The lawyer for a Santa Rosa mother accused of choking her daughter's alleged bully said Thursday that his client is being lauded as an international "folk hero."
A Sonoma County Sheriff's deputy arrested Delia Garcia-Bratcher on Saturday on one felony charge of inflicting injury on a child, accusing the 30-year-old of leaving red marks on the boy's throat when she came onto an elementary school campus Friday.
But her attorney Ben Adams said Garcia-Bratcher acted as any mother would, after a boy at Olivet Elementary Charter School in Santa Rosa bullied her daughter last week.
Garcia-Bratcher made her first court appearance Thursday with Adams and supporters by her side. Formal charges against her were postponed Thursday.
CHRISTIE SMITH VIA NBC BAY AREA
Delia Garcia-Bratcher
"She is the mother of the year," Adams told reporters outside the courthouse. "She did nothing wrong. Her daughter was being bullied, and she confronted the bully. What is wrong with that?"
Adams told that the court he had evidence that would exonerate his client and that the boy had lied about her putting her hands on his throat. He said he would share the evidence but didn't elaborate on what it was.
Garcia-Bratcher said in an interview with the Santa Rosa Press Democrat Monday that the boy had called her daughter a "dirty Indian" and that she spoke to him about the name-calling on Friday.
Garcia-Bratcher "adamantly denies" ever having grabbed the fifth-grader by the throat, Adams said. He said that Garcia-Bratcher told the boy to stop behaving like a brat and to stop tormenting her daughter. Now, Adams said, people from all over the world are applauding her for standing up for her daughter.
Defuse heart attack triggers that lurk in your home.
A bacon cheeseburger fetish topped with a couch potato mentality is a surefire recipe for a heart attack. But those obvious bad choices aren't the only things taking a toll on your ticker. Scientists discovering surprising new heart attack causes—including ones you may unknowingly be exposing yourself to every day. Learn about the new heart attack triggers and eliminate them from your daily routine!
Nonstick Chemicals
Nonstick and stain-repelling chemicals are convenient, but in terms of health, they might not be worth it. Previously linked to infertility, high cholesterol, and ADHD, a September 2012 study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine also shows a connection between perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) chemicals and heart disease. Regardless of age, body mass, or the presence of diabetes or other diseases, researchers found that people with the highest PFOA levels in their blood were twice as likely to have cardiovascular disease compared with people with the lowest levels.
Avoid it: If you use nonstick pots, pans, and bakeware, replace them with uncoated stainless steel, made-in-America cast iron, or glass the minute you start seeing chips in the finish. More PFOA avoidance tactics? Stay away from fabrics, furniture, and carpeting advertised as "stain repellent," and eat fast food less—many fast-food containers contain PFOA-containing grease barriers.
Climate Change
Our warming planet has innumerable impacts on your health, as investigative journalist Linda Marsa documents in her new book Fevered. Among them: heart attacks. Excessive heat leads to the formation of tiny particulates in polluted air, known as PM2.5, and those particles get lodged deep in your lungs. They're so small they evade your body's natural immune defenses and migrate into your bloodstream, where they contribute to the formation of the artery-clogging plaques responsible for heart attacks and stroke.
Avoid it:Start taking fish oil supplements. A study from the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences found that regular omega-3 fish oil supplements lowered subjects' susceptibility to the effects of toxic outdoor air pollution.
Antibacterial Soap
Triclosan, an antibacterial soap and toothpaste chemical, is a well-known bad actor when it comes to health, thanks to its ties to thyroid disease and its role in creating hard-to-kill, antibiotic-resistant germs. You can now add increased heart disease risk to the dangers of antibacterial soap, thanks to new research suggesting it can damage heart and muscle tissue.
Avoid it: You get virtually no benefit for the risk you take when buying and using antibacterial products, since researchers have proven that washing with regular soap and water works just as well. To avoid triclosan, steer clear of anything advertised as "antibacterial," "antimicrobial," "germ-killing," "odor-free," or "odor-killing." When it comes to personal care products, check the label to make sure triclosan isn't on the ingredients list.
Canned Food
Sodium isn't canned foods' only setback. The notoriously toxic canned food chemical bisphenol A, or BPA, is a potent hormone disruptor tied to breast cancer, anger problems in female children, obesity, and infertility. And now, it's implicated in heart disease. A 2011 study published in the journal PLoS ONE found even small doses of BPA—ones we're commonly exposed to—could lead to dangerous heart arrhythmia, erratic beating that could cause sudden cardiac death. The BPA-heart disease link gained more traction just months later when researchers discovered that healthy people with higher BPA levels are more likely to develop heart disease down the line.
Avoid it: Limit canned food and instead opt for fresh or frozen. (Eden Foods is one brand that went BPA free and disclosed its plant-based BPA replacement; some companies have eliminated the BPA but are using a toxic alternative.) Also decline trivial cash receipts. Thermal receipts—the most popular kind in use today—are coated in BPA that's readily absorbed into your skin. Some No. 7 plastics also contain BPA, so choose glass or stainless steel food and drink containers, and never heat plastic in the microwave or dishwasher—higher temps accelerate leaching.
