Monday, September 24, 2012

10 things readers want in a history of the world


10 things readers want in a history of the world

history composite #2
Andrew Marr's History of the World is attempting to tell the story of civilisation in eight hour-long episodes. Last week he spoke of the difficulty of choosing what to include, and what to leave out.
Charlemagne didn't make the cut. Mughal emperor Aurangzeb did. And there had to be a host of other difficult omissions.
We asked for your suggestions for often overlooked moments in world history. Here are 10.

1. Industrial ammonia

Ammonia
"The work of Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch in 1909 is particularly important. They paved the way for a worldwide expansion in mechanised agriculture." Ade Jones, Lydney, Glos
In 1909 Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch created a way of producing huge amounts of fertiliser by artificially synthesising ammonia from nitrogen and hydrogen.

Fritz Haber

Fritz Haber
The fertiliser increased crop yields which allowed more food to be produced for a growing population. The process was described as conjuring "bread from air".
Without the Haber-Bosch process, about 40% of people - nearly three billion - would not be alive today because we could not produce the amount of food we need, says environmental expert Professor Vaclav Smil from the University of Manitoba.
"We have to eat and drink, everything else is optional. In that sense it's the most important scientific discovery. Organic agriculture would not provide enough food to feed the world."
But Haber's contribution to agriculture is often overshadowed by his work developing chemical weapons. During World War I, he developed the use of gas for warfare and his work was later used by the Nazis to poison Jews in the gas chambers.

Find out more

Of Jewish descent but "pardoned" because of his patriotic efforts in World War I, Haber was expelled from Germany after he refused to fire Jewish workers. He died of a heart attack one year later in 1934.
"We should remember his peaceful efforts before the Great War and recognise his contributions to science, useful for the whole of humanity to stave off possible famine," says Haber's godson, the historian Fritz Stern.
"He was a prime example of the complexities and contradictions of a scientist in wartime."

2. Andreas Hofer, rebel Austrian leader

"The story of Andreas Hofer deserves to be much more widely told." Dr Andrew Bellenkes, Pinswang, Austria

Napoleon and Austria

Arc de Triophe
  • Two of Napoleon's most famous victories fought against the Austrians - at Ulm and Austerlitz
  • Arc de Triomphe in Paris built to commemorate Austerlitz victory
  • Treaty of Vienna (1814) carved up Europe after Napoleon's defeat, and was a diplomatic triumph for the Austrian statesman Metternich
In 1809 Andreas Hofer led a rural rebel army to fight against Napoleon's troops to try and claim back Tyrol, a region of Austria that had been given to the German state of Bavaria.
An innkeeper in the countryside, his army was made up mostly of peasant workers and farmers. They only had improvised weapons and primitive military tactics.
For a short period in 1809 he ruled the land, announced new laws and made his own coins. But his success was short lived, and less than a year later, in exile, he was betrayed and executed.
Today he is celebrated as a hero. He has museums, books, streets and hotels named after him, but not many outside of Austria know who he is.
"If you look to Europe during the Napoleonic era, Tyrol was not of economic importance, it was just keeping the traffic routes between the North and South open," says historian and director of the Tiroler Landesmuseen, Wolfgang Meighoerner.

3. Alhazen and his work on optics

"The great Arabic scientific work of the 10th Century, and in particular the life of men such as Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen)." James, Bristol

Father of scientific method

Eye
  • Al-Haytham proved that we see because light enters our eyes
  • Many of his scientific discoveries were made while under a 10-year house arrest
Ibn al-Haytham was born in about 965 in what is now Iraq, and is regarded by some by some as the real father of the scientific method, predating Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes in the 17th Century.
Al-Haytham was the first to disprove the theory that we see objects by rays of light emitted from our eyes, realising instead that we see because light enters our eyes.
No other scientist before him had used maths to prove this process, says Prof Jim Al-Khalili from the University of Surrey.
"When the great scientific revolution took place in Europe, science had advanced so much that people forgot it was built on previous knowledge."
Al-Haytham was part of the golden age of Arabic science, and while Europe was stuck in the Dark Ages, he filled the gap, says Al-Khalili.

4. Danube script

The Neolithic civilisation of central Europe (6000-3,500BC) and the enigmatic Danube script, which possibly influenced the first true writing." Jeremy Glover, Leighton Buzzard
The Danube script is a controversial subject among archaeologists, some of whom claim it is the earliest known form of writing in the world.
The early signs are found on Neolithic artefacts such as pottery and spindle whorls, concentrated in the Balkans and associated with the Vinca culture.
Some think tablets from Tartaria, in Romania, are exceptional as they "really look like 'writing'", notes James Mallory, professor of prehistoric archaeology at Queen's University in Belfast.
But he says no-one can tell for sure whether they are random symbols, a system of select magical symbols, or possibly some form of early writing.
There has also been a debate about whether they actually date to the Vinca period or were later insertions into the mound, he says.

5. Double-entry book-keeping

"Double-entry book-keeping, which revolutionised commerce first in Europe and then the world over." Philippa Sutton, Newcastle

Luca Pacioli, father of accounting

  • Born around 1447 in Tuscany, this Franciscan friar was friend of Leonardo da Vinci
  • His masterwork Summa de Arithmetica, Geometria, Proportioni et Proportionalita set out principles of double-entry accounting
  • His motto: "No person should go to bed until the debits equal the credits"
Double-entry book-keeping, which is widely believed to have been introduced to Europe in the early 16th Century by the monk Luca Pacioli, is a financial accounting system. It recognises that all transactions have two aspects, a credit and a debit, and in a properly constituted set of books, the two sets of figures always balance.
Prof Christopher Napier from the Royal Holloway, University of London, says the system provided a standard structure for businesses and individuals to record transactions, and it helped entrepreneurs and investors to measure their capital, and the profits of their business.
Some people argue that double-entry prompted a shift in culture, Napier says, from a time when the goal was simply to earn a good living, to a culture where the goal was to maximise one's capital. But there are some historians of accounting who argue it's possible to overstate the influence of double-entry, Napier says.

6. Seven Years' War

"The Seven Years War was truly the first WORLD war and is overlooked in history." Cleggy, Northfleet, Kent
The Seven Years' War (1756-1763) involved all the great powers of Europe and saw France, Austria, Russia and Sweden on one side, and Britain, Prussia and Hanover on the other.

The Death of Wolfe

The Death of Wolfe
  • Benjamin West's 1770 painting is probably most famous image of Seven Years' War
  • James Wolfe died from his injuries while leading British troops in Battle of Quebec
Michael Ball, curator of Britain's National Army Museum, says the Seven Years' war could arguably be seen as the first world war, "not in the sense of the 20th Century wars, which saw entire nations mobilised for war, but in terms of geography".
"The battles affected North America, India, the Caribbean, the Philippines and large parts of central Europe," he says.
Prof Mark Knights, of the University of Warwick, says the Seven Years' War could also be seen as the first world war due to its "shockingly high" casualties.
"Estimates vary but it is likely that more than a million people died," he says.
The result of the fighting, which saw Britain acquire Canada from the French and control all of North America east of the Mississippi, was also "very significant", according to Ball, and ultimately led to the American war of Independence.
It also saw Britain become, arguably, the first world power, he says.

