That's Fit

Bad news for women in the Washington Post yesterday. A study, also published yesterday, reveals evidence that life expectancy is falling for a significant number of American females.

According to the Post, the study cites that in nearly 1,000 counties that together are home to about 12 percent of the nation's women, life expectancy is now shorter than it was in the early 1980s. This marks the first decline in life expectancy for a significant number of women since the Spanish influenza of 1918, the Post reports.

I was in the checkout line at Target the other day and spotted a steam mop on the conveyor belt behind my stuff. I asked the woman behind me about it. She was trying it for the first time. At $40, she figured she couldn't lose. Well, anything but $40. But anyway, it piqued my curiosity. Turns out, it's the hot new trend in cleaning supplies.

A recent Washington Post article on the subject offers a pretty nice overview of the method. As for effectiveness and the potential to provide relief for allergy sufferers, steam cleaners seem promising. They are not a "magic wand," but myriad types of steam cleaners can apparently clean things from floors to outdoor grills pretty well. And because hot steam is touted for its ability to kill dust mites, mold and other allergens, they appeal to allergy sufferers.

Another lure is that the method offers a healthier alternative to chemical cleaners and is therefore kinder to the environment, especially waste water. But as with many eco-friendly efforts, there's an "inevitable weighing of pros and cons." Steam cleaners require electricity to use and energy for production and transport and will eventually add to solid waste in landfills.

As it turns out, it isn't worth a pound of cure, according to the Washington Post.

I was more than a little disheartened to read the cover story in the Health section of yesterday's paper. Apparently, as the story points out with examples, an ounce of prevention is worth a whole lot less than a pound of cure despite political campaign banter claiming otherwise. Not even close, in fact. The scales are actually tipped the other way. It's cheaper to let people get sick. Smoking cessation, colonoscopies for guys in their 60s and childhood vaccinations are among exceptions.

The article mentions at the very end a point that I think is bigger than dollars and cents. Paying for good health is an investment. And a good one. I wonder how any attempt to calculate the cost of prevention and measure it up against cure can be absolutely accurate. The examples in the Post are convincing. Giving a bunch of people cholesterol-reducing drugs in an effort to prevent heart disease that will develop in only a fraction of them clearly requires a heap o' dough for prescriptions. But if life is all about how much things cost and that leads to deciding whether our health -- and by extension our very lives -- are worth the expense, what's the point anyway? Have we really reached a point at which money is more valuable than life?

Wow. I think our society needs a colonoscopy. On second thought, we can save the money. I think we can skip ahead to diagnosing cancer. The good news: I believe this type can be cured. What do you think? What's the cure? Am I wrong? Do you disagree with the diagnosis?