Google’s Spying Causes Intel To Shut Down SmartPhone and Tablet Markets

Nobody in the world, with any intelligence, cares to spend hundreds of dollars on a device used solely to help Google spy on them.

Smartphones and Tablets Now Universally Known As Threats to Life, Freedom, Privacy, Social life due to Google’s abuses of the data of every human. Intel says “screw that” and begins exit of the waning market as Apple iPhonres crash and the public turns away from Silicon Valley!

Intel cuts Atom chips, basically giving up on the smartphone and tablet markets

Intel is refocusing on ‘products that deliver higher returns.’

Intel smartphone
Credit: Intel
Intel could be on the verge of exiting the market for smartphones and standalone tablets, wasting billions of dollars it spent trying to expand in those markets.

The company is immediately canceling Atom chips, code-named Sofia and Broxton, for mobile devices, an Intel spokeswoman confirmed.

These are the first products on the chopping block as part of Intel’s plan to reshape operations after announcing plans this month to cut 12,000 jobs.

The news of the chip cuts was first reported by analyst Patrick Moorhead in an article on Forbes’ website.

Resources originally dedicated to Broxton and Sofia chips will be moved to “products that deliver higher returns and advance our strategy,” Intel’s spokeswoman said in an email.

Intel’s mobile chip roadmap now has a giant hole after the cancellation of the chips. Intel’s existing smartphone and tablet-only chips are aging and due for upgrades, and no major replacements are in sight. Sofia is already shipping, and Broxton was due to ship this year but had been delayed.

Intel is also phasing out its Atom X5 line of tablet chips code-named Cherry Trail, which is being replaced by Pentium and Celeron chips code-named Apollo Lake, aimed more at hybrids than pure tablets. Many PC makers are already choosing Intel’s Skylake Core M processors over Cherry Trail for hybrids and PC-like tablets.

Intel doesn’t view tablets as a standalone market any longer, with form factors quickly merging. The company will continue to support current tablet customers with existing chips, the Intel spokeswoman said.

“In terms of Cherry Trail, form factor boundaries are increasingly blurring in the mobile computing market, and we no longer look at tablets as a stand-alone segment,” an Intel spokeswoman said in an email Friday afternoon. “Our product roadmap reflects that. We will continue to support our tablet customers with Sofia 3G/3GR, Bay Trail and Cherry Trail now, and later with Apollo Lake and some SKUs from our Core processor family.”

Some products were on tap to get axed after Intel said it would review product lines and projects while restructuring operations. Intel had already deemphasized its bread-and-butter PC business, and the plan to also cut the mobile chips may be smart.

Atom was an expensive failure

The company poured billions of dollars into its mobile business, but Intel failed to unseat market leader ARM. Atom is available in just a handful of smartphones, and the tablet market is declining. PC makers are replacing tablets with detachable devices and hybrids.

The Atom product line has been in trouble for some time. Atom started off with a bang in netbooks, but its fortunes have sagged since then. Intel’s mobile chip updates haven’t followed a set timeline, and the last Atom chips for servers were released in 2013.

Intel’s mobile strategy is now tied up with 5G, and resources originally dedicated to Sofia and Broxton could be redirected in making 5G chips and modems. The new 5G networks could provide 100 times faster data throughput than 4G, and deployments are expected to start around 2020.

The move to 5G could change the way devices are made. Beyond mobile devices, it will bring speedy mobile connectivity to PCs, smart home devices, robots, drones, wearables, and industrial Internet of Things devices.

The focus on 5G also explains the retention of key mobile executive Aicha Evans by Intel. Earlier this month, it was reported that she was leaving the company after a year of leading the mobile chip business. But she’s a 5G expert and has already outlined the company’s strategy in that area. She will be staying at Intel, though her role is unclear.

The commitment to 5G is a long-term play for Intel, much like its Centrino wireless strategy in 2003 that ultimately made Wi-Fi a ubiquitous feature in laptops. The 5G move also plays into Intel’s preference to focus on future technologies.

