting in awe of what astronomers have learned from the first JWST images, not as proof of astronomers panicking that the Big Bang Theory has been debunked. In an article on CNET, Kirkpatrick suggests that images from JWST “support the Big Bang model because they show us that early galaxies were different than the galaxies we see today – they were much smaller!”

    As reported by Brian Koberlein at Universe Today…

    It’s a common misconception that redshift proves that galaxies are speeding away from us. They aren’t. Distant galaxies aren’t speeding through space. Space itself is expanding, putting greater distance between us. It’s a subtle difference, but it means that galactic redshift is caused by cosmic expansion, not relative motion. It also means that distant galaxies appear a bit larger than they would in a static universe. They are distant and tiny, but the expansion of space gives the illusion of them being larger. As a result, the surface brightness of distant galaxies dims only proportional to redshift.

    Professor Jason Steffen, a former NASA scientist who worked on the agency’s Kepler mission and an expert in astronomy/physics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, responds to the article questioning the Big Bang Hypothesis.

    In short, the evidence is still overwhelmingly in favor of a hot Big Bang as the origin of the universe.  There are many pieces of evidence that come together to motivate this model.  If the Big Bang were to be wrong, it would not likely be wrong for the reasons described, and it is not wrong because of any observations from JWST.

    While the origins of the model stem from observations of the expansion of the universe from galaxy redshifts (the Hubble Law), most of the detailed evidence for the Big Bang comes from the very early universe, the relative abundances of light elements, and the properties of the cosmic microwave background.  The processes that made these occurred within the first half-million years after the Big Bang.  The JWST images are looking at galaxies as they were a half-billion (or more) years after the Big Bang—a factor of 1000 later in time. 

    There is much more uncertainty with how galaxies form and how the first stars form, which are very complicated processes that involve lots of different physical effects, than there is about the first 500,000 years, which was a relatively simple hot plasma of Hydrogen and Helium ions.  (And before that, it was similar to the conditions in the core of the Sun, which we also understand.)

     

     

    [ad_2]

    Newswise

    Source link

  • The increase in funding for the IRS is not going create an army of agents that will come after you

    The increase in funding for the IRS is not going create an army of agents that will come after you

    [ad_1]

    The Inflation Reduction Act that President Biden signed on Tuesday includes a $79 billion injection for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Many political figures and members of the media are reacting incredulously to this long-sought budget increase for the nation’s tax agency. In discussing this budget increase, Senator Chuck Grassley suggested in an interview on Fox News last week that the IRS “are they going to have a strike force that goes in with AK-15s already loaded, ready to shoot some small-business person in Iowa with these? Because I think they are going after middle class and small business people…” On August 11th, Fox News host Brian Kilmeade warned his viewers that “Joe Biden’s new army” of armed IRS agents could “hunt down and kill middle-class taxpayers that don’t pay enough.” We find these hyperbolic claims to be false. Although the IRS intends to hire more people, Treasury Department officials say not all new hires will work on enforcement and increased revenues won’t come from middle-income earners. Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen directed IRS Commissioner Charles P. Rettig not to use the new funding to increase enforcement of taxpayers earning less than $400,000. The IRS is a bureau of the Treasury Department.

    Overall, IRS audits dropped by 44% between 2015 and 2019, according to a 2021 Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report. Last year the Treasury Department had proposed a plan to hire roughly 87,000 IRS employees over the next decade if it was allocated enough money. The IRS will be releasing final numbers for its hiring plans in the coming months, according to a Treasury official. But those employees will not all be hired at the same time, they will not all be auditors and many will be replacing employees who are expected to quit or retire.

    As reported by AP…

    The IRS currently has about 80,000 employees, including clerical workers, customer service representatives, enforcement officials, and others. The agency has lost roughly 50,000 employees over the past five years due to attrition, according to the IRS. More than half of IRS employees who work in enforcement are currently eligible for retirement, said Natasha Sarin, the Treasury Department’s counselor for tax policy and implementation.

    Budget cuts, mostly demanded by Republicans, have also diminished the ranks of enforcement staff, which fell roughly 30% since 2010 despite the fact that the filing population has increased. The IRS-related money in the Inflation Reduction Act is intended to boost efforts against high-end tax evasion, Sarin said.

