Subscribe:

Ads 468x60px

vagitaa

Labels

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Cellphones Deemed "Possibly Carcinogenic" by World's Leading Cancer Experts

Cellphones Deemed "Possibly Carcinogenic" by World's Leading Cancer Experts
The back and forth brawl between studies suggesting that cell phones do and don't cause cancer just took a bold step toward the former camp today, with the World Health Organisation classifying cellphones as potential links to brain cancer.
The study, conducted by the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer, stops far short of saying phones cause cancer. Rather, the agency's grouped regular cellphone usage (defined as 30 minutes of talk-time per day) as a "possible" cause of glioma, a malignant form of brain cancer—up to a 40% increased chance, according to one cited study. As one researcher puts it, "There could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk." This might sound insignificant—the study says chance, as opposed to causation, can't be ruled out—but it's unprecedented. The WHO is a global authority on medicine, and its findings mark the most comprehensive statement on cellular radiation danger. By classifying cellphone usage as a possible, or "Class 2B" carcinogen, your iPhone or Android's now on the same list as DDT, burning coal, herpes, and working in a print factory (among hundreds of other potential carcinogens).
The IARC defines 2B classification—the zone between a definitive cancer cause and inconclusive murk—thusly:
This category is used for agents for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. It may also be used when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. In some instances, an agent for which there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals together with
supporting evidence from mechanistic and other relevant data may be placed in this group. An agent may be classified in this category solely on the basis of strong evidence from mechanistic and other relevant data.
So it's not a definitive danger. But cellphone use is officially a risk. Luckily, we're decreasingly using them to actually talk into—smartphones might be helping us dodge brain cancer. [via Telegraph, Photo: Shutterstock/Aleksandr Markin]
The IARC's release can be read in full below:
IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS
Lyon, France, May 31, 2011 ‐‐ The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer1, associated with wireless phone use.
Background
Over the last few years, there has been mounting concern about the possibility of adverse health effects resulting from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, such as those emitted by wireless communication devices. The number of mobile phone subscriptions is estimated at 5 billion globally.
From May 24–31 2011, a Working Group of 31 scientists from 14 countries has been meeting at IARC in Lyon, France, to assess the potential carcinogenic hazards from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. These assessments will be published as Volume 102 of the IARC Monographs, which will be the fifth volume in this series to focus on physical agents, after Volume 55 (Solar Radiation), Volume 75 and Volume 78 on ionizing radiation (X‐rays, gamma‐rays, neutrons, radio‐nuclides), and Volume 80 on non‐ionizing radiation (extremely low‐frequency electromagnetic fields).
The IARC Monograph Working Group discussed the possibility that these exposures might induce long‐term health effects, in particular an increased risk for cancer. This has relevance for public health, particularly for users of mobile phones, as the number of users is large and growing, particularly among young adults and children.
The IARC Monograph Working Group discussed and evaluated the available literature on the following exposure categories involving radiofrequency electromagnetic fields:
␣ occupational exposures to radar and to microwaves;
␣ environmental exposures associated with transmission of signals for radio, television and
wireless telecommunication; and
␣ personal exposures associated with the use of wireless telephones.
International experts shared the complex task of tackling the exposure data, the studies of cancer in humans, the studies of cancer in experimental animals, and the mechanistic and other relevant data.
Results
The evidence was reviewed critically, and overall evaluated as being limited2 among users of wireless telephones for glioma and acoustic neuroma, and inadequate3 to draw conclusions for other types of cancers. The evidence from the occupational and environmental exposures mentioned above was similarly judged inadequate. The Working Group did not quantitate the risk; however, one study of past cell phone use (up to the year 2004), showed a 40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users (reported average: 30 minutes per day over a 10‐year period).
Conclusions
Dr Jonathan Samet (University of Southern California, USA), overall Chairman of the Working Group, indicated that "the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk."
"Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings," said IARC Director Christopher Wild, "it is important that additional research be conducted into the long‐ term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands‐free devices or texting. "
The Working Group considered hundreds of scientific articles; the complete list will be published in the Monograph. It is noteworthy to mention that several recent in‐press scientific articles4 resulting from the Interphone study were made available to the working group shortly before it was due to convene, reflecting their acceptance for publication at that time, and were included in the evaluation.
A concise report summarizing the main conclusions of the IARC Working Group and the evaluations of the carcinogenic hazard from radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (including the use of mobile telephones) will be published in The Lancet Oncology in its July 1 issue, and in a few days online.
For more information, please contact Dr Kurt Straif, IARC Monographs Section, at +33 472 738 511, or straif@iarc.fr; Dr Robert Baan, IARC Monographs Section, at +33 472 738 659, or baan@iarc.fr; or Nicolas Gaudin, IARC Communications Group, at com@iarc.fr (+33 472 738 478)
Link to the audio file posted shortly after the briefing: http://terrance.who.int/mediacentre/audio/press_briefings/

