Hay fever vaccine

Hay fever vaccine: New method could be 'cheaper and better'

Continue reading the main story

Sneezing through summer with a runny nose could become a thing of the past if researchers in London are successful at developing a new hay fever vaccine.

The researchers, at Imperial College London and King's College London, say their "targeted" approach could lead to a cheaper and more effective vaccine.

In tests, they have injected into a layer of skin on patients they think is a "hotline" to the immune system.

Allergy UK said it was a very exciting development.

Treatment for hay fever is largely through drugs such as antihistamines or steroids. In very severe cases, tablets or injections of pollen under the skin can be given. The doses are gradually increased over three years to boost tolerance to pollen. However, the treatment is expensive.

The research team are trying much shallower injections into a part of the skin packed with white blood cells, part of the immune system. They argue their targeted approach means they can use tiny amounts of pollen - their dose is 2,000 times smaller than current injections - and also need fewer injections.

"It is a totally different route," Dr Stephen Till told the BBC. "The injections are very, very superficial almost flat against the skin."

Improvement

The results of early tests on 30 patients, published in Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, suggested the allergic reaction to grass pollen decreased with the vaccine.

A third of the patients were given six injections a fortnight apart. Initially the injection resulted in a large lump on the skin, but over time the size of the lump decreased.

The researchers said this suggested the allergic reaction to grass pollen was being switched off.

They are now starting a clinical trial with 90 patients to see if the vaccine can also reduce other symptoms such as sneezing.

Dr Till said: "If this approach proves to be effective it would define a new scientific and clinical principle that could also be applied to other allergic diseases such as asthma and food allergies.

"This could be a pivotal study in immunological research."

Maureen Jenkins, the director of clinical services at the charity Allergy UK, said this was a "very exciting development" which "offers hope for sufferers".

She added: "The proposed vaccine, if successful, is much quicker and more straightforward than current immunotherapy treatment for hay fever, which takes years. It also has the potential to offer cost savings.

"If this series of injections proves effective in combating hay fever, it will be a wonderful step forward in tackling this common, but often underestimated allergy."

A separate vaccine would have to be developed to help people with allergies to tree pollen.

cunfuion over sunlight

Concerns over vitamin D deficiency -

 A quarter of toddlers affectedThe chief medical officer for England, Dame Sally Davies, is to contact medical staff about concerns young children and some adults are not getting enough vitamin D.

Government guidelines recommend some groups, including the under-fives, should take a daily supplement.

However, recent research found that many parents and health professionals were unaware of the advice.

There has been an increase in childhood rickets over the past 15 years.

According to Dr Benjamin Jacobs, from the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, links to heart disease and some cancers are also being investigated.

Continue reading the main story

“

The consultant paediatrician told BBC Breakfast that the hospital saw about one severe case a month of rickets - softening of bones through lack of vitamin D in childhood.

He said: "There are many other children who have less severe problems - muscle weakness, delay in walking, bone pains - and research indicates that in many parts of the country the majority of children have a low level of vitamin D."

The Feeding for Life Foundation report, published in October last year, suggested one in four toddlers in the UK is vitamin D deficient.

However, this may be an underestimate as only vitamin D from food was included, and not any vitamin D obtained through sun exposure.

Vitamin D supplements are recommended for all people at risk of a deficiency, including all pregnant and breastfeeding women, children under five years old, people aged over 65, and people at risk of not getting enough exposure to sunlight.

Vitamin D is mainly obtained from sunlight. However, too much sun exposure increases the risk of skin cancer.

According to one recent study, nearly three-quarters of parents and more than half of health professionals are unaware of the recommendations.

The Department of Health has asked the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition to review the issue of current dietary recommendations on vitamin D.

Dame Sally Davies: "We know a significant proportion of people in the UK probably have inadequate levels of vitamin D in their blood. People at risk of vitamin D deficiency, including pregnant women and children under five, are already advised to take daily supplements.

Free supplements

"Our experts are clear - low levels of vitamin D can increase the risk of poor bone health, including rickets in young children.

"Many health professionals such as midwives, GPs and nurses give advice on supplements, and it is crucial they continue to offer this advice as part of routine consultations and ensure disadvantaged families have access to free vitamin supplements through our Healthy Start scheme.

"It is important to raise awareness of this issue, and I will be contacting health professionals on the need to prescribe and recommend vitamin D supplements to at-risk groups."

It has long been known that vitamin D prevents rickets and children were once given food supplements like cod liver oil.

However, this practice was stopped in the 1950s because it was thought unnecessary.

