Is there any people?
You can go here
http://netboard.wikidot.com
Recent Forum Posts
Please note: Only members of this website can post in the Forum — Join now !
thank you so much
thank you so much
Banking - SECURITIZATION
- - - Keeping tabs on the Banks ! - - -
The time for answers from the banks and their lawyers are upon us.
in discussion Health Matters / Public Health » Robots in hospitals ...
5 ways robots are invading — and improving — hospitals
http://venturebeat.com/2013/05/15/5-ways-robots-are-invading-and-improving-hospitals/
May 15, 2013 1:13 PM, Ricardo Bilton
If you’ve been waiting for the day when robot doctors will cut you open, monitor you recovery, and keep you company in your hospital room, you won’t have to wait much longer.
“We’re in the first inning of a nine-inning exercise. The average patient walks in a hospital and is not touched by robotics. That’s going to change in 10 years,” said John Simon, a partner at Boston-based investment firm Sigma Prime Ventures.
That adoption rate, Simon argues, is based on cost: As the price of robotics adoption decreases, hospitals may be more likely to invest in new technology. At their core, robots aren’t all that different from any other hospital gear.
The problem for hospitals, however, is that there’s a danger in pursuing robotics too far. “With medical robots, if you automate something too much, people won’t accept it,” Simon said.
This results in a fine line that hospitals and doctors must manage. While some automation and robotics is good, the last thing a hospital wants to do is embrace robots to such an extent that they alienate patients.
Little of that, however, is on the minds of hospitals today. Right now, most of them are just trying to figure out how to get robots in the front door. Here are a few ways robots are changing hospitals today.
Zapping germs and cutting infection rates
In hospitals, fewer things are more lethal than the average bacterium. Approximately 1.7 million people get sick each year as a result of so-called “health care-associated infections,” and 99,000 of them die. So you might say that tackling this issue is a major problem for hospitals.
One potential fix is Xenex, a 5-foot, 2-inch robot that fights bacteria by flashing hospital rooms with ultraviolet light. This light, which comes from a Xenon bulb, damages the cell walls of bacteria, frying their DNA and preventing them from reproducing. (The light is so powerful that even humans have to leave the room while the Xenex is working its magic.)
While Xenex has only been around since 2009, evidence suggests that it’s working pretty well so far. Cone Health System, a health care provider in North Carolina, says that Healthcare-Associated Infections dropped over 40 percent after it started using Xenex. Another hospital, Massachusetts’s Cooley Dickinson Hospital, says that Xenex’s helped cut rates of infection of Clostridium difficile by 82 percent, according to a Xenex case study.
Keeping doctors present … even when they aren’t
Fewer companies are as well known in the robotics world as iRobot, the creator of the Roomba vacuum cleaner. But while iRobot is dominating the consumer space, it’s also doing some interesting things areas like defense, naval exploration and, in particular, health care.
Among its health care products is Remote Presence Virtual + Independent Telemedicine Assistant (RP-VITA), a tablet-controlled telepresence bot it developed alongside InTouch Health. Unveiled last July, the RP-VITA lets doctors care for patients remotely, allowing them consult with patients even when they’re miles away.
Reception to the idea has been pretty strong so far. Not only has the device been commercially deployed in seven American hospitals but the RP-VITA is also the first telemedicine robot approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Telemedicine is officially a thing.
Letting amputees walk again
While some robots are mostly about improving patients’ in-hospital experiences, device’s like the BiOM prosthetic ankle system are improving their whole lives. Developed by Boston-based robotics firm iWalk, the BiOM solves one of the less-advertised problems with conventional prosthetics: They’re exhausting to use.
“When people wear prosthetics, they are providing all the power themselves and sort of dragging this leg around,” notes Sigma Prime’s John Simon, whose firm invests in iWalk.
The problem is one of angles. When we walk up ramps or take stairs, our ankles rarely stay at one angle — but that’s exactly how most prosthetics force wearers to walk around. This is why the BiOM is so effective: Instead of forcing the wearer to power it with their own bodies, it powers itself. And that makes a huge difference.
The only problem with the BiOM is cost: The device runs for $50,000. And while that’s not cheap, it’s a small price to pay for amputees looking to walk around freely again.
Helping doctors cut you open
If you’re a surgeon operating today, it’s hard not to be at least a bit enticed by robotic surgery. Surgical robots promise the capability to operate on patients quickly, accurately, and with fewer of the side-effects associated with traditional surgery. By creating smaller incisions, robotic surgery (which is mostly just robot-assisted surgery at this point) cuts blood loss and reduces recovery time (which means patients leave hospitals earlier). Adding to the intrigue is the possibility of remote surgery, which enables doctors to operate on patient from halfway across the world.
The interest is real: Market leader Intuitive Surgical, which creates the da Vinci surgical robot, says its product was used in 450,000 procedures last year.
