January 25, 2012
Users of tablet computers should place their device on the table and tilt its screen, rather than have it flat on their lap, to avoid potentially painful hunching of the neck, a study suggested Wednesday.
“Tablet users may be at high risk to develop neck discomfort based on current behaviours and tablet designs,” it warned.
A team led by environmental health researcher Jack Dennerlein of the Harvard School of Public Health asked seven men and eight women who were experienced tablet users to carry out tasks on an iPad2 and a Motorola Xoom.
Using a motion-analysis system, the team filmed the 15 volunteers as they worked on the tablet in four common configurations.
In the first position the tablet was not placed in its proprietary case but held on the lap in one hand while the other was used to touch the screen.
In the second the tablet was placed on the lap, but stayed in its case. The user worked with both hands on the screen.
In the third, the tablet was set up in its case on a table, with its screen set at a lower angle, and the user worked with both hands.
The last configuration, dubbed “table-movie,” entailed placing the tablet on the table in its case, tilted at a higher angle. The user did not work on the screen and instead watched movies or other programming on it.
The experiments showed the angle of the head and neck varied hugely across the four configurations and between the iPad and the Xoom.
March 10th, 2011
By: Kristina Fiore
Sometimes, Dr. Andrew Lieber has to tell his patients that it just isn’t working out.
When parents refuse to vaccinate their children in spite of his efforts to convince them of the benefits of immunity, he reluctantly lets them go.
“By four months, if I can’t help you come to terms with the scientific fact that vaccines are helpful, then I’ve done my job educating you,” Lieber, a pediatrician with Rose Pediatrics in Denver, told MedPage Today.
At that point, he’ll tell them to find another doctor — something he has to do “a couple times a year.”
“I feel like I have a bigger responsibility to all the other kids walking through my waiting room,” Lieber said.
More pediatricians appear to be taking this hard-line approach, especially now that parents are making greater efforts to screen doctors for one whose vaccination philosophy matches their own.
According to a 2001 American Academy of Pediatrics survey, 23 percent of physicians reported that they “always” or “sometimes” tell parents they can no longer be the child’s pediatrician if they won’t get the proper shots.
The Academy doesn’t have more recent survey data, but physicians say that they see plenty of their colleagues joining the ranks.
Lieber will sometimes work with parents to adjust the vaccination schedule — “I’m willing to separate some vaccines by two weeks, whatever I can do to increase vaccination rates is good” — but if an interviewer comes along wanting to cross all vaccines off the list, Lieber will show them the door.
Few physicians find that this practice challenges their ethics, especially in light of recent outbreaks such as pertussis in California and in certain communities within Brooklyn. Indeed, the American Academy of Pediatrics has in the past deemed it ethical to dismiss patients who refuse to get their children vaccinated, and offers a clinical guideline as well as an online toolkit on how to handle the pertinent issues.
“Physicians, like their patients, are moral agents,” says Felicia Cohn, PhD, director of bioethics for Kaiser Permanente in Irvine, Calif. “Any physician may refuse an individual for moral reasons or may conscientiously object to providing particular treatments.”
David Cronin, MD, a pediatrician with Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, says it’s “entirely appropriate for a physician to refuse elective treatment to any patient. Being a physician does not obligate one to provide care to ‘all comers.’”
May 5, 2010
by Maggie Fox
Mammograms did not detect any tumors among women under the age of 25, the researchers reported in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
The study of more than 117,000 U.S. women may reinforce controversial recommendations about the use of mammograms to screen for breast cancer among younger women.
Radiologist Bonnie Yankaskas of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and colleagues examined the records of women aged 18 to 39 when they got their first mammograms starting in 1995, following them for a year to see what happened.
There were no tumors among the women under 25. For women aged 35 to 39, 12.7 per 1,000 got called back for further checks after the mammogram produced a suspicious-looking lesion. Very few actually had a tumor.
“In a theoretical population of 10,000 women aged 35 to 39 years, 1,266 women who are screened will receive further workup, with 16 cancers detected and 1,250 women receiving a false-positive result,” Yankaskas and colleagues wrote.
“Harms need to be considered, including radiation exposure because such exposure is more harmful in young women, the anxiety associated with false-positive findings on the initial examination, and costs associated with additional imaging,” they added.
About 29 percent of U.S. women aged 30 to 40 say they have had a mammogram.
Dr. Ned Calonge of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment said the findings suggest that women under 40 should not get mammograms unless they have symptoms of breast cancer, such as a lump.
Last November the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a federal scientific advisory panel, said women in their 40s with an average risk for breast cancer did not need annual mammograms to screen for the disease.
The guidelines touched off a debate among cancer doctors.
Calonge noted that most groups agree that women under 40 probably do not need mammograms to screen for cancer and Monday’s study supports this approach.
Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide, accounting for around 16 percent of all female cancers. It kills around 465,000 people globally each year.
April 22, 2010
By: Jill Colvin
Strangers on their way to and from work Wednesday were surprised to see Transportation Security Administration officials, who usually screen luggage in airports, checking bags at local subway stations.
The TSA launched a pilot partnership with the NYPD Wednesday morning to enhance security on city trains, a spokeswoman for the TSA said. About a dozen stations are covered daily, according to the NYPD.
“While there is no specific threat to mass transit in the United States at this time, TSA and NYPD continuously work together to strengthen overall security efforts and keep the American people safe,” the Administration said in a statement.
At the 40th Street and 8th Avenue entrance to the Port Authority 42nd Street station, TSA staffers began randomly searching passengers at 4 p.m. The searches were expected to last through the evening rush.