In the last 10 years, doctors have been seeing more cases of vitamin D deficiency, leading to a debate over the use of food supplements and concern that many medical staff are unaware of the problem.

autumn equinox

It's that time of year again in Britain , 6.00 a.m. in the morning and it is still very dark. The autumn equinox has passed 
and the hours of daylight are decreasing rapidly, this will continue until December 21st the shortest day of our year ,
after that the light will increase gradually peaking on June 21 next year.
Enter SAD seasonally affected disorder, or lack of daylight,
SAD (Seasonal Affective Disorder) is a type of winter depression that affects an estimated
7% of the UK population every winter between September and April, in particular during 
December, January and February. 
It is caused by a biochemical imbalance in the hypothalamus due to the shortening of daylight hours and the lack of sunlight in winter. 
For many people SAD is a seriously disabling illness, preventing them from functioning normally without continuous medical treatment. 
For others, it is a mild but debilitating condition causing discomfort but not severe suffering. We call this subsyndromal SAD or 'winter blues.'
It is estimated that a further 17% of the UK population have this milder form of condition.

“Sunbeds may be even more dangerous than previously feared

Friday, 14 October 2011

“Sunbeds may be even more dangerous than previously feared

“Sunbeds may be even more dangerous than previously feared,” the Daily Mail has today reported. The newspaper said UVA rays, the main type of ultraviolet light emitted by tanning devices, has been found to cause the type of DNA damage that can lead to cancer.

The news is based on laboratory research that compared the DNA damage caused by UVA rays to that from UVB rays, which are already known to cause skin cancer. While UVB has long been linked to burning and skin cancer, UVA has previously been considered to be relatively harmless. However, this research builds on other studies that have suggested that UVA is not harmless and, like UVB, can lead to changes in the cell that increase the risk of skin cancer.
By exposing different areas of volunteers’ skin to UVA and UVB and examining skin tissue samples, the experimental study found that both could cause similar types of DNA damage, but that UVA tended to affect cells deeper in the skin. However, UVB affected cells at the surface of the skin more.
This research emphasises the need to use an appropriate-strength sunscreen that protects against both UVA and UVB. These sunscreens may be labelled as offering “broad spectrum” protection, and rated according to a five-star system in the UK. Cancer Research UK recommends that people use sunscreen of at least SPF 15 and with at least four stars to get good balanced protection across the UV spectrum.

Where did the story come from?

The study was carried out by researchers from King’s College London. It was funded by The National Institute for Health Research, the UK Medical Research Council, British Skin Foundation and the British Association for Dermatology.
It was published in the peer-reviewed, Journal of Investigative Dermatology.
The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail both appropriately advised that people should consider UVA protection as well as UVB when choosing a sunscreen.

What kind of research was this?

This laboratory-based research looked at how UVA rays affected skin cells. Light from the sun contains two types of ultraviolet (UV) rays, UVA and UVB. UVB has a shorter wavelength and has generally been thought of as the major carcinogen in sunlight. However, the researchers say that the action of UVA needs further consideration as there are more UVA than UVB rays in sunlight. UVA is also the predominant wavelength generated by sunbeds, and has now been classified as a carcinogen.
UVB is known to causes chemical changes to our DNA. In some cases the body’s natural DNA repair mechanisms can repair the damaged DNA, but in skin cancers these chemical changes have not been fixed and lead to harmful mutations in the DNA sequence. In skin cancers caused by UVB, there is a characteristic pattern of DNA damage that the researchers term a “UVB signature”.
UVA is also known to cause mutations, but this was previously thought to be by an indirect mechanism (i.e. causing chemical changes to other molecules in the cell that may have a knock-on effect on the DNA). However, recent experiments on cells in a lab have shown that UVA may also cause a “UVB signature” in the DNA sequence.
As recent evidence suggests that UVA may cause mutations in a similar way to UVB, this has raised doubts over the belief that UVA may be “safer” than UVB. Given this uncertainty, the researchers devised a series of experiments to see what effect comparable doses of UVA and UVB had on skin cells.

What did the research involve?

The researchers recruited 12 volunteers with healthy skin. The participants had fair, white skin that either always burns and never tans, or usually burns and tans with difficulty.
The participants were exposed to each wavelength of UV on 1 cm2 areas of previously-exposed skin on their buttocks.
Twenty-four hours later, the researchers used three participants to find the minimum doses of UVA and UVB needed to produce just-detectable redness of the skin. The participants were then given doses of UVA and UVB, which were multiples of this minimum dose (half the minimum dose, 1.5 times and 3 times). The degree of skin redness was assessed using a red skin scale.
The researchers took punch biopsies, which involved using a small tube-like device to extract a 4mm plug of skin from the exposed site. They used the biopsies to look at chemical changes to the DNA. To see how well the body could repair and reverse the DNA damage, they performed another set of biopsies on the exposure sites 3, 6, 24 and 48 hours after the UV exposure and examined the changes seen.

