Space junk at tipping point, says report

Artist's impression from the European Space Agency of debris in low Earth orbit

Related Stories

• Orbital 'housekeeper' proposed
• Near miss for space station

Scientists in the US have warned Nasa that the amount of so-called space junk orbiting Earth is at tipping point.

A report by the National Research Council says the debris could cause fatal leaks in spaceships or destroy valuable satellites.

It calls for international regulations to limit the junk and more research into the possible use of launching large magnetic nets or giant umbrellas.

The debris includes clouds of minuscule fragments, old boosters and satellites.

Some computer models show the amount of orbital rubbish "has reached a tipping point, with enough currently in orbit to continually collide and create even more debris, raising the risk of spacecraft failures," the research council said in a statement on Thursday.

Situation 'critical'

Hopes of limiting the amount of space junk in orbit suffered two major setbacks in recent years.

In 2007, China conducted an anti-satellite weapon test which destroyed a decommissioned weather satellite, smashing the object into 150,000 pieces larger than 1cm.

The International Space Station sometimes has to dodge orbital debris

Two years later, two satellites - one defunct and one active - crashed in orbit, creating even more debris.

"Those two single events doubled the amount of fragments in Earth orbit and completely wiped out what we had done in the last 25 years," said Donald Kessler, who led the research.

There are 22,000 pieces of debris large enough to track from the ground, but smaller objects could still cause serious damage.

The International Space Station must occasionally dodge some of the junk, which flies around the Earth at speeds of up to 17,500 mph (28,164 km/h).

In June, some debris narrowly missed the space station, forcing its six crew to go to their escape capsules and prepare for an emergency evacuation back to Earth.

The situation is critical, said Mr Kessler, a retired Nasa scientist, because colliding debris creates even more of the junk.

"We've lost control of the environment," he said.

The report makes no recommendations about how to clean up the field of debris.

But it refers to an earlier study for the Pentagon's science think-tank, the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa).

The Darpa report, dubbed "Catcher's Mitt", suggested a range of technologies, including harpoons, nets and an umbrella-shaped device that would sweep up the debris.

The aim would be to push the debris further towards the earth where it would burn up, or into a higher but safer orbit.

Source

Inside Story - Is Mexico losing the war on drugs?

Is Mexico losing the war? Yes.

What is the answer? Legalize, Tax, regulate, and control the supply. Don't let organized crime flourish.

Again I ask any sane person which would you prefer:

1. Organized crime - More innocent people killed in Mexico than Iraq/Afghan wars.
2. Legalized drugs

The answer is obvious. Legalizing drugs is much less harmful than organized crime.

Legalizing drugs doesn't kill families and children while destabilizing the government.

As a student of history, let's learn from the past. Alcohol was banned and constitutionally removed and then allowed again simply because of Organized crime.

Prohibition didn't work, why would it work now?

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Car Lessees Driving Themselves Into a Ditch

As the U.S. tries to fix its long-term macroeconomic problems, an increasing number of consumers are apparently busy worsening their own microeconomic problems. John Sternal, a spokesman for LeaseTrader.com, recently told DailyFinance that, “What we’re basically seeing now is, instead of one out of every five people leasing, we believe one out of every four are leasing. In the world of automotive, that is a very significant uptick.” And in the world of personal finance, this is a very significant tragedy.

Here’s the deal: Car leasing is a terrible financial plan. As Thomas J. Stanley reported in his book Stop Acting Rich, about 80% of millionaires have never leased a car. They didn’t lease cars before they were rich and now that they’re rich, they still don’t lease cars. Consumer Reports noted back in April that “leasing generally is the most expensive way to drive a new car. … But there’s another big factor that makes leasing more expensive. Lessees often end up in a cycle of getting a new car every few years, the period during which cars lose their value the fastest. That typically leaves them paying much more than if they bought a new car with a loan and kept it for four years or longer.”

(GALLERY: 5 Ways to Repair a Trashed Credit Score)

There have been so many good behavioral changes that are coming out of the recession: Couponing has made a roaring comeback and even become the main thrust of a reality TV show, thrift stores are chic, libraries are seeing their traffic surge, and people are buying homes that they can afford.

