Saturday, April 30, 2011

Sex with multiple partners causes cancer. Seriously.

In my trip back up to Salt Lake from St. George, I was listening to NPR. There was a guy talking about cancer. Apparently at this point it has been shown that 20% of cancers are caused by viruses. Most recently (and newsworthily), it is suggested that people (women?) receive the HPV vaccine, because it will immunize you against cervical cancer. Anyway, the good news about this is that viruses can be prevented. Additionally, it is now noted that antibiotics will actually help with some causes of cancer. There are even some kinds of breast cancer that are apparently caused by a virus. THIS IS HUGE, because viruses can be stopped.

Here's a link to an article explaining how oral sex causes more throat cancers than smoking. Seriously. http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/03/01/133968901/virus-passed-during-oral-sex-tops-tobacco-as-throat-cancer-cause?ps=sh_fthdl Of course it's not just sex, it's sex with multiple partners, or with someone that has had multiple partners, that is dangerous. According to the article, a person that has had oral sex with 6 people is 8 times more likely to get throat cancer.

Here's another article that talks about how viruses are being looked at more and more as causes of cancer. http://www.livescience.com/10023-viruses-cancer-previously-thought.html

I really wish I could find a link to the interview that I heard earlier. He explained a couple of times that the virus gets into a cell, and then it causes the cell to replicate with a slightly altered composition. Not a full on "I'm a viral cell!" composition, but one that makes the body think that these cells are normal players to be left alone. Eventually, often years later, these altered cells 'wake up,' and surprise! you've got cancer.

Maybe some of you all already knew this. I didn't. I thought cancer was caused by having different genes period. Guess not. Anyway... Rock on!

Jeff

Sunday, April 10, 2011

Who's the blindest of them all?

I have often found myself in near arguments with people over who had poorer vision. It's in some ways like a badge of pride to feel like you're getting through life with handicaps that others don't have. Anyway, it's a big deal to me. I've given a lot of thought about how having "low vision" can affect a person throughout their lives up to the age of 31. :) I can't think of a good way to make this less rant and whiny... so I'm just going to spew out my complaints and "wisdom."


Image from www.atlasaviation.com/medical/pilot_vision.htm


A legally blind person does not drive a vehicle. To be legally blind by US federal definition you have to show that, with the best glasses or contacts available on, your vision is still worse than 20/200 in your best eye. That means that what a person with good (20/20) vision sees at 200 feet, you see at 20 feet. The other option is to have a visual field of 20 degrees or less. A normal person can see about 135 degrees up and down and 160 degrees from side to side. To drive you have to have at least 20/40 vision.



Image from www.atlasaviation.com/medical/pilot_vision.htm


Some ways that I think having poor vision has affected me: I'm a life-long squinter. Before my surgeries, I could always see better when I squinted, actually putting physical pressure on my eyes probably reduced the astigmatism or changed the curvature of my eyes, and it helped. Now it's a habit that I just can't seem to stop doing. Of course it doesn't help that even after two big surgeries, Islena still sees better than me, even though she doesn't have perfect eyes, and even if I put my glasses on. I think some people mistake my squint for me being in a bad mood. Whatever.


... ... ... ...


I have also noticed that there's a certain socially acceptable distance when you're supposed to say hi to an aqcuaintance when you see them in the street. In the case of a person with poor vision, you're always making educated guesses as to whether you know the person or not. Sometimes, you don't say hi to someone you know until that correct social time to do it has passed. Sometimes, you say hi to someone you don't know. This is especially embarrassing if you said their name in the salutation... or asked about their kids. Or how their pregnancy is going. Sometimes you wonder if they are wondering why you are staring at them. Really it's because you're about 60% sure you know them, but you want to be more sure before starting out the necessary salutations. Personally, I'm the guy that says "hey" to everybody. Know them, don't know them, it's all good. Or I just never look up at people, and if someone sees me and says hi, then I say hi back, with the excuse that I didn't see them.


... ... ... ...


Another area affected by poor vision is sports. Naturally I was the wide receiver on my Freshman football team. Because who needs to see to catch a football under bright stadium lights with a helmet on, right? To my recollection I never caught a pass in an actual game.



