High court orders UK government to explain clean air plan delay

The government has been ordered back to the high court to explain its last-minute bid to delay publication of the UK’s clean air plan.

Politicians and environmental groups had complained that ministers were “hiding behind the election” after they said they could not publish the proposals because of election purdah.

The high court said on Tuesday that there would be a new hearing on Thursday where ministers will have to defend their application.

James Thornton, CEO of the environmental lawyers ClientEarth, who brought the original case against the government, said they would present their response at the hearing on Thursday.

“This is a public health issue and not a political issue. Urgent action is required to protect people’s health from the illegal and poisonous air that we are forced to breathe in the UK.

“This is a matter for the court to decide once the government has made its arguments because it is the government which has not met, and instead seeks to extend, the court’s deadline for the clean air plan, to clean up our air.”

Ministers had been under a court direction to produce tougher draft measures to tackle illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide pollution, which is largely caused by diesel traffic, by 4pm on Monday. The original plans had been dismissed by judges as so poor as to be unlawful.

But after the announcement by Theresa May of a general election on 8 June, ministers lodged a lengthy application to the court late on Friday. It asked judges to allow them to breach the Monday deadline to “comply with pre-election propriety rules”.

Politicians and environmental groups reacted with anger, claiming ministers were “hiding behind the election” to justify delaying publication of the government’s long awaited proposals instead of tackling the UK’s air pollution crisis. Health experts warned the lack of government action had potentially put thousands of lives at risk.

The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said: “It is frankly outrageous that the government thinks it can continue to bury its head in the sand about the serious health impacts of air quality in London and across the country. The prime minister has once again missed this golden opportunity to show real leadership in tackling and improving the air we breathe, which should have been done well before the pre-election period.”

Andrea Leadsom, the environment secretary, was summoned to parliament on Monday to answer urgent questions. During the debate she said she was “personally deeply committed to the importance of ensuring clean air” but had been told by officials in the Cabinet Office that it would breach purdah rules to publish the plans in the run-up to the election.

The government has applied to publish draft plans on 30 June followed by the full policy in September, she said.

Leadsom, who also revealed that it was the second application to delay publication that her department had submitted to the courts, insisted the move would not postpone the rollout of the proposals.

The scale of the air pollution crisis was revealed in a joint Guardian-Greenpeace investigation this month showing hundreds of thousands of children were being educated within 150 metres of a road where levels of nitrogen dioxide from diesel traffic breached legal limits.

Last week figures obtained by Labour showed that more than 38 million people, representing 59.3% of the UK population, were living in areas where levels of nitrogen dioxide pollution were above legal limits.

Research consistently shows that exposure to traffic fumes is harmful to children and adults. Children are more vulnerable because their lungs are still developing and exposure to nitrogen dioxide reduces lung growth, causes long-term ill health and can result in premature death.

ClientEarth’s lawyers will attend the hearing, which has been listed by the court for Thursday at 10.30am. The court has set aside two and a half hours.

High court orders UK government to explain clean air plan delay

Three genes could explain why some people are obese but healthy, say scientists

Scientists have offered a genetic explanation for why some people are obese and healthy while others develop diabetes and heart disease as a result of their weight.

The study identified three genes, which appear to influence whether fat is compartmentalised and stored around the outside of the body or whether it spills into the circulatory system. Higher levels of fat in the blood supply increase the risk of type 2 diabetes and can lead to fatty deposits around the heart and liver.

Professor Haja Kadarmideen, a geneticist who led the work at the University of Copenhagen, said: “People who have the ability to store large amounts of fat are able to be fat, but not unhealthy.”

Previous studies have found that while being overweight or obese is a risk factor for diabetes, liver disease and heart disease, about 15-20% of those who are obese appear to suffer no health consequences.

Other research, involving more than 100,000 adults in Denmark, found that those with an “overweight” body mass index (or BMI) were more likely to live longer than those in the “healthy”, “underweight”, and “obese” categories, suggesting that the relationship between weight, health and lifespan is not straightforward.

“We wanted to ask what is it that allows some people to be overweight and remain healthy,” said Kadarmideen.

The findings suggest that an individual’s genetic makeup influences the weight threshold at which health problems begin to emerge – and for some people this will fall outside a “healthy” body mass index (BMI), as defined by public health guidelines. Conversely, a small proportion of people within the healthy BMI range are so-called TOFIs (thin on the outside, fat on the inside) and develop metabolic problems normally associated with obesity.

The study involved 60 men and women, all of whom were morbidly obese (average BMI of over 45), half of whom had metabolic disease and half of whom were healthy. The participants were all undergoing elective bariatric surgery.

