Wednesday, April 2, 2014


News Clips For The Day



Chile Earthquake: Strict Building Rules May Keep Death Toll Low – NBC
By Alexander Smith
First published April 2 2014

Strict building regulations enforced due to Chile's history of violent seismology have been credited with minimizing the death toll in the wake of Tuesday's magnitude-8.2 earthquake.

"The area has hit by many quakes in the past so this event is nothing new for them," said Randy Baldwin, a Denver-based geophysicist at the U.S. Geological Survey. "Maybe the reports of falling debris are due to some previously weakened buildings being destroyed, but other than that Chile does a very good job of enforcing building codes."

The importance of solid structures was displayed in Jan. 2010 when Port-au-Prince was hit by a magnitude-7.0 earthquake that leveled 70 percent of the Haitian capital's structures and killed 220,000 people.

Just a month later, a magnitude-8.8 quake hit Chile but killed far fewer people, with the death toll reaching around 500.

By early Wednesday, the latest quake had killed just six people.

The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction released a report in 2011 saying that the "strict building codes in Chile...continue to play a large part in protecting people." Haiti's quake, on the other hand, was "no match for the homes and buildings," it said.

"The key to surviving high magnitude quakes is to live and work in seismically safe buildings, while being aware of how nature around us can also change," said Margareta Wahlstrom, U.N. Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Disaster Risk Reduction, in the report.

Chile's history is peppered with strong tremors, but the event that prompted its strict construction regulations was the devastating magnitude-9.5 quake of 1960 - the most powerful earthquake ever recorded.

Although Tuesday's quake was at a shallow - and potentially damaging - 12.5 miles below the seabed, Baldwin said other factors could have dampened its effects, such as the direction of the waves and the distance of the epicenter from populated areas.




The exact death toll was not mentioned in this article, so I went to yesterday's report by Daniel Arkin for the following quotation. “A massive earthquake struck off the coast of Chile late Tuesday killing at least six people, triggering a six-foot tsunami and sending 900,000 fleeing to "safe zones." Deaths in the range of six people is much less than I would expect from an 8.2 earthquake. California needs to study their building codes. Of course, there is a great fondness for historical buildings in the US, and I doubt that they would be very safe in an earthquake. The comparison between the Chile event yesterday and Haiti's large quake of a few years ago is a very clear demonstration of the role of good building codes. It's a great example of a good government regulation that was executed faithfully with very positive results.





Supreme Court Strikes Down Another Limit on Money in Politics – NBC

Pete Williams
First published April 2 2014


Further loosening the reins on the role of money in politics, the U.S. Supreme Court today struck down restrictions on the grand total that any person can contribute to all federal candidates for office.

Today's decision left intact the cap of $2,600 per election that a contributor to give to any single candidate for federal office, but it invalidated the separate limit on how much can be contributed to all federal candidates put together — $48,600.
The law was challenged by the Republican Party and an Alabama businessman, Shaun McCutcheon, who argued that the contribution ceilings were an unconstitutional restriction on his free expression.

"It's about freedom of speech and your right to spend your money on as many candidates as you choose. It's a basic freedom," McCutcheon said in bringing the challenge.

Supporters of what's known as the aggregate contribution limit said its purpose was to help prevent corruption. Without it, warned Fred Wertheimer, a longtime proponent of federal regulation of contributions, "you will establish a system of legalized bribery like we used to have before the Watergate scandals."

Under the aggregate limits, an individual could donate a maximum of $48,600 to all candidates for federal office plus another $74,600 to national political parties, state and local political parties, and political action committees — a grand contribution total of $123,200 per election.




According to “Fred Wertheimer, a longtime proponent of federal regulation of contributions, "you will establish a system of legalized bribery like we used to have before the Watergate scandals" of the Aggregate Contribution Limit. The Supreme Court has called it unconstitutional on the grounds of freedom of speech, so the total of $123,200 per election will go back into effect. Needless to say, most Democrats have less money to freely give away than that.

I don't like the fact that with almost unlimited funds we tend to have the highly rancorous television ads showing every half hour with both parties targeting what is often one point only and beating it to death with a hammer. The more serious reason to oppose it, of course, is the “legalized bribery” complaint of Wertheimer. It is also unfair to the Democrat most of the time, who can't usually afford as many ads to blacken the name of his opponent.




