Connect with us

Health and Wellness

every time you visit a national park, you save your health care budget almost $100

Published

on

A visit to the national park is good for our health and well-being. But there are advantages will not be shared equally throughout the community. Often, the individuals who need it most have the least access to a high-quality dose of nature.

We desired to quantify the advantages to the health care system on a dollar-per-dollar basis. After all, health care budgets exist constantly growing while urban green spaces with high biodiversity are sometimes degraded and compressed by development.

Our recent research puts a dollar value on the health advantages of visiting national parks near the town of Adelaide in South Australia. We estimate that every visit saves your healthcare budget almost A$100 ($96).

Nationwide, this implies 22 million one-day trips to national parks in 2019 could save greater than $2.1 billion within the nation’s health care bills annually. These estimates assume that visits and advantages are similar across the country. Taking care of nature will pay off.

How did we estimate it?

Research up to now shows that we spend time in nature can reduce stress, depression, anxiety, obesity, type II diabetes, heart and lung diseases. The health advantages of access to green spaces are sometimes cited to support biodiversity conservation, especially in cities.

However, it’s difficult to calculate the economic value of those advantages. There isn’t any data on the number of people that will profit from this and it’s difficult to estimate how large the profit is. For example, how do you calculate a “dose” of urban greenery as a healing agent and measure the quantity of health gained from a given dose?

To discover more, we examined the health advantages of access to nature in 20 national parks inside 60 kilometers of central Adelaide within the 2018–19 financial yr.

Survey sites (royal blue) in relation to the Adelaide Central Post Office in the town center (marked with an asterisk).
The creator provided

To learn how many individuals visited each park and the way far they traveled to get there, we used de-identified mobile phone “ping” data.

A ping occurs when certainly one of the applications on your phone sends a message to the closest phone station asking them to examine for updates. We obtained app ping data for every of the 20 national parks, giving us a tally of 1.45 million visitors in 2018-19.

We combined ping data with information from a survey of over 1,000 visitors to the park on attitudes towards and use of South Australian parks. It was also linked to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s overall data on the health of the South Australian population.

We then estimated the health advantages of access to parks for residents from different socioeconomic groups.

To determine this, we compared health assessment data from individuals who did or didn’t visit these parks. This showed that folks who visit parks are significantly more more likely to rate their health as “very good” or “excellent” in comparison with individuals who don’t. We also checked out changes within the health of various socioeconomic groups.

We were able to examine the differences within the health of people that responded to the survey. This gave us the result: the difference in positive self-reported health between park visitors and non-park visitors was between 2% and 5%.

We then used data from 2018-2019 on: cost of treatment ten categories of great, long-term chronic diseases – equivalent to diabetes, arthritis and cancer – to estimate savings within the health care budget.

How much good does a visit do?

During our study, we analyzed the health advantages of over 1.45 million visits to national parks.

We found that access to those green spaces could possibly be price $140 million a yr in reduced health care costs. This equates to roughly 4% of South Australia’s total health budget.

Dividing $140 million by 1,453,271 visits equals $96 per visit.

Access to nature isn’t equal

We found that folks living in lower socioeconomic areas needed to travel about 3 times as far to visit a national park as people living in higher socioeconomic areas.

As a result, people from areas with lower socioeconomic status are less more likely to visit national parks. We found that the variety of visits from people from these areas was roughly 20% of the variety of visits from people from areas with higher socioeconomic status.

This signifies that the share of health services available to people living in relatively disadvantaged areas is way lower. Health problems could have a greater financial impact on those that are relatively socioeconomically disadvantaged. Therefore, this group has probably the most to achieve from increasing access to nature, with greater potential savings for the health budget.

Supporting equal access to nature (Green Adelaide)

Health and environmental spending

In total, Australia spent approx $241.3 billion for health goods and services in 2021-22. That averages out to about $9,365 per person. Health care costs, equivalent to hospital expenses, proceed to rise.

Spending on Commonwealth public hospitals alone is anticipated to extend by $2 billion a yr.

