Recently, someone I know called me up complaining of excruciating pain in their toe.  It hurt so much he couldn't even wear socks.  Instantly I suspected a case of the gout.  I also knew he had just been to a wedding and no doubt had taken advantage of the open bar.
I told him the standard protocol with gout is to avoid alcohol and meat.  I think he would have rather cut the toe off.  The next question was, "Is coffee ok?"  I don't what he would have done if I had said "no" but thankfully the answer was "yes."
In fact, coffee consumption has been shown to be beneficial in preventing gout. In a study of over 14,000 men, Dr. Choi and colleagues, at the Arthritis Research Centre of Canada, found that increasing coffee intake was associated with decreased incidence of gout.  Drinking one cup of coffee reduces the risk of gout by almost 10% and risk reduction increases with more coffee. Drinking 6 or more cups a day can reduce the risk of gout by as much as 60%.  Now, if you don't want to be caffeinated to the brim, they also found that decaf works about the same.  In fact, the caffeine was found to have no effect on gout.

citation link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17530645

There is a stereotype that as people age their mental or cognitive status begins to decline.  The fact is that sixteen percent of those over 70 years of age have mild cognitive impairment.  One factor that seems to be associated with cognitive impairment as we age is an accelerated rate of brain atrophy.  The brain literally begins to shrink.  High blood levels of homocysteine, an amino acid often associated with an increased risk of heart disease, has also been shown to be a risk factor for brain atrophy, cognitive impairment, and dementia.
B-vitamins, specifically, B12, B6 and folic acid have the ability to recycle homocysteine and decrease blood levels of the amino acid.  Scientists at the University of Oxford have used MRI scans to show the ability of these B-vitamins to slow the rate of atrophy.  By supplementing B6, B12, and folic acid participants were able to lower blood homocysteine levels and showed a decreased rate of brain atrophy.

citation link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20838622 

There has been a recent increase in concern over the effects of wireless internet signals (WiFi) in schools and how they are affecting children's health.  As more schools add WiFi into their environment it seems that more parents are noticing otherwise unexplainable symptoms in their children.  These symptoms range from headache, dizziness, nausea, heart palipitations and trouble with concentration and memory.
Health Canada's response was to simply assure parents that the levels of exposure to electormagnetism are safe.  However, European nations, such as Germany, England, and France have come to different conclusions which have lead to the banning of WiFi in some schools.
Here is a statement from the Hearing of the Committee for Environment and Consumer Protection of the Bavarian Landtag on the theme “Effect of mobile telecommunications on the human sensitivity” on the 7th December 2006:

 "The German Federal Ministry for Radiation Protection recommends wired cable alternatives are to be preferred to the WLAN system. Also the question about the age-dependent energy absorption and energy distribution has not yet been satisfactorily answered. This statement led the Bavarian Landtag to issue a recommendation to schools in which the schools are called upon to avoid WLAN, if possible.
 Professor Lawrie Challis, leader of the British research programme on mobile telecommunication and health comes to a similar recommendation, according to a report in FOXNews from the 4th May 2007. He stated there that children should maintain a safe distance from the built-in antennas in WiFi-active (Wireless Fidelity) Laptops until further research has been carried out.

These recommendations are from 2006 and 2007!

This whole debate reminds me of the peanut-allergy concern, which, for some reason, saw parents going to court in order to provide peanut-free cafeterias so their children wouldn't be at risk of dying (Apparently, some people felt a ban on peanuts was a violation of their rights).  Sure no-one is going to instantaneously start to swell up and keel over from WiFi but is it really necessary to provide kids with access to Facebook in every corner of their school at the expense of another's comfort and health. These sorts of concerns shouldn't have to be fought in the court: this is a community and social responsibility.