Your thighs and your risk for heart disease. It's not what you think.

This is a strange study. The British Medical Journal (BMJ) is reporting that "a low thigh circumference seems to be associated with an increased risk of developing heart disease or premature death." No typos here. This data is counter-intuitive. Why should a low thigh size be associated with an increased risk for heart disease and total mortality?

The BMJ study is titled, "Thigh circumference and risk of heart disease and premature death: prospective cohort study." The main outcome measures in this study were: 10 year incidence of cardiovascular and coronary heart disease and 12.5 years of follow-up for total death. They found that "a small thigh circumference was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular and coronary heart diseases and total mortality in both men and women."

At the end of the day, the authors conclude that "the adverse effects of small thighs might be related to too little muscle mass in the region. The measure of thigh circumference might be a relevant anthropometric measure to help general practitioners in early identification of individuals at an increased risk of premature morbidity and mortality."

So, smaller isn't necessarily better when it comes to your thighs. To read the abstract, click here.

Living in a Highest Potential Radon Zone

I live in a Radon Zone that's categorized as "Highest Potential" - or Zone 1. I'm willing to bet that many (if not most) most people don't know what zone they live in.

	Zone 1 counties have a predicted average indoor radon screening level greater than 4 pCi/L (pico curies per liter) (red zones)	Highest Potential
	Zone 2 counties have a predicted average indoor radon screening level between 2 and 4 pCi/L (orange zones)	Moderate Potential
	Zone 3 counties have a predicted average indoor radon screening level less than 2 pCi/L (yellow zones)	Low Potential

The British Medical Journal (BMJ) has a recent article titled, "Lung cancer deaths from indoor radon and the cost effectiveness and potential of policies to reduce them." Notice how the term "cost effectiveness" is in the title. Does that concern you? Should it concern you that governments and other agencies are making policies and decisions based on the "cost effectiveness" of something? How do you define the cost of life? How about the cost of lung cancer?

The authors of this study have this comment in their discussion section: "Direct evidence now shows that indoor radon causes lung cancer in the general population not only at high concentrations but also at concentrations below... the current action level for homes in the United Kingdom... In most other countries indoor radon concentrations are higher than in the UK and the proportions of deaths attributable to radon are likely to be correspondingly higher."

How does that make you feel?

What if Some Medical Myths Were True?

The British Medical Journal (BMJ) has several articles that attempt to dispel some common medical myths. What if some of these myths are true? What if our current limited understanding of medical science is flawed and someday we realize that we were wrong (yes, this has happened in the course of history).

So which medical myth am I thinking about today? Well, I've been thinking about the myth about hair growing back thicker if you cut it. True or myth? BMJ calls it a myth, but I'm willing to challenge that. Maybe I should submit a "letter to the editor" about that topic.