NEW ORLEANS (AP) ? San Francisco 49ers cornerback Chris Culliver apologized Thursday for anti-gay comments he made to a comedian during Super Bowl media day, saying "that's not what I feel in my heart."
"I'm sorry if I offended anyone. They were very ugly comments," Culliver said during an hour-long media session. "Hopefully I learn and grow from this experience and this situation."
He said he would welcome a gay teammate to the 49ers, a reversal of his remarks to Artie Lange two days earlier during an interview at the Superdome.
"I treat everyone equal," Culliver said. "That's not how I feel."
He added that he realized his comments were especially offensive to many people in San Francisco and the Bay Area, which is home to a large gay community.
"I love San Francisco," Culliver said.
During the interview with Lange, Culliver responded to questions by saying he wouldn't welcome a gay player in the locker room. He also said the 49ers didn't have any gay players, and if they did those players should leave.
San Francisco coach Jim Harbaugh met privately with Culliver to discuss the remarks.
"I reject what he said," Harbaugh said. "That's not something that reflects the way the organization feels, the way the rest of the players feel."
The coach would not discuss if Culliver would face discipline from the team, such as a fine or loss of playing time.
"He pledged to grow from it," Harbaugh said.
The interview began with Lange asking Culliver about his sexual plans with women during Super Bowl week. Lange followed up with a question about whether Culliver would consider pursuing a gay man.
"I don't do the gay guys, man. I don't do that," Culliver said during the one-minute taped interview. "Ain't got no gay people on the team. They gotta get up outta here if they do. Can't be with that sweet stuff."
Lange asked Culliver to reiterate his thoughts, to which the player said, "It's true." He added he wouldn't welcome a gay teammate ? no matter how talented.
"Nah. Can't be ... in the locker room, nah," he said. "You've gotta come out 10 years later after that."
The 24-year-old Culliver, a third-round draft pick in 2011 out of South Carolina, made 47 tackles with two interceptions and a forced fumble this season while starting six games for the NFC champion Niners (13-4-1).
He had his first career postseason interception in San Francisco's 28-24 win at Atlanta for the NFC title, which sent the 49ers to the Super Bowl for the first time since 1995. They will face the AFC champion Baltimore Ravens on Sunday.
The 49ers participate in the NFL's "It Gets Better" anti-bullying campaign. Three organizations working for LGBT inclusion in sports ? Athlete Ally, You Can Play, and GLAAD ? reacted to Culliver's remarks and later acknowledged his apology.
"Chris Culliver's comments were disrespectful, discriminatory and dangerous, particularly for the young people who look up to him," said Athlete Ally Executive Director Hudson Taylor. "His words underscore the importance of the athlete ally movement and the key role that professional athletes play in shaping an athletic climate that affirms and includes gay and lesbian players."
Calling Lange's questions "real disrespectful," Culliver said he realized he was speaking to a comedian and not a journalist.
"That was pretty much in a joking manner," the player said. "It's nothing about how I feel."
Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo, who made headlines this season with his vocal support of a gay-marriage initiative in Maryland, said Culliver's comments to Lange were reflective of how many players in the NFL feel, even if they don't express it publicly. He hopes the 49ers cornerback will learn from this experience and become a positive role model in the quest for equality.
"You can't fight hate with hate," Ayanbadejo said. "You've got to fight hate with love."
Baltimore safety Bernard Pollard said Culliver should be allowed to express his views, even if some people found them offensive.
"The guy's entitled to his own opinion," said Pollard, who has acknowledged that he disagrees with Ayanbadejo's stand on gay marriage. "I'm not going to sit here and knock him. I'm not going to sit here and judge him. It's freedom of speech. If you don't like it, don't listen to it."
___
Follow Paul Newberry on Twitter at www.twitter.com/pnewberry1963
___
Online: http://pro32.ap.org/poll and http://twitter.com/AP_NFL
Jan. 31, 2013 ? A hole in the Antarctic ozone layer has changed the way that waters in the southern oceans mix, a situation that has the potential to alter the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and eventually could have an impact on global climate change, a Johns Hopkins earth scientist says.
In a paper published in this week's issue of the journal Science, Darryn W. Waugh and his team show that subtropical intermediate waters in the southern oceans have become "younger" as the upwelling, circumpolar waters have gotten "older" -- changes that are consistent with the fact that surface winds have strengthened as the ozone layer has thinned.
