http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news-Additives-in-Diesel-Fuels-Cause-Liver-Damage-111811.aspx
A new study conducted at Marshall University linked the nanoparticles of cerium oxide used in diesel fuels and damage to the liver. Cerium oxide is used in diesel fuels to increase the efficiency of the automobile's engine. It is also used as glass mirror polish, ophthalmic lens and television tube coating, and in many other products that we come into contact with in our daily lives. As the entire world goes about their daily lives with these product surrounding them at every corner, should we not be more worried about what we're putting into the production lines?
Diesel fuels, while not used by all automobiles, are still used by a fair amount of vehicles. As developed and developing countries try to move towards environmentally friendly fuels, diesel and biodiesels continue to look like a better options, in terms of vehicular fuel. Diesel-powered vehicles have better fuel economies, and diesel produces less greenhouse gases, slowing down the rate of global warming. The more countries use diesel however, the more of the cerium oxide is released into the air due to combustion. As we know, air pollutants do not stay in one place. Wind patterns will move these all over the earth, creating problems for those not even in industrialized or modernized areas of the world.
There really are no international laws on air pollution at the moment. If they were to be created, it would take a lot of work to reinforce the legislation simply because of the properties of air and wind. It's too difficult to track down exactly what the source of the pollution is, leaving corporations and individuals to be responsible for their own output, a highly idealistic proposal. We, as a international community, need to find a way to either phase out such harmful chemicals from the products we use, or find a way to regulate their use to diminish the harmful effects they have on everyone.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Saturday, November 12, 2011
New Progress in the Malaria Vaccine
http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-big-chink-malarias-armour-180508332.html
A few weeks ago, we heard about how a new malaria vaccine had been developed with more than a 50% success rate. In this last week though, there has been a breakthrough in malaria research. It has been found that the parasite can only enter red blood cells by attaching ligand, a protein, to a very specific receptor on the surface of red blood cells. By blocking this receptor from the parasite, we have a very effective way of preventing malaria. This would give way more than a 50% success rate. This is a huge step in eradicating malaria. By not allowing the parasite to get into the red blood cells, the parasite cannot reach the liver to produce. The parasites will die, and hopefully malaria will be a disease of the past.
Hopefully, like with the malaria vaccine being developed currently, this vaccine will also be offered at a very low price. Because not many in developed countries need it, and the ones who are really at risk live in the poorest regions of the world, namely Sub-Saharan Africa, this will make the vaccine very accessible. This is a great example of how industrialized, developed nations can help out undeveloped countries. We have the resources to do such research and manufacture life-saving supplies. Realizing that the people who need the vaccine the most can't afford it and driving the price lower is a large humanitarian effort and is a step in the right direction. This is also a prime example of a low-cost, yet effective intervention, given that the vaccine can be developed.
A few weeks ago, we heard about how a new malaria vaccine had been developed with more than a 50% success rate. In this last week though, there has been a breakthrough in malaria research. It has been found that the parasite can only enter red blood cells by attaching ligand, a protein, to a very specific receptor on the surface of red blood cells. By blocking this receptor from the parasite, we have a very effective way of preventing malaria. This would give way more than a 50% success rate. This is a huge step in eradicating malaria. By not allowing the parasite to get into the red blood cells, the parasite cannot reach the liver to produce. The parasites will die, and hopefully malaria will be a disease of the past.
Hopefully, like with the malaria vaccine being developed currently, this vaccine will also be offered at a very low price. Because not many in developed countries need it, and the ones who are really at risk live in the poorest regions of the world, namely Sub-Saharan Africa, this will make the vaccine very accessible. This is a great example of how industrialized, developed nations can help out undeveloped countries. We have the resources to do such research and manufacture life-saving supplies. Realizing that the people who need the vaccine the most can't afford it and driving the price lower is a large humanitarian effort and is a step in the right direction. This is also a prime example of a low-cost, yet effective intervention, given that the vaccine can be developed.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
The Global Health Bailout?
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/press/release.cfm?id=5590&cat=press-release
G20 leaders are coming together at the G20 Summit in Cannes to discuss major global issues. As healthcare becomes a increasingly large issue, it is only appropriate that a discussion on international healthcare funding was opened. The financial transaction tax that was discussed is a tax on the financial sectors of the nation in order to raise money for healthcare resources. According to Doctors Without Borders, if this just a percentage of this tax was allocated towards global health initiatives, millions of lives could be saved. We realize by now that sometimes, the smallest interventions can matter the most and change the most in the smallest amount of time. For instance, in 2009, 370,000 children were newly infected with HIV, most of them by their own mothers at birth. It only costs $40 to pay for antiretroviral medicine needed as prophylaxis, or preventative medicine, to prevent 98% of mother to child HIV infection.
However, this week, the G20 has refused to endorse the financial transaction tax. Many of the G20 nations worry about the burden this tax would put on their already stressed economy and banks. This tax's implementation would mean there would be a steady source of money for international healthcare initiatives, instead of relying on donations from private sectors and committed amounts from countries that health aid groups may not receive in full. With a steady flow of funds, international aid groups would have to worry less about allocating funds because they don't have enough and could focus on getting help where it is needed. It would appear that developed nations are still too independent and may not realize the severity and importance of global health; they still do not realize the impact that poor and underdeveloped global health can have across the entire world. We are no longer isolated. Even though the G20 isn't backing the financial transaction tax, Nicolas Sarkozy and Bill Gates are not giving up. Many like them do realize that this tax could have been a game-changer for international health. Sarkozy has said that he will continue to push for the tax.
G20 leaders are coming together at the G20 Summit in Cannes to discuss major global issues. As healthcare becomes a increasingly large issue, it is only appropriate that a discussion on international healthcare funding was opened. The financial transaction tax that was discussed is a tax on the financial sectors of the nation in order to raise money for healthcare resources. According to Doctors Without Borders, if this just a percentage of this tax was allocated towards global health initiatives, millions of lives could be saved. We realize by now that sometimes, the smallest interventions can matter the most and change the most in the smallest amount of time. For instance, in 2009, 370,000 children were newly infected with HIV, most of them by their own mothers at birth. It only costs $40 to pay for antiretroviral medicine needed as prophylaxis, or preventative medicine, to prevent 98% of mother to child HIV infection.
However, this week, the G20 has refused to endorse the financial transaction tax. Many of the G20 nations worry about the burden this tax would put on their already stressed economy and banks. This tax's implementation would mean there would be a steady source of money for international healthcare initiatives, instead of relying on donations from private sectors and committed amounts from countries that health aid groups may not receive in full. With a steady flow of funds, international aid groups would have to worry less about allocating funds because they don't have enough and could focus on getting help where it is needed. It would appear that developed nations are still too independent and may not realize the severity and importance of global health; they still do not realize the impact that poor and underdeveloped global health can have across the entire world. We are no longer isolated. Even though the G20 isn't backing the financial transaction tax, Nicolas Sarkozy and Bill Gates are not giving up. Many like them do realize that this tax could have been a game-changer for international health. Sarkozy has said that he will continue to push for the tax.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)