Technology is biting me!

Remember back in the old days (like the 1960's and 1970's) when you drove into a gas station, and a nice attendant asked "fill er' up" and you said "please" and then he handled the pump, washed the windows, checked the oil, and took your card to complete the sale?  Then in the 1980's the do-it-yourself pumps appeared and if you used them, you got a discount on gas, but still large stations had attendants. Now, it's all self-service (and gasoline costs several times as much as the days when a gas station was a service station!) Since hubby's third stroke which put me in the driver's seat of our car, I've been trying to learn how to pump gas. And despite trying to do it several times, I'm STILL having a rough time.  The directions are not clear - nothing is clear.  Finally in utter frustration, I went into the store part and was going to pay that way but now, you have to "prepay" (estimate how much gas you will use) and the excess is SUPPOSED to go back to your debit card. 

So I had the lady come out and stand next to me.... but it not only asks you for your PIN but also for your zip code - we have a PO box but I guessed the bank which sends me everything electronically had our house zip and it kept rejecting the card when finally I got the idea to put in our PO box zip... Took me a half hour of utter frustration to complete the transaction... ** sigh **

After my frustrating adventure at the pump, I decided to type the multi-step process into my tablet computer, (which I dropped 3 times... thank heavens I have a strong protective cover on it) and then email it to myself so it's in my phone also (iPhone).

Then there is the food store - the so called Super Market wasn't that big when I first got married and it was relatively easy to go shopping, easy to find things etc - now they have EVERYTHING including a fully stocked drug store and probably all the merchandise which you used to go to Woolworth's to get (remember Woolworth's?) and several isles of frozen dinners etc.  We older arthritic folks (I'm 70) have to use the scooters because it seems one walks MILES in the food store.  Luckily we can do most of our shopping on the web and have it delivered but today, after the gas station "adventure", we had to go to a large market to get some stuff not available on the web.  And that was another "adventure".





And after all of this, the "fraud protection" at our bank called and sent emails to insist we confirm transactions on our debit card (luckily can do this in email).  ** sigh **


I guess young folks don't mind all of this but wow, for those of us elderly - it's rough... can anyone relate?

Suicide watch in Junior High school?

My mother, Mary Schweitzer Baker who ended her life at the age of 68, by swallowing the business end of her gun. She was intelligent and articulate and talented but also was bipolar

In sorting through some old papers (of which we have a lot of since we've lived in this house for almost 40 years), I came across a poster I saw in a Junior High School - the school our son attended in the 1980's.  Even then, apparently suicide in young folks was a rising cause of death in our youth - today in 2014, more young folks die in suicide than in auto accidents (auto crashes were the most prevalent cause of death of youth in the 1960's when I graduated High School).  I will share the bullets on the poster as follows:

Suicide - think...

• Your mother loves you
• Your friends will miss you
• People DO care
• Counselors can help
• Teachers will listen
• You're not alone
• Suicide is a cop out
• Think of those who need you...

Before you act...

As I typed this out, I began to see problems with it...  the young person who is contemplating suicide, thinks his/her parents don't love him/her and that people don't care and that they won't be missed. They don't care if they are contemplating a "cop-out" (although actually that reason may be a stronger deterrent than some of the others as young folks are very sensitive about what others think of them).

With many families having both parents very involved in their jobs, kids are often lonely and depressed. And in fact, it's quite easy to become lonely in our busy society of today especially if one is a kid or at the other end of the spectrum, aging.  Having experienced some clinical depression myself, I know that when a person is depressed, they almost think they are doing the world a favor in exiting it.

We have had more than a few suicides in our family (much too many - my mother - my grandmother - etc).

Bottom line, is the greatest deterrent to suicide for me, is my Catholic faith - I know that if God feels I should be living, my committing suicide is a direct affront to God and I don't want to go there.

But life gets hard at times... especially when one is aging...

"Still, there were those moments so seemingly hopeless that I would cry out to God in anguish. Having journaled many of those desperate cries, I realize in retrospect how hope had sustained me through my knowing there was purpose in suffering..."

from EMBRACING DEMENTIA- A CALL TO LOVE by Ellen Marie Edmonds

Free Thought Lady thinks she can break the law

Very often people seem to assume the police are "against us" without provocation (that often is the message given on TV).  The following case is typical.  The video at the website was shared several times on Facebook - I cast the video to the TV so I could hear what the Police Officers were saying which I couldn't hear when listening on my computer.... a couple of facts totally change the picture which you can hear when you watch this on TV.  (1)  The citizens running the Lemonade stand were breaking the law by "vending commodities on the grounds of the Capital building without a permit" which the police officers patiently and politely, told them about.  (2) the citizens were given the option of giving away the lemonade about which the police also informed them.  When they ignored the warnings and defied the police, rudely shouting about their lack of freedom (and there is a difference between "freedom" and "license") after being politely warned several times, the police officers arrested them as was proper.  Breaking the law is breaking the law regardless of who does it.  BTW, an ad on this website which carried this story, asks people to report if they have been a victim of "police brutality".  People from other countries laugh at us - we Americans don't know what REAL "police brutality" is!

