The "immortal jellyfish" can transform itself back into a polyp and begin life anew.
After more than 4,000 years ? almost since the dawn of recorded time, when Utnapishtim told Gilgamesh that the secret to immortality lay in a coral found on the ocean floor ? man finally discovered eternal life in 1988. He found it, in fact, on the ocean floor. The discovery was made unwittingly by Christian Sommer, a German marine-biology student in his early 20s. He was spending the summer in Rapallo, a small city on the Italian Riviera, where exactly one century earlier Friedrich Nietzsche conceived ?Thus Spoke Zarathustra?: ?Everything goes, everything comes back; eternally rolls the wheel of being. Everything dies, everything blossoms again. . . .?
Yoshihiko Ueda for The New York Times
Shin Kubota at Kyoto University?s Seto Marine Biological Laboratory.
Sommer was conducting research on hydrozoans, small invertebrates that, depending on their stage in the life cycle, resemble either a jellyfish or a soft coral. Every morning, Sommer went snorkeling in the turquoise water off the cliffs of Portofino. He scanned the ocean floor for hydrozoans, gathering them with plankton nets. Among the hundreds of organisms he collected was a tiny, relatively obscure species known to biologists as Turritopsis dohrnii. Today it is more commonly known as the immortal jellyfish.
Sommer kept his hydrozoans in petri dishes and observed their reproduction habits. After several days he noticed that his Turritopsis dohrnii was behaving in a very peculiar manner, for which he could hypothesize no earthly explanation. Plainly speaking, it refused to die. It appeared to age in reverse, growing younger and younger until it reached its earliest stage of development, at which point it began its life cycle anew.
Sommer was baffled by this development but didn?t immediately grasp its significance. (It was nearly a decade before the word ?immortal? was first used to describe the species.) But several biologists in Genoa, fascinated by Sommer?s finding, continued to study the species, and in 1996 they published a paper called ?Reversing the Life Cycle.? The scientists described how the species ? at any stage of its development ? could transform itself back to a polyp, the organism?s earliest stage of life, ?thus escaping death and achieving potential immortality.? This finding appeared to debunk the most fundamental law of the natural world ? you are born, and then you die.
One of the paper?s authors, Ferdinando Boero, likened the Turritopsis to a butterfly that, instead of dying, turns back into a caterpillar. Another metaphor is a chicken that transforms into an egg, which gives birth to another chicken. The anthropomorphic analogy is that of an old man who grows younger and younger until he is again a fetus. For this reason Turritopsis dohrnii is often referred to as the Benjamin Button jellyfish.
Yet the publication of ?Reversing the Life Cycle? barely registered outside the academic world. You might expect that, having learned of the existence of immortal life, man would dedicate colossal resources to learning how the immortal jellyfish performs its trick. You might expect that biotech multinationals would vie to copyright its genome; that a vast coalition of research scientists would seek to determine the mechanisms by which its cells aged in reverse; that pharmaceutical firms would try to appropriate its lessons for the purposes of human medicine; that governments would broker international accords to govern the future use of rejuvenating technology. But none of this happened.
Some progress has been made, however, in the quarter-century since Christian Sommer?s discovery. We now know, for instance, that the rejuvenation of Turritopsis dohrnii and some other members of the genus is caused by environmental stress or physical assault. We know that, during rejuvenation, it undergoes cellular transdifferentiation, an unusual process by which one type of cell is converted into another ? a skin cell into a nerve cell, for instance. (The same process occurs in human stem cells.) We also know that, in recent decades, the immortal jellyfish has rapidly spread throughout the world?s oceans in what Maria Pia Miglietta, a biology professor at Notre Dame, calls ?a silent invasion.? The jellyfish has been ?hitchhiking? on cargo ships that use seawater for ballast. Turritopsis has now been observed not only in the Mediterranean but also off the coasts of Panama, Spain, Florida and Japan. The jellyfish seems able to survive, and proliferate, in every ocean in the world. It is possible to imagine a distant future in which most other species of life are extinct but the ocean will consist overwhelmingly of immortal jellyfish, a great gelatin consciousness everlasting.
Nathaniel Rich is an author whose second novel, ??Odds Against Tomorrow,?? will be published in April.
The Eco-Innovation Observatory (EIO) would like to invite you to share your views on the role of eco-innovation in the shift towards a resource-efficient, low-carbon Europe. We would like to consult representatives from academia, business, civil society and public administration by taking part in our questionnaire. Your insights will be used in the upcoming reports of the Observatory, including our final flagship annual publication. The survey has only three questions and is entirely anonymous.
Please follow this link to the questionnaire.
