AUGUSTA, Maine — A Maine legislator wants to make the state the first to require cell phones to carry warnings that they can cause brain cancer, although there is no consensus among scientists that they do and industry leaders dispute the claim.
The now-ubiquitous devices carry such warnings in some countries, though no U.S. states require them, according to the National Conference of State Legislators. A similar effort is afoot in San Francisco, where Mayor Gavin Newsom wants his city to be the nation's first to require the warnings.
Maine Rep. Andrea Boland, D-Sanford, said numerous studies point to the cancer risk, and she has persuaded legislative leaders to allow her proposal to come up for discussion during the 2010 session that begins in January, a session usually reserved for emergency and governors' bills.
Boland herself uses a cell phone, but with a speaker to keep the phone away from her head. She also leaves the phone off unless she's expecting a call. At issue is radiation emitted by all cell phones.
Under Boland's bill, manufacturers would have to put labels on phones and packaging warning of the potential for brain cancer associated with electromagnetic radiation. The warnings would recommend that users, especially children and pregnant women, keep the devices away from their head and body.
The Federal Communications Commission, which maintains that all cell phones sold in the U.S. are safe, has set a standard for the "specific absorption rate" of radiofrequency energy, but it doesn't require handset makers to divulge radiation levels.
The San Francisco proposal would require the display of the absorption rate level next to each phone in print at least as big as the price. Boland's bill is not specific about absorption rate levels, but would require a permanent, nonremovable advisory of risk in black type, except for the word "warning," which would be large and in red letters. It would also include a color graphic of a child's brain next to the warning.
While there's little agreement about the health hazards, Boland said Maine's roughly 950,000 cell phone users among its 1.3 million residents "do not know what the risks are."
All told, more than 270 million people subscribed to cellular telephone service last year in the United States, an increase from 110 million in 2000, according to CTIA-The Wireless Association. The industry group contends the devices are safe.
"With respect to the matter of health effects associated with wireless base stations and the use of wireless devices, CTIA and the wireless industry have always been guided by science, and the views of impartial health organizations. The peer-reviewed scientific evidence has overwhelmingly indicated that wireless devices do not pose a public health risk," said CTIA's John Walls.
James Keller of Lewiston, whose cell phone serves as his only phone, seemed skeptical about warning labels. He said many things may cause cancer but lack scientific evidence to support that belief. Besides, he said, people can't live without cell phones.
"It seems a little silly to me, but it's not going to hurt anyone to have a warning on there. If they're really concerned about it, go ahead and put a warning on it," he said outside a sporting good store in Topsham. "It wouldn't deter me from buying a phone."
While there's been no long-term studies on cell phones and cancer, some scientists suggest erring on the side of caution.
Last year, Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, director emeritus of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, sent a memo to about 3,000 faculty and staff members warning of risks based on early, unpublished data. He said that children should use the phones only for emergencies because their brains were still developing and that adults should keep the phone away from the head and use a speakerphone or a wireless headset.
Herberman, who says scientific conclusions often take too long, is one of numerous doctors and researchers who have endorsed an August report by retired electronics engineer L. Lloyd Morgan. The report highlights a study that found significantly increased risk of brain tumors from 10 or more years of cell phone or cordless phone use.
Also, the BioInitiative Working Group, an international group of scientists, notes that many countries have issued warnings and that the European Parliament has passed a resolution calling for governmental action to address concerns over health risks from mobile phone use.
But the National Cancer Institute said studies thus far have turned up mixed and inconsistent results, noting that cell phones did not come into widespread use in the United States until the 1990s.
"Although research has not consistently demonstrated a link between cellular telephone use and cancer, scientists still caution that further surveillance is needed before conclusions can be drawn," according to the Cancer Institute's Web site.
Motorola Inc., one of the nation's major wireless phone makers, says on its Web site that all of its products comply with international safety guidelines for radiofrequency energy exposure.
Plastic bottles give you cancer, snack food gives you cancer, and now phones give you cancer. By the time we're 40 we'll all just be big walking balls of cancer.
