LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Stress brought on by the September 11 attacks in New York and Washington in 2001 led to heart problems for some Americans, even if they had no personal connection to the events, a study found.
In the first study to demonstrate the impact of the attacks on cardiac health, researchers in California said acute stress responses were linked to a 53 percent increased incidence in strokes, high blood pressure and other cardiac ailments.
"Our study is the first to show that even among people who had no personal connection to the victims, those who reported high levels of post-traumatic stress symptoms in the days following the 9/11 attacks were more than twice as likely to report being diagnosed by their doctors with cardiovascular ailments like high blood pressure, heart problems and stroke up to three years later," said Alison Holman, a professor in nursing science and lead researcher for the study.
The study, carried out by Holman and researchers at the University of California, Irvine, is published in the January edition of Archives of General Psychiatry.
The study involved a random sample of almost 2,000 adults from across the country whose health status had been recorded before September 11, 2001.
The majority had watched the attacks on New York City's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington on live television but had no direct exposure to them.
They were interviewed immediately after September 11 and in follow-up surveys until late 2004. Risk factors such as cholesterol levels, diabetes, smoking and weight were taken into account along with stressful events like divorce.hose taking part answered questions about their concerns, such as, "I worry that an act of terrorism will personally affect me or someone in my family."People reporting such concerns were three to four times more likely to report a doctor-diagnosed heart problem two to three years after the attacks.
Holman said she was initially so surprised at the results that she re-ran the analysis different ways to confirm them before submitting the study for publication.
Holman said she was not in the United States when hijacked airplanes rammed into the Pentagon and the two World Trade Center Towers but she knew immediately she had to study the effects of the attacks on stress and health.
"It was the most major national collective trauma that the United States had had in decades and (I knew) it would represent very important questions for public policy makers and researchers about how the populace handles such stress," Holman said.
Can you say "class action lawsuit?"
28 comments:
"Can you say "class action lawsuit?"
can you say "i'm a fucking idiot" because you obviously are
Oh, here we ago! Another reason for "some" Americans to whine about something else. Let's see, we have syndromes for just about EVERYTHING-if the sun shines, if it doesn't shine, the winter depression that sets in every year, the stress during the holidays, the blues after the holidays, the depression that sets in after your favorite football teams loses the big game, the blahs that set in after you return from vacation (never mind that AT LEAST you were able to take a vacation) and have to return to work, and on and on and on and on...
If Americans didn't have the post stress of 9/11, they'd be stressin' about something else. There is NEVER a loss about things to stress over.
Yeah, let's sue the government- coming from those who are always looking for just ANOTHER hand-out.
I was raised by my parents to believe that the more I complained about something, the less I got. There are unfortunate moments as an adult, however, when I think that my parents maybe did not train me well to live in the real world. Or maybe there is some magical, fine line between complaining and just being assertive that I never learned or some such thing.
Anyway, a liberal/Democratic way of running things, whatever the good intentions, unfortunately does seem to favor manipulative people who have perfected the art of complaining, especially when combined so skillfully with the art of lying (or over-exaggeration, which I am just going to call lying for the sake of simplicity -- and also because that is what I am going to call everything from now on that purposely flies in the face of facts or the legitimate search for facts, because of a strong ulterior motive).
On the other hand, the standard conservative/Republican view that "authority can do wrong" or "racism doesn't exist (except in the mind of dark-skinned people, of course)" or "there is no such thing as a valid complaint about anything" is just as bad, if not worse, in my view.
Can't we all just get along and find a reasonable middle-ground?
I had the opportunity to read "The Audacity of Hope" by Senator Barrack Obama while I was in jail. Although I am still pulling for Clinton as our best hope to make the most strides in ending racism, among other evils (the vagina factor still trumps all, for those of you who know me), I nevertheless highly recommend Sen. Obama's book and ideas. I won't be in tears if he beats out Hillary. Both are happy choices for me.
just what we need, a criminal bitch who's associated with the biggest campaign fraud in history, didn't have the guts to kick her cheating asshole husband out or an asshole who was raised by radical mooslime parents and didn't even take his oath on a bible. neither one will ever get elected.
