For longevity, is it better to be short or tall?

Being short is associated with worse outcomes for critically ill adults.

A large retrospective study of 233,000 men and 184,000 women consecutively admitted to 210 ICUs in the UK over a six-year period found hospital and ICU mortality decreased with increasing height after adjusting for available potential confounders. The difference was statistically significant.

The definition of short or tall was based on the median height of the subjects—175 cm (5’9”) for men and 162 cm (5’2”) for women. These figures are nearly the same as the averages for non-hospitalized adults.

The study had several limitations. Height was measured in just 44.5% of the group while the rest were based on estimates. However, the authors noted the median estimated height was exactly the same as the measured height for men and only 1 cm different for women, and measuring height in critically ill patients is difficult.

Cancer fears raised by newspaper stories

It’s bad enough that every week there’s another study finding germs everywhere. Now it’s chemicals. Here are two recent alarms sounded by reputable newspapers about the problem of toxic substances found on commonly used items.

The LA Times says that Samsonite is recalling 250,000 suitcases because a Hong Kong consumer group found a sample from a side handle “had levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons higher than recommended in voluntary guidelines.” The substance is apparently a carcinogen.

Deeper in the story is the finding that the consumer group found levels of the chemical that were 1000 times higher than tests run by Samsonite. The company recalled the items “to allay consumer concerns.”

The model in question, called “Tokyo Chic,” [shown above] has a pull-out end handle that is much more likely to be used than the side handle. Also, the story says the high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were found in “a sample.” Really? Was it just one sample? 

Closer to home, the Washington Post headline reads “Don’t Drink The Water: Study Warns Drinking From Garden Hose.” Researchers from an outfit called “Healthy Stuff” studied 90 garden hoses and found high levels of lead and phthalates as well as “PVC plastic additives, which can cause birth defects, liver toxicity, and cancer.” 

The article closes with the suggestion that you shouldn’t drink water from a hose, but if you do, you should let the water run for a few seconds first.

Now, people, with everything we have to worry about in today’s world, are these real problems? Unless you are a member of an airline flight crew, how often do you travel and come in intimate contact with the side handle of a suitcase?

And how often do you feel the need to drink from a garden hose? If you have ever tried drinking from a hose, you know you always let the water run for a few seconds because water that is standing in the hose is usually warm. By the way, that headline “Don’t Drink The Water: Study Warns Drinking From Garden Hose” doesn’t make any sense to me.

Let’s just say that I was able to get to sleep without much worry about these two cancer threats.

Here’s a Typical Story about Cancer Research

Yesterday, the BBC published a breathless report about a new study headlined “Modified ecstasy ‘attacks blood cancers.’” The research appeared in the journal Investigational New Drugs.

The modified ecstasy killed all leukemia, lymphoma and myeloma cells in vitro but the doses used “would have been fatal if given to people.”

According to the BBC, “A charity said the findings were a ‘significant step forward’” without actually naming the charity or explaining how a charity could speak.

The word “exciting” is used three times in the story, which is only 500 words long.

The investigators said that they were planning to modify the drug further. If the next iteration of the drug works in the test tube and if it works in animals, it could be available for clinical trials in humans in only 10 years.

The story ends with a quote from a Dr David Grant, scientific director of the charity Leukaemia and Lymphoma Research [possibly the earlier unnamed charity]. He said: "Further work is required but this research is a significant step forward in developing a potential new cancer drug."