Phones come in handy in a crisis, as long as they work, an obstacle Japan is striving to develop with networks that work in the most extreme of conditions.
Japan built its burgeoning "disaster-proof" mobile network to withstand natural disasters by quickly diverting traffic from compromised stations and preventing network overload. The country, whose interest in improving its networks, stems from the 2011 tsunami, which knocked out communication when people desperately needed it.
As a result, Telecom companies NTT Docomo and KDDI are spearheading projects, but separately, so the Japanese government is pushing them to cooperate and get the networks up and running as soon as possible.
In disasters, mobile service is often more reliable than landlines, and more accessible to people caught away from home during an emergency. During the Japanese tsunami, as well as the tornadoes in the U.S. last summer and a bevy of other crisis incidents, people relied on cell service and social media to communicate with family, friends and rescue teams.
Japan, an island is prone to natural disasters such as tsunamis and earthquakes, will benefit from the sturdier emergency network, and its actions may inspire other nations to concentrate on making emergency communication more reliable.
A disaster-proof system in the U.S., however, is more difficult to create. The fiercely-competitive relationships between carriers in the U.S. hinders similar projects and the government is less likely to demand network-building cooperation. In addition, the spectrum squeeze makes it difficult for U.S. carriers to devote bandwidth to establishing comprehensive re-routing systems.
For example, LightSquared's proposed merger with Sprint would have given Sprint access to more satellite-based network resources, but U.S. regulators blocked the deal due to potential interferences with GPS systems. Meanwhile, the FAA warned that GPS disturbance may actually decrease safety, by interfering with aviation signals, even though LightSquared insisted it could fix the interference issues and still run its towers.
At the same time, unless the government places primacy on letting carriers use such satellites to bolster their networks, the U.S. will have trouble carrying out a project along the same lines as Japan and keeping citizens in contact during emergencies.
AT&T introduced a series of "Remote Mobility Zone" kits, which connects cell service with satellites in case of emergency, but these cost upwards of $15,000, making them too expensive for most consumers.
The U.S., which experiences devastating hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes, needs a foolproof communication system for people just as much as Japan.
Researchers in the U.S. developed a mobile app that uses Bluetooth short-range radio technology to reroute data during service interruptions, but that method wouldn't be as widespread as a carrier-backed emergency system.
The U.S. is developing emergency mobile services, such as a disaster response text alert system, but if the infrastructure to transmit these messages is damaged, systems like these are useless.
Given the climate in Congress and among carriers in the U.S., AT&T, Verizon and other major carriers are unlikely to work together on a project on same scale as in Japan. But, if a widescale natural disaster strikes, and people are left without service, similar to Hurricane Katrina, regulators and carriers will face criticism as to why they didn't harness the technologies available in other countries, such as Japan.
For soldiers fighting Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, or PTSD, popular game Tetris is as helpful as therapy or medication.
A research team at Oxford University discovered playing Tetris alleviates symptoms of PTSD, including flashbacks, by interrupting the process of storing painful memories in the brain.
"Tetris therapy" doesn't erase or suppress the memory, but because Tetris engages the same parts of the brain used for imprint vivid mental images, playing the game soon after trauma may interfere with the mind using those areas to store extensive, detailed recollections.
The Tetris therapy could be especially helpful for soldiers in combat zones trying to stop reliving painful experiences, as accessing the game is easier than making time for extensive talking therapy, or risk the side effects of pharmaceutical drugs used to treat PTSD. The U.S. Army could use the popular game to treat returning and deployed soldiers.
Smartphone use in the Army is on the rise, and since Tetris is available as an app and on portable gaming devices, troops will have access to the game, even from remote outposts.
This isn't the first time research suggested video games can help people with psychological or neurological conditions. Autism researchers credit social games on iPads with helping people develop social skills and communicate more clearly, while studies show app games like "Angry Birds" help elderly people stay mentally keen.
There are already apps on the market to monitor stressed-out mobile phone users, like iHeal, which is designed to prevent drug relapses but can also be used to gauge PTSD patients' health, helping them know when to seek care. These monitoring apps could be used to see if Tetris therapy is working, by comparing the stats of people who are regularly playing Tetris to combat symptoms with those who do not.