    Albany Law School Professor Danshera Cords shares her insight on this budget increase to the IRS…

    The Inflation Reduction Act appropriated $79 billion over 10 years to the IRS to improve three areas: taxpayer service, enforcement, and operations. Since 2012, it has been widely reported on the degree to which budget appropriations have resulted in declining service levels, aging IT, and falling staffing levels. Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Charles Rettig, an appointee of President Trump, has repeatedly sought budget increases to jump start the hiring and technology to more sophisticated audits of higher income individuals, businesses and crypto-assets. Given the aging infrastructure, computer systems that are out of date, and a filing backlog, the expenditures have long been needed.

    This appropriation is intended to help implement a plan to improve the IRS’s infrastructure in each of these areas. According to IRS data, in FY2012 the IRS had nearly 90,000 full-time employees. As a result of budget reductions, retirements, hiring freezes, the number of employees had dropped 12.9% to 78,661 in FY 2021.

    Restoring the IRS to previous staffing levels with new employees is more likely to help the average taxpayer than threaten them in any way. Moreover, hiring new enforcement staff including auditors, requires time and new personnel need training. Within its FY2021 budget, examination and collections personnel comprised more than five times the budget as investigations, consistent with prior years. New initiatives to combat fraud in higher income brackets require more sophisticated technology and better trained personnel.

    [ad_2]

    Newswise

    Source link

  • Newly updated CDC guidelines do not invalidate the protection that COVID-19 vaccines offer

    Newly updated CDC guidelines do not invalidate the protection that COVID-19 vaccines offer

    [ad_1]

    Fact Check By:
    Craig Jones, Newswise

    Truthfulness: False

    Claim:

    New CDC guidance is final proof, that these vaccines do not offer any protection against spread!

    Claim Publisher and Date: Twitter users on 2022-08-11

    On Thursday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revised their guidelines on minimizing the impact of COVID-19. Much of the updates involve the lifting of quarantine requirements to those exposed to the virus. For example, social distancing is now recommended to be done as needed based on individual health risk and community transmission level. The new guidelines also deemphasize screening people with no symptoms, and update COVID-19 protocols in schools. One major point that has grabbed the attention of skeptics of the leading authority of public health in the U.S. is how the recommended prevention strategies no longer draw a distinction between people who are vaccinated and those who are not. People who are exposed to the virus no longer must quarantine at home regardless of their vaccination status. Although the new guidelines still emphasize the importance of vaccination and other prevention measures, including antiviral treatments and ventilation, many are using the new guidelines as proof that the vaccines don’t work. We find this claim false. The recommended vaccines to prevent severe illness from COVID-19 have been proven to be effective. 

    Previous guidance suggested that someone who was unvaccinated and was in close contact with someone infected should quarantine for five days, even if they tested negative and had no symptoms. A vaccinated person could skip quarantine. Under the new guidelines, there is no quarantine recommendation. Does this invalidate the efficacy of the vaccines? No. The new guidelines could be construed as a pragmatic approach on the current climate, after taking cautious measures for over two years.

    The CDC said it is making changes now because vaccination and prior infections have granted many Americans some degree of protection against the virus, and treatments, vaccines and boosters are available to reduce the risk of severe illness.

    The COVID-19 vaccines, such as the authorized vaccines by Pfizer and Moderna, are effective at preventing serious illness. As mentioned in previous fact checks, many studies show that they are also effective at preventing infection. More information on the effectiveness and safety of the vaccines can be read here.

     

    [ad_2]

    Newswise

    Source link

  • Monkeypox can spread through contaminated clothing, although it’s more likely to spread through physical contact

    Monkeypox can spread through contaminated clothing, although it’s more likely to spread through physical contact

    [ad_1]

    Monkeypox, a virus similar to smallpox, has been spreading rapidly in recent weeks in the United States, particularly among men who have sex with men. On July 23, the World Health Organization declared monkeypox a global health emergency. The Biden administration declared a public health emergency for the United States monkeypox outbreak on Thursday, two months after cases of the disease started appearing in the country.

