Genetic testing: Should I get tested for Alzheimer’s risk? – CWEB.com

Troy Rohn, Boise State University

Thanks to advances in genetic testing, there is now a way for consumers to test for the greatest genetic risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer’s disease.

Alzheimer’s disease is a progressive and fatal neurodegenerative disorder that primarily affects older adults. It is the most common cause of dementia. It is the third leading cause of death, behind heart disease and cancer. An estimated 700,000 Americans 65 and older will have Alzheimer’s when they die. In a recent study asking Americans age 50 or older the condition they were most afraid of, the number one fear was Alzheimer’s, with 39 percent; followed by cancer, at 30 percent.

Clinically, patients with Alzheimer’s most commonly present with insidiously progressive memory loss, difficulty thinking and understanding and mental confusion.

As a scientist who has been involved in Alzheimer’s research for the past 18 years, I think genetic testing represents a significant advance in being able to assess one’s risk for this disease. But people should be aware that there are several things to consider before testing for this treacherous disease at home.

Why is ApoE important for Alzheimer’s risk?

The vast majority of Alzheimer’s cases have late onset, or after age 65, and advancing age is the greatest risk factor. Alzheimer’s affects one in 10 people over the age of 65, and almost two-thirds of Americans with Alzheimer’s are women.

In addition to advancing age, there are known genetic risk factors associated with Alzheimer’s, with a gene called ApoE4 being the most important of all of them. The ApoE gene provides instructions for making a protein called apolipoprotein E. This protein combines with fats, or lipids, in the brain to form molecules called lipoproteins. Lipoproteins are responsible for packaging cholesterol and other fats and ferrying them around in the brain. Scientists have long known that ApoE4 is related to a buildup of amyloid in the brain, one of the hallmarks of Alzheimer’s. But a recent study suggested that ApoE4 also contributes to the buildup of tau, a second protein that has long been implicated in the development of Alzheimer’s. Thus, the question of ApoE4 testing becomes even more urgent for many.

The ApoE gene has three different alleles, or variations of a gene that can occur by mutation: ApoE2, ApoE3 and ApoE4. These alleles occur at the same location as the gene.

Everyone has two copies of this gene, and the combination of alleles determines your ApoE “genotype” — E2/E2, E2/E3, E2/E4, E3/E3, E3/E4 or E4/E4. The E2 allele is the rarest form of ApoE, but it’s a good one to have. Carrying even one copy appears to reduce the risk of developing Alzheimer’s by up to 40 percent.

The ApoE3 is the most common allele and doesn’t seem to influence risk. The ApoE4 allele is less common than E3, present in about 10 to 15 percent of people, but it confers a significant risk for AD. Having one copy of E4 (E3/E4) can double or triple your risk, while two copies of (E4/E4) can increase the risk by 10-15 times. It is noteworthy that 65-80 percent of all Alzheimer’s patients have at least one APOE4 allele.

This allele also lowers the age of onset.

Testing for ApoE4

Testing has become incredibly easy and fast through 23andMe, the personal genetics company that won approval from the FDA in April 2017 to market genetic testing directly to consumers. In its late-onset Alzheimer’s report, 23andMe provides people with their ApoE gene status, following the mailing of a saliva sample to the company.

But a much more difficult question is: Should I be tested? There are important implications of learning one’s ApoE4 genetic status, and consumers should consider these before they decide to be tested. Indeed, most professional medical organizations, including the National Institutes of Health, recommend genetic testing of ApoE4 status only for people volunteering for clinical trials.

Pros of testing may include:

• It is currently known from prevention research that people with the APOE4 gene can take a number of lifestyle steps to mitigate their risk.
• Being able to participate in clinical trials.
• APOE4 also has some predictive value for cardiovascular risk.

Cons of testing may include:

• Stress on family.
• Emotional distress.
• Financial implications in terms of insurance or long-term care options.
• Effect on employment.

The effect of knowing your status

One of the major drawbacks to being tested for the ApoE4 gene is that the test is considered what is called a susceptibility test because it has limited predictive value. Having the E4 allele does not mean that a person will be diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. Many E4 carriers may live long lives without ever developing the disease, and many noncarriers still have risk for Alzheimer’s. This is critically important to understand before having genetic testing for ApoE4.

Several studies have now examined the impact of ApoE4 testing on individuals. The NIH REVEAL-SCAN project examined the effect of learning ApoE4 status in those who were not showing any symptoms of dementia but had first-degree relatives affected by Alzheimer’s. The data indicated that knowing one’s ApoE status caused only mild and brief psychological problems in those found to have inherited E4 alleles.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TXBP1t2rUc&w=560&h=315]

In a more recent study, adverse psychological reactions were reported by a fraction of the participants, including those who had specifically sought testing. However, nearly all of those interviewed said that they had benefited in the long term from lifestyle changes they subsequently made.

Consideration of other risk factors

Harboring the ApoE4 allele is the most important genetic risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer’s, and knowing one’s E4 allele status certainly could be transforming, particularly in terms of preventative, beneficial lifestyle changes individuals may undergo.