Image from http://thesegentlemen.blogspot.com/2009_11_01_archive.html


I really think my vision was severely affected in school. I often sat at the back, and couldn't see the board in school. I should have sat at the front, but to sit at the front you have to be willing to let all the people behind you stare at your back and talk about you, or so I thought, and I wasn't confident enough to do that. I remember Mrs. Fawcette's Spanish class in particular. She must have been farsighted, because whenever anyone didn't seem to be able to read something that she was holding, she would back it even further away to see if they could see it better. I'm sure she didn't do it from malice, she just didn't realize that even at a few feet away, sometimes it was too far. Poor vision was only a small part of my school difficulties, but it was there.


... ... ... ...


I have been in two accidents that were caused by me. In the first, my error was thinking that I could get by going 10 miles an hour slower than other vehicles in a snowstorm. I should have been going 20 miles an hour slower. I knew my car was light and had balding tires. The other was poor vision. It was early evening, and I was squinting up at the street sign to see what street it was long after a person with good vision would have known. There had been a rear ending collision less than a minute before I got there, and the two vehicles were stopped right on the other side of the green light. I looked down too late, and wasn't able to come to a complete stop before hitting the rear end of a vehicle that had rear ended another vehicle.


... ... ... ...


I think in general vision is correlated to social and action related confidence. Seeing better means better information faster, which means better decisions faster. It's easy to get used to being the last person to understand a developing situation around you, or to see instructions or signs, or to notice others' body language. The good news is that it's fairly easy to forget about all of these differences, because if you've never seen 20/20, then really you don't realize what a difference it makes. If you've never walked around with 20/1500 vision, then you don't have to worry about it. It's only that moment of change, when you have a surgery, or new and better correction through glasses or contacts, that you really feel the difference that it makes.


... ... ... ...


Anyway, my reason for writing this blog was to talk about my surgeries. They did my left eye first. My vision was too poor for lasik (reshaping cornea by removing tissue from the middle of the cornea) or PRK (reshaping the cornea by shaving off areas of the exterior of the cornea.



Image from www.atlasaviation.com/medical/pilot_vision.htm


My surgery was a lens implanted in the eye. It's similar to cataract surgery, except that they leave the original lens in the eye, and just put another one in. For the first surgery, they put a verisyse lens in. My understanding is that the lens was originally named for its creator, and called the "Worst Iris Claw lens." For some odd reason, this didn't fly with the marketing people. I still tell the occasional person that I have the Worst Iris Claw lens in my left eye. Actually I don't. But it would be funny if I did. At least for me.



Image from www.urmc.rochester.edu/eye-institute/lasik/procedures/verisyse.cfm


Anyway, they shot some holes in my cornea with a laser so that eye juice could still circulate after the lens wss in place. Then they cut a slit in my cornea, slid the lens through there clipped it into the front of my iris (colored part of the eye), and then closed up my cornea. You have to hold still while they shoot the laser into your eye. Otherwise... bad things happen. It's also a good idea to hold still while they take the knife to your eye to slice open the long narrow gash to get the lens in. When you have 20/1500 vision, you can focus on the tip of the blade until it is about an 1/8 of an inch from the cornea. Luckily I didn't have to worry about squinting or closing my eye because there was a speculum in it, forcing it open and making blinking impossible.


... ... ... ...


For a similar experience in a non-clinical environment, I suggest staring at a 100 watt light bulb from about 6 inches away without blinking for a while, then stabbing the eye with a knife. I'm totally kidding. Kindof. They did all these things, but I wouldn't suggest the do it yourself home trials.


... ... ... ...


The Verisyse surgery was followed by Limbal Relaxing Incisions. The implant helped get rid of most of my myopia (nearsightedness), but didn't do much for my astigmatism, which was also quite severe. Myopia and hyperopia (farsightedness) are due to problems of the eye being non-spherical in terms of being more like an egg shape (longer than normal front to back) or like a... flying saucer shape? Shorter from front to back anyway. Light is received at the cornea and focused back to a perfect point in the back. If the distance from front to back is too much or too little then the light doesn't focus at the right point, and you get nearsightedness or farsightedness. When the eye is an imperfect shape, like a pear with one side slightly larger or bumpy, then the light will never come together and focus at a single point. It focuses at differing points. This is astigmatism.