"This may sound entirely academic, but believe me, it's not," said Waugh, of the Morton K. Blaustein Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Johns Hopkins' Krieger School of Arts and Sciences. "This matters because the southern oceans play an important role in the uptake of heat and carbon dioxide, so any changes in southern ocean circulation have the potential to change the global climate."
Waugh's team used measurements taken from the early 1990s to the mid-to-late 2000s of the amount of a chemical compound known as "chlorofluorocarbon-12," or CFC-12, in the southern oceans. CFC-12 was first produced commercially in the 1930s and its concentration in the atmosphere increased rapidly until the 1990s when it was phased out by the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. (Prior to the Montreal Protocol, CFC-12 was used in products such as aerosol hairsprays and refrigerants and in air conditioning systems.)
From those ocean measurements, Waugh's team was able to infer changes in how rapidly surface waters have mixed into the depths of the southern oceans. Because they knew that concentrations of CFCs at the ocean surface increased in tandem with those in the atmosphere, they were able to surmise that the higher the concentration of CFC-12 deeper in the ocean, the more recently those waters were at the surface.
The inferred age changes -- "younger" in the subtropics, "older" nearer the South Pole -- are consistent with the observed intensification of surface westerly winds, which have occurred primarily because of the Antarctic ozone hole, suggesting that stratospheric ozone depletion is the primary cause of the changes in ocean ventilation. As stratospheric ozone recovers over the next 50 years, the changes in ventilation may slow or reverse. The impact of continued increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will also need to be considered, however. The combined impact of the two factors on the southern oceans' ventilation and uptake of heat and carbon is an open question.
Also on the research team were collaborators Francois Primeau of the University of California, Irvine; Tim Devries of the University of California, Los Angeles; and Mark Holzer of the University of New South Wales and Columbia University. Funding for the study was provided by the National Science Foundation and the Australian Research Council.
Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:
Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:
Story Source:
The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Johns Hopkins. The original article was written by Lisa De Nike.
Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.
Journal Reference:
D. W. Waugh, F. Primeau, T. DeVries, M. Holzer. Recent Changes in the Ventilation of the Southern Oceans. Science, 2013; 339 (6119): 568 DOI: 10.1126/science.1225411
Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.
NEW HAVEN, Conn -This Friday, the Bulldogs will kick off their ninth annual Giegengack Invitational, a two-day meet hosted by Yale track and field and named for former coach Bob Giegengack. Events will begin at Coxe Cage on Friday with the Men's and Women's long jump at 5:00 p.m. Field events will continue on Saturday at 9:30 a.m. with the shot put. Most running events will take place on Saturday, excluding the previous day's 5,000-meter run, 200-meter sprint, and distance medleys.
Expectations are high after personal bests from six Bulldogs at last week's Terrier Invitational, including performances from freshmen Grace Brittan and Sydney Cureton, sophomore Emily Cable, juniors Jenna Hessert and AmandaSnajder and senior Jennifer Donnelly.
After this weekend's meet, the Bulldogs will compete in one additional meet in Princeton, N.J., before heading to the Ivy League Heptagonal Championships. Of the upcoming meet, freshman Karleh Wilson said the following; "We are in the midst of high competition with Heps (the Ivy League Heptagonal Championships) on our minds. This weekend should be a great meet since it's at home. We've been training really hard and can't wait to see where we stand among the Ivies."
After the Heptagonal Championships, the championship season continues with the ECAC Championships in Boston, in which participants must first meet a qualifying time to compete. In addition to Wilson, who met the qualifying standard for the shot put a week prior, three Bulldogs met ECAC standards last week. Senior Caitlin Hudson and sophomore Anna Demaree both qualified in the 3,000-meter run, while freshman Shannon McDonnell did likewise in the 500-meter dash.
Live Results for the Giegengack Invitational will be available at?http://files.milesplit.us/live_results/133848/index.html.?A complete schedule is available at http://www.directathletics.com/2013GiegengackInvitational.pdf?downloader=1&sport=track&meet_hnd=26789.
