SWSLHD and Bowral's Health - 61

Sperm damage possible via Wi-Fi

2nd Dec 2011

Catherine Hanrahan   all articles by this author

Medical Observer

Radiation from the laptop connected to Wi-Fi was three times higher than without Wi-Fi, and at least seven times higher than control conditions.

USING a laptop connected to the internet via Wi-Fi could be decreasing men’s fertility by affecting their sperm quality, a new study suggests.

Researchers conducted a simple experiment comparing sperm samples from 29 healthy donors left under a Wi-Fi connected laptop computer for four hours with sperm samples kept away from any electronic device.

They found that progressive sperm motility was 80% in the control sperm compared with only 69% in the sperm sample exposed to the Wi-Fi laptop.

The drop in motile sperm corresponded to an increase in non-motile sperm of around 25% in the sperm exposed to the laptop, compared to 14% in the control sperm.

Similarly, more than twice the number of sperm, 8.6%, had fragmented DNA in the sample exposed to the laptop compared with only 3.3% of control sperm.

“Our findings suggest that prolonged use of portable computers sitting on the lap of a male user may decrease sperm fertility potential,” the authors from Argentina said.

Radiation from the laptop connected to Wi-Fi was three times higher than without Wi-Fi, and at least seven times higher than control conditions.

The authors speculated that the detrimental effect on sperm quality was due to radiofrequency electromagnetic waves, not a thermal effect, because temperature was controlled during the experiment.

Fertil Steril 2011; online 23 Nov

Tags: Wi-Fi, laptop, sperm, radiofrequency electromagnetic waves, fertility

COMMENTS: 

Bite-my-Lip
2nd Dec 2011
2:56pm

Most rubbish study I've read. What the papers values 0.6?

 

loomingstorm
2nd Dec 2011
5:58pm

Typical tiny under-powered sensationalised melodrama-type study. Inappropriate conclusions drawn from data with innumerable confounders that were simply ignored so that the punch line could be published. Yet another annoyingly unprofessional publicity stunt!!

 

Gina
3rd Dec 2011
10:02am

I knew I should have bought a bigger laptop
Harvey here I come

SWSLHD and Bowral's Health - 60

Big tobacco ‘pulling out dirty tricks’ in court challenge

2nd Dec 2011 - Medical Observer

 
O'Brien Mark   all articles by this author

Big tobacco ‘pulling out dirty tricks’ in court challenge

BRITISH American Tobacco’s (BAT) High Court challenge to the government’s plain packaging legislation has been rubbished by Quit executive director Fiona Sharkie , who said she expected the challenge to fail.

"What we are seeing is a tobacco industry completely on the ropes, pulling out any dirty trick or tactic in an attempt to undermine this important legislation which will prevent countless Australians from becoming addicted to their deadly products in the future," Ms Sharkie said.

"They have very deep pockets so we expect to see all kinds of nonsense from the tobacco industry over the next twelve months,” she said.

BAT launched the legal action hours after the plain packaging bill received royal ascent, and will argue the legislation is invalid because the federal government is trying to acquire valuable intellectual property without compensation.

No date for the hearing of the case has been set but it is likely to be no earlier than the second quarter of next year.

BAT spokesperson Scott McIntyre said the company had consistently said it would defend its intellectual property on behalf of their shareholders.

"If the same type of legislation was introduced for a beer brewing company or a fast food chain, then they'd be taking the government to court and we're no different," Mr McIntyre said.

The challenge followed legal action launched by tobacco company Philip Morris Asia on 21 November, which served a notice of arbitration with the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, claiming the commonwealth is essentially stealing its brands.

"Obviously we'd rather not be in a situation where we're forced to take the government to court, but unfortunately for taxpayers the government has taken us down the legal path," Mr McIntyre said.

Health Minister Nicola Roxon said big tobacco just couldn't give up their addiction to legal action.

"They have fought governments tooth and nail around the world for decades to stop tobacco control," Ms Roxon said in a statement.

"Let there be no mistake, big tobacco is fighting against the government for one very simple reason – because it knows, as we do, that plain packaging will work.

"While it is fighting to protect its profits, we are fighting to protect lives."

Tags: Plain Packaging, Nicola Roxon, British American Tobacco, Philip Morris

COMMENTS: 

Misty
2nd Dec 2011
5:31pm

It is amazing that this sick and wicked industry seeks to protect its"market of death" through the courts, an institution that was conceived to defend and protect the rights of those on the receiving end of injustice.

 

Peter Arnold
2nd Dec 2011
8:58pm

"BAT launched the legal action hours after the plain packaging bill received royal ascent"
Could one say that the stink of tobacco has gone to high Heaven?
'Spellchecker' 1, sub-editor 0.
'Pedantic Pete' Arnold

SWSLHD and Bowral's Health - 59

HCCC denies doctors the ‘option to state their case’

2nd Dec 2011

Byron Kaye   all articles by this author - Medical Observer

THE NSW Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) has been forced to scrap its standard practice of giving every complaint recipient the chance to respond as it struggles with a sharp rise in notifications despite falling staff numbers.

HCCC commissioner Kieran Pehm also revealed, in the commission’s annual report, that the agency has stopped contacting each complainant to discuss their grievance, and its “service to complainants and providers has suffered” as complaints against the state’s medical professionals rose 16.8% in 2011.

