OCR Text |
Show -- "W 'f1" y$ y -- grirj 'P W i p -- PPBPpTIM,f Emery County Progress Thursday, June 5,1980 5B Diabetes: Treatment, But No Cure By Lynn Varacalli Before the discovery of insulin in 1921, diabetes was a feared disease that doomed the patient to a miserable life and an early death. Today, diabetics can much more effectively control their condition, mainly because of the many improved forms of insulin. But the key word here is control because there still exists no cure for this perplexing disease. Diet Diet has always been one of the for diabetics, usually along with oral drugs or insulin. Now, doctors are beginning to look to diet alone as the best way to treat adult-onsdiabetes. The emphasis on diet alone follows a controversy among doctors over both the safety and value of oral drugs. A major study of these medications suggests that they do little, if anything, to control blood sugar and may even be dangerous. Diet, along with exercise, is what experts feel would be the safest form of treatment. If that fails, then insulin is the first choice, followed by the oral drugs. primary forms of treatment anti-diabet- ic et anti-diabet- ic easy-to-ta- anti-diabet- ic Transplants The source of a diabetics misery lies in the pancreas gland. A diabetics pancreas fails to regulate the amount of sugar in the blood with insulin. Researchers have been working on pancreatic cell transplants and have made some progress. At Washington University Medical School in St. Louis, a research team has succeedg ed in transplanting pancreatic cells from healthy to diabetic rats. The cells survived over three months; but, most importantly, they reduced the rats diabetic symptoms. The scientists injected the cells insulin-producin- Teen Scene A into a blood vessel leading to the liver. Simultaneously, they injected the rats with a substance to keep the rats bodies from rejecting the new cells. Dr. Paul Lacy, who headed the research team, feels this is a tremendous breakthrough but only for one thing, similar because, experiments have failed in other animals. Whether animal pancreas cells could be transplanted into humans is unknown. It would not be unusual to use animal pancreas cells in transplanting to humans because the insulin that is presently in use by diabetics is made from the pancreases of cattle and pigs. Most insulin on the market is a mixture of both beef and pork insulin. Researchers are hopeful that in the near future a synthetic insulin can be made. The Lacy technique for transplanting cells cannot yet be tried on humans since no way is known to remove the cells if they prove harmful to the diabetic. Artificial Insulin Producers At least six major research centers in the United States, Canada and Europe are working on a vest pocket artificial pancreas capable of keeping blood sugar at a normal level. This device would be worn or carried by diabetics. Experts feel this vest pocket pancreas is within range of current technology. It consists of a micropump, an insulin reservoir, a power source and a minicomputer preprogrammed to maintain a steady insulin flow rate as well as to provide extra insulin at mealtime. The flow rate would be determined individually for each person. Maintaining a steady flow of insulin would be of tremendous importance. Experts feel that it is the wild swings of blood sugar levels that cause many of the complications associated with diabetes attacks. The artificial pancreas has yet to 'r America. Everything Else You Wanted To Know Up until now, there has not been a book for the layman to answer everything he wanted to know about diabetes but was afraid, or reluctant, to ask his doctor. The ABC's of Diabetes (Crown Publishers), written by Caryl Dow Jorgensen, R.N. and John E. Lewis, Ph.D, is just such a book. It was written to be used as a sourcebook for the diabetic to answer questions about diet, exercise, medications, traveling, etc. Help is available from the American Diabetes Association. To find out about a local chapter, write to them at 600 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10020 or call (212) They publish a bimonthly magazine, Diabetes Forecast , for diabetics and their families. 541-431- -- i&rrjjkgh : i-: k i 7 f Jennifer Wiswell, 15, Huntington, takes dog Toby for a run. All dog owners in Huntington should be aware of a rabies and license clinic Friday, p.m., at the not licensed Huntington fire station. Dogs soon will be subject to being picked up. 2 0. Financial Headaches? lX "Ay girlfriend's x y strawberry-flavore- d Take it from Dr. Thyroid P. Gallbladder. Find fast relief in the Shopping Ma rt Want Ads. $8 is the most it can ever cost. v lip-sti- cl made me breakout in hives." Con: The following statement represents the position of the The answer to this question will have to come from the American public, which bears the risks and enjoys the benefits of nuclear power. To make this important decision, the public must have an understanding of the real risks from nuclear power; the real risks from producing power by any means coal, oil, hydro, or nuclear and the risks of not having enough energy. There is still another factor which figures in this equation: the benefits of producing electricity and the part that nuclear power plays in supplying our electrical energy. Nuclear power now produces almost 13 of all electricity in this country. Some areas are extremely dependent on the atom for their electrical needs. Vermont gets about 79 of its electricity from nuclear of and one-ha- lf Connecticut, about power. Maine gets Nebraskas electricity comes from the atom. The accident at Three Mile Island nuclear station in March in a sense validated the conservative safety design of nuclear power plants. An unexpected combination of human and mechanical failures lead to an accident hardly dreamed of by the engineers who designed the of safety systems in the plant plant. Still, the After Three Mile Island, the release. radiation harmful prevented a commercial nyclear accident toll remains zero and zero zero fatalities and zero injuries to the public. The major damages from the Three Mile Island accident appear to be to the financial health of the owner utility and to the publics confidence in nuclear