Report by Maria Seravalli '16, Yale Sports Publicity
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell speaks to the media while flanked by Sen. John Barrasso (left), Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn (second from left), and Sen. John Thune after the weekly Senate Republican policy luncheon at the U.S. Capitol Jan. 29, 2013.
Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images
Senate democracy?not just Senate Democrats?suffered two significant setbacks last week. One wound was partly self-inflicted. The other was mischief worked by judges. President Obama?s wiliest and most subtle adversary?Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell?has just won big, twice.
First, filibuster reform fizzled. Though Democrats have 55 Senate seats, nothing important can pass without 60 votes, so McConnell retains enormous power to stop whatever Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Dems might favor. Meanwhile, a panel of Republican-appointed judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that President Obama cannot overcome Senate filibusters of his nominees by making executive branch appointments during Senate recesses that take place midsession. The judges made this ruling in the name of Senate rights, even though neither the Senate as a whole nor the Senate?s Democrat majority was complaining about Obama?s recess appointments. Only McConnell and his fellow Republican senators were involved in the lawsuit (as informal friends of the court), yet the judges in effect recognized them?the minority!?as the Senate?s proper spokesmen. And if that weren?t bad enough, the judges proceeded to overturn well-settled Senate practices governing the Senate?s own internal procedures?practices that had been supported for decades and on some specifics for centuries by senators (and presidents) of both parties.
Much of the blame for this sad situation belongs to Reid and the Senate Dems. On the filibuster reform question, nothing has prevented the Democrats, legally speaking, from exercising their constitutional right (nicknamed the ?nuclear option?) to insist, by a simple majority vote, that simple majorities should rule in the Senate?as provided for by the Constitution itself and strongly supported by early Senate practice. (Before the Civil War, no notable measure ever failed when it had the support of a determined Senate majority. Senate minorities got to speak, but Senate majorities got to vote. California?s admission to the Union in 1850, giving free states a razor-slim edge in the Senate over slave states, was a potential game-changer precisely because simple majority-rule was the name of game.)
On the recess appointment question, Reid and the Senate Dems also blew it. In January 2012, senators left town for several weeks but held periodic pro-forma proceedings lasting a few minutes apiece, with almost no senators present. Obama treated these proceedings as shams; in his view, the Senate was in recess, and during Senate recesses, the Constitution allows him to unilaterally and temporarily fill vacant executive branch positions via recess appointments. Like Wagner?s music, this Obama tactic was not as bad as it sounds. Reid and the Democrats in the Senate were being held hostage (literally) by House Leader John Boehner, who would not agree to let everyone go home (and typically, both houses must agree to these adjournments) unless Reid agreed to the pro-forma charades.
So Obama?s seemingly aggressive use of the recess-appointment power wasn?t so aggressive after all. His appointments probably had the tacit consent of Reid and the Democrats. They would have voted to confirm the folks Obama chose?they just didn?t have the 60 votes needed to bring these folks to the floor because of McConnell-orchestrated Republican filibustering. In effect, Obama?s tactic, with Reid?s likely support, restored Senate majority rule for executive branch appointments during midsession recesses. Last January, Tim Noah and I dubbed this strategy a ?tactical nuke??a miniature version of the more sweeping ?nuclear option? of filibuster reform across the board.
But Reid and the Democrats failed to defend this strategy in a transparent fashion. At the time, Noah and I urged Reid and the Dems to go public?to sign a letter to certify that 51 senators in fact supported Obama?s January appointments, and to thereby make clear that the president was not running roughshod over his former colleagues but actually helping the Senate accomplish what a majority of senators in fact favored.
And when a predicable lawsuit materialized, challenging the legality of Obama?s recess appointees to a federal labor board, Reid and the Dems failed yet again. They should have filed a brief making clear that they considered themselves functionally in recess last January. ?But again they did what Senate Dems seem altogether too comfortable doing: nothing.
Even without such a brief, a properly modest judicial panel would have hesitated to insert itself into an ongoing and long-standing conversation between presidents and senators about the give and take of their relationship on appointment issues. A key 1997 Supreme Court case, Byrd v. Raines, says that only a majority of senators have proper standing in court to complain of presidential actions violating the rights of the Senate. Why should a private party?in this case, a bottling company being regulated by the National Labor Relations Board, which has three members appointed by Obama in January 2012?have standing to raise the rights of the Senate itself?