Too much running tied to shorter lifespan, studies find – CBS
By Kathleen Doheny HealthDayApril 1, 2014


Running regularly has long been linked to a host of health benefits, including weight control, stress reduction, better blood pressure and cholesterol.
However, recent research suggests there may a point of diminishing returns with running.

A number of studies have suggested that a "moderate" running regimen -- a total of two to three hours per week, according to one expert -- appears best for longevity, refuting the typical "more is better" mantra for physical activity.

The researchers behind the newest study on the issue say people who get either no exercise or high-mileage runners both tend to have shorter lifespans than moderate runners. But the reasons why remain unclear, they added.

The new study seems to rule out cardiac risk or the use of certain medications as factors.

"Our study didn't find any differences that could explain these longevity differences," said Dr. Martin Matsumura, co-director of the Cardiovascular Research Institute at the Lehigh Valley Health Network in Allentown, Pa.

Matsumura presented the findings Sunday at the American College of Cardiology's annual meeting in Washington, D.C. Studies presented at medical meetings are typically viewed as preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Matsumura and his colleagues evaluated data from more than 3,800 men and women runners, average age 46. They were involved in the Masters Running Study, a web-based study of training and health information on runners aged 35 and above. Nearly 70 percent reported running more than 20 miles a week.

The runners supplied information on their use of common painkillers called NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications such as ibuprofen and naproxen/Aleve), which have been linked with heart problems, as well as aspirin, known to be heart-protective. The runners also reported on known heart risk factors such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, family history of heart disease and smoking history.

None of these factors explained the shorter lives of high-mileage runners, the researchers said. Use of NSAIDs was actually more common in runners who ran less than 20 miles weekly, Matsumura's team noted. "The study negates the theory that excessive use of NSAIDs may be causing this loss of longevity among high-mileage runners," Matsumura said.

So what's the advice to fitness-oriented Americans?
"I certainly don't tell patients 'Don't run,' " Matsumura said. But, he does tell high-mileage runners to stay informed about new research into the mileage-lifespan link as more becomes known.

"What we still don't understand is defining the optimal dose of running for health and longevity," he said.

Even though the heart disease risk factors couldn't explain the shorter longevity of high-mileage runners, there do seem to be potentially life-shortening ill effects from that amount of running, said Dr. James O'Keefe, director of preventive cardiology at the Mid-American Heart Institute in Kansas City.

O'Keefe, who reviewed the findings, believes there may simply be "too much wear and tear" on the bodies of high-mileage runners. He has researched the issue and is an advocate of moderate running for the best health benefits. Chronic extreme exercise, O'Keefe said, may induce a "remodeling" of the heart, and that could undermine some of the benefits that moderate activity provides.

In O'Keefe's view, the "sweet spot" for jogging for health benefits is a slow to moderate pace, about two or three times per week, for a total of one to 2.5 hours.
"If you want to run a marathon," he said, "run one and cross it off your bucket list." But as a general rule, O'Keefe advises runners to avoid strenuous exercise for more than an hour at a time.

More information
To learn more about this field of research, head to the Masters Running Study.




“Too much wear and tear” – I first heard that phrase when doctors began to call osteoarthritis “wear and tear.” I looked it up on the net and found a number of articles about a “wear and tear” theory of aging. It's all about moderation, apparently. I like that. I have never joined fad diets, taken massive doses of vitamins, exercised heavily, etc. Unfortunately, I don't exercise enough, and never have. I am usually found reading a book or watching TV, a “couch potato” in other words. Recently I acquired a sharp pain in one leg and have been stretching and walking every half hour to get rid of the pain, which works miraculously. I plan to continue to do this just because it's easy enough to walk around in my apartment, and I know I need to be doing it. I have always heard the phrase that people can “work themselves to death,” and this article seems to back up the theory. The “remodeling of the heart” also sounds likely, if the hearts of runners may become enlarged or damaged structurally.

Whatever, I am never going to take up running – walking, yes. My legs, ankles and knees wouldn't allow me to run now. I'm just as happy about my situation. I never got that kick out of exercise per se that some people do. I've enjoyed swimming and playing volleyball and basketball when I was younger. Chasing a ball around has lots of interest value and excitement, and swimming is a delicious feeling as I move smoothly through the water. That's going to be my limit.