There are many guides to getting the best deal on a car lease, and more than few websites with long, convoluted discussions about whether it’s a good option. But what consumers really need to know is this: People who end up with strong financial lives don’t lease cars.

Source

Is Marriage for White People? -African American women's Dilemmes during marriage.

Is Marriage for White People?

By David Kaufman Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Even with an African American couple in the White House, the fate of the black family in America has never been so precarious. That's the message behind Is Marriage for White People?, a new book by Stanford Law professor Ralph Richard Banks.

Researched and written over the past 10 years, Banks' book explores the unpleasant — and often unspoken — contributors to and consequences of declining marriage rates among African Americans. With 70% of all black children now born to unwed mothers, the consequences have never been clearer. As for the solutions, Banks provocatively suggests that black women begin looking beyond their own race for marriage material and potential fathers of their children.

Is Marriage for White People?, which comes out on Sept. 1, examines the little-explored intersections of race, gender and class among African Americans, but the same issues — regarding marriage, inter-marriage, children — exist among most groups in the U.S. TIME.com spoke with Banks about "marrying down" and why filmmaker Tyler Perry has it all wrong.

TIME.com: Your book focuses specifically on marriage patterns within the black "middle class" of educated professionals. Why focus your research so narrowly?

Banks: Because this is a demographic that has traditionally been overlooked by demographers. When scholars study marriage, they usually focus on white people, yet when they focus on African Americans, they usually study the lower classes. There is very little serious data on other segments. Plus, the black middle-class is the community I am a part of — and I've personally witnessed the decline of marriage among African Americans.

So what did you find out? How is marriage faring among the black middle class?

Not well — particularly for black women. Typically, the more educated the woman, the more likely she is to marry. But a college-educated black woman is no more likely to have a husband than a poor Caucasian woman with barely a high school diploma. When it comes to forming a family, black women are not reaping the benefits of advanced education — nor are they passing those benefits onto the next generation.

There are plenty of black men out there, so what's keeping these women single?

Part of the answer lies in the gender imbalance within the black community — where two African American women graduate from college for every one African American male. Despite this imbalance, there is still enormous social pressure on black women to only marry black men — to "sustain" the race and build strong black families. And this means marrying black men even if they are less educated or earn less money. In short, no matter the personal cost, black woman are encourage to marry "down" before they marry "out."

"Down before out" — ouch! That sounds like a pretty harsh indictment.

Well, this has become almost a consensus view (within the black community). Authors like Steve Harvey and Hill Harper and particularly filmmaker Tyler Perry promote this notion that black women who lack good relationships are victims of their own elitism and snobbery. That they should open their eyes to the virtues of working-class black men and focus on their long-term potential. These kinds of messages tell a black female lawyer, for instance, that she should be enthusiastic about dating a carpenter or a plumber — and if she's not, then she is the one with the problem. It pressures black women to give up certain kinds of life experiences (for the sake of a man) when white women are taught to cultivate them. This is simply bad advice that can lead these women into disastrous relationships.

So what are you suggesting, that black women start marrying white guys?

I'm not advocating for black women to marry white men, I'm simply saying it's time for black women to stop "taking one" for the group. I'm encouraging black women to open themselves up to the possibilities of relationships with men who are not African American — to give less importance to race and more importance to class. This would be good for them, for their children and even benefit other black couples by helping to level the playing field.

With everyone from Psychology Today to on-line dating sites suggesting that non-black men are typically uninterested in black women, is this realistic? Will black women actually find a willing cohort of non-black men to marry?

Photo Credit: Natalie Glatzel

While there may be an entire set of cultural currents and messages that support these beliefs, this theory is fraught with misconception. Part of this has to do with black women themselves, who may assume non-black men are not interested in them, or only desire them for some perverse or "exotic" reason. Life experience may support these beliefs, but along the way black women miss out on the non-black men who are interested in them. I say that the cost of excluding non-black men can be quite substantial for these women.

At a time when marriage is becoming less popular among all ethnicities, why such a strong focus on wedded bliss?