The Constitution gives each chamber of Congress broad authority to determine its own rules of proceeding. But the D.C. Circuit judges in this case treated the Senate as if it were a collection of law clerks, whose folkways could be set aside at will. According to the court, even if no pro-forma meetings had been held last January, the Obama appointments were still illegal. Why? Because the Senate did not bother to call the day before the vacation ?Session X? and the day after the vacation ?Session Y.? Never mind that for decades the Senate has treated certain long midsession vacations as proper recesses! Never mind that these understandings have been negotiated with presidents of both parties over many years and have been endorsed by framework legislation that also reflects the concurrence of the House of Representatives. We, the judges, will decide how the Senate must conduct its own business and define its own calendar.
In support of this immodest intrusion, the judges cited the landmark 1987 Supreme Court decision INS v. Chadha,which overturned a ?legislative veto? scheme that also had been a congressional fixture for decades. But as I explain in my new book, America?s Unwritten Constitution, Chadha (which I applaud) struck down a system that every single modern president who had confronted the legislative veto (from Woodrow Wilson through Ronald Regan) had explicitly condemned?a key fact highlighted by the Chadha court. By contrast, all the relevant actors?the Senate and the president that together make government appointments, and the House that helps fund these officers?have embraced the midsession recess.
The judges in last week?s recess appointments case did not even stop there. In a wholly unnecessary aside, two out of three of them went on to say that the president can only fill vacancies during a recess (meaning a recess between sessions) if the vacancy arose during the recess itself. If a vacancy opened, say, five hours before the end of one session, then the office must remain vacant until the next session begins. In the early republic, a gap between sessions often lasted for months. So it is hardly surprising that this ultra-strict view of the recess power was rejected centuries ago. In the 1820s, America?s attorney general expressly rejected this dubious reading of the Constitution, and since then all three branches of the federal government and both houses of Congress have followed suit to fill and finance a vast multitude of vacant offices.
So blame Harry Reid and the Senate Dems for not doing enough, but don?t give the Republican-appointed judges who ruled against the president a pass, either. The proper constitutional response to a Senate that does too little is not a court that does too much.
Prison provides an opportunity for networking with more seasoned criminals.
iStockphoto.com
Prison provides an opportunity for networking with more seasoned criminals.
iStockphoto.com
In popular lore ? movies, books and blogs ? criminals who go to prison don't come out reformed. They come out worse.
Scientists who have attempted to empirically analyze this theory have reached mixed conclusions, with analyses suggesting that activities like drug addiction or gangs are what determines whether the correctional system actually gets criminals to correct their ways.
What else could be at work?
Donald T. Hutcherson II, a sociology professor at Ohio University in Lancaster, recently decided to tackle the question by mining the vast data in the U.S. government's National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.
The survey conducts incredibly detailed and confidential interviews, and then repeats those interviews with the same people year after year ? often going to extraordinary lengths to track down those who may have moved overseas or ended up in prison.
Included in the survey are questions about how much money individuals make legally and illegally. Because the survey also ascertains whether people have spent time in prison, Hutcherson pored through data from tens of thousands of queries to a large number of young people to establish whether illegal earnings went up or down after individuals served time.
If prison reformed criminals, illegal earnings once people were released ought to have gone down. But if prison was a "finishing school" for criminals, illegal earnings after serving time should have increased.
"Spending time in prison leads to increased criminal earnings," Hutcherson says. "On average, a person can make roughly $11,000 more [illegally] from spending time in prison versus a person who does not spend time in prison."
As to the process by which this happens, he says, "You come in [to prison]. You're 16, 17, 18 years old. You're looking around and you're thinking, 'Listen, I can learn from these seasoned veterans.' And that's exactly what you do. ... Basically, you are spending a lot of time around other criminals, seasoned veterans who know the lay of the land, and they can teach you the mechanisms ? ways to get away with crime."
Because the study looks at averages, it's important to note that Hutcherson isn't saying that all criminals come out of prison primed to become bigger criminals. Lots of people, obviously, come out determined to lead law-abiding lives.
Hutcherson pointed to the role of social networks in all of our lives. In the legal economy, being connected to influential people ? via networking ? is widely seen as a way to get ahead on the ladder.