Ha. Yeah, I kind of always figured talking on a cell phone would cause brain cancer. I'll be one of the first ones to get it... before Eric and I broke up, we would talk on the phone just about every night for like 2 hours, sometimes more. I'd sit with the cell phone lying on my head, and sometimes I would balance the phone beneath my head if I were lying down. So that's like... nearly 5 years of daily cell phone usage?
And before him I'd talk to probably about 3 friends a night on the phone, for about the same amount of time total. Before my cell phone I would use the house phone. What can I say? I really like talking to people. On the phone. And on the internet!
Which begs the question, how long will it be before laptops cause cancer? I know some desktops can cause skin cancer (lame), but I'm not aware of any other computer carcinogens.
This is pretty funny. The other day Republican senator Tom Colborn of Oklahoma urged all Americans to pray that at least one Democrat senator would miss the health care vote (Democrats have exactly 60 members in the Senate, and a vote cannot be fillibustered by opposing members if there is a 60 vote majority). Someone did miss the vote, but it was the other Republican senator from Oklahoma. Oops.
Just before the Senate vote on the first of three procedural motions to move its health care reform bill toward final passage, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) appeared to urge Americans to pray that a member of the majority caucus would not show up to vote, thus leaving the Democrats one vote shy of breaking the GOP filibuster:
COBURN: What the American people ought to pray is that somebody can’t make the vote tonight. That’s what they ought to pray.
As it turned out however, all 100 U.S. senators voted on the measure, which passed on a party-line 60-40 vote. This morning, the Senate health care reform bill jumped the second procedural hurdle, with all 60 senators in the Democratic caucus voting to pass the measure. However, only 39 Republicans voted against passage. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) was the Republican who missed the vote.
On C-Span this morning, a caller wondered if perhaps Coburn’s prayer request had “backfire[ed]” against his own party:
CALLER: Yeah doctor. Our small tea bag group here in Waycross, we got our vigil together and took Dr. Coburn’s instructions and prayed real hard that Sen. Byrd would either die or couldn’t show up at the vote the other night.
How hard did you pray because I see one of our members was missing this morning. Did it backfire on us? One of our members died? How hard did you pray senator? Did you pray hard enough?
While Barrasso didn’t answer the question directly, he said he didn’t know why Inhofe missed the vote. Both Coburn and Inhofe’s offices did not respond to inquiries from ThinkProgress for comment. Watch it:
When Coburn asked Americans to pray that a Senator miss these crucial health care votes, he never specified Republican or Democrat.
Except for the part about people praying that someone who didn't agree with their beliefs would die. That's a little bit scary, but mostly it's pathetic.
A priest from North Yorkshire has advised his congregation to shoplift if they find themselves in hard times.
The Reverend Tim Jones, the parish priest of St Lawrence and St Hilda in York, said people should steal from big chains rather than small businesses.
He said society's attitude to those in need "leaves some people little option but crime".
However the Archdeacon of York said: "The Church of England does not advise anyone to shoplift".
North Yorkshire Police described the sermon as "highly irresponsible".
'Catastrophic folly'
A force spokesman said despite people getting in difficult situations "shoplifting or committing other crimes should never be the solution".
"To do this would make the downward spiral even more rapid, both on an individual basis and on society as a whole," he said.
Speaking to his congregation on Sunday, Father Jones said: "My advice, as a Christian priest, is to shoplift.
"I do not offer such advice because I think that stealing is a good thing, or because I think it is harmless, for it is neither.
"I would ask that they do not steal from small, family businesses, but from national businesses, knowing that the costs are ultimately passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher prices.
"When people are released from prison, or find themselves suddenly without work or family support, then to leave them for weeks and weeks with inadequate or clumsy social support is monumental, catastrophic folly.
"We create a situation which leaves some people little option but crime."
'Important issues'
Speaking later on BBC Radio York, Father Jones said his intention had not been to rally people to shoplifting, but to encourage people to give more to charity to avoid those in need from becoming so desperate.
"If one has exhausted every legal opportunity to get money and you're still in a desperate situation it is a better moral thing to do to take absolutely no more than you need for no longer than you need," he said.