For more information on the Eco-Innovation Observatory, see www.eco-innovation.eu
Nov 27 (Reuters) - Jeff Zucker, a former head of NBCUniversal and the producer of Katie Couric's talk show, will be named president of Time Warner Inc's ratings-starved CNN cable news channel, a source close to the situation said on Tuesday.
Zucker will succeed departing CNN Worldwide President Jim Walton, who said in July he was leaving the once-dominant news network after nine years in the job amid a recent ratings slump.
The appointment of Zucker as the new president of CNN Worldwide will be announced by the end of next week, the source said. Zucker could not immediately be reached on Tuesday. A Time Warner spokesman had no comment.
Zucker gained a reputation as a news-producing whiz when he worked with Couric on NBC's "Today" show.
Now he will face the challenge of turning around CNN, the channel that pioneered around-the-clock cable news coverage when it was launched in 1980 by founder Ted Turner, but then saw its primetime ratings hit a 21-year low in this year's second quarter.
Since its beginnings, CNN has tried to hold the middle ground in its news coverage, a position that some blame for its ratings erosion. As CNN's viewership declined, ratings increased for rivals Fox News and MSNBC, which blend news with opinion and political commentary.
CNN "is a very large stage, and a lot needs to be done to fix it," the source told Reuters. Zucker "has been itching to get back in the game, and this is the best opportunity out there for him."
News Corp owns Fox, while MSNBC is now owned by cable giant Comcast Corp after its purchase of NBC two years ago that led to Zucker's ouster from NBCUniversal. The opinion programs on No. 1 cable news network Fox News skew conservative, while commentaries on MSNBC lean liberal.
Some industry experts argue that CNN needs to move out of the middle to regain lost ground.
"You never want to be stuck between two strong competitors, as they will divide the market and starve you out," said Adam Armbruster, a media industry consultant with Eckstein, Summers, Armbruster & Co.
Zucker "needs to bring his trademark 'star power' to the network and make them relevant and create regular viewers even when no big news story is breaking," Armbruster said.
CNN has lagged Fox News Channel and MSNBC in primetime viewers for more than a year. On a normal news night, CNN draws fewer than 1 million U.S. viewers in prime time, compared to about 2.7 million for Fox News Channel and about 1.5 million viewers for MSNBC, according to ratings data.
IDENTITY ISSUES
Though CNN remains profitable, Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes said in August he was unsatisfied with CNN's low ratings and would seek to turn around the network with programming that was more compelling but remained non-partisan.
The network has struggled to find a programming identity in recent years, but not for lack of trying. It paired former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer with pundit Kathleen Parker for a talk show that failed miserably. It released perhaps its most notable personality in Larry King after more than two decades and replaced him with Piers Morgan. More recently, the network created a primetime show for its most youth-oriented host, Anderson Cooper, and enlisted popular chef Anthony Bourdain for a travel and food-related show.
CNN claimed a cable news ratings victory on the night of the U.S. presidential election in November. The network said it attracted 8.8 million total viewers, beating Fox News Channel by about 1 million.
CNN does have one advantage over its cable news competitors in that it attracts a much bigger digital audience. In October, CNN boasted 68 million unique online visitors. That topped the 56 million for NBC News Digital and the 35 million for the Fox News Digital Network, according to CNN.
As president, Zucker, who famously said that networks can't trade analog dollars for digital dimes, can attempt to upstream CNN's digital audience to the network and leverage its web reach for both ratings and financial gain.
RESPECTED NEWSMAN
During Zucker's tenure at NBC, he was intimately involved in the decision to move MSNBC hard left to counter Fox News, though that does not mean he will move CNN to the left, the source close to the situation said.
He also remained involved in decisions about programming and strategic direction of NBC News, MSNBC and CNBC after he was named CEO of NBCUniversal, said the source.
While Zucker's news chops have never been questioned, his tenure at NBC is often defined by the network's failures in primetime, as his rise to CEO coincided with NBC's fall from its top spot on the ratings perch. It has resided in the primetime ratings basement among the big four TV networks for the better part of a decade. This year, however, NBC has experienced a bit of a resurgence in primetime and ranks first once again among viewers 18-49 years old.
Zucker was known for having little patience or interest in Hollywood or the delicate personalities that inhabit it, as evidenced by his handling of the Jay Leno-Conan O'Brien late night switch, in which he threatened to "ice," or prevent O'Brien from working, for two years at one point during the standoff. He had a similarly unsentimental approach with executives, firing NBC Entertainment boss Kevin Reilly unexpectedly to bring in Ben Silverman, only to fire Silverman two years later.
But Zucker's reputation in the news business should help him attract strong talent to CNN, said one former industry executive who has worked with Zucker. "He has so much credibility in the news space. News people will want to work for him," the source said.