The same phenomenon appeared to be at work in the illegal economy as well. "You would think that being punished, serving time in prison, for young people would be a deterrent," Hutcherson says. "But look at it this way. When you leave prison, who are you going to hang out with? You're not going to all of a sudden join the chess club."
Patients can emit small, influenza-containing particles into the air during routine carePublic release date: 31-Jan-2013 [ | E-mail | Share ]
Contact: Jerica Pitts jpitts@pcipr.com 312-558-1770 Infectious Diseases Society of America
[EMBARGOED FOR JAN. 31, 2013] A new study suggests that patients with influenza can emit small virus-containing particles into the surrounding air during routine patient care, potentially exposing health care providers to influenza. Published in The Journal of Infectious Diseases, the findings raise the possibility that current influenza infection control recommendations may not always be adequate to protect providers from influenza during routine patient care in hospitals.
Werner E. Bischoff, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the Wake Forest School of Medicine in North Carolina screened 94 patients for flu-like symptoms during the 2010-2011 influenza season. Study participants had been admitted to the emergency department (52 patients) or an inpatient care unit (42 patients) of Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, where vaccination for influenza is mandatory for health care providers.
Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from each patient. Samples were analyzed by rapid testing and by PCR analysis. Air samples were obtained by placing three six-stage air samplers from within 1 foot, 3 feet, and 6 feet of patients. No aerosol-generating proceduressuch as bronchoscopy, sputum induction, intubation, or cardiopulmonary resuscitationwere conducted while air sampling took place. During air sampling, the number of patients' coughs and sneezes were counted and assessed for severity. Patients also completed a questionnaire at admission to report symptoms and the number of days they were sick.
Of the 94 patients enrolled, 61 patients (65 percent) tested positive for influenza virus. Twenty-six (43 percent) released influenza virus into the air. Five patients (19 percent) emitted up to 32 times more virus than others. This group of patients with influenza, described by the researchers as "super-emitters," suggested that some patients may be more likely to transmit influenza than others. High concentration of influenza virus released into the air was associated with high viral loads in nasopharyngeal samples. Patients who emitted more virus also reported greater severity of illness.
The current belief is that influenza virus is spread primarily by large particles traveling up to a maximum of 3 to 6 feet from an infected person. Recommended precautions for health providers focus on preventing transmission by large droplets and following special instructions during aerosol-generating procedures. In this study, Dr. Bischoff and his team discovered that the majority of influenza virus in the air samples analyzed was found in small particles during non-aerosol-generating activities up to a 6-foot distance from the patient's head, and that concentrations of virus decreased with distance. The study addressed only the presence of influenza-containing particles near patients during routine care, not the actual transmission of influenza infection to others.
Fitted respirators are currently required for health care providers during aerosol-generating procedures with patients. During routine, non-aerosol-generating patient care, the current precautions recommend that providers wear a non-fitted face mask. Based on their findings, Dr. Bischoff and investigators are concerned that providers may still be exposed to infectious dosages of influenza virus up to 6 feet from patients with small wide-spreading particles potentially exceeding the current suggested exposure zones.
These findings suggest that current infection control recommendations may need to be reevaluated, the study authors concluded. The detection of "super-emitters" raises concerns about how individuals with high viral load may impact the spread of influenza, they noted. "Our study offers new evidence of the natural emission of influenza and may provide a better understanding of how to best protect health care providers during routine care activities," the study authors wrote. However, studies of influenza virus transmission will be necessary before the role of super-emitters can be firmly established, they noted.
In an accompanying editorial, Caroline Breese Hall, MD, from the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry in New York, highlighted the importance of a better understanding of influenza transmission as global travel has increased the likelihood of a rapid worldwide influenza outbreak. Although the study did not show that influenza transmission actually occurred, Dr. Hall noted, the findings "question the traditional belief that influenza is primarily spread by close contact with an infected person or by direct contact with infectious secretions."
While the study adds to the current understanding of the risks of influenza infection among patients and health providers, the findings also help define questions that still need to be answered, Dr. Hall noted. (Editor's Note: Dr. Hall died on Dec. 10, 2012, at the age of 73, shortly after completion of the editorial accompanying this study.)
