A woman in Andhra Pradesh made news recently for becoming the world’s oldest mother at 74 years of age. However, in a tragic turn of events, she suffered a stroke shortly after going into labour and now, her husband later suffered a heart attack as well.
Erramatti Mangayamma and her 82-year-old husband Sitarama Raja Rao are both currently in the intensive care unit.
On 5 September, Mangayamma successfully delivered twin girls via IVF making them what they described as “the happiest couple on Earth.”
In an earlier article on FIT, we spoke to medical experts who warned about the health consequences of such a late delivery.
यह गर्व की बात हैं कि हिंदी हमारी राजभाषा अौेर मातृभाषा एक वैज्ञानिक भाषा है. इसकी विशेषताएं हैं –
1. जो लिखते हैं ,वही पढ़ते हैं और वही बोलते हैं.
2. उच्चारण सही हो, तब सुन कर लिख सकते हैं.
3. वाक्य सम्बोधन बड़े या छोटे के लिये अलग अलग होते हैं. जैसे आप ,तुम.
4. वाक्य शुरू करनेवाले विशेष अक्षर ( capital ) नहीँ होते.
वैज्ञानिक कारण –
अक्षरों का वर्गीकरण, बोली और उच्चारण के अनुसार हैं. “क” वर्ग कंठव्य कहे जाता हैं , क्योंकि इसका कंठ या गले से हम उच्चारण करते हैं.बोलने के समय जीभ गले के ऊपरी भाग को छूता हैं. बोल कर इसे समझा जा सकता हैं.
क, ख, ग, घ, ङ.
इसी तरह “च ” वर्ग के सब अक्षर तालव्य कहलाते हैं.इन्हें बोलने के समय जीभ तालू को छूती है ।
च, छ, ज, झ,ञ
“ट” वर्ग मूर्धन्य कहलाते हैं. इनके उच्चारण के समय जीभ मूर्धा से लगती है ।
ट, ठ, ड, ढ ,ण
“त ” समूह के अक्षर दंतीय कहे जाते हैं. इन्हें बोलने के समय जीभ दांतों को छूता हैं.
त, थ, द, ध, न
“प ” वर्ग ओष्ठ्य कहे गए, इनके उच्चारण में दोनों ओठ आपस में मिलते है।
प , फ , ब ,भ , म.
इसी तरह दंत ” स “, तालव्य “श ” और मूर्धन्य “ष” भी बोले और लिखे जाते हैं।
हिंदी की जननी संस्कृत ने इसे विशेषताओं से भर दिया है । वाक्य के शब्दों को आगे पीछे करो, फिर भी अर्थ वही होता है । अर्थ वही होता है शब्दों को आगे पीछे करो । ना कैपिटल लेटर्स के झमेले ना स्माल लेटर की, ना एक्सेंट या ऊच्चारण सिखने की। ऐसी वैज्ञानिकता है हिंदी भाषा में।
प्रशांत महासागर में बर्मिंघम के आकार के प्युमिक रॉक देखा गया है। यह 150 वर्ग किलोमीटर से अधिक बड़ी है। यह एक पानी के नीचे ज्वालामुखी के कारण बना है, जो टोंगा के पास फट गई थी।
विशेषज्ञों का मानना है कि ये चट्टानें जिनमें से कुछ बास्केटबॉल के आकार की हैं,सात से 10 महीनों में ऑस्ट्रेलियाई तट तक पहुंच जाएंगी, जहां वे नष्ट हो रहे ग्रेट बैरियर रीफ को फिर से भर सकते हैं।
A ‘raft’ of pumice rock the size of Birmingham has been spotted in the Pacific ocean. The floating sheet is more than 150 square kilometres large and was caused by an underwater volcano which erupted near Tonga.
Experts believe that the rocks – some of which are the size of basketballs – will reach the Australian coast in seven to 10 months where they could replenish the Great Barrier Reef, which is being destroyed by coral bleaching. Michael and Larissa Hoult, who are crew of the Australian adventure catamaran ROAM, found themselves sailing through the mass of rocks earlier this month while on their way to Fiji.
Experts in academia, providing fact-based analysis of issues for the public
By Cynthia Curl
Organic” is more than just a passing fad. Organic food sales totaled a record US$45.2 billion in 2017, making it one of the fastest-growing segments of American agriculture. While a small number of studies have shown associations between organic food consumption and decreased incidence of disease, no studies to date have been designed to answer the question of whether organic food consumption causes an improvement in health
I’m an environmental health scientist who has spent over 20 years studying pesticide exposures in human populations. Last month, my research group published a small study that I believe suggests a path forward to answering the question of whether eating organic food actually improves health.
What we don’t know
According to the USDA, the organic label does not imply anything about health. In 2015, Miles McEvoy, then chief of the National Organic Program for USDA, refused to speculate about any health benefits of organic food, saying the question wasn’t “relevant” to the National Organic Program. Instead, the USDA’s definition of organic is intended to indicate production methods that “foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity.”
While some organic consumers may base their purchasing decisions on factors like resource cycling and biodiversity, most report choosing organic because they think it’s healthier.
