From The Economist print edition
Energy: Batteries that draw oxygen from the air could provide a cheaper, lighter and longer-lasting alternative to existing designs
Illustration by Belle Mellor
MOBILE phones looked like bricks in the 1980s. That was largely because the batteries needed to power them were so hefty. When lithium-ion batteries were invented, mobile phones became small enough to be slipped into a pocket. Now a new design of battery, which uses oxygen from ambient air to power devices, could provide even an smaller and lighter source of power. Not only that, such batteries would be cheaper and would run for longer between charges.
Lithium-ion batteries have two electrodes immersed in an electrically conductive solution, called an electrolyte. One of the electrodes, the cathode, is made of lithium cobalt oxide; the other, the anode, is composed of carbon. When the battery is being charged, positively charged lithium ions break away from the cathode and travel in the electrolyte to the anode, where they meet electrons brought there by a charging device. When electricity is needed, the anode releases the lithium ions, which rapidly move back to the cathode. As they do so, the electrons that were paired with them in the anode during the charging process are released. These electrons power an external circuit.
Peter Bruce and his colleagues at the University of St Andrews in Scotland came up with the idea of replacing the lithium cobalt oxide electrode with a cheaper and lighter alternative. They designed an electrode made from porous carbon and lithium oxide. They knew that lithium oxide forms naturally from lithium ions, electrons and oxygen, but, to their surprise, they found that it could also be made to separate easily when an electric current passed through it. They exposed one side of their porous carbon electrode to an electrolyte rich in lithium ions and put a mesh window on the other side of the electrode through which air could be drawn. Oxygen from the air took the place of the cobalt oxide.
When they charged their battery, the lithium ions migrated to the anode where they combined with electrons from the charging device. When they discharged it, lithium ions and electrons were released from the anode. The ions crossed the electrolyte and the electrons travelled round the external circuit. The ions and electrons met at the cathode, and combined with the oxygen to form lithium oxide that filled the pores in the carbon.
Because the oxygen being used by the battery comes from the surrounding air, the device that Dr Bruce’s team has designed can be a mere one-eighth to one-tenth the size and weight of modern batteries, while still carrying the same charge. Making such a battery is also expected to be cheaper. Lithium cobalt oxide accounts for 30% of the cost of a lithium-ion battery. Air, however, is free.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Advantages to cancer screening ‘exaggerated’
Cancer society reconsiders message about risks and potential benefits
A doctor examines a patient's X-ray during a screening for colon cancer.
View related photos
American Cancer Society / American Cancer Society via Getty Images file
More from NYTimes.com
In Shift, Cancer Society Has Concerns on Screenings
With New Afghan Vote, Path to Stability Is Unclear
A Drone Strike and Dwindling Hope
Volcker’s Voice Fails to Sell a Bank Strategy
For Car Buyers, the Brand Romance Is Gone
Easing the pain of cancer with comforts of home
Oct. 16: Making a Difference: For 35 years, the Philadelphia Ronald McDonald House and its room on the cancer ward at Children's Hospital have provided a temporary home to patients’ families during long hospital stays. NBC's Ron Allen reports.
Nightly News
Women unite to fight breast cancer
Oct. 1: NBC’s chief medical editor, Dr. Nancy Snyderman, and Dr. Susan Love, president of the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation, discuss some advances in breast cancer research and ways you can protect yourself.
Today show
By Gina Kolata
updated 5:06 a.m. ET, Wed., Oct . 21, 2009
The American Cancer Society, which has long been a staunch defender of most cancer screening, is now saying that the benefits of detecting many cancers, especially breast and prostate, have been overstated.
It is quietly working on a message, to put on its Web site early next year, to emphasize that screening for breast and prostate cancer and certain other cancers can come with a real risk of overtreating many small cancers while missing cancers that are deadly.
“We don’t want people to panic,” said Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the cancer society. “But I’m admitting that American medicine has overpromised when it comes to screening. The advantages to screening have been exaggerated.”
Prostate cancer screening has long been problematic. The cancer society, which with more than two million volunteers is one of the nation’s largest voluntary health agencies, does not advocate testing for all men. And many researchers point out that the PSA prostate cancer screening test has not been shown to prevent prostate cancer deaths.
There has been much less public debate about mammograms. Studies from the 1960s to the 1980s found that they reduced the death rate from breast cancer by up to 20 percent.
The cancer society’s decision to reconsider its message about the risks as well as potential benefits of screening was spurred in part by an analysis published Wednesday in The Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Brawley said.
In it, researchers report a 40 percent increase in breast cancer diagnoses and a near doubling of early stage cancers, but just a 10 percent decline in cancers that have spread beyond the breast to the lymph nodes or elsewhere in the body. With prostate cancer, the situation is similar, the researchers report.
If breast and prostate cancer screening really fulfilled their promise, the researchers note, cancers that once were found late, when they were often incurable, would now be found early, when they could be cured. A large increase in early cancers would be balanced by a commensurate decline in late-stage cancers. That is what happened with screening for colon and cervical cancers. But not with breast and prostate cancer.
'I would not think badly of her'
Still, the researchers and others say, they do not think all screening will — or should — go away. Instead, they say that when people make a decision about being screened, they should understand what is known about the risks and benefits.
For now, those risks are not emphasized in the cancer society’s mammogram message which states that a mammogram is “one of the best things a woman can do to protect her health.”
Dr. Brawley says mammograms can prevent some cancer deaths. However, he says, “If a woman says, ‘I don’t want it,’ I would not think badly of her but I would like her to get it.”
But some, like Colin Begg, a biostatistician at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, worry that the increased discussion of screening’s risks is going to confuse the public and make people turn away from screening, mammography in particular.
“I am concerned that the complex view of a changing landscape will be distilled by the public into yet another ‘screening does not work’ headline,” Dr. Begg said. “The fact that population screening is no panacea does not mean that it is useless,” he added.
More health news from NYTimes.com
In Shift, Cancer Society Has Concerns on Screenings
Senate Democrats Hit Snag With Doctor Payment Bill
Doctors Told to Give Flu Medicine Promptly
Schools to Start Offering Swine Flu Shots
AIDS Vaccine Trial Shows Only Slight Protection
External links
The new analysis — by Dr. Laura Esserman, a professor of surgery and radiology at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of the Carol Frank Buck Breast Care Center there, and Dr. Ian Thompson, professor and chairman of the department of urology at The University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio — finds that prostate cancer screening and breast cancer screening are not so different.
Both have a problem that runs counter to everything people have been told about cancer: They are finding cancers that do not need to be found because they would never spread and kill or even be noticed if left alone. That has led to a huge increase in cancer diagnoses because, without screening, those innocuous cancers would go undetected.
At the same time, both screening tests are not making much of a dent in the number of cancers that are deadly. That may be because many lethal breast cancers grow so fast they spring up between mammograms. And the deadly prostate ones have already spread at the time of cancer screening. The dilemma for breast and prostate screening is that it is not usually clear which tumors need aggressive treatment and which can be left alone. And one reason that is not clear, some say, is that studying it has not been much of a priority.
“The issue here is, as we look at cancer medicine over the last 35 or 40 years, we have always worked to treat cancer or to find cancer early,” Dr. Brawley said. “And we never sat back and actually thought, ‘Are we treating the cancers that need to be treated?’ ”
Hard to swallow
The very idea that some cancers are not dangerous and some might actually go away on their own can be hard to swallow, researchers say.
“It is so counterintuitive that it raises debate every time it comes up and every time it has been observed,” said Dr. Barnett Kramer, associate director for disease prevention at the National Institutes of Health.
Cancer screening overload?
July 20: For years people have been urged to get early screening for various forms of cancer. Does early detection really save lives? NBC’s Dr. Nancy Snyderman talks with breast cancer expert Dr. Susan Love and Yale medical professor Dr. John Concato.
Dr. Nancy
It was first raised as a theoretical possibility in the 1970s, Dr. Kramer said. Then it was documented in a rare pediatric cancer, but was dismissed as something peculiar to that cancer. Then it was discovered in common cancers as well, but it is still not always accepted or appreciated, he said.
But finding those insignificant cancers is the reason the breast and prostate cancer rates soared when screening was introduced, Dr. Kramer said. And those cancers, he said, are the reason screening has the problem called overdiagnosis — labeling innocuous tumors cancer and treating them as though they could be lethal when in fact they are not dangerous.
“Overdiagnosis is pure, unadulterated harm,” he said.
Dr. Peter Albertsen, chief and program director of the urology division at the University of Connecticut Health Center, said that had not been an easy message to get across. “Politically, it’s almost unacceptable,” Dr. Albertsen said. “If you question overdiagnosis in breast cancer, you are against women. If you question overdiagnosis in prostate cancer, you are against men.”
Dr. Esserman hopes that as research continues on how to advance beyond screening, distinguishing innocuous tumors from dangerous ones, people will be more realistic about what screening can do.
“Someone may say, ‘I don’t want to be screened’ ” she said. “Another person may say, ‘Of course I want to be screened.’ Just like everything in medicine, there is no free lunch. For every intervention, there are complications and problems.”
This story, "In Shift, Cancer Society Has Concerns on Screenings," originally appeared in The New York Times
Comment
My sister's husband has had prostate cancer for the past four years. They are taking a wait-and-see approach, and he hasnt had any treatment so far. His PSA has been rising, thats true, but it normally rises some as men get older. It also rises as the cancer grows. His doctor told him that, if he's among the lucky ones who have slow growing cancer, which he seems to have, he will probably die of something else first. Early detection being the answer to possible cures has always been the mantra of modern medicine. It would be interesting to know if that same phenomena, slow growing cancers, happens in breast cancer patients. My Mom had breast cancer and the cure was mastectomy. It seems reasonable to me- to do it before it spreads.
A doctor examines a patient's X-ray during a screening for colon cancer.
View related photos
American Cancer Society / American Cancer Society via Getty Images file
More from NYTimes.com
In Shift, Cancer Society Has Concerns on Screenings
With New Afghan Vote, Path to Stability Is Unclear
A Drone Strike and Dwindling Hope
Volcker’s Voice Fails to Sell a Bank Strategy
For Car Buyers, the Brand Romance Is Gone
Easing the pain of cancer with comforts of home
Oct. 16: Making a Difference: For 35 years, the Philadelphia Ronald McDonald House and its room on the cancer ward at Children's Hospital have provided a temporary home to patients’ families during long hospital stays. NBC's Ron Allen reports.
Nightly News
Women unite to fight breast cancer
Oct. 1: NBC’s chief medical editor, Dr. Nancy Snyderman, and Dr. Susan Love, president of the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation, discuss some advances in breast cancer research and ways you can protect yourself.
Today show
By Gina Kolata
updated 5:06 a.m. ET, Wed., Oct . 21, 2009
The American Cancer Society, which has long been a staunch defender of most cancer screening, is now saying that the benefits of detecting many cancers, especially breast and prostate, have been overstated.
It is quietly working on a message, to put on its Web site early next year, to emphasize that screening for breast and prostate cancer and certain other cancers can come with a real risk of overtreating many small cancers while missing cancers that are deadly.
“We don’t want people to panic,” said Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the cancer society. “But I’m admitting that American medicine has overpromised when it comes to screening. The advantages to screening have been exaggerated.”
Prostate cancer screening has long been problematic. The cancer society, which with more than two million volunteers is one of the nation’s largest voluntary health agencies, does not advocate testing for all men. And many researchers point out that the PSA prostate cancer screening test has not been shown to prevent prostate cancer deaths.
There has been much less public debate about mammograms. Studies from the 1960s to the 1980s found that they reduced the death rate from breast cancer by up to 20 percent.
The cancer society’s decision to reconsider its message about the risks as well as potential benefits of screening was spurred in part by an analysis published Wednesday in The Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Brawley said.
In it, researchers report a 40 percent increase in breast cancer diagnoses and a near doubling of early stage cancers, but just a 10 percent decline in cancers that have spread beyond the breast to the lymph nodes or elsewhere in the body. With prostate cancer, the situation is similar, the researchers report.
If breast and prostate cancer screening really fulfilled their promise, the researchers note, cancers that once were found late, when they were often incurable, would now be found early, when they could be cured. A large increase in early cancers would be balanced by a commensurate decline in late-stage cancers. That is what happened with screening for colon and cervical cancers. But not with breast and prostate cancer.
'I would not think badly of her'
Still, the researchers and others say, they do not think all screening will — or should — go away. Instead, they say that when people make a decision about being screened, they should understand what is known about the risks and benefits.
For now, those risks are not emphasized in the cancer society’s mammogram message which states that a mammogram is “one of the best things a woman can do to protect her health.”
Dr. Brawley says mammograms can prevent some cancer deaths. However, he says, “If a woman says, ‘I don’t want it,’ I would not think badly of her but I would like her to get it.”
But some, like Colin Begg, a biostatistician at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, worry that the increased discussion of screening’s risks is going to confuse the public and make people turn away from screening, mammography in particular.
“I am concerned that the complex view of a changing landscape will be distilled by the public into yet another ‘screening does not work’ headline,” Dr. Begg said. “The fact that population screening is no panacea does not mean that it is useless,” he added.
More health news from NYTimes.com
In Shift, Cancer Society Has Concerns on Screenings
Senate Democrats Hit Snag With Doctor Payment Bill
Doctors Told to Give Flu Medicine Promptly
Schools to Start Offering Swine Flu Shots
AIDS Vaccine Trial Shows Only Slight Protection
External links
The new analysis — by Dr. Laura Esserman, a professor of surgery and radiology at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of the Carol Frank Buck Breast Care Center there, and Dr. Ian Thompson, professor and chairman of the department of urology at The University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio — finds that prostate cancer screening and breast cancer screening are not so different.
