Darfur and Google earth

For once I'm basing my blog off an article not on BBC, this time from National Geographic:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070425-google-darfur.html

We are all well aware of the crisis in Darfur. This article reports that 200,000+ people have died and 2.5 million people have been displaced from their houses since 2003. Now Google Earth users can track the devastation. Users can track and see how many villages have been decimated and see what locations are at risk. The purpose of this is to create worldwide awareness and advocacy of the crisis in Darfur.

It is currently not in real time, but plans are underway to team up with google to focus on the danger zone so that Google Earth users can see what is going on in real time. This is to be called "All eyes on Darfur" and will be launched June 1. Of this, Ariela Blatter, director of Amnesty International's Crisis Prevention and Response Center in NYC says, "We know that the Sudanese government has been affected by satellite technology and changed their tactics accordingly. We want them to know that they're being watched, and we want them to be afraid." This artical also takes note that, ironically, Google Earth is not available to people in Sudan due to export controls and sactions retrict downloads of U.S. software in Sudan.

I think it's great that global awareness is being created. This is a complete example of partnering with technology to create an innovative and interactive campaign. However, disallowing resources like this that can save thousands of lives, is senseless. I understand wanting to have strict controls and sactions in Sudan. When you're dealing with people who are slaughtering thousands, there needs to be strict controls. However, you're dealing with technology that can help many people, something must be done. It is necessary for rules to be bent because the number 1 priority in this case should be saving lives.

Smoking & Ethics.

I was perusing through BBC News this morning as I often do and came across this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6559215.stm

Ireland has had a smoking ban inside pubs, clubs, and bars since March 2004. Northern Ireland will have one in place on April 30 and England will have one starting July 1. In Ireland, researchers studied participating bar workers lung function and exposure to smoke before the smoking ban and one year after. What they found was a 99% decrease in smoke exposure, dramatically improved lung function, and significant reduction in cough and phlegm production. Many advocates against the smoking ban contest there are only trace amounts of harmful carcinogens in second hand smoke. After this study, they still have not changed their stance. I find this interesting considering just after one year of the smoking ban, such dramatic results can be produced. To say that second hand smoke is not harmful sometimes seems to me as proposterous in this day when we have a wealth of knowledge proving its harmful effects.

The smoking ban also brings up an ethical issue. The article stated "People, including bar workers, should be given a choice of working or socialising in a smoke-free environment or a well-ventilated, designated smoking lounge." Workers should not be forced to be exposed to harmful second hand smoke. The previous exposure was shown to be about 40 hrs a week. I can't even imagine how much harm that must cause. In the last lecture, Dr. Shahi defined ethics as "doing the right thing and doing things right." All bar, restaurant, club, and pub workers have the right to good health. They should not be forced to breathe in harmful smoke day in and day out. It is not a stipulation for their profession. This smoking ban is doing the right thing and doing things right.

Public & Private

Many times it is hard for me to accept that the private sector can ever amount to much good, that is, in comparison with the public sector. It is well known that the primary driving force for the private sector has always been one thing: money. However, the more I thought about it i thought this: what if someone has a really innovative idea--an idea than can not only benefit thousands of people, but also make a profit. Moreover, what if the private sector can effectively and efficiently get done what the private does not. For example, the public sector oftentimes knows what needs to get done, has a brilliant plan of implementation, but the problem is the actual implementation. The public has to go through multiple steps such as, appealing to federal and local governments for approval and funds. It sometimes seems the public sector has to sell themselves and jump through hoops, just to get a plan approved by a committee or a bunch of bureaucrats holding all the resources and funds that have no know nothing about public health. Enter the private sector. They're not dependent on funding from the government, they're dependent on their own investments. And, at times, the private company is filled with professional in business and health who decide what and where funds should be spent. I guess the key when you're dealing with the private is ethics. What does the private sector value most: is it money or is it making a difference in lives while simultaneously making a profit. Afterall, if a pharmaceutical drug developed an HIV vaccine and found it only amounted to having cost $0.50 per person, would it be bad if they charged $1 or even $2 for it? Yes, that is a 100% to 200% profits, but its still inexpensive enough that most in the world can afford the vaccine, and for those that cannot it is cheap enough to be government subsidized.

It's just important to not be completely reliant on the private sector. The private and public sector both have its necessary uses and an integrated approach between the two can have dramatic effects.

