Pain In The Back Of The Knee: Top 3 Reasons

Here are some things you need to keep in mind if you ever experience such pain behind the knee:

1. Possible Arthritis

This is one of the most common causes of pain in the knee. In fact, if you are over the age of 65 one in two of you have arthritis with the knee been one of the most common joints involved.

The pain of arthritis is usually a dull tooth ache pain that is occasionally sharp with sudden movements. The pain is usually located over your joint line (where the tibia meets the femur) and in the front of the knee. Mild and sometimes severe swelling is associated with this pain. The pain is worse when you exit a chair or car. It is also worse with any prolonged walking or standing. The pain is usually better with rest, heat (sometimes ice), wrapping the knee and pain medication.

Occasionally the knee may catch on the rough uneven surfaces of your cartilage. Patients often complain of grinding in the knee, and occasional popping.

2. Minor Tear of the Cartilage Surface

Rather then a cyst or fluid build-up, the causes of the pain behind the knee might simply be slight micro tears in the cartilage. This can be treated with the same solutions at the end of this article. Tears, if minor, require no surgery and will heal on their own depending on the time allowed for healing and if the activity that aggravates it is avoided.

3. Baker's Cyst

The cyst usually occurs due to some other problem in your knee such as arthritis or even a tear of your meniscus. The swelling from this problem causes fluid to build up in your knee. This fluid pushes out the weakest point of your joint capsule surrounding your knee. This is usually to the back portion of your knee capsule, and a cyst forms. The cyst has a valve made out of your joint capsule tissue. This valve can sometimes become clogged and the fluid becomes trapped in the cyst. Thus, even when the injury has resolved, you still have the swelling in the back of your knee. This is associated with pain usually described as dull and aching. The pain is worse with prolonged walking or standing. It is sometimes improved with rest, elevation and taking pain medication.


Many people agree that when it comes to pain behind the knee, the best plan of action is Control, Avoid, and Rehabilitate.

Control:

Cryotheraphy which involves putting ice on the area for 5 minutes at a time. This will help reduce the pain. Do not continue to apply ice if a burning sensation is felt.

Heat from a heating pad for 10-20 minutes on a lower setting may help reduce pain. Alternative methods include creams that create a heating sensation like Icy-Hot or AST BioFreeze gel.

Bracing from a comfortable knee brace can provide some needed relief and stability to the area, reducing the pressure on the area and thus; reducing the pain. There are many knee braces available that can be worn during activity or at any time where the area becomes bothersome.

Avoid:

There's nothing special about this old saying. Simply avoid the activities that aggravate the pain and participate in ones that seem to help it. Making a list of things NOT to do and a list of things TO DO will be helpful in determining what makes the pain worse. Avoid activities that continue to make the pain worse or no better. This is typical advice. Pain is a warning signal.

Rehabilitate:

Talk to a Doctor and make a plan of action to rehabilitate the knee thru controlled motions. Rehabilitation includes motivation to do the prescribed exercises. The correct exercises as prescribed and the proper equipment to keep the motions in controlled.

Pain behind the knee is very common in some many sports that you can suffer from this by doing almost anything from snowboarding to racquetball. By taking precautions in your sports and understanding what might cause this, will allow not only enjoyable sports activities, but a lifetime of activity.

Internet Explorer bug puts 900 million users at risk

Microsoft has announced that all current versions of Internet Explorer are currently at risk of being hacked due to a flaw in the programme.

It is now known that the web browser, used by 900 million people across the globe, requires a software patch in order to defend against attack while Microsoft prepares a longer term fix, a massive security slip up by the firm.

A security advisory announcement was made on Friday highlighting scripting vulnerabilities affecting all versions of Windows.

It is not however thought that there has been any breaches of security so far: “The main impact of the vulnerability is unintended information disclosure,” said Angela Gunn, a Microsoft representative.

“We're aware of published information and proof-of-concept code that attempts to exploit this vulnerability, but we haven't seen any indications of active exploitation.”

The fault lies in the MHTML protocol handler, which is used by applications to render certain kinds of document.

According to the statement an attacker could, for example, construct an HTML link designed to trigger a malicious script and then persuade the targeted user to click on it.