Video games are sometimes maligned for turning the mind to mush, but this study, along with others, illustrates how they can positively rewire the brain and supplement more traditional treatments for mental disorders.
Facebook can share their status as an organ donor with a new Timeline feature, demonstrating the site's massive potential for good.
Beyond sharing their status with friends, interested users can also find information about how to register as a donor on Facebook, and set the status to public so the medical community has access to the data.
Although raising awareness is the feature's primary goal, its introduction highlights the social network's capacity to facilitate lifesaving procedures, since it may not be long until the function actually connects people in need with available organs.
Users considering kidney, blood or bone marrow donation can actively seek people in need, while people are already organizing searches on Facebook for these willing donors, speeding up the process of locating life-saving connections.
For essential organs, such as the heart, lungs or liver, it gets trickier, but using Facebook is still possible. Although critically sick patients and their loved ones may not want to think about the possibility they will not pull through, if terminal patients set their organ donor status to public, the medical community may be able to harness the feature to find local organ donors when the time is right.
Already, people use informal Facebook networking to find willing donors, reaching out to their friends and extended networks. Socialblood.org, a Facebook app matching blood donors with rare types, also connects recipients and donors through the site.
This sort of feature illustrates Facebook can work for more serious purposes beyond "slactivism," or a culture of clicking on altruistic links without actually doing anything. For example, Facebook engendered an upswing in people discussing and "liking" political articles and NGO pages about the relative merits of Kony2012, but it does not diminish real activism, and in this case, it provides a life-saving service sustained by its users' integrity.
Facebook is a platform for social connectivity, and it can be abused through cyber-bullying and over-sharing -- but others use it to organize protests, check in with loved ones in emergencies, contact authorities about crimes, and now hunt for critical health resources. The platform is not inherently good or bad, and its embrace of organ donation match-ups demonstrates how the site can positively impact society.
Regulators are debating the merits of a nationwide ban on distracted driving, sparking debate over whether a block across the U.S. goes too far, or if state and industry efforts can counter the rising problem.
U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood wants a federal ban on using cell phones on the road, calling for increased ticketing with a proposed nationwide law. Legislators are pushing for stricter law enforcement in a number of states, but LaHood's nationwide ban would give the country a unified, blanket law.
LaHood, comparing the distracted driving epidemic to drunk driving, announced his intentions at a distracted-driving summit amid victims of accidents caused by reckless in-car cell phone use, but his proposal will not go through without opposition from powerful lobbying interests, who say significant efforts are already underway at the state and industry level.
Aren't States Doing Enough?
Gary Biller, president of the National Motorists Association (NMA) opposes federal legislation, pointing out state-specific laws will have the same effect.
New York, California and a number of other states have outlawed phone use on the road, but this ban would extend to all 50 states.
California's campaign, for example, included ramped up ticketing and highway signs comparing distracted drivers to zombies, and accident rates have dropped.
However, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration called for beefed up federal guidelines for automakers to discourage cars built with features that encourage cell phone use, giving LaHood's proposition a boost on the national level.
Auto Makers and Other Industry Efforts to Combat Distracted Driving
The auto industry is unlikely to embrace LaHood's proposal, since it runs counter to automakers' intentions to incorporate the technology into their vehicles.
The auto industry, while supportive of lawmakers' efforts to make the roads safer, is already making inroads using smartphone technology to alleviate traffic and develop smarter cars. A number of apps guiding motorists through congested areas have hit the market, and the trend towards cars integrating smartphone technology is unlikely to cease.
A ban on using cell phones in vehicles may produce tension between automakers who want to keep pace with innovative mobile technology and legislators who want to safeguard against the effects of technology and public safety.
Carriers, for their part, helping to discourage distracted driving with motion-sensitive apps available to re-route calls to users in transit, including offerings from AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile.
Is It Enough?
No one argues distracted driving is a serious issue, but the scale of LaHood's proposed ban may be startling for industry and lawmakers to mull over.