Sixteen years ago, I was part of the first study to look at the potential for an organic diet to reduce pesticide exposure. This study focused on a group of pesticides called organophosphates, which have consistently been associated with negative effects on children’s brain development. We found that children who ate conventional diets had nine times higher exposure to these pesticides than children who ate organic diets.
Our study got a lot of attention. But while our results were novel, they didn’t answer the big question. As I told The New York Times in 2003, “People want to know, what does this really mean in terms of the safety of my kid? But we don’t know. Nobody does.” Maybe not my most elegant quote, but it was true then, and it’s still true now.
Studies only hint at potential health benefits
Still, scientists can’t directly translate these lower exposures to meaningful conclusions about health. The dose makes the poison, and organic diet intervention studies to date have not looked at health outcomes. The same is true for the other purported benefits of organic food. Organic milk has higher levels of healthy omega fatty acids and organic crops have higher antioxidant activity than conventional crops. But are these differences substantial enough to meaningfully impact health? We don’t know. Nobody does.
Some epidemiologic research has been directed at this question. Epidemiology is the study of the causes of health and disease in human populations, as opposed to in specific people. Most epidemiologic studies are observational, meaning that researchers look at a group of people with a certain characteristic or behavior, and compare their health to that of a group without that characteristic or behavior. In the case of organic food, that means comparing the health of people who choose to eat organic to those who do not.
Several observational studies have shown that people who eat organic food are healthier than those who eat conventional diets. A recent French study followed 70,000 adults for five years and found that those who frequently ate organic developed 25% fewer cancers than those who never ate organic. Other observational studies have shown organic food consumption to be associated with lower risk of diabetes, metabolic syndrome, pre-eclampsia and genital birth defects.
The problem with drawing firm conclusions from these studies is something epidemiologists call “uncontrolled confounding.” This is the idea that there may be differences between groups that researchers cannot account for. In this case, people who eat organic food are more highly educated, less likely to be overweight or obese, and eat overall healthier diets than conventional consumers. While good observational studies take into account things like education and diet quality, there remains the possibility that some other uncaptured difference between the two groups – beyond the decision to consume organic food – may be responsible for any health differences observed.
When clinical researchers want to figure out whether a drug works, they don’t do observational studies. They conduct randomized trials, where they randomly assign some people to take the drug and others to receive placebos or standard care. By randomly assigning people to groups, there’s less potential for uncontrolled confounding.
My research group’s recently published study shows how we could feasibly use randomized trial methods to investigate the potential for organic food consumption to affect health.
We recruited a small group of pregnant women during their first trimesters. We randomly assigned them to receive weekly deliveries of either organic or conventional produce throughout their second and third trimesters. We then collected a series of urine samples to assess pesticide exposure. We found that those women who received organic produce had significantly lower exposure to certain pesticides (specifically, pyrethroid insecticides) than those who received conventional produce.
On the surface, this seems like old news but this study was different in three important ways. First, to our knowledge, it was the longest organic diet intervention to date – by far. It was also the first to occur in pregnant women. Fetal development is potentially the most sensitive period for exposures to neurotoxic agents like pesticides. Finally, in previous organic diet intervention studies, researchers typically changed participants’ entire diets – swapping a fully conventional diet for a fully organic one. In our study, we asked participants to supplement their existing diets with either organic or conventional produce. This is more consistent with the actual dietary habits of most people who eat organic food – occasionally, but not always.
Even with just a partial dietary change, we observed a significant difference in pesticide exposure between the two groups. We believe that this study shows that a long-term organic diet intervention can be executed in a way that is effective, realistic and feasible.
The next step is to do this same study but in a larger population. We would then want to assess whether there were any resulting differences in the health of the children as they grew older, by measuring neurological outcomes like IQ, memory and incidence of attention-deficit disorders. By randomly assigning women to the organic and conventional groups, we could be sure any differences observed in their children’s health really were due to diet, rather than other factors common among people who consume organic food.
The public is sufficiently interested in this question, the organic market is large enough, and the observational studies suggestive enough to justify such a study. Right now, we don’t know if an organic diet improves health, but based on our recent research, I believe we can find out.
Tulsidas came to know about a unique behaviour of Rahim. While giving alms to the poor, Rahim gave with extreme humility. While giving, he kept his gaze downwards towards the earth. He never looked at the person he was giving alms to. Tulsidas promptly wrote the following couplet and sent it to Rahim.
“ऐसी देनी देंनज्यूँ, कित सीखे हो सैन
जयोंज्यों कर ऊंच्यो करो, त्योंत्यों निचे नैन”
Meaning – “O great person, where have you learnt this amazing way of giving? As your hands rise (to give), your eyes look down” Completing the couplet which Tulsidas wrote, Rahim replied in extreme humility.
His reply shows how evolved Rahim was as a soul.
“देनहार कोई और है, भेजत जो दिन रैन
लोग भरम हम पर करे, तासो निचे नैन”
Meaning- “The Giver is someone else (the God almighty), giving day and night. The world has a misconception that I am the giver. So, I lower my eyes in embarrassment.”
The demonstrators, backed and encouraged by the Government of Pakistan to amass and protest outside the Indian High Commission, had gathered on 15 August which marked the day of India’s Independence. Pakistan had celebrated the occasion as a ‘Black Day’ in an attempt to internationalise the recent developments in the Indian territory of Jammu and Kashmir.