26th Annual No Smoking Day... with more smokers than ever

As “No Smoking Day” again comes around, the question has been asked whether the campaign in fact makes a difference. The general answer, as expected, from health boards is absolutely yes.

The No Smoking Day’s official website claims that more than a million people try and quit smoking each year, and not always successfully, but Bolton in particular has been targeted and praised for its efforts in trying.

Deborah Collinson of The Bolton Primary Care Trust said: "There really has never been a better time to stop smoking and No Smoking Day is a great incentive. Recent statistics have revealed the number of smokers in Bolton has fallen.”

But even a Quit Smoking blog acknowledges the pressures of such campaigns. “What about those smokers who do not want to stop smoking?”

It is often argued that bringing smoking into the limelight is a reminder for those who have quit in the past, and urges them back to old habits. But Chancellor Alistair Darling remains confident that incentives such as these, can be nothing but a benefit overall.

His announcement of a 11p rise per pack of cigarettes comes at the same time as the 25th No Smoking Day this year.(March 12th) No Smoking Day chief executive Dan Tickle said: “Today’s Budget rise, coming on the back of smokefree legislation, is likely to be a decisive factor for many smokers considering quitting. A 20-a-day smoker will now be spending well over £2000 a year, up from under £500 when we launched our first No Smoking Day, 25 years ago."

On paper, this looks more than convincing, but prices have risen before, No Smoking Day's have been around for 25 years, and yet, there are still thousands of people dying each year of cancer-related illnesses. Are days like this actually giving us any new information? Or are they repeat scare tactics in the hope of reducing the numbers? Maybe the 26th year will shed some light on the situation.

Warning labels are set for "unhealthy" dairy products

According to The Express, “The Government’s Food Standards Agency is said to be considering using shock tactics to persuade Britons to cut down on their consumption of saturated fats. A consumer study conducted for the agency by CMI Research found that graphic images of fat – the kind shown on popular TV shows about food and health – had a big impact on viewers.”

Many have shunned the report as another means of being controlled by the Government, rather than a campaign for better health.

NannyKnowsBest said:
“It seems that this time next year we will have to endure yet another one of Nanny's remorseless campaigns warning us about the dangers of our everyday, simple pleasures. Nanny and the FSA need to remember that, unlike smoking, we really all do have to eat food everyday. You cannot, and should not, criminalise food and eating!”

Providing a similar message, Harpoon asked:
“What about warnings on every loaf of bread? On every bottle of Coke? How about putting pictures of gangrened limbs on the front of every fish & chip shop with a warning that consumption of batter fried in vegetable oil can eventually lead to heart disease and diabetes?”

The point is interesting and very much plausible. And like Chow.com, which points out other products with warning labels such as Cigarettes, Handguns, Liquor, Prescription drugs and Pornographic DVDs, an increasing number of products are being labelled as dangerous and toxic, possibly un-necessarily, but it is claimed to be in the matter of public interest.

The FSA claims that these dairy foods that may require labels, is to increase awareness of their fatty nature in order to “slash Britain’s soaring levels of obesity and heart disease” but unless warning labels are places on every item that could cause these illnesses, it may not be enough. Does this mean the nutritional information on packaging is not useful after all? A change in lifestyle will most likely not occur through labels and shock tactics, but it somewhat relieving that at least some action is being taken.

A decrease in monogamy, but plenty of STD's to go around

According to The Metro this week, more single people in the UK now think that it is acceptable to date more than one person at a time – And surprisingly, this was more women than men. (25% of men, 36% of women)

It was also stated that more than half of single people in the UK intend to use the internet in the next few months in order to find a relationship (and not just one relationship at that).

This increase in sexual interest of course will directly link to the ever-increasing amount of sexual transmitted diseases that we so often hear of, raising the question of…how do we decrease this number if sex is on the rise?

As Britain becomes a nation of “multiple daters”, many have condemned contraception, claiming that it not only encourages casual sex, but that it doesn’t even work.

yourSTDhelp goes as far to include a “Why Condoms Fail” section explaining they are an “all round failure” due to the attitude that goes alongside them.The blog states that the only way to prevent STD’s is to yes use protection, but also to “keep your partners at a minimum” and to “stay monogamous when in a relationship.”

Nick Partridge, chief executive of Terrence Higgins Trust, a sexual health charity, talks of the growing popularity of online dating and the effects it can have on our health. He condemns the fact that although many of these dating websites are professional, they do not concentrate on the prevention of STD’s and do not provide access to related services. He added: “If we don’t concentrate on these, we will continue to have ever-increasing rates of HIV and the worst sexual health in Western Europe.”

In Global Health Blog, it is claimed that the “health benefits of monogamy are obvious” by reducing the spread of HIV and other STD’s but with so many of the nation at least considering taking more than one partner, perhaps the benefits are not as obvious as you would expect.

