Not Bulletproof: It's no mystery that many teens engage in a range of risky behaviors. People keep looking for reasons why.
Borowsky and colleagues analyzed data collected by the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, a nationally representative sample of more than 20,000 youth in grades 7 through 12 during three separate study years. In the first set of interviews, nearly 15 percent of adolescents predicted they had a 50/50 chance or less of living to age 35. Those who engaged in risky behaviors such as illicit drug use, suicide attempts, fighting, or unsafe sexual activity in the first year were more likely in subsequent years to believe they would die at a young age. Vice versa, those who predicted that they'd die young during the first interview were more likely in later years to begin engaging in these same risky behaviors and have poor health outcomes. Notably, these teens were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with HIV/AIDS just six years later, regardless of their sexual preference.
"While conventional wisdom says that teens engage in risky behaviors because they feel invulnerable to harm, this study suggests that in some cases, teens take risks because they overestimate their vulnerability, specifically their risk of dying," Borowsky said. "These youth may take risks because they feel hopeless and figure that not much is at stake."
I thought we already knew that with--for instance--gang activity. Anyway...
Nearly 25 percent of youth living in households that receive public assistance and more than 29 percent of American-Indian, 26 percent of African-American, 21 percent of Hispanic, and 15 percent of Asian youth reported believing they would die young—compared to just 10 percent of their Caucasian peers.
So, hope is about income?
"Our findings reinforce the importance of instilling a sense of hope and optimism in youth," Borowsky said. "Strong connections with parents, families, and schools, as well as positive media messages, are likely important factors in developing an optimistic outlook for young people."
Sounds nice, but that's way easier to claim than to prove.
Consequences: Plenty of research shows that alcohol consumption increases the risk of cancer (example here). Men still drink more than women, but the gap is closing. From this link...
Research from Canada's own Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) featured in this week's edition of the Lancet shows that worldwide, 1 in 25 deaths are directly attributable to alcohol consumption. This rise since 2000 is mainly due to increases in the number of women drinking.
CAMH's Dr Jürgen Rehm and his colleagues found that alcohol-attributable disorders are among the most disabling disease categories within the global burden of disease, especially for men. And in contrast to other traditional risk factors for disease, the burden attributable to alcohol lies more with younger people than with the older population.
There is research that attributes 3.5% of all cancer deaths worldwide to alcohol drinking. But how often does an autopsy or death certificate for a cancer victim note that the cause of death was alcohol consumption? In other words, part of this study was based upon estimates rather than hard data.
The study showed that Europe had a high proportion of deaths related to alcohol, with 1 in 10 deaths directly attributable (up to 15% in the former Soviet Union). Average alcohol consumption in Europe in the adult population is somewhat higher than in North America: 13 standard drinks per person per week (1 standard drink = 13.6 grams of pure ethanol and corresponds to a can of beer, one glass or wine and one shot of spirits) compared to North America's 10 to 11 standard drinks. The recent Canadian consumption rate is equivalent of almost 9 standard drinks per person per week age 15 plus, and has been going up, as has high risk drinking. Globally, the average is around 7 standard drinks per person per week (despite the fact that most of the adult population worldwide actually abstains from drinking alcohol).
Most of the deaths caused by alcohol were through injuries, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and liver cirrhosis.
...
"Globally, the effect of alcohol on burden of disease is about the same size as that of smoking in 2000, but it is relatively greatest in emerging economies. Global consumption is increasing, especially in the most populous countries of India and China."
Most of the alcohol related injury and disease burden occurs in people under 45 years of age. The global statistic is 72.4%, but in the Americas it is 82.1%. Unfortunately, the data is rather broad...the four categories are ages 0-14, 15-44, 45-69, and 70 & older. As one would expect, the big numbers are in the 15-44 category.
Slow-Motion Prohibition: When our nicotine addict-in-chief signed the bill giving the FDA authority to regulate tobacco, a couple of tobacco researchers jumped on the bandwagon and offered some advice for reducing smoking rates over the next 50 years.
Substantial increases in federal and state tobacco excise taxes. A national clean-indoor air law. Elimination of nicotine from tobacco products. Funds for an aggressive mass media campaign to counter the tide of tobacco industry ads and sponsorships. A ban on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. Evidence-based counseling and medication for every smoker who wants to quit. Protecting young people, particularly those 17 and younger, from starting to smoke. Research shows that a major genetic risk for lifelong nicotine dependence can be suppressed if young people avoid daily smoking prior to age 17.
That suggestion to eliminate nicotine from tobacco products didn't do much for their credibility. And how much more anti-smoking advertising do we need before they consider it an aggressive campaign? But, the point about genetic risk is certainly interesting.
One of the things the researchers emphasized is that adult smoking rates have been steadily decreasing for 40 years. Switching to another piece of research published this past week...
In 2005, 32 percent of active-duty personnel and 22 percent of veterans were smokers; rates among active-duty personnel have recently increased, possibly because of growing tobacco use by deployed troops.
Not good...but why didn't they ask the age the troops took-up smoking? For instance, perhaps as the standards for new recruits have been relaxed, an increasing percentage of smokers has been accepted into the military.
Not Self-Sufficient: Many of those who make it to old age aren't financially prepared to take care of themselves. The U.S., like most industrialized nations is dependent upon population growth to fund pay-as-you-go benefits. This is one of several reasons that politicians tend to be more enthusiastic about immigration than the people they serve.
Spain has been studying this issue. From an press release on research entitled (in Spanish) "The effect of immigration on the long-term sustainability of the pension system in Spain."
Researchers from the University of Valladolid have constructed a demographic and economic simulation model called 'Carrión', which projects the costs of pensions, Social Security contributions and GDP up until 2060. The model also includes detailed scenarios about the behaviour of people migrating to Spain currently and in the future, in relation to the length of time they stay, their fertility, salaries and employment rate.
The new study ... evaluates the stability of the Spanish pensions system and carries out a detailed analysis of the effect of immigration on the accounts of the Social Security system.
One of the most striking results is that by 2055 the contributions/pensions ratio of immigrants "will have a net value in excess of that of native-born people", Jiménez-Ridruejo tells SINC. The researcher says that, through this demographic and economic simulation model, his team has provided the first projection of the contribution made by migrants to the Spanish pensions system, both in terms of contributions and pensions expenditure.
In 2008, foreign-born individuals comprised roughly 12% of the Spanish population. From 1996-2008, the number of immigrants--both legal and otherwise--rose from about 500,000 to 5,220,000. The biggest sources of legal immigrants are Romania and Morocco. The majority of the immigrants are from Latin America--especially Ecuador, Bolivia, and Colombia. And we can't forget the sun-deprived British; the official number is 350,000, though it may be as high as 1 million.
The study also shows a more pronounced increase in the fertility rate, which will reach almost two children per woman, and that the pension load will start to decline after 2020. This will primarily be due to the rejuvenation of the population, implying reduced increases in the dependency rate, an indicator that "could even start to decline by 2055".
Spain's fertility rate is currently well-below replacement--just 1.37. Of note though is that it's been climbing since the late 90s...along with immigration. However, expecting the number to rise to almost 2.0 sure seems optimistic. But then, optimism is a key component of pension math.
When our politicians claim they're pro-environment, ask them how they're going to pay for social security long-term without a continuing increase in the population--which isn't good for the environment.

Recent Comments