Both have a problem that runs counter to everything people have been told about cancer: They are finding cancers that do not need to be found because they would never spread and kill or even be noticed if left alone. That has led to a huge increase in cancer diagnoses because, without screening, those innocuous cancers would go undetected.
At the same time, both screening tests are not making much of a dent in the number of cancers that are deadly. That may be because many lethal breast cancers grow so fast they spring up between mammograms. And the deadly prostate ones have already spread at the time of cancer screening. The dilemma for breast and prostate screening is that it is not usually clear which tumors need aggressive treatment and which can be left alone. And one reason that is not clear, some say, is that studying it has not been much of a priority.
“The issue here is, as we look at cancer medicine over the last 35 or 40 years, we have always worked to treat cancer or to find cancer early,” Dr. Brawley said. “And we never sat back and actually thought, ‘Are we treating the cancers that need to be treated?’ ”
Hard to swallow
The very idea that some cancers are not dangerous and some might actually go away on their own can be hard to swallow, researchers say.
“It is so counterintuitive that it raises debate every time it comes up and every time it has been observed,” said Dr. Barnett Kramer, associate director for disease prevention at the National Institutes of Health.
Cancer screening overload?
July 20: For years people have been urged to get early screening for various forms of cancer. Does early detection really save lives? NBC’s Dr. Nancy Snyderman talks with breast cancer expert Dr. Susan Love and Yale medical professor Dr. John Concato.
Dr. Nancy
It was first raised as a theoretical possibility in the 1970s, Dr. Kramer said. Then it was documented in a rare pediatric cancer, but was dismissed as something peculiar to that cancer. Then it was discovered in common cancers as well, but it is still not always accepted or appreciated, he said.
But finding those insignificant cancers is the reason the breast and prostate cancer rates soared when screening was introduced, Dr. Kramer said. And those cancers, he said, are the reason screening has the problem called overdiagnosis — labeling innocuous tumors cancer and treating them as though they could be lethal when in fact they are not dangerous.
“Overdiagnosis is pure, unadulterated harm,” he said.
Dr. Peter Albertsen, chief and program director of the urology division at the University of Connecticut Health Center, said that had not been an easy message to get across. “Politically, it’s almost unacceptable,” Dr. Albertsen said. “If you question overdiagnosis in breast cancer, you are against women. If you question overdiagnosis in prostate cancer, you are against men.”
Dr. Esserman hopes that as research continues on how to advance beyond screening, distinguishing innocuous tumors from dangerous ones, people will be more realistic about what screening can do.
“Someone may say, ‘I don’t want to be screened’ ” she said. “Another person may say, ‘Of course I want to be screened.’ Just like everything in medicine, there is no free lunch. For every intervention, there are complications and problems.”
This story, "In Shift, Cancer Society Has Concerns on Screenings," originally appeared in The New York Times
Comment
My sister's husband has had prostate cancer for the past four years. They are taking a wait-and-see approach, and he hasnt had any treatment so far. His PSA has been rising, thats true, but it normally rises some as men get older. It also rises as the cancer grows. His doctor told him that, if he's among the lucky ones who have slow growing cancer, which he seems to have, he will probably die of something else first. Early detection being the answer to possible cures has always been the mantra of modern medicine. It would be interesting to know if that same phenomena, slow growing cancers, happens in breast cancer patients. My Mom had breast cancer and the cure was mastectomy. It seems reasonable to me- to do it before it spreads.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Driver's licenses scanned in search for fugitives
FBI's use of facial-recognition technology raising privacy concerns
Facial recognition technology is not entirely new, but the North Carolina project is the first major step for the FBI as it considers expanding use of the system to find fugitives nationwide.
Arrest expected in Uconn stabbing
Oct. 19: Tamron Hall speaks with The Daily Campus reporter Chris Duray about a pending arrest of a suspect in the stabbing death of football player Jasper Howard, who was stabbed to death on campus over the weekend.
updated 4:34 p.m. ET, Mon., Oct . 12, 2009
RALEIGH, N.C. - In its search for fugitives, the FBI has begun using facial-recognition technology on millions of motorists, comparing driver's license photos with pictures of convicts in a high-tech analysis of chin widths and nose sizes.
The project in North Carolina has already helped nab at least one suspect. Agents are eager to look for more criminals and possibly to expand the effort nationwide. But privacy advocates worry that the method allows authorities to track people who have done nothing wrong.
"Everybody's participating, essentially, in a virtual lineup by getting a driver's license," said Christopher Calabrese, an attorney who focuses on privacy issues at the American Civil Liberties Union.
Earlier this year, investigators learned that a double-homicide suspect named Rodolfo Corrales had moved to North Carolina. The FBI took a 1991 booking photo from California and compared it with 30 million photos stored by the motor vehicle agency in Raleigh.
In seconds, the search returned dozens of drivers who resembled Corrales, and an FBI analyst reviewed a gallery of images before zeroing in on a man who called himself Jose Solis.
A week later, after corroborating Corrales' identity, agents arrested him in High Point, southwest of Greensboro, where they believe he had built a new life under the assumed name. Corrales is scheduled for a preliminary hearing in Los Angeles later this month.
"Running facial recognition is not very labor-intensive at all," analyst Michael Garcia said. "If I can probe a hundred fugitives and get one or two, that's a home run."
Law enforcement database?
Facial-recognition software is not entirely new, but the North Carolina project is the first major step for the FBI as it considers expanding use of the technology to find fugitives nationwide.
So-called biometric information that is unique to each person also includes fingerprints and DNA. More distant possibilities include iris patterns in the eye, voices, scent and even a person's gait.
FBI officials have organized a panel of authorities to study how best to increase use of the software. It will take at least a year to establish standards for license photos, and there's no timetable to roll out the program nationally.
Calabrese said Americans should be concerned about how their driver's licenses are being used.
Licenses "started as a permission to drive," he said. "Now you need them to open a bank account. You need them to be identified everywhere. And suddenly they're becoming the de facto law enforcement database."
State and federal laws allow driver's license agencies to release records for law enforcement, and local agencies have access to North Carolina's database, too. But the FBI is not authorized to collect and store the photos. That means the facial-recognition analysis must be done at the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles.
"Unless the person's a criminal, we would not have a need to have that information in the system," said Kim Del Greco, who oversees the FBI's biometrics division. "I think that would be a privacy concern. We're staying away from that."
Dan Roberts, assistant director of the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division, added: "We're not interested in housing a bunch of photos of people who have done absolutely nothing wrong."
Scanning for similarities
Gone are the days when states made drivers' licenses by snapping Polaroid photos and laminating them onto cards without recording copies.
Now states have quality photo machines and rules that prohibit drivers from smiling during the snapshot to improve the accuracy of computer comparisons.
North Carolina's lab scans an image and, within 10 seconds, compares the likeness with other photos based on an algorithm of factors such as the width of a chin or the structure of cheekbones. The search returns several hundred photos ranked by the similarities.
"We'll get some close hits, and we'll get some hits that are right on," said Stephen Lamm, who oversees the DMV lab.
The technology allowed the DMV to quickly highlight 28 different photos of one man who was apparently using many identities. It also identified one person who, as part of a sex change, came in with plucked eyebrows, long flowing hair and a new name — but the same radiant smile.
Mistaken for a terrorist?
The system is not always right. Investigators used one DMV photo of an Associated Press reporter to search for a second DMV photo, but the system first returned dozens of other people, including a North Carolina terrorism suspect who had some similar facial features.
The images from the reporter and terror suspect scored a likeness of 72 percent, below the mid-80s that officials consider a solid hit.
Facial-recognition experts believe the technology has improved drastically since 2002, when extremely high failure rates led authorities to scrap a program planned for the entrances to the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.
Lamm said investigators reviewing the galleries can almost always find the right photo, using a combination of the computer and the naked eye.
Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, questioned whether the facial-recognition systems that were pushed after the Sept. 11 attacks are accurate or even worthwhile.
"We don't have good photos of terrorists," Rotenberg said. "Most of the facial-recognition systems today are built on state DMV records because that's where the good photos are. It's not where the terrorists are."
Comment
I do not believe that the average law-abiding citizen would have a problem using this process to find terrorists, crooks, or welfare frauds for that matter. It would be interesting to know how many of the 9-11 terrorists had driver's licenses, and pictures on them.
Facial recognition technology is not entirely new, but the North Carolina project is the first major step for the FBI as it considers expanding use of the system to find fugitives nationwide.
Arrest expected in Uconn stabbing
Oct. 19: Tamron Hall speaks with The Daily Campus reporter Chris Duray about a pending arrest of a suspect in the stabbing death of football player Jasper Howard, who was stabbed to death on campus over the weekend.
updated 4:34 p.m. ET, Mon., Oct . 12, 2009
RALEIGH, N.C. - In its search for fugitives, the FBI has begun using facial-recognition technology on millions of motorists, comparing driver's license photos with pictures of convicts in a high-tech analysis of chin widths and nose sizes.
The project in North Carolina has already helped nab at least one suspect. Agents are eager to look for more criminals and possibly to expand the effort nationwide. But privacy advocates worry that the method allows authorities to track people who have done nothing wrong.
"Everybody's participating, essentially, in a virtual lineup by getting a driver's license," said Christopher Calabrese, an attorney who focuses on privacy issues at the American Civil Liberties Union.
Earlier this year, investigators learned that a double-homicide suspect named Rodolfo Corrales had moved to North Carolina. The FBI took a 1991 booking photo from California and compared it with 30 million photos stored by the motor vehicle agency in Raleigh.
In seconds, the search returned dozens of drivers who resembled Corrales, and an FBI analyst reviewed a gallery of images before zeroing in on a man who called himself Jose Solis.
A week later, after corroborating Corrales' identity, agents arrested him in High Point, southwest of Greensboro, where they believe he had built a new life under the assumed name. Corrales is scheduled for a preliminary hearing in Los Angeles later this month.
"Running facial recognition is not very labor-intensive at all," analyst Michael Garcia said. "If I can probe a hundred fugitives and get one or two, that's a home run."
Law enforcement database?
Facial-recognition software is not entirely new, but the North Carolina project is the first major step for the FBI as it considers expanding use of the technology to find fugitives nationwide.
So-called biometric information that is unique to each person also includes fingerprints and DNA. More distant possibilities include iris patterns in the eye, voices, scent and even a person's gait.
FBI officials have organized a panel of authorities to study how best to increase use of the software. It will take at least a year to establish standards for license photos, and there's no timetable to roll out the program nationally.
Calabrese said Americans should be concerned about how their driver's licenses are being used.
Licenses "started as a permission to drive," he said. "Now you need them to open a bank account. You need them to be identified everywhere. And suddenly they're becoming the de facto law enforcement database."
State and federal laws allow driver's license agencies to release records for law enforcement, and local agencies have access to North Carolina's database, too. But the FBI is not authorized to collect and store the photos. That means the facial-recognition analysis must be done at the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles.
"Unless the person's a criminal, we would not have a need to have that information in the system," said Kim Del Greco, who oversees the FBI's biometrics division. "I think that would be a privacy concern. We're staying away from that."
Dan Roberts, assistant director of the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division, added: "We're not interested in housing a bunch of photos of people who have done absolutely nothing wrong."
Scanning for similarities
Gone are the days when states made drivers' licenses by snapping Polaroid photos and laminating them onto cards without recording copies.
Now states have quality photo machines and rules that prohibit drivers from smiling during the snapshot to improve the accuracy of computer comparisons.
North Carolina's lab scans an image and, within 10 seconds, compares the likeness with other photos based on an algorithm of factors such as the width of a chin or the structure of cheekbones. The search returns several hundred photos ranked by the similarities.
"We'll get some close hits, and we'll get some hits that are right on," said Stephen Lamm, who oversees the DMV lab.
The technology allowed the DMV to quickly highlight 28 different photos of one man who was apparently using many identities. It also identified one person who, as part of a sex change, came in with plucked eyebrows, long flowing hair and a new name — but the same radiant smile.
Mistaken for a terrorist?
The system is not always right. Investigators used one DMV photo of an Associated Press reporter to search for a second DMV photo, but the system first returned dozens of other people, including a North Carolina terrorism suspect who had some similar facial features.
The images from the reporter and terror suspect scored a likeness of 72 percent, below the mid-80s that officials consider a solid hit.
Facial-recognition experts believe the technology has improved drastically since 2002, when extremely high failure rates led authorities to scrap a program planned for the entrances to the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.
Lamm said investigators reviewing the galleries can almost always find the right photo, using a combination of the computer and the naked eye.
Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, questioned whether the facial-recognition systems that were pushed after the Sept. 11 attacks are accurate or even worthwhile.
"We don't have good photos of terrorists," Rotenberg said. "Most of the facial-recognition systems today are built on state DMV records because that's where the good photos are. It's not where the terrorists are."
Comment
I do not believe that the average law-abiding citizen would have a problem using this process to find terrorists, crooks, or welfare frauds for that matter. It would be interesting to know how many of the 9-11 terrorists had driver's licenses, and pictures on them.
Perks keep rolling at rescued banks
From jets to country club fees, CEOs’ fringe benefits rose 4 percent last year
Filling the loopholes
Oct. 20: An analysis by the Washington Post found that even as the nation’s biggest banks were taking taxpayer dollars, they were boosting executive perks and benefits for CEO's like Bank of America's Kenneth D. Lewis.