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Playing Games With Moon-Art of Photography

Unbelievable stuff
The Real star of Photography who played games with the moon
Really Great pics & good art of photography

clip_image001

clip_image002

clip_image003

clip_image004

clip_image005

clip_image006

clip_image007

clip_image008

clip_image009

clip_image010

clip_image011

clip_image012
clip_image013
clip_image014
clip_image015
clip_image016

clip_image017

clip_image018

clip_image019

clip_image020

clip_image021

clip_image022

clip_image023
clip_image024

clip_image025

clip_image026
Pictures taken by Laurent Laveder from France

Nagarjunaclip_image027clip_image027[1]

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Sound of Light - a bright approach to wireless speakers

The Sound of Light system
The Sound of Light system
Combining lighting with audio by using a light socket to power a wireless speaker is a two-in-one approach that appears to be gaining traction and this latest example - the Sound of Light lightspeaker - grabbed our attention on both the functionality and aesthetic fronts. The Sound of Light system uses a Texas Instruments 2.4 GHz Purepath Digital Signal Transmitter to set up a wireless link between an audio device such as an MP3 player, smartphone or tablet and up to four speakers within a 300 ft range.
The Sound of Light light-socket powered wireless speakerSound of Light remote controls both audio and lighting output The Sound of Light light-socket powered wireless speakerSound of Light - a bright approach to wireless speakers
Taking advantage of a lamp socket as a power source means the Sound of Light can be used in a wide range of locations. The system runs on 100V or 240V, accepts standard bulbs, is compatible with the iPhone and can also be paired with a sub woofer unit. A multi-function remote enables control of both audio output and lighting.

The Sound of Light is set for a June 2011 release. Pricing details are not yet available but we'll keep you posted. A similar offering from Klipsch, which has a 50 ft range but can can accommodate up to eight speakers, sells for US$249.
Sound of Light specifications:

  • Texas Instruments 2.4 GHz Purepath Wireless Digital Signal Transmitter



  • 433 MHz Receiver For Handheld Remote Control operationRange of up to 300 ft.



  • Stereo RCA Input Jacks



  • Stereo 3.5mm Mini Input Jack



  • Pairing Push Button



  • Amplifier - 25Watt Texas Instruments Purepath Class D



  • Power Supply - Texas Instruments Switching Power



  • Supply for high efficiency and Energy Star EuP compliant



  • Each transmitter can operate up to 4 speaker lights



  • Channel Selection - Left-Mono-Right (Selector Switch)

  • Whamodyne Glass Speakers - traditional electronics in a unique new form

    A set of speakers from Logitech are given a new lease on life in the Glass Speakers from W...
    A set of speakers from Logitech are given a new lease on life in the Glass Speakers from Whamodyne
    wondered what would happen if you took a diamond drill to a glass vase and then fed in some audio - the answer we've been looking for takes the shape of the Glass Speakers from Whamodyne. A set of Logitech S120 computer speakers have been stripped apart, the components forced into a pair of glass vases, each of which have then been mounted at a slight tilt on a hand-made birch plywood base. They're not as powerful or as slick as the precious-looking GLA-55 touch-sensitive speakers from Harman Kardon, but they are about a tenth of the price.
    A set of speakers from Logitech are given a new lease on life in the Glass Speakers from W...A set of speakers from Logitech are given a new lease on life in the Glass Speakers from W...A set of speakers from Logitech are given a new lease on life in the Glass Speakers from W...A set of speakers from Logitech are given a new lease on life in the Glass Speakers from W...

    Inspired by the creations of designer Joey Roth, the Glass Speaker system has been constructed by making a circular hole in the bottom of two 7.5-inch long, 3.5-inch diameter glass vases with a diamond saw to accommodate a speaker each. To allow it to lie flush against the bottom of the upturned vase, the speaker is first mounted on a clear plastic disc and then fixed into position.

    The system's amplifier board and a 120V AC power transformer are placed ship-in-bottle style inside the right Glass Speaker housing, with a volume pot and on/off switch on the outside. An LED on the amp board lets you know when the unit in on. The total RMS output of the speakers is 2.3W, with a frequency response of 50Hz - 20kHz. Connection to a computer, MP3 player or mobile device is via a 3.5 mm stereo jack.
    The Glass Speakers offer something a little less ordinary for your device audio needs, and can be ordered from Whamodyne's Etsy store at a cost of US$89.

