Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Sense of smell 'may predict lifespan'


person smelling flowers


Sense of smell 'may predict lifespan'


Measuring people's sense of smell in later life could help doctors predict how likely they are to be alive in five years' time, a PLOS One study suggests. 
A survey of 3,000 adults found 39% with the poorest sense of smell were dead within five years - compared to just 10% who identified odours correctly.

Scientists say the loss of smell sense does not cause death directly, but may be an early warning sign.
They say anyone with long-lasting changes should seek medical advice.


“Start Quote

It doesn't directly cause death, but it is a harbinger, an early warning system that damage may have been done”    Prof Pinto University of Chicago
 Five odours
 
Researchers from the University of Chicago asked a representative sample of adults between the ages of 57-85 to take part in a quick smell test. 
The assessment involved identifying distinct odours encased on the tips of felt-tip pens.
The smells included peppermint, fish, orange, rose and leather.

Five years later some 39% of adults who had the lowest scores (4-5 errors) had passed away, compared with 19% with moderate smell loss and just 10% with a healthy sense of smell (0-1 errors).
And despite taking issues such as age, nutrition, smoking habits, poverty and overall health into account, researchers found those with the poorest sense of smell were still at greatest risk.



Lead scientist, Prof Jayant Pinto, said: "We think loss of the sense of smell is like the canary in the coal mine. 

"It doesn't directly cause death, but it is a harbinger, an early warning system that shows damage may have been done. 

"Our findings could provide a useful clinical test, a quick inexpensive way to identify patients most at risk."

Exactly how smell loss contributes to lifespan remains unclear, but the researchers put forward a number of possible reasons behind the link. 

They say a reduced ability to sniff out odours could signal less regeneration or repair of cells in the body overall, as a healthy sense of smell depends partly on a continual turnover of cells that line the nose.

And a worsening sense of smell may serve as a mirror for a lifetime's exposure to pollution and bugs, they say. 

They are now doing more research to understand the reasons behind the link. 

'Underappreciated sense' Prof Pinto added: "The sense of smell is a little underappreciated - it plays a very important part in everyday life. 

"But we don't want people to panic. A bad cold, allergies, and sinus problems, can all affect your sense of smell. 


"People shouldn't be too worried, but if problems persist they should speak to their physicians.
"And perhaps this study shows we need to start paying more attention to sensory health overall."

Prof Tim Jacob of Cardiff University, who was not involved in the research, said: "This well-conducted study suggests the sense of smell is intimately linked to health and well being.

"Smell lies at the interface between physiology and psychology, which is a battlefield of reciprocal interactions.
"For example, smell loss can result in depression, and depression can result in changes in the ability to smell."

Carthaginian infanticide not just Roman propaganda

shareThis
Recent research revealed that the Carthaginians really did kill their own infant children, a practice once dismissed as just ancient Greek and Roman propaganda.
Ancient Carthage was a Semitic civilisation centred on the Phoenician city-state of Carthage, located in North Africa on the Gulf of Tunis.  Founded in 814 BC, Carthage established control over other Phoenician settlements throughout the Mediterranean, North Africa and what is now Spain, which lasted until the end of the 3rd century BC.  For much of its history, Carthage was in a constant state of struggle with the Greeks on Sicily and the Roman Republic, which led to a series of armed conflicts known as the Punic Wars.  So when ancient Greeks and Romans made reports of ritual sacrifice of children, their claims were not taken seriously. But this has become one of the most bitterly debated questions in classical archaeology.
“This is something dismissed as black propaganda because in modern times people just didn’t want to believe it,” said Josephine Quinn, a lecturer in ancient history at Oxford. ““But when you pull together all the evidence – archaeological, epigraphic and literary – it is overwhelming and, we believe, conclusive: they did kill their children, and on the evidence of the inscriptions, not just as an offering for future favours but fulfilling a promise that had already been made.”
The argument about whether Carthaginians did or did not commit infanticide was brought into focus after the discovery of cemeteries known as tophets in the early 20th century on the outskirts of Carthage in modern Tunisia, and at other Carthaginian sites in Sicily and Sardinia. The graves held tiny cremated bones packed into urns and buried under tombstones giving thanks to the gods.
Carthaginian tophet urns from the 3rd or 4th century BC containing burned bones. 
 While some have claimed that these are simply the remains of children who died before or soon after birth, Quinn and her colleagues, a group of Punic archaeologists and historians from Italy and the Netherlands, reject this theory due to the sheer number of child remains that were found.
"The inscriptions are unequivocal: time and again we find the explanation that the gods 'heard my voice and blessed me'. It cannot be that so many children conveniently happened to die at just the right time to become an offering – and in any case a poorly or dead child would make a pretty feeble offering if you're already worried about the gods rejecting it," said Quinn.
Another convincing piece of evidence was the finding of animal remains buried in the same way, sometimes in the same urns as the bones of the children.  Quinn also draws attention to the fact that ancient writers, such as the Roman historian Diodorus, gave graphic accounts of Carthaginian child sacrifice.
However, Quinn admits that many of her academic colleagues were appalled by her conclusions and that this is because it is a conclusion that no one wants to believe is true, like some taboo is being broken. "We like to think that we're quite close to the ancient world, that they were really just like us – the truth is, I'm afraid, that they really weren't."
By April Holloway
- See more at: http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/carthaginian-infanticide-not-just-roman-propaganda-001253#sthash.FWMgNbJF.dpuf

