 that government-run insurance program is for people 65 and older. So 22 states and four tribal organizations are about to begin free screening for low-income 50- to 64-year-olds, with CDC funding. Florida is offering both the stool test and colonoscopies; other states are choosing one or the other and will track public acceptance.
The NIH panel also pointed to Kaiser Permanente's ability to track down people due for screening and pull them in without waiting on them to show up in a doctor's office.
How? Combing electronic medical records of northern California patients, Kaiser learned in 2005 that only about 40 percent who needed a colon check had gotten one. The health maintenance organization already paid for colonoscopies and sigmoidoscopies, and still does for those who prefer them. But it tried mailing out stool kits in hopes of catching people wary of invasive testing - with phone calls to those who didn't return them.
Last year, screening rates rose to 75 percent.
"It's kind of like doing your own science experiment at home," said Bob Cach, 56, of Livermore, Calif., recalling instructions for that first mailed test. He did fine.
But this year's kit signaled Cach had a problem. A follow-up colonoscopy removed a polyp, still benign. He's grateful it was caught, having watched his wife battle colon cancer over the past year.
"I am an advocate now for screening."
---
EDITOR's NOTE - Lauran Neergaard covers health and medical issues for The Associated Press in Washington.
TRENDING IN NEWS
California Congresswoman Maxine Waters puts her foot down by reclaiming her time.
"Black women: Be fearless. Speak out for equal pay."Earth is the most profitable venture capital that nobody is investing in. Why?
For the last 5000+ years there has been two integral parts of human society, social and economic. Humans are the most rapidly developing organisms on the planet, conquering land sea and sky through the development of technology. There was a time when humans co-existed peacefully with nature and realised their dependence on the natural world. In recent times however, with the growth of machinery and cities, people have become disconnected with their natural environment and take the importance of the land for granted.
New broadcasting mediums such as newspapers, television and the internet now allow scientists to distribute the previously unknown truth, that humans are extracting too much from the natural world and not allowing any time for regeneration, species across all phyla are beginning to disappear and finally, after over 200 extinction events in a century, people are beginning to take notice.
This newfound interest into the well being of our planet has thus introduced a third part to human society, the environment. The current economic policy undertaken by the majority of governments continue to try and marginalise this third subset by rapid development and ruthless capitalism. In this essay I will argue the point that addressing the problem of biodiversity loss requires economic as well as ecological perspectives to be adopted.
Since the dawn of mankind humans have always used nature, as all organism do to survive. For many years they used it wisely and in moderation with what they needed. Existing harmoniously lasted through the ages of early hominids, hunter gatherers, early civilizations and beyond. It was between the 17th-19th centuries that man endeavored to exploit the natural world more than he needed to, for economic gain and scientific experimentation.
The age of revolutions saw a new dawn for man, but a bleak dusk for biodiversity across the globe. War, industry and agriculture all changed and desolated natural environments like never before. The agricultural revolution involved rebuilding the way humans produced food and water sources. The world saw a paradigm shift as men shifted away from their hunter gatherer lifestyles and developed machines to increase productivity in land use. In the modern era over 15% of the world’s surface has been altered from the natural environment into agricultural land. This affected ecosystems worldwide and altered the face of the planet.
The industrial revolution is, in many developing countries, still underway and has been for two hundred odd years. This was a huge step into affecting biodiversity on the planet as it involved moving away from the hugely depleted wood stocks on planet earth and onto carbon rich fossil fuels such as coal, petrol and gas. These new high energy fuels have been burned in excess for centuries now and have caused migratory pattern shifts in birds due to air pollution, extinctions due to habitat destruction and ecosystem fouling due to spills. Whereas the agricultural revolution affected the surface of our earth, the industrial revolution altered our atmosphere for the worse and put all life on earth at risk.
And then came the notion of stewardship.
In the modern era a new revolution has risen from the ashes, like a phoenix promises rebirth, so too does the environmental revolution.