... ... ... ...


Limbal Relaxing Incisions (LRIs) are designed to cut the cornea and make it looser to make the overall shape of the eye more even to reduce astigmatism. I apparently have very healthy resilient corneas, and they kept healing up as they had been after several LRIs. They like to wait to make sure the operated eye is ok before operating on the other eye. So a year or two later I got my right eye done. By that time, there was another lens available, that was placed behind the iris. The same holes in the iris for circulation were needed. This lens actually folded, so the cornea didn't need such a big slit cut in it. It was rolled up and passed through a small hole, and then opened up and arranged inside the eye. LRIs didn't work on my right eye either.


... ... ... ...


For those that are interested, Lasik and PRK are options for people with up to about -10 diopters. Diopters are the numbers that you use to buy glasses. If +1.5 glasses work for you, you are at -1.5 diopters. Lens implants are for those between -11 to -20. My vision was -21 and -24 in my eyes. They helped a lot. At the end of the day, while I didn't get perfect vision, I did get to a point where I don't have to wear glasses or contacts. I have a new pair, but don't wear them all the time. I'm also a candidate for Lasik surgery, since the needed correction isn't so significant anymore. When I was ready for Lasik, my surgeon wanted me to wait a couple more years for my eyes to 'settle' to make sure I didn't have any complications. Since that time, I've kindof forgotten about it.

Thursday, April 7, 2011

Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers?

I find this question very annoying. So I want to explain some of the background beliefs of Mormons. We believe that you and I, and every person that has ever lived since Adam, are children of God. Not in some strange mystical sense, but in the sense of God is the father of our spirits.
... ...
We believe that each of us is composed of a spirit (child of God) and a body (child of our biological parents). The difference, for Mormons, between animals and people, is that animals are creations of God, while people are children of God. So while scientists find more and more similarities between us and other animals, we see the huge differences as a natural result of our different provenance. To me it seems quite easy to understand: those with a mind that can think and a voice that can talk, etc. are children of God. Animals aren't that way.
... ...
We believe that before this earth was made, we all lived with God (whom we often refer to as Heavenly Father). At that time, we were all spirit brothers and sisters. We also believe that angels are children of God. They too are our brothers and sisters. We believe that they are messengers of God, and follow the same path as the rest of us. Quite probably they were/are drawn from the very faithful children of God. Anyway, at some point, as it is written in the Bible, there was war in heaven. We believe a third of the hosts of heaven rebelled, and were cast down. Satan was the leader of the rebels, while Jesus and Michael (who we believe came to the earth as Adam) were the leaders of those that did not rebel.
... ...
We believe that the rebellious third never received physical bodies, while those that followed Jesus did receive bodies, including everyone that has ever lived. In any case, we believe that all of these groups, including people on the earth, spirits that haven't yet been born into the world, those that rebelled against God, angels, etc... pretty much all sentient beings... are children of God. And because they are children of God, they are also brothers and sisters.
... ...
So do we believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers? Yes of course. Not in any special, weird way. Just like you and I are siblings, or you and anyone else. Spirit children of Heavenly Father. When this question of Mormons believing that Jesus and Satan are brothers is brought up, it just seems to me that it's like... "How offensive! How could they believe that? They must be devil worshippers" or something.
... ...
A person may not agree, or may not have beliefs as detailed or as simple as far as who we were before we were born... but a lot of these things are mentioned in the Bible. For example, when the bible refers to Jesus as the "first begotten" like in Hebrews 1:6, we see that as Jesus being the first/oldest spirit child of heavenly father, while references to the "only begotten" like John 1:14, refer to his birth to the Virgin Mary. All the rest of us have a biological father, whereas Jesus was "the" son of God.
... ...
It's one of the things that I really like about the LDS church. We don't have a lot of questions about some of these very basic issues, like Where were we before we were born, Why are we here, What happens when we die, etc. We believe that we have prophets and apostles today that are similar to those of ancient times. They can answer all the burning questions about what we need to do to be saved and also about moral issues of today. The church's website is http://mormon.org/ if you have questions from a more official website.
... ...
I appreciate comments, questions, opinions, and dialogue. Thanks!

