CDC identifies new disease sweeping the South

You may sometimes think that I go too far in my criticism of government health organizations like the FDA and the CDC. And you know what? Not once have I ever had one single pang of guilt for anything I've said. Time and again, these agencies disappoint in their stated mission for the people of the United States.

Case in point, a new study by, the CDC has concluded that residents of the Southern U.S. are more likely to die in traffic accidents than their fellow citizens living in the north. This research was conducted to check the progress of the government's Healthy People 2010 initiative, which (among other things) seeks to reduce the national rate of motor vehicle-related fatalities to 9.2 per 100,000 people.

Confused? Me, too. Mostly by what in the world the CDC (which, as a reminder to you, and maybe even them, stands for "Centers for Disease Prevention and Control) is doing investigating car accidents. I know health care has changed since I got out of med school, but I'm pretty sure that traffic fatalities are not a virus of any kind. Hell, there's not even a vaccination for them yet!

Kidding aside, I'm baffled at the point of this study. The CDC reached this conclusion by examining the data from in the National Vital Statistics System between 1999 and 2005. While the average rate of car accidents remained relatively steady at about 15.6 deaths per 100,00 during this period, the CDC researchers observed that death rates varied by gender, age, race, and region of the country.

Apparently, the researchers were stunned that the southern states - especially Mississippi - were dying in "higher then acceptable numbers" (does this mean the stated goal of 9.2 deaths per 100,000 people is acceptable?).

"The South accounted for 46 percent of the deaths during the period studied, but only 36 percent of the population," the researchers said. The researchers speculated that the reasons for this disparity could be that drivers in the rural south must drive farther to reach places, increasing the chance for accidents. It was also suggested that rural southern drivers are distant from medical aid after an accident, which also upped the number of fatalities.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) also weakly speculated that fatalities in the north are lower because - ready for this? - the longer stretches of winter prompt people to drive less, and more slowly (clearly, they NHTSA crowd has never driven in New York during a snow storm).

What does this tell us? Well … not much, unfortunately. By its own admission, the CDC didn't bother to examine exactly WHY the death rates vary so much by region. And the study even said that more research was needed to find the kinds of "programs" which could help reduce deaths in problem areas.

Ugh. More useless studies, more wasteful government programs that achieve nothing. All run by the CDC which, if you ask me, should be spending time on REAL issues of disease, not nonsensical traffic studies.

New energy-saving light bulbs cause unforeseen problems

I'm not the biggest fan of the incandescent light bulbs. But I'm also not a fan of the U.S. government's plan to replace them all by the year 2012 in favor of the new, energy- saving compact fluorescent bulbs (I've already told you about the potential dangers of these in an earlier Daily Dose).

Well it turns out that the European Union is also phasing out incandescent bulbs (for the same idiotic reason we are: to reduce greenhouse gases). But there's one hitch: it turns out the new low-energy bulbs are incompatible with millions of light sockets and lamps because of their size.

Whoops.

As a result, British consumers are in a panic to buy up as many of the old 100 watt incandescent bulbs as possible before the EU bans them outright. According to one British sales assistant, "We've not seen anything like it; people are taking hundreds at a time and we've run out of stock."

If I didn't know that this is just a preview of what's going to happen here in the States when our own incandescent ban kicks in, I'd find it a lot more humorous. I think the consumer scramble to stockpile as many of the old bulbs as they can is a telling indictment of how little global warming concerns most people.