Whatever protective equipment or infection control practices are used for preventing influenza transmission, vaccination of health providers remains a fundamental and key part of protecting them from influenza, noted Dr. William Schaffner, professor medicine and chair of the department of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tenn., who was not involved with the study. "Influenza vaccination, although not perfect, is the best tool we have to protect health care workersand their patientsfrom influenza illness."
###
Fast Facts:
1) Researchers found that patients with influenza can emit small, influenza virus-containing particles into the surrounding air during routine patient care, potentially exposing health care providers to influenza virus up to 6 feet away from infected patients.
2) Five patients (19 percent) in study were "super-emitters" who emitted up to 32 times more virus than others. Patients who emit a higher concentration of influenza virus also reported greater severity of illness.
3) The findings suggest that more research on how influenza is transmitted is needed and that current influenza infection control recommendations for health providers may need to be reevaluated.
The study and the accompanying editorial are available online. They are embargoed until 12:01 a.m. EST on Thursday, Jan. 31, 2013:
Published continuously since 1904, The Journal of Infectious Diseases is the premier global journal for original research on infectious diseases. The editors welcome major articles and brief reports describing research results on microbiology, immunology, epidemiology, and related disciplines, on the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of infectious diseases; on the microbes that cause them; and on disorders of host immune responses. The journal is an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). Based in Arlington, Va., IDSA is a professional society representing nearly 10,000 physicians and scientists who specialize in infectious diseases. For more information, visit www.idsociety.org.
[ | 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.
Patients can emit small, influenza-containing particles into the air during routine carePublic release date: 31-Jan-2013 [ | E-mail | Share ]
Contact: Jerica Pitts jpitts@pcipr.com 312-558-1770 Infectious Diseases Society of America
[EMBARGOED FOR JAN. 31, 2013] A new study suggests that patients with influenza can emit small virus-containing particles into the surrounding air during routine patient care, potentially exposing health care providers to influenza. Published in The Journal of Infectious Diseases, the findings raise the possibility that current influenza infection control recommendations may not always be adequate to protect providers from influenza during routine patient care in hospitals.
Werner E. Bischoff, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the Wake Forest School of Medicine in North Carolina screened 94 patients for flu-like symptoms during the 2010-2011 influenza season. Study participants had been admitted to the emergency department (52 patients) or an inpatient care unit (42 patients) of Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, where vaccination for influenza is mandatory for health care providers.
Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from each patient. Samples were analyzed by rapid testing and by PCR analysis. Air samples were obtained by placing three six-stage air samplers from within 1 foot, 3 feet, and 6 feet of patients. No aerosol-generating proceduressuch as bronchoscopy, sputum induction, intubation, or cardiopulmonary resuscitationwere conducted while air sampling took place. During air sampling, the number of patients' coughs and sneezes were counted and assessed for severity. Patients also completed a questionnaire at admission to report symptoms and the number of days they were sick.
Of the 94 patients enrolled, 61 patients (65 percent) tested positive for influenza virus. Twenty-six (43 percent) released influenza virus into the air. Five patients (19 percent) emitted up to 32 times more virus than others. This group of patients with influenza, described by the researchers as "super-emitters," suggested that some patients may be more likely to transmit influenza than others. High concentration of influenza virus released into the air was associated with high viral loads in nasopharyngeal samples. Patients who emitted more virus also reported greater severity of illness.
The current belief is that influenza virus is spread primarily by large particles traveling up to a maximum of 3 to 6 feet from an infected person. Recommended precautions for health providers focus on preventing transmission by large droplets and following special instructions during aerosol-generating procedures. In this study, Dr. Bischoff and his team discovered that the majority of influenza virus in the air samples analyzed was found in small particles during non-aerosol-generating activities up to a 6-foot distance from the patient's head, and that concentrations of virus decreased with distance. The study addressed only the presence of influenza-containing particles near patients during routine care, not the actual transmission of influenza infection to others.
Fitted respirators are currently required for health care providers during aerosol-generating procedures with patients. During routine, non-aerosol-generating patient care, the current precautions recommend that providers wear a non-fitted face mask. Based on their findings, Dr. Bischoff and investigators are concerned that providers may still be exposed to infectious dosages of influenza virus up to 6 feet from patients with small wide-spreading particles potentially exceeding the current suggested exposure zones.