7. The Kingdom of Axum

"Civilisations are neglected. What about Axum?" Berhanu Tessema, Addis Ababa
The Kingdom of Axum (or Aksum) rose to prominence as a trading nation in the 1st Century, and at its height became the greatest market of north-eastern Africa.
Its most renowned surviving monuments are a group of memorial obelisks, or stelae.
There are many reasons for including Axum in any world history, says James Burns, author of A History of Sub-Saharan Africa.
The kingdom represents a significant and highly innovative urban civilisation.
"Its economy was based on the cultivation of crops grown exclusively in the Ethiopian highlands, supplemented with cereals and technologies imported from Asia. It was one of Rome's great trading partners, and they rose and fell in close parallel," he says.
The kingdom was one of the earliest regions of Christian conversion in Africa. "The image of an isolated Christian kingdom captured the imagination of Christians in Europe throughout the Middle Ages", he says.

8. The law code of Hammurabi

Hammurabi's code
"The law code of Hammurabi ought to be in too - the first time a ruler laid down a coherent set of laws which all his people must live by." Ben Gate, Pontypridd
A basalt stele (slab) protrudes into Paris' Louvre like a thumb. On it is the earliest truly extensive documented set of laws of the ancient world, written in Akkadian.
It is commonly referred to as the Law Code of Hammurabi, but some experts argue it's not really a law code at all. It does however provide an incomparable insight into life and justice during King Hammurabi's reign (1792-1750BC) as first ruler of the Babylonian Empire.
The stele sets out the famous principle of "an eye for an eye". But also included are familiar concepts of evidence-based justice and giving testimony under oath - even provisions for the maintenance of divorced wives.
There were precursors to Hammurabi's laws, explains Dr Frances Reynolds, Assyriology expert at Oxford University, but the stele and 130,000 clay tablet documents from the period establish the king as a "fantastic administrator".
It perhaps explains why he adorns the wall of the American Supreme Court, suggests Reynolds.

9. Rise of the Khmer empire and creation of Angkor Wat

Angkor Wat
"The Khmer Empire reaching its peak in the 12th Century and its influence on south-east Asia." Paul McShane, Edinburgh
Thousands of backpackers and awed holidaymakers have stood and gazed at the massive temple complex of Angkor Wat deep inside the Cambodian jungle.
The Angkor temples are legacies of the Khmer Empire, which dominated south-east Asia from the 9th Century.
"One of the first and certainly the most important classical civilisation of southeast Asia, it set the standards by which kingdoms and societies that came after measured themselves", says Dr Charney, an expert from SOAS.
Angkor became the "largest pre-industrial urban complex in the world", says Cambridge PhD student Mary Beth Day, featuring the "most sophisticated hydraulic engineering and water management system". The Khmer could collect and store water across 1,000 square km, channelling it directly to rice paddies.
Yet the empire's demise remains a "contentious issue", says Day, with many details shrouded in mystery.

10. The life of Simon Bolivar

Mural of Simon Bolivar
"Simon Bolivar's liberation of five countries from the Spanish yoke." Luis Rodriguez, Leigh-on-Sea
Inspired by European enlightenment philosophy, Caracas-born Simon Bolivar helped liberate his people from the Spanish Empire, gaining independence for the modern-day nations of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, Peru and Venezuela.

Simon Bolivar

  • Born 1783 in Caracas, New Granada (now Venezuela), died 1830
  • Soldier and statesman who led revolutions against Spanish rule in Latin America
  • Bolivia named after him
His political rule was less successful. Unable to fend off factional enemies and increasingly dictatorial, Bolivar died awaiting exile in 1830, "disillusioned that he was unable to maintain the ideals of freedom, liberty and equality", says Dr Matthew Brown, a Latin America expert at Bristol University.
Bolivar's impact was nevertheless vast.
The "most significant figure" to emerge from Latin America, he was even "more important than [US President George] Washington", says Anthony McFarlane, emeritus professor at Warwick University.
He played a critical role in the decline of the Spanish Empire, which in turn marked a huge shift in global imperial relations. Bolivar's leadership also served as a "model" for later anti-colonialist movements, adds McFarlane.
Reporting by Tom Heyden, Vanessa Barford and Melissa Hogenboom

Source

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Painkillers 'are the cause' of millions of headaches


Painkillers 'are the cause' of millions of headaches

Woman in pain

Related Stories

Up to a million people in the UK have "completely preventable" severe headaches caused by taking too many painkillers, doctors have said.
They said some were trapped in a "vicious cycle" of taking pain relief, which then caused even more headaches.
The warning came as part of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's (NICE) first guidelines for treating headaches.
It is also recommending acupuncture in some circumstances.

“Start Quote

This can end up getting into a vicious cycle where your headache gets worse, so you take more painkillers, so your headache gets worse and this just becomes worse and worse and worse”
Prof Martin Underwood Warwick Medical School
"Medication overuse headaches" feel the same as other common headaches or migraines.
There is no definitive UK data on the incidence of the condition, but studies in other countries suggest 1-2% of people are affected, while the World Health Organization says figures closer to 5% have been reported.
While painkillers would be many people's instant response, they could be making sufferers feel even worse.
Prof Martin Underwood, from Warwick Medical School, who led the NICE panel, said: "This can end up getting into a vicious cycle where your headache gets worse, so you take more painkillers, so your headache gets worse and this just becomes worse and worse and worse.
"It is such an easy thing to prevent."
'Tipping point' Exactly how painkillers have this effect on the brain is unknown.
Most of the people affected are thought to have started with either everyday, tension-type headaches or migraines. The headaches then became worse as they treated themselves at home.

Main types of headache

  • Tension - the common "everyday" headache most people will experience at some point in their lives. In some cases people have tension headaches on most days of the month.
  • Migraine - severe headache that can last for several days. It gets worse with activity and often comes with nausea as well as sensitivity to light and sound.
  • Cluster - extremely severe pain around the eye and side of the face, also includes swelling and a red watery eye. Some people report eight attacks a day, which can last up to three hours.
  • Medication overuse - feels like a tension headache or a migraine, but is due to taking too many painkillers.
  • However, there are more than 200 types of headache.
Manjit Matharu, a consultant neurologist at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, said there was a tipping point at 10 to 15 days of using pain relief each month when the drugs became the issue.
He said: "This is a huge problem in the population. The figures in terms of the number of people who have medication overuse headache are one in 50, so that is approximately a million people who have headaches on a daily or near daily basis because they're using painkillers."
People with a family history of tension-type headaches or migraine may also be genetically more vulnerable to medication overuse headaches. They could be susceptible when taking pain relief even if it is not for headaches.
The new guidelines for doctors in England and Wales advise telling sufferers to immediately stop taking all pain relief. However, this will lead to about a month of agony as patients contend with regular headaches without pain relief, until symptoms eventually improve.
The panel said other options for controlling any underlying headaches, such as preventative treatments, could be considered.
Acupuncture The guidelines also include a recommendation for acupuncture in patients susceptible to migraine and tension headaches.