Traffic Jams
Traffic can kill, and not just via wrecks. Scientists have uncovered a connection between air pollution, traffic jams, and heart attack risk. German researchers interviewed heart attack survivors to try and pinpoint certain heart attack triggers. They found that people stuck in traffic—whether as a driver, passenger, bike rider, or passenger on public transportation—experienced a 3.2 times higher risk of having a heart attack compared to people who weren't trapped in a traffic jam. (Add it to the list of reasons to pitch to your boss to let you work from home.)
Avoid it: Check air-quality reports before hitting the road, keep your windows closed on the highway, and lobby your boss to allow more telecommuting to reduce your exposure to tailpipe pollution.
Certain Seafood
Omega-3 fatty acids found in fish are supposed to protect your heart, not harm it. Syracuse University researchers churned up evidence suggesting you should be picky about what type of fish you eat, though. They found fish contaminated with high levels of mercury actually interfered with the body's response to stress, increasing the odds of heart disease. The mercury interferes with the body's natural cortisol hormone levels in a heart-unhealthy way.
Avoid it: In addition to tuna, fish with the highest levels of mercury are usually the big predatory species, such as swordfish, king mackerel, and any kind of shark. But watch out for recreational species, as well. The U.S. Geological Survey has found dangerously high mercury levels in some freshwater species, including trout and bass. For more tips on finding safer fish, read The Surprising Heart Attack Trigger in the Seafood Aisle and 12 Fish You Should Never Eat.
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
eBay Warns Customers to Change Passwords After Database Hacked By
Matthew DeLuca and Julianne Pepitone
Personal information for all of eBay’s 145 million active buyers could have been accessed in a hack two months ago, a company spokeswoman said, as the online auction giant advised all users to change their passwords Wednesday.
The database contained encrypted passwords and was compromised from late February into March. The hacked database contained customer information including names, phone numbers, birth dates, home addresses and email addresses. It did not include financial information, the online auction site said.
The company has not yet said how many accounts were breached, but personal information for all eBay users in the database was potentially compromised, according to eBay spokeswoman Amanda Christine Miller.
Information for PayPal, an eBay subsidiary, is encrypted and maintained separately.
“Cyberattackers compromised a small number of employee log-in credentials, allowing unauthorized access to eBay’s corporate network,” the company said in a statement. EBay has seen “no evidence of any unauthorized access to financial or credit card information, which is stored separately in encrypted formats.”
The Target hack and your data for sale
The breach was discovered about two weeks ago, according to eBay, leading to a probe that identified the hacked database. The company said it is "aggressively investigating the matter" and working with law enforcement.
EBay users will be contacted by the company on Wednesday asking them to change their passwords. A notice asking users to change their eBay passwords was first posted on the company website for PayPal, which is owned by eBay and handles its online payments.
Users who use the same password on eBay and other websites should change their passwords on all sites, the company said.
PayPal released a statement saying that an investigation has not uncovered any evidence that information for its customers was hacked.
“PayPal customer and financial data is encrypted and stored separately, and PayPal never shares financial information with merchants, including eBay,” PayPal said.
High-profile hackings have plagued several companies in recent months. Target reported a massive security breach that laid financial information for tens of millions of customers vulnerable over the holiday season. AOL Mail reported a major hack in April in which email accounts were broken into and used to send out spam.
Dogs can be trained to sniff out organic compounds tied to prostate cancer, according to a new study that finds they're 98 percent accurate.
Dogs can sniff out prostate cancer with uncanny accuracy, Italian researchers reported on Sunday.
While it’s not a test that is ready for prime time, the findings suggest quick and accurate new ways to screen for the disease, which kills 29,000 U.S. men every year. And the report joins a growing list of studies showing that dogs can smell the byproducts of various types of cancer.
“These dogs were really able to detect these particular compounds with a high degree of accuracy,” said Dr. Stacy Loeb of New York University, a urologist who was not involved in the study.
Gianluigi Taverna of Humanitas Research Hospital in Milan and colleagues took urine samples from 320 men with prostate cancer, and 357 without it. The men with cancer had all different stages of the disease, from very low-risk, slow-growing tumors, to cancer that had spread.
Some of the men in the non-prostate-cancer group had other diseases or conditions, including other types of cancer.
One of the dogs detected every single prostate cancer case, and only hit false positives — when it identified cancer when it wasn’t there — in 2 percent of cases. The other dog was almost as accurate.
Taken together, the two dogs had an accuracy rate of 98 percent, the team reported to the annual meeting of the American Urological Association Sunday.
“We have definitely turned what used to seem a myth into a real clinical opportunity,” they wrote.
“These data show analysis of volatile organic compounds in urine is a promising approach to cancer detection,” said Dr. Brian Stork, a urologist at West Shore Urology in Muskegon, Michigan, who also was not involved in the study.
“The possibility of using dogs identifying cancer is something most would never have considered possible a decade or two ago. It’s an interesting concept that ‘man’s best friend’ could help save your life.”
The findings replicate a smaller study done with a single dog in France, who sniffed out prostate cancer in 33 samples.
Dogs have also sniffed out lung tumors and they are being tested to see if they can detect ovarian cancer.
Loeb points out that it is far too soon to say the dogs could be put to work screening men for prostate cancer. The dogs could smell compounds associated with prostate cancer, she noted. “What (the researchers) don’t say is how good these compounds are for predicting prostate cancer and, more important, for predicting aggressive prostate cancer,” she said.