LaHood's proposed ban may negate the potential benefits arising from incorporating technology into cars and driving, and prove problematic for automakers trying to make their cars stand out from the crowd with smartphone-integrated accessories. However, distracted driving persists despite increased penalties and crackdowns, with no existing solution able to curb an increasingly serious problem.
Go ahead and use your cell phone: it won't cause cancer, says the U.K.'s top health experts, diminshing worries that people endanger their lives by staying connected.
Scientists with the country's Health Protection Agency have concluded that everyone in the U.K. gets exposed to "universal and continuous" low-level radio frequencies from cell phones, Wi-Fi, televisions and radios.
Despite the constant exposure, the scientists said, they did not find any definite links between the frequencies and cancer or other problems with brain function or infertility.
There are many studies on the safety of mobile phones, according to the BBC, but the HPA's study is by far the most expansive.
It also contradicts a World Health Organization project that determined cell phones cause certain types of brain cancer. Early last year, 31 scientists from 14 countries urged the WHO to re-examine its guidelines for safe mobile phone use.
However, while the U.K. scientists said there's no conclusive evidence cell phone radiation is dangerous, the scientists recommended research continues on cell phones' long-term effects. In addition, the HPA suggested that "excessive use of mobile phones by children should be discouraged," striking a slightly cautionary note.
The debate about the dangers of cell phones has been going on almost ever since the advents of mobile devices. For example, in 2004, Swedish scientists said that people who use cell phones for 10 or more years could end up having tumors, and in 2007, scientists said 10 minutes of cell phone use can cause changes in a person's brain.
But as more people started using cell phones without ill effects, new studies debunked the earlier ones. Last year, Danish researchers found no evidence of a link between cell phone use and cancer. They concluded, after following 350,000 adults 30 years of age and older for more than a decade, there was no difference in cancer rates between people who used a cell phone and those who did not, including no risk of developing a brain tumor at the site where a cell phone is held close to the head.
Since there are so many differences of opinion -- including in the U.K. scientists' report itself -- researchers will likely be divided for years to come about whether cell phones cause brain cancer or other diseases.
In addition, as cell phone use grows as people give up their landlines and switch to mobile devices, scientific studies about phones' dangers will likely shift, and researchers may change their opinion as researchers are able to study more users.
Finally, "recall bias" limits some studies, as cancer sufferers can have a tendency to over-report behaviors such as cell-phone use as they search for the reasons behind their condition, a factor that can skew survey data.
When it comes to cell phone use and cancer, there is still no certainty about which side of the debate the evidence may ultimately land heaviest on -- and until there's a definitive answer, it may be prudent for people to remember that too much of anything usually isn't a good thing.
Doctors are sending texts to parents, notifying them of the dangers of the flu and where to get vaccinations, highlighting how mobile technology is keeping people healthy.
Certain prescription drugs may soon be available to consumers through digital kiosks, rather than a doctor's diagnosis, underscoring the methods technology is transforming healthcare.
The Food and Drug Administration is mulling digitally-driven patient kiosks where people can self-diagnose for specific conditions through an algorithm-based survey. The process would drop the prescription requirement for certain treatments and common ailments.
Self-diagnosis would let users get medical care in a more convenient way. The kiosk concept under FDA consideration indicates the regulatory agency is taking a serious step towards using digital technology to deliver healthcare, moving away from relying on third-party app developers.
With kiosks, the FDA is considering eliminating the need for prescriptions for conditions like asthma, diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and migraines, and the kiosks could also be used for refills after an initial diagnosis. Part of the FDA's process includes holding two public hearings in Washington, D.C., to get feedback from the medical community and public at large.
"FDA is aware that industry is developing new technologies that consumers could use to self-screen for a particular disease or condition and determine whether a particular medication is appropriate for them," says the public hearing notice in the Federal Register. "For example, kiosks or other technological aids in pharmacies or on the Internet could lead consumers through an algorithm for a particular drug product."
Should a digital diagnosis kiosk find its way into neighborhood drug stores, primary care physicians will have more time to focus on patients with severe conditions and lessen their patient load, one way that digital kiosks could relieve an overburdened system.
