This is interesting. Apparently, a single joint of marijuana has the same damaging effects to the lungs as 2.5-6 cigarettes in airway obstruction tests, which is definitely news to me. I wasn’t too aware of the relationship between marijuana and lung disease, but I’m not at all surprised to find that it’s been fairly extensively characterized previously.

Here’s the whole abstract:

The Effects of Cannabis on Pulmonary Structure, Function and Symptoms
Aldington S et al. Thorax. doi:10.1136/thx.2006.077081

Background: Cannabis is the most widely used illegal drug worldwide. Long term use of cannabis is known to cause chronic bronchitis and airflow obstruction, however the frequency of macroscopic emphysema, the dose-response relationship and the dose equivalence of cannabis with tobacco has not been determined.

Methods: A convenience sample of adults from the Greater Wellington Region was recruited into four smoking groups; cannabis only, tobacco only, combined cannabis and tobacco and non-smokers of either substance. Their respiratory status was assessed using high resolution CT scanning, pulmonary function tests and a respiratory and smoking questionnaire. Associations between respiratory status and cannabis use were examined by analysis of covariance and logistic regression.

Results: A total of 339 subjects were recruited into the four groups. A dose-response relationship was found between cannabis smoking and reduced FEV1/FVC and sGaw, and increased TLC. For measures of airflow obstruction, one cannabis joint had a similar effect to between 2.5 and 6 tobacco cigarettes. Cannabis smoking was associated with decreased lung density on HRCT scans. Macroscopic emphysema was detected in 1/75 (1.3%), 15/92 (16.3%), 17/91 (18.9%) and 0/81 subjects in the cannabis only, combined cannabis and tobacco, tobacco alone and non-smoking groups respectively.

Conclusions: Smoking cannabis was associated with a dose-related impairment of large airways function resulting in airflow obstruction and hyperinflation. In contrast, cannabis smoking was seldom associated with macroscopic emphysema. The 1:2.5 to 6 dose equivalence between cannabis joints and tobacco cigarettes for adverse effects on lung function is of major public health significance.

For some reason, I’d always subscribed to the concept that marijuana was less damaging to lungs than cigarettes, mentally relegating it instead primarily to the psychoactive miscreant category for which it’s much more widely known. Of course, most of this mindset was probably derived from fellow fraternity brothers telling me so, so how could it possibly be bad for you? They definitely had more expertise than I did.

But, this study is bittersweet for me. Sure, cannabis is bad for you, worse, even, than tobacco on an apples-to-apples basis. The problem, though, is that, even though they designed their study to allow for an apples-to-apples comparison, it’s an unrealistic representation of the real world. According to a 1985 book investigating cannabis use in the UK, the average number of cannabis cigarettes smoked in a day among cannabis cigarette smokers was 1.5, or, in terms of lung damage, the equivalent of between 4-9 tobacco cigarettes. Given that a pack of cigarettes in the US must contain at least 20 cigarettes, this equates to between a fifth and roughly half of a pack. I’m not too familiar with cigarette smoking patterns in the present day, but I’d guess that most everyday smokers smoke much more than this. In other words, you’d have to smoke a hell of a lot of marijuana—at least twice as much as the average cannabis user in 1985—to harm your lungs as badly as the typical smoker in my estimation. Cannabis is bad, but it’s used in such moderation relative to cigarettes that its pulmonary effects must be fewer on the whole.

(In saying this, I’m assuming this was not discussed in the article. It very well may have been and should be by all accounts. However, I won’t know for a while since, even though I work at a world-class university with world-class bibliographical resources, I still don’t have access to the full text. Tisk tisk, British Medical Journals.)

Orac linked to a disturbing story about an anesthesiologist in MA who was suspended for sleeping during cases (among other things). Given that my mom is an anesthesiologist and that I often call her when she happens to be in the middle of a case (oops!), perhaps I should start calling her even more often, just to make sure.

Of course, if I were an anesthesiologist, I’d probably be down before the cases even started.

The New York Times, increasingly my favorite source for science news, has a nice piece today about many aspects of cancer from the patient’s point of view. It also highlights nicely with this graphic the ongoing dilemma the world faces in treating these cancers, particularly lung cancer, my field of interest.

It’s hard to believe, but lung cancer survival rates have made exceedingly little progress over the past several decades while practically every other cancer type has seen significant, if not phenomenal, advances in treatment successes. Lung cancer kills almost as many men than prostate, colorectal, and pancreas cancers combined in a given year and almost as many women as breast and colorectal cancers combined. That is simply astonishing.

I took some time today to update the front page of this site, but it’s still fairly crude. Lucky for me, I prefer crude, stylistically-speaking. Still, I plan to populate the links with some actual content in near future, with the extent of nearness directly correlated with my ability to figure out how the hell to get things on the internet without swearing too much. I would especially like to put some photos up in a fashion similar to Graham Walker’s site, which still amazes me. The software is on my computer; now I just need to learn how to upload it.