    Invisible Phone: Answer Calls with Your Hand

    Imaginary-phone-650
    We recently told you about a paper-thin electronic film that could stream-line your smartphone into something as thin and flexible as an index card, but some German researchers are now working on a system to complete the ultimate vanishing act.
    Patrick Baudisch, professor of computer science at the Hasso Plattner Institute in Potsdam, Germany, and his team of students are developing a device that turns the palm of your hand into an interface capable of performing the same actions as your smart phone. Instead of swiping and tapping your finger across your phone, you simply do so across your palm.
    Their Imaginary Phone relies on a depth-sensitive camera, similar to ones used in Microsoft's Kinect for Xbox, that would detect the swiping and tapping motions on your hand. The concept also contains software to analyze the video and a wireless radio to send instructions back to your phone.
    WIDE ANGLE: SMART PHONES
    Baudisch and his colleagues believe the imaginary phone prototype could liberate users from actually having to physically retrieve a device when answering a call. Imagine answering your "hand" while stir-frying vegetables for dinner, planting tulip bulbs in the garden or scrubbing greasy plates in the sink without even needing to reach for a towel first.
    In test runs of the device, the depth camera was affixed to a head-mounted rack that is anything but inconspicuous. However, the team envisions future models being fitted with a camera so small that it could easily integrate into clothing, for example, as the button of a shirt.
    ANALYSIS: Are Smart Phones Worth It?
    Grand marshaling the project is a study the team submitted to the User Inerface Software and Technology conference, held in Santa Barbara, Calif., this October. The study shows that participants could accurately recall the position of two-thirds of their smartphone apps on a blank phone and with similar accuracy on their palm. Apps used more frequently were able to be recalled with up to 80 percent accuracy.
    Though we don't advocate blindfolding yourself and testing your Jedi smart phone skills, may the force be with you.

    Tuesday, May 24, 2011

    Google Music Beta invites now available

    Invites for Google's new Music Beta cloud streaming service are now available to U.S. user...
    Invites for Google's new Music Beta cloud streaming service are now available to U.S. users
    It's been a good while coming but Google's music streaming service has finally arrived. Called Music Beta, it's available by invitation only and restricted to U.S. users ahead of roll-out elsewhere. The service appears to be very similar to Amazon's Cloud Storage and Player, although no music is on sale directly from Google. Rather than measure the size of your collection by the gigabyte, however, Google will allow users to store up to 20,000 music tracks from their personal collection in an online vault, with no restrictions on bitrate. Music Beta offers users instant sync across devices, the ability to play selected music offline and intuitive playlist creation based on the mood of a selected track.
    Google says that so long as the Beta tag remains, its Music service will be free to use. There's no indication at the moment when subscribers will be expected to pay for the service or how much it will cost, but Google has a history of keeping Beta tags in place for a good while and its track record in online storage would hint at the lower end of the cost scale.
    Like the rather disappointing Music Search before it, the new service is initially being made available to U.S. users only, those wanting to take it for a spin will need to apply for an invitation. Users elsewhere in the world will have to wait for a staged roll-out.
    Once the invitation is secured, you'll need to get your music collection from your computer to your online library via a Windows and Mac compatible Music Manager application. The service is limited to MP3, AAC, WMA and FLAC file formats which may cause some issues for old iDevice users and lovers of other formats like OGG and APE.
    Google's choice to automate much of the management rather than allow users to get their hands under the hood will no doubt be welcomed by those wanting quick, painless access, but is not so good for control freaks or power music managers.

    With the cloud library positively brimming with uploaded content, users can then access tunes through a web browser or up to eight devices running a dedicated Android app available for free (at the moment) download from Android Market.
    As everything's stored in the cloud, the service offers instant sync between devices - so if you create a playlist on your home computer, it will be available straight away on your mobile device. If you have neither the time or the patience to create playlists then Music Beta offers to do it for you. Instant Mix will draw together 25 similar music tracks from your collection based on a chosen song to rock you hard or chill you out.
    In theory at least, having your music collection available to you at all times sounds absolutely wonderful, but in reality such a service could quickly eat away at your monthly mobile allowance. To this end, Google has included the facility to manually select specific albums, artists or playlists or cache recently played music to play offline.
    Although I feel that the new service is a welcome move in the right direction, Google will have to offer a lot more than this if it hopes to compete with Amazon's existing service and Apple's up and coming effort. Offering more user control for those that want it would be a good start, closely followed by catering for purchasing from within Music Beta itself.