Drugs causing overuse headaches

  • Paracetamol, aspirin and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on 15 or more days per month
  • Triptans, opioids, ergots or combination analgesic medications on at least 10 days per month
Source: NICE
"We would expect that to lead to more people getting acupuncture, but given there is good evidence to show this is effective for the prevention of both tension-type and migraine-type headaches then that is a good thing because people are getting access to an effective treatment," Prof Martin Underwood said.
Doctors have also been asked not to refer patients for brain scans "solely for reassurance" that they do not have a brain tumour. The NICE panel said a tumour would come with other symptoms such as a change in behaviour or epilepsy.
The chief executive of the Migraine Trust, Wendy Thomas, said: "The guideline will assist with accurate diagnosis, appropriate referral and evidence-based information for those with troublesome and disabling headaches.
"It will also raise awareness of medication overuse, which can be an issue for those with severe headaches.
"People with disabling migraine will experience improved quality of life as a result of this guideline."
Dr Fayyaz Ahmed, the chair of British Association for the Study of Headache, welcomed the guidelines.
He said: "Headache is the most prevalent condition and one in seven of the UK population has migraine.
"The condition puts an enormous burden on the healthcare resources and the economy in general."

Source

What Neuroscience Really Says About Female Desire


Getty Images
Getty Images
The controversy surrounding journalist Naomi Wolf’s new book, Vagina: A Cultural History — an exploration of the brain-vagina connection — has brought fresh attention to the nature and neuroscience of female sexuality. Unfortunately, it’s done so largely because Wolf profoundly misrepresents how the brain works and how neurochemicals like dopamine, oxytocin and serotonin really affect our love lives (as well as conditions like addiction and depression).
Correctly understood, neuroscience offers important insight into how our minds function and how our brains shape our lives: many of my articles on Healthland attempt to explore these questions. But the kind of oversimplification seen in Wolf’s book and, sadly, in many other popular accounts of neuroscience, threatens to perpetuate a psychological myth. Rather than illuminating the complex interplay between mind and brain, it portrays human beings — especially women — as automatons, enslaved by brain chemicals we cannot control.
That’s not what the science shows. The mind-body connection is far more complicated and wonderful, as a quick tour through some of Wolf’s errors will illustrate. There is a new science of female sexual behavior, but it is far more liberating than the book suggests.
(MORE: First 3D Movie of Orgasm in the Female Brain)
Let’s start with Wolf’s understanding of dopamine, a neurotransmitter that rightly fascinates many researchers. Dopamine appears to be critical for motivation and desire: if it’s depleted or blocked (with a medication like an antipsychotic, for example), people may lose the will to strive, even the ability to move. But boost it with a drug like cocaine and people feel capable, excited, empowered.
Here’s how Wolf connects women’s sexuality with the function of dopamine in the brain:
If as a woman, you are frustrated sexually and even worse, aroused but denied release, your dopamine system eventually diminishes in anticipation of sex, you eventually lose access to the positive energy you might otherwise have had both in sex and also subsequently to take elsewhere in your life. … With low dopamine activation, you will suffer from a lack of ambition or drive and your libido will be low.
The theory sounds plausible, but “the fallacy is that she’s saying dopamine is primarily involved in sexual pleasure, and that’s not the case,” says Larry Young, a pioneering researcher on sexual and social bonding and co-author of The Chemistry Between Us: Love, Sex and the Science of Attraction. “Dopamine is involved in reward and motivation for everything we do in life — whether we’re eating good food, drinking good wine or interacting with our kids and family.”
Sexual frustration, therefore, isn’t likely to turn off your dopamine system. “Taking one [type of pleasure] away isn’t going to change all aspects of your life like that,” Young says. He also points out that dopamine isn’t only associated with joyful experience. “It’s also released under stressful conditions,” he says.
Further, if the dopamine system typically turned itself off when satisfaction wasn’t attained, few people would develop addiction. Indeed, the experience of addiction itself is marked by ongoing desire in the face of frustration: addiction doesn’t create an overall lack of desire or drive, but rather a very intense, if misdirected, motivational pull toward the drug of choice.
(MORE: The Female Erotic Brain, Mapped)
Wolf further misconstrues how dopamine interacts with serotonin, another neurotransmitter that has multiple functions, including roles in mood and sensation. Arguing that antidepressants that raise serotonin levels (like Prozac and other drugs of its kind) may be used to keep women submissive, she writes:
Dopamine will — if women and their vaginas are not hurt, suppressed, injured or demeaned — make women more euphoric, more creative and more assertive — possibly more than a male-dominated society is comfortable with. … Serotonin literally subdues the female voice, and dopamine literally raises it.
Again, there is no basis in neuroscience for this claim. Although some antidepressants do have the side effect of suppressing sexual desire, this affects both men and women, not women alone. Antidepressants that increase serotonin levels don’t typically deplete desire or motivation in general, however. Quite the opposite in fact: people whose depression has been lifted by these drugs tend to be more motivated, not less.
Women are more likely to be depressed than men, so they’re more likely to take medication for it. And yet while some antidepressants work by elevating dopamine — for example, bupropion (Wellbutrin) — you don’t see women being denied such drugs for fear they’ll overthrow the patriarchy. As with all antidepressants, women are prescribed these drugs more frequently than men are.
We still don’t know which medication will lift depression better — or worsen it, for that matter — in any given individual of either gender, though. The complexity of the condition and the widely varying response to antidepressants illustrate just how subtle and nuanced the interactions are between serotonin, dopamine and other neurotransmitters and our moods and desires. Countless things can go wrong to produce depression or low libido, and innumerable things can go right to alleviate such problems. If the brain were as simple as Wolf presents it, it just wouldn’t work.  It’s not as straightforward as one neurotransmitter, one effect.
“Science, particularly physiology, never works that way,” says Kathryn Clancy, assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Illinois, who studies reproductive behavior and blogs about “ladybusiness” for Scientific American, noting that, for example, two women with the exact same levels of hormones can have vastly different physiology — either a “lush, thick” uterine lining, say, or a very thin one.
(MORE: What a Workout! Women Report that Exercise Triggers Orgasm)
Wolf includes a similar oversimplification in her discussion of the neurotransmitter and hormone oxytocin, which is best known for its involvement in facilitating bonding between lovers and between parents and children. Wolf calls oxytocin “women’s emotional superpower” and, citing research in prairie voles, concludes that it makes women more likely to become emotionally connected to their sexual partners than men are.
But Young says there’s no data on gender differences in oxytocin in humans. “Based on what we know from animals, it is likely that when women have sex that they are going to experience more of an oxytocin release than men,” he says, adding, “We don’t know.”
Wolf then jumps from this conjecture to the notion that women’s intense oxytocin release makes them more likely to become literally addicted to sex: “Good sex is, in other words, actually addictive for women biochemically in certain ways that are different from the experience of men — meaning that one experiences discomfort when this stimulus is removed and a craving to secure it again.”
From this unscientific claim, the author leaps even further afield, concluding that because of their biochemistry, women are less capable of controlling themselves when it comes to love and therefore, less human. “The tricky part, if you look at the new science, is that women are indeed, in sex, in some ways more like animals than men,” she writes.
Note here that we’ve gone from assuming that an animal finding applies to humans to an assumption (one without any data at all) that the previous conclusion creates an uncontrollable desire for sex in women that is similar to addiction, which characterizes women in love as having little more self-control than animals.
There is a truth buried amongst this nonsense: but it’s not the truth that Wolf is claiming. Love — for both men and women — does rely on the same circuitry that engenders addiction. It’s the same circuitry that fuels the desire to persist in frustrating tasks like parenting as well. Like addiction, both love and parenting involve continuing with behavior despite negative consequences. But that’s a good thing: we need to be a little bit irrational to stay with partners who are far from perfect and to deal with children who can easily drive adults mad.
(MORE: How a Squirt of Oxytocin Can Ease Marital Spats and Boost Social Sensitivity)
This doesn’t mean, however, that we become powerless in the face of our brain chemistry. Even heroin addicts remain human and capable of self-control: you don’t see junkies shooting up in front of the police, for example. Similarly, people maintain control despite the pulls of parenting and love — and women aren’t any more romantically compulsive than men.
That’s because the brain circuitry that drives us to love and to parent — the same region that can be derailed during addiction — isn’t the only part of our brain. Even in the throes of addiction, romantic obsession or the early chaotic days of parenting, we’re still capable of choice, and none of the neuroscience data proves otherwise. “Just because genes or a molecule modulate a behavior, it doesn’t mean that genes or molecules determine that behavior,” says Young. “People who are in love will generally engage in behavior that they wouldn’t normally do, but I don’t think that means they’re less responsible.”
Oddly, one of the few places in her book where Wolf gets the science right — in a discussion about the physiology of a clitoral versus vaginal orgasm — quashes the universalizing claims she makes elsewhere in the book. It was a pinched pelvic nerve in Wolf’s spine that apparently prevented her from experiencing vaginal orgasms and a surgical cure of the problem that inspired the book. She notes that her doctor told her, “Every woman is wired differently; some women’s nerves branch more in the clitoris. Some branch a great deal in the perineum, or at the mouth of the cervix. That accounts for some of the differences in female sexual response.”
Indeed, there is important new research here suggesting that, for example, that the wiring of these nerves affects the types of orgasms women have. Clitoral-focused orgasms seem to rely on one arm of the pudendal nerve, while cervical and some vaginal sensation and related orgasms are linked to the pelvic nerve.  As Wolf rightly notes, this knowledge should bring comfort to women who think themselves different or psychologically immature for having the “wrong” kind of orgasm.
Again, however, there is more complexity to the female orgasm than the author conveys. For one, as she does mention, new anatomical data suggests that the clitoris, far from being located only outside the body, actually wraps around the vagina internally. Which means that it, too, can be stimulated from within. “It’s shaped like a wishbone and the tip of the wishbone is the part that is external,” says Barry Komisaruk, professor of psychology at Rutgers and a leading researcher on sexuality. “The rest of it has these two legs that straddle the vagina and during intercourse the penis can actually stretch the  vagina to the point where the legs of clitoris are stimulated.” While there are distinct vaginal and clitoral orgasms experienced by many women, the two types of stimulation can also intermingle. Neither is inherently superior, nor required for conception.
(MORE: Sharing a Bed Makes Couples Healthier)
Moreover, Komisaruk and his colleagues have found that women with spinal injury, even those who have paralyzing damage, can often still have vaginal orgasms because the spine and pelvic nerve are not the only conductors of sensation from the vagina and cervix. The vagus nerve transmits these impulses, too, outside of the spinal cord. “It’s probably that nerve that carries sensation in [women with] spinal cord injuries [during orgasm],” says Komisaruk. Wolf’s vagus may not have functioned this way, but that doesn’t mean other women have the same problem.
The brain and female sexuality are extremely complicated — and reducing them to simplistic formulations that deny women their humanity fails to do justice to either feminism or science. Properly contextualized, neuroscience can add to our knowledge of sexuality, but not if it’s twisted to support sexist ideas about women as “animals” who are so addicted to love that they become zombies.
Maia Szalavitz is a health writer for TIME.com. Find her on Twitter at @maiasz. You can also continue the discussion on TIME Healthland‘s Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIMEHealthland.