I was going to write a post about a recent study released by the ACS regarding popular misconceptions about cancer, but The Cheerful Oncologist has already done it, and he’s done it well. Go check it out.

I will note briefly, though, that according to the study, 6% of Americans believe that underwire bras cause cancer, which is so weird to me. How on Earth did that viewpoint ever become so popular? There are a few studies from several decades ago that link duration of bra usage, among other bra characteristics, to breast disease in general, but underwire bras? What does that have to do with anything?

Finally, once again, the ignorance of the American public shocks the hell out of me in thinking that air pollution is a greater risk factor for developing lung cancer than smoking.

I recently wrote about Bush’s preliminary decision to resist Congress’ efforts to increase the level of funding for health insurance for underinsured children by heavily taxing cigarette sales (by as much as a 250% increase, according to some reports). In so doing, I did not mince words, and I don’t feel any differently now, except that now I’ve seen another editorial on the topic, as well as Bush’s own words that kindly explain what in the hell is going through his head.

Let’s start with Bush himself. During a speech in Cleveland after having met a few folks at Cleveland Clinic, he said, referring to a doctor with whom he spoke,

He said something pretty wise, though. He said, ‘You can have all the technology that man can conceivably create, but if you continue to smoke, we’re going backwards. If you’re not exercising, if you’re not taking care of the body yourself, all the technology isn’t going to save your life.’ In other words, there is a certain responsibility that we have as citizens to take care of ourselves.”

Well, sure. If you don’t take care of yourself, you’re going to die eventually. Smoking is bad. Lack of exercise is bad. That doesn’t change the fact, however, that access to decent medical care can, at times, help you. That’s been proven over the last, oh, several centuries at the very least. If Bush doubts this, then he’s even less not fit to be President. It also doesn’t change that fact that, increasingly, we are not taking care of ourselves.

It’s interesting that the doctor mentioned smoking specifically, though, because that’s one thing that this bill directly targets. The irony here is that Bush can, if he so chooses, provide children with access to decent medical care and reduce smoking, preventing us from “going backwards” and forcing us to “take care of ourselves” by limiting some access to tobacco products.

Of course, according to Bush, everyone already has access to medical care:

The immediate goal is to make sure there are more people on private insurance plans. I mean, people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room.”

Right. Emergency rooms. Just go there for all your troubles and you’ll be fine! Now with no waiting!

The editorial I mentioned puts the situation a bit more plainly but doesn’t equivocate its author’s accompanying confusion whatever:

After the Senate Finance Committee approved an expansion of the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program to cover nearly 10 million kids, President Bush offered a strange rationale for threatening to veto it.”

You really should read the whole article to get the full effect. It’s short and sweet, and one gets a sense that its author really is going nuts at this point over the incompetence of this administration.

Peter Sagal was on fire during the most recent episode of “ Wait Wait…Don’t Tell Me!” this past weekend. Have a look at these beauties!

Remember the national intelligence estimate from the summer of ‘01, the one titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike America”? Well, the good news is that this summer they saved a lot on printing by just handing it out again. The latest national intelligence estimate says that Al-Qaeda is as strong as it ever was. They credit the organization’s resurgence to a low-carb diet and lots of Pilates classes in their caves.”

“Oh, and the fact that we invaded Iraq.”

And later, while interviewing US Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who was intimately involved with the Scooter Libby case, this gem:

Sagal: “So you live in the city here, in Chicago, and you moved here from New York, and you like it here. You live on the north side, I’m told, and you work downtown. So let me ask you: How do you feel about…commuting?”
Fitzgerald: “…I don’t mind driving.”

If you don’t listen to WWDTM, you most definitely should.

I have found two easy workarounds for this weird oversight on the collective part of Apple and Nike:

1. Start and pause the podcast of interest, and choose “Now Playing” before starting your workout.

2. Create a smart playlist in iTunes called “Podcasts” with the following criteria: Kind->is->MPEG audio file; Podcast->is true; and make sure it updates live and that all the rules you created must be followed. This will create a playlist with all of your audio podcasts that is navigable in the Nike+iPod mode during a workout, and you can flip through them on the go. (In order for this to work, the shuffle mode must be set to Off.) You can also add criteria, for example, that will specify that only new podcasts be added, or only those that are more than a week old, or those that were downloaded within the last 48 hours.

Stick with #2. Much more convenient with a very easy setup. Ensures maximum Radio Lab exposure without stoppage.

Cue A calling me a nerd. Anyone else have creative solutions for getting your podcast fill?

This is merely an abstract, which you can view for free—only because I’m feeling generous. In order to view the full text, to which you do not yet have access, even if your institution subscribes to this publication, you will need to order the article, which will cost you dearly. My sincerest apologies. Sucks for you.