“We’re very good at diagnosing prostate cancer,” she added. “What we really need are diagnostics that are better at helping us identify life-threatening prostate cancer.”
Prostate cancer is diagnosed in more than 230,000 U.S. men a year. There’s a debate now over whether too many men get diagnosed with and treated for prostate cancer that never would have caused them any harm. That’s because the disease can grow very slowly, and it’s difficult now to predict whose cancer is slow-growing and whose is dangerous.
The most interesting revision that the FCC Chairman offers is an examination of whether or not net neutrality is the jurisdiction of the FCC at all.
With the FCC nearing a vote about proposed net neutrality regulations, Chairman Tom Wheeler issued a series of revisions to the proposal this week. The most interesting revision that Wheeler offers is an examination of whether or not net neutrality is the jurisdiction of the FCC at all. He invited public comments as to whether broadband Internet service could actually be a public utility, similar to gas, water, sewage treatment, and electricity. If broadband Internet is reclassified as a public utility, Internet service providers would be subject to stricter and more developed regulation, far beyond the scope of what the FCC can manage.
While a reclassification has not yet been made, the proposal does open the door to a discussion about the future of the Internet and what role it plays in our lives.
What's the argument?
There are two fundamental schools of thought when it comes to regulation: those who believe broadband should become a public utility, and those who believe broadband providers should be regulated via antitrust and consumer-protection laws. Neither approach is without flaws, but it is really too late to say which is the better approach: Broadband is arguably already a public utility, even if it may not be considered as such by the law.
On the side of the "public utility" argument are those who believe that broadband influences life and industry as we know it to such a degree that it needs to be regulated carefully and strictly by a government entity. They believe this is the most direct way to ensure net neutrality, as under the supervision of the FCC, paid prioritization cannot be properly regulated.
But aren't all public utilities really monopolies?
The greatest issue with deeming broadband Internet a public utility is the inherent monopolization in this space; both natural monopoly and regulated private monopoly. While some may distinguish between the two, they are truly the same in many ways — and there lies the problem of deeming Internet a public utility.
As Forbes' Tim Worstall artfully describes: "In the U.S. a utility is usually made up of two things, power generation and power distribution. It is true that, to a very large extent...power distribution is a natural monopoly." A natural monopoly can be created when one service is far above and beyond the others in efficiency and size, or far more reasonable in cost. However, regulated private monopolies become natural monopolies because of the power distribution channels. There is not enough to be gained, both monetarily and in the sense of power, to have two competing distribution channels. In the end, the companies congeal, forming monopolies.
So is broadband already a monopoly?
These distribution channels are already limited in the broadband space. There are only a handful of key players nationwide: AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and a few other regional companies. Broadband providers have found a way around the monopolization issue, by dividing the country up into regions and cities that one company controls, rather than trying to compete for the nation as a whole. In most areas, when it comes to providers, you really have one choice. Sometimes a second may be available, but it is vastly less popular than the first. Others are free to enter the market, but rarely do. This way, the company can argue they are not a monopoly because they have "competition," but only one continues to dominate the marketplace. Standard Oil did something similar.
"Competition" also has not evolved for about fifteen years. As Tim Wu, Columbia Law School professor, notes, "For 15 years, consumers have been waiting for serious competition to arrive, yet there is now less competition than ever. It's time to face facts: Broadband is a utility and ought to be treated as such by the Federal Communications Commission."
What's more, during those past fifteen years, the existing companies have had the opportunity to build relationships which mutually benefit one another. These major providers already dominate the space and mostly work together to secure that; seeing one another as members in a flexible monopoly rather than as competitors. Susan Crawford, a tech policy expert and professor at Cardozo Law School, made this point by noting that Verizon sells Comcast's cable service and Comcast sells Verizon’s wireless service. "Fierce competitors don’t offer to sell each other’s products." In this sense, broadband has become a natural monopoly over time.
There is also the case of pricing. The cost of broadband to providers is about $5 per month. It is sold, on average, for $50 a month. Inflated pricing is one of the most common features of a monopoly, both natural and privately regulated.
So if broadband is monopoly, why isn't it a public utility?
Wu, who coined the term "net neutrality," makes the simpler argument that broadband is a public utility simply because it is already used as such: "It is hard to live or do business without the Internet, and the degree to which we take it for granted suggests broadband is an essential part of the U.S. infrastructure." If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's a public utility.
Ultimately, the key point in determining if broadband is an existing public utility is the providers' use of their power. As Wu points out, "Broadband operators today own the effective bridges to the American home, and they have shown an inclination to use that power." Broadband providers have already bullied, so to speak, Netflix into paying a premium to ensure high quality streaming.
But it's not legally recognized as a public utility, yet
The formal reclassification has not occurred, and perhaps broadband will never be legally recognized as a public utility. Berin Szoka, president of TechFreedom, a tech policy think tank, believes this official recognition should never occur as it would quash innovation. Broadband providers naturally agree with his take. They have opposed becoming a legally recognized public utility because they believe it will cause "innovation and investment to collapse."
Szoka argues that public utility regulation, which as we said is very strict and highly enforced, operates under the assumption that "competition is impossible — and keeps it that way." Utility regulation keeps legacy powers in place and prevents new challengers from arising.