However, there are important considerations to take into account before testing to help mitigate stress and anxiety associated with a positive E4 test. Other experts and I suggest that people start by becoming well-informed about the basics of ApoE4. If testing is carried out and a higher risk is revealed, it is critically important those individuals obtain genetic counseling and be actively assisted about how to proceed.

Whether you carry the ApoE4 gene or not, many other risk factors are thought to contribute to Alzheimer’s, not just genes and old age. What you eat, how much you exercise, formal education, smoking, how mentally active you remain and other factors have all been implicated.

Ultimately, the choice of whether to get a genetic test remains a personal one — all the more reason it’s important to be informed about the pros and cons of Alzheimer’s screening and what doctors know about your risk for the disease and whether viable treatment options are available.

Troy Rohn, Professor of Biology, Boise State University

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

A perfect storm of factors is making wildfires bigger and more expensive to control – CWEB.com

Cassandra Moseley, University of Oregon

Hopes for fewer large wildfires in 2018, after last year’s disastrous fire season, are rapidly disappearing across the West. Six deaths have been reported in Northern California’s Carr Fire, including two firefighters. Fires have scorched Yosemite, Yellowstone, Crater Lake, Sequoia and Grand Canyon national parks. A blaze in June forced Colorado to shut down the San Juan National Forest. So far this year, 4.6 million acres have burned nationwide — less than last year, but well above the 10-year average of 3.7 million acres at this date.

These active wildfire years also mean higher firefighting costs. For my research on natural resource management and rural economic development, I work frequently with the U.S. Forest Service, which does most federal firefighting. Rising fire suppression costs over the past three decades have nearly destroyed the agency’s budget. Its overall funding has been flat for decades, while fire suppression costs have grown dramatically.

Earlier this year Congress passed a “fire funding fix” that changes the way in which the federal government will pay for large fires during expensive fire seasons. But it doesn’t affect the factors that are making fire suppression more costly, such as climate trends and more people living in fire prone landscapes.

More burn days, more fuel

What is driving this trend? Many factors have come together to create a perfect storm. They include climate change, past forest and fire management practices, housing development, increased focus on community protection and the professionalization of wildfire management.

Fire seasons are growing longer in the United States and worldwide. According to the Forest Service, climate change has expanded the wildfire season by an average of 78 days per year since 1970. This means agencies need to keep seasonal employees on their payrolls longer and have contractors standing by earlier and available to work later in the year. All of this adds to costs, even in low fire years.

In many parts of the wildfire-prone West, decades of fire suppression combined with historic logging patterns have created small, dense forest stands that are more vulnerable to large wildfires. In fact, many areas have fire deficits — significantly less fire than we would expect given current climatic and forest conditions. Fire suppression in these areas only delays the inevitable. When fires do get away from firefighters, they are more severe because of the accumulation of small trees and brush.

Protecting communities and forests

In recent decades, development has pushed into areas with fire-prone ecosystems — the wildland-urban interface. In response, the Forest Service has shifted its priorities from protecting timber resources to trying to keep fire from reaching houses and other physical infrastructure.

Fires near communities are fraught with political pressure and complex interactions with state and local fire and public safety agencies. They put enormous pressure on the Forest Service to do whatever is possible to suppress fires. There is considerable impetus to use air tankers and helicopters, although these resources are expensive and only effective in a limited number of circumstances.

As it started to prioritize protecting communities in the late 1980s, the Forest Service also ended its policy of fully suppressing all wildfires. Now fires are managed using a multiplicity of objectives and tactics, ranging from full suppression to allowing fires to grow larger so long as they stay within desired ranges.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TXBP1t2rUc&w=560&h=315]

This shift requires more and better-trained personnel and more interagency coordination. It also means letting some fires grow bigger, which requires personnel to monitor the blazes even when they stay within acceptable limits. Moving away from full suppression and increasing prescribed fire is controversial, but many scientists believe it will produce long-term ecological, public safety and financial benefits.

Professionalizing wildfire response

As fire seasons lengthened and staffing for the national forest system declined, the Forest Service was less and less able to use national forest employees as a militia whose regular jobs could be set aside for brief periods for firefighting. Instead, it started to hire staff dedicated exclusively to wildfire management and use private-sector contractors for fire suppression.

There is little research on the costs of this transition, but hiring more dedicated professional fire staffers and a large contractor pool is probably more expensive than the Forest Service’s earlier model. However, as the agency’s workforce shrank by 20,000 between 1980 and the early 2010s and fire seasons expanded, it had little choice but to transform its fire organization.

Baked-in fire risks

Many of these drivers are beyond the Forest Service’s control. Climate change, the fire deficit on many western lands and development in the wildland-urban interface ensure that the potential for major fires is baked into the system for decades to come.

There are some options for reducing risks and managing costs. Public land managers and forest landowners may be able to influence fire behavior in certain settings with techniques such as hazardous fuels reduction and prescribed fire. But these strategies will further increase costs in the short and medium term.