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Viewpoint: Apple's iPhone launches no longer excite


Viewpoint: Apple's iPhone launches no longer excite


Apple unveils the latest version of its iPhone this Wednesday. It will be the first since the death of Steve Jobs.
To mark the occasion the BBC asked Dan Lyons, Newsweek magazine's technology editor and creator of the satirical blog, The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs, to pen an article about the firm's progress over past year.
This is his provocative view.
Man uses iPhone in front of Apple logo
Somewhere up there, I can hear Steve screaming

Back in 2006 I launched a blog where I pretended to be Apple CEO Steve Jobs. My alter ego, "Fake Steve," had a good run, but I shut it down in January 2011 when it became apparent that Jobs was in poor health. Nevertheless, even now, I'm constantly wondering what Steve would think about whatever Apple is doing.
This week it's the the iPhone 5. Everyone pretty much accepts that Apple will introduce it, and there have been so many leaks that everybody pretty much seems to know what it's going to be. Word is it will look a lot like the last two versions of the iPhone, except a bit thinner and a bit taller, with upgraded guts and a refreshed operating system.
iPhone and Galaxy S3 being held Samsung's Galaxy S3 is outselling the iPhone 4S in some countries
If that's correct, I imagine Steve is not happy. First of all, he'd be furious about the leaks. Steve liked surprising people.
More important, is this really the best we can expect from an outfit that claims to be the most innovative company in the world? This is the sixth version of the iPhone, and the user interface still looks almost exactly like the original iPhone in 2007.
The hardware on the iPhone has been the same for two years, since the iPhone 4 and 4S were virtually identical.
Now, having had two years to plot and scheme, Apple's renowned designer Jonathan Ive has replaced the tiny 3.5in (8.9cm) screen with a slightly-less-tiny 4in (10.2cm) screen? Wow. Knock me over with a feather. What do you do with the rest of your time, Jony?
This is what happens when a company is too cheap to invest in research and development. Did you know that Apple spends far less on R&D than any of its rivals - a paltry 2% of revenues, versus 14% for Google and Microsoft?
No wonder the Android platform, where new models appear every week, now represents 68% of the smartphone market, up from 47% a year ago, while Apple slid to 17% over the same period.
In case you're bad at math, let me work that out for you: Android's market share is now four times that of Apple. Four times!
Worse, despite all its bluster about innovation, Apple has become a copycat, and not even a good one. Why is Apple making the iPhone bigger? To keep up with the top Android phones.
Tim Cook launching the iPhone 4S Apple's stock has hit new heights under chief executive Tim Cook
(Phones that, mind you, Apple fanboys ridiculed at first.)
The problem is that the new iPhone won't really give you much more screen real estate than the old one. Worse, it looks ridiculous.
Apple also has become a copycat in tablets. Jobs once said the iPad's 9.7in screen was the perfect size, and smaller tablets made no sense. Then the Android camp had success with 7in tablets like Amazon's Kindle Fire and Google's Nexus 7, and now Apple supposedly will announce its own smaller iPad in October. Talk about thinking different!
What else is there to complain about?
Um, Siri still doesn't work. The oft-rumoured Apple TV doesn't exist yet, presumably because media companies won't let Apple take over their business.
The latest batch of Apple ads were such embarrassing garbage that Apple to take them down from YouTube. Apple's new guy in charge of retail launched a plan to lay off workers and boost profits, then had to walk it back when people pointed out that this was stupid.
The big $1bn (£650m) patent "victory" over Samsung made Apple look like a bully, and also raised awareness of how good Samsung's latest products are.
Last month, Samsung's Galaxy S3, with its huge 4.8in screen, outsold the iPhone 4S in the United States, the first time any smartphone has outsold the iPhone in the States.
Apple got where it was by taking bold risks. Now it has become a company that copies others and plays it safe.
A company that once was run by a product visionary now is run by a number-cruncher - chief executive Tim Cook, whose claim to fame involves running an efficient supply chain and beating ever lower prices out of Asian subcontractors and component suppliers.
To use a car analogy, six years ago the iPhone was like a sexy new flagship model from BMW or Porsche. Today it's a Toyota Camry. Safe, reliable, boring. The car your mom drives. The car that's so popular that its maker doesn't dare mess with the formula.
Person takes photo of Steve Jobs portrait Steve Jobs co-founded Apple in 1976. He stepped down as chief executive in August, 2011.
Apple seems less interested in blowing people away than it is in milking profit out of the existing lineup. At this Cook is doing marvellously well.
Sales are booming and will top $150bn this year, with net profit margins of nearly 30%. That's incredible in any business, but qualifies as a miracle when you're selling consumer electronics hardware.
Apple has more than $100bn in cash. Its market value of $632bn makes it the biggest company in the world, bigger than any company in US history.
That's great for Apple's shareholders. But for customers, who cares? In terms of products, Apple has become the one thing it should never be. Apple has become boring.
Somewhere up there, I can hear Steve screaming.

Source

Monday, September 10, 2012

Time for a Time Out: Why Are 40,000 Children So Harshly Disciplined in Public Schools?



Time for a Time Out: Why Are 40,000 Children So Harshly Disciplined in Public Schools?

If psychiatric facilities can eliminate the traumatic punishment techniques of isolation and restraint, why can't public schools?


Locked in cramped, windowless rooms, tied in body-restricting bags, denied food, water and bathroom access: all of this is happening not to patients in the overlooked back wards of state mental hospitals, but to children as young as 5 in American public schools.
In the 2009-10 school year, some 40,000 children were restrained or isolated as discipline for bad behavior — most of these students had physical, developmental or learning and behavioral needs — according to Department of Education data. That research was cited in a revealing op-ed in Sunday’s New York Times written by a father whose daughter was deeply traumatized by such treatment. A 2009 Government Accountability Office report also found “hundreds of cases of alleged abuse and death related to the use of these methods on school children during the past two decades,” in both public and private schools.
