Urology for the bladder and kidney

Urology is a surgical procedure which deals with diseases of the male and female urinary tract. It primarily focuses on the male reproductive organs. Urology has various fields which deal with specific cases. There is pediatric urology which deals with conditions which occur in children, male infertility, urologic oncology which deals with cancer. Urinary tract stones where the urological procedure is a surgical management of kidney stones in the urinary tract, renal transplantation, neurourology which deals with conditions such as erectile dysfunction and female urology which deals with pelvic disorders and incontinence. This medical procedure even covers diseases of the kidney, the bladder and prostate. Conditions such as impotence, incontinence, infertility, cancer and urological disorders also fall within the space of urology.

Medical therapy can be carried by urologists to treat urinary problems. Therapy is supposed to offer relief to patients without the need for extensive care such as surgery. Drugs can be used to remedy urinary conditions before the actual urology is done. But is the condition is manageable, the medical therapy is appropriate. The bladder and kidney are central parts of the urinary system and it is important to look at how conditions in these organs can be treated using urology.

Bladder surgery is divided into two, bladder augmentation and bladder reconstruction. Bladder surgery is used to treat overactive bladders. Overactive bladders tend to make patients have uncontrollable urges to urinate and loss of control of the bladder function. Neurogenic bladders experience their symptoms due to brain or nerve conditions.

Bladder augmentation increases the size of the bladder using tissues transplanted from the patient’s stomach or intestines. The surgery accomplished the goal of ensuring that one has a larger bladder therefore holding greater amounts of urine and decreasing the urge to urinate and preventing incontinence in the long run. Reconstruction of the bladder happens when there is a severe problem which require either the complete removal or reconstruction of the bladder. This involves the houston urologist creating a new pathway for urination.

Urology also removes kidney stones. This is called renal stone disease. These stones are hardened mineral deposits that form in the kidney. This happens when waste materials in the urine do not dissolve completely, therefore stones may form. These stones could pass out of the kidney and become lodged in the tube which carries urine from the kidney to the bladder causing severe pain. The most common causes of kidney stones include inadequate water flowing through the kidneys, high levels of urinary uric acid and a high level of urinary calcium.

The removal of urinary stones is can be done through surgeries such as percutaneous keyhole surgery which is used to remove large stones or fragment them using laser. In the removal of larger stones, incisions have to be made on the kidney. Smaller stones are extracted or fragmented using a urological procedure known as flexible uteretero-renoscopy. The stones are vaporized and fragmented through laser into thousands of pieces them they are flushed out of the body.

These are just some of the key areas which urology concerns, the bladder and kidney are integral part of the urinary system and treatment of conditions in these organs is important for the normal functioning of the excretory system.

Support Safer Alternatives Bill

The U.S. has the highest breast cancer rate in the world. Massachusetts has one of the highest breast cancer rates in the nation, and women on Cape Cod suffer from a 20 percent higher rate than elsewhere in the state.

In the 1950s, most estimates indicate that about 1 in 20 women would receive a breast cancer diagnosis in her lifetime. Today, in Massachusetts, this number has grown to one in seven or eight.

The Newton-based Silent Spring Institute’s Cape Cod Breast Cancer and the EnvironmentProgram, along with international research, are finding that many ingredients in cosmetics, body care products, pesticides, hormone-fed meat and dairy, plastics, vehicle and industrial emissions, as well as some pharmaceutical drugs, have known or probable factors that create or support the development of breast cancer in animals and/or in humans.

Independent researchers now estimate that at least 90 percent of all breast cancer incidents is non-genetic and thus feasibly preventable. Just being overweight or sedentary, when you are post menopausal, can increase your risk of developing breast cancer by up to 20 percent. Our fat cells become a woman’s main generator of estrogen once she becomes post-menopausal, with free estrogen the big culprit in most post-menopausal breast cancers.

Meanwhile, most of these carcinogenic toxins in pesticides, foods, cleaning agents and in air and water pollution, such as parabens and phthalates, are fat-loving substances that turn our excess body fat into toxic storage facilities.

The EPA, as described in a recent Supreme Court decision, would prefer not to regulate greenhouse gases because of some residual uncertainty. Hence the chance we can depend on the EPA to take a leadership role in stricter safe chemicals legislation seems remote.

It was therefore a relief last month when advocates representing a coalition of labor, medical and environmental groups, along with leading medical and chemical researchers came together to testify on Beacon Hill about the pressing need for a statewide safe chemicals law.

This proposed legislation, known as the Safer Alternatives Act, would require manufacturers to create a system that phases out the worst toxic chemicals from the environment, by removing them from the workplace and from consumer products, when safer alternatives are available.

The European Union, concerned with their own rising breast cancer rates and other environmental health problems, recently passed two pieces of legislation, which some are calling breast cancer prevention laws. The first makes it illegal to sell cosmetics or body care products containing hormone disrupters, such as parabens or phthalates, and other categories of toxic ingredients throughout Europe.