Computer program spots 21 distinct facial expressions – CBS
By Robert Preidt HealthDay April 2, 2014

A new computer model that can recognize 21 distinct facial expressions more than triples the previous number of documented expressions for different emotions, researchers report.

The new program can even pinpoint expressions for complex or seemingly contradictory emotions such as "sadly angry" or "happily disgusted," according to the Ohio State University researchers.

They said their achievement will help scientists map emotion in the brain with greater accuracy than before, and could help in the diagnosis and treatment of conditions such as autism and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Until now, limits on reading facial expressions restricted scientists to studying six basic emotions: happy, sad, fearful, angry, disgusted and surprised.

"We've gone beyond facial expressions for simple emotions like happy or sad," Aleix Martinez, a cognitive scientist and associate professor of electrical and computer engineering, said in a university news release. "We found a strong consistency in how people move their facial muscles to express 21 categories of emotions."

"That is simply stunning," he said. "That tells us that these 21 emotions are expressed in the same way by nearly everyone, at least in our culture."
The researchers created the computer program by taking 5,000 photos of 130 women and 100 men making faces in response to statements such as, "You just got some great unexpected news" (happily surprised), or, "You smell a bad odor" (disgusted).
Analysis of the facial muscles in the photos enabled the team to identify expressions linked to 21 emotions, according to the study, which was published in this week's issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

More information
The American Academy of Family Physicians explains how emotions affect your health.




It would be interesting to know if these facial expressions hold true across cultural lines. That would be really interesting. It would help diplomats to study these expressions, as well as in business deals when it would be good to know if the other person is being deceptive. I'm sure police officers will be taught to read these expressions to see when a witness or suspect is lying or simply not telling the whole truth. I have always read people's faces when observing them or interacting so I will know where they really stand. I want to know whether a person is a true friend or a potential enemy and act accordingly. I am not a person who voluntarily deals with people that I don't trust – I can usually avoid them and deal mainly with my friends. Luckily I'm not involved in politics or sales, so I can get away with it.




More Americans See Middle Class Status Slipping – ABC
WASHINGTON April 2, 2014 (AP)
By CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER AP Economics Writer

A sense of belonging to the middle class occupies a cherished place in America. It conjures images of self-sufficient people with stable jobs and pleasant homes working toward prosperity.

Yet nearly five years after the Great Recession ended, more people are coming to the painful realization that they're no longer part of it.

They are former professionals now stocking shelves at grocery stores, retirees struggling with rising costs and people working part-time jobs but desperate for full-time pay. Such setbacks have emerged in economic statistics for several years. Now they're affecting how Americans think of themselves.

Since 2008, the number of people who call themselves middle class has fallen by nearly a fifth, according to a survey in January by the Pew Research Center, from 53 percent to 44 percent. Forty percent now identify as either lower-middle or lower class compared with just 25 percent in February 2008.

According to Gallup, the percentage of Americans who say they're middle or upper-middle class fell 8 points between 2008 and 2012, to 55 percent.

And the most recent National Opinion Research Center's General Social Survey found that the vast proportion of Americans who call themselves middle or working class, though still high at 88 percent, is the lowest in the survey's 40-year history. It's fallen 4 percentage points since the recession began in 2007.

The trend reflects a widening gap between the richest Americans and everyone else, one that's emerged gradually over decades and accelerated with the Great Recession. The difference between the income earned by the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans and by a median-income household has risen 24 percent in 30 years, according to the Census Bureau.

Whether or not people see themselves as middle class, there's no agreed-upon definition of the term. In part, it's a state of mind. Incomes or lifestyles that feel middle class in Kansas can feel far different in Connecticut. People with substantial incomes often identify as middle class if they live in urban centers with costly food, housing and transportation.

In any case, individuals and families who feel they've slipped from the middle class are likely to spend and borrow less. Such a pullback, in turn, squeezes the economy, which is fueled mainly by consumer spending.

"How they think is reflected in how they act," said Richard Morin, a senior editor at the Pew Research Center.

People are generally slow to acknowledge downward mobility. Many regard themselves as middle class even if their incomes fall well above or below the average. Experts say the rise in Americans who feel they've slipped below the middle class suggests something deeply rooted.