Sense of smell 'may predict lifespan'

Carthaginian infanticide not just Roman propaganda

shareThis
Recent research revealed that the Carthaginians really did kill their own infant children, a practice once dismissed as just ancient Greek and Roman propaganda.
Ancient Carthage was a Semitic civilisation centred on the Phoenician city-state of Carthage, located in North Africa on the Gulf of Tunis.  Founded in 814 BC, Carthage established control over other Phoenician settlements throughout the Mediterranean, North Africa and what is now Spain, which lasted until the end of the 3rd century BC.  For much of its history, Carthage was in a constant state of struggle with the Greeks on Sicily and the Roman Republic, which led to a series of armed conflicts known as the Punic Wars.  So when ancient Greeks and Romans made reports of ritual sacrifice of children, their claims were not taken seriously. But this has become one of the most bitterly debated questions in classical archaeology.
“This is something dismissed as black propaganda because in modern times people just didn’t want to believe it,” said Josephine Quinn, a lecturer in ancient history at Oxford. ““But when you pull together all the evidence – archaeological, epigraphic and literary – it is overwhelming and, we believe, conclusive: they did kill their children, and on the evidence of the inscriptions, not just as an offering for future favours but fulfilling a promise that had already been made.”
The argument about whether Carthaginians did or did not commit infanticide was brought into focus after the discovery of cemeteries known as tophets in the early 20th century on the outskirts of Carthage in modern Tunisia, and at other Carthaginian sites in Sicily and Sardinia. The graves held tiny cremated bones packed into urns and buried under tombstones giving thanks to the gods.
Carthaginian tophet urns from the 3rd or 4th century BC containing burned bones. 
 While some have claimed that these are simply the remains of children who died before or soon after birth, Quinn and her colleagues, a group of Punic archaeologists and historians from Italy and the Netherlands, reject this theory due to the sheer number of child remains that were found.
"The inscriptions are unequivocal: time and again we find the explanation that the gods 'heard my voice and blessed me'. It cannot be that so many children conveniently happened to die at just the right time to become an offering – and in any case a poorly or dead child would make a pretty feeble offering if you're already worried about the gods rejecting it," said Quinn.
Another convincing piece of evidence was the finding of animal remains buried in the same way, sometimes in the same urns as the bones of the children.  Quinn also draws attention to the fact that ancient writers, such as the Roman historian Diodorus, gave graphic accounts of Carthaginian child sacrifice.
However, Quinn admits that many of her academic colleagues were appalled by her conclusions and that this is because it is a conclusion that no one wants to believe is true, like some taboo is being broken. "We like to think that we're quite close to the ancient world, that they were really just like us – the truth is, I'm afraid, that they really weren't."
By April Holloway
- See more at: http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/carthaginian-infanticide-not-just-roman-propaganda-001253#sthash.FWMgNbJF.dpuf

