Pak Doktor a.k.a. Mr Doctor!

Polar flights are a fairly new phenomenon. They weren’t really an option for Americans until the Soviet Union fell apart and the Russians stopped worrying so much that we were going to drop bombs on them. But since about 2000, the number of transpolar flights has increased considerably.

In terms of environmental impact, those developments may be a good thing, because they shave significant amounts of flying time off trips from the US to Asia, saving hundreds of gallons of jet fuel and reducing the pollution produced by the jets. When Canadian officials were contemplating opening up the airways to more commercial jets over the North Pole in 2000, they estimated that the route would knock five hours off the usual flying time for a trip from New York to Hong Kong, for instance. That’s serious money—and jet fuel.

One of aviation’s biggest contributions to climate change is the contrail, those clouds of condensed water vapor created by the jet exhaust. Because they trap outgoing radiation from the earth, the contrails are thought to contribute to global warming. I thought maybe some of this could be more pronounced at the North Pole, where holes in the ozone tend to show up, and where there are already myriad concerns that the ice is quickly melting from increased global temperatures. But David Fahey, a research physicist with NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory who studies the upper atmosphere, says that he suspects that the arctic climate at the pole isn’t very conducive to contrails, so that’s probably not an issue. He posits that the Earth may be better off with more jets flying over the pole.

People on those jets, however, might not be. One of the complications of flying over the North Pole is that planes and their passengers are exposed to significantly more radiation, especially during solar storms, than they would be on a traditional route. That’s because the planes travel through the thinnest layer of the magnetosphere, which typically shields the earth and other commercial flights from cosmic radiation.

When the transpolar flights were first considered in 2000, scientists estimated that flying over the North Pole would expose passengers to the amount of radiation they’d get in three chest X-rays, which could be hazardous to pregnant women. (Traditional routes would have exposure similar to less than two X-rays.) In 2009 NASA researchers discovered that during a 2003 solar storm, people flying over the North Pole would have been exposed to about 12 percent of the annual radiation limit recommended by experts, significantly more than regular commercial flights.

Along with the radiation issues, flying over the North Pole presents some safety issues, in part because of the lack of places to land in an emergency (a concern when flying over the Pacific Ocean as well), but also because the magnetic forces and solar activity at the pole can really screw up navigation and communications systems. Planes making transpolar flights need special equipment to keep from getting lost—as the Korean Air flight 902 did when trying to make the polar route in 1978, prompting the Soviets to open fire and kill two passengers on the jet. There haven’t been any major polar air disasters recently, but it’s still something to consider when you book your ticket.

When it comes to weighing the environmental pluses and the health and safety minuses, taking a flight that may cross the pole is a complicated equation. If you’re an infrequent traveler, the polar flight probably makes sense. If you’re pregnant, you might want to take the long route or stay home. And if you travel to Asia a lot, Fahey jokes, “Wear lead-lined clothes next time.”

Got a burning eco-quandary? Submit it to econundrums@motherjones.com. Get all your green questions answered by visiting Econundrums on Facebook here.

Print this Article   
Email this Article

Dear Jerry:

My wife and I are planning a vacation to Hawaii with our two grandchildren. Their ages are 13 and 8.

Should any of us need medical treatment in Hawaii, what special documents should we have?

— Frank A., Fort Worth, Texas

Dear Frank:

A trip to Hawaii requires the same documents you would need for any of the 50 states. Whether you are visiting Hawaii, Alaska, Minnesota, New York, or another part of Texas, every traveler should carry a valid health insurance card and a photo identification card.

Hawaii is farther from Fort Worth than any of the other states. Hawaii is separated by water from the continental United States. Hawaii was the last state admitted to the United States (September 1959). However, Hawaii is not a foreign land. Your health insurance, authorizations and privileges are equally applicable in Hawaii, the other 49 states, and DC.

Please note. When traveling to Canada, Mexico, or anywhere outside the United States, the legal requirements are different. Then, if you are accompanying a child under the age of 18, you must have certain documents for each child. One would be the child’s passport. Another would be a notarized travel consent letter signed by each parent (or legal guardian) who is not traveling with the child.

While a notarized travel consent letter is not essential for U.S. travel, it could be a useful document in medical and other situations.

Dear Jerry:

It was nice to read the letter from Vivian in Arlington, Va. (“Seacoast Sunday,” May 22, 2011).

My fiance and I are getting married next month. As a result of your column, we will be writing prompt thank-you notes for our wedding gifts. Since you invited grooms to participate, I do mean “we.”

On that topic, we have several friends getting married this year. My future mother-in-law gave me some unsolicited advice. She insists one should not “congratulate” a bride. According to her, it is in poor taste.

Would she be correct?

— Steven L., Bismarck, N.D.

Dear Steven:

On that question, there are varying points of view. Traditionally, it was proper to “congratulate” the groom and extend “best wishes” to the bride.