Practices of restraint and isolation were long used to control resistant patients in psychiatric facilities. But following decades of tragedy and trauma — including hundreds of deaths of patients who were subjected to such treatment — these tactics are now heavily regulated. Federal law requires that the least restrictive measures always be deployed and bans the use of isolation and restraint outright in cases where the patient poses no danger to his or herself or others.  In psychiatric centers, using seclusion or restraint for punishment or discipline is illegal.
In fact, in much of Europe and in some U.S. psychiatric centers, restraints and isolation rooms have been eliminated entirely.
(MORE: How Childhood Trauma May Make the Brain Vulnerable to Addiction, Depression)
Yet there is no federal regulation, let alone an outright ban, of the disciplinary use of these tactics in U.S. public schools. Nor is there any requirement that educators be trained in the use of positive techniques; in many states, teachers may even add corporal punishment like beatings and paddling on top of restraint and isolation. These methods fail to change student behavior, and the result is a horrifyingly similar pattern of trauma, abuse and death among students that ultimately led psychiatry to strictly limit physical seclusion.
Investigative reporter Bill Lichtenstein described in the Times how he discovered the maltreatment of his 5-year-old daughter, Rose, who suffered from speech and language delays, but was otherwise characterized as a “model of age-appropriate behavior” by her preschool. In 2006, Rose’s kindergarten called her parents to come pick her up because she had taken off her clothing:
At school, her mother and I found Rose standing alone on the cement floor of a basement mop closet, illuminated by a single light bulb. There was nothing in the closet for a child — no chair, no books, no crayons, nothing but our daughter standing naked in a pool of urine, looking frightened as she tried to cover herself with her hands. On the floor lay her favorite purple-striped Hanna Andersson outfit and panties.
Rose got dressed and we removed her from the school. We later learned that Rose had been locked in the closet five times that morning. She said that during the last confinement, she needed to use the restroom but didn’t want to wet her outfit. So she disrobed. Rather than help her, the school called us and then covered the narrow door’s small window with a file folder, on which someone had written “Don’t touch!”
We were told that Rose had been in the closet almost daily for three months, for up to an hour at a time. At first, it was for behavior issues, but later for not following directions. Once in the closet, Rose would pound on the door, or scream for help, staff members said, and once her hand was slammed in the doorjamb while being locked inside.
(MORE: Human Rights Watch: Hundreds of Thousands Still Tortured in the Name of Drug Treatment)
Not only is there no government regulation of the use of isolation and restraint in schools, but there is also no requirement that parents be informed when it occurs. The use of these tactics has risen in public schools as children with developmental and learning disabilities have been increasingly included in mainstream classrooms. But sadly, their teachers are often not given enough training and support to use safer and more effective, positive disciplinary approaches.
These harsh methods have already resulted in death. In one case, described in testimony [PDF] given at Congressional hearings on the issue in 2009, foster mother Toni Price recounted the last day in the life of 14-year-old Cedric Napoleon. On the morning of March 7, 2002, as Cedric left for school, she said, her foster son had beamed, “You know I love you, Ma.”
Cedric had been abused and neglected from the beginning of his life: as a little child, he’d resorted to rummaging through the garbage to feed himself. And like many neglected children, he was slight and small for his age. Despite his size and history of starvation, however, his 8th-grade teacher found it acceptable to use food deprivation as a disciplinary tactic.  He had never been aggressive or violent.
(MORE: Increasingly, Internet Activism Helps Shutter Abusive ‘Troubled Teen’ Boot Camps)
By 2:30 p.m., on the day Cedric died, he had been denied his lunch for more than two hours because he stopped working on his assignments. The boy stood up and tried to walk out of class, but his 230-lb. teacher threw him on the floor and sat on him when he resisted being forced back into his chair.
Panicked, Cedric said he couldn’t breathe. Price testified that the teacher “snapped, ‘If you can speak, you can breathe.’” Soon, the boy could do neither. By the time an ambulance was called, the Cedric was dead.
Over the centuries, psychiatrists learned that restraint and isolation are harmful and rarely necessary — and that simply allowing their widespread use is what what actually made these practices seem essential and important for discipline. But by prioritizing the effort to do away with them, facilities can often eliminate seclusion and restraint completely; many psychiatric institutions in the U.S. have now moved from restraining patients multiple times a week to using the tactic only once or twice a year. All such facilities report improvements in the health and morale of both patients and staff as a result: restraint and seclusion tend to traumatize not only the victims, but also those who must impose the punishment, as well as those who witness the related violence.
(MORE: Treating Addiction: A Top Doc Explains Why Kind Love Beats Tough Love)
If psychiatric centers can do without restraint or isolation, there’s no reason schools should need them. Congress should ban isolation rooms and the use of restraint tactics in all schools, public and private, including “troubled teen” boot camps and wilderness programs, whose disciplinary tactics are also unregulated and have caused children’s deaths. Corporal punishment is banned in institutions housing the elderly, criminals and psychiatric patients, so it should be banned in schools as well.
Moreover, all teachers should be trained in positive behavioral techniques that have been shown to improve behavior in students with or without special needs, and reduce the need for extreme measures. If children display ongoing behavior problems that are so severe that they don’t respond to positive approaches, they need to be helped by specialists, not secretly subjected to repeated and potentially traumatic punishment.
As your elementary school history teacher probably taught you, if you don’t learn from your past, you are condemned to repeat it. We can’t continue to allow schools to resurrect the torturous history of maltreatment in the mentally ill in our most vulnerable children.
MORE: ‘Shock’ School Trial: Where Is the Evidence that Abuse Helps Treat Autism?
Maia Szalavitz is a health writer at TIME.com. Find her on Twitter at @maiasz. You can also continue the discussion on TIME Healthland’s Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIMEHealthland.

