It happens. Doors open and close. For everyone. In this economy, where any job is worthy of consideration, it's not surprising to find people jumping at opportunities that they may not have taken at another point in time.
In that light, Todd Stedeford's appointment (http://tiny.cc/jnkfkw) as Chief of Existing Chemicals Assessment Branch of the EPA is not exciting (check out EPA's cool org chart here: http://tiny.cc/7ukfkw). But it's a bit more than that. It's not just his appointment that is interesting, it's his history. Stedeford has lobbied for under-regulation of household chemicals, managing to insert them into products when there has been substantive evidence of the harm that they cause. His professional achievements are peppered with instances where he has constantly argued for raising the bar for evaluating the process of determining whether chemicals should be allowed into household products.
Require more evidence. That's his mantra. Again, nothing wrong with that, but that's a tactic often used by those opposed to the precautionary principle. Throw caution (and some chemicals) to the wind.
Maybe the issue is the chasm of understanding that exists between lawyers and the rest of the world. The noone-but-my-client, blinders approach is how lawyers are bred to practice, especially disregarding personal considerations or emotions. Maybe during his appointment to the EPA Stedeford will perform his duties diligently and ethically, and everyone who is concerned about this seemingly obvious conflict of interest will be proven wrong.
Still, it seems weird that our government seems to do this time and time again. Perhaps we need more stringent rules regarding conflict of interest before appointing people with a certain past to important governmental positions.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Can You Hear Me At All?
I recently read a not-so-recent but interesting study that discussed hearing loss among teenagers.
Here is a link to the study published in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA): http://tiny.cc/qdeijw. The study reported a shocking difference in the hearing abilities of teenagers within a decade.
My search engine exploration was prompted by my observation in MUNI where I noticed that every single teenager I saw had headphones in their ear. Not so shocking, in a world where everyone utilizes multiple "portable listening devices" or PLDs as audiologists refer to them. However, not all of these teens had the volume on their PLDs loud enough for me to hear what genre of music they were listening to, with one distinct exception. Every African American teen had their volume turned up loud enough for me to able to identify the artist and in some cases, the lyrics of the song.
Preliminary research did not surface any race-specific studies on the issue but I did see sporadic calls for educational campaigns, but that is unsurprising because this is a relatively new finding. I hope that examining casual social trends is an important component in planning these studies even if it entails hanging out in buses to observe the habits that one is looking to change.
Here is a link to the study published in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA): http://tiny.cc/qdeijw. The study reported a shocking difference in the hearing abilities of teenagers within a decade.
My search engine exploration was prompted by my observation in MUNI where I noticed that every single teenager I saw had headphones in their ear. Not so shocking, in a world where everyone utilizes multiple "portable listening devices" or PLDs as audiologists refer to them. However, not all of these teens had the volume on their PLDs loud enough for me to hear what genre of music they were listening to, with one distinct exception. Every African American teen had their volume turned up loud enough for me to able to identify the artist and in some cases, the lyrics of the song.
Preliminary research did not surface any race-specific studies on the issue but I did see sporadic calls for educational campaigns, but that is unsurprising because this is a relatively new finding. I hope that examining casual social trends is an important component in planning these studies even if it entails hanging out in buses to observe the habits that one is looking to change.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Letter To Sevy Verna
Mr Verna,
I have so many questions for you. I have listened to the short-wave frequency listed on the flyer from so many years ago but never heard you. I want to make perfectly clear to you the immense amount of respect for you as a thinker, as a creative individual and as someone who has persevered despite being ignored or mocked in the press in the early stages of your campaign. I sincerely admire you for your stalwart dedication and your innovation of a method of circumventing the media.
Mr Verna if it is at all possible, we would live to have you tell the story of this unparalleled publicity campaign in your own words. You have my solemn word as someone who has followed your creative work for over ten years that it is my highest priority to preserve your thoughts and words, in whatever form, in the most respectful and positive manner of which I am capable. We have tried knocking on your door to speak in person, but began to feel as if we were making pests of ourselves, so we will not do so anymore.