Atom’s future could also be in the fast-growing Internet of Things market, which the chip maker is betting on. Variants of the Broxton chip could be used in smart gadgets and sensor devices that collect telemetry, which is then sent to the cloud for analysis.

Intel’s main focus will continue to be on Xeon server chips, cloud computing, field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), and silicon photonics.

 

Revealed: Google AI has access to huge haul of NHS patient data

A data-sharing agreement obtained by New Scientist shows that Google DeepMind’s collaboration with the NHS goes far beyond what it has publicly announced

Some parents and a baby being looked at in an A and E cubicle by a doctor in scrubs
Gathering information

Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images

It’s no secret that Google has broad ambitions in healthcare. But a document obtained by New Scientist reveals that the tech giant’s collaboration with the UK’s National Health Service goes far beyond what has been publicly announced.

The document – a data-sharing agreement between Google-owned artificial intelligence company DeepMind and the Royal Free NHS Trust – gives the clearest picture yet of what the company is doing and what sensitive data it now has access to.

The agreement gives DeepMind access to a wide range of healthcare data on the 1.6 million patients who pass through three London hospitals run by the Royal Free NHS Trust – Barnet, Chase Farm and the Royal Free – each year. This will include information about people who are HIV-positive, for instance, as well as details of drug overdoses and abortions. The agreement also includes access to patient data from the last five years.

“The data-sharing agreement gives Google access to information on millions of NHS patients”

 

DeepMind announced in February that it was working with the NHS, saying it was building an app called Streams to help hospital staff monitor patients with kidney disease. But the agreement suggests that it has plans for a lot more.

This is the first we’ve heard of DeepMind getting access to historical medical records, says Sam Smith, who runs health data privacy group MedConfidential. “This is not just about kidney function. They’re getting the full data.”

The agreement clearly states that Google cannot use the data in any other part of its business. The data itself will be stored in the UK by a third party contracted by Google, not in DeepMind’s offices. DeepMind is also obliged to delete its copy of the data when the agreement expires at the end of September 2017.

All data needed

Google says that since there is no separate dataset for people with kidney conditions, it needs access to all of the data in order to run Streams effectively. In a statement, the Royal Free NHS Trust says that it “provides DeepMind with NHS patient data in accordance with strict information governance rules and for the purpose of direct clinical care only.”

Still, some are likely to be concerned by the amount of information being made available to Google. It includes logs of day-to-day hospital activity, such as records of the location and status of patients – as well as who visits them and when. The hospitals will also share the results of certain pathology and radiology tests.

As well as receiving this continuous stream of new data, DeepMind has access to the historical data that the Royal Free trust submits to the Secondary User Service (SUS) database – the NHS’s centralised record of all hospital treatments in the UK. This includes data from critical care and accident and emergency departments.

Royal Free did not respond to New Scientist’s questions about what opt-out mechanisms are available to its patients. There is already a way for patients to opt out of SUS data collection, but it is not straightforward and involves writing to your GP. But this does not cover live data on admission, discharge and transfer of patients.

The document also reveals that DeepMind is developing a platform called Patient Rescue, which will provide data analytics services to NHS hospital trusts. It states that Patient Rescue will use data streams from hospitals to build other tools, in addition to Streams, that could carry out real-time analysis of clinical data and support diagnostic decisions. One aim, the agreement says, is for these tools to help medical staff adhere to the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines.

DeepMind is not planning to automate clinical decisions – such as what treatments to give patients – but says it wants to support doctors by making predictions based on data that is too broad in scope for an individual to take in.

Comparing a new patient’s information with millions of other cases, Patient Rescue might be able to predict that they are in the early stages of a disease that has not yet become symptomatic, for example. Doctors could then run tests to see if the prediction is correct.

Google declined to discuss what other kinds of tools it could build on the Patient Rescue platform – for instance by setting its artificial intelligences to work on huge volumes of data from millions of patients. However, it has previously stated that early detection of septicaemia – blood poisoning that kills 31,000 people in the UK every year – might be one future application.