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

The Strange Allure of the Gold Standard


The Strange Allure of the Gold Standard

Getty Images
Getty Images
Stacks of gold bars.

Some Republicans want to take the country forward by taking us back — way back – to the gold standard. The Republican party platform, approved on Tuesday, warns against the evils of “easy money and loose credit” and calls for a commission to ”investigate possible ways to set a fixed value for the dollar.” This proposal is clearly a sop to Ron Paul, who made “sound money” one of his big issues during his failed campaign, and has about as much chance of being enacted as Romney has of winning the African-American vote. But the mere fact of its existence is significant.

Almost everyone who is not Ron Paul, or at the very least a Ron Paul fan, thinks the idea of returning to the gold standard is daft. A recent University of Chicago poll of top academic economists found precisely zero who thought that was a good idea. Liberal commenters are aghast that the issue is even being raised. Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has described the gold standard as  “an almost comically (and cosmically) bad idea.” On The Atlantic, Matthew O’Brien called the gold standard “the world’s worst economic idea.” He conceded that “[t]here might be worse ideas than this, but they generally involve jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge because everybody else is doing it.”
But aversion for the gold standard is hardly confined to the left. Economist Milton Friedman, the late king of the monetarists, argued that the idea was fundamentally “anti-libertarian because what they mean by a gold standard is a governmentally fixed price for gold.”
(MORE: Is the U.S. Headed for a Double-Dip Recession?)
Yet the gold standard still has its fans. What’s the appeal? True goldbugs have an almost religious faith in the power of the precious metal, and a deep distrust of government. To some, what they call “sound money” is the only moral solution. At a conference organized by the libertarian Cato Institute last fall, speakers denounced our current policy of “fiat money” with the fervor of preachers. As George Melloan observed in the American Spectator,
“the consensus view [as the conference] seemed to be that in these parlous times a return to the gold standard might very well be the only way to restore order in the bawdy house Washington has become.”
What worries the goldbug the most is the specter of inflation, which some at the conference referred to as not only harmful but “immoral.” When the government can print money on demand — without having to back up its bucks with real gold — goldbugs warn, the end result can be hyperinflation and economic chaos.
And, as Joe Weisenthal points out on Business Insider, “the ability to create fiat money out of thin air is a stealth form of taxation, because the creation of more dollars diminishes the value of those already in existence.” This makes the gold standard especially enticing to tax-hating conservatives.
(MORE: 10 Questions for Dan Quayle)
The trouble is that the idea of gold as a bulwark against economic chaos is based on illusions. Going on the gold standard would essentially require an instant end to deficits, robbing to government of its ability to fight recessions (and possible depressions) with stimulus money. Moreover, it would link the value of the dollar to the gold supply, leaving our economic future in the hands of gold miners. If miners were to strike, as Noam Scheiber notes in The New Republic,
there [would] be too few dollars relative to the amount of buying and selling going on in the economy. When there are too few dollars, each dollar becomes more valuable, and people start to hoard them. Spending slows and the economy collapses.
We all saw what happened when banks started hoarding their dollars during the financial crisis; imagine what might have happened if the rest of us had done the same.
Anyone who thinks the gold standard means stability needs only look at American history to see that theory rebutted, again and again, by the crashes and “panics” of the gilded age and afterwards. As Krugman sardonically notes, “under the gold standard America had no major financial panics other than in 1873, 1884, 1890, 1893, 1907, 1930, 1931, 1932, and 1933.”
Given all this, it seems likely that any commission tasked with examining the gold standard would return with a conclusion similar to that reached by the Reagan Gold Commission back in 1982, the last time such an exercise was conducted: that a return to the gold standard “does not appear to be a fruitful method for dealing with the continuing problem of inflation.” That’s putting it mildly.