Comparable to the previous two revolutions mentioned in that it relies on scientific advancement and technological break through in order to change the fuel society runs on, both in order to remedy the hurts we have inflicted on our earth and to survive economically once we burn the last fossil fuel. Similar to the other two revolutions also, the environmental revolution will change the face of the earth. However instead of spanning centuries and slowly cracking the secrets to improving industry and agriculture, the environmental revolution has a sense of urgency about it. Kicked off in the 1960’s with the release of Rachel Carson’s iconic book silent spring, the movement has advanced in the last 60 years at a rate deserving of its status, however the more we learn, the less we do it seems. The ugency is not fueled by a sense of responsibility, but by a sense of foreboding; Fossil fuels are running out and the 1.7 trillion dollar industry that so many economies rely on needs to be reinvested into finding a new sustainable and powerful energy source. Fast.
For developing countries dependent on imported fuel the development of wind, solar and sea energy could free up large sums of money that could be reinvested into the country domestically both to save ecosystems and biodiversity from future harm and to improve the economic state of the country.
The sad notion is however, humans have little interest in saving biodiversity and in comparison to saving economies, they have none.
We do not however have a true evaluation of what biodiversity is, or what it can do for us. When people envision biodiversity they think of thriving ecosystems, however, often times, just the megafauna. People rarely take into account the trophic levels and indeed cascades that occur in ecosystems. Biodiversity is inclusive of everything from the grizzly bear that picks the berry of a tree, to the tick that sucks its blood and to the cells and genes inside all of these creatures that build up an ecosystem. Humans have only researched 7% of species on earth for medical or economic use to society. By desolating ecosystems we may be wiping out biochemicals or formulae that could be indicative to saving lives from virus’ or incurable disease.
Preserving the fragile state of earth’s biodiversity now isn’t just essential for further research or even to save wildlife, but it comes down to what humans care most about, self preservation. If we continue to wreck our planet we will see irreversible and dooming ecological shifts. Our food sources could deplete massively with the extermination of natural pollinators or biological controls, causing a trophic cascade which could eventually wipe out agriculture entirely. Environmental stability is something already in a state of flux that could spiral out of control and cause a new wave of more destructive and less predictable natural disasters such as floods, eruptions and wildfires. The taxpayer needs to stop thinking of biodiversity as a hippy project if they wish to flourish on this planet for much longer.
The question is, how do we as a modern society evaluate nature?
Do we see it as a commodity that will benefit us economically or industrially?
Or do we feel a sense of stewardship and responsibility towards the species on the planet that are dying everyday because of the atrocities we commit?
That is the question in understanding this conundrum.
So how do we invest in nature? Ecologically or economically?
Were we to invest in nature economically it would be pitch-able to the taxpayer. It would be a cleaner more sustainable world, however there is a chance that it would become a sterile environment where the only species surviving are the ones needed for human development and economic growth. When we examine the amount of economic investment going on in the field of natural resources at the moment, excluding fossil fuels, it is surprisingly low. Developed countries and economic powerhouses such as USA, Japan, China and Germany show less than 1% investment into this field.
Developing countries have a higher investment, perhaps as they have a closer relationship with fuels such as wood, however this is predicted to drop as industry improves in these countries. There is a complete correlation between high natural resource – slow economic growth in developing countries, this trend does not exist in established economies as they have already moved onto more powerful and economic fuels. This trend line is worrying as it suggests that if countries wish to speed up economic growth they will be forced to tear down their remaining wilderness in order to make way for agri-development and industrial growth. This is already evident in Brazil where the industrial triangle continues to grow whilst the Amazon rainforest is being shredded for agricultural land. Most of the wood is not even used. This is leading not only to animal displacement and plant destruction, but to the death of local human tribes who have lived in the region for hundreds of years.
If countries are not investing in economic natural resources, then why would they even listen to the idea of investing in economically useless wilderness and the protection of biodiversity? The answer is simple. Common sense.
The field of wilderness ecology has evolved over the past 100 years, it is now less about understanding