Page 4-Saturday, June 21, 1980-The Michigan Dai
Q: What are some of the minor and more serious
side effects of caffeine use?
A: As was discussed last week, caffeine is a cen-
tral nervous system stimulant. It decreases fatigue,
and drowsiness, and heightens sensory awareness. It
also noticeably speeds up motor activity-typists
have been found to work faster with fewer errors if
they have ingested caffeine.
However, if you are particularly sensitive to the ef-
fects of caffeine, or ingest a lot at one time (i.e., more
than 250 mg.), you are likely to experience some
minor side effects. However, sensitivity to caffeine
varies widely-some people can drink several cups of
coffee with few side effects, while others may be so
sensitive that even a single cup proves unpleasant. It
is easy to consume more than you anticipated
because the effects are not noticed until 30 to 60
minutes after ingestion; by that time you may have
drunk quite a few cups. Also, because caffeine is
metabolized at a slow rate-about 15 per cent per
hour-the effects may linger much longer than you
hoped.
Some of the minor side effects of caffeine are in-
somia, restlessness, irritability, nervousness,
tremor, headaches, and extra heartbeats. Continuity
of thought may be interrupted and your , attention
span may be shortened. Contrary to popular opinion,
drinking coffee will not counteract the effects of
alcohol or make one sober.
More serious effects can occur as well. People who
mcp a int of Caffeine nmera enno nerind of time may
Caffeine can
.have serious
side effects
encounter problems that are disconcerting enough to
bring them in to the physician's office. Many times,
they are not aware that their symptoms are
associated with the overuse of this drug.
Too much caffeine may lead to sleep deprivation
Health Service
handbook-
and a tendency to disregard the normal warning
signals that the body is tired and needs rest. Caffeine
does not replenish energy or prevent emotional
fatigue; food and sleep are the only remedies for
these. When normal sleeping patterns are continually
disrupted, mood depression may occur.
Caffeine increases the production of adrenaline, a
hormone that is releasead when a person is under
various types of stress. An excess of adrenaline
causes the unpleasant feelings related to anxiety,
such as excessive nervousness, sweating, and
tremulousness.
Gastrointestinal problems may occur. Stomach
irritation has been found to be associated with certain
oil, rather than the actual caffeine, in coffee-this is.
why stomach irritation can occur even with decaf-
feinated coffee. Large amounts of caffeine can also
cause diarrhea; tannin in tea counteracts this, so this
constipation is a more likely result of tea drinkers.
Because caffeine stimulates the heart muscle,
irregularities of of the heartbeat may result. Also, in
some studies in association has been found between
excessive caffeine consumption and an increase in
cardiovascular disease, but this remains controver-
sial.
Individuals may develop a dependence on caffeine.
Withdrawal for those persons who usually drink five or
more cups per day may cause headaches, irritability,
and nervousness which are, understandably, relieved
by drinking a cup of coffee.
Some coffee drinkers feel that they Adevelop
tolerance to caffeine-that is, more and more caf-
feine is needed to produce the same stimulant effects.
Health Service Handbook will answer a variety
of health-related questions each week on this
page. Questions should be addressed to Gail
Ryan, University Health Service, 207 Fletcher
A ve.
~1
Ramsey Clark's Iran
visit right on target
Ninet Years of Editorial Freedom
Edited and managed by students
at the University of Michigan
Revolt ievitable
in South Africa
T HE BLOODSHED has temporarily halted in
South Africa. But the white Afrikaners-and
the rest of the world-can be sure that there will be
much more blood spilled before the eventual calm
of equality can spread through the troubled coun-
try.
The latest clashes in South Africa left at least 30
dead and nearly 2.00 injured. Blacks and those of
mixed race who demonstrated against the coun-
try's intolerable system of apartheid were gunned
down mercilessly by police.
Rational thinkers wish there were some way to
stop apartheid peacefully. It seems particularly
tragic that such a ruthless practice of racial
repression can be destroyed only by guerille war-
fare and ultimate bloody revolution.
And yet, what other way is there to end the
legalized racial discrimination? South African
Prime Minister P. W. Botha's so-called "reforms"
have been totally worthless measures aimed at ap-
peasing angry foreign sentiment. His reforms have
done very little for the black majority that still
faces such repression that few are able to earn in-
comes above the poverty level.
