Flight attendants expose themselves to plenty of health risks when they sign up for this job. However, the scientific evidence was scarce when it came to certain risks, such as cancer. Now, researchers have finally managed to develop a conclusive study that proves airline workers have a higher risk of developing cancer than other people.

The flight attendant job implies some risks

There are plenty of physical risks that affect flight attendants, including circadian rhythm changes and radiation exposure from the upper atmosphere. However, researchers weren’t able to delve too well into the issue. Their results were even fewer when it came to cancer, so a team of researchers from Harvard University decided to perform a new analysis.

They started the project in 2007, when they had 5,366 flight attendants self-report their health state. Every year, they repeated the observations so, for this study, they used the results from 2014. Afterwards, they used a control group of 2,729 people with a similar social economic situation to the flight attendants.

Flight attendants exhibit a bigger cancer risk regardless of gender

This way, they noticed flight attendants had a much bigger chance of getting cancer than the control group. In female attendants, the risks of breast, uterine, cervical, gastrointestinal, and thyroid cancer were all bigger. There wasn’t too much of a difference between them and regular people, but statistics show such discrepancies cannot occur randomly.

In male attendants, the risk of skin cancer was bigger when it came to both melanoma and non-melanoma tumors. Also, for every five years they spend as flight attendants, these people increase their risk of skin cancer regardless of gender.

This is the best study ever developed that assesses the cancer risk among flight attendants. The results are quite surprising, since these people are usually not exposed to other risks like smoking or obesity. However, there’s something you should keep in mind. The study was observational, so it couldn’t account for any possible causes for this elevated risk. Also, researchers think some factors might have influenced the results, such as the younger age of the control group.

The study was published in the journal Environmental Health.

Image source: Wikimedia Commons

The FDA has just marked one of the most remarkable medical milestones in the US history. For the first time ever, the administration has approved a drug produced from cannabis. The drug in question is called Epidiolex and should treat even the most serious forms of childhood epilepsy. However, the drug won’t get on the market too soon, as it first needs approval from the Drug Enforcement Administration.

DEA’s classification keeps cannabis-based drugs from getting on the market

The Drug Enforcement Administration has been dealing with drug classification for many decades. Almost 50 years ago, they included cannabis on the list of Schedule I drugs, next to LSD or heroin. This category should contain drugs that can easily become addictive and which have no medical use.

However, researchers have managed to show cannabis can be useful from a medical point of view. DEA’s classification still keeps them from continuing their research, but there’s another problem. The FDA has just approved the drug produced from cannabis, but it won’t go on the market before DEA changes the classification.

The drug produced from cannabis is the only effective treatment against childhood epilepsy

Epidiolex is a drug produced from cannabis but doesn’t share any symptoms with the drug. It contains cannabidiol (CBD), one of the two components of marijuana. It has no psychoactive effects, as opposed to THC (tetrahydrocannabinol).

This drug produced from cannabis is effective against two types of epilepsy, the Lennox-Gastaut and the Dravet syndrome. So far, researchers have found no treatment to work on these diseases, so Epidiolex is a real medical breakthrough. The clinical trials on this drug showed how children who took the drug experienced 40 percent fewer seizures.

This is a strong enough reason for DEA to consider a reclassification. According to its spokesperson, the organization has given serious thought to this decision, but it’s not clear how quickly the drug produced from cannabis will get on the market. However, there’s one more alternative. DEA could reclassify only CBD and leave cannabis where it is.

Image source: Max Pixel

Tattoos are quite fashionable, but it might be better not to get one if your immune system is weak. Doctors released this warning while presenting the case of a Scottish woman who had undergone a lung transplant and was suffering from cystic fibrosis. After getting a leg tattoo, the woman started experiencing pain in her knees and thighs.

Tattoos might be dangerous for weak immune symptoms

Tattoos usually come without risks, but they might interact with certain drugs. Although most artists don’t warn people beforehand, doctors are cautioning those who take immunosuppressants. Usually, these drugs are prescribed after transplants or for those with autoimmune diseases. Therefore, they might have quite a big impact on the immune system.

However, it’s quite understandable why these people should think twice about getting tattoos. Since their immune system is weak, they are more prone to infections. Therefore, all these people should get medical advice before any such interventions.

The leg tattoo didn’t interact well with the medication

Unfortunately, the 31-year-old Scottish woman didn’t do it before her leg tattoo. Ten months after the procedure, she ended up in the hospital with terrible pains. The knee of the tattooed leg had swollen and she couldn’t sleep because of the discomfort. This was strange, since she had other tattoos on her other leg and had no trouble with them.

Researchers were quite baffled, since they found no clear origin of the problem. They discovered no bacterial infection, but the MRI scans showed the muscles near the leg tattoo were inflamed. After finding out about the treatment the woman was undergoing, they started putting the pieces together.