Another cost-saving strategy would be to rethink how firefighters use expensive resources such as airplanes and helicopters. But it will require political courage for the Forest Service to not use expensive resources on high-profile wildfires when they may not be effective.

Even if these approaches work, they will likely only slow the rate of increase in costs. Wildfire fighting costs now consume more than half of the agency’s budget. This is a problem because it reduces funds for national forest management, research and development, and support for state and private forestry. Over the long term, these are the very activities that are needed to address the growing problem of wildfire.

This is an updated version of an article originally published July 25, 2018.

Cassandra Moseley, Associate Vice President for Research and Research Professor, University of Oregon

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

3 questions about tequila, answered – CWEB.com

Jeffrey Miller, Colorado State University

In less than a decade, worldwide sales of tequila have doubled, while sales of premium and ultra-premium brands have shot up by 292 percent and 706 percent, respectively.

In recent years, you may have heard of tequila tastings and walked by a new mezcal bar — and wondered about the difference between the two. Or you’ve seen a headline proclaiming that a shot of tequila a day will keep the doctor away.

As a food historian, I hope to debunk some myths and explore some little-known aspects of the Mexican spirit that’s become a global phenomenon.

What’s the deal with the worm?

Walking through the tequila section of your local liquor store, you may see a bottle with a worm floating in it. But if you see one, you’re looking at a bottle of mezcal — not tequila.

While all tequila is mezcal, all mezcal is not tequila: To be labeled as tequila the spirit must be distilled from at least 51 percent blue agave (Agave weberii) and made within a region around the Mexican town of Tequila.

Mezcals, on the other hand, can be made from any of 30 aloe-like succulents and can be made in a number of Mexican states.

As for the worm, it’s the larva of the maguey moth, an animal that lives and feeds on agave plants.

It was originally inserted into bottles of Gusano Rojo
mezcal as a marketing gimmick. The worm isn’t a psychedelic as fraternity lore would have it, but it is edible and is sold as a delicacy in food markets across central Mexico.

Can tequila actually be good for you?

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TXBP1t2rUc&w=560&h=315]

Tequila has long been thought of as a cure for various ailments.

During the influenza pandemic of 1918, Mexican doctors would prescribe tequila with lemon and salt to treat flu symptoms. To this day, Mexicans stir it into hot tea with honey to assuage sore throats.

In recent years, you may have come across articles giddily announcing that a shot of tequila a day can lower bad cholesterol and blood sugar.

But the study showing lower cholesterol levels was conducted on mice, and there’s been no evidence showing the same effect on humans. (In fact, the findings for mice couldn’t be replicated in a similar study.) Meanwhile, agave has been shown to have a higher fructose content than sugar — and even high-fructose corn syrup.

In the end, your tequila benders aren’t likely to have any inadvertent health benefits.

Is the margarita named after a woman?

Tequila is mixed with lime juice, salt and liquor to make the margarita, one of the more popular summer cocktails.

Most of the margarita’s origin stories claim it was named after a girl named Margarita. One version of the legend says that the drink was named after dancer Marjorie King: On a trip to Mexico, she asked a bartender near Tijuana to make her a drink with tequila since she was allergic to grain-based spirits. Another version traces the drink to Ensenada, Mexico, where, in the early 1940s, a bartender concocted the drink to honor Margarita Henkel, the daughter of the German Ambassador to Mexico.

Neither story is probably true. Before Prohibition, a very popular cocktail in California was the Brandy Daisy, a mix of brandy, Curaçao liqueur and lemon juice. As people drifted over the border into Mexico to evade Prohibition’s restrictions, it’s likely that bartenders began making the drink with Mexico’s national spirit, which would have been more available and cheaper.

“Margarita” is Spanish for daisy, so when Americans ordered a daisy, it would have been natural for the bartender to reply, “One margarita, coming up.”

Jeffrey Miller, Associate Professor and Program Coordinator, Hospitality Management, Colorado State University

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Millennials are so over US domination of world affairs – CWEB.com

Bruce Jentleson, Duke University

Millennials, the generation born between 1981 and 1996, see America’s role in the 21st century world in ways that, as a recently released study shows, are an intriguing mix of continuity and change compared to prior generations.

For over 40 years the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, which conducted the study, has asked the American public whether the United States should “take an active part” or “stay out” of world affairs.

This year, an average of all respondents — people born between 1928 and 1996 — showed that 64 percent believe the U.S. should take an active part in world affairs, but interesting differences could be seen when the numbers are broken down by generation.

The silent generation, born between 1928 and 1945 whose formative years were during World War II and the early Cold War, showed the strongest support at 78 percent. Support fell from there through each age group. It bottomed out with millennials, of whom only 51 percent felt the U.S. should take an active part in world affairs. That’s still more internationalist than not, but less enthusiastically than other age groups.

There is some anti-Trump effect visible here: Millennials in the polling sample do identify as less Republican — 22 percent — and less conservative than the older age groups. But they also were the least supportive of the “take an active part” view during the Obama administration as well.

Four sets of additional polling numbers help us dig deeper.

