Article Summary number two.

Cell Phones and Tumor: Still in No Man’s Land Summary

Cell Phones and Tumor: Still in No Man’s Land by D. R. Kohli, A. Sachdev, and H. S. Vats, addresses the issue of cellular phones and how they affect human health. The use of cellular devices is growing at an exponential rate, and the safety precautions and health issues related to them have yet to be analyzed completely. Whether or not there is any relation between brain tumors, cancer, and other health deficiencies is being questioned, and through many studies the answer to this question is ‘no’. In these studies there are still plenty of gaps that have not been addressed or even considered. A thorough answer cannot be given until these gaps are filled. “Although most studies conducted thus far show no correlation between cell phone use and increased cancer risk, the overall results of these studies cannot be deemed conclusive because of significant limitations in data collection accuracy.” (Page 7) The standing question is being addressed, and even many public health agencies have developed safety standards for cellular use.

Cell phones were introduced in Sweden in 1981, since then, many health concerns have developed. One being that, RFR, radio frequency radiation from cell phones may cause carcinogenesis. Many studies have brought about conclusions that are contradictory to this statement. Through RFR, cell phones interact with their base station even when a cell phone is not being used. The frequency being used for this task is in the same spectrum as that used by television sets and radios. Yet, RFR in this spectrum is a non-ionizing radiation, therefore RFR only uses enough energy to excite electrons, not completely move them to an atom. This means that the RFR that cell phones give off does not damage human body tissues through the normal means of radiation damage. Since damage is not created in this manner, one of the concerns is that the brain is an “antenna”. It acts as a receiver that catches harmful RFR.

Safety standards for occupational and public exposure to RFR are being developed. The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, the World Health Organization, and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection have approached the safety issues and have developed beneficial standards. These standards must be updated and reviewed every so often, as required by law. These agencies also identify gaps in studies and current research. This helps progress the data of studies towards becoming more accurate. The agencies are unbiased and give guidelines that are respected amongst those concerned about the influence of cellular use.

The results of most studies cannot be held certain because of many important limitations in the data collection process. One of these limitations is that not many studies determine the use of cell phones of more than ten years. Sweden is the only place in which there has been a mass amount of cell phone use over ten years. Another limitation is that many studies use self-reporting interviews to estimate the amount of cell phone use therefore, allowing bias into the calculations. One example of this is the reported cell phone use duration, which has been up to 2.8 times the actual recorded time.

The third and fourth limitations in the data collection process is that the exposure to RFR depends on the type of phone, its model, whether the device is hands-free, and whether the calls were from a rural or urban location, and also that it is impossible to eliminate RFR exposure to study individual cell phone effects on human health. The model of a phone and the network it is a part of affect the length or range of exposure that the phone is able to have. Unlike prior cell phone usage of the analog system, many networks now use GSM communication to operate. GSM uses two frequencies unlike the former analog system that only used one. The SAR, site-specific absorption rate, is the exposure measure used for cell phone studies, but these measurements vary depending on certain models and frequencies. These frequencies can be affected by whether the phone call is being made from an urban or rural area, and some studies have shown that higher frequencies are used more often than lower frequencies in rural areas and a higher risk of brain tumors is focused on those living in the rural areas.

Some earlier studies have shown that there is a probable correlation between non-ionizing radiation exposure that is emitted from cell phones and television towers and cancer occurrence. Many later studies have invalidated those indications. In 1996, an Australian study indicated a relation between high rates of leukemia in children and FM/TV towers. This was reevaluated and refuted in 1998 due to the fact that the data was gathered from one area. Other studies in addition to this have shown mixed results in the concern of cell phone usage and its relation to brain cancer. In vitro studies also have not produced any answers that are positive in their data collection process.

When you take into account all of these studies, the better part of them have not found a correlation between cell phone usage and any human health issue. It is imperative that the gaps that have not been studied are closed and that safety precautions remain intact. The means in which the studies are done should be free of bias and full of different perspectives. If the future research is reliable, legitimate, and logical, the questions of today will be reduced and hopefully resolved.