Morning Meeting
The Washington Post
Shell wins federal approval to drill for oil off Alaska coast
Featured Advertiser
Washington Sketch: When breaking news is broken
Federal Diary: New boss moves quickly to change sluggish Patent Office
Bank of America deal had early White House support
Discovering the truth about TARP
Oct. 6: Morning Meeting’s Dylan Ratigan and panel debate whether Americans were mislead by the government about the state of the bailed out banks.
Morning Meeting
By Tomoeh Murakami Tse
updated 4:35 a.m. ET, Tues., Oct . 20, 2009
NEW YORK - Even as the nation's biggest financial firms were struggling and the federal government was spending hundreds of billions of dollars to save many of them, the companies as a group were boosting the perks and benefits they pay their chief executives.
The firms, accounting for more $350 billion in federal bailout funds, increased these perks and benefits 4 percent on average last year, according to an analysis of corporate disclosures filed in recent months.
Some chief executives, such as Kenneth D. Lewis of Bank of America and Jeffrey M. Peek of CIT Group, the major small-business lender now on the brink of bankruptcy, each received about $100,000 more than a year earlier for personal use of corporate jets. Others saw an increase in the value of chauffeured services, parking or personal security.
Ralph W. Babb Jr., chief executive of Dallas-based lender Comerica, was compensated for a new country club membership, with an initiation fee and dues of more than $200,000. GMAC Financial Services chief executive Alvaro de Molina benefited from a $2.5 million payment from his company to help cover his personal tax bill.
"You would have thought that this would be the moment when everyone said, 'Okay, the perks have got to stop — at least while we're indebted to the government,' " said Paul Hodgson, senior research associate at the Corporate Library. "But that didn't happen."
This year may turn out to be different. In June, the Treasury Department prohibited companies receiving bailout funds from reimbursing senior executives for their personal tax payments.
In the meantime, Kenneth R. Feinberg, the Obama administration official assigned to set pay for top executives at seven of the companies receiving the most help, plans to curtail perks such as country club fees when he rules on compensation later this month, according to people familiar with the matter. Perks worth more than $25,000 are getting particular scrutiny from Feinberg.
On average, the chief executives at 29 of the largest public financial companies that have taken bailout funds received perks and benefits worth more than $380,000 in 2008, according to compensation figures included in annual proxy statements and supplied by Equilar, a compensation data services firm. Individually, about half the banks increased their fringe benefits to the top executives. The figures do not include relocation costs and related taxes, typically one-time fees that can skew year-over-year comparisons.
In contrast to the 4 percent average increase in perks and benefits at these companies, the average awarded to top executives at non-financial companies in the Fortune 100 declined by more than 7 percent over the same period, according to Equilar.
Personal use of corporate aircraft and "gross-ups" — when the company pays taxes due on bonuses or other benefits — represented more than half of the $11 million in non-cash pay awarded to the 29 chief executives in 2008. Among the more common perks were company cars and drivers, as well as personal financial and tax-planning services.
'Well compensated'
Although perks represent a relatively small portion of an executive's overall compensation package, they have been targeted some shareholders who argue that these fringe benefits are meant largely to stroke the egos of top company brass.
Obama fundraiser raises eyebrows
Oct. 19: Is the White House slamming Wall Street with one hand while taking donations with the other?
Nightly News
"These executives are already well compensated," said Daniel Pedrotty, director of the AFL-CIO's office of investment. "The notion that some of these folks can't even leave a nickel on the floor, that they want to take every last dime and put it on the company card really rubs people the wrong way but points to a larger problem of lack of independence at the board."
Some banks, mindful of the popular resentment over the government's $700 billion bailout of banks and other financial companies, have eliminated certain perks. And a few executives have voluntarily given up benefits that lawmakers have criticized as excessive. At Bank of America, for instance, senior executives will no longer use corporate jets for personal travel starting this year, a bank spokesman said.
Still, some companies that have taken away perks are making it up to executives by boosting their pay. SunTrust Banks eliminated most executive perks in 2008, including financial planning services, club memberships and payment of taxes on the perks, according to a corporate filing. But the bank also noted that "base pay increases were made in 2008 to offset this reduction in perks."
A spokesman for SunTrust, a recipient of $4.9 billion in government funds, said in an e-mail that the bank seeks to "maintain an executive compensation framework that is competitive, appropriate and consistent with industry practice, and we periodically make adjustments in line with that goal."
Corporations have long defended perks as necessary for attracting and retaining talented executives. They also say some perks — corporate jets and chauffeured drivers, for example — are provided for security and to ensure that executives can work efficiently. In fact, it is not uncommon for companies to mandate that their chief executive use the corporate jet and car for all travel. American Express is one such company. Last year, it provided its chief executive, Kenneth I. Chenault, with $415,000 in corporate jet travel for personal reasons, as well as $201,000 for a home security system and $46,000 for security during personal trips.
A spokesperson for American Express declined to comment. The company's proxy statement says it eliminated tax gross-ups as of 2008.
GMAC said it had stopped using its corporate aircraft altogether after receiving a federal bailout in late 2008 and that de Molina, its chief executive, had declined a year-end bonus for 2008. He did receive a nearly $6 million award earlier in the year, however, and GMAC covered the taxes due on that bonus.
De Molina, a former executive at Bank of America who arrived at GMAC in 2007 and became its chief executive in April 2008, was "instrumental in leading the company through an incredibly challenging period and successfully executed a series of actions to stabilize the company," said Gina Proia, a company spokeswoman.
CIT, which cut its staff by 22 percent in 2008, declined to comment. Representatives for Comerica did not return phone calls.
Comment
Everybody that we have bailed out should have their pay and benefits frozen, at least. They are lucky to not be in an unemployment line. A revue of their pay package should be initiated to determine if reductions should be instituted. If the Board of Directors cant, or wont, do it an impartial committee of shareholders should be appointed to determine a fair pay package. The CEOs allow their companies to go down the drain, or should have known it was going to happen, with risky bets and financing, and then have the chutzpa to demand bigger pay packages for their lack of performance. Everybody else gets raises for performance. Why not them? They have NO incentive to do any better because they KNOW that we will bail their sorry butts out again if they screw it up again! We should have let one or two go under as a lesson to the others. Start with the car companies. Let Chrysler go under, or let the unions buy them out.
Filling the loopholes
Oct. 20: An analysis by the Washington Post found that even as the nation’s biggest banks were taking taxpayer dollars, they were boosting executive perks and benefits for CEO's like Bank of America's Kenneth D. Lewis.
Morning Meeting
The Washington Post
Shell wins federal approval to drill for oil off Alaska coast
Featured Advertiser
Washington Sketch: When breaking news is broken
Federal Diary: New boss moves quickly to change sluggish Patent Office
Bank of America deal had early White House support
Discovering the truth about TARP
Oct. 6: Morning Meeting’s Dylan Ratigan and panel debate whether Americans were mislead by the government about the state of the bailed out banks.
Morning Meeting
By Tomoeh Murakami Tse
updated 4:35 a.m. ET, Tues., Oct . 20, 2009
NEW YORK - Even as the nation's biggest financial firms were struggling and the federal government was spending hundreds of billions of dollars to save many of them, the companies as a group were boosting the perks and benefits they pay their chief executives.
The firms, accounting for more $350 billion in federal bailout funds, increased these perks and benefits 4 percent on average last year, according to an analysis of corporate disclosures filed in recent months.
Some chief executives, such as Kenneth D. Lewis of Bank of America and Jeffrey M. Peek of CIT Group, the major small-business lender now on the brink of bankruptcy, each received about $100,000 more than a year earlier for personal use of corporate jets. Others saw an increase in the value of chauffeured services, parking or personal security.
Ralph W. Babb Jr., chief executive of Dallas-based lender Comerica, was compensated for a new country club membership, with an initiation fee and dues of more than $200,000. GMAC Financial Services chief executive Alvaro de Molina benefited from a $2.5 million payment from his company to help cover his personal tax bill.
"You would have thought that this would be the moment when everyone said, 'Okay, the perks have got to stop — at least while we're indebted to the government,' " said Paul Hodgson, senior research associate at the Corporate Library. "But that didn't happen."
This year may turn out to be different. In June, the Treasury Department prohibited companies receiving bailout funds from reimbursing senior executives for their personal tax payments.
In the meantime, Kenneth R. Feinberg, the Obama administration official assigned to set pay for top executives at seven of the companies receiving the most help, plans to curtail perks such as country club fees when he rules on compensation later this month, according to people familiar with the matter. Perks worth more than $25,000 are getting particular scrutiny from Feinberg.
On average, the chief executives at 29 of the largest public financial companies that have taken bailout funds received perks and benefits worth more than $380,000 in 2008, according to compensation figures included in annual proxy statements and supplied by Equilar, a compensation data services firm. Individually, about half the banks increased their fringe benefits to the top executives. The figures do not include relocation costs and related taxes, typically one-time fees that can skew year-over-year comparisons.
In contrast to the 4 percent average increase in perks and benefits at these companies, the average awarded to top executives at non-financial companies in the Fortune 100 declined by more than 7 percent over the same period, according to Equilar.
Personal use of corporate aircraft and "gross-ups" — when the company pays taxes due on bonuses or other benefits — represented more than half of the $11 million in non-cash pay awarded to the 29 chief executives in 2008. Among the more common perks were company cars and drivers, as well as personal financial and tax-planning services.
'Well compensated'
Although perks represent a relatively small portion of an executive's overall compensation package, they have been targeted some shareholders who argue that these fringe benefits are meant largely to stroke the egos of top company brass.
Obama fundraiser raises eyebrows
Oct. 19: Is the White House slamming Wall Street with one hand while taking donations with the other?
Nightly News
"These executives are already well compensated," said Daniel Pedrotty, director of the AFL-CIO's office of investment. "The notion that some of these folks can't even leave a nickel on the floor, that they want to take every last dime and put it on the company card really rubs people the wrong way but points to a larger problem of lack of independence at the board."
Some banks, mindful of the popular resentment over the government's $700 billion bailout of banks and other financial companies, have eliminated certain perks. And a few executives have voluntarily given up benefits that lawmakers have criticized as excessive. At Bank of America, for instance, senior executives will no longer use corporate jets for personal travel starting this year, a bank spokesman said.
Still, some companies that have taken away perks are making it up to executives by boosting their pay. SunTrust Banks eliminated most executive perks in 2008, including financial planning services, club memberships and payment of taxes on the perks, according to a corporate filing. But the bank also noted that "base pay increases were made in 2008 to offset this reduction in perks."
A spokesman for SunTrust, a recipient of $4.9 billion in government funds, said in an e-mail that the bank seeks to "maintain an executive compensation framework that is competitive, appropriate and consistent with industry practice, and we periodically make adjustments in line with that goal."
Corporations have long defended perks as necessary for attracting and retaining talented executives. They also say some perks — corporate jets and chauffeured drivers, for example — are provided for security and to ensure that executives can work efficiently. In fact, it is not uncommon for companies to mandate that their chief executive use the corporate jet and car for all travel. American Express is one such company. Last year, it provided its chief executive, Kenneth I. Chenault, with $415,000 in corporate jet travel for personal reasons, as well as $201,000 for a home security system and $46,000 for security during personal trips.
A spokesperson for American Express declined to comment. The company's proxy statement says it eliminated tax gross-ups as of 2008.
GMAC said it had stopped using its corporate aircraft altogether after receiving a federal bailout in late 2008 and that de Molina, its chief executive, had declined a year-end bonus for 2008. He did receive a nearly $6 million award earlier in the year, however, and GMAC covered the taxes due on that bonus.
De Molina, a former executive at Bank of America who arrived at GMAC in 2007 and became its chief executive in April 2008, was "instrumental in leading the company through an incredibly challenging period and successfully executed a series of actions to stabilize the company," said Gina Proia, a company spokeswoman.
CIT, which cut its staff by 22 percent in 2008, declined to comment. Representatives for Comerica did not return phone calls.
Comment
Everybody that we have bailed out should have their pay and benefits frozen, at least. They are lucky to not be in an unemployment line. A revue of their pay package should be initiated to determine if reductions should be instituted. If the Board of Directors cant, or wont, do it an impartial committee of shareholders should be appointed to determine a fair pay package. The CEOs allow their companies to go down the drain, or should have known it was going to happen, with risky bets and financing, and then have the chutzpa to demand bigger pay packages for their lack of performance. Everybody else gets raises for performance. Why not them? They have NO incentive to do any better because they KNOW that we will bail their sorry butts out again if they screw it up again! We should have let one or two go under as a lesson to the others. Start with the car companies. Let Chrysler go under, or let the unions buy them out.
How to Counter an Argument About Vaccines
By Erin Biba October 19, 2009 | 3:00 pm | Wired Nov 2009
An Epidemic of Fear
How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All
The Misinformants: Prominent Voices in the Anti-Vaccine Crusade
What’s the Real Story on the Vaccine Debate? Learn More
H1N1 Flu Shot: 3 Major Fears Debunked
The anti-immunization crowd clings to well-worn myths. Arm yourself with facts.
MYTH 1: Vaccines cause autism.
FACT: Until 2001, vaccines included thimerosal, a preservative containing ethylmercury. Mercury, of course, can cause neurological damage. But there’s scientific consensus that the amount once used in vaccines — around 50 micrograms per 0.5-ml dose — was far short of toxic. And autism rates have continued to climb, suggesting that there’s either a different cause or, more likely, that a better understanding of the condition has increased diagnoses. A comprehensive review of the research, conducted in 2004 by the prestigious Institute of Medicine, found no evidence of a connection between vaccines and autism. None.
