While many studies have explored connections between caffeine and health issues like cancer, cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis, no evidence has been found to link moderate caffeine intake to these or other health risks. Caffeine does act as a diuretic, but the water in a cup of coffee tends to balance out the diuretic effects.

Caffeine acts as a mild stimulant to the central nervous system and both regular and decaf coffee can irritate the stomach. Caffeine can also act as an analgesic and may help protect against gallstones, cavities, type 2 diabetes and Parkinson’s disease, but more research is needed before caffeine can be proclaimed a “disease preventer.”

How much coffee is too much? Your caffeine sensitivity depends on the amount you drink, the frequency, your weight, physical condition and other factors. For most healthy adults, 200 to 300 milligrams of caffeine per day – about two to three cups of coffee – pose no physical problems.

- By Surinder Raja

The behavioral effects of stress

The behavioral effects of an over-stressed lifestyle are easy to explain. When under pressure, some people are more likely to drink heavily or smoke, as a way of getting immediate chemical relief from stress.

Others may have so much work to do that they do not exercise or eat properly. They may cut down on sleep, or may worry so much that they sleep badly. They may get so carried away with work and meeting daily pressures that they do not take time to see the doctor or dentist when they need to. All of these are likely to harm health.

The direct physiological effects of excessive stress are more complex. In some areas they are well understood, while in other areas, they are still subject to debate and further research.

- By Olga Niga

It’s an admittedly imperfect method of measurement, “but we used what we had.” Reports indicated that a third of the stroke survivors had minor apathy through the first year, with 3 percent having high levels of apathy. Apathy worsened for 7 percent of the survivors, and eased for 7 percent during the year.

Measurements of physical function showed that even very minor apathy had just as strong an impact on recovery as major apathy. Answers about the quality of life of the stroke survivors, such as their engagement in social activities, found lesser improvement among those whose apathy worsened.

It’s not clear what can be done to help in such a situation in large part because very little research has been done on apathy.

Drug therapy is a vague possibility, along with behavioral therapy. We don’t have anything that has evidence-based data other than being kind and enthusiastic. There needs to be a lot of work.

The report on the physical effect of hopelessness was an offshoot of a nationwide study of cardiovascular disease in women.

A previous study led by Everson-Rose, using the same questionnaire in Finnish men, found an association between hopelessness and cardiovascular disease outcome, other study in women with documented cardiovascular disease.

This new study found a direct relationship between rising hopelessness and thickening of the lining of the carotid artery, a risk factor for stroke. Overall, women measuring higher on the hopelessness scale had .02 millimeters more thickening, equal to the amount caused by one year of aging. Women with the highest hopeless scores had an average .06 millimeters greater thickening than those with the lowest scores.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that hopelessness had a direct physical effect, since it could be operating through mechanisms we didn’t measure.

Physicians should tell patients that emotional states can have a physical effect, and that they should seek appropriate treatment for them. Psychiatric treatment for severe depression and hopelessness is warranted.

John Aitken of the University of Newcastle in Australia says in a study published this week that cellular phones in men’s pants pockets damage sperm cells and their DNA.

Unlike previous studies that tested the effect of radiation on laboratory animals,  Aitken’s research group examined what happens to human sperm after 16 hours of exposure to mobile phone radiation. The study’s findings have been published in the journal Public Library of Science.

The study finds that a number of sperm-cell functions such as vitality motility were damaged following exposure. The DNA was also harmed. The researchers note that damage to sperm-cell function, not necessarily caused by radiation, is one of the main reasons that one out of 20 men in the world today suffer fertility problems.

Aitken, director of the Australian Research Council’s Center of Excellence in Biotechnology and Development, says the DNA damage may not have been caused by the radiation directly. Exposure to radiation causes electrons to leak from one part of a sperm cell to other parts, leading to oxidation processes that harm the DNA. The DNA damage affects other sperm-cell functions.

Microwave News, a leading Web site covering health and safety issues related to exposure to electromagnetic radiation, says the current study confirms Aitken’s study from 2005, which established a relationship between the use of mobile phones and reduced fertility among men.

“After 16 hours exposure, there was clear evidence of DNA damage,” Aitken is quoted in Microwave News from an address at a fertility conference in Brisbane last fall.

This forum was not set up by the mayor or members of her council or by Telus. It was initiated by concerned citizens looking for answers.

An electrical engineer expert was brought in, separate from the telecommunications industry, someone who had nothing to gain by the information he gave.

This tower is close to homes and schools and I and every one of my neighbours believe to our core that this is a health concern.

There is a book called Radiation Rescue by Crofton, PhD that should be read to educate ourselves on this relatively new technology.

Our main concern is, what is a safe distance from these transmitters. We have been told that 400 metres is a safe distance. There are families closer than that from this tower.

The Telus response to this was, “well, only a few homes are inside this distance.” These are not just houses. These are family homes with people living in them. To me, this is profit over people.

A quote from the Environmental Resource Study by Magda Havas, BSc, PhD. “Based on available science, placing antennas on high rise buildings near schools and embedding them in residential communities is an unwise course of action.”

One family in our neighbourhood is in the 200 metre range and they are so concerned that they are being forced to sell their home and leave the community.

Mayor Perrino and council members were given a personal invitation to attend this public forum and not one member of this council appeared. David Gregory and Peter Waterman, from our previous council, to their credit, did attend.

I think our elected officials are derelict in their duties when they don’t take the time to listen to the concerns of the electorate.

Another quote from Martin Blank, PhD, Columbia University. “We don’t feel the radiation and we don’t think it is doing anything, but in fact is a very potent biological agent.

When I look outside the bedroom window where my son sleeps, I will be able to see this tower. It will be transmitting 24 hours a day, seven days a week year-round emitting electromagnetic radiation and you tell me not to be concerned.