I write all of this to you in a spirit of total openness and frankness. I hope you will be able to respond to us and that you would be willing to share your thoughts with us, but whatever decision you make, please know that you have my understanding.
I hope this finds you in good health and spirit.
Very truly and respectfully yours,
Justin Duerr
I have so many questions for you. I have listened to the short-wave frequency listed on the flyer from so many years ago but never heard you. I want to make perfectly clear to you the immense amount of respect for you as a thinker, as a creative individual and as someone who has persevered despite being ignored or mocked in the press in the early stages of your campaign. I sincerely admire you for your stalwart dedication and your innovation of a method of circumventing the media.
Mr Verna if it is at all possible, we would live to have you tell the story of this unparalleled publicity campaign in your own words. You have my solemn word as someone who has followed your creative work for over ten years that it is my highest priority to preserve your thoughts and words, in whatever form, in the most respectful and positive manner of which I am capable. We have tried knocking on your door to speak in person, but began to feel as if we were making pests of ourselves, so we will not do so anymore.
I write all of this to you in a spirit of total openness and frankness. I hope you will be able to respond to us and that you would be willing to share your thoughts with us, but whatever decision you make, please know that you have my understanding.
I hope this finds you in good health and spirit.
Very truly and respectfully yours,
Justin Duerr
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Ghost Tweeters and Advocacy
Over zealous advocates do a giant disservice to legitimate causes. The issue of RF radiation is plagued with such advocates, who may have good intentions but end up bastardizing the truth.
One example was the recent Bloomberg news article, that jumped the gun and made an announcement that they should have waited to make.
An excellent analysis of the announcement by Dr Louis Slesin discusses how the news article makes little sense (one of the few people entrenched in the issue who saw any problem with it). He points out how the information in the article by wasn't appropriately timed. I agree - if the FCC hadn't quite agreed to take the steps that the article purports, this means someone at Bloomberg jumped the gun on publishing it.
Not to say that this is necessarily a bad thing, there may be something to be said about people pressuring the governing authority to "do the right thing". I just don't know if this would work with the FCC, given their nonchalance for how the general public perceives them (see Dr Moskowitz' article "Is the FCC going to rubber stamp the exposure standards?")
These are opinions of well-respected doctors, that have worked in the field, and generally had much more life experience than I have. Still, even in my relatively insignificant world, I have spotted similar trends of well-intentioned but obviously deceptive ways of gaining publicity for the issue of cell phone radiation.
For instance, I was followed by a couple people on Twitter today. I'm at less than 200 followers, so that excited me. I went to check who they were, and this is what I found:
They were two young, pretty girls. I have a lot of young, pretty friends! I didn't quite know who they were, so I looked at their profiles:
Notice how they both have similar headlines, number of followers and how many people they're both following.
They both tweeted about cellphone radiation-related issues within the last couple days, and probably found me through one of those Tweet-match services.
Now, note that Twitter organizes your followers by the add date. Check out who their followers are:
I am certain a Twnalysis (R) of the accounts of these common followers would yield an uncannily similar trend of bizarre coincidences. I don't know if any data experts have looked into this, and it may be difficult to measure because the number of users on Twitter changes so often, but what is the probability of two unrelated people having this many similarities in they're profile, followers in common and following someone on the same day? Infinitesimally minuscule, at best. My conclusion: These are fake accounts, generated by people to, for some reason, create a "hype" about cell phone radiation. Why would someone want to do that? To sell a product, maybe. To create an illusion of Twitter followers for an organizations page, perhaps. Generally, to distort Twitter information and allow the average person to misconstrue public perception in their favor. I can see why establishing a "buzz on Twitter" is a viable and probably effective social media strategy. I also see the logic in wanting to be perceived as bigger than you are, that is the only way the mouse can stand up to the lion.