MYTH 2: Giving too many vaccines overwhelms a child’s immune system.
FACT: This argument echoes the “too much of a good thing” chestnut, but there’s no science behind it. With millions of vaccines administered every year, a handful of allergic reactions do happen. But severe cases are so rare that the CDC cannot calculate a statistical risk for the population — the numbers are just too small.
MYTH 3: Vaccines cause diabetes.
FACT: This idea relies on the flawed work of one doctor, who gathered data on a slew of vaccines and failed to follow standard study protocols. No other study — including those using the same data — could reproduce the results. The CDC and the Institute of Medicine have both dismissed any possible link. This argument also ignores the obvious and well-established fact that diabetes rates in children are climbing because obesity rates are climbing.
MYTH 4: Vaccines are no longer necessary, because the diseases are no longer a threat.
FACT: The opposite is true. Because of vaccines, diseases that once killed millions are now invisible. But if only a few families stop vaccinating, the illnesses could reemerge in a community. And the diseases are horrible — mumps and Haemophilus influenzae type b cause meningitis, which can lead to deafness, epilepsy, and cognitive impairment. Measles can lead to encephalitis, blindness, and death.
MYTH 5: Scientists are divided about the safety of vaccines.
FACT: By any measure of scientific consensus, there is total agreement: Vaccines are safe, effective, and necessary. Twelve studies have shown that the measles/mumps/rubella vaccine is safe. Many other studies have disproved the theory that the Hib shot is toxic. The few dissenters get lots of attention, but it’s always the same old names.
MYTH 6: Aluminum in vaccines is just as toxic as mercury.
FACT: Aluminum, the most common metal in nature, is perfectly safe in small amounts. (A dose of antacid has about 1,000 times as much as a vaccine does.) Aluminum salts are used in vaccines to increase antibody response. They make it possible to use less vaccine less often.
Posted by: jetRink | 10/19/09 | 8:57 pm
This is a great article, but it won’t do anything to convince the people who think vaccines are unsafe. That belief is based on the ancient notion of the clean and unclean which has been adopted by the organic movement. If it contains chemicals, the hippie parents won’t want to inject it into their kids. You might as well try to inject a Jew or a Muslim with pig’s blood.
Posted by: baccuss | 10/19/09 | 9:12 pm
There is no way to win any argument that has an emotional component to the folks involved.
Yes, there is no accepted proof that autism is caused by thermisol. But there is a hell of a lot of data that mercury / heavy metals do cause autism. Look at the studies in texas that correlate the proximity of coal power plants to autism rates…there is a direct correlation.
Posted by: lorca01 | 10/19/09 | 9:23 pm
Amazing, so I assume jetRink you have kids. It ain’t an easy decission to make. The studies published about the lack of a link between autism and vaccines have thier own bias’s…talk to a parent sometime that went in with a 100% normal kid, got the shot, then within hours the child no longer resided on this planet…and is that way for the rest of thier little lives. This isn’t 1 kid, this is thousands upon thousands. Regaurdless of if there are pre-existing conditions within a child that “Triggers” this, it still should be noted, as these spokes people you have vilified on this site have done.
I’ve had to face this decision with my daughter, she’s just 7 months old, just slighlty over the minimum age for H1N1 shot. There’s a hell of a lot going on inside a child nuerologically right now, do I want to bombard that with a bunch of foreign chemicals?!? We’ve delayed our vaccines until 1 year, we have very limited exposure to other children, and will get those when she has developed further. But we still weigh the pro’s and con’s of these shots. I wish to high h311 this thing had come along next year, then I really wouldn’t be concerned as the brain is more wired then for her, but I don’t have that option.
And It ain’t hippies that are scared of this stuff, it’s anyone well informed enough to question a medical establishment which still mandates things like prophylactic eye ointment shortly after birth (a WW2 relic for STD’s) and states that the amount of rocket fuel in formula is within exceptable levels. A medical establishment that basically chooses the most expensive procedure because it means the most money. I have some news for you, every vaccine they give, they make $$ on. Whenever money is involved there’s corruption.
I agree with the science of vaccines, I will vaccinate my child, but absolute trust in our medical establishment is folly.
Posted by: optimusPaul | 10/19/09 | 9:36 pm
You missed one. Vaccines don’t allow our bodies to build up natural immunities as easily. I don’t think there is much evidence either way there, but it is something to think about.
Posted by: Xizor | 10/19/09 | 9:47 pm
thimerosal was only banned in California. It’s still in most Flu & other vaccines everywhere else Your not going to win an argument with these facts, they’ll just make you sound like an idiot. Shame you wired. We expect better. Try doing a little research next time.
Posted by: petek | 10/19/09 | 9:58 pm
You guys at Wired are now going to get some of the most vicious, threatening and hate mongering wall of text emails ever regarding this and the ancillary stories. I applaud your courage and it’s about time. Excellent work. Now that that is out, quit kissing the asses of Junk Scientists on this Global Warming issue. I know, baby steps but real science is a wonderful thing.
Posted by: fidoda | 10/19/09 | 10:03 pm
Some (many) people aren’t simply reality prone. They never want to accept the truth because it hurts : “My child isn’t imperfect, it’s Big Pharma’s fault”.
Let them be. Let Mother Nature weed them out of the genepool.
Posted by: bigsigh | 10/19/09 | 10:13 pm
Xizor:
If by “only in California” you mean “only in California, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, New York, and Washington”, then you might be right. You might actually want to “try doing a little research next time,” otherwise they might “make you sound like an idiot.”
Posted by: photoprinter | 10/19/09 | 10:14 pm
@optimusPaul. That’s just it. For the things we get vaccines for, there is no NATURAL immunity, other than contracting the disease. The vaccines trick your body into acting like you have it.
.
.
@lorca01..Do you give your child any vitamin’s? There is much more data out there about the uselessness and dangers of vitamins then there is a danger in vaccines.
.
.
And @fidoda, the only problem with that is that they may take others with them!
Posted by: phraedus | 10/19/09 | 10:26 pm
This is a horrible article. None of the references are cited “by any measure of scientific consensus”, none of the percentages are given “the numbers are just to small”.
lorca1: getting paid does not equal corruption.
Posted by: optimusPaul | 10/19/09 | 10:29 pm
@photoprinter… you mean like chickenpox? Why are we giving our children chickenpox vaccines??? Anyway, I was just putting the idea out there.
I personally don’t know what to think. My kids have done fine getting the vaccines, it’s was a tough choice. There is a lot of hearsay out there. I know people personally that had their children vaccinated and there was a big change. Was it the vaccine? I don’t know, but I also don’t know what makes kids suddenly have the intense desire to sleep standing up.
As for autism, maybe it is the thermisol, or maybe it’s the million other sources of mercury in our environment. It’s in our food, our air and water. Our children are all doomed.
Posted by: dethwolfx | 10/19/09 | 11:08 pm
@phraedus I believe ’so rare that the CDC cannot calculate a statistical risk for the population’ means that its impossible to calculate a statistic because the numbers are so small you literally can’t find a correlation that would differ from a sample taken from a population that wasn’t given the vaccine. That really says something considering the number of people who are given vaccines…
‘by any measure of scientific consensus’ - I take it you want them to list all the scientist and doctors who feel that way. That’s ridiculous. It would fill up the internets. So much hate and undeserved skepticism towards an article thats trying to help people. I bet your a republican or a troll. I don’t know which is worse. =p
Posted by: photoprinter | 10/19/09 | 11:46 pm
@optimusPaul, Yes, like chickenpox. We give them because the disease is still out there. Just like whooping cough, polio, and all the others. If you do not think they are needed, do a google to find a video of a kid with whooping cough. See if you want to put your kid through THAT! Do you know anyone that has had polio? I used to work with a guy that has been in a wheel chair his whole life, because of it! Get a clue, people! These things save lives. And yes, a very few kids will have a bad reaction to them. But how many kids die every year from peanut butter?
Posted by: bubber | 10/20/09 | 12:00 am
http://www.timescolonist.com/health/suspend%20seasonal%20shots/2041163/story.html
“B.C. might suspend seasonal flu shots as early as Monday for people who aren’t seniors, in the wake of a Canadian study that suggests people who get the normal flu vaccine are twice as likely to contract the H1N1 virus.
Several news outlets have reported the preliminary findings of the study, which is still under peer review. Researchers found that those who received the seasonal flu vaccine in the past were more likely to catch H1N1.”
Posted by: ajp | 10/20/09 | 12:28 am
please moderate my comment on vaccines and Guillain-Barré syndrome
here’s an article with sources
http://www.infowars.com/autism-explodes-as-childhood-vaccines-increase/
Posted by: Stromboid | 10/20/09 | 2:30 am
I am an old man now. I grew up with parents in the Medical Profession. Dad a doctor mother a Supt of Surgery. Mother refused to let me have ANY shots of any kind. She said they were too dangerous. She was in a position to KNOW. This was the late 1930s and one. So one of the things is missed was a good chance of getting polio from the defective Salk Vaccine that was pushed on everyone, many of whom got polio from it.
The problem with the H1N1 vaccine is not the aluminum or mercury issues or autism dangers. There are many in a position to know who advise strongly against having it becaise TPTB are arranging to put something in it that will reduce world population drastically. Think that is crazy? Well, just wait, we will see who is right. Just wait.
Posted by: lockgreed | 10/20/09 | 2:55 am
One of the primary driving forces behind anti-vaccine rhetoric is fringe elements of the Left and the Right in this country who harbor a set of beliefs that tie vaccines to morality, religion, socio-control, government/corporate conspiracy theories, and collectivist thinking. Conspiracy theorists in particular have taken up the mantle spreading the fear that Vaccines are really part of some government plot at mind control, or eugenics or some other nonsense (See Alex Jones). Less ridiculous than that are valid concerns over forced vaccination however, and the fringe elements are using the “Forced Vaccination” idea to essentially trap individualists into believing that all vaccines are evil.
Posted by: DProuty | 10/20/09 | 3:32 am
Please take just a moment to learn a little about different forms of mercury. Ethylmercury C2H5Hg+ and Methylmercury [CH3Hg]+. The two compounds are vastly different. One of them bioaccumulates and has been shown via the scientific process to cause harm to living organisms. The other does not bioaccumulate and has not been shown via the scientific process affect living organisims. Ethylmercury is a component of a preservative often used in vaccines.
Posted by: iZealot777 | 10/20/09 | 7:30 am
Tuskegee. Fifty or sixty years ago, yes, however, if you think it couldn’t happen again, you severely underestimate the potential for mankind to be evil. None are so superior or perfect as to be blindly trusted.
Posted by: Xizor | 10/20/09 | 7:35 am
bigsigh,
OK, So more than California banned thimerosal, Still 7 out of 51 have banned it. Why would 7 states ban it if it wasn’t harmful. My point is how can you say Autism rates have continued to rise despite thimerosal being banned, when it was only banned in a few states. This issue obviously isn’t as cut and dry as everyone seems to think it is.
Posted by: QuestionAuthority | 10/20/09 | 8:09 am
jetRink has it right, I think. Those folks are science-proof because science isn’t part of their worldview. I have grown kids and small grandkids. Our kids were vaccinated and the grandkids will be vaccinated. My wife, incidentally, is an RN/BSN.
And baccuss: Correlation isn’t causation. Back to Science 101 for you.
lorca01: Vaccinations are no worse than any other medicine. Why do you think they call it the “medical arts?” There is ALWAYS the chance of an adverse reaction on the first dose - of anything, even so-called natural remedies…Even aspirin. The rates are extremely low, but they do occur. Any parent that thinks any medicine (”natural” or not) is 100% safe is ignorant.
optimusPaul: There is no scientifically-discernable difference between your so-called “natural” immunity and one created by a vaccine. The mechanism is identical. Vaccines don’t “trick” your body - they use dead or inactivated viruses/bacteria to set off the immune response to the organism.
What amuses me the most is that we have forgotten how devastating these “childhood” diseases like mumps, measles, whooping cough, can be. They can kill or cripple unvaccinated kids. Talk to your grandparents/parents and see how they feared these diseases before there were vaccines for them.
Posted by: benthomasg1 | 10/20/09 | 8:26 am
yeah i would like to know where all of this information came from also. http://www.tgfmonline.com
Posted by: MamaRita | 10/20/09 | 9:21 am
Anyone can write a myth story, try living it, watching it happen right before your eyes. At the rate of increasing Autism, chances are you will see it happen to some child that you love. It’s no different than watching a drunk driver run over him. Please do your research before putting something like this out there for young innocent Mom’s trying to do what is right for their baby. By the way, Vaccine’s are not Mercury Free, again read & do your research, not just hear say.
Posted by: MamaRita | 10/20/09 | 9:31 am
Quoting What amuses me the most is that we have forgotten how devastating these “childhood” diseases like mumps, measles, whooping cough, can be. They can kill or cripple unvaccinated kids. Talk to your grandparents/parents and see how they feared these diseases before there were vaccines for them.
What diseases??? I got 3 vaccine’s, children today are receiving 36 before the age of school. Show me a disease epidemic?? The only one you will find is Autism, remember there is No such thing as a Genetic Epidemic. I have found that most in the medical field are the most uneducated due to the big Pharma’s courting all of you, flooding you with gifts, freebies, especially any drug they can get someone hooked on, you hand sample’s out like candy. Sorry, it’s time to stop listening to Bad advise from people we once trusted to save lives.
