The CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) has the most interesting statistics.  In this issue from about 6 months ago (which I just uncovered in a fit of office cleaning over the weekend) is an analysis of "Nonfatal Fall-Related Injuries Associated with Dogs and Cats -- United States, 2001-2006."  Note that these are injuries do to a fall, not due to bite or clawing wounds.

First I knew that such statistics were tracked.

There are many nuggets in here and so the whole report is worth a look.  Table 2 has the bottom line for estimates of rate of injury.  Some of the notable findings (notable to me at least) are that people are injured by pet-caused falls at a rate of 26 per 100,000 population.  The estimated total of injuries is more than 76,000 annually.  Women are more than twice as likely to be injured (or report injuries?) than men.  Although the absolute number of injuries is smaller, the highest rate of injury is in people greater than 75 years of age (more than twice the total average rate of injury).  The most common injury is a fracture, with an estimated annual total of more than 26,500 pet-induced fractures due to falls (31% of total).

Most of these injuries were the dog-induced.  As you might guess, most injuries were caused by tripping over the pet, but a significant number reported being pulled or pushed by their pet.  Only 20 people are estimated to be injured each year in an attack by a cat, whereas nearly 15 times that number are injured by dog attack.  Almost 1,000 people are estimated to be injured while "running from" a dog, but only 43 "running from" a cat.

Finally, a significant number of injuries are estimated in the category of "fell over pet item".

As a cat owner this gives me comfort, but tongue-in-cheekness aside, this is the first published thorough analysis of injuries due to pet-induced falls and is worthy of your attention.

Things have been crazy busy lately, which is why I've not had a chance to blog.  Actually, I have had time to blog, just not as much time to spend reading online in my regular pattern; thus, I haven't had anything really to talk about.

Through the wonders of the internet, I get to read the Seattle Times, NY Times, Washington Post, London Times, and on and on.... all online.  I have adapted to this quite well and enjoy it.  On the other hand, for books (novels, non-fiction, etc.) and scientific journals, I need hardcopy.  This is especially true when I am asked to review grants or papers -- I need all the pages in my hand so I can spread out, array a bunch of information out on the desk in front of me, flip back and forth readily to find or review information, and the like.  I simply have not adapted to this within the boundaries of a computer monitor -- it is too confining.

So what is the difference?

Length is one thing.  Newspaper articles are relatively short and in their entirety they do not push strongly on the boundaries of a computer screen.  When I travel, I see an increasing number of kindles, Amazon's electronic book reader.  I've talked to some of these people, and they seem to have adapted.  But, still... for these longer length, I have my doubts and so have not gone that route.

A couple of days ago I came across this series of opinions in the NY Times, entitled "Does the Brain Like E-Books?"  Fascinating.  I highly recommend it.  In reading this series, I had a flash of personal insight that one of the things I like most about reading newspapers online is the quick jump to other information -- another related story, or background information, or a definition of that obscure word or concept is just a hyperlink click away.  Electronic journal articles are getting there -- the references are just a click away -- but it is not the same.  I thing that what would get me interested in reading full length fiction or non-fiction in e-book format is the ability to jump to related information; jump to a dictionary entry; jump to interpretive information; jump to supplemental historical context; and so on.  That is, bring the power of the internet to a truly interactive experience.  That would get me over the hump.

Even so, I still think I would not want to totally abandon the comfort of turning pages in a physical, good old fashioned book...curling up in a favoriate chair with a glass of single malt and a fire just wouldn't seem the same holding a piece of plasic with an LCD reporting the output of a microprocessor.  

When it comes to ensuring the safety of our food supply, multiple approaches are better than single approaches.  Of course one critical approach is testing for the presence of disease-causing organisms, such as E. coli.  Another is procedures for handling of carcasses in the slaughter and preparation chain.  That these can break down, or not be implemented appropriately, should not be surprising.

The fallibility of testing was brought home again in this recent piece in the NY Times.  I was also struck by the long convoluted history of what may end up on our tables as ground beef, but that is mostly an aside.

Another strategy being pursued by scientists in our college through their role in the Washington Vaccine Alliance is to develop a vaccine to reduce shedding of E. coli O157 from infected cattle, especially those known as super shedders.  An effective vaccine could reduce the shedding, and thus the risk of contamination of the food supply would also be reduced.  This does not mean that other control strategies are unimportant.  Rather, I think it means that there would be less risk of disease should there be breaks in other control strategies.

  ********** More...