Buying a new laptop. Easy…? Nope.
That should be simple, given the ample range of different brands and models: I need a new laptop. However, after a couple of minutes and suddenly becoming somewhat frustrated: nobody is producing a decent professional laptop any more. Full stop, end of story.
Sure, you get them with 1 TB hard drives, dolby surround audio system, 4-core processors, 8 GByte memory, and an interface to your coffee machine. No problem. But you can’t get any with a decent screen.
What I mean: all models, from all the brands now have 16:9 screens, an extremly lenghty format that is perfect for watching movies and stuff. But for working (and for me that has a lot to do with writing, either texts or source code, or digging around databases) that format is absolute crap. There is a reason why you use an ordinary piece of paper in portrait orientation (shorter side horizontal) and not in landscape (longer side horizontal). Landscape orientiation simply makes the lines of a text too long to read, and/or you don’t get enough lines on the screen (while the right half of the screen simply goes empty). So much for the professionalism of the “professional models”.
When talking to the technical support of our main IT-supplier, he could see my point – and he even had a great solution: “just buy a docking station and a big stationary screen”. Perfect – that’s why I’m trying to buy a laptop (aka “mobile computer”). I wonder what the flight crew on my next flight might say if I try to bring a docking station and a big screen on board and start looking for the power outlets…
Thomas
PS.: Not that it would help, but interestingly enough the IPad seems to have the old 4:3 format.
The oil spill.. and update on the recent developments (sort of)
I guess, most has really been said, discussed and denied concerning the oil spill. But, as a European, I still find it highly interesting to follow the actions and reactions in the US. And who could put an overview of the current developments together better than Patrik Stewart? So, here are two recent clips from The Daily Show. Laugh’ or Cry? Your choice…
Thomas
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Day 59 – Judgment Day – The Strife Aquatic | ||||
|
||||
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Day 62 – The Strife Aquatic | ||||
|
||||
The internet, multitasking and actual learning
I just came across a highly interesting – and slightly worrying – article from Nicolas Carr in Wired. In short, the article analyses the impact that modern information technologies have on our learning behaviour and our perception of information. It discusses the impact of typical information retrieval strategies on our abilities to actually think, reflect and develop ideas – in short, to actually make use of all the information that is available to us.
And unfortunately, it looks as if the net actually does a very good job in distracting us from the real thing, as it seems to encourage the superfical skimming of a multitude of information, while at the same time hampering a deeper engagement with what we’ve read / perceived.
Some of the thoughts are not really new, they remind me a lot on Neil Postmans texts (”Amusing ourselves to death”, still very much recommended!). However, a major difference seems to be that now, even when we try to be productive, modern information technology seems to be yet another distraction that tempts us to loose focus.
Food for thought… I have to admit, that some of the behavioral patterns described the text sound awfully familar. Maybe we should be a bit more carefully evaluating the role of electronic, web-based tools, media and information sources in science and teaching?
Thomas
Follow-up report on chemical mixtures
Here is a follow-up report on chemical mixtures that we recently finalized for the Swedish Chemicals Agency (KemI), this time focused on REACH and its specific circumstances. We propose two approaches for assessing mixtures in a regulatory context:
- A mixture-specific assessment factor (MAF), for which we outline the scientific justification, and its limitations
- Scenario-specific modeling
The report contains two annexes, one providing a detailed background on the two classical mixture toxicity approaches, Concentration Addition and Independent Action (Response Addition), the other one is a compilation of all the recent approaches and summaries that have been published by the various authorities, organisations and universities.
From a perspective beyond REACH, the trans‐sectorial nature of mixtures of toxic compounds that coincidentally co‐occur in an environmental compartment, the organisms living there, food and the human body poses a substantial challenge for the current system of chemical risk assessment and management.
Thomas
State of the Art report on mixture toxicology and ecotoxicology
The University of Gothenburg just published this press release (in Swedish) on our State of the Art report, which was taken up by Göteborgs Posten, the local newspaper here. Miljöaktuellt published it here, Forskning.se here.
Thomas
PS.: and here are the English versions: Chemicals Health Monitor, Medical News
PPS.: and Eureka, X-Journals, (although I don’t particularly like that they ripped of my photo from the site), ScienceDaily, ChemicalProcessing, EMaxHealth, etc…
State of the Art – report on the toxicology and ecotoxicology of chemical mixtures
Our State of the Art report on the toxicology and ecotoxicology of chemical mixtures has just been published by the European Commission. It is actually open for discussion, i.e. the Commisssion invites feedback until the 30th of April.
Our main conclusions are:
- We need a European guideline for the assement of the toxic effects of chemical mixtures on human health and the environment. Current US guidelines can serve as a template, but efforts should be made to incorporate human health oriented efforts with environmental assessments.
- Only a strong legal mandate (as it recently has been implemented in the new European pesticide regulation) would motivate a wide-spread and regular consideration of ”cocktail effects” of chemical mixtures in environmental and human health oriented regulations.
- Especially media-oriented regulations, such as the IPPC and WFD Directives (the latter was not considered within the report), provide a suitable perspective for the consideration of mixtures in regulatory settings.
- Concentration Addition should be used as a first, default assessment concept for chemical mixtures in general.
- It needs to be ensure that the generation, storage and dissemination of toxicological and ecotoxicological data facilitates their use for a later modeling of mixture effects.