Check your facts, dipshit.
http://tinyurl.com/35umfo
I don't deny that racism doesn't exist at all but let's face it, some people use it as an excuse for everything that has gone wrong in their lives. And while so many blacks are screaming racism, how can it be that a black man is running for president. He didn't get this far and is not this popular because of all the racism that exists in this country. And he is not getting all the support from only blacks.
Hmm. I take it having a Muslim president is not allowed in your book, which I am assuming is not the US Constitution? Okay, well, at least I'm with you on getting the facts, and I do think it is pertinent to know whether Senator Obama is a "secret Muslim," but I don't think so, at least not after reading his book. I am still open to the possibility, though, but only because anything is possible.
Sen. Obama does discuss religion extensively in his book, and although he talks about his mother being an Agnostic (I believe that is what he called her), he definitely does downplay the fact that both his father and his step-dad were Muslims, if what you say is true (and I don't blame him). In fact, I don't recall him mentioning it at all, or if he did, it did not matter to me when I read it. He did go on and on about his maternal grandfather as being the most influencial man in his life as he was growing up, and I believe he was a Christian.
Yes, I've seen both sides of the racism issue before (the ones who use it as an excuse as well as the ones who don't and are still discriminated against), but it was made especially clear to me in jail, where in a pod of 100 women, 60-80 of them at any given time were black, and the rest were pretty much hispanic.
This is completely UNACCEPTABLE and is not good for the entire country. There is no way in hell you are going to convince me that the reason California incarcerates blacks at a rate of nine times more than whites is because blacks are nine times more likely to participate in criminal behavior.
"There is no way in hell you are going to convince me that the reason California incarcerates blacks at a rate of nine times more than whites is because blacks are nine times more likely to participate in criminal behavior."
that's one of the dumbest fucking things i've ever heard. what kind of idiot are you, oh that's right, one who just got out of jail for being "innocent"
meanwhile the rest of us americans know the truth about what is wrong with the rest of this country
What a difference 60 years makes..!!!
'You ain't gonna like losing.' Author unknown.
President Bush did make a bad mistake in the war on terrorism. But the mistake was not his decision to go to war in Iraq
Bush's mistake came in his belief that this country is the same one his father fought for in WWII. It is not.
Back then, they had just come out of a vicious depression. The country was steeled by the hardship of that depression, but they still believed fervently in this country. They knew that the people had elected their leaders, so it was the people's duty to back those leaders.
Therefore, when the war broke out the people came together, rallied behind, and stuck with their leaders, whether they had voted for them or not or whether the war was going badly or not.
And war was just as distasteful and the anguish just as great then as it is today. Often there were more casualties in one day in WWII than we have had in the entire Iraq war. But that did not matter. The people stuck with the President because it was their patriotic duty as Americans to put aside their differences in WWII and work together to win that war.
Everyone from every strata of society, from young to old pitched in. Small children pulled little wagons around to gather scrap metal for the war effort. Grade school students saved their pennies to buy stamps for war bonds to help the effort.
Men who were too old or medically 4F lied about their age or condition, trying their best to join the military. Women doubled their work to keep things going at home. Harsh rationing of everything from gasoline to soap and butter was imposed, yet there was very little complaining.
You never heard prominent people on the radio belittling the President. Interestingly enough in those days there were no fat cat actors and entertainers who ran off to visit and fawn over dictators of hostile countries and complain to them about our President. Instead, they made upbeat films and entertained our troops to help the troops' morale. And a bunch even enlisted.
And imagine this: Teachers in schools actually started the day off with a Pledge of Allegiance, and with prayers for our country and our troops!
Back then, no newspaper would have dared point out certain weak spots in our cities where bombs could be set off to cause the maximum damage. No newspaper would have dared complain about what we were doing to catch spies.