I'm not necessarily speaking of a physical marriage license, but rather the importance of a stable committed relationship — and there is a serious decline of committed stable relationships in black America today. This has many undesirable outcomes not just for adults, but also for children who are the most vulnerable parties here. Seventy percent of black children today are born to non-married partners; most of these relationships do not last, which means most of these kids grow up with just one parent and this is not an optimal situation for child-rearing.

So where does this leave black men? Seems to me they're getting all of the blame here.

This book isn't about demonizing black men, but looking at the consequences of their failures. We are not necessarily exploring the reasons for these failures, but how they affect black families and black relationships. I certainly may not have given enough weight in the book to issues of racism and the criminal justice system or educational policies or employer discrimination, but these topics are for my next book.

Speaking about racism, there is a lot of talk in this book about race, but almost nothing about racism. Why the omission?

I consciously chose to sidestep issues of racism because they tend to be conversation-stoppers. Particularly when it comes to why — or why not — black women don't date other races, people like to blame racism, identify the "racists," and this is not helpful. My goal was to consider why people make the decisions they do. This is a deeply detailed and nuanced conversation, which is difficult to conduct when you center on the idea of racism.

Your book almost exclusively focuses on the experiences of African Americans. Why should white people read it?

Sure, the book is rooted in the black community, but the themes — marriage, children, inter-marriage — resonate across group lines. Plus, there are many white people who have black friends or co-workers who see that their lives are different from their own, but aren't sure how to talk about those differences. They see unmarried black women around them and wonder why they are single. These are topics that black women regularly speak of amongst themselves, but would never discuss in front white people.

With so much talk of unmarried women, fatherless children, economic insecurity, your book feels kind of grim. Where is the hope here for the women you claim to care about?

The hope here is that black women will be able to shape their own lives and not be victims of circumstance. That these women won't be sidetracked by the lack of black men on one hand and white racism on the other. That they will open their eyes to possibilities they might not have previously considered — and this transcends to women of all races. This is a hopeful book, but not a relentlessly upbeat book because that would have not been true to reality.

What about the Obamas? We have an intact African American family in the White House. Are they a realistic model for the rest of the community?

Interestingly, Michelle Obama's experience is emblematic of a lot of black women. When they married, she was already a lawyer while Barack was still a student. People speak of Michelle "taking a chance" on Barack and that their story is an example of what awaits when black women shed their elitism and marry a man not — or not yet — on their level. Of course, this is simply not true, particularly considering Barack Obama's background and life history. The issue here isn't Michelle, but Barack — he was the "wild card" in this marriage.

Source

AT&T and T-Mobile USA deal challenged

The combined mobile phone company would have knocked Verizon Wireless off the top spot in the US

Related Stories

• Sprint moves to block mobile deal
• AT&T and T-Mobile in $39bn deal
• Mobiles set for 3D and dual-core

US telecoms giant AT&T's bid to buy rival T-Mobile USA could be facing collapse after the US government sued to block the $39bn (£24bn) deal.

AT&T agreed to buy the firm from Deutsche Telekom in March, aiming to create the largest US wireless network.

But the Justice Department says the merger would lead to higher prices and restrict choice, and has requested a court order to stop it going ahead.

AT&T said it would fight the government's move.

It said it would be seeking a court hearing "so the enormous benefits of this merger can be fully reviewed".

AT&T added that the Justice Department "has the burden of proving alleged anti-competitive effects, and we intend to vigorously contest this matter in court".

Neither T-Mobile USA or its German parent company Deutsche Telekom have so far commented.

'Lower quality products'

AT&T's bid to buy T-Mobile would give AT&T about 43% of the US mobile phone market.

However, it cannot go ahead without approval from both the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Continue reading the main story

	AT&T	T-Mobile
Mobile customers	98.6 million	33.6 million
Revenue (2010)	$53.5bn	$18.7bn
Standing in US	Second biggest	Fourth biggest

"The combination of AT&T and T-Mobile would result in tens of millions of consumers all across the United States facing higher prices, fewer choices and lower quality products for mobile wireless services," said Deputy Attorney General James Cole.

"Consumers across the country, including those in rural areas and those with lower incomes, benefit from competition among the nation's wireless carriers, particularly the four remaining national carriers. This lawsuit seeks to ensure that everyone can continue to receive the benefits of that competition."

