Today’s POV blog

According to lead author Lisa Barrett, the Interdisciplinary Affective Science Laboratory at Northeastern University has found that those of us with large social networks and largely complex social networks, likely also have a large amygdala (area of the brain that signals to the rest of the brain when something that you’re faced with is uncertain).

This information might actually be useful in helping to develop treatments for social conditions such as difficulty in creating social connections (as is the case with depression and autism). Other research has shown smaller amygdala in those with autistic spectrum disorders. The data of this new study may explain the difficulties of autistics in social interactions.

This may be a case of the chicken and the egg. Are the amygdala smaller in autistics because they have less social interaction or does less social interaction make for a smaller amygdala? More study is needed, but even though not all of the answers have been found, it’s an important step.

TSA has recently instated new travel-safety guidelines in the form of whole body imaging (WBI) or advanced imaging technology (AIT). This is a type of imaging that generates a nude image of the person being scanned using radiation to penetrate one’s clothing. TSA has called these images family friendly (click here to see a typical TSA scan), and has indicated that public concerns over privacy and health is unreasonable.

Safety first

Despite the assurances from TSA, a group of professors at University of California, San Francisco, have penned a letter to TSA indicating that in their professional opinions, there is not yet enough research on the long-term effects of this procedure. Given that there were more than 66,000 passengers who boarded planes in August, if these professors are right, the possibility of widespread risk may be great.

The letter reads in part, “We are writing to call your attention to serious concerns about the potential health risks of the recently adopted whole-body backscatter X-ray airport security scanners. This is an urgent situation as these X-ray scanners are rapidly being implemented as a primary screening step for all air travel passengers. Our overriding concern is the extent to which the safety of this scanning device has been adequately demonstrated. This can only be determined by a meeting of an impartial panel of experts that would include medical physicists and radiation biologists at which all of the available relevant data is reviewed.”

These new security scanners use ionizing radiation, a known cumulative health hazard, to produce X-ray images. Ionizing radiation is a particular type that is especially risky for children, pregnant women, elderly, skin-cancer patients, and others with defective DNA repair mechanisms.

In some studies, the effects of this type of X-ray are averaged over the whole of the person’s body, but this is misleading because ionizing radiation is almost entire absorbed by the skin. Receiving WBI may pose serious risks for persons with a propensity for skin cancer or who have had skin cancer — especially given that this type of X-ray is cumulative, much like sun exposure. Along with the skin, repeated exposure to a person’s eyes may increase the incidence of cataracts.

Is it a strip search if you’re still wearing your clothes?

The X-ray images produced are very detailed, so much so that most images have the faces blurred to protect identities. For many, this constitutes a strip search, even though they have not removed their clothing. In an article published by the San Diego Entertainer, “the scans are detailed enough to identify a person’s gender… to identify a passenger’s surgery scars, or to discern whether a woman is on her menstrual cycle or not.”

You have a choice

If you are concerned about your privacy or your health, you do have a choice. You can, of course, choose not to fly, or you may choose to have a pat-down. In this case, a TSA agent will physically pat you down to check for hidden devices. These pat-downs may be more physical than those you’ve had previously, and that too may make you uncomfortable.

If you would prefer a pat-down, be sure to use the correct phrase, “I opt out.” TSA may insist that you use this term exactly in order to bypass the scanning device.

In a story reported by CNN, Gen. Anthony Cucolo has outlined a number of new restrictions designed to ensure that soldiers under him fulfill their deployment. At his sole discretion, the 20,000 soldiers, 1682 of whom are female, will be held accountable — with the threat of court martial — for individual behavior that prohibits them from completing their deployment.

Prohibited actions include gambling, using drugs, and engaging in behavior that may offend Iraqis, but his restrictions on becoming or causing a pregnancy is at the heart of this controversy. Cucolo believes that unexpected leave, including maternity leave, creates a burden on the remaining soldiers and should be dealt with accordingly.