More people now think "it's harder to achieve" the American dream than thought so several decades ago, said Mark Rank, a sociology professor at Washington University in St. Louis.

Three years ago, Kristina Feldotte, 47, and her husband earned a combined $80,000. She considered herself solidly middle class. The couple and their four children regularly vacationed at a lake near their home in Saginaw, Michigan.

But in August 2012, Feldotte was laid off from her job as a special education teacher. She's since managed to find only part-time teaching work. Though her husband still works as a truck salesman, their income has sunk by more than half to $36,000.
"Now we're on the upper end of lower class," Feldotte said.




“There's no agreed-upon definition” and it's “a state of mind” are interesting statements. There should be a government defined range of income to rely on. On the net I found the following from Wikipedia. It gives over $100,000 as upper middle class and $500,000 as upper class, while the lower class is defined as “under $2,000.” That sounds like dire poverty to me and the difference between $100,000 and $2,000 is staggering. Most people I know are “working class.” or “lower middle class.” This news article gives Kristina Feldotte's former combined income before she was laid off as $80,000 and she considered herself to be “solidly middle class,” but Wikipedia considers it to be “lower middle class,” and at $35,000 she became “working class,” which covers a very wide range. The key to being comfortable, whatever our income, is for the expenses to be lower than the income so we can eat, drive a dependable car, have health insurance, be housed, pursue some kind of educational goals, and take a few modest vacation trips or pay for some entertainments. If we can keep a steady job at above the minimum wage level, it is usually possible to adjust living expenses to meet the budget and have some occasional pleasures.

Going from $80,000 to $35,000 would likely compel moving to a smaller house or an apartment and not sending the kids to college from the household income. It would be a big and painful adjustment, and some heavy medical bills would likely bankrupt the family. Another article by Wikipedia on the definition of the poverty line gives $23,000 for a family of four or $10,000 for a single individual. I'm sure anyone receiving only $2,000 a year would have to live in public housing, use food stamps, ride the bus rather than keep a car, have access to no movies or restaurant meals, and avoid going to a doctor.


Household income in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Household income is a measure commonly used by the United States government and private institutions. Each household is measured by the income of every resident over the age of 15.

Extreme poverty in the United States, meaning households living on less than $2 per day before government benefits, doubled from 1996 to 1.5 million households in 2011, including 2.8 million children.[3]

According to Leonard Beeghley[citation needed] a household income of roughly $95,000 would be typical of a dual-earner middle class household while $60,000 would be typical of a dual-earner working class household and $18,000 typical for an impoverished household. William Thompson and Joseph Hickey[citation needed] see common incomes for the upper class as those exceeding $500,000 with upper middle class incomes ranging from the high 5-figures to most commonly in excess of $100,000. They claim the lower middle class ranges from $35,000 to $75,000; $16,000 to $30,000 for the working class and less than $2,000 for the lower class.




Congress Sends Ukraine Aid, Russia Sanctions Bill To White House – NPR
by Eyder Peralta
April 01, 2014

After weeks of political wrangling and in a rare show of bi-partisanship, Congress approved a bill calling for $1 billion in loan guarantees to Ukraine and new sanctions on Russia over its annexation of Crimea.

On Tuesday, with a vote of 378-34, the House passed a final version of the bill, sending it to the White House for President Obama's signature. The bill passed in the Senate last week with a 98-2 vote.

"Passage of this bill allows Congress to speak with one voice in support of the Ukrainian people and against Russian aggression," Sen. Bob Corker, a Republican from Tennessee and coauthor of the bill, said in a statement. "Along with our European partners, the U.S. must demonstrate long-term resolve to deter any further Russian intervention in Ukraine and the region, including imposing additional economic sanctions that will exact real costs for Putin's actions in Crimea."




I am relieved to see that this loan and sanctions passed almost unanimously in both houses of the legislature. There are things that President Obama can't do without congressional consent. I will wait to see what sanctions will be leveled against Russia and what the EU and NATO do. A billion dollars doesn't sound like very much to stabilize a failing government, but maybe other countries will add more to the fund. This is real progress, though. I'm sure Obama will happily sign the bill. Maybe we will see Russia respond favorably.