The Department of Justice argues that the merger would combine two of the four firms who provide 90% of the mobile phone services in the US.

It said T-Mobile had been a "disruptive force" in the industry, aggressively driving down prices.

If the deal is prevented from going ahead, AT&T could have to pay T-Mobile several billion dollars in fees.

But the uncertainty and delays caused by the launch of legal action could also be damaging, analysts suggested.

"The uncertainty created poses several very difficult decisions for AT&T, especially in terms of network investments," said Jan Dawson from telecoms analysts Ovum.

"All this is happening at precisely the time when AT&T needs to accelerate its 4G rollout to keep up with Verizon, Sprint and others who are much further ahead," he said.

Bringing jobs back

Improvements in wireless broadband services were one of the benefits of the takeover cited by AT&T.

It claimed that its takeover of T-Mobile in the US would create up to 96,000 jobs as a result of its additional $8bn investment in infrastructure.

Some of this money will go into improving its wireless broadband service, taking its faster LTE or 4G network to 97% of Americans, it said.

Earlier, AT&T had also said it would repatriate 5,000 call-centre jobs from overseas if regulators approved the deal.

The former monopoly was broken up by regulatory authorities into eight separate companies in the early 1980s.

AT&T has grown through a serious of mergers since then, with Pacific Telesis, Ameritech and Southwestern Bell joining together to form SBC, and then SBC buying AT&T, BellSouth and Cingular, Jan Dawson explained.

"The fact that the Department of Justice is stepping in now is a sign that it wants to draw a line in the sand and forbid further consolidation among major players in the industry, and especially AT&T," he said.

Source

'Anti-cancer virus' shows promise

By James Gallagher Health reporter, BBC News

Modified vaccinia virus can target cancer

Related Stories

• Herpes virus used to treat cancer
• Many under-16s carry cancer virus
• Virus helps show cancer spread

An engineered virus, injected into the blood, can selectively target cancer cells throughout the body in what researchers have labelled a medical first.

The virus attacked only tumours, leaving the healthy tissue alone, in a small trial on 23 patients, according to the journal Nature.

Researchers said the findings could one day "truly transform" therapies.

Cancer specialists said using viruses showed "real promise".

Using viruses to attack cancers is not a new concept, but they have needed to be injected directly into tumours in order to evade the immune system.

Smallpox to cancer

Scientists modified the vaccinia virus, which is more famous for being used to develop a smallpox vaccine.

The virus, named JX-594, is dependent upon a chemical pathway, common in some cancers, in order to replicate.

It was injected at different doses into the blood of 23 patients with cancers which had spread to multiple organs in the body.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

I believe that some day, viruses and other biological therapies could truly transform our approach for treating cancer”

Prof John Bell University of Ottawa

In the eight patients receiving the highest dose, seven had the virus replicating in their tumours, but not in healthy tissue.

Prof John Bell, lead researcher and from the University of Ottawa, said: "We are very excited because this is the first time in medical history that a viral therapy has been shown to consistently and selectively replicate in cancer tissue after intravenous infusion in humans.

"Intravenous delivery is crucial for cancer treatment because it allows us to target tumours throughout the body as opposed to just those that we can directly inject."

Infection prevented further tumour growth in six patients for a time. However, the virus did not cure cancer. Patients were given only one dose of the virus as the trial was designed to test the safety of the virus.

It is thought that the virus could be used to deliver treatments directly to cancerous cells in high concentrations.

Prof Bell acknowledges that the research is still in the very early stages, but he said: "I believe that some day, viruses and other biological therapies could truly transform our approach for treating cancer."

Cancer Research UK's Prof Nick Lemoine, also director of Barts Cancer Institute, said: "Viruses that multiply in just tumour cells - avoiding healthy cells - are showing real promise as a new biological approach to target hard-to-treat cancers.

"This new study is important because it shows that a virus previously used safely to vaccinate against smallpox in millions of people can now be modified to reach cancers through the bloodstream - even after cancer has spread widely through the patient's body.

"It is particularly encouraging that responses were seen even in tumours like mesothelioma, a cancer which can be particularly hard to treat."