However the Archdeacon of York, the Venerable Richard Seed, said: "Father Tim Jones is raising important issues about the difficulties people face when benefits are not forthcoming, but shoplifting is not the way to overcome these difficulties."
Father Jones made the news in May 2008 when he made a protest about Playboy branded stationery being aimed at children. He went into a local stationers and threw the Playboy merchandise on the floor.
Notice when you start typing in the Google search field that it shows recommendations below the field? The recommendations are based on popular searches and a rather nifty algorithm that tries to determine what it is you are searching for.
But Google is intentionally blocking these recommendations for “Islam is…”
Try it for yourself. First, establish exactly what Google should be doing.
In the search field type “Christianity is” and you will see recommendations of “bullsh*t, not a religion, a lie, false, a cult, wrong, fake, dying, Jewish, and not a religion t-shirt.”
In the search field type “Hinduism is” and you will see recommendations of “monotheistic, false, polytheistic, the majority religion of, the oldest religion, not a religion, fake, most commonly found, characterized by, and wrong.”
In the search field type “Buddhism is” and you will see recommendations of “not a religion, wrong, not what you think, bullsh*t, polytheistic, a religion, false, based on what concepts, the best religion, and atheism.”
In the search field type “Judaism is” and you will see recommendations of “false, not a race, not a religion, a race, a religion of the book, not Jewish, a gutter religion, monotheistic, a cult, and a religion.”
Try typing “Atheism is” and you will see recommendations of “a religion, dead, not a religion, wrong, the new fundamentalism, growing, a non-prophet organization, so senseless, illogical, a religion supreme court.” Clearly they are not holding back on the Atheists.
Now, let’s try Islam. Type in “Islam is” and you will see…
Absolutely nothing. That’s correct. Google makes no recommendations based on searches of “Islam Is.”
Why is Google blocking search recommendations for “Islam is?”
Oddly enough, the two other religions I found that did not have recommendations were Asatru and Jainism. That may be because of their obscurity (after all, it’s been a while since Pascal tried to convert his friends to Jainism with his Wager). Obscurity or lack of searches does not explain why “Islam is” does not break down on Google.
So why is Google blocking the search recommendations? Are they afraid of offending Muslims who will likely retaliate against Google? Or is it as one person suggested on Facebook, an attempt by Google to simply ignore Islam?
Thanks to Alex Wilhelm at The Next Web for making this public and everyone at Atheism @ sub-Reddit for identifying the issue in the first place.
Try typing “Atheism is” and you will see recommendations of “a religion, dead, not a religion, wrong, the new fundamentalism, growing, a non-prophet organization, so senseless, illogical, a religion supreme court.” Clearly they are not holding back on the Atheists.
He thinks it's the atheists they're not holding back on? I think the suggestions for everything but Hinduism were harsher than the atheist one.
They make some weird assumptions in that article. First, maybe they're not blocking it at all, maybe people just aren't searching for that phrase, or maybe the algorithm simply doesn't get recommendation results for that phrase. It's stretching it, but it's possible. Second, he assumes that if Google is blocking it they are doing so for malicious reasons (I know he didn't really make that assertion, and made the opposite as well, but the tone of the article sort of implies that he is of the opinion they are).) It could very easily be, and actually more likely be blocked because the recommendation the algorithm was gathering were downright bigoted.
Google has had issues like this before, they always say that they simply don't block things, so it seems likely to me that "Islam is" simply isn't a common search. And that makes sense! Who searches for "Islam is"? they'll search for "Islam" sure, but methinks those who have an opinion on that sort of thing already have an opinion.
By the way, "is Islam" brings up several recommendations similar to those for "*religion/group/philosophy* is." If they blocked "Islam is" don't you think they would've blocked "is Islam" too?
Mmm... I doubt that nobody is searching for phrases that start with Islam is. If you were to visit some more conservative areas in the south, I'm sure they have many colorful ways to complete the sentence "Islam is."
Google doesn't make a point of blocking things at their own whim but they do when organizations or people affected by something demand it. I'd be fairly certain Google is blocking it because they were specifically told to do so.