– Military power: Only 44 percent of millennials believe maintaining superior military power is a very important goal, much less than the other generations. They also are less supportive of increasing defense spending.

And when asked whether they support the use of force, millennials are generally disinclined, especially so on policies like conducting airstrikes against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime, using troops if North Korea invades South Korea, and conducting airstrikes against violent Islamic extremist groups.

– American ‘exceptionalism’: Millennials also were much less inclined to embrace the idea that America is “the greatest country in the world.” Only half of millennials felt that way, compared to much higher percentages of the other three generations. In a related response, only one-quarter of millenials saw the need for the U.S. to be “the dominant world leader.”

These findings track with the 2014 American National Election Study, which found that while 78 percent of silent, 70 percent of boomer and 60 percent of Gen X respondents consider their American identity as extremely important, only 45 percent of millennials do.

– Alliances and international agreements: Millennials are especially supportive of NATO, at 72 percent. In this measure, they are close to the other generations’ levels of NATO support. Their 68 percent support for the Paris climate agreement is higher than two of the other three age groups. And their 63 percent support for the Iran nuclear nonproliferation agreement is even with boomers and higher than Gen X.

– Globalization and key trade issues: Millennials’ 70 percent agreement with the statement that “globalization is mostly good for the United States” is higher than all the other age groups. Similarly, 62 percent believe that NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) is good for the U.S. economy — well above the others surveyed. The margin is also positive although narrower on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement.

These and other polls show millennials to have a world view that, while well short of isolationist, is also not as assertively and broadly internationalist as previous generations.

Millennials’ worldview and its implications

Why do millennials see the world the way they do? And with millennials now the largest generation and emerging into leadership positions, what does it mean for American foreign policy?

In my view, the “why” flows from three formative experiences of millennials.

First, the United States has been at war in Afghanistan and Iraq for close to half the lives of the oldest millennials, who were born in 1981, and most of the lives of the youngest, born in 1996. Despite America’s vast military power, neither war has been won.

So, from the millenials’ point of view, why make military superiority a priority? Why spend more on defense? Why not be skeptical about other uses of force?

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TXBP1t2rUc&w=560&h=315]

Second, as a generation which is generally “defined by diversity,” as Brookings demographer William H. Frey describes them, millennials take a less extreme view of Islam. A 2015 Pew Research Center poll showed only 32 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds agreed that Islam was more likely than other religions to encourage violence among its followers. Compare that to 47 percent of 30- to 49-year-olds and a little more than half of the two older age groups.

Third, globalization infuses the lives of millennials in many ways.

“For younger Americans,” the Chicago Council study authors write, “the Internet, the steady flow of iPhones, computers and other products from abroad, and the expansion of global travel may have all contributed to a rising comfort level with the rest of the world generally, and to the acceptance that international trade is simply part of the fabric of the modern world.”

What are the implications and impact on foreign policy politics of millennials’ views?

In my opinion, even more significant than issue-specific positions is millennials’ disinclination to buy into American exceptionalism. These younger Americans show a greater willingness to get beyond the “We are the greatest country” paeans. Such exceptionalism, subscribed to more avidly by older generations, takes a rose-colored view of American foreign policy’s history and ignores the profound changes shaping the 21st century world.

In this respect in particular, we’d do well to learn from millennials’ more measured views.

Bruce Jentleson, Professor of Public Policy and Political Science, Duke University

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

How old is my pet in dog years or cat years? A veterinarian explains – CWEB.com

Jesse Grady, Mississippi State University

“Just how old do you think my dog is in dog years?” is a question I hear on a regular basis. People love to anthropomorphize pets, attributing human characteristics to them. And most of us want to extend our animal friends’ healthy lives for as long as possible.

It may seem like sort of a silly thing to ponder, born out of owners’ love for their pets and the human-animal bond between them. But determining a pet’s “real” age is actually important because it helps veterinarians like me recommend life-stage specific healthcare for our animal patients.

There’s an old myth that one regular year is like seven years for dogs and cats. There’s a bit of logic behind it. People observed that with optimal healthcare, an average-sized, medium dog would on average live one-seventh as long as its human owner — and so the seven “dog years” for every “human year” equation was born.

Not every dog is “average-sized” though so this seven-year rule was an oversimplification from the start. Dogs and cats age differently not just from people but also from each other, based partly on breed characteristics and size. Bigger animals tend to have shorter life spans than smaller ones do. While cats vary little in size, the size and life expectancy of dogs can vary greatly — think a Chihuahua versus a Great Dane.

Human life expectancy has changed over the years. And vets are now able to provide far superior medical care to pets than we could even a decade ago. So now we use a better methodology to define just how old rule of thumb that counted every calendar year as seven “animal years.”

Based on the American Animal Hospital Association Canine Life Stages Guidelines, today’s vets divide dogs into six categories: puppy, junior, adult, mature, senior and geriatric. Life stages are a more practical way to think about age than assigning a single number; even human health recommendations are based on developmental stage rather than exactly how old you are in years.

