Health & Fitness

This article was created in partnership with Vital All-In-One.

from Nutrition | body+soul https://ift.tt/30MhJl2

Snezana and Sam Wood have proved not all love stories are traditional. Here, she shares how she's getting through isolation with her family, through late night feeds, workouts and why a good smooch in the morning and at night should never be underestimated. 

from Health | body+soul https://ift.tt/3kCnZ6Y

Scientists have devised a novel approach to halting the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The researchers engineered a completely synthetic, production-ready molecule that straitjackets the crucial SARS-CoV-2 machinery that allows the virus to infect our cells. In an aerosol formulation they tested, these molecules could be self-administered with a nasal spray or inhaler.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3iBw8qz

In the mid-20th century, a group of complex, man-made chemicals called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) were first produced.¹ Experts estimate there may be up to 10,000 of these “forever” chemicals in this family, whose full effects are not yet known.

The most widely recognized are perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), both having associations with kidney cancer and testicular cancer.² The chemicals are linked to endocrine disruption and a host of other health problems in people who live in communities that have heavily contaminated drinking water.

In 2002, 3M agreed to stop making PFOS and in 2005, DuPont began the phase-out of PFOA.³ However, with a little chemical tweak, DuPont and other companies are marketing a new generation with similar structures. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) reports that studies on these new chemicals also show they have the potential for serious health risks.

The unique chemical properties of PFAS give other structures the ability to repel oil and water, reduce friction and confer temperature resistance.⁴ The chemicals have been used in aerospace technology, photography, construction, electronics and aviation. They are also found in everyday items like textiles, paper products and nonstick cookware.

Ubiquitous use, delays in reducing use and the known bioaccumulative and persistent effects of the chemicals have produced an environmental problem, largely because some of them can take up to 1,000 years to degrade.⁵

3 Manufacturers Announce Voluntarily Withdrawals of PFAS

July 31, 2020, the FDA announced that three companies would voluntarily phase out specific short-chain PFAS that are used in food packaging.⁶ The chemicals are used in fast food wrappers, pizza boxes and to-go boxes.

The announcement followed a literature review by FDA scientists that raised questions of the persistence of 6:2 fluorotelomer alcohol (6:2 FTOH). As noted in the press release, a representative from the FDA said:⁷

“While the findings were from studies in rodents, and at higher doses than we would expect in humans, the data suggest the potential of 6:2 FTOH to also persist in humans from chronic dietary exposure. Further scientific studies are needed to better understand the potential human health risks from dietary exposure to food contact substances that contain 6:2 FTOH.”

Information about the problem is carefully worded, as shown in a portion of the FAQs:⁸

“The levels of PFAS that have been found in foods from the general food supply, however, are very low and based on the best available current science, the FDA has no indication that these present a human health concern.”

As Fox 10 points out, the phase-out could take several years.⁹ It will begin January 2021 when manufacturers start a three-year program to reduce and ultimately eliminate sales of all products that contain 6:2 FTOH.¹⁰

Once this is completed, they estimate it could take nearly 18 months to sell existing paper products that contain the substances. In other words, the manufacturer has up to 4.5 years to phase it out of production, but it is difficult to predict when the products on the market will no longer be used.

After the products are disposed of, many reach a landfill where the chemicals do not degrade but, rather, can seep into the ground and reach groundwater supplies. Eventually, as the EWG found, this gets into the drinking water.¹¹

Forever Chemical Is Found in Tap Water and Rainwater

Unlike plastic pollution that often visibly creates damage to marine life, PFAS molecules cannot be seen spreading throughout the environment. Data have suggested that PFASs may be rising in remote areas of the Arctic.

In a study from 2010, researchers reported that PFOAs were found in high concentrations in seawater, while PFOSs were clearly evident in wildlife.¹² Polar bears and ringed seals in Greenland have shown increasing amounts of the chemicals in their bodies. One of the researchers was on a subsequent team who published an update nine years later, describing their findings of a series of compounds in Arctic wildlife and seawater.¹³

Dangers in the environment are also reaching your home. The EWG commissioned drinking water tests in dozens of U.S. cities, including rural and major metropolitan areas.¹⁴

The results showed that contamination had been recorded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and that both the EPA and the EWG had dramatically underestimated the problem. EWG scientists believe the family of PFAS chemicals may be:¹⁵

“… in all major water supplies in the U.S., almost certainly in all that use surface water. EWG’s tests also found chemicals from the PFAS family that are not commonly tested for in drinking water.”

