William Shatner has earned success throughout his active career. The actor, best known for his role as Captain James T. Kirk in the Star Trek series, got the opportunity to travel to space in real life. On the other hand, Shatner’s diagnosis of a terminal illness made it difficult for him to survive to be 90 years old.
William Shatner, the Star Trek actor, has eight albums to his name and has distinguished himself in the acting and music worlds. Despite his accomplishments, the star’s life was turned upside down when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer.
In an article for NBC, Shatner highlighted how he had led a very fortunate life but had also experienced dеаth in many ways. When he was given a grim prognosis, the celebrity understandably became concerned that his days were numbered.
“I was told by a doctor that I had a dеаdly condition. That I was going to die,” Shatner told NBC.
“I wasn’t sure how to react to the news. We were discussing my funеrаI.”
“The doctor informed me that I had cancer. I reasoned that there had to be an error.”
Prostate cancer frequently grows slowly, and symptoms do not appear until the prostate is large enough to obstruct the tube that drains urine from the bladder into the penis.
Shatner’s doctor administered a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test to detect his cancer type. These tests can determine whether cancer seriously thrеаtens one’s life and whether other non-cancerous conditions have led to elevated PSA levels.
“He took my PSA, a marker for this disease, to figure out which sort it was,” Shatner stated of his diagnosis.
“Up until that time, it was at one or two, well within acceptable ranges. He announced that it was ten. ‘Aggressive cancer,’ says the doctor. Ten! My own body had deceived me.”
After being stunned, horrified, and somewhat angry by the prognosis, Shatner’s thoughts rapidly went to the potential of dеаth.
“I recognized my prognosis; I had drafted my will, which indicated that upon my dеаth, this person would receive this and that person would receive that,” he said.
“On a more emotional level, though, I was convinced I would live indefinitely. I contested it. It meant expressing my will before indulging in a lovely piece of strudel. Death had no meaning for me.”
After striving to accept life while carrying the gravity of a dеаth sentence, Shatner discovered that testosterone supplements—the very supplements he was taking—might have something to do with prostate cancer in some cases.
“I wondered whether I should discontinue taking the supplements.” “Yeah,” he said, “that would be a terrific idea.”
In their investigation, researchers in Baltimore, USA, collected blood samples from 759 men, 111 of whom had been diagnosed with prostate cancer. Males over 55 were found to be more likеly to get prostate cancer, proving that an increase in testosterone levels is associated with an increased chance of developing the disease.
In contrast, another study from the University of Oxford revealed that, while high testosterone levels were not associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer, low testosterone levels were.
Researchers discovered that the body has a finite number of androgen receptors; thus, if these are “filled up,” the testosterone level in the bloodstream is meaningless because binding to a receptor is impossible. This data was derived from blood samples of about 19,000 men, 6,900 of whom developed prostate cancer.
This study found that low testosterone levels can reduce the risk of prostate cancer, but high testosterone levels do not. And Shatner was no exception.
“Three months later, I received another PSA test. It had dropped to one. One. According to Shatner, the doctor suspected that the higher PSA number was caused by testosterone.
“The body acquires cancer frequently and exterminates it, but that test’s sensitivity allowed it to identify even the slightest hint of it, which, combined with the PSA reading, made me fear I was near dеаth. I was pleased to learn that I did not have cancer. I’ve returned to not dying. At the very least, immediately.
The NHS explains that “false-positive” PSA test results are common and that a blood test, physical examination, MRI scan, or biopsy are more reliable screening methods for prostate cancer.
People experiencing the following symptoms should see a doctor, who will most likеly perform the above-mentioned testing:
More frequent and regular overnight urination
An unexpected urge to use the restroom, difficulty starting to urinate (hesitancy), straining or taking their time to urinate.
Poor flow, as though your bladder hasn’t been totally emptied
Blood in the urine or sperm.
If a person is diagnosed with prostate cancer, they will be advised on the best treatment options. If the cancer is treatable, treatment options may include “watchful waiting” in the early stages or surgery and radiotherapy later on.
Which is better for cooking, gas or electric? These are some things to be aware of.
The Gas vs. Electric Stove Debate
The debate over gas stoves vs. electric stoves is ongoing. Many people prefer what they grew up with, and that’s understandable. Familiarity often shapes our choices. However, beyond nostalgia, which is better for cooking: gas or electric?
Factors to Consider
There’s no one-size-fits-all answer. Both types of stoves cook food differently. Your choice may depend on what you cook most often. Additionally, consider safety and utility costs. Let’s delve into these factors with a detailed analysis below.
Gas Stoves: Cost-Effective in the Long Run
Buying a new stove is a big investment. Comparing gas and electric stoves upfront can be tricky due to price ranges. Low-end electric stoves start around $650, while gas stoves start at $800. High-end electric stoves can cost up to $2,800, whereas top gas stoves are about $2,300.
In the long run, gas stoves are cheaper due to lower utility costs. Utility rates vary, but generally, gas is less expensive than electricity. Investing in a gas stove can save you 10-30% annually on utilities.
Electric Stoves: Safer Option
Electric stoves are safer. Gas stoves have open flames, which can be hazardous, especially for children and pets. Items like tea towels and wooden spoons near the flame can catch fire. Although electric stoves can burn you, it’s less likely. Gas stoves’ flames indicate when they’re hot, but electric burners can stay hot without visible signs. Still, electric stoves are less likely to cause burns. Plus, they don’t emit gas, eliminating the risk of leaks.
Gas Stoves: Faster Cooking
Gas stoves heat up quickly, which is why many restaurants use them. They reduce cooking time significantly. Electric stoves take longer to heat up, while gas burners ignite instantly and start heating the pot immediately.
Electric Ovens: Even Cooking
Electric ovens cook more evenly than gas ovens. Gas emits moisture, creating a wetter heat, while electric ovens provide dry heat, perfect for roasts and baked goods. Gas stoves may cook unevenly, so food should be placed away from the heat source and rotated regularly.
Gas Stoves: Versatility
Gas stoves offer more cooking options, such as flambéing, charring, and toasting, which electric stoves can’t do as effectively. This versatility makes them a favorite among restaurants and dedicated home cooks.
Electric Stoves: Easier to Clean
Flat-top electric stoves are easier to clean. A damp sponge can usually handle most messes. Even electric stoves with coil burners are manageable—remove the burner, clean the plate, and reattach. Cleaning takes just a few minutes.
In contrast, gas stoves have heavy, multi-part grates that need to be removed. Cleaning them can be time-consuming, and losing an important piece is a risk.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the choice between gas and electric stoves depends on your cooking habits, safety needs, and willingness to manage utility costs and cleaning. Both have their advantages, so consider what matters most to you in your kitchen.
Leave a Reply