- This is just confusing. Is using a cell phone good for your health or bad for your health? We already know that cell phones are idiot magnifiers that take the true morons of society and magnify their idiocy for all to see. But the rumors that heavy cell phone use ultimately leads to cancer and/or brain damage have been circulating for years. Now…..science is telling us something else entirely. Researchers now say that talking on your cell phone for less than an hour can increase brain activity in the area closest to the phone antenna.“The dramatic worldwide increase in use of cellular telephones has prompted concerns regarding potential harmful effects of exposure to radio frequency-modulated electromagnetic fields,” the study’s authors wrote in a prepared statement. Dr. Nora D. Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and her team conducted the study in order to determine several issues related to cell phone usage and health. Ultimately, they concluded…….not to conclude much of anything. “Whether cell phone radiation actually causes brain tumors is an issue that remains unresolved,” the statement continues. “Although we cannot determine the clinical significance, our results give evidence that the human brain is sensitive to the effects of radio frequency-electromagnetic fields from acute cell phone exposures,” Volkow said. Undoubtedly, the findings of this study - whatever they actually are - will stoke the flames of the years-long controversy over the health effects of cell phone use. Perhaps the most definitive stance taken by the study’s authors is, shocker of all shockers, that we need further studies to determine whether the increased brain activity by cell phones has any other health effects. When they actually got down to work on this project, researchers tested 47 participants between Jan. 1 and Dec. 31 of 2009. They placed cell phones on each ear but did not tell participants whether the phones were turned on or not. On some occasions, the cell phones were off. On another occasion, the phones were muted but would receive calls and texts. This went on for 50 excruciating minutes, after which each person was given a PET scan to measure their brain activity. The results of those scans showed that when the phones were turned on, there were significant increases in the brain glucose metabolism closest to the phone antenna. “The linear association between cell phone-related increases in metabolism and electric field strength suggests that the metabolic increases are secondary to the absorption of RF-EMF from cell phone exposures,” Volkow explained. “Further studies are needed to assess if the effects we observed could have potential long-term consequences.” To dig further into this successful attempt to muddy the waters on an already unclear issue, check out the study in print in the latest issue of the Journal of American Medical Association, released to an anxiously awaiting public on Wednesday…………
- Well, well. It only took three weeks or so, but someone has finally stepped up and taken blame for the Super Bowl seating fiasco at Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Tex. The NFL sold some 1,250 tickets that it didn’t have seats to go with, then inexplicably allowed those fans to show up for the game knowing it had nowhere to put them, then crammed them into makeshift holding areas outside the stadium before finding seats for 850 of them but forcing the other 400 fans to watch the game from standing-room-only locations around the stadium. The league began throwing compensation offers against the all immediately after the incident to see what stuck. First, the fans were offered triple the face value of their tickets and given free food and merchandise at the game. Next, the league upgraded that offer to the cash, perks and tickets to next year’s Super Bowl. That offer was amended to include an option of $5,000 cash or trip expenses, whichever was greater, and a ticket to next year’s Super Bowl in Indianapolis or a ticket to a future Super Bowl of each fan’s choosing, complete with travel expenses and lodging. Yet no one from the NFL has stepped up and directly admitted responsibility for the f*ck up thus far. Instead, Dallas Cowboys owner/general manager Jerry Jones is the first to somewhat own the blame and do so for both he and the league. "I do, along with the NFL, take responsibility for the seating issue and some of the things that we would like to improve on regarding the seating issues," Jones said. "The informing of the fans that were involved, the NFL and I take responsibility for. You always like to look at areas you can do better, get better. We certainly intend to and will get much better in terms of the seating and how that is handled." Probably something you should have figured out in the years you had to plan the event, J. But then again, the city of Dallas didn’t do any better in handling the winter weather that blew into town during the week leading up to the Super Bowl. Four words best sum up that debacle: sand to melt snow? Yes, the city tried to use sand to melt snow and ice from the roads because it didn’t have the stuff that actually works for that sort of thing, salt. As for the seating issue, a company called Seating Solutions failed to have the temporary seats in place before kickoff. When it became clear they could not get the job done, another company was asked to complete the job and also could not get the seats installed in time. The league normally takes complete control of stadium preparations prior to a Super Bowl, but that step in the process was delayed this time for reasons that remain unclear. "One thing I would point out is that our stadium is certainly, the concept of the stadium, it was designed for the flexibility of temporary seating," Jones said. "You can note those, but we have had several world-class events that were very much enhanced by the way our stadium is designed to increase our capacity by our temporary seating. So that is not at issue as much as it is evaluating what we did to create the criticism, to create the issue, and to do better in the future." Umm, sure. Just know that the two lawsuits this mess has precipitated aren’t going away and neither is the perception that Dallas simply was not ready to handle an event of this magnitude………