The team collected 44 samples from 31 states. In only one place did the water not contain PFASs. In two other test samples, the level was below that which is believed to pose a risk to human health. PFASs were found in water from Philadelphia, New Orleans, cities in northern New Jersey, New York City suburbs and many other places.

Since PFASs are not regulated by the EPA, water utility companies that independently test for the chemical do not have to publish the results or even report them. Areas with the highest levels in the EWG data set included Brunswick County, North Carolina; Quad Cities, Iowa; Miami, Florida; and Bergen County, New Jersey.

The EWG reports that the EPA was notified of the problem in 2001 and that the agency still has not set an “enforceable, nationwide legal limit.”¹⁶

In another water study, scientists analyzed 37 rainwater samples from 30 locations across the U.S. They found at least one of the compounds they were looking for in each of the samples. Although concentrations were low, they were higher than some states had proposed limiting in their drinking water. This highly contaminated rainwater irrigates crops, pollutes lakes and seeps into the groundwater supply.¹⁷

Is the Safe Drinking Water Act Broken?

The Safe Drinking Water Act was enacted in 1974 and amended in 1986 and 1996.¹⁸ It was supposed to ensure drinking water quality and was used to set national standards to prevent exposure to man-made contaminants.

A recent report in Chemical & Engineering News (C&EN) tells the story of drinking water contamination with PFAS through the eyes of Andrea Amico and her family who live in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.¹⁹ In 2014, a local paper reported that one of the town's drinking wells was shut down after contamination had been detected.

The area of town serviced by the well had been built over Pease Air Force Base, where her husband worked and her two children attended day care. In 2015, she and two others co-founded an activist group to help the community get blood tests; they were instrumental in starting a federal health study for people who have been exposed to PFAS.

The blood results revealed her husband and children had high levels of contaminants in their system. Sadly, this is not an isolated event or a new problem. The struggle to regulate water and protect citizens against persistent chemicals began with the presidency of George W. Bush and continues with Donald Trump.

Melanie Benesh is a legislative attorney working with EWG, and since the early 2000s the group has called for limiting two PFAS chemicals. She spoke to a C&EN reporter, saying:²⁰

“This is a multi-administration failure to take action on PFOA and PFOS and on the broader class of PFAS chemicals that may pose health effects. It has taken EPA an extraordinarily long time to do anything.”

In 2018, C&EN reported that the Trump administration had promised to make a decision on the need to control PFOA and PFOS as drinking water pollutants. However, historically, the administration has not been environmentally friendly. If a regulatory determination is made, it would involve another four years of legal steps before the EPA could place a regulatory limit on safe drinking water.

When the Safe Drinking Water Act was amended in 1986, the EPA was required to regulate 25 contaminants every two years. C&EN reports they currently have 90 contaminants being regulated, but they haven't set any limits since the revision of the Act in 1996.

An investigative report from 2017 published in Politico calls the Act “broken,” listing several reasons it no longer protects citizens.²¹ The latest update to the Act added a requirement for “complex economic analyses to prove that the benefits of a new regulation justify the costs.” Under the original Act from 1974, “the burden of proof is especially high.”²²

The reporter highlights the battle over perchlorate, “the only new chemical the federal government has even attempted to regulate in the past 20 years.”²³ Regulation efforts that began under President Bush have not yet been successful.

Is Voluntary Phase-Out a Corporate Accountability Sidestep?