    As with the recent COVID-19 epidemic, social media has been rife with people sharing information on this infectious disease. One viral tweet that has been shared by over thousands of people is from a person who expressed dismay that the virus can spread by “touching someone else’s clothing.” Is this true? We rate this claim as mostly true. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say that monkeypox can be transmitted by “touching objects, fabrics (clothing, bedding, or towels), and surfaces that have been used by someone with monkeypox.” However, it is much more likely to spread through intimate contact. Transmission from objects (such as clothes or fabric from furniture) mainly occurs when fluids from lesions fall onto fabrics used extensively by an infected person. “You need prolonged contact with clothing to spread the monkeypox virus.  Casual contact is not spreading the disease,” says Catherine Troisi, PhD, an infectious disease epidemiologist with UTHealth School of Public Health in Houston.

    As reported by Robyn White at Newsweek…

    Andrew Lee, professor of public health at the University of Sheffield in the U.K, told Newsweek that yes, the virus can spread “through contact with contaminated clothing, linen used by an infected person.”

    “Although I think direct contact with the infected skin lesions probably pose a higher risk,” Lee said.

    Similarly, Connor Bamford, research fellow in virology and antiviral immunity at the Wellcome-Wolfson Institute for Experimental Medicine, told Newsweek that it is possible, however it is not a “major mode of transmission,” particularly for the epidemic outside of Africa.

    Felicia Nutter, assistant professor at Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University has this to say about those at most risk for infections.

    It is important to know that anyone can be infected with monkeypox. If you’re in contact with someone who has been diagnosed with monkeypox, you’re at risk. It’s a viral disease that spreads through close contact. So that means being in physical contact with somebody who has the disease or anything they’ve touched for a prolonged period, if they have an active lesion. For example, if you’re doing laundry for someone who has monkeypox, you could be exposed.

     

     More information on monkeypox, including the latest research and expert commentary, can be seen in the Monkeypox channel on Newswise.

    [ad_2]

    Newswise

    Source link

  • Don’t throw away your antidepressants just yet

    Don’t throw away your antidepressants just yet

    [ad_1]

    A study published in Nature Molecular Psychiatry is being used to question the use of SSRIs for people with depression. The study involved a new umbrella review of past studies of depression’s relationship with serotonin levels. One major conclusion is that there is no convincing evidence that low serotonin levels are the primary cause of depression. While the review has made headlines for “debunking” the serotonin imbalance theory, it is important not to jump to conclusions on the efficacy of antidepressants, particularly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). 

    This new study has led to various articles that have focused on how “scientists have called into question the widespread use of antidepressants.”  However, this does not mean that doctors will stop utilizing antidepressants as a treatment option. Instead, it calls for more research about why antidepressants work the way they do.

    A blog entry posted by  Michigan Medicine – University of Michigan on Newswise discusses this recent coverage on antidepressants.

    Srijan Sen, M.D., Ph.D., is concerned about the impact of a new study about the role of serotonin in depression that’s getting a lot of attention.

    Sen notes that mental health experts certainly don’t believe that a simple ‘chemical imbalance’ is the root cause of depression.

    Serotonin is one of the primary brain chemicals, called neurotransmitters, that helps brain cells “talk” to one another by connecting to receptors on cells’ outer surfaces.

    The new study that’s getting lots of attention looks at a lot of older studies about serotonin, and tries to draw conclusions by combining the information from them.

    The study did not conduct new experiments or even combine previous studies in a meta-analysis. But instead, the researchers conducted an “umbrella review” of some, but not all, meta-analyses related to serotonin.

    By coincidence, another such “study of studies” on serotonin and depression was published just a week before the one that’s in the news. It concluded that serotonin transporter gene variations do play a key role in depression risk, in combination with stressful experiences across a person’s life. But that study hasn’t gotten nearly as much attention.

    In other words, Sen says, the science of serotonin’s exact role is far from settled.

    An article by Ruairi J Mackenzie in Technology Networks explains how this study doesn’t quite debunk years of science, since most scientists don’t adhere to the “chemical imbalance” theory on depression in the first place.

    The review article, published by an international research team including first author Prof. Joanna Moncrieff, aimed to assess the available evidence for and against the serotonin theory of depression systematically. The team explain this theory near the start of their paper: “[The theory is] the idea that depression is the result of abnormalities in brain chemicals, particularly serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine or 5-HT).” The theory has been around for decades, but their overarching conclusion is that it is not correct, given that there appears to be no link between measurable serotonin concentration and depression.