What were the basic results?

The researchers found that the skin became redder with increasing doses of either UVA or UVB. However, when they applied increasing multiples of the minimum dose required to cause redness, UVB caused more redness than UVA.
When the researchers looked for DNA chemical changes in skin cells immediately after exposure, they found that UVB led to more of these changes in the top layer of skin, whereas UVA led to more changes in the deeper layers of skin. They also found that as doses increased beyond the minimum dose, UVB caused more detectable chemical changes to the DNA than UVA. Although both UVA and UVB produced one particular type of DNA change, UVB caused additional chemical changes that were not found in UVA-treated cells.
The researchers then attempted to see how well the cells could repair the DNA damage caused by UV exposure. They found that the rate at which the body could repair the DNA damage was similar for damage caused by UVA and UVB. They said that by 48 hours the majority of DNA changes caused by UVA had disappeared but that there was still some DNA damage with UVB. The researchers said that this was because a higher proportion of DNA had been damaged with the UVB dose.

How did the researchers interpret the results?

The researchers say that they had demonstrated for the first time that UVA can cause DNA changes similar to some of those caused by UVB, although UVB also causes additional chemical changes not seen with UVA exposure. They said that deeper layers of skin are particularly vulnerable to UVA-induced damage and that this has implications for public health policies, particularly the need for developing measures that protect against UV light at a broader range of wavelengths.

Conclusion

This research has shown that UVA can produce some similar damage to the DNA when the skin becomes red as UVB. The research also showed that these changes may increase the risk of developing skin cancer if not repaired by the body. Previously, it was thought that UVB caused burning and was the major carcinogenic component of sunlight, while UVA was considered to be relatively harmless apart from ageing the skin.
In recent times studies, including this one, have suggested that UVA may directly cause the type of DNA damage that can lead to skin cancer. This study emphasises the importance of choosing a sunscreen that protects against both UVA and UVB (often labelled as offering ‘broad spectrum’ protection).
The charity Cancer Research UK has highlighted that there is no international measurement of UVA production, although in the UK there is a five-star system to measure UVA protection (the higher number of stars indicates a more balanced protection against UVA). Sunscreens will also contain a (sun protection factor) SPF rating. Cancer Research UK recommends that people use a sunscreen of SPF 15 or higher, with at least four stars to provide good protection against UVA and UVB. The charity also says consumers should not use sunscreen that has been open for over 12 to 18 months, but should instead buy fresh sunscreen offering appropriate protection.
Newspapers covering this research have also correctly highlighted that sunbeds may have a particularly high UVA output. The Daily Mail includes a quote that the strength of these rays can be 10 to 15 times higher than the midday sun. People using sunbeds and tanning booths should be aware that there is currently no regulation to govern the type or strength of UV rays that sunbeds give out. Even brief use may carry some risk, particularly for people who have fair features, freckles, lots of moles or damaged areas of skin. Read Are sunbeds safe? for more information.

Links To The Headlines

Tanning salons more dangerous than previously thought. The Daily Telegraph, October 7 2011
New sunbed alert: UV rays penetrate far deep into the skin than previously thought. Daily Mail, October 7 2011

Links To Science

Tewari A, Sarkany RP and Young AR. UVA1 Induces Cyclobutane Pyrimidine Dimers but Not 6-4 Photoproducts in Human Skin In Vivo. Journal of Investigative Dermatology, October 6 2011

The 'Great Winter

main historical menu

<<<<1500 - 1599

(T: warm/cold events; R: dry/wet events; S: 'stormy' events)