At the identical time, expenses nature conservation accounts for lower than 0.1% of the Commonwealth budget and falls wanting Australians’ expectations. Almost all Australians (97%) want more motion to stop species extinction and more public investment to guard the environment and natural places (72%).

Our research shows that increasing access to nature by restoring urban biodiversity and increasing access to protected areas can bring advantages to residents, governments and budgets.

Health advantages for everybody

To fully realize and share these advantages, we want higher integrated budgets that consider the advantages the natural world has on our health and the broader economy. This requires the flexibility to measure nature and use it in ways we’ve not been in a position to before.

Our research has sparked interest amongst policymakers within the recreation and well-being sectors. These sectors have gotten an increasing number of visible in the marketplace national leveland likewise in South Australia in terms of valuation national parks and wildlife services.

As we higher understand the connections between nature and health outcomes, now we have a higher probability of investing well and equitably so that everybody can profit from improved physical and mental health.

This article was originally published on : theconversation.com
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Health and Wellness

Jury awarded $310 million to parents of teenager who died after falling on a ride at Florida amusement park – Essence

Published

on

By

Sun Sentinel/Getty Images

The family of Tire Sampson, the 14-yr-old who tragically died on an amusement park ride in Orlando, Florida, in 2022, has been awarded $310 million in a civil lawsuit.

Tire, who was visiting ICON Park along with his family on March 24, 2022, fell from the FreeFall drop tower. Although he was taken to a nearby hospital, he didn’t survive his injuries.

Now, greater than two years later, a jury has held the vehicle manufacturer, Austria-based Funtime Handels, responsible for the accident and awarded the Tire family $310 million. According to reports from local news stations WFTV AND KSDKthe jury reached its verdict after about an hour of deliberation.

Tyre’s parents will each receive $155 million, according to attorney spokesman Michael Haggard.

Attorneys Ben Crump and Natalie Jackson, who represented Tyre’s family, shared their thoughts on this landmark decision via X (formerly Twitter). “This ruling is a step forward in holding corporations accountable for the safety of their products,” they said in a statement.

Lawyers stressed that Tyre’s death was attributable to “gross negligence and a failure to put safety before profits.” They added that the ride’s manufacturer had “neglected its duty to protect passengers” and that the substantial award ensured it could “face the consequences of its decisions.”

Crump and Jackson said they hope the result will encourage change throughout the theme park industry. “We hope this will spur the entire industry to enforce more stringent safety measures,” they said. “Tire heritage will provide a safer future for drivers around the world.”

An investigation previously found that Tyre’s harness was locked through the descent, but he dislodged from his seat through the 430-foot fall when the magnets engaged. Tire’s death was ruled the result of “multiple injuries and trauma.”

ICON Park said at the time that it could “fully cooperate” with the authorities.

This article was originally published on : www.essence.com
Continue Reading

Health and Wellness

Tireless HIV/AIDS advocate A. Cornelius Baker dies

Published

on

By

HIV/AIDS Advocate, A. Cornelius Baker


A. Cornelius Baker, a tireless advocate of HIV and AIDS testing, research and vaccination, died Nov. 8 at his home in Washington, D.C., of hypertensive, atherosclerotic heart problems, in response to his partner, Gregory Nevins.

As previously reported, Baker was an early supporter for people living with HIV and AIDS within the Nineteen Eighties, when misinformation and fear-mongering in regards to the disease were rampant.

According to Douglas M. Brooks, director of the Office of National AIDS Policy under President Obama, it was Baker’s Christian faith that guided him toward compassion for others.

“He was very kind, very warm and inclusive – his circles, both professional and personal, were the most diverse I have ever seen, and he was guided by his Christian values,” Brooks told the outlet. “His ferocity was on display when people were marginalized, rejected or forgotten.”

In 1995, when he was executive director of the National AIDS Association, Baker pushed for June 27 to be designated National HIV Testing Day.

In 2012, he later wrote on the web site of the Global Health Advisor for which he was a technical advisor that: “These efforts were intended to help reduce the stigma associated with HIV testing and normalize it as part of regular screening.”

https://twitter.com/NBJContheMove/status/1856725113967632663?s=19

Baker also feared that men like himself, black gay men, and other men from marginalized communities were disproportionately affected by HIV and AIDS.