However, even without that regulation, competition in broadband has been relatively impossible to come by. A new company has not emerged on the market in years, and consolidation, like the recent Comcast purchase of Time Warner, continues. Even FiOS, the main alternative to broadband cable, only has an 8 percent market share.
So what do we do now?
As it stands, broadband providers have been having their cake and eating it too: they receive the gains of a market monopoly; the ability to innovate that comes without strict regulations; and freedom to operate without heavy oversight. Considering how turbulent the debate over modest FCC proposals have been, and the lawsuits the providers would certainly wield over reclassification, it seems Wheeler's encouragement of discourse around the public utility option is a strategic move rather than a call to action. Some believe Wheeler is wielding reclassification as the ultimate threat to broadband providers to behave and refrain from breaking the paid prioritization regulations he has set forth for the FCC to review.
Even if the FCC pushes for a reclassification of broadband as public utility, the providers have the right to a legal fight. While they battle in court (a fight that would take years to resolve) status quo will remain, allowing the sort-of monopoly to continue to exist and profit while the legality is debated. It would become one of the most important "what should we call me" battles in recent history, but in practice, that battle is already over.
Florida MERS patient sat in busy ER for hours
Reuters
Handout transmission electron micrograph shows the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus
By Barbara Liston of Reuters
ORLANDO (Reuters) - The second U.S. patient to be diagnosed with the deadly Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) spent at least four hours in the public waiting room of a busy Florida emergency department before he was seen by a doctor, a hospital official said.
Almost eight more hours passed before staff at Orlando's Dr. P. Phillips Hospital determined the patient had traveled from Saudi Arabia, where he worked at a hospital, began to suspect his exposure to MERS and had him moved to an isolation room, the hospital's chief quality control officer said.
The official, Dr. Antonio Crespo, said that as of Tuesday, he had changed procedures in the emergency department of Dr. P. Phillips Hospital so that any patient who comes in with flu-like symptoms will be asked whether they traveled to Saudi Arabia or other countries experiencing MERS outbreaks.
"That is one of the learning lessons of this experience. Yes, we could have asked this sooner. I think we have created more awareness," Crespo told Reuters in an interview.
The extended window of time may have exposed hospital staff and other patients to the virus, which is responsible for a worsening outbreak in Saudi Arabia and is estimated to kill about a third of infected patients.
Florida officials said on Tuesday two healthcare workers who were in contact with the patient in the ER late last week had since developed flu-like symptoms and were being tested for MERS. Results are expected on Wednesday.
The possibility that the illness, which has no known treatment, was spreading raised new concerns about the ability of global health officials to contain it.
While the Orlando patient waited to be admitted, he was treated in a single room in the emergency department where healthcare workers wore gloves and gowns due to his diarrhea, but did not wear goggles and face masks appropriate for protecting them from the virus, Crespo said.
Florida officials said they were monitoring the health of 20 healthcare workers who had been in contact with the patient, including a doctor who had already left for Canada. They also were trying to track down nearly 100 people who may have overlapped with the patient at two Orlando medical facilities he visited.
When consumers pay a monthly fee for Internet service, why would they also have to pay a 99-cent "Internet Cost Recovery Fee?"
It's not like getting Net access is an optional feature when paying for ... Net access. The fee is not unlike a coffee shop charging a "coffee bean acquisition fee" or a grocery store charging a "fresh fruit delivery fee." But that's what Penny Williams found when she opened her bill last month.
advertisement
The Washington resident watches her bills very closely, so she noticed right away when her CenturyLink high-speed Internet bill rose mysteriously by $1.88. A glance at the paperwork revealed two new fees accounted for the difference, but the listed explanation didn't make much sense.
One line of the bill included the phrase "Internet Cost Recovery Fee—0.99." Given that Williams already pays about $30 monthly for Internet service, the $1 fee, seemingly for Internet service, made little sense to her. But the next line item was even more confusing.
"Internet Cost Recovery Credit—0.89," it said. Despite that friendly sounding name, the "credit" offered by CenturyLink actually increased her bill by 89 cents. Was it possible CenturyLink had changed the definition of the word credit?
A note to customer service shed a little light on the issue, but no light on the 89-cent credit.
"As of May 10, 2013 CenturyLink, began charging a Cost Recovery fee to our High Speed Internet users. The Internet Cost Recovery Fee is a monthly charge of $.99 that helps cover the costs associated with the building and maintaining of the Internet network," said a response from the company sent to Williams and provided to CNBC. A follow-up query about the 89-cent charge produced no response.
Louisiana-based CenturyLink, which has 5 million broadband customers around the U.S., already faced a round of criticism last year when it first began to impose the 99-cent Internet Cost Recovery Fee. And the chorus of boos is getting louder.
"I was highly annoyed. I watch my bills very carefully for any changes. ... I'm not getting any additional or better service," said Williams, who lives near Seattle, where CenturyLink Field is home of the Super Bowl champion Seahawks.
advertisement
When CNBC contacted CenturyLink for an explanation, we got a similar response as Williams.
"The Broadband or Internet Cost Recovery Fee has been in place in much of CenturyLink's service areas for several years," wrote spokesman Mark Molzen in an email. "This fee helps defray the costs associated with building and maintaining the CenturyLink High-Speed Internet broadband network, as well as the costs of expanding network capacity to support the continued increase in average customer broadband consumption."