The data that DeepMind is collecting will let it make predictions about any disease it wants, says Smith. “What DeepMind is trying to do is build a generic algorithm that can do this for anything – anything you can do a test for.”

We already know the kinds of things that are possible when machine learning is combined with large amounts of high quality medical data. David Clifton, who runs the Computational Health Informatics Lab at the University of Oxford, says his group has already deployed machine learning tools across the four hospitals that are part of the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. “If you’re in one of these hospitals you’re being monitored with our stuff,” says Clifton.

Making predictions

As well as monitoring the health of individual patients, these systems also watch out for outbreaks of infectious disease. Clifton and his colleagues are also using machine learning on data from Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, which provides in-home social care. Clifton says they can use the data to predict things like when a person might develop bipolar disorder.

It is not about replacing doctors or nurses, says Clifton. “It’s about how can we bring the attention of medics to the right place,” he says. “We originally did this in jet engines. There the goal is the same – bringing human expertise to bear on the right part of the system.”

We need not be concerned about Google breaching patient privacy or misusing the data, says Ross Anderson of the University of Cambridge, who taught DeepMind co-founder Demis Hassabis as an undergraduate. In fact, Google has a good track record of keeping data secure and private. “If learning about adverse health outcomes helps them to predict patients at risk, then this is a perfectly reasonable way to make money,” he says.

For Anderson, the more important question is whether Google – already one of the world’s most powerful companies – should have so much control over health analytics. “If Google gets a monopoly on providing some kind of service to the NHS it will burn the NHS,” says Anderson.

Smith has a parallel concern about the knowledge DeepMind is getting via this agreement. “This is private knowledge,” he says. “It’s only going to be available through Google or the Royal Free.”

“Healthcare is going digital in the 21st Century with huge benefits to patients,” says UK life sciences minister George Freeman. “But NHS patients need to know their data will be secure and not be sold or used inappropriately, which is why we have introduced tough new measures to ensure patient confidentiality.”

Google says it has no commercial plans for DeepMind’s work with Royal Free and that the current pilots are being done for free. But the data to which Royal Free is giving DeepMind access is hugely valuable. It may have to destroy its copy of the data when the agreement expires next year, but that gives ample time to mine it for health insights.

Data mining is the name of the game in the burgeoning field of machine learning and artificial intelligence, and there’s no company in the world better at that than Google.

Internet superpower

Google’s move into healthcare could make it a target of accusations of anti-competitive activity. It won’t be the first time.

  • In 2002, a company called SearchKing sued Google, saying that its dominance in search gave it undue influence over other internet businesses. Google admitted to intentionally destroying SearchKing’s rank in its search engine, but still won the case.
  • In 2005, Google was taken to task for making digital copies of 10 million books. Critics complained that Google’s size and influence allowed it to broker a deal with copyright holders that few, if any, other companies could match.
  • Since 2010, the European Commission has been investigating allegations of anti-competitive behaviour by Google. The giant is claimed to have abused its dominant position in online search to direct users to its other products, such as maps, flight search and shopping.

This article will appear in print under the headline “Google knows your ills”

Advertisements

ZERO HEDGE: UNMASKED!

Unmasking the Men Behind Zero Hedge, Wall Street’s Renegade Blog

The veil is lifted on a secretive website.

FIGHT CLUB, Brad Pitt, 1999, TM &  20th Century Fox Film Corp./courtesy Everett Collection
Brad Pitt as Tyler Durden in Fight Club, 1999.
Source: 20th Century Fox Film Corp./Everett Collection

Colin Lokey, also known as “Tyler Durden,” is breaking the first rule of Fight Club: You do not talk about Fight Club. He’s also breaking the second rule of Fight Club. (See the first rule.)