Source

Birmingham hospital error paralysed Newport teenager

Sophie Tyler is hoping to go to university, her mother said

A teenager was left paralysed from the waist down after a spinal anaesthetic was wrongly left in place for too long, a hospital has admitted.

Sophie Tyler, 14, of Risca, near Newport, had gallstone surgery in Birmingham Children's Hospital in 2008.

But a pain-killing epidural infusion was not removed for two days, permanently damaging her spinal cord.

The hospital said it was "deeply sorry" and that it had made changes to prevent it happening again.

Sophie, now 17, underwent the surgery on 27 May 2008, solicitors for her family said.

A day later she complained of numbness in her right leg.

After two days of receiving the epidural, the numbness had spread to both legs and Sophie was barely able to move her feet.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

From being an outgoing teenager her life has altered overnight ”

Sue Tyler Sophie's mother

However, hospital staff did not stop the pain-killing anaesthetic until the night of 29 May.

The following day, Sophie underwent an MRI scan, which revealed that the anaesthetic had entered the spinal cord and damaged the membranes, paralysing her from the waist down.

'Very determined'

Sue Tyler said it had "completely changed" her daughter's life.

"From being an outgoing teenager her life has altered overnight and we have all had to come to terms with what has happened.

"Sophie is still taking her A-levels and hopes to then go to university, but to do so she has had to be very determined and needs a lot of support to enable her to achieve her goals."

Tim Deeming, of Irwin Mitchell solicitors, said Sophie and her family had been devastated by what happened.

"Other than suffering from gallstones, Sophie was a very healthy and active young girl," he said.

"She and her family put their trust in the hospital and believed that within a few days she would be on the road to recovery.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

We are deeply sorry for the unimaginable distress we have caused Sophie and her family ”

Dr Vin Siwakar Chief Medical Officer, Birmingham Children's Hospital

"At the age of 14 to be told the news that you will never walk again is unimaginable, and to discover that mistakes which were entirely avoidable has been incredibly hard for them to cope with."

'Important lessons'

Mr Deeming called for lessons to be learned.

"Birmingham Children's Hospital has a reputation, both nationally and internationally, for clinical excellence which is why it is extremely important both to protect future patient welfare and to provide public reassurance, that the hospital learns important lessons from what happened to Sophie," he said.

Mr Deeming said he hoped the staff responsible had already been retrained so that similar "tragedies" could be avoided.

He said the hospital had admitted full liability, paving the way for a financial settlement.

"Although no amount of compensation will ever turn back the clock for Sophie, she will need specialist care and support for the rest of her life," the solicitor said.

Dr Vin Diwakar, chief medical officer at Birmingham Children's Hospital, said: "We are deeply sorry for the unimaginable distress we have caused Sophie and her family as a result of the care she received at our hospital three years ago.

"The care we provided fell below our usual high standards and since then we have implemented a whole series of changes to try to ensure that this never happens again."

Source

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Commentary

This is what happens when regulations are lax. For two days no one noticed what was happening and there were no safety checks to ensure everything had gone well.

This is pathetic, everyone in the hospital that saw this girl should be fired, all management should be fired, and the hospital, IF decided it should remain, should completely remake itself.

You've just stolen the future of a bright young person. What crime can be worse than this?

How we should have acted before Iraq War Invasion

Ron Paul on Now With Bill Moyers -

October 4, 2002 - Part I

Not everyone was fooled by the Media propaganda during the Iraq War.

Let us learn from this, so we don't repeat the mistakes of the past.

Important points he brought up:

• 1. No evidence to suspect Saddam was a Threat to our national security.
• 2. No evidence to suggest Saddam had the capability to hurt us, through air force, or other means.
• 3. Even if such threats and abilities were present, during Cold war, we easily fought off other threats without DIRECT confrontation.
• 4. Israel affects our Foreign policy negatively, in contradiction to America's own needs sometimes.
• 5. The Just War tradition is not dead and requires war to be for DEFENSIVE purposes only, and that such a war must be with THE WILL of the people.
• 6. To love Peace and to hate war, is Human nature. There is no shame in this.