Date	T	R		S	Description	Ref:
					1600 - 1649
April 1600					24th: a deep snowfall (no details as to location).	6
1601					Storm in London on 1st February.	8
1601 (Late spring & all summer)					According to East Anglian & Low Countries chronicles, the period covering (roughly) April to August was very dry across these regions. This would imply a persistence of anticyclonic weather.	x
1601/1602 (Winter & early Spring)					Possibly a severe winter in Scotland, lasting from November to the end of April. Frequent heavy snowfall. [ If the winter was severe enough for comment in Scotland, then no doubt it was equally so across northern England & perhaps further south, but I have no data as to that. It is also interesting to speculate that given the anticyclonicity implied by the entry for late spring/all summer (above), and the requirement for at least some element of high pressure to the north or northeast of Britain for a notably cold winter, then this may be an exceptional spell of anticyclonically, blocked conditions for these longitudes. ]	x
1602					Drought in autumn & winter (London/South).	8
1603
January 1607 [1606 in reckoning of the time.]					Flood: 2,000 died around the Severn Estuary, Tuesday, 20 January 1606 (OS)/30th January 1607 (NS). Lowlands on both sides of the Estuary suffered inundation, with the Somerset & Gwent levels suffering devastating effects. It is thought that a Severe gale from the west or southwest was responsible, coupled to an astronomically high tide: the excess over prediction was some 2.3m. As well as the cost in human life, much damage / loss of housing etc., and also cattle, sheep & horses perished. There would have been a great deal of salt-contamination of arable fields too. Bristol & Barnstaple were badly affected. It is worth noting that great damage due to flooding was also recorded from East Anglian towns and villages, particularly across the Fens. ('Weather'/Oct 2006/Horsburgh & Horritt); H. Lamb hasn't included this event in his 'Historic Storms' (Ref: HS), yet it seems as if this may have affected at least the southern North Sea. [ There is some debate whether this event was a 'standard' wind-driven storm-surge, or a Tsunami-like occurrence. Contemporary accounts mention 'high tides' & 'strong west winds', so I would plump for the more likely storm-surge cause.] [confusion with dates: although listed in original documents as January 1606, the 'year' 1606 would have run from March 1606 to March 1607 (in our reckoning).]	TORRO, R. Met.S, 17CWx
1607					Dry/hot summer (London/South).	8
1607/08 (Winter)					The 'Great Winter'**: apparently, trees died due to the severity (and length) of the frost; ships were stranded by ice several miles out into the North Sea - this latter a major concern as much commerce was done in these days via coastal shipping. In December, a "deep" frost until mid-month, then a thaw until just before Christmas, then from ~21st December(OSP) intense freeze for much of the time until at least mid-January. Ice formed on the Thames in London, sufficient to bear all sorts of sports, perambulations and even cooking! The frost lasted overall for some two months. (much of the foregoing from Ian Currie). The severe weather lasted in parts of England until about 20th February(OSP), though with variations in depth of cold. For example, in records from Kendal (Westmorland / Cumbria) 'hard frost' is noted from November 3rd, 1607 to March 6th, 1608(OSP). The Firth of Forth is noted as being 'frozen' during January 1608 & the River Exe (south of Exeter) also experienced major ice formation by the latter-third of January - at this latter location, damage was caused to a local weir. (** lots of winters will be found in the literature known as "The Great Winter": treat this title with some caution, however, in a series developed by C.Easton, in CHMW / Lamb, this ranks near the top of the most severe winters of the last 1000 yr.) [ This may have been the first occasion of the use of the term 'Frost Fair' ]	1, 6, 8, usw
1609/10 (Winter)					Great frost commenced in October & lasted four months. Thames frozen and heavy carriages driven over it. (Possible confusion with 1607/08).	8, LWH
1610					Hot, dry summer (London/South); from other records I have, there is mention of 'four months' of drought at Derby, so as might be expected, these hot, dry conditions extended across a greater part of southern & central England at least - more than that it would be wrong to assume.	8
1611 (Annual)					From various reports across England, it was probably a wet year: floods noted in January in the West of England in both January & February; July & August are also noted as being wet with flooding: hay was spoiled during August; also floods in November & December - severe flood at Tewkesbury - possibly early in the year when other significant flooding was noted in the west. However, there is also a note that there was a drought from the end of February to the end of May, then 'great rains' began from early June, so we shouldn't assume that the wet weather was either universal or persistent.	x
1611/1612 (Winter)					Possibly a severe winter, at least for southern & central England. [ It is interesting to speculate, given the entry below, that once again some long-lived anticyclonic activity was involved - see for example, 1601/02 above. ]	17CWx
1612 (winter / spring)					Drought from January to May (London/South). The extended period of dry weather was apparently widespread over England at least, with that affecting the Lake District noted as not breaking until early August.	8, 17CWx
1612 (Summer)					Overlapping with the entry above (q.v.), it was apparently a hot, dry summer over England at least.	17CWx
1614 (Spring & Summer)					Drought at York lasting from spring to August - severe shortage of fodder and grain. [ Obviously, this would have affected a much wider area - this is just the record from the ecclesiastical centre for the North Country. ]	x