Dog breed and its associated size is one of the largest contributors to life expectancy, with nutrition and associated weight likely being the next most important factors for individual dogs.

But this still doesn’t answer the question of how old your individual animal is. If you’re determined to figure out if Max would be graduating from high school or preparing for retirement based on how many “dog years” he’s lived, these life stages can help. Lining up canine and human developmental milestones over the course of an average life expectancy can provide a rough comparison.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TXBP1t2rUc&w=560&h=315]

In a similar manner, the joint American Association of Feline Practitioners-The American Animal Hospital Association Feline Life Stage Guidelines also divide cats into six categories: kitten, junior, prime, mature, senior and geriatric. Since most healthy cats are around the same size, there’s less variability in their age at each life-stage.

Figuring out how old Buddy is in dog years or Fluffy is in cat years allows a veterinarian to determine their life-stage. And that’s important because it suggests what life-stage-specific health care the animal might need to prolong not just its life, but also its quality of life.

Physicians already apply this very concept to human age-specific health screenings. Just like a normal human toddler doesn’t need a colonoscopy, a normal puppy doesn’t need its thyroid levels checked. An adult woman likely needs a regular mammogram, just like an adult cat needs annual intestinal parasite screenings. Of course these guidelines are augmented based on a physician’s or veterinarian’s examination of the human or animal patient.

And as is the case for people, your pet’s overall health status can influence their “real age” for better or for worse. So next time you take your pet to the veterinarian, talk about your animal’s life stage and find out what health recommendations come with it. Watching out for health abnormalities and maintaining a healthy weight could help your cat live long past the literal “prime” of its life.

Jesse Grady, Clinical Instructor of Veterinary Medicine, Mississippi State University

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Ozone pollution in US national parks is nearly the same as in large cities – CWEB.com

David Keiser, Iowa State University; Gabriel E. Lade, Iowa State University, and Ivan Rudik, Cornell University

“Another glorious day, the air as delicious to the lungs as nectar to the tongue” — John Muir, My First Summer in the Sierra (1911)

Most Americans associate U.S. national parks with pristine environments that represent the very best of nature. In the 1916 law that established the National Park Service, Congress directed the new agency to “conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”

But over the past century it has become increasingly hard to protect the parks from impacts of human activities outside their boundaries. In 2015 the National Parks Conservation Association, a national advocacy group, released a blistering report giving many popular parks poor grades for unhealthy air, haze and impacts from climate change.

In a study just published in Science Advances, we analyzed levels of ozone, the most widely monitored pollutant in parks, and their impact on visits to 33 national parks from 1990 to 2014. The sites we studied included popular parks such as Acadia, the Grand Canyon, Great Smoky Mountains, Joshua Tree, Sequoia and Kings Canyon and Yosemite. We found that while cities once had more “bad air days” with unhealthy ozone levels than national parks, today parks and metro areas have virtually the same number of unhealthy ozone days per year on average. We also found that park visits fall on high ozone days — especially during summer and fall, when peak ozone levels typically occur.

The impact of bad air days

Regulatory efforts to protect the national parks have a long history. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 and 1990 designated parks as Federal Class I Areas, granting them special air quality and visibility protections.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 1999 Regional Haze Rule increased these protections by requiring states to develop and implement plans to improve visibility and air quality in parks and wilderness areas.

However, these regulatory actions have spurred contentious debate and litigation. Environmental groups argue that these measures are not stringent enough, while some states and industries call them too costly.

Major sources of park air pollution include power plants, automobiles and industrial facilities. Unlike other pollutants emitted directly from these sources, like sulfur dioxide or lead, ozone is a secondary pollutant. It forms in the atmosphere through chemical reactions between nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds and sunlight. Nitrogen oxides originate from the usual urban pollution sources, but biogenic sources like trees are actually the largest source of volatile organic compounds, above industrial sources and cars.

Ozone pollution is a serious threat to human health and the environment. It has been linked to increased respiratory symptoms, hospitalization rates and mortality. It also is correlated with poor visibility in parks, and can damage sensitive plant species.

Ozone trends over time

To our surprise, for most of our study period we found that average annual ozone concentrations in national parks were nearly identical to those in metropolitan areas. However, summertime levels and the incidence of unhealthy days told a different story.

Since ozone forms in sunlight, levels typically are highest on hot, sunny days. When ozone levels exceed the national standard, , local and regional governments may issue alerts or urge people to avoid outdoor activities.

In 1990 cities had far more days bad ozone days on average than national parks. But through the decade, summertime ozone and unhealthy ozone days worsened in national parks. By the year 2000, ozone levels in national parks were, on average, very similar to those in metropolitan areas. Explaining this increase was beyond the scope of our study. According to the National Park Service, pollution in national parks can come from many sources, including power plants, industrial sources, vehicle emissions and wildfires.

Since the early 2000s, ozone levels in both national parks and metropolitan areas have improved. But bad air days still occur. On average, among the locations we studied, metro areas currently have 18 unhealthy ozone days per year, while parks have 16.