Fair game
In many industries, such fees might sound farcical, but they have been fair game in the telecommunications industry for years. Some other industries—the hotel business, for example—have also seized on the base-price-plus-fee structure, as summer travelers will soon be reminded.
Tack-on fees help companies make their monthly charges appear lower than they actually are. Critics say they are just a sneaky way of simply raising prices, particularly when line items are broken out that seem to be an inherent, nonoptional part of a service.
Consumers today are often confused by the real price they pay for monthly services, and why it differs from advertised prices. Such confusion—these tack-on gotchas—often serve as pure profit for companies.
CNBC.com
Williams' situation is further confused because she enjoyed a low-price guarantee. In 2010, when CenturyLink completed its acquisition of Quest, the company entered an agreement with the Washington state attorney general that it would honor "price for life" agreements and other discount offerings.
That meant CenturyLink couldn't add tack-on fees to those customers. Or rather, in an apparent ode to longer telecommunications bills, it meant the company would add the fee, and then list a discount for that same fee, on customers' bills.
"Customers on the 'Price for Life' or 'Price Lock' plans are billed the Internet Cost Recovery Fee, and if they qualify for the 'Price for Life' or 'Price Lock' discounts, they receive a credit on the same invoice," wrote Molzen.
One possible sensible explanation for what happened to Williams is that her discount term ran out, so she is just now being hit by the fee 99 cent fee. And if that term ran out in midmonth, a partial fee appeared on her bill for that previous month. So the "credit" is really a "credit" to Century Link.
Bad form
It seems bad form to call a fee a credit, however.
"The credit verbiage is crazy. I was really confused," Williams said. "I kept looking at it to confirm it added to my bill rather than reducing it. When I asked Century Link about it, they answered my question about the 99-cent increase, but didn't respond to the credit question. Then I began to be upset."
Molzen did not answer CNBC's additional questions about the "credit" either, even after he was provided with a copy of the bill.
Williams still has a pretty good deal, so she doesn't plan to cancel service. But the tack-on fees are frustrating.
"It felt like corporate America was adding fees for the sake of revenue," she said. "Just be upfront about the charges."
When was the last time you looked at a bill and saw surprising, frustrating tack-on fees? Send an email and Bob Sullivan will investigate as part of our new Gotcha Capitalism feature.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Why Calling 911 On Your Cell is Not Always a Good Idea
You feel safe having that cellphone with you. If there's ever an emergency — no matter where you are — you can call 911 for help.
Unfortunately, that sense of security is partly an illusion.
Your wireless device has a big limitation: It doesn't give the 911 operator your exact location. So if you can't talk — which is often the case in a medical emergency or a crime in progress — it may be difficult or impossible for emergency responders to find you in time.
"It's a public safety hazard that is largely unrecognized," said Jamie Barnett, director of the Find Me 911 Coalition. "People's lives are at risk right now because they cannot count on 911 being able to find them when they call from a cell phone."
On TV crime dramas, when the good guys want to find someone, they simply go to their computers and instantly locate that person via their cellphone signal. In real life, it's not quite so easy.
If you're outdoors, and your phone's GPS chip can connect with satellites above or the phone hits a series of cell towers on the ground, the 911 operator will know your latitude and longitude—within 50 meters or so—most of the time.
But make that emergency call from inside a building — where it's hard for your phone to "see" the satellites and cell signals tend to bounce around a lot — and your location information could be off by 100 meters or more.
"We have to do better," said Todd Piett, chief product officer with Rave Mobile Safety. "In most cities, just a few meters can mean the difference between several buildings and that can be the difference between life and death."
And then there are those unfortunate situations where the location information turns out to be way off.
"We have a lot of cases where the distance between where the caller actually is and where the cell phone says they're located is up to a mile different," said Steve Souder, director of 911 communications in Fairfax County, Virginia.
That's why the first piece of information 911 operators ask for from a cellphone caller is their location. They may not know. And if the call gets dropped, they may never know if you don't tell them.
"We can find out the when, the why and the how once we get there. But we need to know where there is," Souder said.
On June 16, 2013, Mary Thomas was in an apartment on the upper east side of Manhattan when she had a stroke. She was able to call 911, but her speech was slurred and she couldn't tell the dispatcher where she was. Because she was inside a high rise, the location information provided by the cell tower was way off.
It took nearly eight hours to find her. Remarkably, Thomas was still alive when medics arrived and she was rushed to the hospital.
This is an extreme example, but far from an isolated case. The Find Me 911 Coalition recently surveyed emergency dispatchers in all 50 states and found that most (82 percent) do not have a great deal of confidence in the location data automatically displayed for wireless calls. More than half (54 percent) said that information is regularly inaccurate.
The problem is only going to get worse
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) estimates that more than 70 percent of all calls to 911 centers now come from wireless phones — that's more than 400,000 calls a day. The majority of these calls (64 percent) are made indoors. And these numbers are sure to go up as even more people pull the plug on their land-line phone service at home.
The FCC has heard the complaints—and the horror stories—and has acknowledged the potential threat to public safety. In a speech last year, FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel said that "if you call 911 from a wireless phone indoors, cross your fingers, because FCC location standards for emergency calls do not apply indoors."