A newspaper would have been laughed out of existence if it had complained that German or Japanese soldiers were being 'tortured' by being forced to wear women's underwear, being subjected to interrogation by a woman, being scared by a dog or that they did not have air conditioning.
There were a lot of things different back then. We were not subjected to a constant bombardment of pornography, perversion and promiscuity in movies or on radio. We did not have legions of crackheads, dope pushers and armed gangs roaming our streets
No, President Bush did not make a mistake in his handling of terrorism. He made the mistake of believing that we still had the courage and fortitude of our fathers. He believed that this was still the country that our fathers fought so dearly to preserve.
It is not the same country. It is now a cross between Sodom and Gomorra and the land of Oz. We did unite for a short while after 9/11, but our attitude changed when we found out that defending our country would require some sacrifices.
We are in great danger. The terrorists are fanatic Muslims. They believe that it is okay, even their duty, to kill anyone who will not convert to Islam. It has been estimated that about one third or over three hundred million Muslims that are sympathetic to the terrorists cause...Hitler and Tojo combined did not have nearly that many potential recruits.
So...we either win it - or lose it - and you ain't gonna like losing.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall.
So true about our country today. We are impatient and want everything accomplished in 10 minutes. If we can't have instant gratification, then we aren't interested. Sacrifices? We can't even make sacrifices that directly affect our lives. That is probably why so many can't make "ends meet" when they are making a decent living. We want all and we want all now. God forbid! Don't sacrifice. Just keep on living like you've got it when you DON'T. Then whine and complain and wait for someone else to bail you out.
The terrorists are VERY patient and sometimes I worry that all they have to do is wait patiently and we will self -destruct.
They are out to destroy us and we had better WAKE UP!
Don't look now Lee, but the Bush administration has done more to destroy and terrorize this country that any Jihadist could ever hope to.
Kiss your assets good bye.
"the Bush administration has done more to destroy and terrorize this country that any Jihadist could ever hope to"
you are without a doubt the dumbest motherfucker on the face of the earth
It's becoming a global-oriented world. Yippee! Bring it on!
It's apparently scaring the gageebees out of a lot of folks, but what an exciting time. We are either going to demolish ourselves or come out better than ever with no going back, and I may be able to witness the whole thing, one way or another, in my lifetime. What a special time for all of us to be alive, given the centuries and centuries of boring same old same old in world history.
Funny, but the more Anon and the likes carry on and froth at the mouth about the world falling apart, the more content I am that we may actually be heading in the right direction (the non-demolishing ourselves direction, that is), finally.
PS -- there is no such thing as "innocent" in criminal court jury decisions, only "not guilty," and the distinction is apparently important in legal circles. I seem to remember reading an entire article about this that was very interesting and convincing, but I don't remember much more about it in my old age (I turned 42 while in jail).
I have had such positive experiences with civil courts and with the criminal courts, mostly because of my confidence in eventually getting my say in front of normal people (ie., a jury) and the truth eventually prevailing, but my experiences in family court have been relatively disastrous, probably because, as few people may realize, family court is something from another planet -- no juries, no rules of evidence, no due process, no respect for fundamental rights. What a mess! I will probably be devoting the rest of my life trying to reform family court. I may get nowhere, but the point is you have to try.
Your Social Security.....
Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what .and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat of Republican. Facts are Facts!!!
Our Social Security
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put
I nto the Program would be deductible from
Their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the
Independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would
Only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
Would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
Now receiving a Social Security check every month --
And then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
The money we paid to the Federal government to "put
Away" -- you may be interested in the following:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from t he
Independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
Controlled House and Senate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
"tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving
Annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
A: That's right!
Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
Began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
Even though they never paid a dime into it!
-------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
Evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully
Sure of what isn't so.
But it's worth a try. How many people can
YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Thomas Jefferson
Is that the same Anon as above? What a great post! No swear words, good topic, lots of facts (I am not disputing them, but at least somebody could try to dispute them here if they wanted to go through the trouble of looking this stuff up), plus a great ending quote by Thomas Jefferson.