The work was led by Andreas Kortenkamp of the London School of Pharmacy. Michael Faust and myself teamed up with him for the work. The tasks of the report were to analyze
- the scientific literature on mixture toxicity,
- current EU risk assessment regimes relevant to mixture toxicity assessments,
- the practical experiences in assessing mixture toxicity, approaches and methodologies used for this purpose in the EU, and
- approaches to assess mixture toxicity in major competing economies of EU and international bodies
with respect to human toxicology and ecotoxicology. You find the report as a whole PDF for download here.
The reports starts with an executive summary and it is introduced by the discussion of a series of common mixture-related questions:
- Is an assessment of the effects of chemical mixtures necessary from a scientific
viewpoint? - Is there not sufficient protection against mixture effects if we make sure that each
chemical is present individually at exposures unlikely to pose risks? - Is it necessary to test every conceivable combination of chemicals or is it possible to
predict the effects of a mixture? - Which of the two assessment and prediction concepts, dose addition or independent
action, should be utilized in practice? - Which chemicals should be subjected to mixtures risk assessment?
- How should mixture effect assessment concepts be applied in practice?
- What knowledge gaps hamper the consideration of mixture toxicology and
ecotoxicology in chemical risk assessment?
We then also provide an overview of the current European regulatory system with respect to chemical mixtures and feedback that we received from a questionaire on the practical experiences with mixture toxicity assessments in the European member states.
Thomas
Talking about human exposure to chemical mixtures…
According to this press release from Reuters the average woman in the UK wears a whopping 515 chemicals simultaneously. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to find the primary source for the press release, but I guess Reuters is good enough for the moment.
And who says that the topic of chemical mixtures is not interesting for the popular press?
Thomas
Regulation of toxic chemicals in the US
Here is a short but comprehensive overview of the currently regulatory system for chemicals in the US. Lead author is Emily Monosson, who is also taking up the issue of chemical mixtures in the article:
The FQPA [Food Quality Protection Acti] is changing the way pesticide residues are regulated by setting ‘health-based’ standards for ALL pesticides in foods. ‘All’ in this case means combined residues from several different pesticides, or, chemical mixtures. The importance of this amendment, with respect to chemical mixtures should not be underestimated. This is one of the first attempts to regulate the permitting of individual chemicals based on their potential for combined toxicity. It will require development of innovative and reliable techniques to address combined toxicity. Although we will discuss the methodology used to determine new pesticide limits later, we should point out that this combined approach for now is limited to similarly acting pesticides. Currently, the FQPA does not address pesticide mixtures that act through different mechanisms. For example, several different organophosphate pesticides may occur in combination along with arsenic. The mixtures assessment will consider the combination of organophosphates, but nonetheless will assess arsenic separately. The rational for only extending combined toxicity to similarly acting pesticides should become clear as we discuss the toxicological tools available for such work.
Together, the FFDCA and FIFRA regulate a large share of chemicals to which humans are likely to be exposed, by setting tolerances and allowable concentrations for chemicals, one chemical at a time, up until 1997. This is almost a one hundred year history of single chemical regulation. Not only does toxicology and regulatory policy have a long history based upon the single-chemical approach, but they must now address the reality of chemical mixtures. Although clearly the single-chemical approach has provided a strong foundation for chemical control, the utility or relevance of these techniques for addressing multiple chemical exposures is currently unclear.
Unfortuantely, I couldn’t find the promised discussion on why the legislation is restricted to similarly acting chemicals. Mental note to myself: Need to check the mentioned amendments. Guess it’s the old “mixtures of dissimilarly acting chemicals do not show a combination effect if all individual substances are at or below their toxicological thresholds”. Please see the rebuttal here.
The level of human exposure to chemicals
I just came across the Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals by the US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Its the most extensive monitoring study on the exposure of a human populaiton to chemicals that I’ve ever seen. 212 chemicals were analysed in human urine, serum and blood samples. All of them (if I didn’t get it wrong while flipping through the pages) were detected in at least some of the samples. Which is of course no real surprise, as the compounds were included in the study because of their relevance for human chemical exposure.
A wealth of additional information is given on the website dedicated to the report.
Unfortunately, as the report states on page 8:
Not all the chemicals in the Report are measured in the
same individuals. Therefore, it is not possible to determine
the fraction of all measured chemicals that were found at
detectable levels in a given person.
Meaning, that one cannot directly draw conclusions on an exposure to mixtures of these compounds. I need to check more closely whether it is possible to do that at least roughly. It would be a real pity, if such a wealth of data would only be analyzable from a single-compound perspective. I mean, let’s face it: although a discussion on the possible health effects of the deteced amounts of say styrene is certainly worthwhile – what does it say about the total health risks, when at the same time several dozens or even hundreds of other chemicals are present?
As a sidenote: 90% of the people had detectable levels of Bisphenol A in their blood. Although the mere presence of the compound of course does not allow the conclusion that the current situation is risky, the widespread occurrence of the compound certainly suggests strongly that it is worthwhile to invest more resources on the investigation of the low-level effects of BPA (see here).
Thomas
US EPA seems to change its position on BPA
Here is an interesting article from the New York Times on the position of the US EPA on Bisphenol A, the notorious endocrine disrupter. As the title says, the US EPA’s position on the hazards of the compound seem to be changing (quite drastically, I would say). Interestingly enough,
Activists on both sides of the passionately debated issue said they were disappointed in the government’s action.
Maybe that is actually a good sign? Especially as it seems as if the EPA is finally calling for (pre)caution, while at the same time funding more research. Although it would of course be more consequent if they would restrict the use of the compound as long as there are any doubt on its safety.
Thomas
Addendum: See also here for some more infos.