After more than a year writing for the financial website Zero Hedge under the nom de doom of the cult classic’s anarchic hero, Lokey’s going public. In doing so, he’s answering a question that has bedeviled Wall Street since the site sprang up seven years ago: Just who is Tyler Durden, anyway?

The answer, it turns out, is three people. Following an acrimonious departure this month, in which two-thirds of the trio traded allegations of hypocrisy and mental instability, Lokey, 32, decided to unmask himself and his fellow Durdens.

Lokey said the other two men are Daniel Ivandjiiski, 37, the Bulgarian-born former analyst long reputed to be behind the site, and Tim Backshall, 45, a well-known credit derivatives strategist. (Bloomberg LP competes with Zero Hedge in providing financial news and information.) 

In a telephone interview, Ivandjiiski confirmed that the men had been the only Tyler Durdens on the payroll since Lokey came aboard last year, but he criticized his former colleague’s decision to come forward.

He called Lokey’s parting gift a case of sour grapes. Backshall, meanwhile, declined to comment, referring questions to Ivandjiiski. A political science graduate with an MBA and a Southern twang, Lokey said he had a checkered past before joining Zero Hedge. Earlier this month, overwork landed him in a hospital because he felt a panic attack coming on, he said.

“Ultimately we wish Colin all the best, he’s clearly a troubled individual in many ways, and we are frankly disappointed that he’s decided to take his displeasure with the company in such a public manner,” Ivandjiiski said.

The Schism

Ivandjiiski worked for a hedge fund before being barred by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority in 2008 for insider trading. He didn’t admit or deny wrongdoing, the agency said. Backshall is a familiar face on financial news networks who has been quoted by media outlets, including Bloomberg. His involvement with Zero Hedge, along with that of Lokey, hasn’t been widely known.

The schism between the men sheds light on a website popular among market professionals, one that mixes detailed financial analysis with sensational headlines such as “The Coming War Will Solve Our Unemployment & Growth Problem” and “Exposed—How Two Janet Yellen Phone Calls Saved The World.” 

Since being founded in the depths of the financial crisis, Zero Hedge has grown from a blog to an Internet powerhouse. Often distrustful of the “establishment” and almost always bearish, it’s known for a pessimistic world view. Posts entitled “Stocks Are In a Far More Precarious State Than Was Ever Truly Believed Possible” and “America’s Entitled (And Doomed) Upper Middle Class” are not uncommon.

The site’s ethos is perhaps best summed up by the tagline at the top of its homepage, also borrowed from Fight Club: “On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.” A paean to populism, the 1999 film is filled with loathing for consumerism and the financial system. Brad Pitt portrays Tyler Durden as hell-bent on bringing down the corrupt system of the global elite—an attitude often reflected in Zero Hedge’s content.

With that in mind, the website has argued that “pseudonymous speech” is necessary amid an atmosphere of stifled public dissent—hence the “Tyler Durden” alias was born. In earlier years, Durden was joined by “Marla Singer,” another Fight Club character, as one of the site’s most prominent authors.

“It reminds me of a successful information operation where you mix in the propaganda stories along with other legitimate stories,” said Craig Pirrong, finance professor at the University of Houston. “There are some interesting things on it, and then there are the crazy things.”

Profit Motive

Despite holding itself out as a town crier for market angst, transcripts from Zero Hedge internal chat sessions provided by Lokey reveal a focus on Web traffic by the Durdens. Headlines are debated and a relentless publishing schedule maintained to keep readers sated. Lokey said the emphasis on profit—and what he considered political bias at the site—motivated him to quit. 

He pointed to the wealth of the Durdens as a factor. Ivandjiiski has a multimillion-dollar mansion in Mahwah, N.J., and Backshall lives in a plush San Francisco suburb—not exactly reflections of Pitt’s anticapitalist icon. “What you are reading at Zero Hedge is nonsense. And you shouldn’t support it,” Lokey wrote in an e-mail. “Two guys who live a lifestyle you only dream of are pretending to speak for you.”

Lokey adds: “Durden lives in a castle. If you’ve seen Fight Club, you know how ironic that is.”