Possible Malware carrier Supposedly from the Post Office

With all the virus warnings I regularly get in email (most of which are hoaxes), I never heard of the email I received today which was most obviously a virus or worm carrier.  Here's what it looks like:

As for what the attachment does, there seems to be a difference of opinion in the "blog-o-sphere".

One blogger said it was something called "malvertising" software which was downloaded when the unsuspecting recipient opens the email. He said he almost fell for it. It, according to him, installs fake "spyware" which tells you that your computer is full of viruses and then, tries to sell you a solution.

Another blogger identifies it as a worm/trojan carrier but he doesn't specify what mischief it might do.  

The Microsoft website identifies the payload as a worm but again doesn't specify much about what it does.

Whatever the case, there is a really good chance you do not want it in your computer so if you get an email looking like the one above, don't open the attachment! :)

Sue

Fast Food Playgrounds - a place you really want your kid to play in?

When scientist - developmental psychologist, Dr Erin Carr-Jordan, college professor, visited a McDonald's playground with her 4 children, she was appalled at the fact that the playground tubes, kids routinely crawl around in, were covered with filth. Some of what she found in the tubes were paper, rotting and dried food, and a lot of dirt - they looked like they had not been washed in a long time. Shocked, she approached the manager about this and raised zero interest in the problem. After talking to another three managers with the same reaction, she crawled up into the tubes herself and made a video. That made the news although the link published on the news website was broken. If I was a more suspicious person, I would wonder if it was broken on purpose (obviously MickyD's is a big advertiser on the networks etc). I managed to put repair the link and watched the video and it was disgusting to the point of making me a bit nauseous.

I get that kids crawl in these things daily with seemingly no repercussions i.e. kids do have strong immune systems and most places they crawl are covered with pathogens, (although no one's really done any studies on whether the pathogens present in the indoor playgrounds are more abundant than in other places) but still, the idea and how the tubes look, is so revolting (some of the dirt in there looks like fecal matter!) that after viewing Dr Carr-Jordan's video, I would not want my kids playing there.

Carr-Jordan found there were no regulations on keeping these playgrounds cleaner and at least one scientist, told the news service that many scientists were well aware of the lack of cleanliness of indoor playgrounds:

"Charles Gerba, a University of Arizona professor with a Ph.D. in microbiology, doesn't know Dr Carr-Jordan but said it was well-known among experts in his field that children's playgrounds are one of the most germ-plagued environments and the pathogens can cause disease. Indoor playgrounds that tend to be warm and moist promote bacterial growth."

Dr Gerba added that if he had a small child, he would not allow him/her to play in those playgrounds.

It should be noted that outside playgrounds are probably less populated with pathogens due to being exposed to sunlight.

If McDonald's doesn't want to put any provisions for regular cleaning of the indoor playgrounds into place (so far they seem to have treated the issue like it was limited to the fast food restaurants Dr Carr-Jordan visited), then the Board of Health should take over and require daily (or even twice daily) cleaning of these!

Cancer and Cell phones?

The latest flap in the news is that a meta study has found an increased risk of brain cancer among people who regularly use cell phones and scary articles make great headlines for the news services.

The metastudy was done by a scientist named Leonart Hardell and has not been published yet (nor peer reviewed). However, Hardell did another similar metastudy of the research about cell phones and cancer in 2007 which is available on line.

The studies reviewed were mostly survey studies and did not control for known risks of brain cancer like Nutrasweet/aspartame. The relative risk factors in much of the research presented was less than 1.8 (has to be over 2.0 to be significant) and only in a couple, was higher like 3.x.

A bit intrigued, I went to the Environmental Health Trust Organization website to look for all this evidence they claim is available. They have safety precautions for the use of cell phones. They have videos. What they do not have any of, are actually study cites.

I watched one of the videos which presented three scientists (none of whom were biologists). The Title is: Expert EMF Workshop at San Leandro High School. It's the second video on the page. The speakers compared cell phones and cigarettes. "The ads encouraged people to smoke" said Dr. Magda Havas, showing the ad from the 1960's, "claiming more doctors smoked that brand!" Problem in logic there - in the 1960's we were only beginning to have an inkling that smoking posed serious risks. That is, now that smoking has been proven to have bad effects on health, one does not see those ads anymore.

