People living in cold regions at higher risk of cancer: study

Agencies
December 10, 2017

Jerusalem, Dec 10: People who live in cold regions may be at an increased risk of developing cancer, a study has found.

According to the study, populations living in very low temperatures, like in Denmark and Norway, had among the highest incidences of cancer in the world.

In the study published in the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution, researchers suggest that there is an evolutionary relationship between adaptation at extreme environmental conditions - like cold and high altitude - and increased cancer risk in humans.

"The findings of this study provide evidence that genetic variants found to be beneficial in extreme environments, can also predispose for cancer," said Konstantinos Voskarides, from the University of Cyprus.

"Cell resistance at low temperatures and at high altitude probably increases the probability for malignancy. This effect hardly could be filtered out by natural selection since most cancers appear later on in age after most people have their children," said Voskarides.

Researchers focused on the effect of low temperatures, either within Arctic/Scandinavian climates or high altitudes.

Their analyses focused on the relationship between cancer risk and local average annual temperatures. They concluded that the extremely cold environment contributed to the cancer risk.

For the study, they carefully examined the data of worldwide cancer incidence.

They probed the available literature bibliographic cancer incidence and genetic data for human populations living at extreme cold and extreme high-altitudes.

A striking pattern began to emerge, with the highest incidence of certain cancers linked to those populations living in the coldest environments.

Additionally, analysis of 186 human populations showed a great linearity of high cancer incidence with the lower the environmental temperature.

"The data shows that these populations exhibit extremely high cancer incidence, especially for lung, breast and colorectal cancer," said Voskarides.

"This is the first study that provides evidence that high cancer risk may be a result of evolutionary adaptation in certain environmental conditions," he said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
April 28,2020

As the world grapples with the impact of the novel coronavirus, daily interaction with the outside world --- public and retail spaces, restaurants, educational institutions, and even with each other has been and will continue to be reoriented prioritising personal hygiene and public health.

The sensibilities are building towards and leading to major changes in how the country's food service industry is expected to operate.

Based on a recent consumer survey by restaurant tech platform, Dineout, Indian diners are now ranking safety assurances and premier hygiene as top factors when it comes to choosing a restaurant to dine in.

The survey by Dineout conducted across 20 cities revealed that in a post-COVID-19 era, 81 per cent diners will prefer digital menus at restaurants, while 77 per cent of people will continue to want to dine out.

The survey found that 23 per cent people would prefer continuing with delivery/takeaway and online payment becomes the most preferred option with 60 per cent votes.
 
Diner's response to Contactless Dining:

 

Over 96 per cent demand better waitlist management
 
81 per cent consumers would rather scan a QR on their phone to place an order instead of handling physical menus or tablet-based digital menus.
 
After a dining experience, 60 per cent prefer seamless wallet-based digital payments over cash/cards 85 per cent would choose a digital valet over waiting in possibly contaminated public spaces and 84 per cent would prefer offering digital feedback over physical feedback collection.

 

What do people want to eat?
 
The report also revealed that most of India has been craving Pizza since the lockdown, except in Chennai, Hyderabad and Kolkata where their popular and indigenous Biryani recipes reign supreme. 
 
Which restaurants are diners waiting to go to?
 
77 per cent respondents claimed that they are waiting to dine out with friends and family once the lockdown is lifted.
 
Big Chill, Barbeque Nation and Social emerged as favourites in Delhi, while Mumbaikars picked Global Fusion, Poptates and Asia Kitchen. Bangaloreans miss going to pubs like Toit, Vapour and Barbeque Nation.
 
Aminia, Arsalan and Momo I Am emerge as the top picks in Kolkata.
 
Contrary to popular belief, Delhitties picked vegetarian over non-vegetarian food.
 
Bangaloreans and Lucknowis would rather have their drinks over food.
 
Besides the new parameters for restaurant selection, the factors deciding consumer delight have also seen a major overhaul as hygiene takes precedence. Consumers would prefer that the total number of reservations in a certain period be limited with the option to pre-select the seating, ample amounts of sanitisers at tables along with UV sanitised utensils whenever possible.
 
Hygiene ratings with detailed hygiene information, regular hygiene checks & usage of mask and disposable gloves by waiters are likely to be the new standard, with diners expecting service personnel to sanitise tables & chairs after every use.
 