The technical problems with these are not something to sneeze at. Twitter is the most sophisticated of all social media in recognizing fake accounts. They devote a lot of resources and manpower to keeping Twitter fake-free. Just like Google rolling out Panda, which hit hard the syndicate blogging "industry", any insubstantial changes in the algorithm Twitter uses to detect these accounts could cost the parties responsible their "followers", in turn costing the general movement this generated publicity. In this way, unless the fake accounts magically lead to real people tweeting about this issue, these fabricated followers will go back to the ether they came from, and the drop in the buzz may be perceived as a lack of an issue to be concerned about. If this seems unlikely, look back at the events of less than half a decade ago. Three companies that embarked on a scare tactic about cell phone radiation generated a massive amount of fear in the public. When they were shut down by FTC for making fraudulent claims, and selling ineffective sham products, the buzz they created died down, and took with it the possibility that the mainstream media and the general public would take this issue seriously. My concern with the fake Twitter accounts is a similar minimization of the issue, by the hands of possibly well-intentioned people.
I feel compelled to state affirmatively that I'm not saying there is no issue about cell phone radiation - I'm convinced there is more to the story than CTIA wants us to believe (and their position is not hardly revolutionary or even atypical: that's what Home Appliances Manufacturers, a similar lobby group for microwaves back in their heyday would have said about space-age cooking devices. Good thing we didn't trust a group whose acronym is HAM). The risk of sperm damage and infertility is very real. The probability that the number of brain tumor cases (especially in people below 30, a group historically deemed to have a very low risk of having tumors) is going to increase in the next half century at least - critics will attribute this to better diagnostics, but better diagnostics wouldn't cause a demographic to see a sudden rise in the incidence rates of a particular disease. Cellphones may be able to act as tumor-promoters, and they certainly function as a scarily effective birth-control method.
The point I hope to make is that propaganda can't be countered by propaganda, because misinformation is unsustainable.
If industry engages in deceptive practices by repressing information or propagating misinformation or junk science, it needs to be corrected and stopped - that is obvious and hopefully a non-partisan view. To some extent, I even understand the concept of "playing their game" by utilizing social media to counter their strategy of belittling an important issue. But we shouldn't rewrite our rules, morph our principles and forego our values to the match the deceit that we criticize in the industry.
The only tool that dispels the darkness of corporate deceit is truth - the creation of a real movement takes time and effort. Changing people's minds is difficult, but advocating changes in their behavior is closer to impossible. An advocate in the field refers to it as "converting" people, because she looks at convincing people of the existing hazard as helping them "find religion". Notwithstanding my disdain for cloaked religious activities, advocating precaution is similar to helping people find Jesus. You're not selling a product or a temporary fix, you're advocating a philosophy. A philosophy that requires people to rethink their worlds, the devices they use and how they use them. As a precaution-advocate, you are charged with the monumental task of convincing people to make a conscious decision about things that they do practically unconsciously (put their phone in their pocket). That's not just hard for the advocate, it's difficult for the person who is hearing that too. This is why it is of utmost importance that social changes at a grand-scale occur organically and evolve naturally and gradually, embodying the awakening and realization that the process entails.
Misinformation can't perpetuate forever. History stands witness to the scores of events where certain information was concealed from the public, but it surfaced. Some later than others, and most too late to prevent the damage inflicted by them, but it emerged from the dusty shelves where the big bad villain tried to hide it. When this happens, society as a whole experiences an epiphany, which is the invaluable beginning of a real social change.
No number of fake Twitter accounts is going to speed up that process. Deceitful practices like this may actually hurt the movement as a whole. Dirty tricks hamper the process of illuminating the public with awareness and information and only delay the creation of a valid and sustainable societal lightbulb moment.
One example was the recent Bloomberg news article, that jumped the gun and made an announcement that they should have waited to make.
An excellent analysis of the announcement by Dr Louis Slesin discusses how the news article makes little sense (one of the few people entrenched in the issue who saw any problem with it). He points out how the information in the article by wasn't appropriately timed. I agree - if the FCC hadn't quite agreed to take the steps that the article purports, this means someone at Bloomberg jumped the gun on publishing it.
Not to say that this is necessarily a bad thing, there may be something to be said about people pressuring the governing authority to "do the right thing". I just don't know if this would work with the FCC, given their nonchalance for how the general public perceives them (see Dr Moskowitz' article "Is the FCC going to rubber stamp the exposure standards?")