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Men vs. Women: Negotiating: Why women make 80 cents to a man's dollar

This blog is mostly for the girls in my cohort of speech therapists. We're all in the process of getting jobs, and I just wanted to share something I heard on NPR a few weeks ago. A study showed that men are four times more likely to negotiate their salaries than women. The average graduate level employee that negotiates their salary for their first job makes 1-1.5 million dollars more over the course of their career than someone who does not negotiate the salary of their first job.


Image from www.islandmix.com/backchat/



So how do you negotiate salary? Here's a link to a Washington Post article about that: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/jobs/how-to/negotiate_salary_guidance.html And here's a link to an askmen article about it: http://www.askmen.com/money/career_100/141_career.html The ask men article seems quite useful... And I have no idea why they have a website called askmen. It's kinda weird. But the article is good. I had to X an ad to see the article, but that's not a big deal.


Image from http://ozguru.mu.nu/archives/2007/03/


The main idea of these articles is to do your research, know what you're worth, let them introduce the salary, and then talk it out with them. Anyway, some of us that are working at schools will have exactly 0 opportunity to negotiate. Although EBS, which contracts therapists to schools, will pay an SLP on average 3-7,000 more per year than the district would have otherwise. Which means that school districts do negotiate. Anyway... NEGOTIATE! Think of whether 1.5 million dollars is worth a little conversation instead of a rubber-stamp "yes" when they make an offer.


Image from www.10dailythings.com/2010/07/25/


As Speech Language Pathologists, we are in demand! A good number of us will be working at a place that wouldn't have an SLP, or would have to pay thousands more per year to a company to contract one, if we didn't work there. I have found a job for CFYs that offers 62,000, one that offers 63,000plus, and one that offers 94,000 for a CFY!


Sunday, April 3, 2011

Thoughts on "The Price of Taxing the Rich"

An article was written for the March 26, 2011, Wall Street Journal exposing a noted problem with taxing the rich. The article can be found be clicking: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704604704576220491592684626.html Robert Frank, who wrote it, compares states by the amount of tax income received by their top earners, the mega-rich. It is a very interesting article and I suggest reading it.

The issue is that, apparently, the incomes of the mega-rich are also the most volatile in the country, so a state that gets a large percentage of its income from taxing them, will suffer a lot more in a recession when those incomes are decreased more than income earners that are closer to the average. I totally agree. California and New York are really hurting, and it's mostly because the guys that pull in 10 or 20 million dollars per year on average only pulled in 2 or 3 million in the most recent couple of years. Don't ya feel bad for them? It's like an 80% drop in income. How do they live?

Anyway, my big disagreement with the article is the proposed solution. The solution, apparently is to lower their taxes, and raise the taxes of the guys that are making 30,000 to 100,000. This would make a state's tax income less susceptible to recession swings.

I think there's something morally wrong with lowering taxes on the millions a year guy and raising them on the thousands a year guy, just to keep state tax revenues steady.

How about this. It'll be insanely hard. The most hard thing a politician can do, probably... Save money. I would say leave the tax rates where they are, put a spending cap in place, compute a rolling 10 year average of tax incomes from the richest 1%. Whatever that average is, any income above it from a given year gets put into a rainy day fund for any year when the income from this group is below average.

Here's another insanely difficult thing for a state to do. After a few boom years, when this fund starts getting big enough to cover some bust years, start investing any extra money. States could actually start getting money from investments, and then they wouldn't need as much in taxes years down the road. Lots of foreign countries do this, including communist countries and oil rich tyrant countries. A state could invest in companies, currencies, etc.

Another unthinkable thing to do would be for the federal government to do it. Instead of our federal government paying other nations that underwrite our increasing debt, how about we get out of debt, and start investing our money? Some say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.