Municipal fiber needs more FDR localism, fewer state bans
Op-ed: Community-owned broadband is one way to bring fiber to smaller markets, but many states restrict the practice. Researcher Christopher Mitchell argues that it's time for a bit more Roosevelt-style localism in US broadband.
By Christopher Mitchell | Last updated January 6, 2010 9:35 PM
How frustrating to be the mayor of a small town without good broadband access today. Imagine trying to entice businesses or entrepreneurs to a region where the best Internet option is the slow DSL most of us discarded nearly a decade ago for faster speeds.
The “broadband market” in much of the US happily provides snail-speed connections at inflated prices when compared to many of our peer nations. Cable and telephone companies see little reason to upgrade these networks—the low population density does not lend itself to quickly recovering investments.
Recognizing the disconnect between the best interests of distant shareholders and the best interest of their community, cities across the US have built their own networks, taking a page from the thousands of small cities that built their own electricity networks a century ago when private utilities ignored them.
Lafayette, Louisiana is a good example. The city begged its incumbents to beef up local broadband networks and was rebuffed. This Cajun country community decided to build its own next-generation network. The incumbents argued that the households and businesses of Lafayette had all the broadband they needed and sued to stop the city. This year, after years of litigation, the victorious city began connecting customers to LUS Fiber.
LUS Fiber may offer the best broadband value in the country, offering a true 10Mbps symmetrical connection for $29/month. Those wanting the 50Mbps symmetrical connection have to pony up just $58/month—about what I pay to my cable provider in Saint Paul for "up to" 16/2 speeds.
Unsurprisingly, the cable incumbent has now decided Lafayette is a priority and will be upgraded to DOCSIS 3.0 to offer faster tiers.
This same story has played out in communities across the country—see previous Ars coverage of the Monticello v. TDS battle that resulted in true broadband competition in that Minnesota town.
Barriers
Lafayette and Monticello were lucky because they had the power to build a digital network. Many communities do not. The Institute for Local Self-Reliance, where I am a researcher, compiled a basic map of the United States showing states that have enacted barriers to these community networks.
Municipal networks restriction map
Eighteen states impose some barriers to community broadband. Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, and Nebraska have an outright ban. Other states erect administrative and procedural hurdles that make it difficult for communities to invest in a full-service network. Though Monticello and Lafayette have succeeded in spite of barriers, many other communities are unable to persevere, and watch their younger generation leave for modern opportunities elsewhere.
As I’ve already noted, communities have fought this fight before—when electricity was only available to the urban and affluent. Profit-maximizing companies not only refused to build the grid to low-profit areas but argued those areas should not be permitted to wire themselves. Fortunately, FDR saw things differently:
I therefore lay down the following principle: That where a community—a city or county or a district—is not satisfied with the service rendered or the rates charged by the private utility, it has the undeniable basic right, as one of its functions of Government, one of its functions of home rule, to set up, after a fair referendum to its voters has been had, its own governmentally owned and operated service.
We need FDR to remind us that we are discussing the basic right of a community to invest in its future. Communities must not be held hostage by an absentee company that knows it can overcharge and under-invest without consequence.
Wireless is nice for mobility, but does not threaten the wired monopoly or duopoly. These networks—particularly full fiber-optic networks—are natural monopolies. There is no natural “market” any more than one could imagine a competitive market in streets or metro airports. This is infrastructure—the foundation for many other markets.
Are public networks a failure?
Why then, do one in three states discourage community-owned networks? Telecommunications companies—particularly those awash in revenues from mobile phones—can throw an overwhelming number of contributions, lobbyists, and “think tank” reports at legislators to convince them to ban or restrict publicly owned networks. Few legislators have a background in telecom and those that do typically come from industry.
Industry-funded think tanks have produced many reports claiming publicly owned networks are failures. Their methodology is suspect—equating long-term investments in next-generation networks with lost money. Using this methodology, any homeowner who fails to completely pay off his mortgage within a few years has failed.