As the FDA applauds the efforts of manufacturers to voluntarily phase out a chemical with “potential human health risks from chronic dietary exposure,”²⁴ the EPA has criminal inquiries under way for the same chemical.²⁵

DuPont was a long-time manufacturer of PFAS and has been accused of creating a fraudulent spin-off company, Chemours, in their effort to sidestep their environmental cleanup liability caused by the manufacturing of Teflon.²⁶ In 2019, Chemours notified the FDA they no longer were selling packaging with 6:2 FTOH. Chemours lawyers spoke to a Bloomberg reporter, saying:²⁷

“The separation agreement was the product of a one-sided process that lacked any of the hallmarks of arm’s-length bargaining. DuPont unilaterally dictated the terms of the separation agreement and imposed them on Chemours.”

Some U.S. states are not waiting for a federal ruling but are taking matters into their own hands. Michigan is planning to start regulating certain PFAS chemicals and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is setting its sights on corporate accountability. Commissioner Catherine McCabe told Think Progress:²⁸

“New Jersey believes that the manufacturers … should be held responsible to the public for the costs and damages of the drinking water contamination and other harmful consequences of their actions and negligence.”

Based on actions large chemical corporations have historically used, could a voluntary phase-out of dangerous and damaging chemicals with a 4.5-year timeline be one way of avoiding or delaying their environmental and health liabilities?

How to Avoid PFAS Chemicals

In May 2015, more than 200 scientists from 40 countries signed a consensus statement called the Madrid Statement. Their focus was on PFAS and they warned about its potentially harmful effects, including associations with liver toxicity, adverse neurobehavioral effects, hypothyroidism and obesity.

The group recommended avoiding any and all products containing PFAS. The EWG “Guide to Avoiding PFCS” lists helpful tips you can follow to avoid these chemicals.²⁹

Consider avoiding clothing pretreated with stain repellant or flame-retardant chemicals and avoid nonstick cookware and treated kitchen utensils. For a list of further suggestions and more information about PFAS, see “Warning: Biodegradable Bowls Contain Toxic Chemicals.”

from Articles https://ift.tt/2DJivqq
via IFTTT

As if universal mask recommendations weren’t enough, the last week of July 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci started flouting the recommendation to wear goggles and full face shields as well, as the mucous membranes of your eyes can also serve as entryways for viruses. Fauci is also urging everyone to get their flu shots as soon as they become available.¹ As reported by The Hill:²

“During an interview with ABC News medical correspondent Jennifer Ashton, Fauci was asked whether the U.S. would one day recommend eye protection due to the pandemic. ‘You know, it might,’ Fauci said, noting that it would offer an added layer of protection.

‘You have mucosa in the nose, mucosa in the mouth, but you also have mucosa in the eye,’ he added. ‘Theoretically, you should protect all the mucosal surfaces.’

Fauci went on to say that if you have ‘goggles or an eye shield, you should use it.’ While it's not universally recommended, both goggles and a face covering would provide ‘complete’ protection from the coronavirus, he said.”

Fauci’s support of universal masking and goggle-wearing is in stark contrast to comments he made back in March 2020, when he stated that “people should not be walking around with masks” because “it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And often there are unintended consequences: People keep fiddling with their mask and they keep touching their face.”³

Ocular Transmission Is Possible but Unlikely

Just how big of a risk do your eyes pose, when it comes to contracting COVID-19? In all likelihood, the risk is not that great.

According to a March 31, 2020, report⁴ in JAMA Ophthalmology, while ocular abnormalities were common in COVID-19 patients, only 5.2% actually had SARS-CoV-2-positive conjunctival specimens, i.e., specimens taken from the eye. According to the authors, “Although there is a low prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in tears, it is possible to transmit via the eyes.”

Put another way, while it’s possible SARS-CoV-2 could transmit via your eyes, the likelihood of this happening appears to be very low, seeing how only 5.2% of confirmed COVID-19 patients actually had SARS-CoV-2 in their eyes. Personally, I do not believe adding goggles and plastic face shields would significantly reduce your risk of spreading or contracting COVID-19.

Remember, the virus is aerosolized and spreads through the air. Aerosolized viruses — especially SARS-CoV-2, which is about half the size of influenza viruses — cannot be blocked by a mask, as explained in my interview with Denis Rancourt, who has conducted a thorough review of the published science on masks and viral transmission.