Bad air days drive away park visitors

To see whether visitors responded to changing ozone levels in the parks, we matched monthly visitation data from the National Park Service with various measures of monthly average ozone levels. We found that a one percent increase in ozone concentrations was associated with approximately a one percent decrease in park visitation on average. This response was most pronounced during summer and fall, when both visitation and average ozone levels are highest.

Why do visits decrease when ozone is high? We see two possibilities. First, visitors may worry about adverse impacts on their health. Second, visibility is typically poor when ozone levels are high because ozone participates in chemical reactions in the air that can form haze.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TXBP1t2rUc&w=560&h=315]

We found stronger evidence that health concerns keep visitors away. Park visitation has a robust negative correlation with the incidence of unhealthy ozone days, perhaps because of air quality warnings that accompany these high levels.

The value of further ozone reductions

Across the United States, ozone levels declined by 31 percent between 1980 and 2016. But city residents and tourists in national parks still experience unhealthy ozone levels for two to three weeks per year. Exposure to high ozone levels may be particularly harmful in national parks, since health effects from ozone are greater during exercise, such as hiking, backpacking or rock climbing.

Although we found that some people decrease their visits during unhealthy days, we still observed that since 1990, nearly 80 million visitor days have occurred during high ozone periods. This suggests that improving air quality in U.S. national parks could produce significant human health benefits. We hope that state and federal policy makers will weigh these benefits of improved air quality along with their costs as discussions move forward on air pollution regulations.

David Keiser, Assistant Professor of Economics, Iowa State University; Gabriel E. Lade, Assistant Professor of Economics, Iowa State University, and Ivan Rudik, Assistant Professor of Applied Economics, Cornell University

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Payday Loan Executive Sentenced for Scamming Thousands of Financially Strapped Consumers – CWEB.com

Credit Photo FBI

What criminal conspiracy charges against an alleged Russian spy might mean for the NRA: 3 questions answered – CWEB.com

Brian Galle, Georgetown University

Editor’s note: U.S. authorities have arrested Mariia Butina, a Russian advocate for firearms ownership also known as Maria. In a criminal complaint that led to her indictment, the Justice Department accused her of secretly infiltrating American electoral politics as a foreign agent working on behalf of Russia and engaged in an anti-U.S. conspiracy. Numerous media reports allege that Butina illegally helped funnel Russian money into Donald Trump’s presidential campaign through the National Rifle Association. Brian Galle, a law professor who used to work for the Justice Department, explains what the consequences might be if the charges and accounts are true.

1. How could the government punish the organization?

The court papers allude to the NRA, although not by name. Several news sources have described in detail the relationship Butina and her Russian employer built with the organization, starting in 2013 or earlier. Depending on what NRA officials knew and when they knew it, the government could make a case that the gun advocacy and lobby group coordinated with Butina to help her advance Russian interests here in the U.S. — making it a co-conspirator in her individual lawbreaking.

The NRA has several arms. Its largest operation is technically known as a social welfare group or 501(c)(4) organization, granting it exemption from U.S. taxes. Another branch is a traditional charitable organization, making contributions to that entity tax deductible. Under federal tax law, when either of these kinds of nonprofits break laws, they jeopardize their tax exempt status.

The government has stripped several nonprofits of their tax exemptions for breaking the law over the years, including organizations that used their charitable status to defraud donors and, in the 1940s and ‘50s, groups suspected of supporting communism.

Some media reports suggest the NRA served as a conduit for Russian money that landed in the Trump presidential campaign’s coffers. If that proves true, it would violate election laws that bar foreigners from funding political candidates. At the same time, however, there could be some ways to structure such transactions as technically legal, as dark money expert Robert Maguire notes.

In addition, many state and federal laws treat the use of fake or “straw donors” to make campaign contributions with someone else’s money as a crime, punishable with fines. Conceivably, there could be individual criminal liability, even jail time, for any NRA leaders who might be found guilty of scheming to misreport campaign expenditures.

But, I want to emphasize, nothing in the court papers unsealed on July 16, 2018, support those scenarios.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TXBP1t2rUc&w=560&h=315]

2. What might happen to its influence?

Since charitable giving tends to be an emotional act, some donors might not continue to support the NRA if it lands in legal trouble. Past scandals have weakened support for other prominent nonprofits, such as the Wounded Warrior Project.

For an organization that has cast itself as a bulwark of patriotism, any evidence that it conspired to undermine U.S. laws seems off-brand. On the other hand, polls indicate that support for Vladimir Putin has soared among Republicans, making it hard to predict how the NRA’s members and big donors might respond.

Public scrutiny might also make the NRA more cautious in how it doles out its political spending, a major source of its influence these days. The organization spent more than $30 million supporting President Trump alone in 2016, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. If its benefactors become more suspect, even among the NRA’s base, that could loosen its grip over many American politicians and policymakers.

3. How might the government catch more of these alleged infractions?

Although U.S. charities can’t engage in political spending, they are allowed to partner with social welfare groups, as the NRA and the NRA Foundation do.