Posted by: HealthWyze | 10/20/09 | 9:32 am
They missed something - vaccines are made out of aborted human fetuses. Know why? Because it is 100% true, and there is no denying it. Oh, and mercury has been put back into vaccines since 2001. Just watch the news, even they admit it now. I’d like to see them talk about the formaldehyde being non-harmful, too. Vaccines are designed to trigger an immune response, and most doctors know that if you give too many vaccines in one day - that immune response would be huge. Everyone is different, and so this immune response can overwhelm some children. There’s nothing unscientific about that.
Many of the diseases (including Polio & measles) were 98% gone before the vaccine was introduced, and this was replicated at a faster rate in countries which not vaccinate their people. If you’re trying to win an argument about vaccines - don’t follow this article.
Posted by: usedupguy | 10/20/09 | 9:50 am
Here’s what’s going to happen when it comes to vaccines and autism. 10 years from now some research group will come out and say there is some connection to autism and vaccines. That’s just how most of these studies work. My issue is why is autism more in boys and not girls? We can fly to the moon but we can’t answer that one question.
http://thebestfoodfatloss.com
Comment
I received my vaccinations when I was a kid, along with all my siblings, and we never had a problem. However, now my sister wont vaccinate her kids because she's afraid something bad will happen to them. I say she should be more afraid of the bad things that might happen to them if she DOESNT vaccinate them! Its a good debate.
An Epidemic of Fear
How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All
The Misinformants: Prominent Voices in the Anti-Vaccine Crusade
What’s the Real Story on the Vaccine Debate? Learn More
H1N1 Flu Shot: 3 Major Fears Debunked
The anti-immunization crowd clings to well-worn myths. Arm yourself with facts.
MYTH 1: Vaccines cause autism.
FACT: Until 2001, vaccines included thimerosal, a preservative containing ethylmercury. Mercury, of course, can cause neurological damage. But there’s scientific consensus that the amount once used in vaccines — around 50 micrograms per 0.5-ml dose — was far short of toxic. And autism rates have continued to climb, suggesting that there’s either a different cause or, more likely, that a better understanding of the condition has increased diagnoses. A comprehensive review of the research, conducted in 2004 by the prestigious Institute of Medicine, found no evidence of a connection between vaccines and autism. None.
MYTH 2: Giving too many vaccines overwhelms a child’s immune system.
FACT: This argument echoes the “too much of a good thing” chestnut, but there’s no science behind it. With millions of vaccines administered every year, a handful of allergic reactions do happen. But severe cases are so rare that the CDC cannot calculate a statistical risk for the population — the numbers are just too small.
MYTH 3: Vaccines cause diabetes.
FACT: This idea relies on the flawed work of one doctor, who gathered data on a slew of vaccines and failed to follow standard study protocols. No other study — including those using the same data — could reproduce the results. The CDC and the Institute of Medicine have both dismissed any possible link. This argument also ignores the obvious and well-established fact that diabetes rates in children are climbing because obesity rates are climbing.
MYTH 4: Vaccines are no longer necessary, because the diseases are no longer a threat.
FACT: The opposite is true. Because of vaccines, diseases that once killed millions are now invisible. But if only a few families stop vaccinating, the illnesses could reemerge in a community. And the diseases are horrible — mumps and Haemophilus influenzae type b cause meningitis, which can lead to deafness, epilepsy, and cognitive impairment. Measles can lead to encephalitis, blindness, and death.
MYTH 5: Scientists are divided about the safety of vaccines.
FACT: By any measure of scientific consensus, there is total agreement: Vaccines are safe, effective, and necessary. Twelve studies have shown that the measles/mumps/rubella vaccine is safe. Many other studies have disproved the theory that the Hib shot is toxic. The few dissenters get lots of attention, but it’s always the same old names.
MYTH 6: Aluminum in vaccines is just as toxic as mercury.
FACT: Aluminum, the most common metal in nature, is perfectly safe in small amounts. (A dose of antacid has about 1,000 times as much as a vaccine does.) Aluminum salts are used in vaccines to increase antibody response. They make it possible to use less vaccine less often.
Posted by: jetRink | 10/19/09 | 8:57 pm
This is a great article, but it won’t do anything to convince the people who think vaccines are unsafe. That belief is based on the ancient notion of the clean and unclean which has been adopted by the organic movement. If it contains chemicals, the hippie parents won’t want to inject it into their kids. You might as well try to inject a Jew or a Muslim with pig’s blood.
Posted by: baccuss | 10/19/09 | 9:12 pm
There is no way to win any argument that has an emotional component to the folks involved.
Yes, there is no accepted proof that autism is caused by thermisol. But there is a hell of a lot of data that mercury / heavy metals do cause autism. Look at the studies in texas that correlate the proximity of coal power plants to autism rates…there is a direct correlation.
Posted by: lorca01 | 10/19/09 | 9:23 pm
Amazing, so I assume jetRink you have kids. It ain’t an easy decission to make. The studies published about the lack of a link between autism and vaccines have thier own bias’s…talk to a parent sometime that went in with a 100% normal kid, got the shot, then within hours the child no longer resided on this planet…and is that way for the rest of thier little lives. This isn’t 1 kid, this is thousands upon thousands. Regaurdless of if there are pre-existing conditions within a child that “Triggers” this, it still should be noted, as these spokes people you have vilified on this site have done.
I’ve had to face this decision with my daughter, she’s just 7 months old, just slighlty over the minimum age for H1N1 shot. There’s a hell of a lot going on inside a child nuerologically right now, do I want to bombard that with a bunch of foreign chemicals?!? We’ve delayed our vaccines until 1 year, we have very limited exposure to other children, and will get those when she has developed further. But we still weigh the pro’s and con’s of these shots. I wish to high h311 this thing had come along next year, then I really wouldn’t be concerned as the brain is more wired then for her, but I don’t have that option.
And It ain’t hippies that are scared of this stuff, it’s anyone well informed enough to question a medical establishment which still mandates things like prophylactic eye ointment shortly after birth (a WW2 relic for STD’s) and states that the amount of rocket fuel in formula is within exceptable levels. A medical establishment that basically chooses the most expensive procedure because it means the most money. I have some news for you, every vaccine they give, they make $$ on. Whenever money is involved there’s corruption.
I agree with the science of vaccines, I will vaccinate my child, but absolute trust in our medical establishment is folly.
Posted by: optimusPaul | 10/19/09 | 9:36 pm
You missed one. Vaccines don’t allow our bodies to build up natural immunities as easily. I don’t think there is much evidence either way there, but it is something to think about.
Posted by: Xizor | 10/19/09 | 9:47 pm
thimerosal was only banned in California. It’s still in most Flu & other vaccines everywhere else Your not going to win an argument with these facts, they’ll just make you sound like an idiot. Shame you wired. We expect better. Try doing a little research next time.
Posted by: petek | 10/19/09 | 9:58 pm
You guys at Wired are now going to get some of the most vicious, threatening and hate mongering wall of text emails ever regarding this and the ancillary stories. I applaud your courage and it’s about time. Excellent work. Now that that is out, quit kissing the asses of Junk Scientists on this Global Warming issue. I know, baby steps but real science is a wonderful thing.
Posted by: fidoda | 10/19/09 | 10:03 pm
Some (many) people aren’t simply reality prone. They never want to accept the truth because it hurts : “My child isn’t imperfect, it’s Big Pharma’s fault”.
Let them be. Let Mother Nature weed them out of the genepool.
Posted by: bigsigh | 10/19/09 | 10:13 pm
Xizor:
If by “only in California” you mean “only in California, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, New York, and Washington”, then you might be right. You might actually want to “try doing a little research next time,” otherwise they might “make you sound like an idiot.”
Posted by: photoprinter | 10/19/09 | 10:14 pm
@optimusPaul. That’s just it. For the things we get vaccines for, there is no NATURAL immunity, other than contracting the disease. The vaccines trick your body into acting like you have it.
.
.
@lorca01..Do you give your child any vitamin’s? There is much more data out there about the uselessness and dangers of vitamins then there is a danger in vaccines.
.
.
And @fidoda, the only problem with that is that they may take others with them!
Posted by: phraedus | 10/19/09 | 10:26 pm
This is a horrible article. None of the references are cited “by any measure of scientific consensus”, none of the percentages are given “the numbers are just to small”.
lorca1: getting paid does not equal corruption.
Posted by: optimusPaul | 10/19/09 | 10:29 pm
@photoprinter… you mean like chickenpox? Why are we giving our children chickenpox vaccines??? Anyway, I was just putting the idea out there.
I personally don’t know what to think. My kids have done fine getting the vaccines, it’s was a tough choice. There is a lot of hearsay out there. I know people personally that had their children vaccinated and there was a big change. Was it the vaccine? I don’t know, but I also don’t know what makes kids suddenly have the intense desire to sleep standing up.
As for autism, maybe it is the thermisol, or maybe it’s the million other sources of mercury in our environment. It’s in our food, our air and water. Our children are all doomed.
Posted by: dethwolfx | 10/19/09 | 11:08 pm
@phraedus I believe ’so rare that the CDC cannot calculate a statistical risk for the population’ means that its impossible to calculate a statistic because the numbers are so small you literally can’t find a correlation that would differ from a sample taken from a population that wasn’t given the vaccine. That really says something considering the number of people who are given vaccines…
‘by any measure of scientific consensus’ - I take it you want them to list all the scientist and doctors who feel that way. That’s ridiculous. It would fill up the internets. So much hate and undeserved skepticism towards an article thats trying to help people. I bet your a republican or a troll. I don’t know which is worse. =p
Posted by: photoprinter | 10/19/09 | 11:46 pm
@optimusPaul, Yes, like chickenpox. We give them because the disease is still out there. Just like whooping cough, polio, and all the others. If you do not think they are needed, do a google to find a video of a kid with whooping cough. See if you want to put your kid through THAT! Do you know anyone that has had polio? I used to work with a guy that has been in a wheel chair his whole life, because of it! Get a clue, people! These things save lives. And yes, a very few kids will have a bad reaction to them. But how many kids die every year from peanut butter?
Posted by: bubber | 10/20/09 | 12:00 am
http://www.timescolonist.com/health/suspend%20seasonal%20shots/2041163/story.html
“B.C. might suspend seasonal flu shots as early as Monday for people who aren’t seniors, in the wake of a Canadian study that suggests people who get the normal flu vaccine are twice as likely to contract the H1N1 virus.
Several news outlets have reported the preliminary findings of the study, which is still under peer review. Researchers found that those who received the seasonal flu vaccine in the past were more likely to catch H1N1.”
Posted by: ajp | 10/20/09 | 12:28 am
please moderate my comment on vaccines and Guillain-Barré syndrome
here’s an article with sources
http://www.infowars.com/autism-explodes-as-childhood-vaccines-increase/
Posted by: Stromboid | 10/20/09 | 2:30 am
I am an old man now. I grew up with parents in the Medical Profession. Dad a doctor mother a Supt of Surgery. Mother refused to let me have ANY shots of any kind. She said they were too dangerous. She was in a position to KNOW. This was the late 1930s and one. So one of the things is missed was a good chance of getting polio from the defective Salk Vaccine that was pushed on everyone, many of whom got polio from it.
The problem with the H1N1 vaccine is not the aluminum or mercury issues or autism dangers. There are many in a position to know who advise strongly against having it becaise TPTB are arranging to put something in it that will reduce world population drastically. Think that is crazy? Well, just wait, we will see who is right. Just wait.
Posted by: lockgreed | 10/20/09 | 2:55 am
One of the primary driving forces behind anti-vaccine rhetoric is fringe elements of the Left and the Right in this country who harbor a set of beliefs that tie vaccines to morality, religion, socio-control, government/corporate conspiracy theories, and collectivist thinking. Conspiracy theorists in particular have taken up the mantle spreading the fear that Vaccines are really part of some government plot at mind control, or eugenics or some other nonsense (See Alex Jones). Less ridiculous than that are valid concerns over forced vaccination however, and the fringe elements are using the “Forced Vaccination” idea to essentially trap individualists into believing that all vaccines are evil.
Posted by: DProuty | 10/20/09 | 3:32 am
Please take just a moment to learn a little about different forms of mercury. Ethylmercury C2H5Hg+ and Methylmercury [CH3Hg]+. The two compounds are vastly different. One of them bioaccumulates and has been shown via the scientific process to cause harm to living organisms. The other does not bioaccumulate and has not been shown via the scientific process affect living organisims. Ethylmercury is a component of a preservative often used in vaccines.
Posted by: iZealot777 | 10/20/09 | 7:30 am
Tuskegee. Fifty or sixty years ago, yes, however, if you think it couldn’t happen again, you severely underestimate the potential for mankind to be evil. None are so superior or perfect as to be blindly trusted.
Posted by: Xizor | 10/20/09 | 7:35 am
bigsigh,
OK, So more than California banned thimerosal, Still 7 out of 51 have banned it. Why would 7 states ban it if it wasn’t harmful. My point is how can you say Autism rates have continued to rise despite thimerosal being banned, when it was only banned in a few states. This issue obviously isn’t as cut and dry as everyone seems to think it is.
Posted by: QuestionAuthority | 10/20/09 | 8:09 am
jetRink has it right, I think. Those folks are science-proof because science isn’t part of their worldview. I have grown kids and small grandkids. Our kids were vaccinated and the grandkids will be vaccinated. My wife, incidentally, is an RN/BSN.