"In most cities, just a few meters can mean the difference between several buildings and that can be the difference between life and death."
The FCC has proposed rules to require more accurate location information for emergency wireless calls made indoors: accurate within 50 meters of the phone 67 percent of the time within two years, and 80 percent of the time in five years. The rules would also require vertical location information—for those in multiple-story building — within three years.
In its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, he commission stated that the improvements it's considering could save approximately 10,000 lives each year.
CTIA — The Wireless Association says it supports the idea of better location technology, but disagrees with the FCC's proposed rules.
Brian Josef, CTIA's assistant vice president for regulatory affairs, said indoor locations pose some real challenges and the proposed rules lay out an unrealistically short timeline to solve them.
"The FCC needs to evaluate before they regulate," Josef said. "We are improving the technology and we want to continue working on that. But before you set rules that can't be met, let's first identify verified technologies that can improve indoor location and let's go forward from there."
Safe to eat? Common ingredients banned in other countries, but OK here
Madelyn FernstromTODAY health and diet editor
TODAY health and diet editor Madelyn Fernstrom identifies ingredients that are commonly found in U.S. foods but are banned abroad, and explains how to know whether you’re eating foods that contain them.
Ever heard of BVOs or rBST? They're ingredients that have been banned from the food supply in other countries, but are allowed in food products in the United States. Should we be worried? And how do you know if you're consuming a food that contains some of these ingredients?
On Monday Coca-Cola said it will drop the controversial chemical brominated vegetable oil, or BVO, from all its drinks, prompted by worries the ingredient is used as a flame retardant and isn't approved for consumption in Japan and the European Union. Pepsi also said it was removing the controversial ingredient from Gatorade drinks.
In a statement, Coke responded: "All of our beverages, including those with BVO, are safe and always have been — and comply with all regulations in the countries where they are sold..."
But if it's safe, why take it out? When it comes to banning food ingredients, not only science, but public opinion, animal welfare, and politics often weigh in on the decision-making. So a “food ban” in some parts of the globe for certain foods doesn’t automatically make a food unsafe to eat.
Even before Coke's decision, there’s been a lot of talk about “banned” food ingredients in other countries that are used in foods produced in the U.S.
The good news is that the overwhelming evidence supports safety in the food supply, as approved by the Food and Drug Administration. But population data do not always apply to the individual, and for all of these ingredients, options are also available to avoid completely if desired.
Here are 6 common ingredients banned in other countries, but approved for use in the U.S.:
1.Brominated vegetable oil (BVOs)
What it’s in: Some citrus-flavored sodas and sugary drinks. It’s used as an emulsifier to keep the citrus and other ingredients mixed in solution.
How to avoid if you choose: Read the ingredient labels on all citrus-flavored drinks. The Coca-Cola Company announced this week the removal of BVO from its Powerade Line.
2.Food colorings/dyes(Blue #1 and #2; Yellow #5 and #6; Red #40)
What they're In: Many candies, cereals, drinks, salad dressings, processed foods
How to avoid if you choose: Read the package labels for any added artificial food colorings or dyes. Look for organic products, or labels stating vegetable colorings only.
3.Bovine growth hormone — rBST
What It’s In:About 25 percent of the milk and dairy foods produced in the United States.
How to avoid If you choose:Look for labels saying “no added hormones”. All milk naturally contains growth hormone (including human milk). Organic milk is FDA-regulated to be added-hormone free. Animal welfare seems to be of significant concern, not food safety.
4.Potassium Bromate
What It’s In:Found in some breads, rolls, and pizza dough
How to avoid If you choose: For home use, choose flours that are potassium bromate free. Read labels on packaged breads and frozen doughs. Ask in a restaurant for the type of flour used.
5.BHA/BHT
What It’s In:Some breads and rolls as a preservative.
How to avoid If you choose:Read package labels.
6.GMO or genetically modified organisms
What they're In: Most corn and soybean products; vegetable burgers, protein bars, cereals, snackfoods.
How to avoid If you choose: Look for organic foods, which are FDA regulated to exclude use of GMO ingredients. Choose packaged foods with a non-GMO verified label.
The bottom line is — it’s always important to be an informed consumer. The safety of the U.S. food supply is based on a set of complex rules and regulations established by the FDA (and sometimes with input from the USDA and EPA). Perhaps even more confusing, there are also food ingredients that are banned in the US (like cyclamates, the low calorie sweetener) that are approved throughout the world.
Companies must petition for FDA approval, including GRAS (generally recognized as safe) compounds as food additives. Documented scientific evidence of safety is required as well and test samples for evaluation by FDA experts— and sometimes external expert scientific panels — to determine based on all of the scientific data whether an additive can be used in the food supply, and in what concentration.
Many studies showing harmful effects are done in very high doses over long periods of time in laboratory animals. The FDA philosophy is to document no harm from an ingredient when used as intended. Studies are assessed to connect any potential effects in real-life use, not mega doses that are only theoretical. And it’s often a challenge to translate such findings to typical use by people, which is where much of the debate for safety is focused.
Generally, the potential adverse effects for a variety of food ingredients include tumor development, endocrine disruptions, behavior changes, rashes, or allergies. TODAY.com writer Linda Carroll contributed to this report
If there's one thing hiring managers and HR professionals need to know about today's candidates, it's that they take to rejection the same way Taylor Swift does: They don't go down quietly.