Baker pressured the Clinton administration to incorporate black and Latino people in clinical drug trials, and in 1994 he pointedly told the Clinton administration that he was bored with hearing guarantees but seeing no motion.

According to Lambda Legal CEO Kevin Jennings, yes that daring attitude that defines Baker’s legacy in the world of ​​HIV/AIDS promotion.

“Cornelius was a legendary leader in the fight for equality for LGBTQ+ people and all people living with HIV,” Jennings said in a press release. “In the more than twenty years that I knew him, I was continually impressed not only by how effective he was as a leader, but also by how he managed to strike the balance between being fierce and kind at the same time. His loss is devastating.”

Jennings continued: “Cornelius’ leadership can’t be overstated. For many years, he was one in all the nation’s leading HIV/AIDS warriors, working locally, nationally and internationally. No matter where he went, he proudly supported the HIV/AIDS community from the Nineteen Eighties until his death, serving in various positions including the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Association of Persons with Disabilities AIDS, and the Whitman-Walker Clinic . Jennings explained.

Jennings concluded: “His career also included several honors, including being the first recipient of the American Foundation for AIDS Research Foundation’s organization-building Courage Award. Our communities have lost a pillar in Cornelius, and as we mourn his death, we will be forever grateful for his decades of service to the community.”

Kaye Hayes, deputy assistant secretary for communicable diseases and director of the Office of Infectious Diseases and HIV/AIDS Policy, in her comment about his legacy, she called Baker “the North Star.”.

“It is difficult to overstate the impact his loss had on public health, the HIV/AIDS community or the place he held in my heart personally,” Hayes told Hiv.gov. “He was pushing us, charging us, pulling us, pushing us. With his unwavering commitment to the HIV movement, he represented the north star, constructing coalitions across sectors and dealing with leaders across the political spectrum to deal with health disparities and advocate for access to HIV treatment and look after all. He said, “The work isn’t done, the charge is still there, move on – you know what you have to do.” It’s in my ear and in my heart in the case of this job.

Hayes added: “His death is a significant loss to the public health community and to the many others who benefited from Cornelius’ vigilance. His legacy will continue to inspire and motivate us all.”

Baker is survived by his mother, Shirley Baker; his partner Nevins, who can be senior counsel at Lambda Legal; his sisters Chandrika Baker, Nadine Wallace and Yavodka Bishop; in addition to his two brothers, Kareem and Roosevelt Dowdell; along with the larger HIV/AIDS advocacy community.


This article was originally published on : www.blackenterprise.com
Continue Reading

Health and Wellness

Bovaer is added to cow feed to reduce methane emissions. Does it pass into milk and meat? And is it harmful to humans?

Published

on

By

There are growing concerns in regards to the use of feed supplements, Bowar 10to reduce methane production in cows.

Bovaer 10 consists of silicon dioxide (mainly sand), propylene glycol (food stabilizer approved by Food Safety Australia New Zealand) and lively substance 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP).

There has been an enormous amount of misinformation in regards to the safety of 3-NOP, with some milk from herds fed this additive being labeled “Frankenmilk”. Others feared it could get to humans through beef.

The most significant thing is that 3-NOP is secure. Let’s clear up some major misconceptions.

Why do we want to limit methane production?

In our attempts to limit global warming, we’ve placed the best emphasis on CO₂ because the major man-made greenhouse gas. But methane is also a greenhouse gas, and although we produce less of it, it is: a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO₂.

Agriculture is the largest a man-made source of methane. As cattle herds expand to meet our growing demand for meat and milk, reducing methane production from cows is a vital way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

There are several ways to do that. Stopping bacteria within the stomachs of cows that produce methane one approach is to produce methane.

The methane produced by cows and sheep doesn’t come from the animals themselves, but from the microbes living of their digestive systems. 3-NO stop the enzymes that perform the last step of methane synthesis in these microorganisms.