The scientists scanned tens of thousands of genes for variations between the two groups. They identified three genes that showed very different profiles between the two groups, both in terms of the gene activity and the underlying genetic sequence. When the activity of the genes was examined more closely in fat and tissue samples, the scientists concluded that the genes played a significant role in regulating how fat is transported and stored in cells. The team are now hoping to replicate the findings in a larger population study.

In the future, it may be possible to give personalised estimates for a healthy BMI based on a person’s genetic profile and other biomarkers, the scientists said. “This paves the way for being able to diagnose, develop drugs and target treatment at the specific genes,” said Kadarmideen.

He added that the findings should not be interpreted as an excuse for abandoning guidelines for a balanced diet or forgoing exercise, because these lifestyle factors have an impact on health, regardless of a person’s weight.

The findings are published in the journal PLOS One.

Three genes could explain why some people are obese but healthy, say scientists

Could my wife’s circumcision explain her lack of interest in sex?

I am in my mid-40s and have been married for 16 years. Our sexual life has been very underwhelming. I have tried everything I know but my wife seems to have little or no interest in sex. I do know that she was circumcised as a child. Could that have affected her sexuality?

A person’s sexuality is created through a complex combination of physical, psychological and physiological factors as well as the messages about sex they received from childhood onwards – religious beliefs, parental warnings, societal judgment and formative experiences. You have told me little, but the fact that she was circumcised suggests that she may have been raised in a society where the notion of female sexuality was not exactly appreciated. In many of the world’s societies – including our own – it is judged by some as inappropriate, and even feared, suppressed, or punished.

I cannot even try to guess your wife’s experience, or the motives of those who performed it, but I am sure it has had some effect on her conceptualisation of sex and her ability to experience pleasure. This would be particularly true if her clitoris was removed. Gently ask her if she could try to express what the circumcision was like for her, and how it might have affected her ability to enjoy sex. A gynaecologist could shed some light on how nerve loss or damage might have affected her ability to orgasm or even become aroused, and a psychosexual counsellor could suggest alternative sexual approaches. After 16 years, your wife and you deserve some understanding and hope.

• Pamela Stephenson Connolly is a US-based psychotherapist specialising in sexual disorders.

• If you would like advice from Pamela Stephenson Connolly on sexual matters, send us a brief description of your concerns to private.lives@theguardian.com (please don’t send attachments). Each week, Pamela chooses one problem to answer, which will be published online and in print. She regrets that she cannot enter into personal correspondence.

Could my wife’s circumcision explain her lack of interest in sex?

Hospital Top quality Assists Explain Some Of The Racial Disparities In Outcomes Right after Bypass Surgical procedure

It has lengthy been recognized that racial disparities exist in overall health care. A huge entire body of research has identified that nonwhite sufferers have worse outcomes than whites. But it has been tough to understand the underlying motives for these disparities.  Now a new study provides proof that, at least in the case of bypass surgical procedure, a significant but by no means complete portion of this disparity is due to decreased accessibility between nonwhites to large good quality hospitals.

In a paper published in JAMA Surgical treatment, Govind Rangrass and colleagues analyzed Medicare information from 173,925 CABG sufferers. eight.six% of the review population was nonwhite. The mortality rate was three.six% for the complete population. Nonwhite individuals had a 34% elevated threat of dying.

A key finding was that the third of hospitals that had the highest proportion of nonwhite individuals (more than 17.seven% nonwhite) also had the highest chance-adjusted mortality for each white and nonwhite individuals (three.8% and 4.eight%). In sharp contrast, the third of hospitals treating the fewest quantity of nonwhite individuals (much less than two%) had the lowest threat-adjusted mortality for the two white and nonwhite patients (3.two% and 3.7%). So at the very best hospitals nonwhite sufferers did about as nicely as the white individuals at the worst hospitals.

The investigators then adjusted for other patient elements and located that nonwhite individuals had been nevertheless at improved danger, with a 33% larger danger of death (Odds ratio one.33, CI one.23-1.45). When sufferers elements were regarded along with socioeconomic standing and hospital quality, the investigators reported that they could then account for 53% of the racial disparity.

The authors speculated that the remaining unexplained disparity may well be due to  differences in illness severity: nonwhites might look for care at later or far more severe stages of illness. Other attainable factors pointed out are regional variations in the high quality of hospitals, proximity to very good hospitals, and segregated referral patterns.

They propose that “more must be accomplished at a techniques degree to carry increased-high quality care to disadvantaged populations,” but acknowledge that proof-based policy remedies are lacking. “With a better knowing of the barriers to higher-top quality care, we will be ready to style far more efficient packages to reduce health disparities,” they conclude.

Hospital Top quality Assists Explain Some Of The Racial Disparities In Outcomes Right after Bypass Surgical procedure