These are opinions of well-respected doctors, that have worked in the field, and generally had much more life experience than I have. Still, even in my relatively insignificant world, I have spotted similar trends of well-intentioned but obviously deceptive ways of gaining publicity for the issue of cell phone radiation.
For instance, I was followed by a couple people on Twitter today. I'm at less than 200 followers, so that excited me. I went to check who they were, and this is what I found:
They were two young, pretty girls. I have a lot of young, pretty friends! I didn't quite know who they were, so I looked at their profiles:
Notice how they both have similar headlines, number of followers and how many people they're both following.
They both tweeted about cellphone radiation-related issues within the last couple days, and probably found me through one of those Tweet-match services.
Now, note that Twitter organizes your followers by the add date. Check out who their followers are:
I am certain a Twnalysis (R) of the accounts of these common followers would yield an uncannily similar trend of bizarre coincidences. I don't know if any data experts have looked into this, and it may be difficult to measure because the number of users on Twitter changes so often, but what is the probability of two unrelated people having this many similarities in they're profile, followers in common and following someone on the same day? Infinitesimally minuscule, at best. My conclusion: These are fake accounts, generated by people to, for some reason, create a "hype" about cell phone radiation. Why would someone want to do that? To sell a product, maybe. To create an illusion of Twitter followers for an organizations page, perhaps. Generally, to distort Twitter information and allow the average person to misconstrue public perception in their favor. I can see why establishing a "buzz on Twitter" is a viable and probably effective social media strategy. I also see the logic in wanting to be perceived as bigger than you are, that is the only way the mouse can stand up to the lion.
The technical problems with these are not something to sneeze at. Twitter is the most sophisticated of all social media in recognizing fake accounts. They devote a lot of resources and manpower to keeping Twitter fake-free. Just like Google rolling out Panda, which hit hard the syndicate blogging "industry", any insubstantial changes in the algorithm Twitter uses to detect these accounts could cost the parties responsible their "followers", in turn costing the general movement this generated publicity. In this way, unless the fake accounts magically lead to real people tweeting about this issue, these fabricated followers will go back to the ether they came from, and the drop in the buzz may be perceived as a lack of an issue to be concerned about. If this seems unlikely, look back at the events of less than half a decade ago. Three companies that embarked on a scare tactic about cell phone radiation generated a massive amount of fear in the public. When they were shut down by FTC for making fraudulent claims, and selling ineffective sham products, the buzz they created died down, and took with it the possibility that the mainstream media and the general public would take this issue seriously. My concern with the fake Twitter accounts is a similar minimization of the issue, by the hands of possibly well-intentioned people.
I feel compelled to state affirmatively that I'm not saying there is no issue about cell phone radiation - I'm convinced there is more to the story than CTIA wants us to believe (and their position is not hardly revolutionary or even atypical: that's what Home Appliances Manufacturers, a similar lobby group for microwaves back in their heyday would have said about space-age cooking devices. Good thing we didn't trust a group whose acronym is HAM). The risk of sperm damage and infertility is very real. The probability that the number of brain tumor cases (especially in people below 30, a group historically deemed to have a very low risk of having tumors) is going to increase in the next half century at least - critics will attribute this to better diagnostics, but better diagnostics wouldn't cause a demographic to see a sudden rise in the incidence rates of a particular disease. Cellphones may be able to act as tumor-promoters, and they certainly function as a scarily effective birth-control method.
The point I hope to make is that propaganda can't be countered by propaganda, because misinformation is unsustainable.
If industry engages in deceptive practices by repressing information or propagating misinformation or junk science, it needs to be corrected and stopped - that is obvious and hopefully a non-partisan view. To some extent, I even understand the concept of "playing their game" by utilizing social media to counter their strategy of belittling an important issue. But we shouldn't rewrite our rules, morph our principles and forego our values to the match the deceit that we criticize in the industry.