1614/1615 (winter/early spring)					Several reports of 'great snowfall' from various parts of the country; for example, from Derbyshire, a major snowfall began on the 20th January(OSP) and further new snowfall was noted until at least 12th March(OSP); great snowfall was also recorded across Yorkshire. Further north, in Scotland, this winter was noted as being of 'great severity' (Annals of Scottish History), & by February, the Tay was frozen over, such that foot and horse traffic could pass over it. An 'enormous' fall of snow took place early in March (place unspecified), but this ties in with the Derbyshire report [above]. In Scotland, this was stated to have lasted at least three days, to be the greatest 'within living memory' and many deaths (horses and men) occurred as people tried to move about. It was particularly bad across northern Scotland.	(LWH & others)
1615 (spring)					Following the heavy snowfall as noted above, significant flooding ensued following thaw (& presumably heavy rain - you tend to need a high-yield rainfall event for significant flooding after snow), with Yorkshire being particularly badly hit. The Ouse flood lasted around 10 days, carrying away bridges - the dates are not given, but as April was noted as being fair/dry with a dusty ground and significant drought (until late summer), then the melt-event probably followed the final snowfall in the second week of March.	x
1615 (May)					1st (C? / OSP & probably 'May Day' - it might not have attracted notice otherwise!) A late snowfall; Snow to 1 foot (~30cm) depth reported from Derbyshire. [ The problem here is that there are parts of Derbyshire today that would get a useful snowfall on May 1st - particularly in the Peak District villages, so it is difficult to know how significant this report is. ]	LWH
1615 (late Spring to mid-summer)					Extended dry conditions / notable drought across central & southern Britain - great stress due to lack of fodder, harvest etc; In Derbyshire (and almost certainly across a much wider area of Britain), noted as running from 25th March (Lady Day) to 4th August (both OSP). Great dearth of corn & hay.	17CWx
1616					Hot summer with drought (London/South & almost certainly elsewhere across England).	8, 17CWx
1616 (September)					River Aire flooded houses in Leeds (Yorkshire) after 38 hours of rain.	x
1617 (Summer)					From reports of shipwrecks, wet weather & floods, it appears that the summer of 1617 was notably unsettled.	17CWx
1620 (Summer)					Possibly a very wet summer.	17CWx
1620/21 (Winter)					Frost fair held on the Thames. A severe winter over western Europe / implied much of Britain. (Easton, in CHMW/Lamb)	1, 8
1621 (Summer & Autumn)					Noted as being 'very dry' in eastern Scotland, but 'very cold & wet' further south. However, through the autumn, particularly around 'harvest-tide', all contemporary records note a lot of rain, with a poor crop for the winter. It would not be unusual for eastern Scotland to have a distinctly different rainfall regime from elsewhere, so on balance I suspect that the rainfall was the dominant weather type for a lot of Britain in this period.	17CWx
1622 (August & Summer)					Although mixed data, it looks as if the late spring & much of the summer across Britain, but especially across Scotland & the north of England, was 'inclement', such that the harvest was poor: in Scotland in particular, the harvest was stated to be 'catastrophic'. Reports suggest that the poor weather was primarily due to excessive rainfall (see also the previous summer above). [ Reports from the winter, spring & early summer of 1622/1623 state that there was great distress in the population of Scotland, with death-rates much higher than normal; this was stated to be due to the famine prevalent following the poor harvest noted above, and presumably the fact that this was (at least) the second very poor year in a row had a lot to do with the lack of produce etc. ] August 18th(C?) - An "extreme & vehement" storm struck the Tamar Valley. (Devon Co. C web site) [ No other details, i.e. thunderstorm, wind-storm etc., so it is difficult to decide the character of this: it may be akin to the Boscastle storm of 2004 August q.v., given the topography of the areas which drain into the Tamar valley. ]	17CWx
1623 (Summer .. 1)					At Oxford & other places in the south of England (e.g. Bath, Bristol), the summer was noted as hot & dry. (But see entry below - split island!)	17CWx
1623 (Summer .. 2)					Another poor summer [ see 1622 ] in Scotland. Often noted as being STORMY & WET, with failure of harvests etc. (but see entry above; if this is correct, it would imply a succession of poor summers for Scotland since at least 1620).	17CWx
1624 (Summer)					Hot, dry summer Nottinghamshire & Derbyshire (at least, and presumably further afield across lowland central & southern England).	17CWx
1624/1625 (Winter)					Possibly a wet winter, at least across England, and specifically London. [ Difficulty with dating - might be the previous winter depending upon how you interpret the convention. ]	17CWx
1625 (Summer)					Possibly a wet summer, at least over England & Scotland; in Scotland, it was noted that the 'rains' had been heavy/persistent since the middle of May.	17CWx
1625 (October)					October 13th(?C / OSP) - At Tiverton, 53 houses were thrown down and destroyed by a great flood of water.(Devon Co.C website) [ Again, no great detail, but given the month, it suggests an exceptional rain-storm following a prolonged period of autumnal rains soaking the ground. ]	x
1626					Dry, hot summer (London/South).	8
1627 (Late Spring & Summer)					Possibly a wet late spring & summer - at least in Scotland.	17CWx
1629 (Spring/ Summer)					Possibly a wet period, sufficient to cause much shortage of foodstuffs produced from the land.	17CWx
1630-1637 (or 1638) (Summers)					Series of dry / warm summers, particularly 1636, 1637 & (perhaps) 1638; for 1636, in the London/SE area, it is noted as a "very hot & dry summer, not a drop of rain from March to August".	8
1632 (Autumn & early Winter)					Possibly a notably wet period, ending with a frost.	17CWx
1633 (early in year)					A 'great storm' in the Scottish border region, when vast numbers of sheep perished; severe frost.	SBM
1633 (Autumn & early Winter)					Another wet period. There are notes that this year saw a major failure of the harvest in places - so perhaps 1632 & 1633 stand out from the generally benign/excellent spell noted against the entry for 1630-1637 summers [above].	17CWx
1633/1634 (Winter)					Possibly one of the stormiest (& coldest) in Scotland, with snow in the fields lying from December to March.	17CWx
1634 (Spring)					A cold, dry spring, no doubt due to persistently anticyclonic conditions with a bias to E/NE winds: during April & May no rain for seven weeks. [ But note that areas so affected not clearly specified.]	17CWx