Works Cited

Kohli, D., Sachdev, A., & Vats, H. (2009, January). Cell phones and tumor: Still in no man's land. Indian Journal of Cancer,

46(1), 5-12. Retrieved September 30, 2009, doi:10.4103/0019-509X.48589

Futurist Reading Response Paper #2

Futurist Readings: The Meaning of the 21^st Century Response Paper #2

With every new decade comes new human enhancements: we live longer, grow taller, and become wiser. What if there were machines that could do the enhancing for us? They would allow us to become more aware. With the help of a “bug” in our ear, we would detect liars, the feelings of other’s, and what goes on inside the minds of those in the same room as us. Would this be beneficial or would it create more problems? In his book, The Meaning of the 21^st Century, James Martin states that, “A person might be equipped with a device that has this ability to recognize subtleties underlying emotions. You may get an electronic warning… that the person with whom you are talking is lying, is emotional, or feels nervous about the way a business negotiation is going.” (Page 200) How would this type of knowledge benefit the human race, or would it at all?

With the help of technology, we could surpass problems that have held us back. We could unravel the mixed signals we received from the guy or girl across the room, and we could finally figure out if that person was really lying or not. Yet, I do not know if all of this would be worth our while. “By the time the Transition Generation ages, parts of the human race will be substantially enhanced, and the social consequences of this will be enormous.” (Page 198) Enormous social consequences: are they worth it? This line stood out to me, because it made me wonder what life would be like if we all were powerful and full of knowledge. Would we be like robots who are programmed with information? Would there no longer be a reason to learn? If we were all equal there is also the possibility of intense competition that could be detrimental to our society. All of these issues could destroy our society. Are we willing to sacrifice our prosperity? Our care and concern for others and what they are truly trying to get across may not be of importance anymore. We would lose the desire to learn and understand others. Without the need to discover the true emotions and feelings of others, we would be cheating the system of normal human social interaction. There would be no need to talk and question, to flirt or put on a show. Our thoughts, opinions, and emotions would be laid out on the table for everyone to see. Our privacy and personality would be violated. This may seem like an exaggeration, but when everything we have to hide is already exposed, would our relationships and friendships grow or diminish?

There is an experience that we all have lived through. It is the feeling that you get when you have done something wrong, or you need to lie to cover up what someone isn’t supposed to know and you have planned the whole story in your head that you are going to tell your mother, friend, or other loved one, and right when you finish, or midway through your story, they tell you that they already know the truth, and all that you needed to hide was exposed. I think that may be one of the worst feelings I’ve ever had. When my feelings or secrets are exposed to the one person I want to keep them from, I feel as though I don’t know what to do with myself. I think with these little machines comes power, a power that is now in the hands of others and no longer in your mind and heart. This relates to the loss we would experience if everyone around us knew all that we held inside us.

So what are we to do as people of an up and coming technological world? Do we allow for these mechanical objects to take away our secrets and feelings, or do we oppose them? The future still terrifies me, and I still do not have any answers to my questions.

"Simplifying the Complex Issues of Diversity"

Today, Dr. Maura J. Cullen came and spoke with us about diversity. She discussed different topics such as how we judge people based on size, sexual orientation, looks, social class, etc. She was comical and entertaining. All that she said caught my attention. I agreed with everything she said, and I caught myself doing an involuntary 'mmhmm' or agreeing head nod quite often. She challenged us to write a letter to someone who needed encouragement or a thanks by Monday. She reminded me that a simple 'hello', smile, or good deed can brighten someone's day. Taking two seconds to acknowledge someone else and be kind could make their life worth living. I wish that I could remember to do that. I try my hardest to keep my mouth shut and not involve myself in petty gossip that could destroy someone. I fall short of this goal often, and I always regret the words that come out of my mouth. This reminds me of the futurist paper I wrote this week. I feel that we should strive to coexist with everyone. We should see the beauty of every person, and realize that they were put onto this earth for a reason, flaws and all. I try to live by the quote that is hanging above my bed.

"The world in which you live in is just one model of reality.

Other cultures are not failed attempts at being you.

They are unique manifestations of the human spirit."

-Wade Davis

I wish I had a better memory so that I could remember each individual thing she said that struck me hard. I may add to this later when if I can remember specifics. Overall, I was moved by the whole presentation. It will be on my mind for a good while.

Futurist Reading Response Paper #1

Futurist Readings: The Meaning of the 21^st Century Response Paper

In his book, The Meaning of the 21^st Century, James Martin states, “The only chance for survival is peaceful coexistence, but many cultures resist coexistence.” (Page 265) This line stood out to me because of that one word, ‘coexistence’. The ability to coexist with others is a trait that I have always admired in people. When one can step back, acknowledge that others are different, and accept that, they are already so far beyond the majority of people. With the help of technology and its ever-increasing advancements, we have been able to learn about and interact with other cultures. Being able to do this allows for coexistence. When we are informed we are able to understand those that share this world with us.