The problem is that robotic surgery systems are really expensive. Systems like the da Vinci cost at least $1.5 million, and for a lot of hospitals, it’s tough to justify that sort of investment. More, robotic surgery systems carry with them significant liabilities, as Intuitive Robotics found out earlier this year. In February, the FDA launched a probe into claims that the Da Vinci was causing post-operation complications for patients. Intuitive surgical maintains that adverse event rates are low, but the debate over the company’s products is ongoing.
Still, in spite of this recent skepticism, robotic surgery remains a popular option for procedures like prostate cancer extraction, which, due to the, er, difficulty of access, is often better left to robot hands than those of humans.
Keeping patients and the elderly company
If all of this talk about amputees, bacteria, and botched operations has got you down, I offer the Paro, a well-known therapeutics robot developed by Japanese research company AIST. Paro has a very simple but very important job: It’s supposed to feel like a pet. Similar to the that ancient tabby that your grandmother’s nursing home keeps around, Paro relaxes patients in ways that other humans can’t. Aist, which was developed over 10 years ago, still remains one of the most well-known robots of its kind.
in discussion Infra Structures / 'Fracking' » Hydrofracking Fact and Fiction
http://tv.greenmedinfo.com/david-lettermans-epic-rant-against-fracking/
David Letterman’s Epic Rant Against Fracking
in discussion Infra Structures / 'Fracking' » Hydrofracking Fact and Fiction
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/06/hydrofracking-boom-or-bust.html
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Hydrofracking Boom or Bust
James Hall
Activist Post
The economics of oil or natural gas hydrofracking are seldom analyzed from the perspective of the American consumer. Most discussions focus upon the investment opportunities of specific companies, royalties to leaseholders, windfall tax revenues that state governments will benefit from and the bonanza that local communities will enjoy from the added business activity. Missing is a clear understanding of the pricing points and factors that will determine the actual selling charge and total all inclusive retrieval costs in the domestic market. Will the price of energy drop precipitously, or will the net effect be that the native end user sees no direct benefit from the rush to drill?
The environmental risks of the fracking process are real.
Policymic presents an assessment of the merits of Hydrofracking Fact and Fiction: What You Need to Know About the Controversial Practice.
Hydrofracking uses a lot of water: it may take several million gallons of water to properly frack a single well. Water is the main ingredient in hydrofracking; the sand is used to help keep the fractures open once they are created, while the mix of chemicals helps the process along and eases the flow of gas/oil. It is hard to say what chemicals are used since most firms treat their frack mixtures as proprietary secrets, and thanks to industry lobbying efforts, the Environmental Protection Agency ruled in 2005 that companies do not have to disclose their frack mixtures. Much of the water used in hydrofracking eventually comes back up to the surface contaminated with hydrocarbons, sand and other chemicals.
Treatment and disposal of this used water is a major challenge to any hydrofracking operation. Environmentalists are sounding the alarm over hydrofracking-related groundwater contamination, contending that methane gas and fracking chemicals are migrating up from the frack locations and into local water tables.
The next point starts with a specious assumption:
The economic benefits of hydrofracking are obvious, but is the process too inherently dangerous to use, or can its environmental risks be mitigated? That is the question to ponder. Unfortunately both the oil and gas industry, and environmentalists are doing their best to make an informed debate on the issue impossible.
Who really reaps economic gains from this process? Clearly, the corporatists have a strategy that benefits from international sales, while burdening local jurisdictions with the reclamation expenses from the negative eco aftermaths. Also, the effect from actual greater production extraction costs results in selling into markets willing to pay top prices for the oil or gas.
Opponents of hydrofracking warn of the Fracking Economics Revealed as Shale Gas Bubble, Not Silver Bullet.
The reports, Drill Baby Drill by veteran coal and gas geologist David Hughes and Shale and Wall Street by financial analyst Deborah Rogers, assess the economic sustainability of the tight oil and shale gas booms that are sweeping America.
Together, the authors conclude that rather than offering the nation a century of cheap energy and economic prosperity, fracking will provide only a decade of gas and oil abundance, at most, and is creating a fragile new financial bubble that is already starting to deflate. Additional research conclusions discussed at the briefing included:
The shale gas and tight oil booms have been oversold. According to actual well production data filed in many states, shale gas and shale oil reserves have been overestimated by operators by as much as 400-500 percent.
Wall Street has played a key behind-the-scenes role in hyping the fracking boom through mergers and acquisitions and transactional fees, similar to the pattern seen in the housing boom that led to the financial crisis.
High productivity shale plays are not common. Just five gas plays and two oil plays account for 80 percent of production of those energy sources, while the most productive areas constitute relatively small "sweet spots" within those plays.
Production rates are already in decline in many shale plays. The high rates of per-well investment required to maintain production mean U.S. shale gas production may have already peaked and maintaining production will require high rates of potentially unsustainable, high-cost drilling.