1634 (Summer / early Autumn)					The summer was reported to be 'fine' and early autumn / harvest-tide also proved benign; it appears that these 'fine' conditions were confined to the southern parts of Britain (see below).	17CWx
1634 (Autumn / early Winter)					In contrast to entries above [ which in any case relate only to 'southern' Britain ], the remainder of autumn & early winter was wet. Also, it appears that the far north of Scotland, along with Orkney & Shetland, were plagued by persistently stormy conditions, often wet, such that great distress was caused due to famine. The harvest on Orkney in particular was described as a 'disaster'.	17CWx
1634/1635 (Winter)					Severe winter; Thames frozen. Depending upon dating practice, there are other reports from the time that suggest that this winter (1634 / 1635) was widely cold/snowy. In parts of England, a frost lasted from the 15th December 1634(OSP) until 11th February 1635(OSP), with frequent snowfall. In Scotland, a lot of snow and great depth of frost noted, with the snow lying in places from the 9th December(OSP) to the 9th March(OSP). Particularly snowy (and probably with significant blizzard conditions at times) between 26th January(OSP) & the 16th February(OSP) at Perth. The river Tay was frozen over. Significant hardship.	8 17CWx
1635 (mid/late autumn)					A mild but wet autumn with heavy rains and several reports of flooding. (Location/s not known)	17CWx
Mar-Sep 1636					Extended dry / drought period began 1st March 1636: by September, serious drought effects. Noted as completely rain-less in 'London Weather' from March to August. [ see also entry below which overlaps.]	6, 8
1636 (Annual)					Possibly a warm year overall, with a 'forward spring' & 'very hot' summer; there are also references to it being 'extremely dry' [probably only applies to southern & central England though]. Specifically, a drought was noted as having lasted from 1st March to well into September, with sources noting 'completely rainless' conditions. Trees by August were as if it were mid-winter, given the loss of leaves.	8, 17CWx
1636-1638					Three successive fine summers (possibly): see also entry Mar-Sep 1636 above.	8, 17CWx
October 1638					Tornadoes in Devon & Somerset: Sunday October 21st(OS) / October 31st(NS): at Widecombe-in-the-Moor (Devon) on the south-eastern flank of Dartmoor. A tornado struck a church with the 'utmost violence' as a service had just begun. A ball of fire moved through the church with a thunderous explosion. The roof and tower were wrecked, stone and masonry showered down both inside and outside the building. The tornado / ball lightning killed and maimed scores of men and women - and a dog. People were snatched from the pews and whirled about. About 60 people were either killed or injured. All this took place within a few seconds. There may also have been (associated?) tornadic events at Plymouth & Norton Fitzwarren (Somerset), which might imply a line-squall/cold frontal event.	6, LWH, 17CWx
1639 (December)					Possibly a very stormy month, with particular mention for London/South.	17CWx
1640 (Annual)					From several reports throughout the year from widely dispersed parts of Britain, it seems as if this year was WET with frequent flooding. At Tewkesbury (Gloucestershire) for example, where flooding is not unknown even today, there were at least eight floods between Midsummer (24th June) and Michaelmas (29th September). August is specifically mentioned as having heavy rain in the NE England/SE Scotland area. Similarly, October was so plagued across Yorkshire & the NE of England. [ It may also have been cold/snowy at the start as well, but there is the usual ambiguity about whether the reports belong to this year or to 1641.]	17CWx
1641 (Summer)					Ducklington (Oxfordshire) 'harvest weather' was hot & dry from June until 17th September. No water in springs and grass withered. [ sounds like a significant drought.]	17CWx
1642 (Annual)					No specifics, but for Scotland at least, this was noted at the time as having been a 'wonderful' year for the fruits of the land; there are, however, reports of extended dry periods, especially in June, though this was offset around mid-month by short-period rainfall.	17CWx
1642/1643 (Winter & Spring)					Possibly a wet, stormy winter & spring, at least for Scotland and with regard to the spring, for England too.	17CWx
1643					Hot summer (London / South). Some suggestion that the fine / dry weather extended to Scotland (Edinburgh) as well - which would be logical.	8, 17CWx
1643/1644 (Winter)					Contemporary reports of this being a cold winter - presumably colder than 'normal' if such remarks are made. January in particular is noted in several accounts as being cold/snowy and in January 1644: 8-day snowfall 31st January to 7th February(OSP).	6, 17CWx
1645					Hot / dry summer (London/South).	8
1645-1710					"The Maunder Minimum": Period of notably reduced solar activity. Possibly contributing to (or adding to), the downturn in temperatures during this period (though note, there were also some very warm summers, e.g. 1645!)	x
1646 (May)					31st May, 1646 (new-style converted): Notable outbreak of tornadoes in eastern England. Specifically Thetford / Newmarket, (Cambridgeshire, Suffolk, Norfolk); Brandon Parva (Norfolk) and Swaffham Prior (Cambridgeshire). At least three different tornadoes involved. It was a notably hot day ("violent hot day"), with severe thunderstorms, heavy rain & large hail. The hail is noted as being of "extraordinary size", and "some hollow within like rings".	(JMet/TORRO)
1646 (October & November)					From several reports during these two months (e.g., heavy, persistent rain in Essex in October, major flooding in Norwich in November & parliamentary reports of rain/floods in early December), this autumn may have been excessively wet.	17CWx
1648 (Annual)					Very wet, but probably not as wet as 1258 & 1527. The summer in particular was described as worse than several of the past winters (i.e. 'cold & wet').	8, 17CWx
1648/49 (Winter)					Great frost; Thames frozen.	8
1649 (Annual)					Apparently a famine this year in the north of England & Scotland because of the impact of rains (and war). Generally a 'poor' year with the weather impacting upon agriculture: cold/dry spring after severe winter (see above) & periods of heavy rain.	17CWx

