Wednesday, March 2, 2011

[Peckers_Pics] Model Wars, PICS; Mar 3, 2011-Safe PICS For All Ages



Model Wars, PICS; Mar 3, 2011
Safe PICS For All Ages / Support Keith Olbermann who will be on "Current TV"

Updates on Keith Olbermann  @ ObamaBiden2008 (Update: Keith joined "CURRENT TV").  Check with your cable provider to see if you have "Current TV".  Current TV's website has option for you to request service from your cable provider.   Current TV's founder is Al Gore.  Charter Cable does not carry "Current TV".  Please Contact Charter now!  Keith is a man who stuck his neck out for progressives, as well as the LGBT community.

Updates on slain gay activist - David Kato of Uganda @ ObamaBiden2008

Boycott: "Chick-fil-a" as they are against gay marriage and donate to anti-gay causes.

Consider joining:

Diet & Fitness:

  • Reminder: Did you complete your Diet Journal today?
  • Did you do any physical activity?  If not, make a point of it by tomorrow! 
  • Perhaps our male fitness photos shall inspire you to get Fit!
Health - Wellness - Exercise - Reflections:
Cell Phones And Brain Cells: Where The Two Meet
 
David Katz, M.D..Director of Yale University's Prevention Research Center / March 2, 2011 / Huffington Post

Whether or not there is bona fide danger in routine use of cell phones is, in fact, still unresolved. As often happens when the stakes are high and the science murky, passions and convictions tend to be running ahead of the data. There are, and have long been, scientists and citizens convinced that cell phones pose a significant threat; and there are, and have long been, counterparts convinced that we all have far more important things to worry about.

Both sides recently received another ear full of information to consider, courtesy of a study published in JAMA.

Investigators from the NIH asked 47 healthy adults to lend them their ears -- their right ears in particular. The researchers put cell phones to both ears and conducted PET scans of the brain (an imaging technique that measures metabolic activity in the form of glucose consumption) with both phones deactivated, and with the phone adjacent to the right ear activated, in random sequence. Activation of the right cell phone was in mute mode so that participants were blinded ('deafened'?) to the intervention.

The study generated three take-away messages that will likely do little to resolve the cell phone controversy any time soon. First, whole brain metabolic activity was unaffected by cell phone activation. Second, brain metabolic activity directly adjacent to an activated cell phone was significantly increased. And third, the researchers have no idea what, if any, clinical significance this has. Yes, they actually said that.

Which leads immediately to a question the rest of us need to grapple with: what do we do with this information in the mean time? For whatever it's worth, my suggestion is to accord it calm respect.

The calmness is easy to justify. A study that shows a change in glucose utilization by brain cells does not indictment of cell phones make. Brain cells routinely burn glucose for fuel, and do so faster or slower based on the work they do. REM sleep, an important indicator of sleep quality and essential to sleep's restorative powers, increases brain glucose utilization on PET scan. As, for that matter, does reading. So if increased metabolic activity in the brain is a cause to fear cell phones, I suppose it might be cause to stay away from your books and your bed as well.

But on the other hand, consider what this new study implies. Increased brain cell metabolism was unrelated to the usual work of the brain, namely thinking. In REM sleep, we are dreaming -- so the brain is at work. When we read, the brain is at work. But why should a radio-frequency-modulated electromagnetic field we don't even know is there -- and thus, can't be thinking about -- change brain function?

It does. The fields emitted by cell phones affect the cells of the brain, no thinking required. Should we be comfortable with this? Can we afford to be complacent when we, and to a greater extent our children, spend an ever increasing proportion of our lives in close proximity to fields we now know silently, insidiously change our brains? My answer is no, which is why we owe the new study some respect, particularly given its context.

We have long known radio-frequency waves penetrate our bodies, as we now know they activate brain activity, but there is no clear evidence they harm us in the process. We are left with a mechanism by which cell phones could conceivably do harm, but no real indication that they do.

The published data, based on many studies and observations in hundreds of thousands of people, remain open to interpretation. One study in the Netherlands examined the issue in over 400,000 people, and found no evidence of harm. A meta-analysis in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, however, concluded there was possible evidence of increased risk of brain tumors from extended cell phone use demonstrated in studies least subject to bias. Invariably, mention is made of the need for more research.

Cell phones have only existed since the 1970s, been in use since the 1980s, and been truly popular since the '90s. So we only have a decade, or at most two, of meaningful data to analyze. Some cancers take two decades or more to develop, so it's possible, if unlikely, that we are waiting for a slow accumulation of damage to start revealing itself. We must therefore consider that absence of evidence is not tantamount to evidence of absence.

And, of course, we don't have intervention studies, with large groups randomly assigned to use cell phones, or place their calls on placebos instead. I'm not sure how placebo phones would work, but I have a sneaking suspicion the study subjects would catch on.

History suggests the possibility of seeing risk that isn't really there. The silicone breast implant controversy persists, despite consistent and rather compelling evidence that the implants do not cause autoimmune disease. The notion that immunization causes autism won't seem to die no matter how decisive the weight of evidence against any such association.

But a great deal of historical precedent cuts the other way. We have cozied up to an impressive array of genuine hazards with a misguided sense of security, including the radioactive radium that made watch faces glow in the dark but caused cancer; mercury used in hat-making that caused neurological disease; lead used in cookware that damaged nerve cells; asbestos in buildings and clothes that is still causing asbestosis and mesothelioma; thalidomide, a sedative that caused birth defects; Vioxx easing joint pain while causing heart attacks; and the list goes on.