The only tool that dispels the darkness of corporate deceit is truth - the creation of a real movement takes time and effort. Changing people's minds is difficult, but advocating changes in their behavior is closer to impossible. An advocate in the field refers to it as "converting" people, because she looks at convincing people of the existing hazard as helping them "find religion". Notwithstanding my disdain for cloaked religious activities, advocating precaution is similar to helping people find Jesus. You're not selling a product or a temporary fix, you're advocating a philosophy. A philosophy that requires people to rethink their worlds, the devices they use and how they use them. As a precaution-advocate, you are charged with the monumental task of convincing people to make a conscious decision about things that they do practically unconsciously (put their phone in their pocket). That's not just hard for the advocate, it's difficult for the person who is hearing that too. This is why it is of utmost importance that social changes at a grand-scale occur organically and evolve naturally and gradually, embodying the awakening and realization that the process entails.
Misinformation can't perpetuate forever. History stands witness to the scores of events where certain information was concealed from the public, but it surfaced. Some later than others, and most too late to prevent the damage inflicted by them, but it emerged from the dusty shelves where the big bad villain tried to hide it. When this happens, society as a whole experiences an epiphany, which is the invaluable beginning of a real social change.
No number of fake Twitter accounts is going to speed up that process. Deceitful practices like this may actually hurt the movement as a whole. Dirty tricks hamper the process of illuminating the public with awareness and information and only delay the creation of a valid and sustainable societal lightbulb moment.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Open Letter To State Farm
Claim Number: XXYYZZ
Date of incident: 02/XX/12
Team: 5X
1. Is it inappropriate / illegal for State Farm to assign liability in a claim with a no investigation into proportion of fault or any consideration to mitigating factors, given the state-adopted comparative negligence scheme of liability?
Examples of such activity include:
1) Not accepting any information about the incident, besides a verbal statement (diagrams, photographs)
2) Pre-determination of liability based on a generalized situation rather a subjective review of the facts of the case
3) Paying out the liability claim before an appeal of the decision is permitted
2. Is it improper / unfair / illegal for State Farm to institute time-consuming and biased policies and protocols for claim-handling, leaving policy-holder with no recourse besides appealing an adverse decision of liability?
3. Is it unfair / unreasonable / illegal for State Farm to deny policy holder access to records relating to State Farm's investigation and handling of the claim, such as photographs of the estimator?
4. Can State Farm abuse consumer privacy protection by refusing to:
- provide a basic cost-analysis of the repair estimation
- explain the process of estimation
- disclose general information such as standardized rates, pre-negotiated with the repair facility
- conduct more than one repair estimation
- provide local averages for similar repairs?
5. Is it improper / suspect / illegal for State Farm to engage in unscrupulous and exclusionary methods of claim-handling, given the bias inherent in the process: a repair estimate over the policy's deductible results in an increase in subsequent premiums paid by the policy-holder?
Examples of such activity include:
1) Concealing records, and refusing to provide information
2) Insufficient and unsatisfactory investigatory practices
3) Complete control and autonomy over all decisions related to settling the claim
4) Little to no follow/up or notification to keep policy-holder updated of developments (unless specifically requested)
5) Instituting time-consuming and laborious protocols of appeal
6) Generally refusing to cooperate with the policy-holder
6. In the event that a policy-holder is dissatisfied with State Farm's handling of a claim, what are the recourses available, with respect to:
1) The claim
2) State Farm's role in handling the claim?
7. Is it an acceptable costumer service practice, for a State Farm "Team Member" of a "team" assigned to investigating a claim, to be inconsiderate and argumentative and treat the policy-holder as an adversary, rather than a client?"
-x-
(End of Message - Will post a reply if I receive one)
Date of incident: 02/XX/12
Team: 5X
1. Is it inappropriate / illegal for State Farm to assign liability in a claim with a no investigation into proportion of fault or any consideration to mitigating factors, given the state-adopted comparative negligence scheme of liability?
Examples of such activity include:
1) Not accepting any information about the incident, besides a verbal statement (diagrams, photographs)
2) Pre-determination of liability based on a generalized situation rather a subjective review of the facts of the case
3) Paying out the liability claim before an appeal of the decision is permitted
2. Is it improper / unfair / illegal for State Farm to institute time-consuming and biased policies and protocols for claim-handling, leaving policy-holder with no recourse besides appealing an adverse decision of liability?