main historical menu

1650 - 1699>>>>

Druids and Pagans

21 December 2010 Last updated at 09:21
http://rich-biofool.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/dartmoor

Druids and Pagans celebrate winter solstice at Stonehenge

More than 2,000 people gathered in the snow of Stonehenge to celebrate the winter solstice.

Druids, lead by Arthur Pendragon (centre), take part in the winter solstice at Stonehenge in Wiltshire Photo: PA

By Victoria Lee 12:50PM GMT 22 Dec 2010

Despite the actual sunrise, - which took place at 08.09am - being obscured by mist, Peter Carson of English Heritage said: "Stonehenge looked spectacular in the snow and it was a great way for people to start their festive season."

The Pagan community came out in force to celebrate the annual festival, along with many whom were merely curious to experience the event.

As well as the traditional Druid and Pagan ceremonies, a snowball fight erupted as people enjoyed the cold weather.

"The popularity of the winter solstice has grown over the years as more is known about Stonehenge and the winter solstice and the whole celebration has grown in popularity, " Mr Carson said.

Lance Corporal Paul Thomas, a serving soldier of 15 years who fought in Iraq, was "knighted" with a sword by a Druid calling himself King Arthur Pendragon.

Related Articles

• Stonehenge winter solstice

  22 Dec 2010

• Stonehenge's pagans aren't a patch on pagans of the past

  22 Dec 2010

• Druids: Worshippers of nature who were said to sacrifice humans

  22 Dec 2010

• Record numbers greet summer solstice at Stonehenge

  22 Dec 2010

• Druidry recognised as religion in Britain for first time

  22 Dec 2010

• Tokyo, Japan: guide to climbing Mount Fuji

  22 Dec 2010

The word solstice comes from the Latin phrase for "sun stands still". During the winter solstice the sun is closer to the horizon than at any other time in the year, meaning shorter days and longer nights. The day after the winter solstice marks the beginning of lengthening days, leading up to the summer solstice in June.
The Sun's passage through the sky appears to stop, with it seeming to rise and set in the same two places for several days. Then the arc begins growing longer and higher in the sky, reaching its peak at the summer solstice.
The solstices happen twice a year because the Earth is tilted by 23.5 degrees as it orbits the sun. Since ancient times people have marked the winter and summer solstices.
The stones at Stonehenge are aligned with the sunlight on both the summer and winter solstices. These times told prehistoric farmers that harvest was coming or that the shortest day of winter had passed.