Once this happens the script would then be able to run on the machine for the rest of that IE browser session, potentially collecting information from emails, sending the user to fake sites and generally interfering with the browser usage.

“The workaround we are recommending customers apply locks down the MHTML protocol and effectively addresses the issue on the client system where it exists. We are providing a Microsoft Fix-it package to further automate installation,” Gunn said.

“We're also in communication with other service providers to explain how the issue might affect third-party Web sites and to collaborate on developing a variety of further solutions that address the varied needs of all parts of the Internet ecosystem - large sites, small sites, and all those who visit them.”

People are advised to return to the Microsoft Security Response Centre to check for any update on the situation. The fix can be found here.

Good News From the Middle East (Really?!)

IT has lately become the accepted wisdom that the Middle East peace process is dead, finished, kaput. This belief has been reinforced by Al Jazeera’s release this week of some 1,600 documents that are said to describe the inside workings of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in 2008.

The arguments claiming that the peace process is dead come from all corners: Some contend that the Palestinian Authority, which governs parts of the West Bank, is ineffectual or illegitimate. Some say the asymmetry of power between Israel and the Palestinians is simply too great for a genuine compromise. Some insist the conflict is driven by unabated anti-Semitic incitement on the part of the Palestinians, or by irredeemable Israeli racism.

Other arguments are more specific. Some analysts feel that the real problem is that the Palestine Liberation Organization has become trapped by the Obama administration’s quest for a settlement freeze, which has prevented direct negotiations with Israel. Still another argument points out that Gaza, which has no future independent of the rest of Palestine, remains under the boot of the brutal fundamentalists of Hamas, rendering the P.L.O. incapable of delivering a final status agreement for the whole of the Palestinian people.

It is also argued that the threat of a nuclear Iran, and the support to Hamas and other extremists provided by Tehran, makes a deal impossible. And many observers have noted that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, perched atop a governing coalition that is both internally argumentative and habitually intransigent, has not provided much confidence in the chances of even a provisional compromise, especially as settlers continue to build in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

There are large elements of truth to many of these observations. Yet there are other, more heartening, trends that have gone largely unnoticed. And there are indeed palatable steps that both the Israelis and the Palestinians could take, separately but simultaneously — call it joint unilateralism — that could help revive the peace process.

We tend to forget, amid the welter of commentary about Palestinian incitement and Israeli belligerence, that we have recently seen startling shifts in both Israeli and Palestinian attitudes on the need for compromise. The Palestinian Authority government, led by President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, two of the most conscientious and sober-minded leaders the Palestinian people have had, continues to push forward a remarkable state-building program, and has been innovative in working against violence and incitement.

In Israel, the shift is also startling. Prime Minister Netanyahu — the leader of the Likud Party, which was previously the guardian of the ideology of territorial maximalism — has openly endorsed the creation of an independent Palestine. A majority of Knesset members plainly realize the necessity of a two-state solution. (Even Israel’s truculent foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has said that he was “ready to quit my settlement home to make peace.”)

Mr. Netanyahu, in a quiet way, has also encouraged a greater normalization of life on the West Bank. On his watch, the overall pace of settlement growth has slowed, especially when compared with previous Labor Party-led governments during the years of the Oslo peace process. He allowed the Palestinian flag to be raised in his private residence during a formal meeting with Mr. Abbas, and now employs the diplomatic term “West Bank” instead of the biblical term “Judea and Samaria.” He has also condemned an initiative offered by a group of Orthodox rabbis that sought to forbid Jews from selling or renting homes to non-Jews.

But it is on the Palestinian side that change has been the most notable. Gaza, of course, remains an intractable problem, since no peace treaty will end the conflict so long as Hamas is in power and loyal to the uncompromising Muslim Brotherhood ideology it espouses.

The West Bank, however, has lately been the scene of undeniably impressive developments. The new, highly professional Palestinian Authority security forces have restored order in formerly anarchic cities like Jenin and Nablus. The resulting calm has spurred a high level of investment and improved the quality of life for hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. It is almost impossible for those of us who saw firsthand the violence and chaos of the intifada that began in 2000 to quite believe the extent of positive change in the cities of the West Bank.