According to Rancourt, “NONE of these well-designed studies that are intended to remove observational bias found a statistically significant advantage of wearing a mask versus not wearing a mask.”

What’s more, contamination of the eyes is likely primarily the result of touching your eyes with contaminated fingers. If you wear goggles or a face shield, you may actually be more prone to touch your eyes to rub away sweat, condensation and/or scratch an itch.

Just as there’s no scientific basis for universal mask wearing, there’s no scientific basis for the wearing of goggles and face shields either.

Even CNN recently cited the opinion of Dr. Thomas Steinemann, a clinical spokesperson for the American Academy of Ophthalmology, who said that while it’s possible for the virus to end up in your eye — either due to exposure to contaminated air or touching your eyes with contaminated fingers — contracting the disease via your eyes is “probably less likely, however, than getting it through your nose or mouth or from inhaling it.”⁵

Steinemann also pointed out that the virus would have to go through a “rather circuitous route” before it can do any significant harm. First it would have to infect your eye, then “be carried to your nose through your tears,” and then from there to your mouth, throat and lungs.

Mask Wearing Required Even After Vaccine Becomes Available?

In related news, Maria Elena Bottazzi, a COVID-19 vaccine developer at Baylor College of Medicine, claims⁶ social distancing and face masks will likely still be required even after a vaccine becomes available, as the vaccine will not offer 100% protection against infection.

For example, Moderna is hoping to achieve a 60% effectiveness rate in its Phase 3 trials. Even if the vaccine reaches 90% effectiveness, people with high-risk health conditions will need to continue wearing masks, Moderna’s CEO Stephanie Bancel said.⁷

In what appears to be an effort to back up the mask mandates for COVID-19, Fauci is now also endorsing the wearing of masks during every influenza season going forward. As reported by Life Site News, July 31, 2020:⁸

“Fauci … suggested that masking should morph from a temporary emergency measure to a permanent seasonal practice: ‘It is inevitable that we're going to have some degree of flu. I'm hoping that the wearing of masks and other coverings are going to not only protect us against COVID-19, but also help protect us against influenza.’"

Guidance Should Be Based in Science, Not Unsupported Belief

Public health recommendations such as universal mask wearing, which also has its risks, should not be pinned on hope alone, however — which is what Fauci is doing. If we are to follow the science, then universal mask-wearing should not be implemented for either influenza or COVID-19 reduction. As noted by Dr. Andrew Bostom of Brown University in a July 11, 2020, Medium post:⁹

“… limited, immediate-term experimental observations¹⁰ — equivocal at best — provide no rational, evidence-based justification for daily, prolonged mask usage by the general public to prevent infection with COVID-19.

Moreover, a subsequent pooled (so-called ‘meta-‘) analysis¹¹ of 10 controlled trials assessing extended, real-world, non-health-care-setting mask usage revealed that masking did not reduce the rate of laboratory-proven infections with the respiratory virus influenza.

The findings from this unique report — published May 2020 by the CDC’s own ‘house journal’ ‘Emerging Infectious Diseases’ — are directly germane to the question of masking to prevent COVID-19 infection and merit some elaboration.

Ten randomized, controlled trials reporting estimates of facemask effectiveness in lowering rates of laboratory-confirmed influenza within the community, published between 2008 and 2016, were analyzed and pooled, applying a rigorous, standardized methodology.

One study evaluated mask usage by Hajj pilgrims to Mecca, two university-setting studies assessed the efficacy of face masks for prevention of confirmed influenza among student campus residents over five months of surveillance, and seven household studies examined the impact of masking infected persons only (one), household contacts of infected persons only (one), or both groups (five).

None of these studies, individually, or their aggregated, pooled analysis, which enhanced the overall ‘statistical power’ to detect smaller effects, demonstrated a significant benefit of masking for the reduction of confirmed influenza infection … The authors further concluded with a caution that using face masks improperly might ‘increase the risk for (viral) transmission.’”