3. Is it unfair / unreasonable / illegal for State Farm to deny policy holder access to records relating to State Farm's investigation and handling of the claim, such as photographs of the estimator?
4. Can State Farm abuse consumer privacy protection by refusing to:
- provide a basic cost-analysis of the repair estimation
- explain the process of estimation
- disclose general information such as standardized rates, pre-negotiated with the repair facility
- conduct more than one repair estimation
- provide local averages for similar repairs?
5. Is it improper / suspect / illegal for State Farm to engage in unscrupulous and exclusionary methods of claim-handling, given the bias inherent in the process: a repair estimate over the policy's deductible results in an increase in subsequent premiums paid by the policy-holder?
Examples of such activity include:
1) Concealing records, and refusing to provide information
2) Insufficient and unsatisfactory investigatory practices
3) Complete control and autonomy over all decisions related to settling the claim
4) Little to no follow/up or notification to keep policy-holder updated of developments (unless specifically requested)
5) Instituting time-consuming and laborious protocols of appeal
6) Generally refusing to cooperate with the policy-holder
6. In the event that a policy-holder is dissatisfied with State Farm's handling of a claim, what are the recourses available, with respect to:
1) The claim
2) State Farm's role in handling the claim?
7. Is it an acceptable costumer service practice, for a State Farm "Team Member" of a "team" assigned to investigating a claim, to be inconsiderate and argumentative and treat the policy-holder as an adversary, rather than a client?"
-x-
(End of Message - Will post a reply if I receive one)
Thursday, April 5, 2012
What If?
Renewing faith, believing again... those are the stuff dreams are made of. Realizing that perhaps the errors of our ways haven't turned into irreversible mistakes... yet.
Facebook, Hulu, NBA, tabloids, drugs, dying polar bears, BPA-toxicity - what could be held accountable for the collective abandonment of our desire to engage in the process of overseeing our nation's return to being the beacon of freedom, prosperity and unprecedented possibility? Why is the pervasive apathy of the general populace so strong and hypnotic that it paralyzes us into a state of resigned submission to the world created around us, usurping in entirety our desire to change?
Why have we lost our will to fight? Are we exhausted from the constant broken promises? Are we tired of the formulaic lies and deceit that are stuffed down our throat by production-line politicians that cyclicly break our hearts and perpetuate a system we have always, as a nation, never agreed with?
No to WAR.
Our parents made that pretty clear. Give the Vietnamese people their country back. Our parents protested, and we watched. Maybe we walked with them. We learnt how passion produces peace before we understood what those words meant. We felt it, and knew it was right.
And we know these wars are wrong. No excuses.
They will be fine without us. They lived before us, we tried to kill them, but they will recover, because that is what humans do. We stand up, dust off the dirt. Even through blood, sweat and tears; through loss, grief and death; we live. And we hope that someday, we will smile and laugh and believe again.
We destroy them, and then guiltily rebuild.
We kill their children, don't apologize. give them guns and then wonder why they hate us.
We pollute their water, eviscerate their food supply and then drop granola bars from planes on their lands.
We allow ourselves to be humiliated, and readily turn into drones that lay supinely on the floor, clutching on to the promise and delusional hope that is dangled before us while our most fundamental liberties are violated. Fear is the best way to compel a group of sensible people to give up their rights, trading in safety for liberty. Think chains and shackles. Think Gitmo. Think National Defense Authorization Act.
Watch this video
Now, remember that justice is indivisible, said MLK Jr. So are peace, freedom and liberty. The suffering we inflict on to others is not foreign, far away and distant. Tyrannical oppression based on preposterous notions that lead to impoverishment and death, in not one or two or ten but one hundred and thirty countries in the world. 130. Count to 130. It takes a while, doesn't it?
We've drifted so far, drowned so deep in debt, lost so many of our rights, fought so many fruitless wars. If we don't rock the boat now, we're going to sink with it. We can't continue on this path as it bankrupts us financially, intellectually and morally - the culmination of which leads to the deprivation of what makes us human.
All we are saying is
give
peace
a chance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)