We manufacture these massively multicolored stories which are acted-out. And devoid of any reservations. But as adults we suppress our dreams for a more practical way of living. In many cases a safer ? predictable life. And while there is nothing wrong with traveling the road most traveled. Often times, our compromises lead us to an unfulfilled life.
I have traveled the road most traveled. Because it was expected of me. But over the past year, mentors such as Michael Hyatt gave me the tools to start dreaming again. But C.C. Chapman ?told? me that there is nothing shameful in actually pursuing my dreams.
So here I am with my personal photography blog. Where I also pursue my dreams of being a writer. And because Chapman as been such a positive influence in my life, I asked if I could interview him. And he said ?yes!? :-)
Why did you decide to write ?Amazing Things Will Happen?? And how did ?Managing the Gray? influence that choice?
I didn?t have a choice about writing this book. It has been nagging to get out of my head for years and the time was finally right.
I had already written out the outline before starting Content Rules and when Ann asked me to write that with her I put this book on the back burner. It was never a question of not writing it, just a question of when.
Managing the Gray did influence the book because I heard back from listeners more than once, ?why don?t you write a book about this?? so I knew that there was already an audience for it when I found the time.
The biggest motivator for writing the book is that my kids are becoming teenagers and I wanted them to have a handy guide for living a great life. Sure, I talk to them all the time about what they want to be when they grow up and their different options but I thought it would be helpful to have an actual guide they could go to. I?m eager to see what they think about it after reading it. (they both currently are)
You mention the importance of always having a notebook. Why is having a notebook so important?
Because you never know when an idea is going to strike you and having a notebook that you can jot it down in makes sure you don?t lose any. Plus, while technology is great and I use Evernote as my virtual brain, being able to write and sketch on paper still hasn?t been replaced by any technology as far as I?m concerned.
In addition it is great to spend quiet time with a notebook. Sitting in a coffee shop or a park bench with simply a notebook and a pen is a great way to let the ideas flow. I talk about the importance of getting away from technology sometimes and a notebook is a great travel companion.
I see that creating lists is an important tool for you. But what do you tell people who make ?To Do Lists? and never check off a single task?
Stop making lists!! A list is only a valid tool if you actually cross items off it.
I am a big list maker because it forces me to focus on the most important tasks that need to get done. I quite often will grab a post it and write out the 3-5 things that I want to get done on any given day so that I can focus on those. If you make the list too long then you?ll never get it done and that isn?t good either.
Walking the road less traveled is terrifying for many. What is your advice, to those people, on how to start the journey?
Take the first step and then keep on walking.
It really is that simple and I talk about it in much more depth in the book, but once you choose the path that you want to take you are the only person who can actually start walking down it. Yes, there will always be risks, turns and rough patches because that is how life is.
Call To Action
Pursue your dreams. Allow yourself to be a child whose imagination runs uninhibited. Permit yourself to chase the dream of being a photographer or a writer or a world traveler or where ever your dreams take you.
Welcome to the Week 13 installment of our NFL Survivor contest advice column. We apply a data-driven strategy to get an edge in Survivor pools, using analysis based on?NFL predictions?from our algorithmic Team Rankings models, public picking trends, future team schedules, and other data. This article presents our preliminary Survivor pick of the week; we publish our final, official pick on Fridays.
For the fifth time this season, and the fourth time in the last six weeks, over 94% of Yahoo Survivor contestants managed to avoid elimination.?The last time a team picked by at least 15% of the public lost was way back in Week 6.
There are no hugely popular teams this week, so a mass knockout seems unlikely, but with picks spread fairly evenly among a handful of top options, hopefully we?ll see at least one or two upsets thin the ranks.
Week 13 NFL Survivor Decision Factors
This is the heart of our column, the table showing the factors that influence our weekly Survivor pick decision. For every team, here are the three questions we ask ourselves (and the data in our table that helps us answer them):
1. How likely are they to win??(consensus sportsbook?Spread?at -110 payout odds, Pinnacle?Money Line, and?TR Odds?from our?NFL win picks?page)
2. How popular is this team??(Average public?Pick %?from sites like Yahoo! and OfficeFootballPool)
3. Should I save this team for later??(Future Value: a quick rating created by giving 1 point for a future game with 75%+ win odds and half a point for a game with 65%+ win odds, with only partial credit for games in Week 16 or 17 when teams may be resting players. Based on averaging projections from our?NFL Survivor Tool?[which uses data from only this season]?and our?NFL Season Projections?[which incorporates our preseason team projections].)
Teams are listed in order of how attractive we think they are as a choice this week. They?re also separated into rough tiers. If two teams are in the same tier, you may want to choose among them based on which pros and cons are more important to your particular situation.