3-NOP is not the one compound tested as a feed additive. Australian product based on seaweed, Rumin8for instance, it is also in development. Saponins, soap-like chemicals present in plants, and essential oils as well has been examined.

However, 3-NOP is currently one of the popular effective treatments.

Nitrooxypropanol structure: red balls are oxygen, gray carbon, blue nitrogen and white hydrogen.
PubChem

But is not it poison?

There are concerns on social media that Bovaer is “poisoning our food.”

But, as we are saying in toxicology, it’s the dose that makes the poison. For example, arsenic is deadly 2–20 milligrams per kilogram of body weight.

In contrast, 3-NOP was not lethal on the doses utilized in safety studies, up to 600 mg 3-NOP per kg body weight. At a dose of 100 mg per kg body weight in rats, it didn’t cause any adversarial effects.

What about reproductive issues?

The effect of 3-NOP on the reproductive organs has generated numerous commentary.

Studies in rats and cows showed that doses of 300–500 mg per kg body weight caused: contraction of the ovaries and testicles.

In comparison, to achieve the identical exposure in humans, a 70 kg human would want to eat 21–35 grams (about 2 tablespoons) of pure 3-NOP every day for a lot of weeks to see this effect.

No human will likely be exposed to this amount because 3-NOP doesn’t pass into milk – is fully metabolized within the cow’s intestines.

No cow will likely be exposed to these levels either.

The cow licks itself
Cows will not be exposed to levels tested on animals in laboratory studies.
Ground photo/Shutterstock

What about cancer?

3-NOP is not genotoxic or mutagenicwhich implies it cannot damage DNA. Thus, the results of 3-NOP are dose-limited, meaning that small doses will not be harmful, while very high doses are (unlike radiation where there is no secure dose).

Scientists found that at a dose of 300 mg per kilogram of body weight benign tumors of the small intestine of female ratsbut not male rats, after 2 years of every day consumption. At a dose of 100 mg 3-NOP per kg body weight, no tumors were observed.

Cows eat lower than 2 grams of Bovaer 10 per day (of which only 10% or 0.2 grams is 3-NOP). This is about 1,000 times lower than the appropriate every day intake 1 mg 3-NOP per kg body weight per day for a cow weighing 450 kg.

This level of consumption will likely be not the result in cancer or any of them other adversarial effects.

So how much are people exposed to?

Milk and meat consumers will likely be exposed to zero 3-NOP. 3-NOP doesn’t penetrate milk and meat: is completely metabolized within the cow’s intestines.

Farmers could also be exposed to small amounts of the feed additive, and industrial employees producing 3-NOP will potentially be exposed to larger amounts. Farmers and industrial employees already wear personal protective equipment to reduce exposure to other agricultural chemicals – and it is advisable to do that with Bovear 10 as well.

Milk
3-NOP doesn’t penetrate milk and meat.
Shutterstock

How widely has it been tested?

3-NOP has been in development for 15 years and has been subject to multiple reviews by European Food Safety Authority, UK Food Safety Authority AND others.

It has been extensively tested over months of exposure to cattle and has produced no unintended effects. Some studies actually say so improves the standard of milk and meat.

Bovaer was approved for use in dairy cattle by the European Union from 2022 and Japan in 2024. It is also utilized in many other countries, including: in beef products, amongst others Australia.

A really small amount of 3-NOP enters the environment (lower than 0.2% of the dose taken), no accumulates and is easily decomposed subsequently, it doesn’t pose a threat to the environment.

Since humans will not be exposed to 3-NOP through milk and meat, long-term exposure is not an issue.

What does Bill Gates have to do with this?

Bill Gates has invested in a distinct feed processing method for methane, Australian seaweed-based Rumin8. But he has nothing to do with Bovaer 10.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation awarded research grants to the corporate producing 3-NOP for malaria control researchnot for 3-NOP.

The bottom line is that adding 3-NOP to animal feed doesn’t pose any risk to consumers, animals or the environment.

This article was originally published on : theconversation.com
Continue Reading
Advertisement

OUR NEWSLETTER

Subscribe Us To Receive Our Latest News Directly In Your Inbox!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Trending