During the video, one of the speakers showed a cutsie video of people dressed in white suits (looked like teletubby outfits) supposedly illustrating what cell phones do to our DNA (the video didn't make much sense to me).

But all of the over 30 minute presentation was devoid of any real research except the mention of Lennart Hardell, mentioned previously.

The kids who listened to the talk (looked like High School age) seemed extremely bored and totally unconvinced.

And they are not the only ones who are questioning these claims. Scientists in the UK are also questioning it, according to the BBC News which called Leonart's research, flawed.

"The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), which advises the government on safety levels, said the study "lacks statistical precision" to draw such conclusions. "

Meanwhile, Dr Lennart stated more research is needed (for which he is, undoubtedly, looking for funding which perhaps might be, at least, some of his underlying motivation for the sensational claims - people do funny things for money and scientists are definitely humans!).

Even the "green folks" say if you use the speaker phone on your cell or portable phone or text (rather than hold the phone against your head), the danger, if at all, is greatly minimized, so that seems like a good solution.

Adding to the confusion is the fact that cancer and other diseases which seem to be 'on the rise' these days, are aging diseases. At the turn of the 20th century, very few cases of cancer were diagnosed, but the average age of death was 45. And now, the average age of death is around 78-80. Oddly though, no one seems to take that aspect in consideration.

As for radiation, it has been pointed out that we receive more radiation from the sun than we do from microwaves and cell phones. We also are exposed to a lot of radiation from some of the tests routinely done like mammograms. Mammograms deliver 3 times the radiation of a chest X-ray to each breast and yet, most medical providers are still highly recommending them. (I don't do mammograms either)

I remain open to definitive research but for now, take the current cell phone fear mongering with a huge grain of salt.

Cell phones and brain cancer?

The latest flap in the news is that a meta study has found an increased risk of brain cancer among people who regularly use cell phones and scary articles make great headlines for the news services.

The metastudy was done by a scientist named Leonart Hardell and has not been published yet (nor peer reviewed). However, Hardell did another similar metastudy of the research about cell phones and cancer in 2007 which is available on line.

The studies reviewed were mostly survey studies and did not control for known risks of brain cancer like Nutrasweet/aspartame. The relative risk factors in much of the research presented was less than 1.8 (has to be over 2.0 to be significant) and only in a couple, was higher like 3.x.

A bit intrigued, I went to the Environmental Health Trust Organization website to look for all this evidence they claim is available. They have safety precautions for the use of cell phones. They have videos. What they do not have any of, are actually study cites.

I watched one of the videos which presented three scientists (none of whom were biologists). The Title is: Expert EMF Workshop at San Leandro High School. It's the second video on the page. The speakers compared cell phones and cigarettes. "The ads encouraged people to smoke" said Dr. Magda Havas, showing the ad from the 1960's, "claiming more doctors smoked that brand!" Problem in logic there - in the 1960's we were only beginning to have an inkling that smoking posed serious risks. That is, now that smoking has been proven to have bad effects on health, one does not see those ads anymore.

During the video, one of the speakers showed a cutsie video of people dressed in white suits (looked like teletubby outfits) supposedly illustrating what cell phones do to our DNA (the video didn't make much sense to me).

But all of the over 30 minute presentation was devoid of any real research except the mention of Lennart Hardell, mentioned previously.

The kids who listened to the talk (looked like High School age) seemed extremely bored and totally unconvinced.

And they are not the only ones who are questioning these claims. Scientists in the UK are also questioning it, according to the BBC News which called Leonart's research, flawed.

"The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), which advises the government on safety levels, said the study "lacks statistical precision" to draw such conclusions. "

Meanwhile, Dr Lennart stated more research is needed (for which he is, undoubtedly, looking for funding which perhaps might be, at least, some of his underlying motivation for the sensational claims - people do funny things for money and scientists are definitely humans!).

Even the "green folks" say if you use the speaker phone on your cell or portable phone or text (rather than hold the phone against your head), the danger, if at all, is greatly minimized, so that seems like a good solution.

Adding to the confusion is the fact that cancer and other diseases which seem to be 'on the rise' these days, are aging diseases. At the turn of the 20th century, very few cases of cancer were diagnosed, but the average age of death was 45. And now, the average age of death is around 78-80. Oddly though, no one seems to take that aspect in consideration.

As for radiation, it has been pointed out that we receive more radiation from the sun than we do from microwaves and cell phones. We also are exposed to a lot of radiation from some of the tests routinely done like mammograms. Mammograms deliver 3 times the radiation of a chest X-ray to each breast and yet, most medical providers are still highly recommending them. (I don't do mammograms either)

I remain open to definitive research but for now, take the current cell phone fear mongering with a huge grain of salt.