    The reaction of many academics to this finding can be summed up, briefly, as “Obviously!” In comments to the UK-based Science Media Centre, Dr. Michael Bloomfield, consultant psychiatrist and head of the translational psychiatry research group at University College London (UCL), said, “The findings from this umbrella review are really unsurprising. Depression has lots of different symptoms and I don’t think I’ve met any serious scientists or psychiatrists who think that all causes of depression are caused by a simple chemical imbalance in serotonin.”

    Criticism of the review call into question how these indirect measures of serotonin function or are merely proxies for serotonin activity. They also question how depression is defined since there are multiple factors that contribute to the cause.*

    Dr. Michael Bloomfield adds…

    What remains possible is that for some people with certain types of depression, that changes in the serotonin system may be contributing to their symptoms. The problem with this review is that it isn’t able to answer that question because it has lumped together depression as if it is a single disorder, which from a biological perspective does not make any sense.

    “Many of us know that taking paracetamol can be helpful for headaches and I don’t think anyone believes that headaches are caused by not enough paracetamol in the brain. The same logic applies to depression and medicines used to treat depression. There is consistent evidence that antidepressant medicines can be helpful in the treatment of depression and can be life-saving. Antidepressant medicines are one type of treatment alongside other types of treatment like psychotherapy (talking therapy). Patients must have access to evidence-based treatments for depression and anyone taking any treatment for depression who is contemplating stopping treatment should discuss this with their doctor first.”

     

    [ad_2]

    Newswise

    Source link

  • Herschel Walker’s claim on how China’s “bad air” would move over to America is grossly inaccurate

    Herschel Walker’s claim on how China’s “bad air” would move over to America is grossly inaccurate

    [ad_1]

    At a campaign event in Georgia, Herschel Walker, the former NFL star who is running for Senate and endorsed by President Trump, shared his thoughts on the “Green New Deal” and efforts to curb climate change with government policy. Walker suggested that U.S. climate efforts were pointless because “China’s bad air” would simply move over into American “air space.” 

    “We in America have some of the cleanest air and cleanest water of anybody in the world,” Walker begins at about the 24 mark in the video of his speech. Under the Green New Deal, he said, the U.S would spend “millions of billions of dollars cleaning our good air up. … Since we don’t control the air, our good air decided to float over to China’s bad air so when China gets our good air, their bad air got to move. So it moves over to our good air space. Then now we got to clean that back up, while they’re messing ours up.”

    “So what we’re doing is just spending money,” he continued. “Until these other countries can get on board and clean what they got up, it ain’t going to help us to start cleaning our stuff up. We’re already doing it the right way.”

    We find nearly every aspect of this claim to be completely inaccurate. Walker’s description of how air circulates around the world is not correct, nor is the simplification of his assessment of “clean air” and “bad air.” The United States does not actively “clean” air now or under the proposed “Green New Deal.” The “Green New Deal” is a nonbinding resolution introduced in Congress in 2019 that lays out a broad vision for how the country might tackle climate change over the next decade in order to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. It didn’t pass the Senate vote. The Green New Deal does not address traditional air pollutants nor does it propose to spend “millions of billions of dollars cleaning our good air up.” Facts on the “Green Neal Deal” can be read here.

    “Bad” air does not take over “good” air or vice versa. Yes, some forms of air pollution can travel to other places. Near-surface pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, can be lofted to high altitudes where strong winds can transport high concentrations across oceans to other continents. However, greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, are responsible for climate change. These greenhouse gasses accumulate in the Earth’s atmosphere on a global scale as a result of human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, which traps heat and warms the entire planet. Also, to suggest curbing pollutants from its local source is pointless because some other locality’s pollutants will take over is missing the point. These harmful air pollutants affect local residents the most. Read more about the harmful effects of air pollution here, here and here. 

    As reported by Jessica McDonald at Factcheck.org

    “Each of these gases can remain in the atmosphere for different amounts of time, ranging from a few years to thousands of years,” the Environmental Protection Agency has explained. “All of these gases remain in the atmosphere long enough to become well mixed, meaning that the amount that is measured in the atmosphere is roughly the same all over the world, regardless of the source of the emissions.”