Monday, September 3, 2012

Organic food 'not any healthier'


Organic food 'not any healthier'

Organic egg 
  Food labelled as organic must meet certain standards

Related Stories

Eating organic food will not make you healthier, according to researchers at Stanford University, although it could cut your exposure to pesticides.
They looked at more than 200 studies of the content and associated health gains of organic and non-organic foods.
Overall, there was no discernable difference between the nutritional content, although the organic food was 30% less likely to contain pesticides.
Critics say the work is inconclusive and call for more studies.
The research, published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, looked at 17 studies comparing people who ate organic with those who did not and 223 studies that compared the levels of nutrients, bacteria, fungus or pesticides in various foods - including fruits, vegetables, grains, meats, milk and eggs.

“Start Quote

There isn't much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you're an adult and making a decision based solely on your health”
Dr Cyrstal Smith-Spangler Lead researcher
None of the human studies ran for longer than two years, making conclusions about long-term outcomes impossible. And all of the available evidence was relatively weak and highly variable - which the authors say is unsurprising because of all the different variables, like weather and soil type, involved.
Fruit and vegetables contained similar amounts of vitamins, and milk the same amount of protein and fat - although a few studies suggested organic milk contained more omega-3.
Organic foods did contain more nitrogen, but the researchers say this is probably due to differences in fertiliser use and ripeness at harvest and is unlikely to provide any health benefit.
Their findings support those of the UK's Food Standards Agency, which commissioned a review a few years ago into organic food claims.

Organic

  • Organic food is produced to standards designed to keep the production more "natural", using environmentally and animal-friendly farming methods
  • Fewer, if any, chemicals are used and most pesticides are banned or very carefully controlled
  • Various bodies in the UK, including the Soil Association, certify food and producers as organic
  • Food certified as organic is not allowed to contain genetically modified ingredients
Prof Alan Dangour, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who carried out that work, said: "Consumers select organic foods for a variety of reasons, however this latest review identifies that at present there are no convincing differences between organic and conventional foods in nutrient content or health benefits.
"Hopefully this evidence will be useful to consumers."
Dr Crystal Smith-Spangler, the lead author of the latest review, said there were many reasons why people chose to eat organic, including animal welfare or environmental concerns.
"Some believe that organic food is always healthier and more nutritious. We were a little surprised that we didn't find that.
"There isn't much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you're an adult and making a decision based solely on your health."
But the Soil Association said the study was flawed.
"Studies that treat crop trials as if they were clinical trials of medicines, like this one, exaggerate the variation between studies, and drown out the real differences.
"A UK review paper, using the correct statistical analysis, has found that most of the differences in nutrient levels between organic and non-organic fruit and vegetables seen in this US study are actually highly significant."

Source

Friday, August 31, 2012


Puppet experiment suggests humans are born to be fair


Fairness experiment using a puppet (c) PLoS One Using puppets allows scientists to test how much children would really share with their peers

Related Stories

It looks like a fairground game: a little girl and a puppet play together, using miniature fishing rods to hook tiny buckets of coins.
But this is actually a psychological experiment. Its aim is to measure a very complex human concept - fairness.
The game works like this: the puppet (with the aid of an adult puppeteer) and a three-year-old participant gather their hauls of little buckets. Then the child/puppet team is rewarded with stickers - one for each coin they have collected.

“Start Quote

We were very surprised to find sophisticated sharing behaviour already present in three-year-olds”
Patricia Kanngiesser University of Bristol
At this point the child has to decide how to share his or her prized stickers with their puppet partner.
This simple game revealed that, by the age of just three, children choose to reward their peers based on merit. The children gave the puppet more stickers if it had "worked harder" - gathering more coins.
Patricia Kanngiesser from the University of Bristol led the study, which was published in the journal PLoS One. She said she was amazed by the result.
"We were very surprised to find this sophisticated sharing behaviour already present in three-year-olds," said Ms Kanngiesser.
"Previous research has found that children don't really begin to share according to merit until they are six years of age and older."
Using puppets allowed the experimenters to carry out a controlled experiment whilst still revealing exactly how the children would behave towards peers in a real world situation.
Innate justice So, if young toddlers with almost no social experience give up more of their stickers to a deserving peer, does this mean that humans are hard-wired to treat others fairly?

“Start Quote

Co-operation and fairness are fundamental aspects of human behaviour”
Susanne Shultz University of Manchester
Prof Felix Warneken from Harvard University, a co-author of this study, has been studying cooperative behaviour in children and in chimpanzees for almost a decade.
He said knowing where our concept of fairness comes from - whether it is learned or innate - is "the toughest question".
"We can only rule things out with our experiments," he explained. "So we can rule out that it needs formal education, or that it requires sophisticated reasoning about incentives.
"[Fairness] is something that emerges with children's earliest forms of working and interacting with peers."
Ms Kanngiesser said there was a "natural human predisposition" towards treating others fairly.
"It seems to be intuitive," she said. "People have found that even by 18 months of age, children have expectations about how things should be shared fairly."
And there are logical, human reasons for this natural bias towards fair play.
Dr Susanne Shultz, a researcher from the University of Manchester who specialises in social behaviour in primates, pointed out that fairness was central in long-term stable human relationships.
This and other similar studies, Dr Shultz said, demonstrated that "co-operation and fairness are fundamental aspects of human behaviour".
"[This study] also reframes social intelligence in terms of cooperation rather than deception," she added. "I think that's really nice."
Deception has played a large part in the scientific study of fairness. While this experiment asked children to share the rewards with a partner after completing a shared task, many studies focus on whether humans, and other primates, choose to cheat a partner or to punish others for treating them unfairly.
A classic example of this type of test is known as the ultimatum game.
This is where one participant is tasked with making an offer to share something of value - for example, an amount of money - with a partner.
The partner then has the opportunity to either accept or reject this offer. And this is where the punishment comes in.
If the recipient decides to reject an apparently unfair offer, both participants receive nothing.
"[This new study] is a nice change from looking at social intelligence from a purely Machiavellian perspective," Dr Shultz said.
Uniquely human?

How do we differ from our primate cousins?