    Sunday, May 22, 2011

    Top Ten Reasons You Should Quit Facebook

    500x_ban_facebook

    1. The Facebook application itself sucks

    Between the farms and the mafia wars and the "top news" (which always guesses wrong - is that configurable somehow?) and the myriad privacy settings and the annoying ads (with all that data about me, the best they can apparently do is promote dating sites, because, uh, I'm single) and the thousands upon thousands of crappy applications, Facebook is almost completely useless to me at this point. Yes, I could probably customize it better, but the navigation is ridiculous, so I don't bother. (And, yet, somehow, I can't even change colors or apply themes or do anything to make my page look personalized.) Let's not even get into how slowly your feed page loads. Basically, at this point, Facebook is more annoying than anything else.
    Facebook is clearly determined to add every feature of every competing social network in an attempt to take over the Web (this is a never-ending quest that goes back to AOL and those damn CDs that were practically falling out of the sky). While Twitter isn't the most usable thing in the world, at least they've tried to stay focused and aren't trying to be everything to everyone.
    I often hear people talking about Facebook as though they were some sort of monopoly or public trust. Well, they aren't. They owe us nothing. They can do whatever they want, within the bounds of the laws. (And keep in mind, even those criteria are pretty murky when it comes to social networking.) But that doesn't mean we have to actually put up with them. Furthermore, their long-term success is by no means guaranteed - have we all forgotten MySpace? Oh, right, we have. Regardless of the hype, the fact remains that Sergei Brin or Bill Gates or Warren Buffett could personally acquire a majority stake in Facebook without even straining their bank account. And Facebook's revenue remains more or less a rounding error for more established tech companies.
    While social networking is a fun new application category enjoying remarkable growth, Facebook isn't the only game in town. I don't like their application nor how they do business and so I've made my choice to use other providers. And so can you.
    Dan Yoder is a serial entrepreneur and the VP of Engineering at Border Stylo, a Hollywood-based social media startup. He can be reached on Twitter as @dyoder.
    Disclosure by Dan Yoder: I'm the VP of Engineering for a Hollywood-based social media startup, BorderStylo. The opinions expressed here are purely my own and are not in any way endorsed by my employer. While I do not see our applications as directly competitive to Facebook, nor have I presented them as such, it would be disingenuous not to mention this.
    Thanks to David Harthcock for creating the great "Ban Facebook" graphic.

    2. Facebook doesn't (really) support the Open Web

    The so-called Open Graph API is named so as to disguise its fundamentally closed nature. It's bad enough that the idea here is that we all pitch in and make it easier than ever to help Facebook collect more data about you. It's bad enough that most consumers will have no idea that this data is basically public. It's bad enough that they claim to own this data and are aiming to be the one source for accessing it. But then they are disingenuous enough to call it "open," when, in fact, it is completely proprietary to Facebook. You can't use this feature unless you're on Facebook. A truly open implementation would work with whichever social network we prefer, and it would look something like OpenLike. Similarly, they implement just enough of OpenID to claim they support it, while aggressively promoting a proprietary alternative, Facebook Connect.

    3. Facebook makes it incredibly difficult to truly delete your account

    It's one thing to make data public or even mislead users about doing so; but where I really draw the line is that, once you decide you've had enough, it's pretty tricky to really delete your account. They make no promises about deleting your data and every application you've used may keep it as well. On top of that, account deletion is incredibly (and intentionally) confusing. When you go to your account settings, you're given an option to deactivate your account, which turns out not to be the same thing as deleting it. Deactivating means you can still be tagged in photos and be spammed by Facebook (you actually have to opt out of getting emails as part of the deactivation, an incredibly easy detail to overlook, since you think you're deleting your account). Finally, the moment you log back in, you're back like nothing ever happened! In fact, it's really not much different from not logging in for awhile. To actually delete your account, you have to find a link buried in the on-line help (by "buried" I mean it takes five clicks to get there). Or you can just click here. Basically, Facebook is trying to trick their users into allowing them to keep their data even after they've "deleted" their account.

    4. Facebook is not technically competent enough to be trusted

    Even if we weren't talking about ethical issues here, I can't trust Facebook's technical competence to make sure my data isn't hijacked. For example, their recent introduction of their "Like" button makes it rather easy for spammers to gain access to my feed and spam my social network. Or how about this gem for harvesting profile data? These are just the latest of a series of Keystone Kops mistakes, such as accidentally making users' profiles completely public, or the cross-site scripting hole that took them over two weeks to fix. They either don't care too much about your privacy or don't really have very good engineers, or perhaps both.

