Sri Lanka

A few days ago, I noted that the cease fire in Sri Lanka had ended and it looked like the civil war might started back up. Unfortunately, it seems that it is back and running hot. It’s hard to say how bad things are since both sides are obviously exaggerating, but it does seem to be bad.

Caffeine and Pregnancy

Amanda at Pandagon links to and talks about this article in the NY Times about the link between caffeine and miscarriages. The Boston Globe had an article about the same study, but had a decidedly different slant. The Times article only looks at the one study and has the conclusion:

 Too much caffeine during pregnancy may increase the risk of miscarriage, a new study says, and it suggests that pregnant women may want to reduce their intake or cut it out entirely.

Many obstetricians already advise women to limit caffeine, although the subject has long been contentious, with conflicting studies, fuzzy data and various recommendations given over the years.

The Globe article looks at the same study but together with another study on caffeine that also came out last month and has this conclusion:

Confusing messages are nothing new when it comes to what you should notdo during pregnancy, so here’s another one: A growing body of evidence suggests that high caffeine consumption – on the order of more than two or three cups of coffee a day – increases the odds of miscarriage, while low to moderate caffeine consumption doesn’t pose a significant risk.

The only trouble is, it is still not clear what “moderate” consumption means, said Dr. Mark Klebanoff, a pediatrician and epidemiologist with the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

The Globe article to my mind is much better. Seeing the results together, I would come to the same basic conclusion as the Globe article: that it seems large amounts of caffeine can cause problems, while small amounts do not and the confusion is in the middle (the one study says 10 oz of coffee is too much, the other says 16 oz or even a bit more is not a problem). I would think that most women are fine if they drink one or two cups, but this isn’t interesting since the message is again–everything in moderation.

Amanda talks about how this type of reporting happens more often with women. I agree, but I think the bigger problem here is that news reporting doesn’t go well with studies of this sort. A consensus from this type of study only comes from many studies (since the study is observational, it’s difficult to know if other causes are missed, the Times study says it is not associated with any other known risks but of course there are still unknown risks), while news articles will focus on the study that just came out. The Globe article is much better in talking about problems with this type of study:

But Klebanoff points out that the level at which this paper identified miscarriage risk – more than 200 milligrams per day – overlaps with the “moderate” level deemed not risky in the Savitz paper. While he can’t explain the discrepancy, he points out that a challenge in these studies is that people’s bodies process caffeine differently, so a “moderate” amount for one individual might be “high” for another.

Both of the new studies have their drawbacks, Riley said. She points out that it is hard to standardize the amount of caffeine in coffee from different retailers, and that people don’t always accurately report their own behavior in surveys.

Still, she says, the evidence is compelling enough to suggest that pregnant women curb their caffeine intake. But that doesn’t mean they need to go cold turkey.

“Would I cut it out completely? Probably not; the literature doesn’t support the idea that a little bit of caffeine is harmful,” Riley said.

Riley comes to that conclusion because other studies besides these two show problems with high levels of caffeine. I wish all reporters had the same standards. Advantage Globe here.

Kenya and DR Congo

• There actually seems to be some good news in the Congo:

Congo’s government reached an agreement on Monday with a renegade general to end an insurgency that has forced more than 400,000 people from their homes in the country’s volatile east in the past year and threatened to undermine the new democratically elected government, according to Congolese officials and Western diplomats involved in the negotiations.

…

The agreement follows a pact signed late last year in Nairobi, Kenya, between the Congolese and Rwandan governments to disarm and repatriate the Rwandan Hutu militias. Diplomats hope that taken together the two deals will help solve some of the most intractable issues at the heart of Congo’s seemingly interminable conflict.

Since the Hutu militias were the stated reason why General Nkunda didn’t disarm after the last agreement, maybe this time it will work out better. Still the last agreement was similar and didn’t work, so I’m only somewhat hopeful. Better than a war, though.

• This article gives more evidence that the violence in Kenya was not spontaneous and, although it is based around ethnic lines, notes that the main reasons for violence are money and politics.

Campaign Contributions

I was going to embed this map, but WordPress doesn’t seem to like Java. The map gives the total campaign contributions broken down into states or counties or towns (so I know there have been $67,670 in contributions in Waltham). You can also put in a zip code to see what your neighbors have contributed and for who (if $50 or more). Go look.

Patriots and Giants

Hmm, there were actually two good games yesterday. Imagine. The Super Bowl should be a different type of game, since it will be in Arizona. Which brings me to my question, why are no Super Bowls played in outdoor cold weather stadiums? I understand why they don’t want to hold it in one of the two teams’ stadiums (there seems to be a bigger home team advantage in football and since it’s only one game), but holding the game in warm weather does give some types of teams an advantage. It also doesn’t seem fair to the cold weather stadiums–I would love to see a Super Bowl in Green Bay. And indoor stadiums don’t cut it for me.

As for my prediction, I’ll have to go with the Patriots. They haven’t looked as dominant this past month or two, but they have too many weapons and experience (also they’re my second favorite team behind the 49ers). I think it will look similar to the last game of the year.