The second law has similar goals as the proposed Massachusetts safe chemicals legislation.
Both of these European laws, along with our proposed state bill, are based on something called the precautionary principle, or the better-safe-than sorry rule. This means that until a manufacturer scientifically proves that a product or a specific ingredient is safe, it is considered to be unsafe and cannot go to market.

This is the third legislative session to consider this Safer Alternatives Bill. In past years, industry opposition has succeeded in blocking the bill from even moving out of committee for a floor vote. This session, however, with thoughtful leadership from the House, the Senate and from the state Department of Environmental Protection, those of us concerned about Cape Cod’s and the rest of the state’s unnecessary breast cancer epidemic finally have hopes for success.

Opponents of the law, including the Massachusetts Chemical and Technology Alliance, the American Chemistry Council and The Associated Industries of Massachusetts, were also on Beacon Hill last month. The Medical Device Industry Council and medical device makers testified that many of their soft plastic blood bags and other medical devices might be banned, since these bags contain DEHP, a plasticizer within the category of phthalates.

Supporters of the bill, however, say that these bags would not be declared illegal under the law, unless a safer alternative can be found. Studies show that phthalates from the vinyl bags can easily leach into the fluids. Considered a hormonal disrupter, DEHP, when absorbed by the body, acts like free estrogen and can irritate breast cells, which can enhance the growth of developing cancer cells.

It is ironic that the American Cancer Society remains silent about this bill. Although the society is charged with educating the American population on the prevention, detection and treatment of breast and other cancers, the organization has historically been unwilling to bite the biggest hands that feed them. Supported by hundreds of millions of dollars in annual donations from the chemical and cosmetics industries, and run by a board that strongly represents the interests of the radiation, surgical and pharmaceutical industries, the American Cancer Society avoids discussing environmental causes of breast cancer.

Massachusetts women, especially those on the Cape, face some of the highest breast cancer rates in the world, yet the EPA and the American Cancer Society continue to virtually ignore breast cancer prevention. In this surreal situation, the very least our state officials can do is to pass this thoughtful and life-saving Safer Alternatives Bill.

Breast-cancer prevention laws needed in Massachusetts

The United States has the highest breast cancer rates in the world, and Massachusetts has one of the highest breast cancer rates in the nation. This means that Massachusetts is a pretty but dangerous place to live if you are trying to avoid a breast cancer diagnosis. In fact, one out of eight Massachusetts women can now expect to receive a breast-cancer diagnosis in her lifetime.

New research is finding that many ingredients in cosmetics, body care products, pesticides, hormone-fed meat and dairy, plastics, vehicle and industrial emissions, as well as some pharmaceutical drugs, have known or probable factors that create or support the development of breast cancer in animals and/or in humans. Many studies estimate that at least 90 percent of all breast cancer incidents are non-genetic and thus feasibly preventable.

Just being overweight or sedentary, when you are post-menopausal, can increase your risk of developing breast cancer by up to 20 percent. Our fat cells become a woman’s main generators
of estrogen once she become post-menopausal, with free estrogen the big culprit in most post
menopausal breast cancers. Meanwhile, most of these carcinogenic toxins in pesticides, foods, cleaning agents and in air and water pollution, such as parabens and phthalates, are fat-loving substances that turn our excess body fat into toxic storage facilities.

The Environmental Protection Agency, as described in a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, would prefer not to regulate greenhouse gases because of some residual uncertainty; not much breast cancer protection happening here.

It was therefore a relief last month, when advocates representing a coalition of labor, medical and environmental groups, along with leading researchers from Tufts, U Mass Lowell, Boston University, Harvard and MIT, testified on Beacon Hill about the pressing need for a law that would require the state to create a system that phases out the worst toxic chemicals from the environment, when safer alternatives are available.

The European Union, concerned with their own rising breast cancer rates and other environmental health problems, recently passed what some are calling breast cancer prevention laws. One law makes it illegal to sell cosmetics or body care products containing hormone disrupters such as parabens, phthalates and other known or probable carcinogens. The second, known as REACH (Regulation, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals), has similar goals as the proposed Massachusetts safe chemicals legislation.

Opponents of the proposed state law, including the Massachusetts Chemical and Technology Alliance, the American Chemistry Council and The Associated Industries of Massachusetts, were also on Beacon Hill last month. The Medical Device Industry Council and medical device makers testified that their soft plastic blood bags and other medical devices might be banned under this proposed law, since they contain DEHP, a plasticizer within the category of phthalates.

Supporters of the bill, however, say that DEHP products would not be declared illegal under the law, unless or until safer alternatives can be found. Studies show that phthalates from the vinyl can easily leach into fluids with the probability of enhancing the growth of developing cancer cells.

It is ironic and disturbing that the American Cancer Society remains silent about this bill. Supported by hundreds of millions of dollars in annual donations from the chemical and cosmetics industries, and run by a board that strongly represents the interests of the radiation, surgical and pharmaceutical industries, this national cancer educational organization avoids discussing environmental causes of breast cancer.

Massachusetts women face some of the highest breast cancer rates in the world, yet neither the EPA nor the American Cancer Society seems interested in protecting us. In this surreal situation, the very least our state officials can do is pass this thoughtful and life-saving Safer Alternatives Bill.