safety. The financial damage to the utility and the cost to its customers will be considerable, mostly in the cost of nuclear-generate- d electricity higher-price- d power to replace the lost. The publics concept of nuclear safety has also suffered. But, time and distance from the hysteria generated in the aftermath of the accident, plus calm and reasoned examination of what really happened at Three Mile Island and as importantly, what did not is safe and will happen should show the public that nuclear power learned. lessons the of result a as safer be made even those Considering the real risks of nuclear power means balancing risks against the toll from production and consumption of other sources of energy. We have come to accept deaths in mining, oil fires, failures. They drilling, pipelines, refineries, chemical plants and dam have become a part of our way of life and are almost invisible. There remains the risk of not having enough energy. With our United States with experience of oilgasoline shortages, consider a effect on lives (not the Consider serious electrical energy shortages. lost jobs the food, of unproduced industry closings, just New York City blackouts gone regional, or even national. Nuclear power remains the most economical of all sources of In 1978, that electricity among the currently available technologies. for kilowatt 1.5 hour of nuclear, 2.3 cost per meant a production oil. hour kilowatt a 4 for produced by and for coal, t As important as these consumer savings are more than in 1978 even more important is the savings in our dwindling supplies of fossil fuels. In 1978, nuclear saved the equivalent of cubic feet of natural gas or tons of coal, or barrels of oil. Coal and oil have many other uses: gasoline, heating oil, petrochemicals, meJnes, fertilizers and synthetic gas and oil, for which they are unique and irreplaceable. Uranium has no peaceful use other than heating water to produce steam for electricity The unique safety hazards posed by nuclear plants require frequent unplanned shutdowns of these facilities, either to prevent an accident or as the consequence of an accident. When this occurs, utilities are quick to calculate the enormous economic penalties which they will force ratepayers to bear to cover the cost of replacement power often exceeding $1,000,000 per day. Although the nuclear industry frequently claims that the Federal Insurance Act guarantees that victims of the operation of nuclear power plants will be fully compensated for any losses which they might suffer, in fact there has been no reimbursement for the most significant economic costs which have been imposed on the public as the result of the operation of nuclear power plants. When a nuclear power plant has an unplanned, safety-relate- d shutdown, who should bear the economic cost? The answer to that question depends upon how the economic risk was originally assumed. Under todays law, the utility is free to assume these economic risks, confident that, if the risk materializes, the cost will be paid by ratepayers, not by shareholders. In this situation, there is little incentive for the utility to be cautious. Thus, its assessment of the probability and magnitude of the risk is often optimistic. Legislation is needed to correct that unfortunate situation. Why should a utility be free to make all sorts of optimistic assumptions about the costs of a nuclear power plant and then stick the ratepayers with the higher costs if the assumptions are invalid? A far more sensible approach would be to require the utility to divulge the assumptions upon which its decision to go nuclear was based, and then force the utility to absorb the cost if the assumptions turn out to be incorrect. The utility would be compelled to publicly declare its assumption about capital cost, fuel cost, cost of borrowing, need for higher rates to finance the venture, cost of storing and disposing of the nuclear waste, cost of decommissioning the plant, anticipated number of unplanned shutdowns of the plant, cost of adding new safety equipment to compensate for previously undiscovered safety problems, comparative costs of the nuclear power plant and alternatives to it, including conservation and solar power, and numerous other assumptions which would necessarily go into a careful judgment about whether to order a nuclear plant. This full disclosure would not prevent anyone from ordering a nuclear plant, but it would require the utility to take a serious and realistic look at the risks of nuclear power and alternatives to it before ordering a nuclear plant. It would require that, if the assumptions used and disclosed were erroneous, the entity making the erroneous assumptions would pay, and not the ratepayer. If such a law had been on the books when Metropolitan Edison ordered the Three Mile Island nuclear plant, the ratepayers in New Jersey and Pennsylvania would not be faced with the enormous rate increases which that utility is seeking or, better yet, the plant would have never been built. If Three Mile Island had not been built, steps would have been taken to assure that less energy was needed by improving the efficiency of industrial processes, improving the efficiency of goods and services generally, and taking advantage of solar energy to provide heating of homes and hot water. Every Reliable study prepared in the last five years concludes that, with energy efficiency and solar energy, we can have a vigorous and growing economy with more employment and at lower energy cost than building more nuclear power plants. The problem is to force the utilities and decisionmakers to consider these facts realistically in deciding whether to build nuclear power plants. off-sho- re life-style- s) 135-milli- 2.9-trilli- 470-milli- generation. The United States has about a third of the worlds uranium, and if we use it wisely it could last us well into the next century while we develop fusion, solar, geothermal, wind, wave and other forms of known today. If we do, we could leave energy perhaps even some not behind a world that is ecologically, economically, and politically sound, with supplies of fossil fuels remaining for those who follow us. must not be The nuclear option safe, clean and