These findings suggest that current infection control recommendations may need to be reevaluated, the study authors concluded. The detection of "super-emitters" raises concerns about how individuals with high viral load may impact the spread of influenza, they noted. "Our study offers new evidence of the natural emission of influenza and may provide a better understanding of how to best protect health care providers during routine care activities," the study authors wrote. However, studies of influenza virus transmission will be necessary before the role of super-emitters can be firmly established, they noted.
In an accompanying editorial, Caroline Breese Hall, MD, from the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry in New York, highlighted the importance of a better understanding of influenza transmission as global travel has increased the likelihood of a rapid worldwide influenza outbreak. Although the study did not show that influenza transmission actually occurred, Dr. Hall noted, the findings "question the traditional belief that influenza is primarily spread by close contact with an infected person or by direct contact with infectious secretions."
While the study adds to the current understanding of the risks of influenza infection among patients and health providers, the findings also help define questions that still need to be answered, Dr. Hall noted. (Editor's Note: Dr. Hall died on Dec. 10, 2012, at the age of 73, shortly after completion of the editorial accompanying this study.)
Whatever protective equipment or infection control practices are used for preventing influenza transmission, vaccination of health providers remains a fundamental and key part of protecting them from influenza, noted Dr. William Schaffner, professor medicine and chair of the department of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tenn., who was not involved with the study. "Influenza vaccination, although not perfect, is the best tool we have to protect health care workersand their patientsfrom influenza illness."
###
Fast Facts:
1) Researchers found that patients with influenza can emit small, influenza virus-containing particles into the surrounding air during routine patient care, potentially exposing health care providers to influenza virus up to 6 feet away from infected patients.
2) Five patients (19 percent) in study were "super-emitters" who emitted up to 32 times more virus than others. Patients who emit a higher concentration of influenza virus also reported greater severity of illness.
3) The findings suggest that more research on how influenza is transmitted is needed and that current influenza infection control recommendations for health providers may need to be reevaluated.
The study and the accompanying editorial are available online. They are embargoed until 12:01 a.m. EST on Thursday, Jan. 31, 2013:
Published continuously since 1904, The Journal of Infectious Diseases is the premier global journal for original research on infectious diseases. The editors welcome major articles and brief reports describing research results on microbiology, immunology, epidemiology, and related disciplines, on the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of infectious diseases; on the microbes that cause them; and on disorders of host immune responses. The journal is an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). Based in Arlington, Va., IDSA is a professional society representing nearly 10,000 physicians and scientists who specialize in infectious diseases. For more information, visit www.idsociety.org.
[ | 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.
Keycard is a new Mac app that pairs to your iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch with Bluetooth, and when it detects that you've stepped away from your Mac (assuming you have your device with you), it locks your Mac. Once you return, or enter in the 4 digit code, your Mac unlocks.
To use Keycard, simply make sure Bluetooth is enabled on your iPhone or iPad, confirm it's connected to Keycard on your Mac, and enter in a four digit password. Keycard also includes options to open at startup and hide from your dock.
The four digit password may seem like an odd feature of the app, since it's all about your proximity to your computer, but this feature is actually very important. Suppose your iPhone's battery dies when you're away from your desk or even worse, it gets stolen. Without the 4 digit pin, you would be locked out of your Mac until you got your iPhone back.
I've tested out Keycard at home and it works great. I love how it unlocks before you're actually at your desk because it doesn't slow you down at all and disrupt your workflow. However, it would be nice to adjust what distance you need to be from your Mac in order for it to lock and unlock as some people may want to shrink that distance to only a few feet.
If you've been known to have your social networks "hacked" by your friends when you step away from your computer, you may not want to pass this one up.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell speaks to the media while flanked by Sen. John Barrasso (left), Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn (second from left), and Sen. John Thune after the weekly Senate Republican policy luncheon at the U.S. Capitol Jan. 29, 2013. ![[ Back to EurekAlert! ]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_v-57lKNrY1SBPQ0XUY0Z6fh4-wh3ufP4pGogglToHi1NeVGynpITbBf04_vN879-5gLpg62UUierWjPu2v_z3NWF9kCbW2dKZ3moNjjoU=s0-d){kind=small}
Public release date: 31-Jan-2013
Share ] 