A former “director of contributor success” at website Seeking Alpha, Lokey said he joined Zero Hedge for $6,000 a month and received an annual bonus of $50,000, earning more than $100,000 last year. His salary helped pay the rent on a “very nice” condominium on South Carolina’s Hilton Head Island, he said. Despite the compensation, he contends that he left because he disagreed with the site’s editorial vision. “Reality checks are great. But Zero Hedge ceased to serve that public service years ago,” Lokey wrote. “They care what generates page views. Clicks. Money.”

Zero Hedge founder Ivandjiiski defended the site, adding that it’s designed to be a for-profit entity. “Ultimately, the website makes money, and it’s profitable, which is also why we’ve never had to seek outside funding or any outside money—our only revenue is from advertising, always has been since day one,” he said. “Obviously, every publisher’s mission is to maximize revenue and page views, and we think that we do it in a way that is appropriate.”

Outside the Bubble

Any website’s focus on traffic and revenue certainly isn’t unusual. But Lokey said he was irked by what he saw as the hypocrisy of Zero Hedge and how it runs counter to its antiestablishment image. In the chat transcripts, Ivandjiiski refers to America’s “silent majority” as “beastly,” while Backshall acknowledges life in the U.S. is bad “outside of my bubble.”

Ivandjiiski disagreed with the suggestion that personal worth or lifestyle precluded them from donning the mask of Durden (the character who quipped “the things you own end up owning you”) to deride the prevailing order. “We’ve never said that we are pro-socialist,” he said.

Lokey, who said he wrote much of the site’s political content, claimed there was pressure to frame issues in a way he felt was disingenuous. “I tried to inject as much truth as I could into my posts, but there’s no room for it. “Russia=good. Obama=idiot. Bashar al-Assad=benevolent leader. John Kerry= dunce. Vladimir Putin=greatest leader in the history of statecraft,” Lokey wrote, describing his take on the website’s politics. Ivandjiiski countered that Lokey could write “anything and everything he wanted directly without anyone writing over it.”

Working at Zero Hedge was also exhausting, Lokey said, and typically involved early morning starts and writing as many as 15 posts a day of as many as 1,500 words each. The work didn’t stop on the weekends, either. Text messages exchanged between Lokey and Ivandjiiski, screen shots of which were provided by the latter, paint the picture of a work environment that ranged from exhilarating to exasperating.

For instance, Lokey says he’s “scared to even ask for an hour off,” while Ivandjiiski replies that “if you ever need time off for whatever reason, never hesitate to just ask.” In February, Lokey says, “I love this company and this website,” and tells Ivandjiiski “you saved my life,” expressing thanks for the job.

By April 2—the day Lokey left Zero Hedge—their relationship had deteriorated significantly, according to the messages provided by Ivandjiiski.

“I can’t be a 24-hour cheerleader for Hezbollah, Moscow, Tehran, Beijing, and Trump anymore. It’ s wrong. Period. I know it gets you views now, but it will kill your brand over the long run,” Lokey texted Ivandjiiski. “This isn’t a revolution. It’s a joke.”

Vox’s Puff Piece on Goldman Sachs Doesn’t Reveal Goldman Sponsors Vox

Vox’s Puff Piece on Goldman Sachs Doesn’t Reveal Goldman Sponsors Vox

Vox: Why Goldman Sachs Just Started Offering Savings Accounts for the MassesVox’s Matthew Yglesias (4/25/16) gave a generous write-up to Goldman Sachs’ new commercial banking subsidiary, GS Bank, without noting that Goldman Sachs is a sponsor of Vox.

Despite the obligatory “to be sure” paragraph, where Yglesias ran through some of the downsides (“they don’t have a checking account and there’s no ATM access”), the post mostly served to promote a new product “for the masses” from Goldman Sachs, a company worth roughly $87 billion.  One section in particular was glowing:

What Goldman Sachs has that other online banks don’t is a widely recognized brand name built on excellence in other dimensions of financial services that could help further push internet banking beyond the early adopter demographic.