However, it’s still not clear the leg tattoo was the direct cause of the inflammation. However, given the moment when the symptoms appeared and the location of the pain, they found no other explanation. The case of the woman was described in the journal BMJ Case Reports.

Image source: Wikimedia Commons

Sugar is bad for anyone if consumed excessively, but it has even more damaging effects for children. The CDC decided to take a look at the diet of toddlers and obtained some worrying results. It turns out kids between 6 and 23 months old eat way too much added sugar. In fact, the quantity of sugar they consume exceeds the limits set for adults.

What is added sugar?

Researchers were concerned about the health of American toddlers, so they developed a survey where they interviewed parents with children aged between 6 and 23 months. They asked them questions about the foods they feed their children with. Then, they assessed the quantity of added sugar these foods contain.

These types of sugars come from syrups or other sweeteners added to foods after processing. Most of this sugar is found in soda, cookies, cakes, or ice cream. Therefore, it doesn’t include natural sugar from fruits. Added sugar is one of the biggest risk factors for our health, as it might lead to heart disease, obesity, or diabetes.

For the survey, parents had to write a list of all the things they usually feed their children in a day. Then, researchers put down any product with added sugar, excluding natural sugar coming from fruits or vegetables. This way, they discovered toddlers don’t follow too healthy diets.

Toddlers eat too much added sugar

The results were really worrying, as kids actually consumed way more added sugar than the limit established for adults. Also, the situation became even more dangerous. As kids advanced in age, the quantity of sugar they consumed was even bigger. On any random day, they consumed an average of seven teaspoons of added sugar.

When you compare this to the limits for adults, you’ll see the situation isn’t too bright. Women are advised to eat only 6 teaspoons of sugar per day while, for men, the limit is of 9 teaspoons. Toddlers should actually not eat added sugar at all, so parents should revise these guidelines before choosing a diet for their kids.

The findings will be presented during this’s year meeting of the American Society for Nutrition.

Image source: Pixabay

Researchers at St. Louis University want to make you ill, but for a noble purpose. The university has turned the old Water Tower Inn in the city into a research unit where people receive influenza virus on purpose. Nicknamed Hotel Influenza, this center will pay people $3,500 to get exposed to the flu virus and see how they react.

At Hotel Influenza, people are willingly being infected with the flu virus

Hotel Influenza gathers mainly researchers from the university’s Center for Vaccine Development. There, people can receive either the real flu virus or a placebo and, then, researchers will look at what happens in their bodies. They have to stay there for ten days, as the virus is highly contagious. When the period is over, they can go back home after receiving $3,500 for agreeing with the experiment.

This type of study actually has a long and complicated history. About 100 years ago, researchers came up with the idea for the human challenge study. This consisted of exposing people directly to the disease virus. Of course, this hasn’t always been safe, but the recent development of technology has made the method better for using.

People are still skeptical about such human challenge studies

The first time when researchers attempted a Hotel Influenza experiment was in 1936. Two doctors from Russia selected 72 healthy volunteers and exposed them to the flu virus. This way, they discovered the entrance point of the virus in the organism was through the lower part of the respiratory tract.

However, there was a problem with such scientific trials, and it seems to persist. People started debating if it’s ethical to expose healthy people to different viruses. The Hotel Influenza experiment should be safe, since people have to consent to the infection and they also receive a monetary reward. Such human challenge studies are still frowned upon, and they come with plenty of guidelines and restrictions from WHO.

Image source: Max Pixel

Not drinking alcohol doesn’t make you less likely to take sick days, suggests a new study. Researchers from the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health were curious about the correlation between drinking habits and missing work, so they discovered an interesting phenomenon. Both non-drinkers and heavy drinkers were more likely to get sick, while moderate drinkers took fewer days off.

Not drinking alcohol might keep you from going to work

Many people tend to brag if they don’t consume alcohol, so Finnish researchers decided to see if this has any influence on their health. Therefore, they looked at how alcohol consumption influenced illness among workers in three countries: UK, Finland, and France. There was an impact indeed, but not how you would expect it.

Those who were more likely to take sick days were both non-drinkers and heavy drinkers. Many people used to think not drinking is a lot better than moderate drinking, but this study proves the contrary. The results showed drinking played an important role in the mental health of the employees.

Moderate drinkers were the least likely to take sick days

For instance, non-drinkers had 50 percent higher chances of taking sick days for issues related to their mental health. However, the same correlation applied for other conditions as well. Among other diseases, there were also digestive and respiratory disorders and injuries of the muscles and bones.

Interestingly enough, the big amount of sick days was present even among people who drank really small quantities of alcohol. This way, researchers identified a low limit for sake drinking. For men, this is of about 34 units per week, while for women the limit is of 17 units per week.

However, take these findings with a grain of salt. The study was merely observational and looked at the correlation between alcohol and sick days. It didn’t take into account other diseases caused by alcohol consumption, as some guidelines might indicate much smaller quantities of alcohol as safe.

Image source: Max Pixel