NOTE: We?ve removed the ?Near Value? column this week because at this point in the season, everything is near, so plain old ?Future Value? should work for everyone.
Team
Opponent
Spread
Money Line
TR Odds
Pick %
Future Val
Tier 1: Top Options
Dallas
vs Philadelphia
-10.0
-525 / +442
76%
15.6%
0.0
Green Bay
vs Minnesota
-9.0
-390 / +338
75%
4.4%
1.2
Tier 2: Worth A Look
Baltimore
vs Pittsburgh
-7.0
-286 / +230
64%
6.7%
0.0
Denver
vs Tampa Bay
-7.0
-325 / +285
79%
5.2%
2.3
New England
at Miami
-7.0
-350 / +305
79%
10.1%
2.8
Detroit
vs Indianapolis
-4.5
-215 / +193
68%
2.5%
0.3
Houston
at Tennessee
-6.0
-255 / +227
69%
1.7%
1.8
NY Jets
vs Arizona
-4.5
-213 / +191
66%
4.6%
0.5
San Francisco
at St Louis
-7.0
-320 / +281
72%
18.3%
1.6
Tier 3: AVOID
Atlanta
vs New Orleans
-3.5
-195 / +175
61%
0.3%
0.4
Chicago
vs Seattle
-3.0
-186 / +167
68%
7.3%
0.9
Buffalo
vs Jacksonville
-5.5
-240 / +214
66%
18.3%
0.3
Carolina
at Kansas City
-3.0
-148 / +134
53%
2.8%
0.5
NY Giants
at Washington
-2.5
-143 / +129
52%
0.6%
0.9
Cincinnati
at San Diego
-1.5
-132 / +120
51%
0.4%
1.0
Oakland
vs Cleveland
-1.5
-161 / +135
29%*
0.4%
0.1
Teams We?ve Already Used (Final Official Picks):?Houston Texans (WIN), Cincinnati Bengals (WIN), Dallas Cowboys (WIN), Green Bay Packers (WIN), San Francisco 49ers (WIN), Tampa Bay Buccaneers (WIN), Minnesota Vikings (WIN), Chicago Bears (WIN), Seattle Seahawks (WIN), Baltimore Ravens (WIN), Atlanta Falcons (WIN), New England Patriots (WIN)
Previous Wednesday Preliminary Picks:?Houston Texans (WIN), New York Giants (WIN), Chicago Bears (WIN), Green Bay Packers (WIN), San Francisco 49ers (WIN), Arizona Cardinals (LOSS), Minnesota Vikings (WIN), Chicago Bears (WIN), Seattle Seahawks (WIN), Baltimore Ravens (WIN), Atlanta Falcons (WIN), New England Patriots (WIN)
Weighing the Options
Please note that the discussion below is designed for people in large pools. In pools with under 20 people left, where your pick actually changes the pool pick rates to a significant degree, please see the ?Advice For Smaller Survivor Pools? section at the end of this article that provides quick strategy tips for smaller pools.
Dallas Cowboys?(vs. Philadelphia Eagles) ??If you?ve saved the Cowboys, nice work! They are the biggest favorite of the week, have basically no future value, and are being picked by only 16% of the public. That does make them the third-most popular pick this week, but 16% is not a huge incentive to stay away. Our models also are a bit down on the ?Pokes, but that just means they forecast Dallas as roughly as safe as a few other teams, rather than clearly safer. So again, no red flag there. The Cowboys looks like the clear best pick, as long as they aren?t more popular in your pool than with the general public.
Green Bay Packers?(vs. Minnesota Vikings) ??The Packers are one of three teams that seem just a touch riskier than Dallas. Green Bay, Denver, and New England all have money lines in the -300?s and TR Odds between 75% and 79%. The Packers are the most attractive of those three options, because they have the least future value, and they are the least popular (though only by a hair on Aaron Rodgers?s?mustache).?Their immediate value seems similar to Dallas, as their lower popularity makes up for their lower money line. However, their future value means they aren?t quite as good of a pick as the Cowboys. Still, being the clear second best option this week is nothing to sneeze at.
Denver Broncos?(vs. Tampa Bay Buccaneers) ??The Broncos have a profile very similar to Green Bay?s. The main difference is that Denver has more future value. It would be nice to save that future value, but it?s getting late enough in the game that it may be smart to burn them. If you can plot a path for yourself over the last four weeks that doesn?t use Denver, and still manages to stick to teams that are toughly touchdown favorites (or 70% win odds), then it?s not a terrible idea to use Denver now.
New England Patriots (at Miami Dolphins) ? The Patriots look a lot like the Broncos, except they have even slightly more future value, and they are a bit more popular. So, a similar rule applies here. If it looks like you can survive the next four weeks without the Pats, it might be time to spend them. If not, there are enough medium favorites this week that it?s not super scary to save them for later.