If cell phones cause harm, the risk appears to be small, and the harm long delayed. But even one extra case of cancer in 100,000 people after 10 years of use would eventually turn into a huge and unacceptable public health toll. Such a hazard would be very hard to see at this point.

Let's turn to the practical. I will keep using my cell phone, and my kids will keep using theirs. I do think any risks are small. But I cannot be sure the risk is nil, and I am not wildly enthusiastic about the cells in my kids' brains being activated by anything other than thinking. So I will encourage my children to use their phones for good reason, rather than make them a permanent extension of their heads. There is certainly no cause for panic, but I'm not a fan of presumptive complacency.

The 19th century philosopher George Santayana wisely noted that those who do not learn from the follies of history are doomed to repeat them. The folly of rushing into hazards of our own devising with a false sense of security has filled many pages of our history books. Whether cell phone use will prove to be another example is far from certain. But when precedent calls, it is at least prudent to lend our ears.
Take Action:

And Now, Model Wars!

This group is called "Peckers Pics."  The English -  slang definition of "pecker" is to pluck at the truth. Therefore, we peck at items such as Gay Men's Health, Male Fitness, Gay (LGBT) Politics & Issues.  In this section you may peck at each photo in order to decide the winner of the "war of the fittest!"   Whereas, who is the model that may inspire you to exercise and "get fit?"  Warning: This may stoke you!
 
Your participation in discussion of health / news articles - appearing in this message is greatly appreciated.
 
Adam Miller
 
VS
Michael Witt
Australian professional rugby league footballer and Male Model
 
You Decide!
Sydney Mardi Gras; Feb 20, 2011
Stoked?
Phuket Pride - The Grand Parade from Aquarius truck; Feb 28, 2011
Appeals Court: Naperville Teen Can Wear Anti-Gay Shirt To School
Mar 2, 2011 / Huffington Post

In 2006, Naperville's Neuqua Valley High School allowed students to participate in a nationwide "Day of Silence," which promotes tolerance of the gay community. While some students decided to wear shirts that expressed that tolerance, one student showed up in a shirt that read: "Be Happy, Not Gay."

School administrators demanded the student, 17-year-old Heidi Zamecnik, either remove the shirt or be sent home for the day, according to the Naperville Sun. The school ultimately settled on blacking out the "Not Gay" portion of the shirt, leaving it to read "Be Happy."

Zamecnik, however, was not pleased with the change. After the incident, she filed a lawsuit against the school district claiming they violated her civil rights by not allowing her to express her opposition to homosexuality.

"Pursuant of her earnest religious convictions, Heidi sought a way to communicate her belief that homosexual conduct doesn't lead to happiness," Zamecnik's lawyer Nate Kellum told MTV when the suit was filed in 2007. "She wanted to wear a T-shirt communicating that idea."

On Tuesday, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Kellum.
 
The Naperville Sun reports:

In its opinion, the court said a "school that permits advocacy of the rights of homosexual students cannot be allowed to stifle criticism of homosexuality."

"The school argued (and still argues) that banning 'Be Happy, Not Gay' was just a matter of protecting the 'rights' of the students against whom derogatory comments are directed," the court said. "But people in our society do not have a legal right to prevent criticism of their beliefs or even their way of life."

Zamecnik was represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group. The American Civil Liberties Union also filed a brief on the student's behalf that said her 1st Amendment rights had been violated, according to the Chicago Tribune.

In the opinion, the judge writes that the defense provided "no indication" of how the shirt would negatively effect homosexual students.
"Every gay and lesbian person who has been lucky enough to survive the turmoil of growing up is a survivor. Survivors always have an obligation to those who will face the same challenges."
....Jake
 
 
Important Notice: Our ObamaBiden2008 Group works hand - in - hand with Peckers PICS.  To prevent duplication of articles and questions, all members of this group MUST Join ObamaBiden2008. It is unfair for members that belong to both groups to hear members of just Peckers PICS (only) to make statements when the ObamaBiden2008 has covered such topics.  President Obama has dismissed the constitutionality of DOMA and stated he will no longer defend it this aspect of it.  However, the Republican House shall have the legal right to fight it.   A few members of this group do not read such articles that I placed in this group - and were further discussed in ObamaBiden2008. Yet, such members state the opposite about our president.  Therefore, members must join ObamaBiden2008 within the next 5 days, or I shall go through our member list and remove any member that does not belong to both groups. This shall clear up communications and confusion.  If you send a letter of protest, than you are being apathetic, and shall be banned.  The LGBT cause is too important and beyond 1 person's need to just look at pictures.
 

 



__._,_.___


All members of "Peckers PICS" are requested to join our "Obama Biden 2008" group as it runs in conjunction to this group.  Both groups shall not repeat articles from one group to another.  However, to gain full knowledge of Gay rights, members must belong to the Obama group as well as this group.  Therefore, please accept your invitation to join. 

To join the Obama group please click (or copy and paste the link into your browser) @  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ObamaBiden2008/join

Thank you!
 

"Every gay and lesbian person who has been lucky enough to survive the turmoil of growing up is a survivor. Survivors always have an obligation to those who will face the same challenges."

...Jake (Moderator)



Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)