It is, in part, the high level of Palestinian security cooperation with Israel — involving intelligence sharing and on-the-ground measures — that has reduced violence so significantly. According to Israel’s internal security agency, the Shin Bet, 2010 was Israel’s most terror-free year in a decade. This has prompted Israel to remove many checkpoints from roads used by Palestinians, allowing for greater mobility, which also encourages economic growth. (The calm has also helped spur Israel’s economy to new heights.) Still, Israeli incursions into Palestinian Authority-controlled territory have been damaging to the authority, and should be carried out only for essential security reasons, not political ones.

The Palestinian Authority in the last three years has completed more than 1,700 community development programs across the West Bank, and built 120 schools, three hospitals and 50 health clinics. Prime Minister Fayyad has created what is probably the most transparent public finance system in the Arab world. The court system is being reformed (though it is still susceptible to corruption) and it has seen a jump in the number of criminal prosecutions. Around 1,000 miles of roads have been paved and 850 miles of water pipes have been installed. The Palestinians of the West Bank are finally beginning to build their state.

But this project is as fragile as it is vital for the international community, and especially for Israel. Its future as a Jewish democratic state depends on the creation of a peaceful, democratic and stable Palestinian state by its side.

There are a number of steps that Israel could take to help Palestinian moderates. They are, in the main, not overly onerous, and not irreversible should Israel’s security be newly threatened. But they could have a galvanizing effect on the attitudes of Palestinians who doubt the possibility of reaching a two-state solution.

Mr. Netanyahu, who acknowledges the effectiveness of the Palestinian security forces, could allow these forces to develop advanced counterterrorism capacities, which they do not now possess. This would carry some obvious risks, but also some obvious benefits: the sine qua non of governance is the provision of basic security, and meaningful security cooperation is the most powerful argument against the idea that an independent Palestinian state would be a threat to Israel.

Prime Minister Netanyahu could also cede control of more West Bank land to the Palestinian Authority. It is crucial that the Palestinian government be allowed to rule in areas that are generally understood to be part of the future Palestinian state.

And though Mr. Netanyahu’s interest in Palestinian economic development is commendable, the notion that “economic peace,” as he terms it, is a substitute for a comprehensive, negotiated agreement is wrongheaded. This is a political conflict, and a political conflict requires a political solution. The term “economic peace” also suggests to Palestinians that Israel is set on depriving them of their right to national self-determination, and has caused some Palestinians to misread the authority’s state-building program as an instrument of Israeli government manipulation and control.

Of course, no Palestinian state will emerge on a West Bank blanketed with settlements, and the future of the larger, more far-flung settlements must ultimately be decided by a negotiated agreement. However, a modified and limited, but very public and systematic, withdrawal of settlers from remote or particularly confrontational settlements, especially from the so-called outposts that even Israel considers illegal, would have a powerful effect on Palestinian perceptions about Israel’s long-term intentions.

WE do not expect Israel to unilaterally withdraw both its military and the settlers from the West Bank, particularly given the consequences of Ariel Sharon’s flawed unilateral disengagement from Gaza, which ultimately led to the rise of Hamas. No doubt Israeli troops will remain in control of settlements until there is a negotiated withdrawal, whether it occurs in one stroke or in stages. But we believe even a modest effort by Israel to reverse the pattern of settlement growth could strongly improve conditions for negotiations — and improve Israel’s sinking image.

It should also go without saying that the forced removal of Palestinians from their homes in East Jerusalem to make way for settlers simply cannot continue. Mr. Sharon’s Gaza plan was flawed, but the insight that brought it about (one shared by his successor, Ehud Olmert) was acute: Israel has no future as the occupier of Palestinians who don’t agree to be occupied. One hopes that Mr. Netanyahu shares that insight, although one must also recognize that politically he has every incentive to remain ambiguous.

There are important steps the Palestinians can take, as well, that would create a more positive atmosphere for negotiations. Last August, Prime Minister Fayyad pledged, in a widely broadcast speech, to use the West Bank’s public education system to combat religious and political fanaticism. And while many Hamas-influenced imams and schoolteachers in the West Bank have been removed from the state payroll, incitement and indoctrination continue. The Palestinian Authority should follow through on Mr. Fayyad’s promise, and the rest of the world should support this with as much financial and technical assistance as possible.