---

Background
It is widely accepted that dogs bark on occasion, and those that bark excessively or inconveniently may ultimately cause societal strains between their owners and owners’ neighbors, especially in densely populated habitations. A vast array of products have been introduced to limit barking, including but not limited to electrostatic stimulation (”shock”) collars, ultrasonic feedback collars and wall units, and collars emitting irritating but harmless chemicals, such as citronella. However, few of these products exhibit sufficient efficacies as to warrant their worry-free use, and significant data, both predicted and anecdotal, exists to suggest that some owners never cease to think about the potential harm a barking dog in the home could cause during working hours. Methods
Two Apple computers (one Powerbook and one MacBook Pro), each equipped with built-in speakers and microphones, wireless internet capability, and iChat, an instant messaging client, were used in the study, which—it is appropriate to mention here—was neither “scientific” nor “a study” whatsoever. The Powerbook, hereafter referred to as the home computer, was set up two feet from a crate containing Charles T. O’Hara, an English-type yellow labrador retriever and probably the coolest dog in the world, save for the barking, prior to normal working hours when the owners were planning to be absent from the home. Prior to the study, the iChat client was modified to automatically accept incoming audio and video chats using an Apple script (macosxhints.com, probably somewhere in California, USA) and opened, and the volume was set to 100%. The MacBook Pro, hereafter referred to as the remote computer, was brought to a remote location approximately six miles to the south of the home computer and connected wirelessly to a network. Upon opening iChat, an audio chat was initiated with the home computer, which was automatically accepted, and the chat was muted with respect to the remote computer so that the home computer could not hear the remote location. In this fashion, the remote computer could be used to monitor the sound environment of the home location. As needed, one-way video chats were additionally initiated by the remote computer and similarly muted. Also as needed, in both audio and video modes, the remote location was unmuted to allow its user to remotely reprimand Charles.

Results
Because the test subject had endured the use of all previously mentioned modalities of barking cessation previously, he undoubtedly was at least partially rehabilitated prior to the commencement of the study. Nevertheless, this modality unquestionably worked (p<0.000046). Over a two-day test period, during which the test subject whined often and barked occasionally, remote vocal reprimanding markedly reduced subsequent barking for a substantial period of time, which increased with subsequent vocal reprimands. Similar soothing effects were seen with remote visual reprimanding using video chat capability. Overall, this trial moved Charles from the category of probably the coolest dog in the world to definitely the coolest dog in the world and increased his coolness quotient (CQ) by 26%* (n=1, * denotes p<0.05).

Discussion
Dog barking has been a major problem for millennia and probably since the inception of Earth only a handful of centuries before that. In this vein, I have devised a system for remote reprimanding of one’s dog while at the workplace involving yelling over internet protocol, or YoIP. This system is similar to common voice over internet protocol (VoIP) applications, with the major differences being that in this system, one party is a dog, making the conversation primarily one-sided; and that the amplitude with which one speaks is significantly louder, usually qualifying as yelling. Additional differences would include the significant limitation of the observed vocabulary using this system, which largely involves the use of phrases such as “no,” personal identifiers such as “Charlie,” and “SHUT THE HELL UP” (emphasis denoted based on actual conversations). During video use, certain facial expressions were often present, such as characteristic lowering of the eyebrows, that are typically not employed during conventional VoIP use.

---

Reprints of this article abstract can be purchased online for $79.99 USD per five minutes of viewing. Printing, as always, is not allowed, so don’t even delude yourself into thinking it’d be possible. Upgrading to the full text version is significantly more, lasts for six minutes instead of five, and allows for printing only of the title, and I’m simply withholding the actual numerical value because I can’t count that high and I want to confirm that the number actually exists. Everything contained herein is scientific fact and should not be considered otherwise. Full citation:
Charlie, Owner of. Characterization and implementation of YoIP, a novel dog-training modality. Aequanimitas. 2007;1(and only):1-46.

I began this incarnation of the weblog with the expressed intention of remaining as anonymous as possible, both for its own sake and for the sake of my future career as a professional. Appropriately, I have been tagged by those crazy Canucks of the bayblab to divulge parts of my life story and, insofar as doing so will completely negate these efforts, I have decided to expand upon some of the snippets about me on the About page of this site (look up) and offer up some other such miscellany.

First, The Rules.

1. I have to post The Rules before I give you the facts.
2. I start with eight random facts/habits about myself.
3. As I have been tagged, I need to write my own blog about my eight things and post The Rules.
4. At the end of my blog, I need to choose eight people to get tagged and list their names.
5. I mustn’t forget to leave them a comment telling them they’re tagged, and to read my blog.

I’ve never been one to follow The Rules too closely, so unfortunately I’ll be breaking most of these as well.

Let’s begin. (more…)