And baccuss: Correlation isn’t causation. Back to Science 101 for you.
lorca01: Vaccinations are no worse than any other medicine. Why do you think they call it the “medical arts?” There is ALWAYS the chance of an adverse reaction on the first dose - of anything, even so-called natural remedies…Even aspirin. The rates are extremely low, but they do occur. Any parent that thinks any medicine (”natural” or not) is 100% safe is ignorant.
optimusPaul: There is no scientifically-discernable difference between your so-called “natural” immunity and one created by a vaccine. The mechanism is identical. Vaccines don’t “trick” your body - they use dead or inactivated viruses/bacteria to set off the immune response to the organism.
What amuses me the most is that we have forgotten how devastating these “childhood” diseases like mumps, measles, whooping cough, can be. They can kill or cripple unvaccinated kids. Talk to your grandparents/parents and see how they feared these diseases before there were vaccines for them.
Posted by: benthomasg1 | 10/20/09 | 8:26 am
yeah i would like to know where all of this information came from also. http://www.tgfmonline.com
Posted by: MamaRita | 10/20/09 | 9:21 am
Anyone can write a myth story, try living it, watching it happen right before your eyes. At the rate of increasing Autism, chances are you will see it happen to some child that you love. It’s no different than watching a drunk driver run over him. Please do your research before putting something like this out there for young innocent Mom’s trying to do what is right for their baby. By the way, Vaccine’s are not Mercury Free, again read & do your research, not just hear say.
Posted by: MamaRita | 10/20/09 | 9:31 am
Quoting What amuses me the most is that we have forgotten how devastating these “childhood” diseases like mumps, measles, whooping cough, can be. They can kill or cripple unvaccinated kids. Talk to your grandparents/parents and see how they feared these diseases before there were vaccines for them.
What diseases??? I got 3 vaccine’s, children today are receiving 36 before the age of school. Show me a disease epidemic?? The only one you will find is Autism, remember there is No such thing as a Genetic Epidemic. I have found that most in the medical field are the most uneducated due to the big Pharma’s courting all of you, flooding you with gifts, freebies, especially any drug they can get someone hooked on, you hand sample’s out like candy. Sorry, it’s time to stop listening to Bad advise from people we once trusted to save lives.
Posted by: HealthWyze | 10/20/09 | 9:32 am
They missed something - vaccines are made out of aborted human fetuses. Know why? Because it is 100% true, and there is no denying it. Oh, and mercury has been put back into vaccines since 2001. Just watch the news, even they admit it now. I’d like to see them talk about the formaldehyde being non-harmful, too. Vaccines are designed to trigger an immune response, and most doctors know that if you give too many vaccines in one day - that immune response would be huge. Everyone is different, and so this immune response can overwhelm some children. There’s nothing unscientific about that.
Many of the diseases (including Polio & measles) were 98% gone before the vaccine was introduced, and this was replicated at a faster rate in countries which not vaccinate their people. If you’re trying to win an argument about vaccines - don’t follow this article.
Posted by: usedupguy | 10/20/09 | 9:50 am
Here’s what’s going to happen when it comes to vaccines and autism. 10 years from now some research group will come out and say there is some connection to autism and vaccines. That’s just how most of these studies work. My issue is why is autism more in boys and not girls? We can fly to the moon but we can’t answer that one question.
http://thebestfoodfatloss.com
Comment
I received my vaccinations when I was a kid, along with all my siblings, and we never had a problem. However, now my sister wont vaccinate her kids because she's afraid something bad will happen to them. I say she should be more afraid of the bad things that might happen to them if she DOESNT vaccinate them! Its a good debate.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Training to Climb an Everest of Digital Data
Published: October 11, 2009
MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. — It is a rare criticism of elite American university students that they do not think big enough. But that is exactly the complaint from some of the largest technology companies and the federal government.
Steve Ruark for The New York Times
Jimmy Lin is an associate professor at the University of Maryland.
At the heart of this criticism is data. Researchers and workers in fields as diverse as bio-technology, astronomy and computer science will soon find themselves overwhelmed with information. Better telescopes and genome sequencers are as much to blame for this data glut as are faster computers and bigger hard drives.
While consumers are just starting to comprehend the idea of buying external hard drives for the home capable of storing a terabyte of data, computer scientists need to grapple with data sets thousands of times as large and growing ever larger. (A single terabyte equals 1,000 gigabytes and could store about 1,000 copies of the Encyclopedia Britannica.)
The next generation of computer scientists has to think in terms of what could be described as Internet scale. Facebook, for example, uses more than 1 petabyte of storage space to manage its users’ 40 billion photos. (A petabyte is about 1,000 times as large as a terabyte, and could store about 500 billion pages of text.)
It was not long ago that the notion of one company having anything close to 40 billion photos would have seemed tough to fathom. Google, meanwhile, churns through 20 times that amount of information every single day just running data analysis jobs. In short order, DNA sequencing systems too will generate many petabytes of information a year.
“It sounds like science fiction, but soon enough, you’ll hand a machine a strand of hair, and a DNA sequence will come out the other side,” said Jimmy Lin, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, during a technology conference held here last week.
The big question is whether the person on the other side of that machine will have the wherewithal to do something interesting with an almost limitless supply of genetic information.
At the moment, companies like I.B.M. and Google have their doubts.
For the most part, university students have used rather modest computing systems to support their studies. They are learning to collect and manipulate information on personal computers or what are known as clusters, where computer servers are cabled together to form a larger computer. But even these machines fail to churn through enough data to really challenge and train a young mind meant to ponder the mega-scale problems of tomorrow.
“If they imprint on these small systems, that becomes their frame of reference and what they’re always thinking about,” said Jim Spohrer, a director at I.B.M.’s Almaden Research Center.
Two years ago, I.B.M. and Google set out to change the mindset at universities by giving students broad access to some of the largest computers on the planet. The companies then outfitted the computers with software that Internet companies use to tackle their toughest data analysis jobs.
And, rather than building a big computer at each university, the companies created a system that let students and researchers tap into giant computers over the Internet.
This year, the National Science Foundation, a federal government agency, issued a vote of confidence for the project by splitting $5 million among 14 universities that want to teach their students how to grapple with big data questions.
The types of projects the 14 universities have already tackled veer into the mind-bending. For example, Andrew J. Connolly, an associate professor at the University of Washington, has turned to the high-powered computers to aid his work on the evolution of galaxies. Mr. Connolly works with data gathered by large telescopes that inch their way across the sky taking pictures of various objects.
The largest public database of such images available today comes from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which has about 80 terabytes of data, according to Mr. Connolly. A new system called the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope is set to take more detailed images of larger chunks of the sky and produce about 30 terabytes of data each night. Mr. Connolly’s graduate students have been set to work trying to figure out ways of coping with this much information.
Purdue, meanwhile, looks to carry out techniques used to map the interactions between people in social networks into the biological realm. Researchers are creating complex diagrams that illuminate the links between chemical reactions taking place in cells.
A similar effort at the University of California, Santa Barbara, centers on making a simple software interface — akin to the Google search bar — that will let researchers examine huge biological data sets for answers to specific queries.
Mr. Lin has encouraged his students to illuminate data with the help of Hadoop, an open-source software package that companies like Facebook and Yahoo use to split vast amounts of information into more manageable chunks.
One of these projects included a deep dive into the reams of documents released after the government’s probe into Enron, to create an analysis system that could identify how one employee’s internal communications had been connected to those from other employees and who had originated a specific decision.
Mr. Lin shares the opinion of numerous other researchers that learning these types of analysis techniques will be vital for students in the coming years.
“Science these days has basically turned into a data-management problem,” Mr. Lin said.
By donating their computing wares to the universities, Google and I.B.M. hope to train a new breed of engineers and scientists to think in Internet scale. Of course, it’s not all good will backing these gestures. I.B.M. is looking for big data experts who can complement its consulting in areas like health care and financial services. It has already started working with customers to put together analytics systems built on top of Hadoop. Meanwhile, Google promotes just about anything that creates more information to index and search.
Nonetheless, the universities and the government benefit from I.B.M. and Google providing access to big data sets for experiments, simpler software and their computing wares.
“Historically, it has been tough to get the type of data these researchers need out of industry,” said James C. French, a research director at the National Science Foundation. “But we’re at this point where a biologist needs to see these types of volumes of information to begin to think about what is possible in terms of commercial applications.”
Comment
I have addressed this area of concern before, when I discussed the distibuted computing of Rosetta@home, SETI, etc. These projects generate mountains of data on a wide range of topics that are analyzed by a large network of volunteers that donate their computers and computing power when they arent using it. I leave the programs on when I go to work, and when I go to sleep at night. It is my little contribution to research and humanity. I just believe that if all our schools, universities, and businesses would also contribute we could expedite the research process towards figuring out a cure for cancer, climate control, malaria and other diseases, and a lot of the maladies that are inflicted on Man. I also believe that the VA has massive records of all the veterans they have treated for the past 10, 15, 20 years, and that a lot of those veterans wouldnt mind their records being used in research of a wide range of diseases. Kaiser-Permanente also has access to a lot of records.
MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. — It is a rare criticism of elite American university students that they do not think big enough. But that is exactly the complaint from some of the largest technology companies and the federal government.
Steve Ruark for The New York Times
Jimmy Lin is an associate professor at the University of Maryland.
At the heart of this criticism is data. Researchers and workers in fields as diverse as bio-technology, astronomy and computer science will soon find themselves overwhelmed with information. Better telescopes and genome sequencers are as much to blame for this data glut as are faster computers and bigger hard drives.
While consumers are just starting to comprehend the idea of buying external hard drives for the home capable of storing a terabyte of data, computer scientists need to grapple with data sets thousands of times as large and growing ever larger. (A single terabyte equals 1,000 gigabytes and could store about 1,000 copies of the Encyclopedia Britannica.)
The next generation of computer scientists has to think in terms of what could be described as Internet scale. Facebook, for example, uses more than 1 petabyte of storage space to manage its users’ 40 billion photos. (A petabyte is about 1,000 times as large as a terabyte, and could store about 500 billion pages of text.)
It was not long ago that the notion of one company having anything close to 40 billion photos would have seemed tough to fathom. Google, meanwhile, churns through 20 times that amount of information every single day just running data analysis jobs. In short order, DNA sequencing systems too will generate many petabytes of information a year.
“It sounds like science fiction, but soon enough, you’ll hand a machine a strand of hair, and a DNA sequence will come out the other side,” said Jimmy Lin, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, during a technology conference held here last week.
The big question is whether the person on the other side of that machine will have the wherewithal to do something interesting with an almost limitless supply of genetic information.
At the moment, companies like I.B.M. and Google have their doubts.
For the most part, university students have used rather modest computing systems to support their studies. They are learning to collect and manipulate information on personal computers or what are known as clusters, where computer servers are cabled together to form a larger computer. But even these machines fail to churn through enough data to really challenge and train a young mind meant to ponder the mega-scale problems of tomorrow.
“If they imprint on these small systems, that becomes their frame of reference and what they’re always thinking about,” said Jim Spohrer, a director at I.B.M.’s Almaden Research Center.
Two years ago, I.B.M. and Google set out to change the mindset at universities by giving students broad access to some of the largest computers on the planet. The companies then outfitted the computers with software that Internet companies use to tackle their toughest data analysis jobs.
And, rather than building a big computer at each university, the companies created a system that let students and researchers tap into giant computers over the Internet.
This year, the National Science Foundation, a federal government agency, issued a vote of confidence for the project by splitting $5 million among 14 universities that want to teach their students how to grapple with big data questions.
The types of projects the 14 universities have already tackled veer into the mind-bending. For example, Andrew J. Connolly, an associate professor at the University of Washington, has turned to the high-powered computers to aid his work on the evolution of galaxies. Mr. Connolly works with data gathered by large telescopes that inch their way across the sky taking pictures of various objects.
The largest public database of such images available today comes from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which has about 80 terabytes of data, according to Mr. Connolly. A new system called the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope is set to take more detailed images of larger chunks of the sky and produce about 30 terabytes of data each night. Mr. Connolly’s graduate students have been set to work trying to figure out ways of coping with this much information.
Purdue, meanwhile, looks to carry out techniques used to map the interactions between people in social networks into the biological realm. Researchers are creating complex diagrams that illuminate the links between chemical reactions taking place in cells.
A similar effort at the University of California, Santa Barbara, centers on making a simple software interface — akin to the Google search bar — that will let researchers examine huge biological data sets for answers to specific queries.
Mr. Lin has encouraged his students to illuminate data with the help of Hadoop, an open-source software package that companies like Facebook and Yahoo use to split vast amounts of information into more manageable chunks.
One of these projects included a deep dive into the reams of documents released after the government’s probe into Enron, to create an analysis system that could identify how one employee’s internal communications had been connected to those from other employees and who had originated a specific decision.
Mr. Lin shares the opinion of numerous other researchers that learning these types of analysis techniques will be vital for students in the coming years.
“Science these days has basically turned into a data-management problem,” Mr. Lin said.
By donating their computing wares to the universities, Google and I.B.M. hope to train a new breed of engineers and scientists to think in Internet scale. Of course, it’s not all good will backing these gestures. I.B.M. is looking for big data experts who can complement its consulting in areas like health care and financial services. It has already started working with customers to put together analytics systems built on top of Hadoop. Meanwhile, Google promotes just about anything that creates more information to index and search.
Nonetheless, the universities and the government benefit from I.B.M. and Google providing access to big data sets for experiments, simpler software and their computing wares.