Things have been further complicated in recent weeks as several Latin American states have recognized the Palestinians and upgraded the diplomatic status of their missions. Many Israelis are discomfited by this. The P.L.O. should be as clear as possible that these efforts do not constitute an end-run around an American-brokered negotiated agreement, but are an adjunct to both negotiations and the state-building program.

The best Israeli response to these initiatives would be to institute confidence-building measures that demonstrate that the key to Palestinian independence does not lie with Chile and Bolivia, but with Israel and the United States. Palestinians understand, of course, that at the end of the day, their independence depends on one country, Israel, more than any other, since it is Israel that controls the land that would comprise their state.

THERE are, however, Palestinian initiatives that are completely counterproductive. Continued threats to unilaterally declare independence are pointless and provocative. Support for boycotts against all Israeli products and companies also serve only to convince Israel and its supporters that the Palestinians seek its elimination. Israel is a member of the United Nations and must not be delegitimized. It is understandable that Palestinians are supporting boycotts of products made in settlements, however, since the settlements are illegitimate and must not be legitimized.

There are two other steps that the Israelis and Palestinians could take that could reignite hope. The first would see the end of obfuscation about long-term intentions. Both sides need to emphasize their commitment to a genuine two-state solution with an independent, sovereign Palestine living alongside Israel in peace and security. Ambiguity on this point for cynical political purposes is destroying confidence on both sides in the capacity of the other to compromise. At least since the Camp David talks of 2000, both parties have argued one line in public and another behind closed doors, an unhappy tactic that has been underscored by Al Jazeera’s release of the alleged diplomatic documents.

Polls show that a majority of Israelis and Palestinians say they both want a two-state solution, but also say they believe the other side is lying. Peace will not come if politicians refuse to prepare their citizens for it through clear and consistent language. Officially produced Israeli and Palestinian advertisements and maps that depict Israel as Palestine and vice versa must also be put to an end.

The other step is even more difficult to achieve, because it requires the softening of hearts. In 1997, a Jordanian soldier murdered seven Israel schoolgirls who were on an outing on an island in the Jordan River. King Hussein of Jordan crossed the border and visited the families of the girls to apologize for their deaths. In Israeli eyes, this simple act of compassion transformed the king from an enemy into a hero.

Imagine, then, what would happen if Mahmoud Abbas were to visit Israel and tell Israelis he acknowledges that they have national and historical rights on the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, and that he understands their suffering. And imagine what would happen if Benjamin Netanyahu were to visit Ramallah, acknowledge Palestinian suffering and also Palestinian national and historical rights, particularly to a country of their own, on their native land.

Do you need Calcium and Vitamin D supplements at all ?

The new daily recommendations for calcium and vitamin D, issued in November by the Institute of Medicine, have left many people wondering whether they are getting enough, or perhaps too much, in their diets and supplements.

The institute’s expert committee, which included bone specialists, concluded that most people don’t need supplements of these critical nutrients and warned of serious health risks from the high doses some now take — including kidney stones and heart disease linked to calcium supplements, and the very falls and fractures that vitamin D is meant to protect against.

For bone health, vitamin D and calcium go hand in hand, because the vitamin must be present for calcium to be absorbed from the digestive tract. But who, if anyone, needs supplements — and how much? Can you get enough from foods naturally rich in these nutrients or fortified with them?

These are important questions, given the steady increase in life expectancy and the already epidemic levels of osteoporosis and fractures among older people, men and women alike.(Women are especially vulnerable, because estrogen loss at menopause can cause a precipitous decline in bone density.)

The answers depend on three things, not to mention which experts you happen to ask: the foods and drinks you regularly consume, your personal and family history of broken bones, and habits that influence bone health.

What you eat and drink, from childhood on, is critical to the amount of calcium in your bones. Dairy foods, especially milk, yogurt and cheese, are the primary sources of calcium in the diet, and consumption of milk has been falling steadily for decades, especially in adolescence, when most bone development occurs. A British study concluded that frequent milk consumption before age 25 was an important determinant of bone strength among middle-aged and elderly women.