Telephones and e-mails have given us access to those who are far away. Whether we ourselves are speaking to other cultures, or the researchers of today are doing it for us, we are now able to learn about them faster than ever. We can sit down and ask Google a question or we can travel at speeds that were once never imagined. Technology today has allowed us to have the world and all that it contains at our fingertips. This can be a good or a bad thing. When we learn about others, we may disagree with the way they live their lives or the morals they have, but how we react to these differences is what truly matters. Clashing civilizations have caused many wars, and to prevent these wars we must learn to coexist.

In today’s world we are blessed with the ability to learn about others. James Martin explains, “In past history, “civilizations” have been confined geographically, had high degrees of autonomy and have tended to have very limited contact with other civilizations. Before the age of colonialism, many civilizations had no idea that others existed.” (Page 265) Obviously, times have changed, but the question is, ‘Do we appreciate this knowledge?’ Clashing civilizations have made it seem as though we do not. The more clashing that there is, the more trouble is being stirred, and the chance of survival is being lessened.

“The Internet enables troublemakers to unite and can stir up the passions of many people.” (Page 265) The Internet has done some good, but along with the good has come the bad. James Martin mentions that we are in “an era where an individual can decide to join a terrorist network.” (Page 265) In addition to terrorist networks, there are hate sites, chat rooms, forums, and many other networks that could be used to interact and allow for coexistence, but are being used to tear that hope down. The access that we now have to others needs to be treated with care. With the ease at which we can speak to other cultures and learn about them, comes the ease to negate and judge them.

My favorite quote is by Wade Davis. I had one of my best friends paint it onto some canvas, and it is now hanging above my bed. “The world in which you were born is just one model of reality. Other cultures are not failed attempts at being you, they are unique manifestations of the human spirit.” That quote reminds me every day to think before I speak and before I judge. It reminds me to watch what I say online, through email or Facebook. It reminds me that I must strive to learn about others instead of forcing them to think like me. This is a hard thing to do. I feel that technology has made it easier for me, by allowing me to learn about others far away or those that I go to this school with. But I also feel that technology has made it easier to destroy friendships or judge others based on what I see online.

Coexistence may be impossible to reach, but I feel that as long as we are striving for it, we are becoming better people.

Article Summary.

Privacy Requires Security, Not Abstinence Summary

In Privacy Requires Security, Not Abstinence by Simson Garfinkel, Social Security numbers, e-mail addresses, and credit card numbers are addressed as being the targets of many hackers. When they are in the hands of the wrong person, they can destroy anyone’s identity and strip them of their privacy. Privacy as a whole is an issue today that is larger than ever before due to increasing technology, yet it is very important in that it protects us from all types of crimes, from stalking to spam. People who have been concerned about their identity and privacy have been advised to stay away from any mannerism that would put them at risk, such as listing personal information online. Everything from Social Security Numbers to Twitter account information should be protected. Yet, the precautionary habits advised do not fully protect anyone and are hard to maintain in today’s world. The main issue today is not that private information is available. The main issue is that the information is not being protected.

What privacy is can be defined in many ways. Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis, two Boston lawyers in 1890, wrote an article in the Harvard Law Review stating that privacy is “the right to be let alone” and listed many ways in which that right was violated. “Being let alone” means protection from invasion, intrusion on private affairs, disclosure of private facts, and negatively or falsely publicized information about a person. The U.S. law respects the privacy of citizens, and all that it entitles; yet, the U.S. law has not been able to balance privacy rights and the upcoming technology at a speedy rate. Privacy protection from U.S. law comes slowly, but surely. Today, our privacy is mainly under attack by companies and corporations. The Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 and the Code of Fair Information Practice help enforce and set up standards that companies, organizations, and businesses must abide by.

Computers have been helpful in managing consumer information, but with their arrival also came an easier way for consumer privacy to be violated. With easier access to information come more attacks on privacy rights. Online privacy attacks have been an increasing problem, and addressing them has become an ever more complicated issue. The Internet has allowed information to be at the fingertips of anyone in the world. All information can be accessed quickly and easily, unlike ever before. Congress passed the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act to help prevent the attack of younger citizens and the Federal Trade Commission passed the FTC Act of 1914 that prevents businesses from taking part in actions that are deceitful. Actions such as these are allowing for consumer privacy to be protected. The FCT Act forces companies to have “privacy policies” that tell consumers what is happening to their private information.