Unlike charities, social welfare groups can lobby, and they are allowed to spend at least some of their budget on election-related activity. Their donors are known to the government, but hidden from the public, which is why their funding is sometimes called “dark money.”

And the Trump administration just made dark money darker.

Just hours after the government announced Butina’s arrest, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin declared that the IRS was reducing the reporting requirements for donations to social welfare groups. Under this new guidance, 501(c)(4) groups will no longer need to reveal most of their donations on their tax returns, even to the IRS.

In my opinion, it’s hard to see this move as anything except an effort to help big-money donors cover their tracks. Without a list of donors, the IRS can’t know when an organization is being used to further the interests of those backers, instead of the public.

Brian Galle, Professor of Law, Georgetown University

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Health clubs using tanning beds to attract members despite cancer risks, new study shows – CWEB.com

Sherry Pagoto, University of Connecticut

I drove past Planet Fitness on the way to my 10-year-old’s gymnastics class and had to chuckle at their sign advertising free pizza as part of a new member promotion. I decided to use this as a teaching moment, explaining to my daughter why we should avoid using junk food as a reward for exercise. This is one of many lectures she has heard from her mom, a cancer prevention scientist.

When I decided to look a little deeper into what gyms are offering to entice people to sign up, pizza turned out to be the least of my concerns. Many gyms offer access to tanning beds, a known carcinogen, to their patrons. We would be astounded if gyms provided tobacco to patrons, so we must pose serious questions to gyms who provide ultraviolet radiation.

The comparison of tobacco and tanning beds might seem like hyperbole, but it is not. They are both rated group 1 carcinogens and research shows that we now have more cancers related to tanning beds than cancers related to tobacco.

Gyms are supporting the tanning industry

To explore how pervasive these gym-tanning salons were, I asked my research assistant to call every Planet Fitness, Anytime Fitness and Gold’s Gym in Massachusetts and Connecticut to find out just how many had tanning beds. Of the 167 gyms we found on Google, 66 percent offer patrons tanning beds, with Planet Fitness the biggest offender where a whopping 100 percent of their franchises have tanning beds. In total, these gyms have 408 tanning beds. Extrapolating this to all 50 states would mean that these three gym chains alone house over 10,000 tanning beds nationwide. That’s an equivalent capacity to 1,600 tanning salons. The tanning industry must be thrilled.

Making the presence of tanning beds in gyms even more shocking is a recent study showing that people who are physically active are at increased risk for melanoma, the deadly form of skin cancer. Tanning bed use is a major risk factor for melanoma, which is now the third most prevalent cancer in women under 49 years old, a popular gym demographic. Why would we put a carcinogen in the facility frequented by people who are at increased risk for the very cancer it causes?

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TXBP1t2rUc&w=560&h=315]

I decided to conduct a study to learn more about people who use those gym tanning beds. We surveyed 636 people who have ever used a tanning bed in their life and found that about a quarter of them had tanned in gyms. When I compared the group who had tanned in a gym to the group who had not, I was surprised to find that the gym tanner is a much harder core tanner. They hit the tanning bed 67 percent more often than other salon tanners and were far more likely to report tanning addiction. Gyms seem to be a great place for tanners to get their fix.

We also found in our sample of tanners that more tanning was associated with more exercise. Now we may be onto why gyms provide tanning beds — people who tan a lot love to workout.

Undermining public health messaging

We do not know why tanning and exercise is linked so I can only speculate. Both activities are driven by a desire to look and feel better. Regardless, gyms that provide tanning beds reinforce the idea that tanning is part of a beauty regimen, and perhaps even worse, that tanning is part of a healthy lifestyle. Tanning is part of neither. It will destroy your skin and has the potential to completely destroy your health. For decades public health campaigns have attempted to dismantle the popular misconception that tanned skin is a sign of good health.

Tanning is a sign the body is receiving too much cancer-causing ultraviolet radiation. It is a warning sign.

Gyms should not provide tanning beds to patrons. Removing tanning beds from gyms surely won’t stop everybody from tanning, but that is certainly no argument for making them convenient for people at higher than average risk of melanoma. By pairing exercise with tanning beds, gyms undermine public health messaging and contribute to the cancer risk of their patrons. If you are
joining a gym to get healthy, my advice is: pick one that has your back.

Sherry Pagoto, Professor of Allied Health Sciences, University of Connecticut

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Electric scooters on collision course with pedestrians and lawmakers – CWEB.com

Jim Sallis, University of California San Diego

Electric scooters are appearing in many major cities across the country, bringing fun to riders, profits to scooter makers — and lots of potential risks to walkers and riders.

San Diego, where I live, is at the forefront of the proliferation of electric rideables, and as a physical activity researcher I am an interested observer. Recently, I was enjoying a stroll on the boardwalk when a couple of electric scooters zoomed past. As I saw a young girl start walking across the boardwalk, another scooter zipped by, and I could tell it would not be able to stop in time. The young woman riding the scooter was able to act quickly. Instead of crashing into the girl at full speed, she fell down with the scooter and slid to a stop. There was a crash and minor injuries to the rider, but a tragedy was avoided.