    “There can be enhanced concentrations near point sources and urban areas, but the levels of atmospheric CO2 over the US aren’t drastically different than over China,” Davis said in an email, referring to carbon dioxide. He noted that in April 2020, carbon dioxide levels over China and the U.S were within three to four parts per million of each other.

    In other words, there is no American “good air” or Chinese “bad air.” When it comes to greenhouse gases, everyone ultimately shares the “air” — and the concentration of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere is increasing. This is raising the global average temperature, which is also causing other effects, such as sea level rise, ice melt and more extreme weather.

     

    [ad_2]

    Newswise

    Source link

  • Relief from high gas prices is not likely to come from more drilling, as many politicians are demanding

    Relief from high gas prices is not likely to come from more drilling, as many politicians are demanding

    [ad_1]

    U.S. consumer prices were 9.1 percent higher in June than a year earlier, the biggest annual increase in four decades. Gasoline prices are one of the major factors, as the price of gas affects commuters, the delivery of food and other goods, as well as those aching to travel this summer. The good news is that the price of gas has fallen in recent weeks by about 40 cents per gallon, the longest decline since the collapse in energy demand in early 2020, when the pandemic kept many consumers at home. Nevertheless, gas is still averaging about $4.57 per gallon (as of July 15) according to AAA. That’s a pretty steep leap up from the average of $3.15 per gallon we were paying last year. 

    So of course, gas prices and domestic energy production have become a political tool that Republicans use to condemn the policies of the Biden administration. On July 14, Ohio Republican congressman Jim Jordan tweeted, “Inflation isn’t getting better until gas prices go down. And how do you get gas prices down? Drill DOMESTICALLY. Sadly, Joe Biden and the Democrats refuse to.” The tweet was shared by thousands.

    We rate this claim as mostly false due to its inaccuracy. Policies and decisions by the Biden administration have nothing to do with the current price of gasoline. The one-two punch of recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic followed by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the reason for the high gas prices. The price of crude oil, which is a major factor in the price of domestic fuel, is controlled by the supply and demand of oil globally. According to the American Petroleum Institute (API), the main factors impacting gasoline prices are the cost of global crude oil (61 percent), refining costs (14 percent), distribution and marketing costs (11 percent) and federal and state taxes (14 percent). In other words, when the price of a barrel of crude oil rises in the global market, we see an eventual rise in the price of gas domestically. 

     As reported by Maria Azzurra Volpe in Newsweek back in May…

    There’s no specific body or policy that regulates the oil and gas industry in the U.S. but federal, state and local governments each regulate various aspects of oil and gas operations. Who regulates what mostly depends on land ownership and whether the territory is covered by federal regulations or state laws.

    In general, according to research by the American Geosciences Institute (AGI), most drilling and production is regulated by state laws, while federal regulations mostly safeguard water and air quality, worker safety, and exploration and production on Native American and federal lands.

    In addition, there isn’t much a sitting U.S. President can do to get more oil from U.S. producers. Brittany Cronin of NPR has written an excellent article explaining how difficult it would be for U.S. producers to drill for more oil.

    U.S. crude production currently stands at 11.6 million barrels per day, according to the latest data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That’s below March 2020 levels, when the country was producing 13 million barrels per day of crude oil.

    Farzin Mou, vice president of intelligence at Enverus, an energy analytics company, warns that boosting supply was not easy even before the coronavirus pandemic wreaked havoc on the supply chain.

    “The point from which you drill a rig to the point that you can turn it online, it takes about six to eight months typically,” she said.

    Now add in the difficulties that oil producers are facing to procure materials like sand and steel, and it becomes clearer that producers are unlikely to provide a quick fix to current gas prices.

    In an analysis published Washington Post in March, Glenn Kessler answers the question, “Can the U.S. truly change oil prices by encouraging more drilling and allowing pipelines?”

    Not really. The United States in 2020 was the biggest oil producer in the world and also the biggest consumer — but it is just one player in a global oil market. (“Oil” includes crude oil, all other petroleum liquids, and biofuels.) Much of what happens in the market is beyond the government’s control.