The rule prohibits a soldier from becoming non-deployable for reasons within the control of the soldier, including becoming pregnant, or impregnating a soldier that results in the redeployment of the pregnant soldier.

While the stricter application of existing rules may seem extreme, they appear to be legal, and in some cases have already been exercised.

In a non-binding ruling, the Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee found this week that judges and lawyers may not be friends on Facebook — in order to prevent the perception of improprieties. The committee expounded that listing lawyers who may appear before the judge as friends on a judge’s social-networking page — a public forum — reasonably conveys to others the impression that these friends are in a special position to influence the judge. Some judges have already begun un-friending lawyers.

To further muddy the waters, it is not objectionable to this committee for a lawyer to become a Facebook fan of a judge — but only so long as the judge does not have approval rights over who may become a fan.

The Committee concludes that such identification in a public forum of a lawyer who may appear before the judge does convey this impression and therefore is not permitted.

So what of the judge and lawyer at a sporting event, restaurant, or FAC? If a Facebook relationship causes concern, surely a weekly poker game should raise an eyebrown or two.

Judges are appointed officials. They are appointed based upon there reputation for unbiased and ethical decision making. Should we be concerned about the interactions of a judge that may come to sway their future decision making? What is it about a social-networking relationship that conveys improprieties where a Sunday-afternoon golf game does not? Aren’t such rulings in stark contrast to the very premise of trusting a person with impartiality to the point that they are appointed as judges?

According to CareerBuilders.com, almost 30 percent of hiring managers said they were using Facebook to research new hires and about 26 percent are using LinkedIn. This type of snooping has armed Judge Susan Criss with a judicial-campaign tool. Most people, lawyers included, do not have full appreciation for exactly how public social networks have become — despite privacy controls.

Criss noted a case before her where a lawyer asked for a continuance because of the death of her father, but in a series of Facebook updates had revealed a week of drinking and partying. She pointed also to a number of times when lawyers blur the ethical lines complaining about clients and opposing counsel in these public forums.

Criss says he follows her ethical canons and is careful about what she says and who she adds as a friend to her network. Her policy is to accept friend requests from all lawyers to avoid an appearance that she favors one side over another. Adding friends from the general public is trickier and a place where she tends to be much more selective.

According to Law.com, the legal blogwatch, during a child-custody trial, a lawyer and judge became friends and exchanged a number of postings relevant to the case. The mother of the child learned of the exchange and her lawyer moved for a new trial and to have the judge disqualified. She succeeded in gaining both.

To make matters worse, the judge had Googled the wife and visited the web site of her business that contained personal photographs and poetry. He went so far as to read one of her poems into the record as he announced his decision. None of the content he found had been entered into evidence, thus ethically preventing him from referencing it at all.

Judges have a code of ethics that outlines the requirements for holding that office and this includes their behavior in public and in public forums. We should not have to be concerned that Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and the like are negative influence on the ethics of a judge. Maybe they offer an insight that exposes those who have always been unqualified for the job.

King Henry VIII. John F. Kennedy. Gary Hart. Bill Clinton. David Letterman. Tiger Woods.

Looking at this list of names, it’s easy to see that cheating is probably not becoming more prevalent, but with today’s vast array of communication options, infidelity certainly becomes news faster and spreads more quickly. King Henry was likely the talk of the court, but we weren’t blogging about him minutes after he slept with the other Boleyn sister.

While cheating is not a singularly male affliction, flipping through the news channels, you would certainly believe it is. Statistically speaking, however, men do cheat more often than women but often it’s for very similar reasons.

Most men, who admit to cheating, agree that the primary reason for cheating is — surprisingly — not sex; it’s lack of connection with their wife. (“She just doesn’t get me.”) Men in search of an emotional connection reach out to other women and very often end up having sex, but sex is not nearly as often the driving factor. (Other surveys indicate that men primarily cheat for new and different types of sex, but the age of the respondent seems to be a factor in this disparity.)