Recent excavations of animal bones at the site suggest that huge midwinter feasts were held at Stonehenge, with cattle moved there to be slaughtered for the solstice celebrations.December 21 – The full moon is in total eclipse from 1:12 to 2:47 UT and the solstice occurs later in the day at 16:05 UT 1638

Skywatchers observe lunar eclipse

21 December 2010 Last updated at 09:28 Help

It is the first time since 1638 that a lunar eclipse has fallen on the winter solstice, the shortest day of the year.
Scotland and Northern Ireland provided the best viewing conditions in the UK.
Professor Alan Fitzsimmons from Queen's University told the BBC's Andy Martin it was a "beautiful" eclipse as he observed it from Belfast.

Read more

• Skywatchers observe lunar eclipse

Share this page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVkkCVh5t0E

Professor Alan Fitzsimmons from Queen's University, describes the eclipse from Belfast

Related stories

• In pictures: Total lunar eclipse
• Lunar eclipse wows sky watchers
• Red Moon dives behind Earth

Skywatchers around the world have been observing a rare total lunar eclipse.

The best viewing conditions for the eclipse were from North and Central America, parts of northern Europe and East Asia.
Total eclipses can turn the Moon a shade of pink or dark red. The eclipse began early on Tuesday morning GMT.
It is the first total lunar eclipse in three years and the first to fall on the Winter Solstice - the shortest day of the year - in nearly 400 years.
The Moon is normally illuminated by the Sun. During a total lunar eclipse, the full Moon passes through the shadow created by the Earth blocking the Sun's light.
Some indirect sunlight can pierce through and give the Moon a dramatic shade of red.
The west coast of America saw the eclipse start on Monday night; observers in North and Central America were able to view the whole event.

Total eclipse began at 0741 GMT on Tuesday (0241 EST on Tuesday; 11:41 PST on Monday).
Western Europe sees the start of the spectacle while western Asia catches only the tail end.
The totality phase - when the moon is entirely inside Earth's shadow - lasted a little over an hour.
"It's perfectly placed so that all of North America can see it," said eclipse expert Fred Espenak of Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Center.

Did you see see the lunar eclipse?

16 December 2010 Last updated at 18:29

New guidance on vitamin D recommends midday sunshine

By Jane Dreaper Health correspondent, BBC News

Short spells in the sun boost vitamin D levels

Continue reading the main story

Related stories

• Pregnancy vitamin supplement call

New health advice recommends short spells in the sun - without suncream and in the middle of the day.

Seven organisations have issued joint advice on vitamin D, which the body gets from natural sunlight.

The nutrient keeps bones strong, and protects against conditions like osteoporosis.

The guidance was drawn up because it is thought fears about skin cancer have made people too cautious about being in the sun.

Cancer Research UK and the National Osteoporosis Society are among the bodies which agree that "little and frequent" spells in summer sunshine several times a week can benefit your health.

The experts now say it is fine to go outside in strong sun in the middle of the day, as long as you cover up or apply sunscreen before your skin goes red.

'Too negative'

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

A good diet and sensible sun exposure will be adequate for most people to minimise their cancer risk.”

End Quote Professor Peter Johnson Cancer Research UK

Professor Rona Mackie, from the British Association of Dermatologists, said: "Total sun protection with high factor suncream on all the time is not ideal, in terms of vitamin D levels.

"Even Australia has changed its policy on this. They're now producing charts showing parts of Australia where sun protection may not be required during some parts of the year.

"Some of the messages about sun exposure have been too negative. UK summer sunshine isn't desperately strong. We don't have many days in the year when it is very intense.

"What's changed is that we're now saying that exposure of 10 to 15 minutes to the UK summer sun, without suncream, several times a week is probably a safe balance between adequate vitamin D levels and any risk of skin cancer."

Official government advice already recommends vitamin D supplements for pregnant women and children aged under five.

But the experts who wrote the joint statement say mothers often are not made aware of this recommendation. They suggest women consult their GP.

Winter levels of vitamin D can be helped by a break in the tropical sun - or by eating oily fish, liver and fortified margarine.

'Complex area'

Cancer Research UK's chief clinician, Professor Peter Johnson, said: "A good diet and sensible sun exposure will be adequate for the great majority of the UK population to minimise their cancer risk.

"The area of vitamin D and cancer is complex.

"There's some evidence, which is strongest in bowel cancer, that low levels of vitamin D in the blood correlate with the risk of developing cancer.

"But that doesn't mean those low levels cause bowel cancer.

"We think overall that low levels of vitamin D are unlikely to be major contributors to the chances of developing cancer in the UK population."

The joint statement also highlighted questions about vitamin D that warrant further research.

These include finding out the optimal levels of vitamin D, and more detail about the role of dietary sources and supplements.

More on This Story

Related stories

• Pregnancy vitamin supplement call 03 JULY 2010, HEALTH

Related Internet links

• Cancer Research UK
• National Osteoporosis Society

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Share this page