Theoretically, it was insulting to congratulate a bride. It implied she “secured a husband,” “found a guy,” or “finally got one!” In modern times, that kind of thinking is less applicable. At the reference section in your public library, you will find a collection of etiquette books. As for what you say to an engaged woman or new bride, the publications will vary.

Out of habit, I still say “best wishes” or “good luck” to the bride.

Jerry Romansky is a syndicated columnist. Readers are invited to write in English or Spanish: Ask Jerry, P.O. Box 42444, Washington DC 20015. E-mail askjerry@earthlink.net and (because of spam situation) write the name of your newspaper in subject heading. Questions of popular interest are answered in the column. Unpublished letters cannot be answered individually.

Sign Up for Text Alerts

Sign Up for News by Email

By CAROL ZIMMERMAN, Healthy Small Business Project Coordinator for St. Lawrence Health Initiative, Inc.

Can gardening really be good for your health? According to Edward O. Wilson, a Harvard University entomologist, humans have an innate affinity for nature. In 1984, he coined the term “biophilia” referring to humans’ “love of living things.” Since we are part of the living world, we prefer to look at natural environments versus concrete and steel. In caring for plants through gardening, we are connecting with this deep rooted instinct.

Not only can we feel this compassion for the natural world but there are numerous health benefits too including lower blood pressure, increased immune function and reduced stress. Not only can you get these health benefits, but you can also get a full workout. Gardening can provide us with muscle endurance, muscle strengthening and flexibility training too. Are you willing to plant a flower box, herb garden or full vegetable garden to get these amazing health benefits? Let’s get started.

But how? First, are you growing edibles or ornamentals? Are you growing for food or beauty or both? Next you need to think size, soil and care. Are you tilling a half acre or creating a container garden? Does your soil need amending and who is going to take care of those weeds? There are a plethora of resources out there to help you get started. Cornell Cooperative Extension and Organic Gardening are just a couple. Check out these links – gardening.cornell.edu and organicgardening.com – for helpful information.

Maybe creating a garden at your home is not an option but you still want to reap those health benefits. How about becoming involved in a garden in your community, or at your school or worksite? Existing and new projects are underway through Health Initiative funding including gardens at local schools, senior housing developments and a few small businesses in St. Lawrence County. If you are interested in learning more about these projects, please log onto our website at gethealthyslc.org or call our office at 261-4760.

As the growing season comes into full swing, think about starting a garden at your home, or becoming involved in a garden at your school, in your community or at your place of work. Not only will you appreciate the beauty and feed your soul, but you will reap the many health benefits, not to mention a zucchini or sunflower too.

Carol Zimmerman is Healthy Small Business Project Coordinator for St. Lawrence Health Initiative, Inc.

<!–Saxotech Paragraph Count: 20
–>

Internist Sangita Sahay is of Indian descent, but she speaks English with a distinct Irish brogue.

Sahay, of Diagnostic and Clinical Care Services in Melbourne, got the accent from attending a convent high school run by Irish nuns. Several years practicing medicine in England also helped.

“I think I spent more time with my Irish nuns than I did my own family,” she said.

Sahay talked about her practice and why she prefers to treat the entire patient rather than become a specialist.

QUESTION: Why did you choose to practice internal medicine?

ANSWER: The challenges are more varied. It’s more than one specialty, and you do tend to see the patient in totality. You have more of a chance to make an impact in their true long-term health and how it will project in the future.

I’m not seeing them to see if their heart or one artery is fine today. I’m looking at what they’ll be 10 years from now. It’s taking prevention where it’s supposed to take it.

Q: Do you think overall medical care is evolving?

A: It’s evolving toward the better, but it’s also becoming more complex. We need to make sure that we have a strong patient-doctor relationship, rather than an insurance-hospital relationship.

Patients are being pushed into a circle where the axis is the hospital and insurance, which is never in the patient’s best interest.

It’s always about how much money, how much time are you spending. It’s not about how well the patient is doing. Patients are not codes. They’re people.

Q: How important is bedside manner and patient rapport?

A: If you were ill and seeing a physician and saw the same physician in the hospital who took care of you, not only is there a continuum of care, but there is a feeling on the part of a patient that they already know what they need to do.

Not everything can be documented, including home conditions, that make an impact in their overall health. It may be wonderful to be a good doctor, but it’s hard to document everything, you remember what happened.

Q: What is the favorite part of your job?

A: When I take a very sick patient and he comes out and is well and stays well.

Q: What is the most difficult part?

A: When I get told by other, nonmedical people, how you need to treat your patients, and what drugs and what facilities. We’re constantly being told by people in positions of power.

This is not about the money. It is about the patient. All of this is not about the customer. There has to be a difference as to what is a customer and what is a patient. We’re not talking hospitality service. This is not why I became a doctor. I’m here to do what I’m supposed to do and that’s what’s best for the patient.

Know a health care professional we should feature? E-mail their name, specialty and contact information to health@floridatoday.com. Include Health Care QA in the subject line of your e-mail.