Deborah Rogers points out the most significant economic consequence from hydrofracking.
Exporting is a last ditch effort to shore up a failing balance sheet. Exportation will drive the price higher in the U.S.There’s no doubt about it. The question is how high will it go. When you are producing a commodity and have produced it to such a high extent, you want to find someone who will buy it, and in this case, it will be the Asians.
Here is the key issue. If the energy resources from fracking are destined for an export market, sold at a dramatically higher price overseas, the pressure will increase to raise domestic prices when the oversupply vanishes.
The greed from the Fracking Boom Prompts Foreign Export Of U.S. Gas, Could Drive Up Prices At Home, inevitably demonstrates that the public will never experience the benefits of low-cost energy produced from our own soil.
In recent months, however, production has begun to level off as the glut of natural gas keeps U.S. prices down. In response, producers have begun pushing to export the fuel to Europe and Asia, where prices are far higher.
Approval of all the projects currently under review by the Energy Department could result in the export of more than 40 percent of current U.S. production of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, which is gas that’s been converted to liquid form to make it easier to store or transport.
Energy internationalists, opportunistic politicians, Wall Street banksters and irresponsible developers would stash ill-gotten gain from the pillaging of our domestic resources, as our energy rich residents get to pay a higher price for their energy needs. Add into the equation the enormous environmental chemical pollution of our finite groundwater and you have a monumental disaster in the making.
Since safeguards and less caustic additives can be substituted within the fracking technology, the bare minimum course is to protect the water supply. In addition, production from such development needs to have a direct benefit to the American consumer. No fracking for export sales is the national interest.
Original article archived here
James Hall is a reformed, former political operative. This pundit's formal instruction in History, Philosophy and Political Science served as training for activism, on the staff of several politicians and in many campaigns. A believer in authentic Public Service, independent business interests were pursued in the private sector. Speculation in markets, and international business investments, allowed for extensive travel and a world view for commerce. Hall is the publisher of BREAKING ALL THE RULES. Contact gro.rtab|rtab#gro.rtab|rtab
in discussion Infra Structures / 'Fracking' » Hydrofracking Fact and Fiction
There is likely no more controversial topic in energy today than the technique of hydraulic fracturing, a.k.a. “hydrofracking.” Supporters point out that hydrofracking has provided the United States with an overabundance of cheap fossil fuel and brought the U.S. from being a gas importer just a few years ago to the verge of being a net exporter of natural gas. Critics respond with charges that hydrofracking is a recklessly dangerous technique that releases a stew of toxic chemicals into the environment. And in a way, both sides are right, which only adds to the controversy.
It is important here to understand the hydrofracking process. The technique has been around for decades, though its usage has exploded in just the past 10 years thanks to improvements in oil and gas production technology. Hydrofracking involves forcing a mix of water, sand and chemicals down a gas or oil well under extremely high pressure with the goal of cracking previously impermeable rock (typically shale) to create fractures that will allow trapped oil and/or gas deposits to flow to the surface. The key example of how effective hydrofracking can be is found in rock formations like the Marcellus Shale in the Appalachian region of the Eastern U.S.: the industry knew about the oil and gas within the Marcellus reserve for decades, but widespread drilling only began within the last decade as advances in hydrofracking made the Marcellus commercially viable.
On the downside, hydrofracking uses a lot of water: it may take several million gallons of water to properly frack a single well. Water is the main ingredient in hydrofracking; the sand is used to help keep the fractures open once they are created, while the mix of chemicals helps the process along and eases the flow of gas/oil. It is hard to say what chemicals are used since most firms treat their frack mixtures as proprietary secrets, and thanks to industry lobbying efforts, the Environmental Protection Agency ruled in 2005 that companies do not have to disclose their frack mixtures. Much of the water used in hydrofracking eventually comes back up to the surface contaminated with hydrocarbons, sand and other chemicals. Treatment and disposal of this used water is a major challenge to any hydrofracking operation. Environmentalists are sounding the alarm over hydrofracking-related groundwater contamination, contending that methane gas and fracking chemicals are migrating up from the frack locations and into local water tables.
The economic benefits of hydrofracking are obvious, but is the process too inherently dangerous to use, or can its environmental risks be mitigated? That is the question to ponder. Unfortunately both the oil and gas industry, and environmentalists are doing their best to make an informed debate on the issue impossible.
The oil and gas industry in the U.S. has done itself no favors in promoting the use of hydrofracking. Aside from the needless cone of secrecy they have slapped over the make-up of their frack fluids, the industry has been guilty of numerous instances of simple negligence that have led to incidents of contamination near drilling sites. Companies have not properly disposed of waste water; either storing it improperly, dumping it into municipal sewer systems not set up to process fracking runoff, or in some cases, just dumping the waste into local streams – all have led to instances of contamination. Poorly constructed casings – the cement tube that carries well pipes down from the surface – in some cases have allowed methane to leak out, contaminating wells near drilling sites in Pennsylvania and other locations.