Portugal's New Solar Plant

This post is based off the BBC article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6505221.stm

Portugal has now opened the most powerful solar power plant in the world, which creates enough energy to power 8000 homes. This translates to 30,000 tons of green house gases eliminated if fossil fuels were used for the same amount of power. It has created development and jobs in one of Portugal's poorer regions. Portugal is set to invest $10 billion in renewable energy and has a goal of 45% of it power consumption from renewable resources by 2010.

Imagine the impact if more countries had goals such as these and really had a vested interest in renewable resources. Moreover imagine the health impact of eliminating thousands of tons of green house gases. Clean sources such as wind and solar energy would have a particularly large impact in countries, such as China, that currently have a heavy reliance on coal. Investing in these sort of resources should be a goal for countries. Furthermore, there should be a partnership among countries working together to develop viable "green" energy sources, especially in developing countries--making sure that they do not make the same mistakes that the developed nations have done.

Individual

Later today I will be presenting my individual oral report (my last powerpoint presentation in the semester. yeay!), which I hope all of you will enjoy. Since we are focusing and monitoring, surveillance, and preparedness this week, I chose an article that outlines some important aspects that must be met when setting up a successful global monitoring system, with the focus being on creating a "gold standard" in which to give global reports. Moreover when receiving data on other countries, it is necessary to question if any of the data is skewed or incorrect in any ways. My article noted that in countries like Oman and Honduras, there was over a 100% smear positive when testing for TB. Obviously having over 100% is not plausible. So why are statistics like this being reported on the WHO, a primary resource for researchers, governments, and people world wide. There needs to be an effort to make data viable and comparable so the right allocation of resources, aid, and interventions can be disseminated among various countries.

And this is a touch of what I will be discussing today. Enjoy!

Star Wars, Robots, Ethics, and Health.

Since we are talking about technology and global health this week, this article popped up just at the right time:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6425927.stm

It basically says that a robots ethical code is being drawn up in South Korea and will be instated later this year. This is to prevent abuse between humans and robots and robots and humans.

Being the huge Star Wars dork that I am, when I think robots, I think the two droids C-3PO and R2D2. Their versatility is boundless. They can speak and translate millions of languages and fix almost every sort of machinery. To think that this technology is at the cusp of emerging is truly exciting. When I think about robots from a health perspective I think of the medic droids used in Star Wars. Everything from Luke getting a new bionic hand to helping Padme give birth was done with medic droids. The BBC article said that "a recent government report forecast that robots would routinely carry out surgery by 2018." In 11 years I could be getting knee surgery by a robot. My doctor wouldn't run the risk of being contaminated with my blood, people could be delegated to other tasks to make a hospital run more efficiently, and the programmed function of the robot would make the surgury accurate. This report also noted the aging population of South Korea. Imagine the benefit for aging populations worldwide if they could receive adequate medical care from the comfort of their own homes. The risk of catching an additional infection while at the hospital would substantially decrease, there would be more beds available for emergency situations, and there would be no need to transport the elderly (especially those that would be particularly feeble) and run the risk of them falling while being transported from place to place.

The concept of robots being prevalent in society really does sound like something straight out of a sci-fi film, but when used ethically, there's so many benefits to be asertained. In this day when technology rapidly progresses, I think it is a good thing that ethical matters are brought at the forefront now, rather than later. As many of us in the public health sector believe, prevention is key to ensuring a healthy future.

Adieu 105.1 K-mozart...

A sad sad thing has happened for classical music fans in LA. K-mozart, which was formerly an excellent classical music station, has shut down. It baffles me that such a large metropolitan area can't sustain a radio station such as this. I suppose it can't compete with the mass market commercial radio stations anymore.

This led me to ponder what happens when corporations infiltrate the market of foreign countries. How many countless gems have been lost amidst McDonalds and Nike. It's not that I'm against globalization. I think being able to share and interact with other cultures is amazing. So much new knowledge and interesting facets about the lives of other people can be relayed in the blink of an eye, but what are we missing out on? Moreover, what are we taking away. Are we a generation that is trying to homogenize the people of the globe? And to what extent will the impact of this have on future generations of other countries. They say that "times change and people change". This is a very real prospect, but the real question is, where do you draw the line. There is no way to stop globalization and in many ways globalization adds a lot to society, such as creating global awareness of pressing needs in other countries, but I think it's absolutely pertinent to remember this: when we enter other countries we need to remember that we are guests of that country and we need to be courteous and respectful of the people and their culture. It doesn't matter if we're entrepreneurs or health workers, we need to be mindful of whose space we are encroaching on.

And going back to the travesty of my lack of K-Mozart, at least I can take solace in the last remaining FM classical music station in the Los Angeles area, KUSC.