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.