Masking ‘Is a Reflexive Reaction to Anxiety’ NEJM Says

Other studies have come to the same conclusions. For example, a paper in the April 2020 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine pointed out:¹²

“We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to COVID-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes).

The chance of catching COVID-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic …

More compelling is the possibility that wearing a mask may reduce the likelihood of transmission from asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic health care workers with COVID-19 to other providers and patients …

Masking all providers might limit transmission from these sources by stopping asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic health care workers from spreading virus-laden oral and nasal droplets.

What is clear, however, is that universal masking alone is not a panacea. A mask will not protect providers caring for a patient with active Covid-19 if it’s not accompanied by meticulous hand hygiene, eye protection, gloves, and a gown.

A mask alone will not prevent health care workers with early Covid-19 from contaminating their hands and spreading the virus to patients and colleagues.

Focusing on universal masking alone may, paradoxically, lead to more transmission of Covid-19 if it diverts attention from implementing more fundamental infection-control measures.”

Gas Mask Developer Invents COVID-19 Mask

In an apparent attempt to address the ineffectiveness of standard medical and cloth masks against airborne viruses, Noam Gavriely, an Israeli gas mask innovator, is now promoting ViriMASK, a new type of mask said to block 99.25% of particles with a diameter of at least 0.087 microns.

SARS-CoV-2 is a beta-coronavirus with a diameter between 0.06 to 0.14 microns.¹³ The device looks like a cross between a diver’s mask and a square gas mask. So far, the company has sold about 10,000 of these masks. As reported by Times of Israel:¹⁴

“Gavriely, ViriMASK CEO, told The Times of Israel: ‘Unlike other products, this is sealed all around the face, like gas masks and diving masks. And the filter is much more dense than the N95 mask and surgical masks, meaning that fewer particles penetrate.’

He said this can give peace of mind to hospital workers and other medical professionals, including dentists, and others who are at a higher risk of being exposed to the coronavirus.

The mask straps around the head and covers the eyes, nose and mouth, meaning that all points currently believed to be channels for coronavirus infection are protected. ‘In this sense, you’re covering yourself completely and also protecting the environment around you from any infection you may have,’ said Gavriely …”

Health Officials Weigh in on Pandemic Sex Practices

To go along with the masks, goggles and clear face shield, health officials are now also starting to issue recommendations for “safer sex.” In New York City, health officials suggest couples who do not reside in the same residence on a permanent basis should wear a mask during sex and avoiding kissing.

According to the New York City health department’s “Safer Sex and COVID-19” fact sheet,¹⁵ “Decisions about sex and sexuality need to be balanced with personal and public health,” although they do note that “sex is not likely a common way that COVID-19 spreads.”

To “enjoy safer sex and reduce the risk of spreading COVID-19,” the health department suggests avoiding orgies, restricting sexual activity to masturbation whenever possible, and washing your hands (and any toys) for at least 20 seconds before and afterward.

If hooking up with someone outside your household, discuss COVID-19 risk factors such as symptoms within the last two weeks and any positive COVID-19 test results. They also recommend having alcohol-based sanitizer on hand, and having sex in “larger, more open, and well-ventilated spaces.”

Other suggestions include getting “creative with sexual positions and physical barriers, like walls, that allow sexual contact while preventing close face to face contact.” In plain English, consider having sex through a hole in the wall (“glory hole”) or other physical barrier to avoid close physical contact.

British Columbia’s Centre for Disease Control has issued near-identical guidelines,¹⁶ as has the Irish Health Services and the Irish Pharmacy Union.¹⁷ Several Scandinavian countries have also issued pandemic safe sex guidance, although the Danish health chief explicitly excluded all forms of sex from its social distancing rules saying “sex is good, sex is healthy.”¹⁸

Online Sex Can Have Unwanted Consequences

If the idea of rubbing genitals through a hole in the wall doesn’t strike your fancy, health officials suggest getting busy online instead. What all of them fail to address is the privacy issue. They’re basically asking everyone to have sex online where big tech surveillance capitalists can record your every video encounter and capture every lurid text message and photo.