“A widely recognized brand name built on excellence” would probably not be how the thousands it defrauded with faulty mortgages would describe Goldman Sachs.

Another section that defended the world’s second-largest investment bank against “populist” critics concerned about the merger of investment and retailing banking was equally eyebrow-raising:

For fear of looking like pawns of Wall Street, they won’t come out and say this loudly, but [moderate Democrats] quietly think that it’s safer to have an economy dominated by well-balanced universal banks like JPMorgan Chase than by institutions that focus on a narrow set of business lines. Both the Canadian and European banking systems are dominated by universal banks, and during the 2007 crisis universal banks were more stable than narrower banks.

Missing from this report was any disclosure that Goldman Sachs is a sponsor of Vox’s podcast, The Weeds, co-costed by Yglesias. How much exactly Goldman Sachs pays Vox Media is unknown, but any amount should compel the “new media” company to note this fact when reporting on Goldman Sachs — especially when it’s promoting both its economic and political bottom line.

One of those Goldman-sponsored podcasts last week also served the investment bank’s interests: After much hand-wringing, the episode argued that raising income taxes on the super-wealthy didn’t actually do much to reduce inequality, with Yglesias asserting, “It is not a great idea to adopt an ‘inequality’ focus.” While it’s possible this conclusion may have been arrived at in good faith, it’s easy to see why Goldman Sachs—whose partners are worth an average of $24 million — would be interested in sponsoring a media company that aggressively argues against radical redistributive policies.

Vox: Goldman Sachs Paid to Expand Pre-K in UtahLast fall, the same week Vox’s podcast made an earlier argument against higher income taxes on the rich, Vox ran another Goldman Sachs puff piece: “Goldman Sachs Paid to Expand Pre-K in Utah. It Worked” (10/19/15), education reporter Libby Nelson’s glowing 870-word portrayal of Goldman Sachs as an educator of disadvantaged children. There was no disclosure in that piece, either, that Goldman was a Vox sponsor.

Vox Media, which landed a $200 million investment last August from Comcast (the same cable giant that helped seed it back in 2009 and 2012), has had previous disclosure problems. A Vox “explainer” last September (9/8/15; FAIR.org, 9/9/15) asserted that “cable bundling almost certainly saves customers money in aggregate,” singling out Comcast as a company that “may not be much loved by its customers, but it has the weight of their collective voice in its bargaining over carriage fees.” And Vox’s repeated attacks on single-payer healthcare (FAIR.org, 1/30/16) failed to mention that Comcast is a major investor in for-profit healthcare technology companies.

Vox, which ironically announced last November that it will be moving into Goldman Sachs’ old address at 85 Broad Street in New York, has had an advertising relationship with the investment bank that dates back to at least late 2014, when Vox’s Creative team made content for Goldman Sachs to promote its energy investments.

Readers have a right to know when writers are covering their sponsors, especially when that coverage is broadly positive and dovetails with the economic and ideological interests of the company in question.


Adam Johnson is a contributing analyst for FAIR.org. Follow him on Twitter at @AdamJohnsonNYC.

You can contact Vox here (or via Twitter: @VoxDotCom). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.

 

Your Asphalt Road Will Kill You With Toxic Petroleum and Coal Poisons Says Oregon State University

Coal-tar based sealcoats on driveways, parking lots far more toxic than suspected

Source:
Oregon State University
Summary:
The pavement sealcoat products used widely around the nation on thousands of asphalt driveways and parking lots are significantly more toxic and mutagenic than previously suspected, according to a new article.
FULL STORY

Sealcoats are products often sprayed or brushed on asphalt pavements to improve their appearance and extend their lifespan. Products based on coal tar are most commonly used east of the U.S. continental divide, and those based on asphalt most common west of the divide.
Credit: © geewhiz / Fotolia
 
 

The pavement sealcoat products used widely around the nation on thousands of asphalt driveways and parking lots are significantly more toxic and mutagenic than previously suspected, according to a new paper published this week by researchers from Oregon State University.