Various reports indicate that 41% of married persons admit to cheating, but 68% say that their spouse has cheated. It’s estimated that 80% of men who cheat are caught, but that 68% of the marriages survive the infidelity. That’s surprising to me as a woman, since the average length of an affair is one to two years — long enough for any casual affair to become a full-fledged relationship. That’s hard to ignore or forgive.

Women often cheat because they are feeling hurt. This might be hurt from their husband’s affair, the loneliness of abandonment, what has become an unexciting or un-engaging relationship, or simply feeling poorly about themselves. (“He just doesn’t get me.”)

One major difference between men and women who admit to having had an affair is that when men are caught, they continue to lie and deny cheating; whereas women are more likely to admit to the affair, ask forgiveness, and begin working to repair the damage.

That both men and women cheat for similar reasons might well explain the high percentage of relationships that survive infidelity (as previously noted: 68%). Strife and discourse can often be the catalyst for a level of communication that many relationships have lost. An affair also provides a bit of good old-fashioned shock treatment to a complacent spouse.

XOXO, the clothing company, is focusing on a whole new type of window dressing — and undressing.

At a 38th and 5th Avenue in New York City, XOXO is paying models to dress and undress throughout the day and night. The crowd, mostly men, gather at the window to watch and make all sorts of efforts to get the attention of the women. The women have strict instructions to not interact with the crowd and are so good at ignoring the gawkers that some believe that the window must be one way.

The holiday theatre is getting mixed reviews. More than one passerby thought that that the show was better suited for the privacy of — well — a peep show, or at least the privacy of one’s home; but the wide variety and aged onlookers seem to find it — at the very least — entertaining.

At a time when every company’s marketing dollars must be very wisely spent, and creativity is the word of the day, it’s difficult to criticize a company that has found a way to draw a crowd.

It will be interesting to see if their sales numbers go up by more than just singles tossed at the girls.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is an independent panel of experts in primary care and prevention that systematically reviews the evidence of effectiveness and develops recommendations for clinical preventive services. In layman’s terms, this group reviews and gives advice to you and me about health services and healthy living.

The USPSTF makes recommendations on all sorts of topics — everything from alcohol misuse to cancer, from heart disease to Alzheimer’s, and from exercise to STDs. Last month, the USPSTF announced that the organization no longer recommends that women begin mammogram screening at 40, but rather that they delay until the age of 50.

As benign as this may seem at first blush, Republicans, such as Rep. Marsha Blackburn, are leveling accusations and intimating that this “medical rationing.” The concern is that this type of rationing will be commonplace under the new healthcare reform.

In support of the USPSTF’s recommendations and according to GlobalHealingCenter.org, while mammograms do help detect some breast abnormalities, they might actually be increasing the occurrence of breast cancer. Recent research has shown that repeated exposure to mammograms may act as an independent risk factor for breast cancer.

At the center of this concern is the amount of radiation to which the patient is exposed during her annual mammogram. A typical x-ray exposes the patient to 1 rad and each rad is believed to increase the breast-cancer risk by 1%. By starting annual mammograms at 40, the patient is exposed to an addition 10% risk.

In a story reported by Time, the USPSTF is surprised at all the political hoopla. According to member Dr. Diana Petitti, an Arizona State University professor and vice chair of the task force, “Our attempt to communicate [the risks and benefits of] routine screening was definitely lost.”

According to Wikipedia, the term Black Friday refers to the Friday following Thanksgiving Day — the beginning of the traditional Christmas shopping season — and used by the media to refer to the beginning of the period in which brick-and-mortar (physical store) retailers go from being in the red (i.e., posting a loss on the books) to being in the black (i.e., turning a profit).

Upon opening — sometimes as early as midnight and staying open for 24 hours — retailers offer deals and loss leaders to attract shoppers. Sales during the Christmas season can represent 50% or more of a retailers’ annual sales.