For the record, I will not be able to vote for Hillary in the upcoming California primary because I am registered as a "non-partisan." The Democratic Party, but not the Republican Party, allows non-partisan Californians like myself to participate in state primaries if we want to, but I had to respond to some letter allowing me to do so by December 17, 2007, and I was caught up in a bit of a life-snag at the time... :)
Also for the record, my mother was diagnosed with colon cancer while I was incarcerated, and my eyes have been awakened to the importance of the "drug prescription benefit" that the Old Reps pushed through (and which I was highly suspicious of). A lot of my info may not be 100% accurate as it is filtered through my family members, who are thankfully taking great care of both of my elderly, ailing parents (while I, the youngest of five, am apparently still going through puberty here) BUT... from what I am hearing, Medicare/Medical and the prescription drug benefit are apparently working as intended for my parents. I thank you, fellow citizens, congresspeople, and whoever else made this possible, with all my heart...
While I was in jail (how many times am I going to start out saying this, you ask? Probably for a few more weeks, but I promise it will go away soon enough), the only source of outside news was the San Francisco Chronicle, which we got (and had to share, like, one issue for every 50 girls) every day except Sunday. I got into the habit of writing handwritten "letters to the editor" much like posting my comments here, except nothing was ever published, and I regret not having good copies of anything, but I swore that when I got out, I would publish all my letters at Shoes so that at least my efforts were not completely wasted. What a great world the Internet and blogging has brought us!
Anyway, here is today's letter, which I was able to send by e-mail, thankfully...
RE: "Why I'm not necessarily for Hillary," (Jan. 25).
Editor -- I recently had the pleasure of conversing
with an outspoken, ultra-conservative elderly female
inmate held in San Francisco County Jail. Among the
topics of conversation (other than her confusion as to
why she was being treated like such a criminal, to
which I had to remind her that she was an outspoken
ultra-conservative in the middle of San Francisco),
she let it be known that she was flat-out against
Hillary Clinton for president simply on the basis that
"Women aren't made to lead countries. They cry too
much."
"So I take it Margaret Thatcher was a no go for you?"
I said, to which she immediately lit up and
launched into a ten minute lecture on the virtues of
MT and her policies.
In her opinion piece, "Why I'm not necessarily for
Hillary," (Jan. 25), Alice Kessler-Harris presents
many good arguments for why electing a female
president alone may not necessarily advance the
liberal/feminist cause. However, that "Margaret
Thatcher supervised the dismantling of the British
welfare state" is probably not one of them. As my
conversation with my animated conservative friend
shows, Hillary Clinton probably would not be in the
position she is in today without a tearless Margaret
Thatcher coming before her to pave the way.
Sincerely,
H. Nicole Young
Founder and President, ROC-USA and GWICAAC (Representitive of the Citizens of the United States of America and Get Women In Congress At All Costs)
Shirley Sheezback!
part of Obama's speech after S.C. victory...
He called the results a rejection of "a politics that tells us that we have to think, act, and even vote within the confines of the categories that supposedly define us. The assumption that young people are apathetic. The assumption that Republicans won't cross over. The assumption that the wealthy care nothing for the poor, and that the poor don't vote. The assumption that African-Americans can't support the white candidate; WHITES CAN'T SUPPORT THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN candidate and blacks and Latinos can't come together."
If he keeps this kind of talk going, he'll be as popular as Bill Cosby has been in the past when he has told it like it is.
Good one, Lee. :)
I like Obama. I think he will give Clinton a good run for her money and may even beat her out in the long run. As I said, no unhappy choices here for me, for once. The future is looking bright!
Are there any jounalists out there who want to put Obama on the spot with what might be a "hit me from nowhere" wedge issue, especially with black women?
I hate to do this since it is specifically the black woman I want to try to do everything I can to support politically/socially/economincally/educationally, etc., but...
Somebody should ask Sen Obama where he stands on the issue of corporal punishment -- not to be confused with capital punishment -- specifically as it applies to children, i.e., "giving kids a good whupping," as quoted from his book. He seems to approve of it, yet I find it difficult to believe that he and his wife Michelle resort to corporal punishment for their own two children.