The truth is that publicly owned networks do quite well. Communities typically borrow from outside investors to build the network and pay off the loans over a 15-20 year period with revenues from phone, television, and broadband services (for wired networks). These networks have eased telecom budgets (e.g. by increasing speed to schools while dramatically cutting costs) and encouraged economic development. Nationally, they average high take rates—a measure of how many people take service on the network.
State barriers to publicly owned broadband networks may benefit monopolistic cable and telephone companies but can cripple communities within those states. Of course, such policies also give a competitive edge to cities in other states who have moved ahead.
“Actually,” says Lafayette’s Republican Mayor, Joey Durel, “I often say with tongue firmly planted in cheek that I hope that the other 49 states do outlaw what we are doing. Then I will ask them to send their technology companies to Lafayette where we will welcome them with open arms and a big pot of gumbo.”
Christopher Mitchell, christopher@newrules.org, heads the Telecommunications as Commons Initiative at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance in Minneapolis, MN, and maintains www.MuniNetworks.org.
Seems perfectly normal to me. If a community wants to band together to offer themselves a service, let them. But I don't know the intracacies of setting up something like this, and I don't know if the telecom arguments have any legimitate points or no. Like, would a domestically designed infrastructure have a negative influence on the performance of a national telecom provider? To provide a crude analogy, would it be like a bunch of misfits putting together a barely functional airplane and then trying to run flights out of Ohare with it? I know very little about this, so this may not be accurate.
Audiences experience 'Avatar' blues
By Jo Piazza, Special to CNN
January 11, 2010 8:06 a.m. EST
James Cameron's completely immersive spectacle "Avatar" may have been a little too real for some fans who say they have experienced depression and suicidal thoughts after seeing the film because they long to enjoy the beauty of the alien world Pandora.
On the fan forum site "Avatar Forums," a topic thread entitled "Ways to cope with the depression of the dream of Pandora being intangible," has received more than 1,000 posts from people experiencing depression and fans trying to help them cope. The topic became so popular last month that forum administrator Philippe Baghdassarian had to create a second thread so people could continue to post their confused feelings about the movie.
"I wasn't depressed myself. In fact the movie made me happy ," Baghdassarian said. "But I can understand why it made people depressed. The movie was so beautiful and it showed something we don't have here on Earth. I think people saw we could be living in a completely different world and that caused them to be depressed."
A post by a user called Elequin expresses an almost obsessive relationship with the film.
"That's all I have been doing as of late, searching the Internet for more info about 'Avatar.' I guess that helps. It's so hard I can't force myself to think that it's just a movie, and to get over it, that living like the Na'vi will never happen. I think I need a rebound movie," Elequin posted.
A user named Mike wrote on the fan Web site "Naviblue" that he contemplated suicide after seeing the movie.
"Ever since I went to see 'Avatar' I have been depressed. Watching the wonderful world of Pandora and all the Na'vi made me want to be one of them. I can't stop thinking about all the things that happened in the film and all of the tears and shivers I got from it," Mike posted. "I even contemplate suicide thinking that if I do it I will be rebirthed in a world similar to Pandora and the everything is the same as in 'Avatar.' "
Other fans have expressed feelings of disgust with the human race and disengagement with reality.
Cameron's movie, which has pulled in more than $1.4 billion in worldwide box office sales and could be on track to be the highest grossing film of all time, is set in the future when the Earth's resources have been pillaged by the human race. A greedy corporation is trying to mine the rare mineral unobtainium from the planet Pandora, which is inhabited by a peace-loving race of 10-foot tall, blue-skinned natives called the Na'vi.
In their race to mine for Pandora's resources, the humans clash with the Na'vi, leading to casualties on both sides. The world of Pandora is reminiscent of a prehistoric fantasyland, filled with dinosaur-like creatures mixed with the kinds of fauna you may find in the deep reaches of the ocean. Compared with life on Earth, Pandora is a beautiful, glowing utopia.
Ivar Hill posts to the "Avatar" forum page under the name Eltu. He wrote about his post-"Avatar" depression after he first saw the film earlier this month.