Who's to blame for Booze Britain?

After the price of alcohol has halved in the past 20 years, it comes as no surprise that there has been a subsequent rise in alcohol related additions and illnesses.

An Alcoholics Anonymous blog states that the alcohol abuse can start at an increasingly early age due to the cheapness of the product. It adds:

“Children and alcohol don’t mix. Why are these children misusing alcohol? The three P’s are Parents, Peers and Products”

This is an interesting point. Although many cannot control themselves, it is the younger of the nation who quite possibly do not know any better and require better education on the matter.

The blog places blame on the “Three P’s.”

“Many parents act with the best of intentions, supervising children's alcohol use to encourage moderation. The problem is the strategy is not working and children who start using alcohol at an early age are more likely to go on to become part of the adolescent party culture in which alcohol use occurs regularly.

High rates of underage drinking mean peer pressure on other young people to use alcohol. At the time that adolescents are drinking alcohol to attract their peers, their brains are more vulnerable to the negative impacts of alcohol.

Products are also an important component in underage alcohol use. The large number of underage drinkers means that there is now an assertive market that caters to this group. A variety of cheap, brightly coloured and sweet alcoholic drinks can be easily accessed by underage drinkers.”

The culture of intoxication which has emerged in Britain in recent years, has this past month been focused on the prices of alcohol in supermarkets and 24-hour licensing allowing for easy-access booze.

Don Shenker, Director of Policy and Services at Aclohol Concern said:
"Alcohol Concern does not disagree with the extension of licensing hours per se, but we do have outstanding reservations about the lack of community safeguards and serious misgivings about the extent to which public health is being ignored as a licensing concern."

The Guardian reported that “By the end of the year Gordon Brown wants to see alcoholic content and daily sensible drinking guidelines listed on most alcoholic drink labels.” But whether anyone will take notice of these is a different matter. Many addicts always find a way to attain what they crave the most. And when tax on cider is only 20p, why should the large chain stores sacrifice their profit? Should the responsibility not bear with the consumers?

The British Medical Association fully supports an increase in alcohol’s price stating that it “recommends introducing higher taxes on alcoholic drinks and an end to irresponsible promotions.”

The NHS has taken a similar approach and recommends that to reduce your unit intake, users should themselves calculate online exactly how much they are consuming.
The How Many Units? Alcohol Calculator is certainly a good idea in theory, but how many youths or pub-goers who have had one two many, would think to approach this as soon as stumbe in the house? Just as an estimation, i would say ...Very few.

The result from the calculator may in many cases not mean a great deal, although the site does include how much is too much, and also gives advice when the result is shown. The Alcoholics Anonymous Blog however has a valid point. Booze products certainly have an impact on our health when abused as the Government is finally taking note of, and for the youths of our nation, peer pressure will always surround the issue. So perhaps it is time that the parents were given a re-evalutation? More and more children are being permitted to drink under the surveillance of their elders. Of course it is the parents' decision how to raise their children, but perhaps, are they setting a bad example and turning us into a "party nation"?

Module work: A map of Preston News

Constructed on Google Maps, here is an example of how the news can be displayed in map format.
Stories were taken from the Lancashire Evening Post.





View Larger Map

J-Lo opens a window for her family, and shuts the door to others in need.

J-Lo has finally given birth to healthy twins this week at the North Shore University Hospital on Long Island.

The private room that she had requested has apparently “been sitting empty for 2 weeks in preparation for the singer’s birth.”

As advantageous as it can be to have a room prepared and ready for when the baby decides it’s ready to face the world, how much of the health service is jeopardised when a millionaire requires assistance?

Surely the room could have found better use for the fortnight than to be sitting empty. And the amount of paparazzi awaiting the superstar outside could only have created an obstruction near A&E.

If you have a certain amount of money in America, then it appears you can buy your way through anything and with almost 50 million Americans without health insurance, it sure appears that hospitals are there solely to cater for the wealthy.

Considering that 18,000 Americans die every year simply because they are uninsured, provides a shocking reality check when rooms are so freely handed out to celebrities with expendable cash.

The hospital itself will of course be grateful for the business, and with the rate that JLO is willing to pay, then it would be bad business for them to refuse such an offer. However, the fact that those with full-time jobs, who simply cannot afford the high-cost of health insurance, would simply be shunned aside to grin and bear it, makes J-Lo appear not-worthy of all the pampering and attention she will no doubt receive not only from fans, but from brown-nosed doctors.

We complain about the NHS an awful lot, and waiting times are abysmal, but perhaps we have it okay here in Britain after all. Or at least, better than we thought?

Module Work: Windows Movie Player

Using Windows Movie Maker and images from Flickr, here is a short film imagining the walk from Avenham Park in Preston to Foster Building at UCLan.
As you can see, it is the scenic route...

[Will be uploaded as soon as Blogger can actually handle video footage.]