“Historically, it has been tough to get the type of data these researchers need out of industry,” said James C. French, a research director at the National Science Foundation. “But we’re at this point where a biologist needs to see these types of volumes of information to begin to think about what is possible in terms of commercial applications.”
Comment
I have addressed this area of concern before, when I discussed the distibuted computing of Rosetta@home, SETI, etc. These projects generate mountains of data on a wide range of topics that are analyzed by a large network of volunteers that donate their computers and computing power when they arent using it. I leave the programs on when I go to work, and when I go to sleep at night. It is my little contribution to research and humanity. I just believe that if all our schools, universities, and businesses would also contribute we could expedite the research process towards figuring out a cure for cancer, climate control, malaria and other diseases, and a lot of the maladies that are inflicted on Man. I also believe that the VA has massive records of all the veterans they have treated for the past 10, 15, 20 years, and that a lot of those veterans wouldnt mind their records being used in research of a wide range of diseases. Kaiser-Permanente also has access to a lot of records.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Alternative to ADHD Drugs
posted by Mel, selected from Natural Solutions magazine Oct 15, 2009 3:00 pm
filed under: Alternative Therapies, Children, Health & Wellness, adderall, ADHD, meditaion, ritalin, TM
Alternative+to+ADHD+Drugs
Hello,
I saw this on Care2 and thought you'd like it as well.
Care2 is the largest and most trusted information and action site for people who care to make a difference in their lives and the world.
Care2.com send We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.
28 comments
By Diana Reynolds Roome, Natural Solutions
Josh Goulding was diagnosed with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in second grade, after his impulsive and disruptive behavior frequently landed him in the school principal’s office. “Over several years, I was put on a whole gamut of drugs, and nothing worked well,” says Goulding, now 24. By his second year at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, Goulding was still struggling to concentrate in classes and complete his work, and his medications were causing mood swings and irritability.
The Conventional Rx: Stimulant drugs, such as Ritalin and Adderall. Almost 4.5 million children between ages 4 and 17 are diagnosed with ADHD, and nearly half of them take prescription medications, often for years. Long term, these drugs may be physically and psychologically harmful, and side effects such as sleep disturbances, poor appetite, weight loss, and mood disorders can require further medication.
The Alternative Rx: Transcendental Meditation (TM). In the first study on ADHD and TM, middle-school-age children who did twice daily nonreligious meditations for 10 minutes reduced their stress levels by over 50 percent–resulting in fewer ADHD symptoms. “TM helps children focus on a special mantra or sound, which helps the child transcend mental busyness and stress,” says Sarina Grosswald, EdD, coauthor of the study. “This allows the child’s body to completely relax and his mind to stay fully awake without effort. The results are improved behavior, grades, creativity, and inner stability.”
The Outcome: Just before turning 21, Goulding attended a talk on TM and signed up to learn the technique. First, he started sleeping better. Then, finding it easier to focus and relate to others, his grades improved. When Goulding returned to his doctor, his blood pressure was lower (it had been borderline hypertensive before he started TM) and, even after he stopped taking ADHD medications, his grade-point average continued to rise.
More on Alternative Therapies (76 articles available)
More from Mel, selected from Natural Solutions magazine (116 articles available)
28 comments
Add to Favorites Tell a Friend Share Print Facebook Digg Reddit Care2 StumbleUpon more
Select a service:
StumbleUponRedditDiggBuzz UpFacebookTwitterMySpaceMixxDel.icio.usGoogle BookmarksFavoritesCare2
sender info:
your name: your email:
recipient info:
recipient's address(es): Separate multiple e-mail addresses by a comma. You can send up to 100 recipients.
personal message
Alternative+to+ADHD+Drugs
Hello,
I saw this on Care2 and thought you'd like it as well.
Care2 is the largest and most trusted information and action site for people who care to make a difference in their lives and the world.
Care2.com send We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.
related stories
Pharmaceuticals: Just Say Maybe
(4 comments)
Help Your Child Focus Naturally
(9 comments)
How Serious Is Your Clutter Problem? Quiz
(24 comments)
28 commentsadd your comment »
28 comments add your comment
Jean T. says
Oct 17, 2009 9:20 PM
I will be paying close attention to these new developments. What a great good fortune it will be if there is truly an alternative to drugging our children. If the TM Program can produce the same or better results without the harmful side effects of drugs - Bravo. Please keep covering this important topic.
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
submit cancel Submitting...
Your report of abuse has been received and will be reviewed.
The response report you have submitted was unable to transmit. Please try your submission again or contact support.
Barbara West says
Oct 17, 2009 12:24 PM
ADHD reminds me of the same problems my son faced as a tiny child, only then (35 years ago!) they called it HYPERACTIVITY!!! Their fix for that then was Ritalin. I refused to put him on it then and no one should have to go on it now. Cut out everything ARTIFICIAL from the childs diet (ie: flavors, sweetners, colors, etc.) Connect with their teachers and set up new rules at the schools (I did it), none of these children should be out side running rampent and then expected to sit still and function. They come inside and are over-wond-springs. What they need during school times is not running around. They need to be doing something quiet and calming. I did it with my son and proved to the school that they were wrong in the way they handled children (the principal was given an award by the governor of the state for her change in curriculum for the children!). So read the labels on all the food you buy (all the artificial crap, even in canned vegetables, will shock you). You can make your childs life so much better for them and you!!!
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
submit cancel Submitting...
Your report of abuse has been received and will be reviewed.
The response report you have submitted was unable to transmit. Please try your submission again or contact support.
Garrick S. says
Oct 17, 2009 11:25 AM
For those of you unfortunate enough to believe in the "disorder" theories with the $big$ $fat$ $catch$, I have news for you. Patholigizing "irrational" normal behavior and giving it a "disorder" label does nothing to treat the cause and thus reverse the "issues". ADHD does not exist in Truth. It exists as a handy term to capitalize and control. Kids and adults have issues, no doubt, but treated with diet, lifestyle, key communication, peaceful family meals, conscious parenting, sunlight, etc., to completely harmonize one, without any side effects in the mind and body, or residual disbelief in oneself. Not believing in oneself is dire for any being. Do we realize this as a society? Our minds are so malleable. Look at how TV and advertising manipulate minds. Now the minds have morphed to correspond with the trillion dollar racket of psychiatry---which helps to destroy lives. Yes---helping to destroy lives! Crippling and impairing for life. Just because we don't hear this in circulation amongst the morphed masses doesn't mean it isn't a shining huff on a horn. Our artificial right/wrong mentality, in concert with "dis-"orders, creates an idea within someone that something is really negative. This is false, as right/wrong has been artificially implanted into us. We also change, and grow to accomodate our life. This is natural, folks. The answers will be found by confronting each and every situation, NATURE RUNNING ITS COURSE, THROUGH DIFFICULTY AND ON TO HARMONY.
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
submit cancel Submitting...
Your report of abuse has been received and will be reviewed.
The response report you have submitted was unable to transmit. Please try your submission again or contact support.
Hans H. says
Oct 17, 2009 10:09 AM
I'm convinced that the drugs are very dangerous and destroy lives.
Quote from FDA announced June 28 that Ritalin and other methylphenidate drugs had been linked to "visual hallucinations, suicidal ideation, psychotic behavior, as well as aggression or violent behaviour". Nothing was said about suicides or suicide attempts.
The narcotic drug Ritalin has been withdrawn from the Swedish market for 37 years - since the abuse catastrophe in the 60-ties. But Swedish psychiatrists have in recent years demanded the right to prescribe Ritalin and other stimulants to children - with the false pretence that the narcotic drug for children with the diagnosis ADHD would work as insulin for persons with diabetes. The expert child psychiatrist at the MPA has led the campaign; he has assured the public there are no serious short-term or long-term side effects from stimulant treatment of children.
source:http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/view_press_release.php?rID=9094
Search for "Ritalin suicide " see for your self.
There are other drugs like Prosac and newer ones, the ingredients are very similar and but the names change after some years.
Check out this website:http://www.adhd-information-exchange.com/ADHD-Medications.html
Click on the different Meds.
I did read it and It is shocking.
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
submit cancel Submitting...
Your report of abuse has been received and will be reviewed.
The response report you have submitted was unable to transmit. Please try your submission again or contact support.
Kristine V. says
Oct 17, 2009 6:26 AM
It's making me sick to read that some or you folks out there don't think ADHD is a real condition.
Do you have any children that have been diagnosed?? Do you know what it's like to live with a child that is hyperactive and innatentive??
I have been living a holistic lifestyle since I was 19 years old. I have a son with ADHD, and since then have realized i am ADD.
I look at my family history, and think that my father might have it also.
Yes, I do believe vaccines are toxic and it scares the s@#t out of me, but I believe ADHD is hereditary.
I will try meditation for my son when he gets older. I have tried OM-ing with him, but it usually lasts for 10 deep breaths, and finishes with lots of giggles, myself included.
In the meantime adderall and lots of healthy foods seem to be working marvelously. I don't mind being skinny either!!!!
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
submit cancel Submitting...
Your report of abuse has been received and will be reviewed.
The response report you have submitted was unable to transmit. Please try your submission again or contact support.
Genevieve H. says
Oct 17, 2009 3:57 AM
My daugther had ADHD, anyway, all the symptoms of what is called ADHD, but it seems to have eased itself with puberty. I have read that some of the reason for the lack of concentration and the hyperactivity in some people comes from the fact that some connection between the neurons in the frontal lobes are not yet formed for those people. With puberty, some of those connections are made finally and most of the symptoms go away, but not all.
Anyway, I think too that a lot of that problem comes also from the fact that modern education and society wants to make everybody the same, wants to fit a round peg into a square hole or vice-versa. If someone is not like everyone else, he/she gets labeled as having a disease, or disorder. Isn't that scary to live in such a society ? It sounds a lot to me like something you would read in Brave New World or 1984....
So I'm sure TM is a good way for people to regain their autonomy and refuse being medicated and put into a mental straight jacket.
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
submit cancel Submitting...
Your report of abuse has been received and will be reviewed.
The response report you have submitted was unable to transmit. Please try your submission again or contact support.
Lynx C. says
Oct 16, 2009 11:15 PM
I should probably know better than to try and read anything about ADHD on this site - or at least than to read the comments. The range of irrational, kneejerk reactions, and the inaccurate information being spread, is really maddening.
If people would take the time to actually read up on the medical research surrounding ADHD, there is plenty of evidence that it is a perfectly real condition, and affects adults as much as kids. It doesn't magically go away when you grow up. There are distinct differences evident in brain scans of people with and without ADHD, and researchers are starting to get a fairly good picture of the brain chemistry involved (mostly centering around dopamine).
The majority of ADHD adults I know - including myself - do take medication for it. And guess what, it doesn't destroy your creativity, turn you into a zombie, or really make you into any sort of a different person than you already are. It just gives you a little more control over your mental processes and helps you concentrate better, by increasing the dopamine levels in your brain, which affect alertness and attentiveness. Most of the common medications for ADHD have a long history of safe use. Adverse reactions can happen, as with anything (including natural remedies!), but they're relatively rare.
However, medication is only one tool, not a magic solution. That's why exercise, nutrition, meditation and other complementary therapies are well worth exploring. It's not an either/or choic
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
submit cancel Submitting...
Your report of abuse has been received and will be reviewed.
The response report you have submitted was unable to transmit. Please try your submission again or contact support.
LISA S. says
Oct 16, 2009 10:18 PM
I work w/ kids that have ADHD,some OCD, high funtioning autistics and Asperger's syndrome. I belive that any focused energy is a good thing. I never learned to do TM myself (I really should meditate)but most likely it would be a positive tool in their lives. I recommend Social Cognitive Skills groups for these kids as well. And obviously if medication helps your child then I would never negate it. But some (once weekly) form of group skills or therapy should always be done as well for any true understanding and 'practice' in making appropriate choices for themselves in schoolwork or socially.
Medication alone does not teach behavior and I have seen kids 'weened' away form their meds as they learn to understand and take control of their own unique personality and choices that they make.
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
Leslie Buford says
Oct 16, 2009 2:22 PM
ADHD has always been around. Children with ADHD just dropped out of school early. Many went on to have careers in hands on professions such as farming, building, etc. But our world has changed, for better or worse... a child who does not finish high school now has few opportunities to live a comfortable, successful life. Educational settings and approaches do make a difference, but medication also plays an important role. Due to more knowledge and better diagnostics, many more people (children and adults) can find out why they struggle to pay attention (or to control their moods, as in bipolar disorder) and receive treatment that makes their lives better. The statistics on untreated ADHD and bipolar disorder are quite alarming... suicide rates, death from overdose or drunk driving, and imprisonment occur at a much higher rate among that population. So, if the meds work, and the side effects are tolerable, it doesn't matter to me whether the guys who produce them are evil or not... treat the disorder. Then maybe one of our bipolar, adhd kids will grow up to be the doctor or businessman or political leader who manages to fix our broken health care system.
why is this inappropriate?
submit cancel Submitting...
Your report of abuse has been received and will be reviewed.
The response report you have submitted was unable to transmit. Please try your submission again or contact support.
Cheryl R. says
Oct 16, 2009 2:10 PM
Pharmaceuticals-NO WAY! I learned the hard way that pharmaceuticals destroy lives. They are drugs, no better than street drugs. Before you try pharmaceuticals, try all the alternatives, like meditation, yoga, exercise, support groups, therapy, art therapy, being in nature, dietary changes, eliminating toxins from your body and environment, etcetera. Drugs are toxic, and they cause permanent brain damage. Don't let the doktors fool you. They're just out for money. They are liars and thieves and they don't care what harm befalls you. They're a bunch of money hungry sadists.