San Francisco 49ers?(at St. Louis Rams) ??The 49ers are another notch riskier than any of the above teams, plus they are tied with the Bills for the most popular team of the week. They also have some future value (next week vs. MIA, and Week 17 vs. ARI). They are a better choice than a small favorite like Carolina or Cincinnati, but we?d try to avoid San Francisco if you have any medium favorites available.
Baltimore Ravens?(vs. Pittsburgh Steelers) ??The Ravens are definitely riskier than the 49ers or anyone else listed above, but they aren?t popular, and have zero future value. If you have them available, they are a good choice.
Detroit Lions?(vs. Indianapolis Colts) ??Like the Ravens, the Lions aren?t very popular, and don?t have much future value. However, we?re getting riskier and riskier as we move down the list, and this may be an inflection point. The Lions are definitely a passable pick, but if you have a safer team available, you may be able to plan a path through the season that avoids any risks this large.
New York Jets?(vs. Arizona Cardinals) ??Roughly as safe as the Lions, but with a bit more future value. So the same concept applies. Check out your future options, and try to plan a path that avoids a risk this large.
Houston Texans?(at Tennessee Titans) ??The Texans are a bit safer than the Jets or Lions, but have a lot more future value. Its likely they?ll be more valuable to you in the future than they are now, so for most people it?s probably a good idea to save them.
Buffalo Bills?(vs. Jacksonville Jaguars) ??The Bills are only the eighth-biggest favorites of the week according to the money lines, but they are tied with the 49ers as the most popular team. Sure, 18% isn?t a huge amount, but when it doesn?t come with a high-win-odds upside, the smart move is to STAY AWAY and root for an upset.
Preliminary Week 13 NFL Survivor Pick: Denver Broncos Over Tampa Bay Buccaneers
It?s getting deep enough in the season that options are becoming very limited. We don?t have either of our Tier 1 options available, and the only Tier 2 options left are Denver, Detroit, and the New York Jets.
We can easily eliminate the Jets from consideration, because they grade out as slightly worse than the Lions in every metric (money line, TR odds, pick%, future value). That leaves us with a choice of burning Denver now, or taking on some additional risk this week with Detroit in order to save Denver for week 14, 16, or 17.
To help make the decision, we tried to plan out the rest of the season based on this week?s choice. It seems like the most likely paths for us, taking into account who we?ve already used, are:
13 DEN (vs TB); 14 CLE (vs KC), 15 MIA (vs JAC), 16 CAR (vs OAK), 17 NYG (vs PHI)
13 DET (vs IND); 14 CLE (vs KC), 15 MIA (vs JAC), 16 DEN (vs CLE), 17 NYG (vs PHI)
The differences there are this week (obviously) and Week 16. So it ultimately boils down to whether we?d rather take Detroit now and Denver in Wek 16, or Denver now and Carolina in Week 16.
Based on looking at projected future odds on our site and other sources, it seems like the projected win odds for both options are roughly the same. In other words, the penalty for dropping down to Detroit now is basically cancelled out by the bonus of moving up from Carolina to Denver in Week 16.
In a case like this, we generally like to take the route that is safer up front, and risky later. Our reasoning is that the future odds are more uncertain, and by Week 16 Denver may not even look like that much better of an option than Carolina. Plus, in Week 16 and 17, there are often surprising lines available due to teams resting starters for the playoffs or giving young talent a bit of experience at the end of a disappointing season.
And, of course, there?s always the chance that your pool will end before you have a chance to cash in the future value.
This was a very close choice, and there would certainly be nothing wrong with a pick of the Lions. It would be the riskier move, but would set us or you up for smoother sailing in future weeks. And, who knows, if the lines move significantly by this weekend, we may end up flipping to Detroit for our official pick.
Advice For Smaller Survivor Pools
Remember, all the discussion above is designed for large pools, where future value is still very important. Many of?you are probably in pools with only a few people left. It?s important to remember that in small pools, the correct strategy can change considerably. Here?s a refresher on key three points about?Survivor end-game tactics:
It?s less likely that your opponents? picks will closely mimic the national public picking averages.
Future value means less.
Resist the urge to play overly conservative just because you?re close to winning.
For an expanded discussion on these points, see the?Week 4 NFL Survivor?post.
Here is some specific advice for Week 12 for those in smaller pools:
Pools With 9-20 People ? At this point, it seems likely that many pools of this size will last the rest of the year. So the strategy here is basically to follow the order outlined in the main data table. The one caveat is that your pool?s picks may be quite different than the public, so if one team projects to be much more or less popular than in the general public, you?ll want to adjust your ranking of them accordingly.