Though they may not write chart-topping pop songs about the employers who scorned them, they do take to social media to publicly vent their frustrations, putting a dent in those companies' employer brands – and even their bottom lines. Studies have shown that workers are less likely to purchase products or services from companies that don't bother to respond to their job applications, and many will talk about a bad experience they had with a potential employer with friends and family.
What candidates really think when they don't hear back Not convinced? A few years ago, we heard from quite a few job seekers trying to figure out why hiring managers didn't respond to candidates -- and they had some choice words about those companies. Below are just a handful of comments we received from jilted job seekers:
"It does make the company look totally pathetic and sad that they couldn't get back to me with the status of the job I interviewed for. I will warn any of my past co-workers...to stay away from this company, they are very unprofessional."
"I have very strong feelings about several businesses that have interviewed me and never been back in touch (after saying they would) that I take every opportunity to make their lack of consideration known whenever their business comes up in conversation."
"It's really easy to set up [rejection email] templates...and it takes less time to use one as a reply for an email than it does to actually review the application. If you've got time to read applications, you've got time to send form replies, and if you don't have time to read applications, you shouldn't be advertising jobs."
"No one of any talent and quality wants to work for a company that cannot [get back to the people you interview]. If you are a company with high turnover, it's probably your fault, and it won't change unless you do."
"Yes, being told 'No, we don't want you' sucks...but what hurts more is just never knowing. Okay, you don't want to hire me, I get it, but at least have the decency to tell me."
"Indeed it is cold and unprofessional not to email back a brief 'rejection' letter after an interview. After someone took the time to get nicely dressed and groomed, spent money on gas, a new haircut, and took up valuable job searching time for an interview, it makes sense just to get back to them."
"Follow up on a company's part is a PR opportunity. If you're going to treat me this way as an applicant, [it makes me wonder] 'how will you treat me as an employee?'"
DO follow up with every candidate Ideally, you should to respond to every single applicant who applies (and yes, you do have time -- see below), but at the very least, you should follow up with the candidates you bring in to interview -- even when it's bad news. After all, the candidate took just as much time out of his/her day as you did to come in for the interview.
DON'T think ignorance is bliss Most candidates agree it's better to hear they got rejected than hearing nothing at all. Sending rejection emails or letters may feel harsh, but it's far crueler to ignore them completely.
DON'T think "I don't have time" is an excuse As one job seeker noted above, it takes just a few minutes to create an email template in Outlook, which you can then use over and over again to quickly and easily follow up with applicants. (Not sure how to break the news? Check out a sample rejection letter template.) Just remember to personalize it before sending it off.
DO be honest and concise State a clear reason for the rejection (e.g."We have selected another candidate whose credentials were better suited for the position."), but don't feel the need to go into great detail.
DON'T be nasty Even if the interview was a disaster, unkindness is never called for (and it could come back to haunt you).
DON'T let the good ones get away If the person was a strong candidate, chances are he or she might be the right fit for a future position. Invite him or her to join your Talent Network if you have one or let them know you're keeping his or her information on file.
Mary Lorenz is a copywriter for CareerBuilder, specializing in B2B marketing and corporate recruiting best practices and social media. In addition to creating copy for corporate advertising and marketing campaigns, she researches and writes about employee attraction, engagement and retention.
Sunday, May 4, 2014
Young Blood Restores Old Mice
Blood from young mice boosted the memory and muscles of old mice.
“You just give an old mouse young blood and see if the animal is smarter than before."
“You just give an old mouse young blood and see if the animal is smarter than before,” said Tony Wyss-Coray, a professor of neurology at Stanford who led one of the studies.
They were. The old mice could navigate mazes as quickly as young mice could. “It was as if these old brains were recharged by young blood,” Wyss-Coray added.
“We’ve shown that at least some age-related impairments in brain function are reversible. They’re not final,” added Saul Villeda, who is now at the University of California, San Francisco.
Closer checks showed the new blood was acting on the hippocampus, the part of the brain used in navigating and orienting. “This brain region is very important not only for rodents, who use it to find their way around in their burrow, but for humans. It is also very important to make spatial maps, when you park your car somewhere you go shopping and you remember where it is.”
Wyss-Coray admits the experiments might evoke images of Dracula and even of Frankenstein. “You can’t drink the blood,” he points out. “But seriously, if you wanted to try that in humans you’d have to get a transfusion. And you can’t just do that at home.”
What you can do is set up an experiment with blood transfusions in Alzheimer’s patients, and Wyss-Coray is seeking federal government permission to do just that. You can also look to see just what it is in the blood that’s having the effect, and that’s what Amy Wagers and Lee Rubin of Harvard’s Department of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology did.
They not only transfused mice with young blood, but surgically connected two-month-old mice to 15-month-old mice for five weeks. (This strain of mice usually lives just over 2 years). The young mice didn’t seem to suffer from sharing blood with the older mice. But when they hooked up the young mice to 21-month-old mice, production of new brain cells slowed.
Other studies have shown this, also -- something in the blood of older mice can impair young ones.
The researchers know that as animals age, they lose blood flow in the brain. The young blood restored some of this lost blood flow in the older mice. More tests showed the young blood was making the existing blood vessels healthier.