economical but have what of happened, fears might didnt, at Three sidetracked by real understand risks the of nuclear must The Mile Island. public with any form of energy production and associated risks the power, from having enough energy. consumption, and the benefits be must weighed to answer the question, Is nuclear All these factors risk? the power worth . Rabies clinic Friday Pro: The following statement represents the position of the Atomic Industrial Forum. layer-upon-lay- er V4 $ Money Matters Is Nuclear Power Worth the Risk? 53; w 1 b ' Issue and Debate 65, Dating is fun, right? Well, not always. First dates in particular can give even the most confident person a case of the jitters. Here are some things to remember the next time you contemplate going out with someone new and then consider backing out of it because youre afraid you'll do or say the wrong thing. Have a plan. Many people find its much easier to spend time with someone new when they have a goal in mind (other than just getting to know their date). It's easier to spend an afternoon or an evening teaching someone a new dance step, or studying for a test, or practicing a tennis serve than it is to just sit and talk. Keeping busy takes the pressure off, you don't have to perform conversational somersaults, you can be yourself. . and that's the whole idea, isn't it? Another way to ease first date jitters is to invite another couple to come along with you. The theory here is that its often easier for four people to make things comfortable for the first time daters. Just remember, when it's your friends youre doubling with, not to leave out your date whos probably new to the group. Keep in mind that you brought them along to help you feel more comfortable with your date. kidney disease, eye problems, heart be perfected but there is a device that performs part of the artificial pancreas function. It is a large bedside unit that can monitor a diabetics blood sugar level and also inject the insulin as needed. A few are in experimental use in North to Z of Dating National Resources Defense Council, Inc. Price-Anders- Two years after the passage Californias Proposition results of the 13 of the much-ballyhoo- property tax reduction appear to bear little resemblence to what the voters had in mind. Only 24 percent of the tax break has benefitted homeowners whose property is used solely as the owners residence. Some 40 percent of the savings has been realized by commercial the users, while remainder has been rechanneled into state and federal coffers. An independent pollster found that 59 percent of Californias voters wanted cutbacks in welfare appropriations. Only 13 percent sought educational funding cuts. Yet the funds which the election day mandate affected, local property taxes, contribute only 13 percent of the states welfare costs while accounting for half of the monies used for educational purposes. Municipal services have yet to be significantly curtailed by Proposition 13 thanks to state bailouts, paid for with California state budget surpluses. This dependence of local services on state funds results in a decline in local, and thus voter, control. The wage and employment picture has been adversely influenced. Most municipal and state workers did not get wage hikes last year. Almost 18,000 were laid off. Reductions in government construction and maintenance contracts have further clouded the job outlook. A different approach to reducing local taxes was recently proposed by New York investment banker Felix Rohatyn. It involves applying the federal tax incentive program to local government levies. To do this, Rohatyn suggests tying the federal share of welfare and medicaid costs to the local tax rate. Specifically, he recommends that the federal government increase its share of welfare or medicaid costs by $1 for every $3 in municipal tax reductions. By casing the burden of welfare and medicaid costs, Rohatyn says, local governing bodies could more readily cut taxes without biting into essential services. New York City Council President Carol Bellamy maintains that competition between public and private sector services can be used to control city government expenses and thus tax rates. Services such as sanitation and day care can be provided in part by the city itself and in part by private contractors. This approach, according to Bellamy, establishes a gauge for the cost effectiveness of outside contracts and enables the city to break off undesirable agreements without eliminating services in the affected areas. One successful New York City ploy to tighten the reins on expenses is the direct marketing of city notes and bonds. Bellamy reports that by publicly marketing its own shortterm notes when the city's underwriters could not do so. New York was able to borrow at interest rates that were two points lower than those established by banks and pension funds. Further public sales of city notes are planned. Accounting for Inflation Corporate revenues and profits, as disclosed in quarterly reports, have little meaning if inflation is not given consideration. The Financial Accounting Standards Board, which sets guidelines for corporate accountants, has attempted to rectify this situation through its rule 33, pertaining to inflation accounting. The comparisons made by publicly traded companies in their disclosure statements traditionally have dealt with current dollars, thus failing to recognize the difference in the value of the dollar in the respective reporting periods. Inflation accounting makes these comparisons in terms of constant dollars. To demonstrate how inflation accounting can change the picture presented in an earnings report, take a look at General Motors. GMs sales in 1978 were 77 percent greater than they were in 1973. Net earnings showed a 46 percent hike over the same period. However, if you convert these profit figures from current to constant dollars, you'll see that inflation consumed 57 percent of the sales revenue increase, and all of the profit rise. In other words, the $8.34 your GM stock share earned in 1973 is equal in value to the $12.24 that same share earned in 1978, wlien the difference between 1973 and 1978 dollars is taken into account. n rr'y' |