The environmental side though has also played fast and loose with reports of contamination, trying to portray each case as an instance of fracking chemicals migrating up from the frack site deep below ground to foul the local water table and cause a host of health problems for people living near the drill sites. The documentary Gasland, which has provided many of the iconic images for the anti-fracking movement (like tap water that can be set on fire), provides a barrage of anecdotal evidence designed to imply this causal linkage. The problem is that the dramatic incidents portrayed in Gasland can be traced back to the two industry misdeeds: improper disposal of waste water and poorly cased wells; many of the other anecdotal reports of fracking contamination can likewise be explained.
In fact, after years of investigation the EPA has only substantiated one case of frack fluid migration up to a water table in Pavilion, Wyoming, at a well site that should not have been fracked in the first place since the reservoir rock and local water table were separated by only a few hundred vertical feet of rock, not the more than a mile like you typically find in formations like the Marcellus. This would indicate that fracking can be done relatively safely if drilling companies exercise due diligence and carefully dispose of their drilling wastes. One example of a company putting this approach into practice is Cuadrilla Resources at their prospect well in northern England. Fearful of a public backlash that could doom their fracking project, Cuadrilla took - for the industry - drastic steps, including: fully enclosing their drilling rig; lining the drill site with an impermeable membrane to contain spills; and disclosing the contents of their frack mix, which contains only three ingredients besides water and sand. Cuadrilla estimates the steps have added 20% to the cost of the project, though there has been almost no public opposition to their drilling operation as a result.
The United States has enormous energy demands; hydrofracking the country's vast shale gas and oil reserves can go a long way towards meeting those needs. If done responsibly, the risks associated with hydrofracking can be mitigated. Rather than trying to manipulate anecdotes to push for an outright ban on fracking, it would be better if environmental groups instead pushed for strict regulation of the industry. And it would be better if oil and gas companies acted responsibly and did all they reasonably could to reduce the impact fracking has on both the environment and the communities where they work. As Cuadrilla demonstrates, this approach is not only possible but beneficial to the industry as well.
in discussion Health Matters / EMF & EMR Problematics » Cell Phone Radiation & Effects
Cell Phones do cause CANCER and Brain Tumours!!!
- Cell Phones Cause Cancer! Brain Tumour Victims & Survivors — (2011-07-20)
- Motorola manipulates Cell Phone RF Radiation Study Results — (2012-10-07)
— Research Biochemist Jerry Phillips was hired by Motorola to study the Effects of the RF Radiation emitted by Cell Phones.
in discussion Consumer Forum / Toll Roads, ( 'eToll' ) » SANRAL gets an International Award for Hitech on e-Tolling
SANRAL gets an International Award for Hitech on e-Tolling
- SANRAL get an International Award for Road Tolling ! — Without collecting a single Cent !!
- They even nominated themselves ! What a JOKE !!
If anyone should get an award in this regard, it should have been the Germans
- German high-tech: toll system is a major export
The German truck toll system comes to SPIEGEL information now abroad consent. Expressed an interest in German technology, the USA, Hungary and Slovakia.
Laugh or cry, but it seems to be true, SANRAL was awarded an International Award for Road Tolling - but it never even worked yet !!
It is hard to believe, but true!
- SANRAL e-toll system wins tech award
WORLD FIRST
SANRAL nominated itself in the category, describing its e-tolling system as high-tech and a “world-first”.
One of the entry requirements was that the project have at least 12 months of proven experience.
Implementation of the e-tolling system has been delayed by a lengthy court battle, led by the civil society group Outa. - SANRAL's tolling project scoops international award 2013-06-04
Pretoria - The South African National Road Agency Limited (SANRAL) has received international recognition after winning a technology award for its Open Road Tolling Project, commonly known as the e-tolling system.
Search for more facts
in discussion Design and Development / Future Telecommunication Technology » Ethical and Bio-Compatible Telephone Technology
New and exciting Telephone technology has emerged …
… already called …
The Discovery of the Century:
Telecommunications FREE from Electric Smog!
See: Global Scaling (Special 1).pdf
- See the article here: Communications Technology
Please indicate all shortfalls on this website and give a description of what is going on as well as a LINK to the page that gives you problems.
- This will be needed to reconstruct the problems and correct them.
Please Note:
Please also make sure you know how to EDIT PAGES on this website and familiarize yourself with certain text formatting guidelines and General User Guidelines, before flagging it as a FAULT
Please add Suggestions and Ideas HERE, how this website can be improved.
THANK YOU.
Thx, working now, had to join this site.
Please post all Discussions about THIS Website here.
- Thank you !!