"When I woke up this morning after watching Avatar for the first time yesterday, the world seemed ... gray. It was like my whole life, everything I've done and worked for, lost its meaning," Hill wrote on the forum. "It just seems so ... meaningless. I still don't really see any reason to keep ... doing things at all. I live in a dying world."
Reached via e-mail in Sweden where he is studying game design, Hill, 17, explained that his feelings of despair made him desperately want to escape reality.
"One can say my depression was twofold: I was depressed because I really wanted to live in Pandora, which seemed like such a perfect place, but I was also depressed and disgusted with the sight of our world, what we have done to Earth. I so much wanted to escape reality," Hill said.
Cameron's special effects masterpiece is very lifelike, and the 3-D performance capture and CGI effects essentially allow the viewer to enter the alien world of Pandora for the movie's 2½-hour running time, which only lends to the separation anxiety some individuals experience when they depart the movie theater.
"Virtual life is not real life and it never will be, but this is the pinnacle of what we can build in a virtual presentation so far," said Dr. Stephan Quentzel, psychiatrist and Medical Director for the Louis Armstrong Center for Music and Medicine at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York. "It has taken the best of our technology to create this virtual world and real life will never be as utopian as it seems onscreen. It makes real life seem more imperfect."
Fans of the movie may find actor Stephen Lang, who plays the villainous Col. Miles Quaritch in the film, an enemy of the Na'vi people and their sacred ground, an unlikely sympathizer. But Lang says he can understand the connection people are feeling with the movie.
"Pandora is a pristine world and there is the synergy between all of the creatures of the planet and I think that strikes a deep chord within people that has a wishfulness and a wistfulness to it," Lang said. "James Cameron had the technical resources to go along with this incredibly fertile imagination of his and his dream is built out of the same things that other peoples' dreams are made of."
The bright side is that for Hill and others like him -- who became dissatisfied with their own lives and with our imperfect world after enjoying the fictional creation of James Cameron -- becoming a part of a community of like-minded people on an online forum has helped them emerge from the darkness.
"After discussing on the forums for a while now, my depression is beginning to fade away. Having taken a part in many discussions concerning all this has really, really helped me," Hill said. "Before, I had lost the reason to keep on living -- but now it feels like these feelings are gradually being replaced with others."
Quentzel said creating relationships with others is one of the keys to human happiness, and that even if those connections are occurring online they are better than nothing.
"Obviously there is community building in these forums," Quentzel said. "It may be technologically different from other community building, but it serves the same purpose."
Within the fan community, suggestions for battling feelings of depression after seeing the movie include things like playing "Avatar" video games or downloading the movie soundtrack, in addition to encouraging members to relate to other people outside the virtual realm and to seek out positive and constructive activities.
Those people would all get so bored after a week of running around in the woods with no TV and no internet to fall back on. Maybe the flying thing could hold their attention for a little longer, but even that would lose its novelty pretty fast. I bet none of these people ever go camping.
Comments
Maine to consider cell phone cancer warning
(or rolling rather)
And before him I'd talk to probably about 3 friends a night on the phone, for about the same amount of time total. Before my cell phone I would use the house phone. What can I say? I really like talking to people. On the phone. And on the internet!
Which begs the question, how long will it be before laptops cause cancer? I know some desktops can cause skin cancer (lame), but I'm not aware of any other computer carcinogens.
After Coburn Asked Americans To Pray ‘Somebody’ Misses Health Care Vote, Inhofe Skips Today’s Roll Call
Except for the part about people praying that someone who didn't agree with their beliefs would die. That's a little bit scary, but mostly it's pathetic.
2: don't do something because terrorists might hurt you
3: ?????
4: PROFIT!
Google has had issues like this before, they always say that they simply don't block things, so it seems likely to me that "Islam is" simply isn't a common search. And that makes sense! Who searches for "Islam is"? they'll search for "Islam" sure, but methinks those who have an opinion on that sort of thing already have an opinion.
By the way, "is Islam" brings up several recommendations similar to those for "*religion/group/philosophy* is." If they blocked "Islam is" don't you think they would've blocked "is Islam" too?
Doesn't work on Chinese google either.