Other foods are not nearly as rich in absorbable calcium, or the amounts normally eaten do not come close to the calcium content of dairy products: 300 milligrams in a glass of milk, 400 milligrams in 250 grams of yogurt.

Almonds are a fair source if you eat enough of them. And calcium-fortified foods like orange juice, soy milk, breakfast cereals and tofu are now widely available.

But some other desirable foods are problematic, at least when it comes to calcium: you’d have to eat so much broccoli to approach the level in milk that it could be toxic to your thyroid gland. Other vegetables with calcium, like spinach, collards, kale and beans, contain oxalates that block calcium absorption.

For daily calcium intake, the institute now recommends 1,000 milligrams for children 4 to 8, women and men 19 to 50, and men 51 to 70; 1,300 milligrams for children 9 to 18; and 1,200 milligrams for women 51 and older and men 71 and older. The upper limit of safety, the institute said, is 2,000 milligrams a day for men and women over 51.

Thus, if you are a postmenopausal woman who typically consumes only one or two servings a day of dairy, you may be hard put to get 1,200 milligrams of calcium from the rest of your diet unless you take a supplement - a supplement of calcium carbonate (600 milligrams a day) or calcium citrate (500 milligrams a day).

Be sure to read the product label carefully — a usual “dose” is two tablets. Calcium carbonate should be taken with meals to assure absorption, but calcium citrate can be taken at any time and may cause fewer digestive problems.

Most calcium supplements now also contain vitamin D (usually as cholecalciferol, or D3), supplying about 250 to 300 international units in two tablets. The Institute of Medicine recommends 600 units a day for everyone from age 1 to 70 and 800 units for men and women 71 and older, with a safe upper limit for everyone over the age of 9 of 4,000 units.

Vitamin D has one advantage over calcium: It is fat-soluble and can be stored in the body for later use. But getting enough of it can be tricky.

The body gets most of its vitamin D not from diet but from skin exposed to the ultraviolet B radiation in sunlight. Unprotected skin on the arms and legs may need about 15 minutes of sun exposure a day in spring, summer and winter to make enough of the vitamin.

Alas, this production is effectively blocked if you follow current advice to prevent skin cancer and wrinkles by always covering up or using ample amounts of sunscreen. Used properly, sunscreens with an SPF of 8 or higher completely block UVB radiation and prevent synthesis of vitamin D.

Also, people who are dark-skinned or housebound may fail to make enough vitamin D. And as people age, their bodies are less able to convert the vitamin into the hormone that is its biologically active form.

Milk is fortified with vitamin D at a level of 400 units per quart, and some yogurts have it as well. Many breakfast cereals are also now fortified. The only naturally rich dietary sources are oily fish from the sea like salmon and mackerel, egg yolks, liver and fish liver oil.

An increasing number of physicians now routinely test vitamin D levels in the blood of their female patients, and if it is below 30 nanograms per milliliter, will suggest they take a supplement. The Institute of Medicine maintains that a level of 20 nanograms is adequate, but other experts say it should be higher to assure maximum calcium absorption and bone health.

In any event, unless you are a year-round sun worshiper, a daily supplement of calcium with D, or even a separate supplement of 1,000 units of D, is likely to keep you well below the institute’s upper safe limit. Based on current evidence, unless you have a severe deficiency requiring temporary megadoses to correct, there is no reason to go any higher.

At the same time, you’d be wise to get sufficient weight-bearing exercise and avoid several bone-robbing habits: smoking; eating a lot of salty foods; drinking more than two alcoholic drinks a day; consuming more than the caffeine equivalent of two cups of coffee a day (about 300 milligrams); and eating too little protein.

The Parsifal Mosaic

My current read. Its considered to be one of the top three by Robert Ludlum. I got hooked to Ludlum's work after watching the Bourne movies. And there was just no turning back! Trust me.

Video of Deadly Centipade

This is a video shot a while back using my L 700. It features a deadly centipade in our washbasin (yes, washbasin!) even though we are on the top-most floor of a pretty modern highrise! :-(

Barite Biche!

Bojho thela!

A Rose is a...

From our little "garden"!

Floral Upload

Our floral tribute to our neighbour's 25th wedding anniversary!

Vintage Stuff

Amar Bodo Masi r biye r somoy kar!