• Comments
• Twitter
• LinkedIn
• Email

Jesse Kline 
May 27, 2011 – 1:37 PM ET
| Last Updated: May 27, 2011 2:34 PM ET

Gary Clement/Postmedia News

On Tuesday, Chrysler announced it had repaid $7.5-billion in loans to the governments of the U.S., Canada, and Ontario, causing some to rethink their position on bailouts and others to declare the program a resounding win for big government.

So were the auto industry bailouts worth it?

Chrysler paid back $1.7-billion worth of loans to the federal and Ontario governments, out of a total of $3.8-billion that Canadian taxpayers sunk into the failing automaker. The two governments hope to recover another $1.45-billion from the 2% stake that taxpayers hold in the company.

The U.S. Treasury Department has a 6.6% stake and expects to lose at least $1.9-billion, not counting billions of dollars worth of loans and other favours that will likely never be recovered.

But the Chrysler bailout is chump change compared to the $60-billion in cash and $45-billion in tax breaks that the American government has pumped into GM (who I lovingly refer to as Government Motors). U.S. taxpayers could lose as much as $34-billion on the entire deal. Canadian taxpayers also sunk $9.5-billion into this losing venture.

And yet, recent media reports would have one thinking that failing auto makers were the best investments since gold. “We have good reasons to believe governments didn’t waste taxpayer money in bailing out Chrysler and GM,” writes Jeremy Cato at The Globe and Mail.

“Far too little attention has been paid to the success of the government’s rescue of the Detroit-based auto companies, and almost no attention has been paid to how completely and utterly wrong bailout opponents were when they insisted it was doomed to failure,” wrote Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr.

If these bailouts are his idea of a success, I’d hate to see what a failure looks like. But the financial cost to taxpayers is just the tip of the iceberg. Even if governments had made money in the short-term, all of society will be worse off in the long-run.

Our economy is predicated on a system of profits and loss, which is used to carry an extraordinary amount of information throughout the economy.

When companies are making huge profits in an industry, it sends a signal to businesses and entrepreneurs that there is money to be made by investing in that area. The result is that resources will be moved from less productive sectors of the economy to satisfy the high demand.

Similarly, when companies lose money, it means that they are less productive — or are creating products that are of less value to society — than their competitors. The resources the company is using would be better utilized elsewhere.

It’s no coincidence that so many people have access to inexpensive, high-powered computers, while typewriters are almost nowhere to be found. When companies began making huge profits on desktop computers and losing money on typewriters, more resources were put into manufacturing computers. As a result of this increased competition, computers have increased in speed and decreased in price.

This system is incredibly efficient, but it only works when companies are free to reap the rewards of their successes and feel the sting of their failures. When the government subsidizes inefficient companies, it creates a system of privatized gains and socialized losses. If we start paying the losers, there’s no telling where this will end, or how much it will cost.

The writing was on the wall for Chrysler in 1980 when the U.S. government extended $1.5-billion in loan guarantees to prevent it from going under. It should have been clear that Chrysler was not as efficient as its foreign competitors. This fact remains true 30 years later, only now it costs exponentially more to keep the company afloat.

If Chrysler and GM were allowed to fail, not all would have been lost. The productive parts of the companies would have been sold off and continued to operate. It’s important to remember that private capital will support ventures that are likely to make money. We only need the government to support bad investments that sane people are unwilling to bet on.

When government does step in to support the losers, it takes away the incentive for companies to create better products for their customers and makes them more likely to take on excessive risk, since they come to believe that their losses will be subsidized. This is what economists refer to as moral hazard. The best examples of this can be found in the financial industry.

During a previous financial crisis, some German provinces (called Länder) set up state-owned banks, known as Landesbanken, which were extended debt guarantees from their respective governments. In 2001, the European Union ruled that the guarantees violated EU law and had to be ended by 2005. The banks promptly began issuing large amounts of debt before the deadline and became heavily invested in the U.S. sub-prime mortgage market. When the financial crisis hit, German Landesbanken were some of the first banks to fail.

North American taxpayers will experience a net loss from the auto bailouts. A 2009 Fraser Institute study estimated that the cost of corporate welfare for each Canadian taxpayer was $1,244 a year in 2007 and that was before the automotive bailouts. But the financial cost is just the beginning.The government bailouts created an artificial advantage for GM and Chrysler and took sales away from their more efficient competitors, like Ford and Toyota (both of which build cars right here in Canada). Thus, our tax dollars are given to the companies that we, the consumers, voted against by buying competing products, and resources are diverted from more productive uses.

The fact is that when government prevents the market from operating properly, everybody loses.

National Post

Follow Jesse Kline on Twitter: @accessd

Posted in: Full Comment, Policy 
Tags: bailout, Canada, Chrysler, economics, economy, General Motors, Jesse Kline, Ontario, united states

More from Jesse Kline

• Jesse Kline: Save a senator. Subsidize Moosedar

• Jesse Kline: A tax increase by any other name

• Jesse Kline: Flaherty should admit he’s a Keynesian

• Jesse Kline: For the love of boobies

• Jesse Kline: Too many bridges, too little cash