Pools With 3-8 People ??If you?re in a very small pool, where you can take some rough guesses about who your opponents will choose, all bets are off. Our picks are made based on the assumption that these public pick percentages roughly match the pick rates in your pool, and that won?t be true for your pool. In very small pools this week, the least popular out of the Cowboys, Packers, and 49ers is probably your best option, as those three teams are in the safest tier, plus have less future value than the Broncos or Patriots. If you?ve got none available, then working your way down from safest to riskiest (by money line) and taking the first unpopular team (only 1 or 0 people picking them) may work.
Head-to-Head Pools ??Strategy totally changes here again, as the pick percentages will always be 50% or 100%. It?s impossible for you to pick an unpopular team, because you are half the pool. And future value means very little, as the pool may be over this week. In those cases, safety becomes the number one priority.?So?in head-to-head pools, we generally recommend taking the biggest favorite you have available, with future value only playing a role win there are multiple good options. This week, the Cowboys clearly have the best combo of safety and future value, so they are the ideal pick. If you don?t have them available, Green Bay or San Francisco are the next most attractive, and then Denver or New England.
There is one thing to keep in mind here. If you?re trying to decide between two teams that are roughly equally risky, you may want to consider?which teams your opponent has left. If he looks like he may have the upper hand in future weeks, it?s wise to try to pick a different team than him now. You?d be hoping to win or lose this week (with equal chances of both), rather than waiting for the future (where he has the advantage). On the other hand, if?you have the upper hand in the coming weeks, you should try to pick the?same team as him, so he doesn?t get the chance to win now, and must fight against the odds later.
As always,?feel free to ask questions about your specific situation in the comments section. However, please note that?the volume has gotten high enough that we can?t commit to giving everyone a detailed answer.?But we?re doing our best and can make it work if we all follow a few guidelines:
First, please read the ?Advice For Smaller Pools? section and see if that answers your question.
A lot can change between now and Friday, when we publish our finalized pick. So if your pick isn?t due until Friday or the weekend, please hold off asking questions until Friday.
If you?do?need advice now, and?you?re in a small pool, be sure to include information about pool size, who you have available, and who you think your opponents will choose, as those are the key factors in small pools.
If you?re in a large pool, please include info on why you think your pool is different than the generic Yahoo! and OFP pools.
Experts recommend closer scrutiny of radiation exposure from CT scansPublic release date: 28-Nov-2012 [ | E-mail | Share ]
Contact: Dorsey Griffith dorsey.griffith@ucdmc.ucdavis.edu 916-734-9118 University of California - Davis Health System
UC Davis radiology expert leads published review of radiation exposure risks from medical tests
(SACRAMENTO, Calif.) Amid increasing fear of overexposure to radiation from CT scans, a panel of experts has recommended more research on the health effects of medical imaging and ways to reduce unnecessary CT tests, as well as industry standardization of CT machines.
The recommendations, published in the November 2012 issue of Radiology, were developed at the Radiation Dose Summit, organized by the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB). The summit included more than 100 medical physicists, radiologists, cardiologists, engineers, industry representatives and patient advocates. The proceedings, held in Bethesda, MD in early 2011, covered currently understood risks of radiation exposure from CT scans, set priorities for future research, and called for changes to industry practices.
"The number of CT exams in the U.S. has increased by about 10 percent each year over the past decade," said John Boone, UC Davis professor of radiology and lead author of the Radiology article. "This trend underscores the importance of developing a better understanding of the health risks of radiation exposure versus the benefits of enhanced diagnosis."
The experts conceded that despite widespread public concern about radiation risks, the biologic effects from medical imaging tests are not entirely understood. Most direct evidence comes from the effects of instantaneous, high-dose, whole-body exposures due to industrial accidents and from survivors of the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. Whether these findings can be extrapolated to people exposed to occasional and much smaller dosages applied to only parts of the body is uncertain.
"The standards regarding 'safe levels' of radiation were designed for workplace safety and are very conservative," said Boone. "We don't know whether the established thresholds are really meaningful for exposure from medical testing."
The experts pointed out that because there is a high background incidence of cancer worldwide, the small incremental increase in cancer that may be attributable to low doses of radiation from medical imaging is extremely difficult to ascertain. They stated that national and international registries that track cancers and patient exposures to medical radiation may one day make it possible to conduct large epidemiological studies that could help make such associations.
"In reaction to media coverage of radiation overexposure cases, some patients refuse to undergo medical imaging procedures," said Boone. "Yet for almost all patients, the risks of foregoing a needed medical procedure far outweigh any potential radiation-associated risks."