Of particular concern are the sealcoat products based on use of coal tar emulsions, experts say. Studies done with zebrafish — an animal model that closely resembles human reaction to toxic chemicals — showed developmental toxicity to embryos.

Sealcoats are products often sprayed or brushed on asphalt pavements to improve their appearance and extend their lifespan. Products based on coal tar are most commonly used east of the U.S. continental divide, and those based on asphalt most common west of the divide.

The primary concern in sealcoats are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, which are common products of any type of combustion, and have been shown to be toxic to birds, fish, amphibians, plants and mammals, including humans.

There are many different types of PAHs. This study was able to examine the presence and biologic activity of a much greater number of them in sealcoats than has been done in any previous research. The OSU program studying PAHs is one of the most advanced of its type in the world, and can identify and analyze more than 150 types of PAH compounds.

It found some PAHs in coal tar sealcoats that were 30 times more toxic than one of the most common PAH compounds that was studied previously in these products by the U.S. Geological Survey.

The OSU study also showed that new PAH compounds found in coal tar sealcoats had a carcinogenic risk that was 4 percent to 40 percent higher than any study had previously showed. Among the worst offenders were a group of 11 “high molecular weight” PAH derivative compounds, of which no analysis had previously been reported.

By contrast, the study showed that sealcoats based on asphalt, more commonly used in the West, were still toxic, but far less than those based on coal tar. Use of coal tar sealcoats, which are a byproduct of the coal coking process, is most common in the Midwest and East.

The research was reported this week in Environmental Science and Technology Letters, in work supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health Science’s Superfund Research Program, and done by researchers in the OSU College of Agricultural Sciences and OSU College of Science.

“Our study is consistent with previous findings made by the USGS,” said Staci Simonich, a professor with appointments in OSU’s departments of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology and Chemistry. “But we were able to study a much wider number of PAH compounds than they did. As a result, we found even higher levels of toxicity in coal-tar based sealcoats than has previously been suspected.”

“This should assist individuals and municipalities to make more informed decisions about the use of sealcoats and weigh their potential health risks against the benefits of these products,” said Simonich, the corresponding author on the study. “And if a decision is made to use sealcoats, we concluded that the products based on asphalt are significantly less toxic than those based on coal tar.”

The previous research done by the USGS about the potential health risks of sealcoat products has been controversial, with some industry groups arguing that the federal government agency overstated the risks. The new OSU study indicates that previous research has, if anything, understated the risks.

A 2011 report from the USGS outlined how PAH compounds from sealcoat products can find their way into soils, storm waters, ponds, streams, lakes, and even house dust, as the compounds are tracked by foot, abraded by car tires, washed by rain and volatilize into the air. They reported that the house dust in residences adjacent to pavement that had been treated with a coal tar-based sealcoat had PAH concentrations 25 times higher than those normally found in house dust.

Some states and many municipalities around the nation have already banned the use of coal tar-based sealcoats, due to the human, wildlife and environmental health concerns. In the European Union, use of coal tar-based sealcoats is limited or banned.

 

Story Source:

The above post is reprinted from materials provided by Oregon State University. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.


Journal Reference:

  1. Ivan A. Titaley, Anna Chlebowski, Lisa Truong, Robert L. Tanguay, Staci L. Massey Simonich. Identification and Toxicological Evaluation of Unsubstituted PAHs and Novel PAH Derivatives in Pavement Sealcoat Products. Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 2016; DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00116

Cite This Page:

Oregon State University. “Coal-tar based sealcoats on driveways, parking lots far more toxic than suspected.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 27 April 2016. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160427151028.htm>.
 

 

UW Publishes A How To Be a White Yuppie Guide For Ladies

 

 

Look like this, not that: UW pulls cheerleader-tryout advice after angry backlash

 

 

 

 

A University of Washington infographic advising women how to do their makeup and hair for cheer-team trials sparked a social-media backlash Tuesday.

