I find this article extremely interesting considering that multiple times this year, I have gone through different tests and such, and I possibly have a food allergy to MSG. Reading this article almost made me laugh from how accurate it is and how opening/informative it was. I knew that telling if someone had a food allergy was difficult, but I never realized it was this difficult. From reading this article, it sounds pretty much like a guessing game. I don't know if it's possible to find a better, more certain way to test a person for food allergies, but I sure wish there was. The article says, "It's a limiting diagnosis; it's difficult socially, it's difficult nutritionally..." this quote is so true. I'm not 100% sure that I have a food allergy, but this year has been extra difficult for me because I've been dealing with the possibility. I got a rash/hives from whatever it is that I'm allergic to, and it really does limit you socially... a lot! Even if other people don't really notice, it makes everything more difficult. With the added stress, and frustration... things would definitely be much easier if there was a clear test that could say 'yes, you are allergic to this allergen,' but, no such luck. I think that the new guidelines they are working on are definitely needed, and hopefully they are successful and show improvement. However, I have a feeling that food allergies will always be a big guessing game, or if they do come up with some way to tell, the test will be so expensive that the average person will not be able to afford it. Doctors and medicine and tests are discovered and are made to help people, so I don't understand why they are all so expensive that so many people can not take the help they need and are offered... I guess life wasn't made to be easy, we all have to have some major challenges. For all of the people suffering from food allergies out there; I feel for you, and, in the future, I wish us all success!
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
"Food Allergy Diagnosis 'an Inexact Science'"
A food allergy does not have a universally accepted definition, and it does not have accepted criteria for diagnosis. Some people who have severe food allergies may not respond to the common tests, and others may be avoiding certain foods, but they may not even have a food allergy. There is no cure for food allergies, and it is uncertain why people develop food allergies. There are three main tests to see if one has a food allergy, the skin prick test- a small amount of certain foods are put in below the surface of the skin,- blood tests- test blood for the allergy related antibody Immunoglobulin E,- and the patch test- one wears a patch of a possible allergen on their skin for a few days. However, these tests are not positive, or 100% correct all of the time. They do not include how severely one will react to a certain allergen or how they will react if they ingest that substance. Other methods should be considered, because if one relies just on the test alone, many may be over-diagnosed. New guidelines are being worked on and are intended on being out the fall of 2010. The guidelines include physicians to go through the patient's history and exclude other possibilities, then use a skin or blood test, and then (if the test is positive) follow up with giving the patient the allergen in a controlled setting. Regardless of the new guidelines, diagnosing food allergies will continue to be a challenge, but figuring out if one really has an allergy is important, because allergies limiting, socially and nutritionally.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
"BP: Crews Dealt Setback in Placing Containment Dome at Oil Spill Site"
The oil spill, which is increasing by 210,000 gallons: equal to 5,000 barrels a day, was set to be potentially 'fixed' aka 'under control' by placing a containment dome over the broken wellhead. However, BP was dealt a setback because many hydrates (crystals which form when gas combines with water) accumulated inside of the dome. The hydrates make the dome float and they blocked the tope of the dome so BP would not be able to funnel the oil up into a ship. Now the crews must work hard to get rid of the hydrates. Workers did know that hydrates would be a problem, just not this big of a problem. The dome is not guaranteed to work, it has never been tested at the conditions it will be in in the ocean. There is another possible solution be considered, which includes "tak[ing] ground up material of various types and try[ing] to inject it into the blowout preventer at the bottom of it and it will flow up and plug it up." This method also has it's risks. Some success can be said about the oil spill though. Thousands of volunteers worked to skim the water's surface and collected 17,500 barrels of an oily-water mix and there were five successful controlled burns.
I'm glad to hear that some success and progress is being made on fixing this oil spill. However, I must say that I'm disappointed in the actions or lack of actions that people are taking. To me it seems that BP has not reacted quickly enough. The oil spill began shortly after April 20. That is ten days short of a full month now. I would think that they would have done something by now to try and halt the growing spill issue. I know that they were working on making this dome, but now to find that they have to do more work on it to make it successful... I would think that with almost a month in preparation, they would have worked out all of the kinks. This spill is a disaster, a man made disaster that is going to harmfully impact the environment in a way that will last for decades! And still, almost a month now, 5,000 barrels of oil are spilling into the ocean every day! I just can't really grasp on the idea that it has been a month and nothing has been done or attempted... well I guess one thing has, but still, I feel that this attempt is long overdue and should have been done a matter of days after the spill began. People should have been working major overtime, and more workers, more ideas, more care, more action should have been present. Maybe I'm just thinking idealistically and none of this is actually possible, but then again, maybe I'm not. All I can do is pray that things get fixed soon and that actions are made and something turns out to be successful. My prayers go out to all of the volunteers, to the people living on the coastline, to the environment and to all of the attempts and work going into trying to fix this disaster.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
"Consequences of spills can last for decades"
The oil spill (which has now began reaching the coastline) started on April 20 when the BP drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico exploded. Two days later it sank and left oil gushing into the ocean. With multiple conflicts surrounding the issue of stopping the ever-growing spill and getting rid of as much of it as possible before it reaches the coast, people and scientists have felt a growing stress on how they can save the coastline. Since the spill is so large and is growing everyday, we're are facing a "long-term poisoning of the area. Ultimately, this will have a multi-decade impact." The oil spill in Alaska in 1989 consisted of 11 million gallons of oil, and still today one can find oil lying under rocks on beaches. The ultimate damage of the oil spill we are dealing with today can not be officially determined, it all depends on how much reaches the coast. The coast could face much more damage than Alaska's coast did because it is made up of mostly marshland and has calm waters making the oil much more difficult to clean up. One of the big issues with this oil spill is that from the Gulf of Mexico we get 40% of the U.S.'s seafood supply. Some say the damage will last from two- five years, but as we know from the Alaskan beaches, the damage can last much longer than that!Sometimes I just have to wonder how people come up with ideas... who just randomly thought to drill for oil in the ocean? First, I have to say that I'm glad this spill happened before President Obama's oil drilling plan started, and I hope that this puts a huge gap and prevents or at least puts more restrictions on this drilling. I have seen some footage of the oil spill in Alaska and people trying to clean up from it... I know that it was a lot of hard work with long hours and that many animals and plants suffered greatly, not to mention how it affected the whole ecosystem. I honestly don't really care about the oil spill today will affect the seafood, how the spill, once it reaches the shore, will destroy a large amount of the seafood the U.S. consumes. I don't like and therefore don't eat seafood, but I know that with this loss, many people will not be happy and it could be possible that some businesses will have to suffer a lot and pay more to import seafood which people won't like as much, lose business, and some may go bankrupt. What I'm more concerned about is the coastline and how it will affect the ecosystems and habitats in those areas. Especially with much of the coast being marshland, the oil will affect it that much more with the calm waters and such. Just think of all of the poor animals that will not be able to escape and the plants that will have a slow death, like you being wrapped in plastic with no air holes, just left sitting there to die. I really hope that people will learn a lesson from this and move forward- in a positive direction. There obviously needs to be greater restrictions for oil companies: more check-ups or replacing more often or routine checks to make sure things are working properly... something needs to be done. Or, I have an idea, let's not drill in the ocean anymore and use that money instead to find ways where we can be non-dependent on oil! People need to focus on helping the environment and earth and not be so selfish. Resources will not be there forever, so let's preserve them so the future can live just as great lives as we have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)