Even accurately recording patient exposures of radiation from medical imaging is extremely difficult, according to the authors. Although it is easy to ascertain how much radiation a machine administers during an imaging study, the amount actually received by a patient depends on various factors including body size. For example, because of differences in body mass, children and small adults can receive a dose of radiation two to three times that of larger people, even when the dose administered is the same.
Other factors, such as whether the patient lies on a moving or stationary table, also affect the radiation dose received. Federally sponsored research is needed to develop methods to more accurately measure patient exposures from different types of CT scans, the authors suggested.
Summit participants also discussed the role of human error in CT scanning, which has resulted in widely publicized instances of radiation overexposure. They point out that CT operators frequently are responsible for several machines made by different manufacturers, each of which may utilize dissimilar nomenclature and control consoles, thereby increasing the chance for error.
"For some scanners, you turn a dial to the right to get a larger dose, and for others, turning it the same way gives a smaller dose," said Boone. "There are so many differences in current CT scanners, it can be like driving a car with the brake pedal on the left in the morning, then with the brake on the right in the afternoon."
CT scans should be built more like cars, he argued, which may have different exteriors, dashboards and seat coverings but are standardized across the industry so that they are driven the same way, making driving errors unlikely to occur when switching from one kind of car to another.
The experts call for academic and professional radiology societies, as well as industry trade organizations, to exert pressure on CT manufacturers to standardize nomenclature and control consoles to help avoid mistakes.
The experts also considered "wasteful imaging" -- tests that have little impact on patient diagnoses or outcomes -- resulting in unnecessary radiation exposures. Wasteful imaging can arise if physicians are unaware of a patient's prior tests or don't really know whether a scan will benefit a patient with certain signs and symptoms. In addition, physicians may order tests they know are only marginally useful to avoid accusations of negligence in a possible future lawsuit. The experts recommend use of information technology to develop national imaging and radiation exposure registries, as well as standardized protocols that guide physicians on the use of optimal imaging modalities for different clinical problems.
The University of California recently provided grants to all five of its medical schools to develop methods for more accurate measures of radiation exposure from CT scans and to build protocols that improve diagnostic information and reduce radiation risks. According to Boone, the tools under development are very powerful and will move the UC system toward achieving the goals outlined during the Radiation Dose Summit.
###
The article is titled, "Radiation exposure from CT scans: How to close our knowledge gaps, monitor and safeguard exposure -- proceedings and recommendations of the Radiation Dose Summit, sponsored by NIBIB, February 24-25, 2011."
The other authors of the article are Steven Seltzer of Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, Mass., William Hendee, from the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, and Michael McNitt-Gray from the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA.
UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center is the only National Cancer Institute-designated center serving the Central Valley and inland Northern California, a region of more than 6 million people. Its specialists provide compassionate, comprehensive care for more than 9,000 adults and children every year, and access to more than 150 clinical trials at any given time. Its innovative research program engages more than 280 scientists at UC Davis, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Jackson Laboratory (JAX West), whose scientific partnerships advance discovery of new tools to diagnose and treat cancer. Through the Cancer Care Network, UC Davis collaborates with a number of hospitals and clinical centers throughout the Central Valley and Northern California regions to offer the latest cancer care. Its community-based outreach and education programs address disparities in cancer outcomes across diverse populations. For more information, visit cancer.ucdavis.edu.
[ | E-mail | Share ]
?
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
Experts recommend closer scrutiny of radiation exposure from CT scansPublic release date: 28-Nov-2012 [ | E-mail | Share ]
Contact: Dorsey Griffith dorsey.griffith@ucdmc.ucdavis.edu 916-734-9118 University of California - Davis Health System
UC Davis radiology expert leads published review of radiation exposure risks from medical tests
(SACRAMENTO, Calif.) Amid increasing fear of overexposure to radiation from CT scans, a panel of experts has recommended more research on the health effects of medical imaging and ways to reduce unnecessary CT tests, as well as industry standardization of CT machines.
The recommendations, published in the November 2012 issue of Radiology, were developed at the Radiation Dose Summit, organized by the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB). The summit included more than 100 medical physicists, radiologists, cardiologists, engineers, industry representatives and patient advocates. The proceedings, held in Bethesda, MD in early 2011, covered currently understood risks of radiation exposure from CT scans, set priorities for future research, and called for changes to industry practices.
"The number of CT exams in the U.S. has increased by about 10 percent each year over the past decade," said John Boone, UC Davis professor of radiology and lead author of the Radiology article. "This trend underscores the importance of developing a better understanding of the health risks of radiation exposure versus the benefits of enhanced diagnosis."