Carthaginian infanticide not just Roman propaganda

shareThis
Recent research revealed that the Carthaginians really did kill their own infant children, a practice once dismissed as just ancient Greek and Roman propaganda.
Ancient Carthage was a Semitic civilisation centred on the Phoenician city-state of Carthage, located in North Africa on the Gulf of Tunis.  Founded in 814 BC, Carthage established control over other Phoenician settlements throughout the Mediterranean, North Africa and what is now Spain, which lasted until the end of the 3rd century BC.  For much of its history, Carthage was in a constant state of struggle with the Greeks on Sicily and the Roman Republic, which led to a series of armed conflicts known as the Punic Wars.  So when ancient Greeks and Romans made reports of ritual sacrifice of children, their claims were not taken seriously. But this has become one of the most bitterly debated questions in classical archaeology.
“This is something dismissed as black propaganda because in modern times people just didn’t want to believe it,” said Josephine Quinn, a lecturer in ancient history at Oxford. ““But when you pull together all the evidence – archaeological, epigraphic and literary – it is overwhelming and, we believe, conclusive: they did kill their children, and on the evidence of the inscriptions, not just as an offering for future favours but fulfilling a promise that had already been made.”
The argument about whether Carthaginians did or did not commit infanticide was brought into focus after the discovery of cemeteries known as tophets in the early 20th century on the outskirts of Carthage in modern Tunisia, and at other Carthaginian sites in Sicily and Sardinia. The graves held tiny cremated bones packed into urns and buried under tombstones giving thanks to the gods.
Carthaginian tophet urns from the 3rd or 4th century BC containing burned bones. 
 While some have claimed that these are simply the remains of children who died before or soon after birth, Quinn and her colleagues, a group of Punic archaeologists and historians from Italy and the Netherlands, reject this theory due to the sheer number of child remains that were found.
"The inscriptions are unequivocal: time and again we find the explanation that the gods 'heard my voice and blessed me'. It cannot be that so many children conveniently happened to die at just the right time to become an offering – and in any case a poorly or dead child would make a pretty feeble offering if you're already worried about the gods rejecting it," said Quinn.
Another convincing piece of evidence was the finding of animal remains buried in the same way, sometimes in the same urns as the bones of the children.  Quinn also draws attention to the fact that ancient writers, such as the Roman historian Diodorus, gave graphic accounts of Carthaginian child sacrifice.
However, Quinn admits that many of her academic colleagues were appalled by her conclusions and that this is because it is a conclusion that no one wants to believe is true, like some taboo is being broken. "We like to think that we're quite close to the ancient world, that they were really just like us – the truth is, I'm afraid, that they really weren't."
By April Holloway
- See more at: http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/carthaginian-infanticide-not-just-roman-propaganda-001253#sthash.FWMgNbJF.dpuf

Carthaginian infanticide not just Roman propaganda

shareThis
Recent research revealed that the Carthaginians really did kill their own infant children, a practice once dismissed as just ancient Greek and Roman propaganda.
Ancient Carthage was a Semitic civilisation centred on the Phoenician city-state of Carthage, located in North Africa on the Gulf of Tunis.  Founded in 814 BC, Carthage established control over other Phoenician settlements throughout the Mediterranean, North Africa and what is now Spain, which lasted until the end of the 3rd century BC.  For much of its history, Carthage was in a constant state of struggle with the Greeks on Sicily and the Roman Republic, which led to a series of armed conflicts known as the Punic Wars.  So when ancient Greeks and Romans made reports of ritual sacrifice of children, their claims were not taken seriously. But this has become one of the most bitterly debated questions in classical archaeology.
“This is something dismissed as black propaganda because in modern times people just didn’t want to believe it,” said Josephine Quinn, a lecturer in ancient history at Oxford. ““But when you pull together all the evidence – archaeological, epigraphic and literary – it is overwhelming and, we believe, conclusive: they did kill their children, and on the evidence of the inscriptions, not just as an offering for future favours but fulfilling a promise that had already been made.”
The argument about whether Carthaginians did or did not commit infanticide was brought into focus after the discovery of cemeteries known as tophets in the early 20th century on the outskirts of Carthage in modern Tunisia, and at other Carthaginian sites in Sicily and Sardinia. The graves held tiny cremated bones packed into urns and buried under tombstones giving thanks to the gods.
Carthaginian tophet urns from the 3rd or 4th century BC containing burned bones. 
 While some have claimed that these are simply the remains of children who died before or soon after birth, Quinn and her colleagues, a group of Punic archaeologists and historians from Italy and the Netherlands, reject this theory due to the sheer number of child remains that were found.
"The inscriptions are unequivocal: time and again we find the explanation that the gods 'heard my voice and blessed me'. It cannot be that so many children conveniently happened to die at just the right time to become an offering – and in any case a poorly or dead child would make a pretty feeble offering if you're already worried about the gods rejecting it," said Quinn.
Another convincing piece of evidence was the finding of animal remains buried in the same way, sometimes in the same urns as the bones of the children.  Quinn also draws attention to the fact that ancient writers, such as the Roman historian Diodorus, gave graphic accounts of Carthaginian child sacrifice.
However, Quinn admits that many of her academic colleagues were appalled by her conclusions and that this is because it is a conclusion that no one wants to believe is true, like some taboo is being broken. "We like to think that we're quite close to the ancient world, that they were really just like us – the truth is, I'm afraid, that they really weren't."
By April Holloway
- See more at: http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/carthaginian-infanticide-not-just-roman-propaganda-001253#sthash.FWMgNbJF.dpuf

No comments:

There was an error in this gadget