Capuchin monkey
  • Many scientists believed they would find merit-based sharing among our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees. But, in a 2007 study published in the journal Science, researchers using the ultimatum game found that chimps would take any reward - no matter what share they were offered
  • While children appear to be prepared to share with a new playmate, non-human primates seem to limit their altruism to close kin and mates. But it is not simply the case that the more intelligent the species the more altruistic they are. Recent research on sharing published in PNAS in social primates revealed that capuchins and marmosets were some of the most "giving" primates - commonly offering food rewards to other group members
  • Before we feel too superior to our primate cousins, our capacity to be spiteful appears to be ours alone. A 2007 published in PNAS study found chimpanzees, unlike humans, do not retaliate against personally harmful actions. Being spiteful is a human trait
In recent years there has been increased scientific interest in whether non-human primates are able to understand the concept of fair play.
As well as gaining an understanding of the complexities of animal behaviour, these studies are trying to unpick its evolutionary origins.
The first of these was published in Nature in 2003. Sarah Brosnan, currently at Georgia State University, found that capuchin monkeys reacted dramatically to being treated unfairly.
Dr Brosnan trained wild monkeys to work with human handlers on a simple task; the monkey would hand over a piece of rock and, in return, receive a food reward.
In the experiment, two monkeys sat side by side. The handlers either gave both monkeys an identical reward (a slice of cucumber) or gave just one of the monkeys the much preferred reward of a grape for completing exactly the same task.
As it was reported at the time by National Geographic: "Capuchins who witnessed unfair treatment and failed to benefit from it often refused to conduct future exchanges with human researchers, would not eat the cucumbers they received for their labours, and in some cases, hurled food rewards at human researchers."
Since then, several groups have tried to test fairness in our closer and apparently more intelligent cousins - the great apes.
But, Dr Shultz said, overall, "non-human primates, apes included, are not very good at solving fairness problems".
In one study published recently in Biology Letters, chimps and bonobos presented with a food-based ultimatum game would accept any food reward on offer - no matter how meagre their share was in comparison to their partner's.
The apes would also consistently steal food from one another during the task.
So is a sense of fairness; of treating others justly at our own expense, a uniquely human characteristic?
Dr Warneken explained that the scientific evidence pointed to a human-ape divide when it came to "recognising inequity".
"There's evidence that some non-human primates are averse to others receiving more than they receive," he said.
But, he added, there was very little evidence that they were averse to offers that were the other way around - where they received more than their fair share.
"That [latter scenario] is a more solid argument for a true understanding of fairness," he explained. "And it's currently something that has no equivalent in non-human primates."
Dr Kanngiessen concluded: "There is a huge debate about what makes us human: is it language, our ability to care about others."
"But even though animals show so many of these complex behaviours, when it comes to helping others and not receiving anything in return, that seems so far to be something [that's] unique to us."

Source

Monday, August 27, 2012

Gaza 'will not be liveable by 2020' - UN report

Gaza 'will not be liveable by 2020' - UN report

Palestinian men transport bags of cement through tunnels used for smuggling goods on 23 August  
Tunnels under the Egyptian border have been a lifeline for Gaza in recent years.

Related Stories

The Gaza Strip will not be "a liveable place" by 2020 unless action is taken to improve basic services in the territory, according to a UN report.
Basic infrastructure in water, health, education and sanitation "is struggling to keep pace with a growing population", according to the report.
It estimates Gaza's population will rise from 1.6m to 2.1m by 2020.
Israel tightened a blockade on Gaza after the Islamist movement Hamas came to power in the territory in 2007.
Israel says the blockade, which is policed with Egyptian co-operation and has never been fully lifted, is necessary to prevent weapons reaching Hamas.
The UN report estimates Gaza will need double the number of schools and 800 more hospital beds by 2020, and says the territory is already suffering from a housing shortage.
The report also says the coastal aquifer, the territory's only natural source of fresh water, may become unusable by 2016.
Disconnected territory UN officials point to the difficulty of improving the situation given "the closure of the Gaza Strip, violent conflict, and the pressing need for Palestinian reconciliation".
"An urban area cannot survive without being connected," said Maxwell Gaylard, the UN's humanitarian chief in Gaza.
Gaza has no air or sea ports, and the economy is heavily dependent on outside funding and smuggling through tunnels under the Egyptian border.
Even though Gaza has experienced some economic growth in recent years, the report says it "does not seem to be sustainable" and finds that Gazans are worse off now than in the 1990s.
Unemployment was at 29% in 2011 and has risen since then, particularly affecting women and young people.
Traffic through the cross-border tunnels was hit in recent weeks by violence between Egyptian security forces and militants in Egypt's Sinai peninsula, which borders Israel and Gaza.

Source

Young cannabis smokers run risk of lower IQ, report claims

Young cannabis smokers run risk of lower IQ, report claims



Man smoking a joint 
 Cannabis is the most widely used illegal drug in the world

Related Stories

Young people who smoke cannabis run the risk of a significant and irreversible reduction in their IQ, research suggests.
The findings come from a study of around 1,000 people in New Zealand.
An international team found those who started using cannabis below the age of 18 - while their brains were still developing - suffered a drop in IQ.
A UK expert said the research might explain why people who use the drug often seem to under-achieve.
For more than 20 years researchers have followed the lives of a group of people from Dunedin in New Zealand.
They assessed them as children - before any of them had started using cannabis - and then re-interviewed them repeatedly, up to the age of 38.
Having taken into account other factors such as alcohol or tobacco dependency or other drug use, as well the number of years spent in education, they found that those who persistently used cannabis suffered a decline in their IQ.
The more that people smoked, the greater the loss in IQ.

Start Quote

It is such a special study that I'm fairly confident that cannabis is safe for over-18 brains, but risky for under-18 brains”
Professor Terrie Moffitt Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London
The effect was most marked in those who started smoking cannabis as adolescents.
For example, researchers found that individuals who started using cannabis in adolescence and then carried on using it for years showed an average eight-point IQ decline.
Stopping or reducing cannabis use failed to fully restore the lost IQ.
The researchers, writing in the US journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that: "Persistent cannabis use over 20 years was associated with neuropsychological decline, and greater decline was evident for more persistent users."
"Collectively, these findings are consistent with speculation that cannabis use in adolescence, when the brain is undergoing critical development, may have neurotoxic effects."
One member of the team, Prof Terrie Moffitt of King's College London's Institute of Psychiatry, said this study could have a significant impact on our understanding of the dangers posed by cannabis use.
"This work took an amazing scientific effort. We followed almost 1,000 participants, we tested their mental abilities as kids before they ever tried cannabis, and we tested them again 25 years later after some participants became chronic users.

Start Quote

There are a lot of clinical and educational anecdotal reports that cannabis users tend to be less successful in their educational achievement, marriages and occupations”
Professor Robin Murray Instuitute of Psychiatry, King's College London
"Participants were frank about their substance abuse habits because they trust our confidentiality guarantee, and 96% of the original participants stuck with the study from 1972 to today.
"It is such a special study that I'm fairly confident that cannabis is safe for over-18 brains, but risky for under-18 brains."
Robin Murray, professor of psychiatric research, also at the King's College London Institute of Psychiatry but not involved in the study, said this was an impressive piece of research.
"The Dunedin sample is probably the most intensively studied cohort in the world and therefore the data are very good.
"Although one should never be convinced by a single study, I take the findings very seriously.
"There are a lot of clinical and educational anecdotal reports that cannabis users tend to be less successful in their educational achievement, marriages and occupations.
"It is of course part of folk-lore among young people that some heavy users of cannabis - my daughter callers them stoners - seem to gradually lose their abilities and end up achieving much less than one would have anticipated. This study provides one explanation as to why this might be the case.
"I suspect that the findings are true. If and when they are replicated then it will be very important and public education campaigns should be initiated to let people know the risks."

Source