The spike came as permanent staff at the HCCC, the only state-based health watchdog since all others merged into AHPRA, continued to decline from 85 in 2007–08 to 77 now.

“In response to the increasing number of complaints, the commission has had to alter its practices, which has resulted in an inevitable reduction in the level of customer service,” Mr Pehm wrote.

“As a result of the increased demand on its resources, the commission had to limit the action it takes on complaints. This means that in more cases, it no longer clarifies the issues with the complainant, does not seek a response from the provider and gives notice of the outcome only in writing.”

An HCCC spokesperson said the report specified that the new strategy of assessing notifications “solely based on the information provided in the complaint” applied mostly to minor complaints deemed likely to be dismissed anyway.

However, Avant medico-legal consultant Dr Craig Lilienthal said the new measure amounted to “denial of natural justice” as it meant more health professionals were not given the option to state their case, however minor the complaint.

“It’s a huge step backwards... making the complaints process totally unreasonable,” he said.

But Dr Brian Morton, chair of the AMA’s general practice council, supported the measure, saying it would save taxpayer money and take up less of doctors’ time with “frivolous complaints”.

COMMENTS:

 

Gila-mdc
2nd Dec 2011
3:04pm

What a good idea - the HCCC can undertake its independent evaluation and sort of the real ones from the ridiculous, nonsensical complaints.

 

ton doulos
2nd Dec 2011
3:33pm

Finally one of these kangaroo courts is been to be seen for what it really is .
viz.and institution not interested in the nature of any issue rather that the real issue is that there has been a complaint at all

 

DrPhil
2nd Dec 2011
6:14pm

so now you can kick the doctor who can't defend themselves???? we need more details on the difference between Brian's position and Craig's.

 

Babyteeth
2nd Dec 2011
9:18pm

In the NSW Parliament Second Reading (2005) of the new HCCA Act, the HCCC were told not to investigate Minor Complaints anymore. Finally, in 2011, they are now answering that directive. In between times, many Drs have been prosecuted for minor Complaints, and one Dr was de-registered for multiple minor Complaints (new Section 37 of the MPA). This couldn't go on, so the HCCC has finally taken the correct position....Simple airing of Complaints is the best way to go, and there really is no need for Drs to reply, but they can if they want to....hopefully this is a move away from the punitive model.... All Drs need to be investigated all of the time, and that is the end point we should aim for......Also, most minor Complaints are false Complaints, and need to be ignored, and shouldn't be added together to convict the Dr....False minor Complaints brought down our Medical Insurance Industry.

 

Babyteeth
2nd Dec 2011
9:23pm

We have to laugh at Avant Insurance and the AMA who stood around for Thirty years, and allowed innocent Drs to be prosecuted, and pursued relentlessly by the HCCC and the NSWMB. Avant Insurance and the AMA, told the innocent Drs to plead guilty and accept their Medicine. Both the AMA and Avant, also allowed and encouraged the most hideous changes to NSW Legislation from 2005 onwards. Both the AMA and Avant, encouraged the few 'bad Apples' concept of Prosecution as long as the HCCC didn't pursue the Specialists and their mates.... Note, both the AMA and Avant, have changed their core people for decades, and so nothing changes, yet it appears the HCCC may be changing...

 

Dr Anne
2nd Dec 2011
11:29pm

a psychotic relative of a patient once made an unfounded complaint about me, but I could do nothing about it. Why couldn't I complain about him? He was a professional (non-medical)and spent his time writing to the HCCc about various doctors. But nothing was done to stop him.
And, Babyteeth, you don't make sense -if 'all doctors need to be investigated all of the time', but most complaints need to be ignored, where is the logic in that?

 

Babyteeth
3rd Dec 2011
12:07am

Dr Anne, your Complainant was a Psychopath,as they like to destroy people, and the system we had in the past, encouraged these outrageous Complainants.,,, in the past, whether this encouragement of Complaints crossed the line to pre-meditation of Complaints against targeted Drs (a likely evolution), is what I am concerned has not been answered to date. ....... I want a level playing field, a benign system, where all Drs weaknesses are recognised, challenged and improved....yes, my statement contradicts, but we will have to compromise with the Authorities,....and even I have learnt from a vexatious Complainant who pressed my buttons and got me to respond, and even to get angry.... I am trying to find a system, that will satisfy the Authorities, but almost removes totally the punitive component of the system.....I only want Punishment of Drs for totally reckless intoxication, crimes and criminal exploitation of their position....A Dr should not fear the end of their career every time they get a Complaint....... Also, the defence of Complaints can be far too complicated to test in Court, ....for example, 'misdiagnosis', 'botched surgery' and 'failed follow-up' Complaints often accuse the wrong Dr as there may be 6 other Drs involved in the background of the patient's care....and history tells us the 'better and most innocent' Dr of those involved ends up facing the prosecution....

 

DR GEORGE QUITTNER
4th Dec 2011
7:21am

IF ONLY IT WERE THAT SIMPLE. The psychopaths also have access to the courts. The unfettered access by mentally disturbed patients to "due legal process" can convert a conscientious doctor's life into a nightmare. I would caution any doctor who thinks they can manage the narcissist.