I consider this event a warning about the dangers posed by the electric vehicles that have rapidly become commonplace on local boardwalks and sidewalks. An online search will reveal many reports of injuries. A Dallas woman went to the emergency room for head injuries the week of July 9, and officials in Nashville are considering legislation there that would require registration for scooters.

Several issues emerge from this new mode of transportation, including whether riders should be required to wear helmets and whether the vehicles should be allowed on sidewalks. And, should drivers be permitted to use them while under the influence? I want to warn local government leaders, electric-rideable companies, and users of sidewalks about the three ways that electric scooters can harm health.

How electric rideables can harm health

Have the rideables come to your neighborhood yet? They will. A market research company predicted electric scooters alone will grow from a US$14 billion global market in 2014 to $37 billion in 2024. Bird and Lime, the two biggest scooter makers and both based in California, have placed scooters in nearly 30 U.S. cities in recent months, leasing them to riders seeking a thrill — or an alternative to ride-sharing.

There are many variations of one-, two-, three- and four-wheeled vehicles that share one major flaw. They all go too fast. Scooters go 15 mph, and electric skateboards, mini-motorcycles and one-wheeled devices can go faster.

The problem is that pedestrians walk 3-4 miles per hour, or slower. This means scooters are traveling four times as fast. If there is a clear path, the riders are going at full speed, because that is where the fun and thrills are. But considering the speed, weight of the devices and weight of the rider (sometimes two riders), the result is a dangerous force.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TXBP1t2rUc&w=560&h=315]

In a collision, the pedestrian will always be the loser. Putting these speeding motorized vehicles alongside pedestrians is a disaster waiting to happen. I could not find much data on injuries from electric rideables, but a study using the U.S. National Electronic Injury Surveillance System reported 26,854 injuries to children from hoverboards alone in 2015 and 2016.

A second way that electric rideables can harm health is by reducing walking. Ads for the devices claim they reduce car trips and carry public transit riders the first and last mile of trips.

But do they? I challenge the companies to provide evidence about this. Based on my observations, the devices mainly replace walking with riding. And it is well documented that low physical activity is one of the biggest health threats worldwide, being a major contributor to epidemics of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancers, dementia, etc.

The third way electric rideables can harm health is by making sidewalks hostile territory for pedestrians. Though scooters and other rideables are not allowed on the sidewalks, almost all the rides I see are occurring on sidewalks. If speeding electric vehicles become common on sidewalks, then I predict pedestrians will stay away. Our research group based at University of California, San Diego has shown that the better sidewalks and street crossings are designed for pedestrian safety and comfort, the more people of all ages walk for transportation.

Thus, I am concerned that competing with electric vehicles will make sidewalks less safe and comfortable for pedestrians. The U.S. already has among the lowest rates of walking and bicycling for transportation in the world. Will we now turn over the sidewalks to electric vehicles and further reduce our activity levels?

Walking is already too dangerous. About 6,000 pedestrians were killed in 2017. The Governors Highway Safety Association reported that the number of pedestrian fatalities increased 27 percent from 2007 to 2016, while at the same time, all other traffic deaths decreased by 14 percent. Clearly, the roads are not safe for pedestrians, so shouldn’t we protect sidewalks as a safe place for walking?

A quick fix: Slow things down

Local governments are actively working on responses to this obvious new danger. The first step in San Diego has been to enforce requirements for helmets, speed and single riders on the boardwalk. I have seen no such enforcement on sidewalks just a couple of blocks away. This infographic with safety instructions for electric rideable use is a good start to education for riders.

I have some further recommendations that will support safe use of electric rideables while improving conditions for walking and bicycling.

Let’s start by declaring sidewalks the domain of pedestrians, with motorized devices limited to those used by people with disabilities (#sidewalks4pedestrians). At least on sidewalks, the rights of pedestrians should come before the rights of vehicle riders.

Electric rideables should be allowed wherever bicycles are legal, which are bike facilities, lanes, protected bike paths and on the streets, but not on sidewalks. But there’s a problem with bikes and rideables on the streets — riding on the streets is not as safe as it could be on bicycles or rideables.

I envision a win-win scenario in which electric vehicle companies and bicycle advocates join together to advocate for rapidly building networks of protected bicycle facilities that can also be used by rideables. Most U.S. cities are unsafe for bicycling, so improvements are needed. Some of the electric rideable companies have market values of more than $1 billion, so they have the capacity to lobby cities for infrastructure that will safely accommodate their products.

I expect bicycle, pedestrian, health and environmental advocates would be happy to work with electric rideable companies to achieve long-sought goals for safe bicycling that are likely to produce more bicycling, less traffic congestion, fewer carbon emissions and healthier people. The electric rideable phenomenon is very new but growing rapidly, so the need for research on electric rideables is as urgent as the need for action. We need evidence to guide policies that will ensure electric rideables do not harm health and will possibly improve health.

Jim Sallis, Professorial Fellow, Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University; Emeritus Professor, Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California San Diego

This article was originally published on The Conversation.