Anyway, this is now one of my biggest new causes -- to get the US to ban corporal punishment:
From Wikipedia under the heading of "Corporal Punishment"...
Corporal punishment is still widely used by parents in the home, though it has been banned in over seventeen countries. These legal bans are mostly of recent date.[1]
[1] Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children (http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/). Corporal punishment is banned in: Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Latvia, Norway, Romania, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Ukraine.
As much as black women who "whup" their kids seem to get very touchy about this issue and think of it as "white people telling us what to do," the reality is that these women are in the same boat as my ultra-conservative white brother, who really should know better than to be spanking his kids. I find it ironic that the people I am probably going to get the most resistance from in this new cause appear to be at the opposite ends of the spectrum on just about everything else:
1. Conservative white men
2. Liberal black women
I like the idea of gaining attention on the issue by putting Senator Obama on the spot with it.
I know for a fact that Obama's biggest financial supporter, Oprah, came out strongly against corporal punishment a long time ago, pubicly addressing her own black community on her show once (it must have been over ten years ago now, but I can't remember exactly when I saw this -- and I watch Oprah about once a year) by saying, "All you black mothers out there stop whupping your kids!"
Just an idea.
Okay, another thing I learned in jail (other than every last person in there, other than me, had been "whupped" as kids)...
Money is not the root of all evil.
Jealousy is the root of all evil.
I am still a little shaky on this one, and I'll have to go back to the Bible to see exactly what it was that the serpent said to Eve to cause her to eat the apple and exactly what went down to cause Cain to murder his brother, etc., but the more I think about it, the more jealousy seems the truer statement. You feel me? You picking up what I throwing down?
"Okay, another thing I learned in jail (other than every last person in there, other than me, had been "whupped" as kids)..."
your obvious problem is that you weren't whupped enough.
you're the kind of person who would let a 3 year old run rough shod over them and them pump them full of pills because you're incapable of being a strict parent and doing the right thing which is smacking the little shit until he learns his lesson. corporal punishment should be the law of the land and we wouldn't have all the little criminal bastards we do now running around raping and killing 90 year old women and looking like freaks with no self respect.
Oh, I like Obama, too. Hope it beats Hittarly Clintons ass but good!
I think jealousy could be the root of all evil or, as we could call it today-class envy. The reason why so many people dislike anyone who has more than they do. The reason why people live way above their means. The reason why some people think the redestribution of wealth is such a nifty idea. The reason why some people think they deserve and have the right to have eveything everyone else has even though some people have done NOTHING for themselves to obtain that status. Never mind that the "haves" got an education, maybe gambled everything to start a business, continue to learn,etc. No, of course that means nothing. SOME of the "have nots" think they should reap all the benefits,too. Well, why? Just because that's why!
"Whupping" seems to be a lazy and somewhat ignorant way to try to discipline, I say, and it certainly does not teach the most important thing you can teach a child, which is self-discipline.
Also, having real discipline for your kids (such as setting a consistent schedule, reading to children often so that they learn how to sit still and pay attention come school time, teaching them how to be less self-centered and be empathetic toward others, and setting a good example) takes a hullava lot more time and effort than simply "whupping" and hoping for the best.
As for the drugs, I was one of the first chemists/scientists, over a decade ago, to strongly criticize and caution against the over-use of cold medications, as well as any other types of medications, for young children. I knew the dangers of this were not explored enough and the drug companies, like tobacco companies, could give a flying hoot and probably even went as far as to add addictive chemicals to the cold medications.
When I refused to give my own children the seemingly "innocuous" Tylenol because of my "paranoia" and mistrust of drug companies, I was nearly accused of child abuse for it. Now it is nice to finally see all the headlines where the "shocking" news is that the same Tylenol I have been screaming about for over a decade is now being banned for children six and under.
spare the rod and spoil the child sound familiar?
Post a Comment