The white minority, however, lives in plush
surroundings, has fine educational systems, and
enjoys the benefits of this rich country to the
fullest.
America must voice its strongest disapproval of
South Africa's racist regime. Our corporations
should be urged to get out of the country and no
longer lend their support to the apartheid system.
When the revolution comes, as it inevitably will,
South African blacks should be well aware of exac-
tly which side ourcountry supports.,
The Daily's editorial of June 4,
entitled "(Ramsey) Clark should
have stayed at home" was an
embarrassment to the once-
liberal reputation of this
newspaper. The editorial advan-
ced the tired "national unity"
argument (among others, even
more inane) with the following:
"When dealing with an erratic,
schizophrenic country such as
Iran it is especially important
that the U.S. present a mature
and stable front."
THE MEDIA and public both
have been cowed by President
Carter's rhetoric, as demon-
strated by all sorts of recent
events: An Irgiian-American
hightschool student in Virginia
was denied the right to address
her graduating class (she was the
valedictorian), Americans'
quiet submission to Carter's
travel ban. Where does the Con-
stitution grant the president the
right to limit travel to foreign
countries?
The distressing thing about the
former attorney general's Iran
visit is not the visit itself; it is
that Clark's statements in Iran
were totally reasonable, not
treasonous by any stretch of the
imagination, and that their
veracity has been overlooked
domestically. Clark's message
was quite simple: He accepted
American responsibility for
much of the suffering visited
upon Iran over the course of the
last three decades. Clark, quite
simply, is right. The United
States was responsible for the
Shah's accession to the Iranian
throne. When Pahlavi was ousted
by his own countrymen, the
United States "intelligence" ser-
vices again helped him out, with
the same result.
American rationale, then and
now,is that the- hah's leadership,
Bye
was the
native t
vasioni
Soviet U
that pre
siderabli
se could
Kremlin
among tl
the worl
regard e
liberty.
THAT
situation
denying
diplomat
an indis
nations:
Joshua Peck the blame for the spilt Iranian
blood or even to assist the Shah's
only available alter- victims in seeking redress of
o the possibility of in- grievances. Who has been done
or subversion by the the greater wrong in this
'no.Bteven accepting situation-the 50 American
nion. Hut erpeing diplomats being held in Tehran,
edoubt-how much wor- or the millions of powerless
life have been under Iranians held hostage to
rule? The Shah was American avarice in the past,
he most ruthless leaders and to American beligerance
d has seen, with small now?
either for human life or Ramsey Clark's "crime," it
seems, was posing as a represen-
tative of the. American gover-
nment. But he did nothing of the
THE current hostage sort: Every proclamation he
is intolerable no one is made in Iran, in fact, made even
-the principle of clearer the fact that he divorced
tic immunity is clearly himself from American policy,
pensable tool indinter- both past and present. The
i relations, and the Iranian officials, rhetoric aside,
were certainly aware that Clark
was there withoutwthe approval or
permission of the president.
It has long been the pastime
and the privilege of Americans to
criticize their government. Does
the right to do so vanish when one
sets foot on a foreign shore? What
kind of freedom is that?
Clark's actions are not popular
domestically, but neither does he
stand alone. Any literate who
cares to discover the truth can
find plenty of corroboration of
Clark's statements.
Even is Clark were mistaken,
Clarkand even his trip did nothing to
Clark effect the release of the hostages,
... trip justified it would be unacceptable for the
Justice Department to punish
are to be condemned for him. For even as a man has the
that principle. But the right to spout communism,
evances of the militants capitalism,aJudaism, or Hin-
ie new Moslem rgm duism, he has the right, too, to
rstandable and justified. make a mistake.
firstndtalled a monar- Clark, though, was right on
ithe reatma rit of target.
militants
violating
basic grii
and of ti
are undei
The U.S.
eh whnm
11WVIILM g 61U IId~Iy U
the people came to hate, then
kept him there. And now, our so-
called protector of democracy
refuses either toaccept publicly
Joshua Peck is the Daily's fall
coeditorial director.