That data is stored indefinitely, along with everything else you do online, and may be accessed by any number of individuals, now or in the future, including hackers that may use the recordings for all sorts of nefarious purposes.

I’m not going to tell you what you should or should not do here, but I will remind you that many lives and careers have been ruined by the involuntary release of intimate photos and videos. So, be mindful of the privacy risks involved.

I guess at the end of the day, you’ll have to weigh the risk of infection against personal risks that have nothing to do with infectious disease. As for the wearing of googles and face shields, there’s no evidence to suggest these measures actually prevent the spread of viral infection when worn in public any more than face masks do.

from Articles https://ift.tt/31GoNiB
via IFTTT

Keira Rumble has struggled with what no woman would wish upon their worst enemy - four miscarriages, child losses, infertility and endometriosis. Here she shares her heartbreaking story.

from Health | body+soul https://ift.tt/2PJKYyH

 Researchers found the best mask for catching respiratory droplets that may contain coronavirus.

from Health | body+soul https://ift.tt/2PHOjy7

Among former NFL players, Black, Hawaiian, and athletes from other racial backgrounds report worse physical, mental health outcomes than white players. The widest health gaps emerged between Black and white former NFL players. Black former players reported worse health outcomes in all five health categories, compared with their white peers. Presence of health disparities among former NLF players reflects the deep and pervasive nature of systemic inequities that persist even among elite athletes, study suggests.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/30Lbw90

Australia, meet your Bachelor for 2020 - and there's a good chance you've seen the handsome 30-year-old on TV before.

from Health | body+soul https://ift.tt/2IfA6Vo

Prior to the coronavirus pandemic, among the fastest ever be developed and widely distributed was the current mumps vaccine, which took less than five years in the '60s. The global scientific community now races towards a Covid-19 vaccination with an initial timeline of 12-18 months.

from Health | body+soul https://ift.tt/30NS0cf

Swapping out red meat for certain plant-based meat alternatives can improve some cardiovascular risk factors, according to a new study.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/33OJJX7

A pair of new studies identify overlooked physiological factors and lack of knowledge around wellness as contributors to risk of stress fracture in women who run.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2PFkA9g

Making masks and personal protective equipment (PPE) with hydrophilic surfaces, where droplets of coronavirus spread out and dry faster, could reduce infection risk, researchers say.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3gQeYEZ

Vaping is linked to a substantially increased risk of COVID-19 among teenagers and young adults, according to a new study.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/31Hh3N5

COVID-19 proliferates through a receptor present in most of the human body. But if the receptor is so pervasive, why does the virus seem to target only specific organs?

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2F5zZgT

Researchers have found evidence of signature brain activity in infants that predicted ASD symptoms later at 18 months old.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2DRyVg3

New research into malaria suggests targeting enzymes from the human host, rather than from the pathogen itself, could offer effective treatment for a range of infectious diseases, including COVID-19.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3iz6Uc2

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently highlighted the importance of students' returning to the classroom in its COVID-19 return-to-school guidance. Jason Wang, MD, PhD, of Stanford Health Policy also believes it's time for kids in the United States to get back to school. But he believes school districts could better protect their 55 million K-12 students by adhering to an additional set of strict measures.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3kAei97

Using nanometer-level simulations, researchers have discovered a positively charged site (known as the polybasic cleavage site) located 10 nanometers from the actual binding site on the spike protein. The positively charged site allows strong bonding between the virus protein and the negatively charged human-cell receptors.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3fL9VUT

A new study has confirmed what researchers already suspected to be the case: heat inactivates SARS-CoV-2 in human milk.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3fHpCN2

In recent years, the number of people affected by celiac disease, wheat allergy or gluten or wheat sensitivity has risen sharply. But why is this the case? Could it be that modern wheat varieties contain more immunoreactive protein than in the past? A new study is helping to answer this question.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2FeywoK

Using highly complex analytical techniques, a group of researchers were able to observe in detail how different metals are released from joint implants and accumulate in the surrounding bone tissue. Findings showed a steady release of metals from various implant components. In contrast to previous assumptions, this was not related to the degree of mechanical stress involved.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/33VSxdM