The term Black Friday is believed to have originated in Philadelphia in the 1960s in reference to the heavy traffic on the day after Thanksgiving. While most of the US saw the heavy traffic ending up at shopping malls, total sales for the day are reported at $10.66 billion; up only about 0.5% from the same day last year.*

Additionally and according to Shoppertrak.com:

• Year-Over-Year Retail Sales Rose 0.9 Percent for Week Ending November 21*
• Year-Over-Year Retail Sales Rose 0.7 Percent for Week Ending November 14, Week-Over-Week NRSE Sales Increase 7.5 Percent*

*Information provided by National Retail Sales Estimate (NRSE), Retail Traffic Index (SRTI) and ShopperTrak RCT Corporation.

The term Cyber Monday, according to Wikipedia, refers to the Monday immediately following Black Friday — a day that symbolizes a heavy traffic for online retailers. While Cyber Monday is not nearly as well known as Black Friday, there does seem to be a direct correlation between the popularity of the event and the increase in and shift of brick-and-mortar sales to online sales.

On 19 October 2009, the Obama administration announced new policy guidelines for federal prosecutors instructing them to cease arresting medical marijuana users and suppliers who are conforming to state laws.

Describing the new policy, two Justice Department officials said prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state laws. This policy is vastly different from that of the Bush administration that staunchly enforced federal anti-pot laws regardless of state codes.

Despite the announcement by the Obama administration, at an online town hall meeting in March of this year, Obama rejected the argument that legalizing, regulating, and taxing marijuana would be a good way to raise money in this recession. Obama did not elaborate with any particular details on his position.

Contrary to the opinion of Obama, in Colorado, Denver City Council members Chris Nevitt and Charlie Brown believe that the establishment of a city sales tax on medical marijuana sales could generate millions of dollars. “We’ve got to tax this damn thing at the city rate, which is 3.62 percent,” Brown told 420Butts.com.

There are currently fourteen states that allow some use of marijuana for medical purposes (Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington), and about a dozen more have considered or are considering it. Polls across America show broadening support for marijuana legalization.

On Tuesday, the American Medical Association announced that it has reversed its policy establishied in 1997 that marijuana should be classified as a Schedule I controlled substance, the most restrictive category, which also includes heroin and LSD. The AMA now states that it will promote clinical research and development of cannabis-based medicines and alternative delivery methods. Despite the reversal, the AMA cautions, “This should not be viewed as an endorsement of state-based medical cannabis programs, the legalization of marijuana, or that scientific evidence on the therapeutic use of cannabis meets the current standards for a prescription-drug product.”

The American Medical Association has about 250,000 doctor members and as a body has urged the federal government to also reconsider its current classification of marijuana as a dangerous drug with no accepted medical use.

“This shift, coming from what has historically been America’s most cautious and conservative major medical organization, is historic,” said Aaron Houston, director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project.

Dawn Dearden with the Drug Enforcement Administration said: “At this point, it’s still a Schedule I drug, and we’re going to treat it as such.” The Food and Drug Administration has yet to comment on the announcement by the AMA.

In an apparent departure from scripture, the Vatican is engaging experts to verify or dismiss the possibility of alien life elsewhere in the universe, and the implication that this may have for the Catholic church.

In an article reported by FOXNews.com, Reverend Joe Gabriel Funes, Jesuit priest, astronomer, and director of the Vatican Observatory said, “The questions of life’s origins and of whether life exists elsewhere in the universe are very suitable and deserve serious consideration.”

Thirty Catholic and non-Catholic scientists from the U.S., France, Britain, Switzerland, Italy, and Chile attended a five-day conference called to explore among other issues “whether sentient life forms exist on other worlds.”

In 2008, Reverend Funes published an article in L’Osservatore Romano, the newsletter of the Vatican Observatory (translated here), as reported by Wired.com.

Some theologians believe that the existence of other life forms will be inconsistent with the existence of God — or at least organized religions — while others agree that since God created the universe, he would have created aliens, too.

NASA chief historian Steven J. Dick, author of The Biological Universe, says, “Religion hasn’t gone away after Copernican theory, after Darwin. They’ve found ways to adapt, and they’ll find a way if this happens, too.”