WASHINGTON (Reuters) July 19, 2004 — Chalk up another benefit of eating fish — it can reduce the risk of deadly irregular heartbeats, researchers reported on Monday. Baked or broiled but not fried, fish helped reduce the risk of atrial fibrillation, Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues found.
“The results suggest that regular intake of tuna or other broiled or baked fish may be a simple and important deterrent to atrial fibrillation among older men and women,” Mozaffarian said in a statement issued by the American Heart Association.
More than 2 million Americans are affected by atrial fibrillation, a chronic condition that causes fatigue, shortness of breath and an inability to exercise.
The heart’s two upper chambers, called the atria, quiver instead of beating effectively. Blood is not pumped out properly and may pool and clot.
These clots cause about 15 to 20 percent of strokes.
Writing in the journal Circulation, Mozaffarian and colleagues said they studied 4,815 people over the age of 65.
They asked them to describe what they ate, beginning in 1989, and then watched them for 12 years.
Doctors discovered 980 cases of atrial fibrillation in the volunteers. Those who reported eating more baked or broiled fish were the least likely to have atrial fibrillation.
Those who said they ate fish one to four times per week had a 28 percent lower risk, compared to those who ate fish less than once a month.
The researchers credit the omega-3 fatty acids found in many types of fish as well as in walnuts, flaxseed and many green leafy vegetables. Omega-3’s are also believed to reduce the risk of a range of heart disorders, and are important to brain development and function.
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Lara Lighthouse is fighting the planned route of a 230,000-volt power line near San Francisco because she’s afraid it will make her family sick. “We would have to move if this line is built too close to our property. We don’t want to take the risks,” she said.
California’s push to build more transmission lines to satisfy growing demand for electricity is stirring concern over possible health effects from electric and magnetic fields — EMFs — created by electricity lines. Angry homeowners in the paths of big transmission projects near San Francisco and in Southern California have bombarded state utility regulators with pleas to detour the lines away from homes, schools and offices.
A review of scientific studies by the state’s Department of Health Services said there was no conclusive evidence that EMFs are harmful but studies have suggested links to childhood leukemia, adult brain cancer, Lou Gehrig’s disease and miscarriage. The Edison Electric Institute, a utility industry trade group, said “although several studies conducted in the past suggest a link between proximity to power lines and some forms of childhood cancer, only a few show a statistically significant link and many show no link at all.”
“Nationwide, EMF concerns have receded significantly over the years, and much of the opposition to new transmission projects has been of the garden-variety NIMBY type,” said Jim Owen, an EEI spokesman. “However, EMF as an issue is unlikely ever to disappear entirely.” ….
California utilities, under pressure from the CPUC, are launching new transmission lines in fast-growing suburban areas to make the power grid more reliable. More transmission capacity and new power plants aim to avert a rerun of California’s electricity crisis in 2000-2001, when a supply shortfall triggered blackouts and the bankruptcy of PG&E Corp.’s Pacific Gas & Electric utility, the state’s biggest.
Lighthouse, a mother of two young children, and several hundred of her neighbors in the San Francisco suburb of Burlingame fear that EMFs are harmful and want the PG&E line moved about a mile away from their homes and buried at least 11 feet deep. “We are very concerned about EMFs and health risks. They have to be taken into account when routing power lines, so people are not exposed to high levels,” Lighthouse said.
Underground lines usually are buried about 5 feet to 6 feet, but Paul Moreno, a PG&E spokesman, said the utility could go to 11 feet but does not want to shift the alignment as far as the neighbors do. “EMFs are used in efforts to stop or realign transmission projects,” he said. “The reality is these lines give off very low levels of EMFs at the right of way, far lower than you would find in homes, offices and schools.”
This is an issue that periodically resurfaces despite little or no evidence of any short-term or long-term adverse effects of living close to EMFs. Interestingly, most of the same people who worry about EMFs don’t seem to fear mcirowave ovens, television sets, or even cell phones (I’m not suggesting they should, by the way… I just find the inconsistency interesting from a psychological point of view).
What does it take to convince people that something isn’t a danger, and can that ever be accomplished once a fear about it has been aroused? Perhaps the skepticism and cynicism about our political leaders and big industry is to blame. Maybe many of us feel we’ve been misled or lied to so many times that we don’t trust the evidence that scientists, industrialists, and politicians place before us.
health, electromagnetic radiation, medicine