The experts conceded that despite widespread public concern about radiation risks, the biologic effects from medical imaging tests are not entirely understood. Most direct evidence comes from the effects of instantaneous, high-dose, whole-body exposures due to industrial accidents and from survivors of the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. Whether these findings can be extrapolated to people exposed to occasional and much smaller dosages applied to only parts of the body is uncertain.
"The standards regarding 'safe levels' of radiation were designed for workplace safety and are very conservative," said Boone. "We don't know whether the established thresholds are really meaningful for exposure from medical testing."
The experts pointed out that because there is a high background incidence of cancer worldwide, the small incremental increase in cancer that may be attributable to low doses of radiation from medical imaging is extremely difficult to ascertain. They stated that national and international registries that track cancers and patient exposures to medical radiation may one day make it possible to conduct large epidemiological studies that could help make such associations.
"In reaction to media coverage of radiation overexposure cases, some patients refuse to undergo medical imaging procedures," said Boone. "Yet for almost all patients, the risks of foregoing a needed medical procedure far outweigh any potential radiation-associated risks."
Even accurately recording patient exposures of radiation from medical imaging is extremely difficult, according to the authors. Although it is easy to ascertain how much radiation a machine administers during an imaging study, the amount actually received by a patient depends on various factors including body size. For example, because of differences in body mass, children and small adults can receive a dose of radiation two to three times that of larger people, even when the dose administered is the same.
Other factors, such as whether the patient lies on a moving or stationary table, also affect the radiation dose received. Federally sponsored research is needed to develop methods to more accurately measure patient exposures from different types of CT scans, the authors suggested.
Summit participants also discussed the role of human error in CT scanning, which has resulted in widely publicized instances of radiation overexposure. They point out that CT operators frequently are responsible for several machines made by different manufacturers, each of which may utilize dissimilar nomenclature and control consoles, thereby increasing the chance for error.
"For some scanners, you turn a dial to the right to get a larger dose, and for others, turning it the same way gives a smaller dose," said Boone. "There are so many differences in current CT scanners, it can be like driving a car with the brake pedal on the left in the morning, then with the brake on the right in the afternoon."
CT scans should be built more like cars, he argued, which may have different exteriors, dashboards and seat coverings but are standardized across the industry so that they are driven the same way, making driving errors unlikely to occur when switching from one kind of car to another.
The experts call for academic and professional radiology societies, as well as industry trade organizations, to exert pressure on CT manufacturers to standardize nomenclature and control consoles to help avoid mistakes.
The experts also considered "wasteful imaging" -- tests that have little impact on patient diagnoses or outcomes -- resulting in unnecessary radiation exposures. Wasteful imaging can arise if physicians are unaware of a patient's prior tests or don't really know whether a scan will benefit a patient with certain signs and symptoms. In addition, physicians may order tests they know are only marginally useful to avoid accusations of negligence in a possible future lawsuit. The experts recommend use of information technology to develop national imaging and radiation exposure registries, as well as standardized protocols that guide physicians on the use of optimal imaging modalities for different clinical problems.
The University of California recently provided grants to all five of its medical schools to develop methods for more accurate measures of radiation exposure from CT scans and to build protocols that improve diagnostic information and reduce radiation risks. According to Boone, the tools under development are very powerful and will move the UC system toward achieving the goals outlined during the Radiation Dose Summit.
###
The article is titled, "Radiation exposure from CT scans: How to close our knowledge gaps, monitor and safeguard exposure -- proceedings and recommendations of the Radiation Dose Summit, sponsored by NIBIB, February 24-25, 2011."
The other authors of the article are Steven Seltzer of Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, Mass., William Hendee, from the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, and Michael McNitt-Gray from the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA.
UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center is the only National Cancer Institute-designated center serving the Central Valley and inland Northern California, a region of more than 6 million people. Its specialists provide compassionate, comprehensive care for more than 9,000 adults and children every year, and access to more than 150 clinical trials at any given time. Its innovative research program engages more than 280 scientists at UC Davis, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Jackson Laboratory (JAX West), whose scientific partnerships advance discovery of new tools to diagnose and treat cancer. Through the Cancer Care Network, UC Davis collaborates with a number of hospitals and clinical centers throughout the Central Valley and Northern California regions to offer the latest cancer care. Its community-based outreach and education programs address disparities in cancer outcomes across diverse populations. For more information, visit cancer.ucdavis.edu.
[ | E-mail | Share ]
?
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
As children we dream.
![[ Back to EurekAlert! ]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uXF-hU83qCXslW3RmAbvfguNIG513R5QNPgqMOdF0kHrR4WnfB0Ks2g_VBMX3V0D423bgufFHSXJHrktSSOGXizTQUCpMsYAWIb5d1LpE=s0-d){kind=small}
Public release date: 28-Nov-2012
Share ]