    In 2021, the United States slipped to third place in oil production, behind Russia and Saudi Arabia. That’s mainly because large shale companies committed to Wall Street that they would continue to limit production and return more cash to shareholders — “an effort to win back investors who fled the industry after years of poor returns,” according to the Wall Street Journal. Scott Sheffield, chief executive of Pioneer Natural Resources, told investors in February: “$100 oil, $150 oil, we’re not going to change our growth rate.”

    [ad_2]

    Newswise

    Source link

  • Abe assassination is a rare act of gun violence in Japan

    Abe assassination is a rare act of gun violence in Japan

    [ad_1]

    Following the horrific mass shootings in the United States, social media is rife with discussions on gun laws and regulations. Friday morning’s news of the assassination of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe by a gunman has brought the issue of strict laws on gun ownership to light. How could this happen in a country with only one firearm-related death in all of 2021? Since 2017, there have been 14 gun-related deaths in Japan, a remarkably low figure for a country of 125 million people. Compare that to the 45,222 people who died from gun-related injuries in the U.S. in just one year (2021).1

    Republican Congressional candidate Lavern Spicer has chimed in on this shocking assassination by tweeting, “How did Shinzo Abe get assassinated when guns are banned in Japan? Liberals, care to explain?” Her tweet was shared by thousands. We find this claim to be misleading and inaccurate.

    Firstly, guns are not banned in Japan but are regulated by very strict gun ownership laws. 

    This backgrounder by the Council on Foreign Relations explains how guns are regulated in Japan…

    Gun control advocates regularly cite Japan’s highly restrictive firearm regulations in tandem with its extraordinarily low gun death rate. Most years, fewer than one hundred Japanese die from gun violence in a country of 125 million people. Most guns are illegal in the country and ownership rates, which are quite low, reflect this.

    Under Japan’s firearm and sword law [PDF], the only guns permitted are shotguns, air guns, guns with specific research or industrial purposes, or those used for competitions. However, before access to these specialty weapons is granted, one must obtain formal instruction and pass a battery of written, mental, and drug tests and a rigorous background check. Furthermore, owners must inform the authorities of how their weapons and ammunition are stored and provide their firearms for annual inspection.

    Some analysts link Japan’s aversion to firearms with its demilitarization in the aftermath of World War II. Others say that because the overall crime rate in the country is so low, most Japanese see no need for firearms.

    Secondly, by asking “liberals” to explain, Spicer is suggesting that gun laws don’t prevent gun violence, since those who identify with “liberal” political beliefs tend to support stricter gun control measures. However, the simple fact that this act of violence is so rare in Japan supports the idea that gun control in Japan is working. Yes, culture is one reason for the low rate, but gun regulation is a major one, too. The result is a situation where citizens and police seldom use guns. The fact that the shooter of Shinzo Abe most likely used a “homemade gun”2 to get past laws restricting the sales of firearms and ammunition, proves that guns are harder to obtain in Japan. 

    According to a recently published article on Vox, gun regulations in other countries reflect a significant difference in recorded instances of gun violence. 

    No other high-income country has suffered such a high death toll from gun violence. Every day, more than 110 Americans die at the end of a gun, including suicides and homicides, an average of 40,620 per year. Since 2009, there has been an annual average of 19 mass shootings, when defined as shootings in which at least four people are killed. The US gun homicide rate is as much as 26 times that of other high-income countries; its gun suicide rate is nearly 12 times higher.

    The following excerpt published in The Guardian by reporters Cait Kelly and Justin McCurry compares gun violence in U.S. and Japan and other high-income countries.

    A 2022 report from the University of Washington revealed that, while the US had more than four firearm homicides per 100,000 people in 2019, Japan had almost zero. Comparing high-income countries in the World Bank with the rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 people, the US had 4.2, Australia had 0.18 and Japan 0.02, the report found.

    In 2013, the country hit a record high for gun crime, with 40 criminal cases of guns being fired, but it has followed a downward trend since.

    There are also strict laws about how many gun shops are allowed to open – in most of the countries’ 47 prefectures, a total of three gun shops can operate in each prefecture.

     

    1 https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

    2 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/07/08/japan-shinzo-abe-shooting-gun-laws/

    [ad_2]

    Newswise

    Source link