Dineout recently unveiled the �contactless dining suite' to help restaurants survive and thrive in a post-COVID-19 world. The brand will also provide PPE Safety Kits to Restaurants to help ensure hygiene measures and is facilitating COVID free certification for restaurants through a licensed lab to ensure all microbiological tests are in place before restaurants restart post the lockdown.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 3,2020

Taking multiple courses of antibiotics within a short span of time may do people more harm than good, suggests new research which discovered an association between the number of prescriptions for antibiotics and a higher risk of hospital admissions.

Patients who have had 9 or more antibiotic prescriptions for common infections in the previous three years are 2.26 times more likely to go to hospital with another infection in three or more months, said the researchers.

Patients who had two antibiotic prescriptions were 1.23 times more likely, patients who had three to four prescriptions 1.33 times more likely and patients who had five to eight 1.77 times more likely to go to hospital with another infection.

"We don't know why this is, but overuse of antibiotics might kill the good bacteria in the gut (microbiota) and make us more susceptible to infections, for example," said Professor Tjeerd van Staa from the University of Manchester in Britain.

The study, published in the journal BMC Medicine, is based on the data of two million patients in England and Wales.

The patient records, from 2000 to 2016, covered common infections such as upper respiratory tract, urinary tract, ear and chest infections and excluded long term conditions such as cystic fibrosis and chronic lung disease.

The risks of going to hospital with another infection were related to the number of the antibiotic prescriptions in the previous three years.

A course is defined by the team as being given over a period of one or two weeks.

"GPs (general physicians) care about their patients, and over recent years have worked hard to reduce the prescribing of antibiotics,""Staa said.

"But it is clear GPs do not have the tools to prescribe antibiotics effectively for common infections, especially when patients already have previously used antibiotics.

"They may prescribe numerous courses of antibiotics over several years, which according to our study increases the risk of a more serious infection. That in turn, we show, is linked to hospital admissions," Staa added.

It not clear why hospital admissions are linked to higher prescriptions and research is needed to show what or if any biological factors exist, said the research team.

"Our hope is that, however, a tool we are working for GPs, based on patient history, will be able to calculate the risks associated with taking multiple courses of antibiotics," said Francine Jury from the University of Manchester.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
May 10,2020

Washington D.C., May 9: Do the middle age feel much stressful now, and seems to have changed over time, if compared to the life in the 90s? Well, this recent study indicates that it might be true.

The study has signalled to the fact that life may become more stressful majorly for middle-aged people than it was in the 1990s. The researchers reached this analysis even before the novel coronavirus started sweeping the globe.

A team of researchers led by Penn State found that across all ages, there was a slight increase in daily stress in the 2010s compared to the 1990s. But when researchers restricted the sample to people between the ages of 45 and 64, there was a sharp increase in daily stress.

"On average, people reported about 2 percent more stressors in the 2010s compared to people in the past," said David M. Almeida, professor of human development and family studies at Penn State.

"That's around an additional week of stress a year. But what really surprised us is that people at mid-life reported a lot more stressors, about 19 percent more stress in 2010 than in 1990. And that translates to 64 more days of stress a year."

Almeida said the findings were part of a larger project aiming to discover whether health during the middle of Americans' lives has been changing over time.

"Certainly, when you talk to people, they seem to think that daily life is more hectic and less certain these days," Almeida said.

For the study, the researchers collected data from 1,499 adults in 1995 and 782 different adults in 2012.

Almeida said the goal was to study two cohorts of people who were the same age at the time the data was collected but born in different decades. All study participants were interviewed daily for eight consecutive days.

During each daily interview, the researchers asked the participants about their stressful experiences throughout the previous 24 hours.

They asked questions related to arguments with family or friends or feeling overwhelmed at home or work, so and so. The participants were also asked how severe their stress was and whether those stressors were likely to impact other areas of their lives.

"We were able to estimate not only how frequently people experienced stress, but also what those stressors mean to them," Almeida said.

"For example, did this stress affect their finances or their plans for the future. And by having these two cohorts of people, we were able to compare daily stress processes in 1990 with daily stress processes in 2010," Almeida added.

After analyzing the data, the researchers found that participants reported significantly more daily stress and lower well-being in the 2010s compared to the 1990s.

Additionally, participants reported a 27 percent increase in the belief that stress would affect their finances and a 17 percent increase in the belief that stress would affect their future plans.

Almeida said he was surprised not that people were more stressed now than in the 90s, but at the age group that was mainly affected.

"We thought that with economic uncertainty, life might be more stressful for younger adults. But we didn't see that. We saw more stress for people at mid-life," Almeida said.

"And maybe that's because they have children who are facing an uncertain job market while also responsible for their own parents. So it's this generational squeeze that's making stress more prevalent for people at mid-life," he concluded.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.