- Warning! Warning! Kanye West’s music videos may be hazardous to your health - literally. West was already taking heat for allegedly ripping off the animated intro to his new video "All of the Lights," but he may have bigger problems on its hands if claims from a U.K.-based group called Epilepsy Action are true. The group sent West’s music video to be analyzed by Cambridge Research Systems, which analyzed the video using the "HardingFPA" machine. After breaking down the video, CRS found that the rate at which the lights flash in the video could trigger seizures. That led Epilepsy Action to condemn the "All of the Lights" video. "This machine looks at whether video footage is likely to cause seizures," Epilepsy Action said in a statement. "We have today had confirmation that it contains material that may cause seizures in some people with photosensitive epilepsy." Lest you characterize this as a bunch of radical, mentally unstable kooks just looking for their 15 minutes, know that - according to Epilepsy Action representatives - the video has been pulled from YouTube.com and will be banned from television, at least in the United Kingdom. "Ofcom regulations mean that this video should not be broadcast on UK television," Epilepsy Action cautioned. "However, it is available online in a number of places. We are in the process of trying to contact Kanye West’s agent, YouTube and other online sources of the video to ask that they take it down. We have also contacted MTV and other TV stations to make them aware of the issue." On the one hand, you would think that having one of his music videos banned would infuriate a pompous blowhard like Kanye West, a man who once self-glossed himself “the voice of this generation.” But on the other hand, anything that brings him more attention and strokes his ego is more than likely something West enjoys…………
- Riot Watch! Riot Watch! All riots are great, but one that takes place on a day when Baghdad is “locked down” by the government is great and then some. Instead of meekly accepting the lockdown, thousands of angry Iraqis took to the street in a "day of rage." If the idea of a day of rage doesn’t bring a tear to your eye…..I don’t think you have a soul. Best of all, the riots were not limited to Baghdad. They rocked other Iraqi cities as well, as demonstrators burned or tried to storm government buildings from the southern port of Basra to the northern cities of Mosul and Huwaijah. Yes, the protests in the south did lead to five protesters being shot to death by security forces, but that is one of the inevitable side effects of any great riot. You can't blame Iraqis for their angry uprising, not after a pathetic half-hour’s warning that, starting at midnight, vehicles would be banned from the roads until further notice. That feeble attempt to stave off demonstrations only provoked them and led demonstrators to walked for hours to reach Tahrir (Liberation) Square. Police estimated the gathered in the square at 4,000 people, which means it was probably closer to 10,000. So why the riot? Because even though the United States came in, started a war that never should have happened and did so based on fabricated intelligence, then kept the war going for years and years and all but refused to leave and allow Iraqis to run their own country, most Iraqis say their lives are just as difficult today as they were under Saddam Hussein. That can definitely inspire a riot and a riot large enough to shut down Baghdad’s international airport, and cause officials to seal off the fortress-like green zone, a mini-city housing the Iraqi government and the U.S. embassy. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki tried to use scare tactics to prevent the protests, claiming they would be infiltrated by Saddam Hussein loyalists and targeted by Al Qaeda suicide bombers. The main elements missing from the riot in Baghdad were bombs and shootings, but Jumhuriya Bridge, the main access point to the green zone, did turn into something a battleground in Friday’s demonstration when protestors tried to breach newly installed concrete barriers. Many protestors lamented a lack of jobs and public services and of the perception that corrupt officials are hoarding the nation’s wealth for themselves. A small group broke off from the protest at the bridge and began hurling hurl stones, sticks, and even shoes at riot police stationed in front of the blast barriers near the foot of the bridge. That led to a near stampede with people almost crushed against the walls as the police surged forward, looking to pummel the protestors with their batons. But hey, big ups to security forces for apparently adhering to orders not to use live fire or rubber bullets to subdue the crowd. “If this were in Saddam’s time, every one of those demonstrators would have been shot dead,” says a police spokesman. Ah, the bad old days…………
- Google is not making many new friends this week. The Web search giant made one of the biggest changes ever to its search results this week, resulting in an immediate and noticeable effect on many Web properties that rely on the world's most popular search engine to drive traffic to their sites. The basic idea is filtering out spam generated by content farms, preventing such drivel from appearing at the top of Google's search rankings. While the changes will affect only 12 percent of Google's results, according to an official company blog entry posted late Thursday, the outrage over the change has been swift and loud. "Our goal is simple: to give users the most relevant answers to their queries as quickly as possible," said Gabriel Stricker, Google spokesman. "This requires constant tuning of our algorithms, as new content -- both good and bad -- comes online all the time. Recently we've heard from our users that they want to see fewer low quality sites in our results." This is not the first time Google has tweaked its search algorithm, but the changes generally go unnoticed. Tech experts say the IP address 64.233.179.104 displays Google search results as they would have appeared before the recent algorithm change, should you want to do a firsthand comparison. Google refused to confirm that IP address uses the older algorithm. Content farms are predictably upset by the changes but in the end, it’s something of a zero-sum game. The search results will ultimately turn up X number of entries, it’s simply a matter of which ones are ranked highest. Various tech Web sites quickly filled up with posts from site operators complaining that traffic to their sites dropped immediately after Google’s change and the common theme seemed to be “YOU'RE KILLING OUR BUSINESSES!" In truth, that’s been Google’s M.O. for a few weeks now, as the company recently penalized Overstock.com and JC Penney in its search results after the companies were found to have set up fake websites that linked to their own, causing Google's algorithm to rank them higher. But to listen to Google, all of the complaining could be much ado about nothing. "As might be expected, a content library as diverse as ours saw some content go up and some go down in Google search results," Larry Fitzgibbon, the company's executive vice president of media and operations, wrote in a blog post. "It's impossible to speculate how these or any changes made by Google impact any online business in the long term -- but at this point in time, we haven't seen a material net impact." In other words, quit whining……….
No comments:
Post a Comment