Comment
My nephew is ADHD and his Mom says there is a demonstratable difference in his behavior when he is on Ritalin. I have witnessed it myself, as he is calmer, more able to focus, watch TV, etc. that he just couldnt do before. He also follows directions better on Ritalin, and will look you in the eye when you talk to him. It does affect his appetite, and can affect his sleep if give too late in the afternoon.
filed under: Alternative Therapies, Children, Health & Wellness, adderall, ADHD, meditaion, ritalin, TM
Alternative+to+ADHD+Drugs
Hello,
I saw this on Care2 and thought you'd like it as well.
Care2 is the largest and most trusted information and action site for people who care to make a difference in their lives and the world.
Care2.com send We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.
28 comments
By Diana Reynolds Roome, Natural Solutions
Josh Goulding was diagnosed with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in second grade, after his impulsive and disruptive behavior frequently landed him in the school principal’s office. “Over several years, I was put on a whole gamut of drugs, and nothing worked well,” says Goulding, now 24. By his second year at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, Goulding was still struggling to concentrate in classes and complete his work, and his medications were causing mood swings and irritability.
The Conventional Rx: Stimulant drugs, such as Ritalin and Adderall. Almost 4.5 million children between ages 4 and 17 are diagnosed with ADHD, and nearly half of them take prescription medications, often for years. Long term, these drugs may be physically and psychologically harmful, and side effects such as sleep disturbances, poor appetite, weight loss, and mood disorders can require further medication.
The Alternative Rx: Transcendental Meditation (TM). In the first study on ADHD and TM, middle-school-age children who did twice daily nonreligious meditations for 10 minutes reduced their stress levels by over 50 percent–resulting in fewer ADHD symptoms. “TM helps children focus on a special mantra or sound, which helps the child transcend mental busyness and stress,” says Sarina Grosswald, EdD, coauthor of the study. “This allows the child’s body to completely relax and his mind to stay fully awake without effort. The results are improved behavior, grades, creativity, and inner stability.”
The Outcome: Just before turning 21, Goulding attended a talk on TM and signed up to learn the technique. First, he started sleeping better. Then, finding it easier to focus and relate to others, his grades improved. When Goulding returned to his doctor, his blood pressure was lower (it had been borderline hypertensive before he started TM) and, even after he stopped taking ADHD medications, his grade-point average continued to rise.
More on Alternative Therapies (76 articles available)
More from Mel, selected from Natural Solutions magazine (116 articles available)
28 comments
Add to Favorites Tell a Friend Share Print Facebook Digg Reddit Care2 StumbleUpon more
Select a service:
StumbleUponRedditDiggBuzz UpFacebookTwitterMySpaceMixxDel.icio.usGoogle BookmarksFavoritesCare2
sender info:
your name: your email:
recipient info:
recipient's address(es): Separate multiple e-mail addresses by a comma. You can send up to 100 recipients.
personal message
Alternative+to+ADHD+Drugs
Hello,
I saw this on Care2 and thought you'd like it as well.
Care2 is the largest and most trusted information and action site for people who care to make a difference in their lives and the world.
Care2.com send We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.
related stories
Pharmaceuticals: Just Say Maybe
(4 comments)
Help Your Child Focus Naturally
(9 comments)
How Serious Is Your Clutter Problem? Quiz
(24 comments)
28 commentsadd your comment »
28 comments add your comment
Jean T. says
Oct 17, 2009 9:20 PM
I will be paying close attention to these new developments. What a great good fortune it will be if there is truly an alternative to drugging our children. If the TM Program can produce the same or better results without the harmful side effects of drugs - Bravo. Please keep covering this important topic.
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
submit cancel Submitting...
Your report of abuse has been received and will be reviewed.
The response report you have submitted was unable to transmit. Please try your submission again or contact support.
Barbara West says
Oct 17, 2009 12:24 PM
ADHD reminds me of the same problems my son faced as a tiny child, only then (35 years ago!) they called it HYPERACTIVITY!!! Their fix for that then was Ritalin. I refused to put him on it then and no one should have to go on it now. Cut out everything ARTIFICIAL from the childs diet (ie: flavors, sweetners, colors, etc.) Connect with their teachers and set up new rules at the schools (I did it), none of these children should be out side running rampent and then expected to sit still and function. They come inside and are over-wond-springs. What they need during school times is not running around. They need to be doing something quiet and calming. I did it with my son and proved to the school that they were wrong in the way they handled children (the principal was given an award by the governor of the state for her change in curriculum for the children!). So read the labels on all the food you buy (all the artificial crap, even in canned vegetables, will shock you). You can make your childs life so much better for them and you!!!
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
submit cancel Submitting...
Your report of abuse has been received and will be reviewed.
The response report you have submitted was unable to transmit. Please try your submission again or contact support.
Garrick S. says
Oct 17, 2009 11:25 AM
For those of you unfortunate enough to believe in the "disorder" theories with the $big$ $fat$ $catch$, I have news for you. Patholigizing "irrational" normal behavior and giving it a "disorder" label does nothing to treat the cause and thus reverse the "issues". ADHD does not exist in Truth. It exists as a handy term to capitalize and control. Kids and adults have issues, no doubt, but treated with diet, lifestyle, key communication, peaceful family meals, conscious parenting, sunlight, etc., to completely harmonize one, without any side effects in the mind and body, or residual disbelief in oneself. Not believing in oneself is dire for any being. Do we realize this as a society? Our minds are so malleable. Look at how TV and advertising manipulate minds. Now the minds have morphed to correspond with the trillion dollar racket of psychiatry---which helps to destroy lives. Yes---helping to destroy lives! Crippling and impairing for life. Just because we don't hear this in circulation amongst the morphed masses doesn't mean it isn't a shining huff on a horn. Our artificial right/wrong mentality, in concert with "dis-"orders, creates an idea within someone that something is really negative. This is false, as right/wrong has been artificially implanted into us. We also change, and grow to accomodate our life. This is natural, folks. The answers will be found by confronting each and every situation, NATURE RUNNING ITS COURSE, THROUGH DIFFICULTY AND ON TO HARMONY.
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
submit cancel Submitting...
Your report of abuse has been received and will be reviewed.
The response report you have submitted was unable to transmit. Please try your submission again or contact support.
Hans H. says
Oct 17, 2009 10:09 AM
I'm convinced that the drugs are very dangerous and destroy lives.
Quote from FDA announced June 28 that Ritalin and other methylphenidate drugs had been linked to "visual hallucinations, suicidal ideation, psychotic behavior, as well as aggression or violent behaviour". Nothing was said about suicides or suicide attempts.
The narcotic drug Ritalin has been withdrawn from the Swedish market for 37 years - since the abuse catastrophe in the 60-ties. But Swedish psychiatrists have in recent years demanded the right to prescribe Ritalin and other stimulants to children - with the false pretence that the narcotic drug for children with the diagnosis ADHD would work as insulin for persons with diabetes. The expert child psychiatrist at the MPA has led the campaign; he has assured the public there are no serious short-term or long-term side effects from stimulant treatment of children.
source:http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/view_press_release.php?rID=9094
Search for "Ritalin suicide " see for your self.
There are other drugs like Prosac and newer ones, the ingredients are very similar and but the names change after some years.
Check out this website:http://www.adhd-information-exchange.com/ADHD-Medications.html
Click on the different Meds.
I did read it and It is shocking.
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
submit cancel Submitting...
Your report of abuse has been received and will be reviewed.
The response report you have submitted was unable to transmit. Please try your submission again or contact support.
Kristine V. says
Oct 17, 2009 6:26 AM
It's making me sick to read that some or you folks out there don't think ADHD is a real condition.
Do you have any children that have been diagnosed?? Do you know what it's like to live with a child that is hyperactive and innatentive??
I have been living a holistic lifestyle since I was 19 years old. I have a son with ADHD, and since then have realized i am ADD.
I look at my family history, and think that my father might have it also.
Yes, I do believe vaccines are toxic and it scares the s@#t out of me, but I believe ADHD is hereditary.
I will try meditation for my son when he gets older. I have tried OM-ing with him, but it usually lasts for 10 deep breaths, and finishes with lots of giggles, myself included.
In the meantime adderall and lots of healthy foods seem to be working marvelously. I don't mind being skinny either!!!!
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
submit cancel Submitting...
Your report of abuse has been received and will be reviewed.
The response report you have submitted was unable to transmit. Please try your submission again or contact support.
Genevieve H. says
Oct 17, 2009 3:57 AM
My daugther had ADHD, anyway, all the symptoms of what is called ADHD, but it seems to have eased itself with puberty. I have read that some of the reason for the lack of concentration and the hyperactivity in some people comes from the fact that some connection between the neurons in the frontal lobes are not yet formed for those people. With puberty, some of those connections are made finally and most of the symptoms go away, but not all.
Anyway, I think too that a lot of that problem comes also from the fact that modern education and society wants to make everybody the same, wants to fit a round peg into a square hole or vice-versa. If someone is not like everyone else, he/she gets labeled as having a disease, or disorder. Isn't that scary to live in such a society ? It sounds a lot to me like something you would read in Brave New World or 1984....
So I'm sure TM is a good way for people to regain their autonomy and refuse being medicated and put into a mental straight jacket.
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
submit cancel Submitting...
Your report of abuse has been received and will be reviewed.
The response report you have submitted was unable to transmit. Please try your submission again or contact support.
Lynx C. says
Oct 16, 2009 11:15 PM
I should probably know better than to try and read anything about ADHD on this site - or at least than to read the comments. The range of irrational, kneejerk reactions, and the inaccurate information being spread, is really maddening.
If people would take the time to actually read up on the medical research surrounding ADHD, there is plenty of evidence that it is a perfectly real condition, and affects adults as much as kids. It doesn't magically go away when you grow up. There are distinct differences evident in brain scans of people with and without ADHD, and researchers are starting to get a fairly good picture of the brain chemistry involved (mostly centering around dopamine).
The majority of ADHD adults I know - including myself - do take medication for it. And guess what, it doesn't destroy your creativity, turn you into a zombie, or really make you into any sort of a different person than you already are. It just gives you a little more control over your mental processes and helps you concentrate better, by increasing the dopamine levels in your brain, which affect alertness and attentiveness. Most of the common medications for ADHD have a long history of safe use. Adverse reactions can happen, as with anything (including natural remedies!), but they're relatively rare.
However, medication is only one tool, not a magic solution. That's why exercise, nutrition, meditation and other complementary therapies are well worth exploring. It's not an either/or choic
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
submit cancel Submitting...
Your report of abuse has been received and will be reviewed.
The response report you have submitted was unable to transmit. Please try your submission again or contact support.
LISA S. says
Oct 16, 2009 10:18 PM
I work w/ kids that have ADHD,some OCD, high funtioning autistics and Asperger's syndrome. I belive that any focused energy is a good thing. I never learned to do TM myself (I really should meditate)but most likely it would be a positive tool in their lives. I recommend Social Cognitive Skills groups for these kids as well. And obviously if medication helps your child then I would never negate it. But some (once weekly) form of group skills or therapy should always be done as well for any true understanding and 'practice' in making appropriate choices for themselves in schoolwork or socially.
Medication alone does not teach behavior and I have seen kids 'weened' away form their meds as they learn to understand and take control of their own unique personality and choices that they make.
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
Leslie Buford says
Oct 16, 2009 2:22 PM
ADHD has always been around. Children with ADHD just dropped out of school early. Many went on to have careers in hands on professions such as farming, building, etc. But our world has changed, for better or worse... a child who does not finish high school now has few opportunities to live a comfortable, successful life. Educational settings and approaches do make a difference, but medication also plays an important role. Due to more knowledge and better diagnostics, many more people (children and adults) can find out why they struggle to pay attention (or to control their moods, as in bipolar disorder) and receive treatment that makes their lives better. The statistics on untreated ADHD and bipolar disorder are quite alarming... suicide rates, death from overdose or drunk driving, and imprisonment occur at a much higher rate among that population. So, if the meds work, and the side effects are tolerable, it doesn't matter to me whether the guys who produce them are evil or not... treat the disorder. Then maybe one of our bipolar, adhd kids will grow up to be the doctor or businessman or political leader who manages to fix our broken health care system.
why is this inappropriate?
submit cancel Submitting...
Your report of abuse has been received and will be reviewed.
The response report you have submitted was unable to transmit. Please try your submission again or contact support.
Cheryl R. says
Oct 16, 2009 2:10 PM
Pharmaceuticals-NO WAY! I learned the hard way that pharmaceuticals destroy lives. They are drugs, no better than street drugs. Before you try pharmaceuticals, try all the alternatives, like meditation, yoga, exercise, support groups, therapy, art therapy, being in nature, dietary changes, eliminating toxins from your body and environment, etcetera. Drugs are toxic, and they cause permanent brain damage. Don't let the doktors fool you. They're just out for money. They are liars and thieves and they don't care what harm befalls you. They're a bunch of money hungry sadists.
Comment
My nephew is ADHD and his Mom says there is a demonstratable difference in his behavior when he is on Ritalin. I have witnessed it myself, as he is calmer, more able to focus, watch TV, etc. that he just couldnt do before. He also follows directions better on Ritalin, and will look you in the eye when you talk to him. It does affect his appetite, and can affect his sleep if give too late in the afternoon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)