Screeners said that passengers are generally happy to comply.
“For the most part, people co-operate fully,” said NYPD Lt. Francis O’Keeffe, who oversaw the operation.
Latifa Ziyad, who is visiting from Boston her three daughters, said she is fine with the searches if they make people safer.
“As long as I’m not getting singled out because I look a certain way, it’s okay,” she said.
Others were willing but eager to get on with their days.
“It’s alright, I’ve got thing to hide,” said accountant Ramone Esmilla, 50, as officers tested his knapsack, which was filled with gym clothes. “But I just want to get out of here and pick up my kid.”
The Administration has nicknamed the teams, which randomly screen passengers’ bags using chemical swabs, “VIPR”s (pronounced viper): Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response.
Subway baggage checks have been routinely conducted by the NYPD since 2005 following the London subway bombings.
TSA spokeswoman Ann Davis would not say how long the Administration expects the program to last, except that mass transit riders should anticipate a TSA presence underground “for the foreseeable future.”
December 28, 2009
By Jesus Diaz
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Transportation Security Administration
Aviation Security Directive
Subject: Security Directive
Number: SD 1544-09-06
Date: December 25, 2009
EXPIRATION: 0200Z on December 30, 2009
This Security Directive (SD) must be implemented immediately. The measures contained in this SD are in addition to all other SDs currently in effect for your operations.
INFORMATION: On December 25, 2009, a terrorist attack was attempted against a flight traveling to the United States. TSA has identified security measures to be implemented by airports, aircraft operators, and foreign air carriers to mitigate potential threats to flights.
APPLICABILITY: THIS SD APPLIES TO AIRCRAFT OPERATORS THAT CARRY OUT A SECURITY PROGRAM REGULATED UNDER 49 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS (CFR)1544.101(a).
ACTIONS REQUIRED: If you conduct scheduled and/or public charter flight operations under a Full Program under 49 CFR 1544.101(a) departing from any foreign location to the United States (including its territories and possessions), you must immediately implement all measures in this SD for each such flight.
1. BOARDING GATE
1. The aircraft operator or authorized air carrier representative must ensure all passengers are screened at the boarding gate during the boarding process using the following procedures. These procedures are in addition to the screening of all passengers at the screening checkpoint.
1. Perform thorough pat-down of all passengers at boarding gate prior to boarding, concentrating on upper legs and torso.
2. Physically inspect 100 percent of all passenger accessible property at the boarding gate prior to boarding, with focus on syringes being transported along with powders and/or liquids.
3. Ensure the liquids, aerosols, and gels restrictions are strictly adhered to in accordance with SD 1544-06-02E.
2. During the boarding process, the air carrier may exempt passengers who are Heads of State or Heads of Government from the measures outlined in Section I.A. of this SD, including the following who are traveling with the Head of State or Head of Government:
1. Spouse and children, or
2. One other individual (chosen by the Head of State or Head of Government)
3. For the purposes of Section I.B., the following definitions apply:
1. Head of State: An individual serving as the chief public representative of a monarchic or republican nation-state, federation, commonwealth, or any other political state (for example, King, Queen, and President).
2. Head of Government: The chief officer of the executive branch of a government presiding over a cabinet (for example, Prime Minister, Premier, President, and Monarch).
2. IN FLIGHT
1. During flight, the aircraft operator must ensure that the following procedures are followed:
1. Passengers must remain in seats beginning 1 hour prior to arrival at destination.
2. Passenger access to carry-on baggage is prohibited beginning 1 hour prior to arrival at destination.
3. Disable aircraft-integrated passenger communications systems and services (phone, internet access services, live television programming, global positioning systems) prior to boarding and during all phases of flight.
4. While over U.S. airspace, flight crew may not make any announcement to passengers concerning flight path or position over cities or landmarks.
5. Passengers may not have any blankets, pillows, or personal belongings on the lap beginning 1 hour prior to arrival at destination.
AIRCRAFT OPERATOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT: The aircraft operator must immediately provide written confirmation to its assigned PSI indicating receipt of this SD.
AIRCRAFT OPERATOR dissemination required: The aircraft operator must immediately pass the information and directives set forth in this SD to all stations affected, and provide written confirmation to its PSI, indicating that all stations affected have acknowledged receipt of the information and directives set forth in this SD. The aircraft operator must disseminate this information to its senior management personnel, ground security coordinators, and supervisory security personnel at all affected locations. All aircraft operator personnel implementing this SD must be briefed by the aircraft operator on its content and the restrictions governing dissemination. No other dissemination may be made without prior approval of the Assistant Secretary for the Transportation Security Administration. Unauthorized dissemination of this document or information contained herein is prohibited by 49 CFR Part 1520 (see 69 Fed. Reg. 28066 (May 18, 2004).
APPROVAL OF ALTERNATIVE MEASURES: With respect to the provisions of this SD, as stated in 49 CFR 1544.305(d), the aircraft operator may submit in writing to its PSI proposed alternative measures and the basis for submitting the alternative measures for approval by the Assistant Administrator for Transportation Sector Network Management. The aircraft operator must immediately notify its PSI whenever any procedure in this SD cannot be carried out by a government authority charged with performing security procedures.
FOR TSA ACTION ONLY: The TSA must issue this SD immediately to the corporate security element of all affected U.S. aircraft operators.
FOR STATE DEPARTMENT: Retransmittal to appropriate foreign posts is authorized. Post must refer to STATE 162917, 201826Z Sep 01, Subject: FAA Security Directives and Information Circulars: Definitions and Handling, for specific guidance and dissemination.