“This should give us all hope for a healthier future."
Other research had shown that a protein called GDF11 strengthened the hearts of elderly mice. When the Harvard team injected older mice with GDF11, they exercised better and smelled things better, also.
“This should give us all hope for a healthier future,” said Dr. Doug Melton, who helps head the department at Harvard. “We all wonder why we were stronger and mentally more agile when young, and these two unusually exciting papers actually point to a possible answer: the higher levels of the protein GDF11 we have when young. There seems to be little question that, at least in animals, GDF11 has an amazing capacity to restore aging muscle and brain function.”
The next step is to see how much of this applies in humans.
“It isn’t out of question that GDF11 … might be worthwhile in Alzheimer’s Disease,” Rubin said. His team is working with venture capitalists to raise the money to go forward. Wyss-Coray has co-founded a biotechnology company called Alkahest to move ahead.
Wyss-Coray believes there could be other factors besides GDF11 at work. And it will also be important to find out where they are made. It might not be the blood that is key — some other organ may be producing these rejuvenating factors, and the blood’s just carrying them around.
“What I think this opens is (the possibility that) we will be able to delay aging of your body,” Wyss-Coray said. “If you could do that and translate it to humans, you could delay a lot of diseases simply because your body would be younger.”
Poor Falling Further Behind the Rest of Americans, Study Says
VERONIQUE DUPONT / AFP - Getty Images
America's poor, like many living in Camden, NJ. are falling further behind the rest of the national a study says.
The rise in the number of Americans out of work for long periods has helped push U.S. income inequality to a 50-year high and has particularly hurt low-income households, according to a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
Fed chief Janet Yellen has called the growing income gap between rich and poor "one of most disturbing trends facing the nation." She has also said she is especially concerned with the "devastating" effects of long-term unemployment.
The share of unemployed workers unable to find jobs after looking for six months or longer more than doubled to 45.3 percent as a result of the Great Recession. A government report on Friday showed a decline in the ranks of the long-term unemployed since that peak, but in April they still accounted for more than one-third of all unemployed.
Households in the bottom fifth are suffering the most from the situation, Minneapolis Fed monetary adviser Fabrizio Perri wrote in his analysis of income inequality posted on the bank's website. "The increase in inequality at the bottom seems tightly linked to the very large increase in long-term unemployment, which has depressed income for the bottom," Perri said.
Perri's study also showed that taxes and government programs such as unemployment insurance have narrowed some of the inequality gap but have benefited middle-income Americans more than the poor.
Overall, disposable income for all income levels has fallen over the past 15 years, the study found. But while the gap between the top 5 percent of households and that of middle-income household rose sharply in terms of pre-tax income, the gap in post-tax income has been fairly stable, the study found.
By contrast, the gap in disposable income between the bottom 20 percent and middle-income households widened after the recession, "and it is now as high as it has ever been over the past half century," Perri wrote.
Poor Falling Further Behind the Rest of America America's poor, like many living in Camden, NJ. are falling further behind the rest of the national a study says.
The rise in the number of Americans out of work for long periods has helped push U.S. income inequality to a 50-year high and has particularly hurt low-income households, according to a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
Fed chief Janet Yellen has called the growing income gap between rich and poor "one of most disturbing trends facing the nation." She has also said she is especially concerned with the "devastating" effects of long-term unemployment.
The share of unemployed workers unable to find jobs after looking for six months or longer more than doubled to 45.3 percent as a result of the Great Recession. A government report on Friday showed a decline in the ranks of the long-term unemployed since that peak, but in April they still accounted for more than one-third of all unemployed.
Households in the bottom fifth are suffering the most from the situation, Minneapolis Fed monetary adviser Fabrizio Perri wrote in his analysis of income inequality posted on the bank's website. "The increase in inequality at the bottom seems tightly linked to the very large increase in long-term unemployment, which has depressed income for the bottom," Perri said.
Perri's study also showed that taxes and government programs such as unemployment insurance have narrowed some of the inequality gap but have benefited middle-income Americans more than the poor.
Overall, disposable income for all income levels has fallen over the past 15 years, the study found. But while the gap between the top 5 percent of households and that of middle-income household rose sharply in terms of pre-tax income, the gap in post-tax income has been fairly stable, the study found.
By contrast, the gap in disposable income between the bottom 20 percent and middle-income households widened after the recession, "and it is now as high as it has ever been over the past half century," Perri wrote.
CHRISTIE SMITH VIA NBC BAY AREA
Matt Rourke / AP
![The Wire]({"default":"http://newsbcpcol.stb.s-msn.com/amnews/i/7c/5ff5eebe2ea5c334be7fcd42a1540/_h17_w0_m6_otrue_lfalse.jpg"}){kind=small}
![Handout transmission electron micrograph shows the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus]({"default":"http://newsbcpcol.stb.s-msn.com/amnews/i/7a/666398a62eef8eba4f8b98ff4fda4/_h353_w628_m6_otrue_lfalse.jpg"})
![Reuters]({"default":"http://newsbcpcol.stb.s-msn.com/amnews/i/99/6a6e1e9d2013e8fe84e6814a7d491/_h17_w0_m6_otrue_lfalse.gif"})
CNBC.com
VERONIQUE DUPONT / AFP - Getty Images