Everything today is stored on remote servers, and without government backing, extreme protection or an electronic identity system all citizens have access to, our privacy will always be at risk. The government is helping control and prevent attacks on consumers. With a combination of the government’s efforts and the consumer’s ability to control information about themselves and its whereabouts, our privacy may have a fighting chance in this ever-increasing world.

Works Cited

Garfinkel, S. (2009, July). Privacy Requires Security, Not Abstinence. Technology Review, 112(4), 64-71. Retrieved September 15, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.

Response Paper to The World is Flat, Chapters 10-15.

The World is Flat Response Paper #3

You’re looking straight ahead, hoping no one speaks to you, and you’re thinking about what you are going to do this afternoon. An elderly woman tries to stop you to ask where the bread aisle is, but you keep on walking. You look right past her, because your headphones are an excuse. You choose not to acknowledge her, because you are now in your own little world. Your own little world may be connected to someone else’s little world, but the world that is physically surrounding you no longer exists. Our technological devices have brought us ease and accessibility, but they have also pulled us down into habits we may not be too found of. In Thomas Friedman’s The World is Flat we are said to be “so accessible, we’re inaccessible” (Page 516).

With every piece of new technology, we are able to grow closer to those we never see. Yet, when you are standing next to someone in line at the grocery store or at the hair salon, it’s hard to keep up a conversation due to the fact that they are completely enveloped in their hand held devices. Thomas Friedman quotes technologist Linda Stone, “We can’t find the off switch on our devices or on ourselves. We want to wear an iPod as much to listen to our own playlists as to block out the rest of the world and protect ourselves from all that noise. We are everywhere- except where we actually are physically.”(Page 516). Everyday I see students walking around my college campus, and I am amazed at what talent my generation has when it comes to texting and walking. We have forced our reality to adapt to our technological addictions. We have trained our minds to double task and pay partial attention to whatever may be happening around us.

The lack of attention paid to the beauty, chaos, and reality around us causes me to see the downfall within our flattening world. The downfall being that instead of conversing with our families around a dinner table, our glowing screens are attracting more and more of us. Our lives are content once we are plugged in, yet to truly concentrate and focus and be without distractions, we must unplug. “I call it the “Age of Interruption,” because it really is an age of constant interruptions- unless you totally unplug.” (Page 518). Friedman comes up with a wonderful point. Our lives are being interrupted. We tell someone who is in the middle of a great story to ‘hold on one moment’ so that we can take a phone call. We ignore our homework so that we can check our Facebooks. We may even miss out on meeting the love of our life on the subway, because that new CD is more soothing to the ears than the small talk of a stranger.

I am definitely a participant in each of these things. I love listening to my iPod when I go walking, talking to my New Mexico camp friends on Facebook, and texting in between paragraphs that I’m reading for Anthropology. My technological devices have become a part of me, but at times I do think about how things were before I ever had my first computer. I listened to the stories my sister had to tell, wrote letters to my family members who live far away, and read children’s book after children’s book without having a telephone on the mind. I wonder what lives my children will live, and what their priorities will be. We are a constantly changing world with constantly changing technological advances.

For the past five years in the month of June, I have gone up to the mountains of Las Vegas, New Mexico, and I stay at a church camp for two weeks. I stayed in a valley with no cell phone service and there was not a computer or television in sight. Those are always my two favorite weeks of the year due to the fact that I have no worries. I don’t have to constantly check my phone or my email. I don’t worry about missed phone calls or text messages. My favorite TV shows are not a concern. I love being liberated and feeling as though I am living my life, and nothing is getting in the way of it. There are no interruptions. There are no annoying ringtones.

I do not think that any of our habits will change anytime soon. We may swim deeper into the abyss of technology or we may stay put. Either way, we have lost contact with those who are right next to us, even while we’ve gained access to those who are far away. Hopefully, we will find a way to see the beauty and build the potential relationships that we have pushed aside due to our love for accessibility. How ironic the whole concept is.

Year of the Pirate

The Year of the Pirate was a wonderful collaboration of everything we, as first-years, need to be aware of. The show told us everything we should hear in a way that we wanted to hear it. The actors put together this show on their own with the help of Kathleen Juhl. I watched some of the rehearsals and was very impressed with the teamwork and dedication these students had to this show. The upperclassmen at Southwestern care about the underclassmen in a way unlike any other school. Safety is important, and I'm proud to be on a campus where safety comes first. The show had a wonderful balance of comedy and reality. It was a wonderful presentation.