 

Share story

 

 

If you’re a woman and want to be on the Husky cheer and dance team, by all means come to tryouts with a “bronze, beachy glow, false lashes, girl about town lipstick, flattering eye shadow.”

Natural and spray tans are encouraged, but don’t flash “dark, smokey eyes” or wear “too much makeup.” Then again, “nude lips,” or hair in a ponytail, is a no-no.

That advice, along with a photo of a white woman with blond hair posing in shorts and a sports bra, was posted on Facebook by the University of Washington cheerleading team Monday night, four days before Husky cheerleader tryouts.

A Facebook backlash began building online immediately, and the infographic — modeled after similar ones posted by Washington State University and Louisiana State University — was removed before 9 a.m. Tuesday.

“I can’t believe this is real,” said UW student Jazmine Perez, director of programming for student government, via email.

“One of the first things that comes mind is objectification and idealization of Western beauty, which are values I would like to believe the University doesn’t want to perpetuate,” she said. “As a student of color who looks nothing like the student in the poster, this feels very exclusive.”

Said Signe Burchim, a UW senior: “I think it’s really upsetting and kind of disheartening the way it’s basically asking these women who want to try out to perform their femininity — but not too much.” Such a message would never go out to men trying out for a sport, she said.

In a statement, Husky athletics officials said they created the graphic “in response to a high volume of student questions about cheer and dance team tryouts.”

It was removed after the department “determined that some of the details and descriptions provided were inconsistent with the values of the UW spirit program and department of athletics.”

Seattle resident Clay Thompson posted it on his Facebook page “to ensure that the University of Washington addresses the overt racism (I know there’s more, but let’s start there) in the ad.”

He called it “offensive, exclusionary and ignorant. Those are not values of Seattle or the Puget Sound community.”

“False lashes and not nude lips, but don’t wear too much makeup …? So conflicting,” wrote one commenter on Facebook. “And why so much focus on the ‘right’ makeup, hair, clothes and nails for a tryout?”

Another wrote: “When I was a cheerleader we worked so hard to be considered a sport. This infographic goes against what we fought for. We don’t ask the same of any other athletes. And really no ponytails??”

 

Atlanta Professor claims SJW movement was created by Hillary Clinton campaign staff

Atlanta Professor claims SJW movement was created by Hillary Clinton campaign staff

 

 

By Deanne Lunst

 

 

In internet blog parlance “SJW” stand for Social Justice Warriors. It is a denigrating term meant to refer to obese woman who often identify as lesbian or bi, have tattoos and nose piercings and were formally known as “violent feminists”. They are disdained by one group of writers on Reddit, Voat, Facebook and other screed-sites.

 

 

Professor Anders claims to have first hand knowledge that the whole “SJW movement” was created by a Clinton campaign manager in order to use the “Streisand Effect” to drive more women to support the Clinton Campaign. The concept lies in the theory that the out-raged women will flock to Hillary because she is the female identifier in the election.

 

 

In fact, the whole SJW concept did emerge at the same time as Clinton’s web campaign effort began.

 

 

Does Clinton use dirty tricks? Another recent disclosure claims that the Clinton campaign flooded Bernie Sanders Facebook page with child porn and spent millions of dollars to post meat puppet comments on Reddit.

 

 

Could a Clinton trick to make over-weight woman believe that Republican’s are attacking them on the internet lead to victory for Hillary? A large population of American woman are obese, so the numbers could work out.

 

 

How might this tactic fail?

 

 

If overweight women realize Clinton is exploiting them, the whole SJW think could back-fire in a big way. If Huma and Hillary are not actually secret lovers, as the GOP implies, then the lesbian side of the SJW profile losses some clout.

 

 

How will this pan out? Who created the SJW’s? Stay tuned to REDDIT for the reveal.

<

p style=”margin-bottom:0;line-height:100%;”>