    5. Even your private data is shared with applications

    At this point, all your data is shared with applications that you install. Which means now you're not only trusting Facebook, but the application developers, too, many of whom are too small to worry much about keeping your data secure. And some of whom might be even more ethically challenged than Facebook. In practice, what this means is that all your data - all of it - must be effectively considered public, unless you simply never use any Facebook applications at all. Coupled with the OpenGraph API, you are no longer trusting Facebook, but the Facebook ecosystem.

    6. Facebook is a bully

    When Pete Warden demonstrated just how this bait-and-switch works (by crawling all the data that Facebook's privacy settings changes had inadvertently made public) they sued him. Keep in mind, this happened just before they announced the Open Graph API and stated that the "default is now social." So why sue an independent software developer and fledgling entrepreneur for making data publicly available when you're actually already planning to do that yourself? Their real agenda is pretty clear: they don't want their membership to know how much data is really available. It's one thing to talk to developers about how great all this sharing is going to be; quite another to actually see what that means in the form of files anyone can download and load into MatLab.

    7. Facebook is pulling a classic bait-and-switch

    At the same time that they're telling developers how to access your data with new APIs, they are relatively quiet about explaining the implications of that to members. What this amounts to is a bait-and-switch. Facebook gets you to share information that you might not otherwise share, and then they make it publicly available. Since they are in the business of monetizing information about you for advertising purposes, this amounts to tricking their users into giving advertisers information about themselves. This is why Facebook is so much worse than Twitter in this regard: Twitter has made only the simplest (and thus, more credible) privacy claims and their customers know up front that all their tweets are public. It's also why the FTC is getting involved, and people are suing them (and winning).
    Check out this excellent timeline from the EFF documenting the changes to Facebook's privacy policy.

    8. Facebook has flat out declared war on privacy

    Founder and CEO of Facebook, in defense of Facebook's privacy changes last January: "People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people. That social norm is just something that has evolved over time." More recently, in introducing the Open Graph API: "... the default is now social." Essentially, this means Facebook not only wants to know everything about you, and own that data, but to make it available to everybody. Which would not, by itself, necessarily be unethical, except that ...

    9. Facebook's CEO has a documented history of unethical behavior

    From the very beginning of Facebook's existence, there are questions about Zuckerberg's ethics. According to BusinessInsider.com, he used Facebook user data to guess email passwords and read personal email in order to discredit his rivals. These allegations, albeit unproven and somewhat dated, nonetheless raise troubling questions about the ethics of the CEO of the world's largest social network. They're particularly compelling given that Facebook chose to fork over $65M to settle a related lawsuit alleging that Zuckerberg had actually stolen the idea for Facebook.

    10. Facebook's Terms Of Service are completely one-sided

    Let's start with the basics. Facebook's Terms Of Service state that not only do they own your data (section 2.1), but if you don't keep it up to date and accurate (section 4.6), they can terminate your account (section 14). You could argue that the terms are just protecting Facebook's interests, and are not in practice enforced, but in the context of their other activities, this defense is pretty weak. As you'll see, there's no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. Essentially, they see their customers as unpaid employees for crowd-sourcing ad-targeting data.

    Saturday, May 14, 2011

    Dirt, Voices Recharge Mobile Phones

    Dirt-phone-650
    Recently a dog chewed a girl’s mobile phone charger. The Sony Ericsson phone she own has an unconventional, uncommon connection that is now difficult to find in any store (thanks, Sony). Yes, she was able to order a new one online (actually, ordered two), but even with a rush shipment of one to three days (the fastest offered), she knew that her phone would die prematurely. she is still waiting for it, so don't try to call. It'll go right to voice.
    How timely it was that she saw those two pieces of research announced that describe innovative ways to charge a mobile phone.

            Any one may face a similar problem like this but now there are many ways to  charge your mobile one of them is with the help of microbes. Let’s see how it was done
    TOP 5: Places to Harvest Energy from Action
    First, there's dirt. Aviva Presser Aiden of Harvard's School of Engineering and Applied Sciences has developed a phone charger that gets it power from microbes in soil. It turns out that soil microbes produce free electrons during the normal course of munching on and digesting soil. Her simple and inexpensive device has a conductive surface and a cathode that captures the electrons and shuttles them to battery. The device could be perfect for people living in areas not connected to an electrical grid, such as Sub Saharan Africa. Aiden recently won a $100,000 grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to take the idea to its next level.
    NEWS: Cell Phones Powered by Conversations
    But why resort to dirt, when you could just blab and blab and blab and automatically charge your phone? A team in South Korea is working on way to harvest energy from the tiniest movements and vibrations generated by people breathing, walking or talking. The researchers propose using the zinc oxide fibers that expand and contract when they vibrate. The expanding and contracting generates a charge, which is captured and stored in a battery.