But patients who are diagnosing themselves could easily misinterpret symptoms and receive an improper medication, or end up taking a medication that conflicts with another. Without a physician to spell out the details, they could misinterpret what they're taking.
But if the algorithm for self-diagnosis is clear, and pharmacists are on-hand to help walk patients through the process as the FDA suggests in its preliminary planning, the system is expected to streamline the current process and help patients avoid wait times.
The idea of computer technology aiding the medical profession is slowly developing, with smartphone and tablet apps to help doctors and patients alike. Some diagnostic tools rely on a mobile touch screen through finger strokes, or even saliva.
Other apps and devices work to pinpoint other conditions, from one that helps doctors diagnose stroke symptoms, to a futuristic proposed "smart pill", which would embed a chip in medication for instant diagnostic results sent to a smart phone.
As the FDA hashes out its plans to eliminate the need for prescriptions, relying on modern technology is one way to streamline a process to help save medical professionals valuable resources in an overburdened system. But to make sure patient care remains a top priority, the FDA and industry professionals are sure to carefully determine how to make the process work without compromising a potentially life-changing diagnosis.
A study linking cell phone use with children's behavioral problems suggests mobile technology could harm developing fetuses and revisits the debate over cell phone safety.
Yale University researchers found cell phone radiation changed the behavior of mice who came into prolonged contact with the radiation in the womb. The researchers exposed pregnant mice to continual radiation, holding an active cell phone up to the cage for the length of the pregnancy.
The offspring of these mice were more likely to have ADHD and other behavioral problems than those unexposed, the study showed, indicating radiation has a negative impact on the neural circuitry of developing fetuses. The study only used mice, but the researchers suggest the results also apply to humans and are similar to the detrimental affects of "alcohol, tobacco, drugs and stress."
The study explicitly links behavioral problems in mice with the radiation exposure, but this does not necessarily translate to danger for humans, and scientists continue to grapple with cell phone safety.
Dozens of studies looking at what the radiation does to humans have come up with conflicting results. Researchers have linked excessive cell phone use to increased risks for cancer, bone density problems and male infertility but other studies found no connection.
One research group studying radiation's effect on brain function found cell phone use may actually stave off Alzheimer's disease, further muddying the waters.
The Yale study is the first officially linking cell phone use with developmental disorders in offspring, prompting concerns that parents run the risk of harming children without knowing the true potential risks of their mobile devices, but the study's results are far from decisive and could needlessly raise alarm.
Professor Katya Rubia, a neuroscientist at the Institute of Psychiatry, dismissed the study, saying, "The extrapolation of the behavioral and brain effects of prenatal mobile phone exposure in mice to human ADHD and its increase in our society is alarmist and unjustified. Some enhancement in motor activity in mice is not translatable to the complex human ADHD behavior characterized by impulsiveness, inattention and motor activity."
This latest study will bolster legislators attempting to put warning labels on cell phones, although the issue remains contentious and lawmakers are likely to continue struggling against mobile technology companies amid conflicting study results. California legislators are trying to pass a law to address radiation concerns, but meet with resistance and lawsuits from cellular technology groups.
Pregnant women may want to avoid prolonged exposure to smartphones, but the human equivalent of what happened to the mice would consist of taking a cell call for nine consecutive months while holding the phone directly against the womb. Since expectant mothers are highly unlikely to behave this way, the risks may not be as severe as calculated in this most recent experiment, though the results do raise questions and underline the possible hazards of excessive cell phone use.
Johns Hopkins is researching the benefits of health-related apps, a move that may solidify and organize the vast medical potential of the mobile industry.
The Baltimore-based university is embarking on the Global mHealth Initiative, with 49 different studies to analyze and evaluate present mobile offerings.
The emerging mobile health field is likely to face increased regulation as health-related apps become more popular, and Hopkins' findings could revolutionize use and integration with modern health care. This kind of research coming from an institution of Hopkins' caliber and experience can help target and solidify best practices for mobile apps in a way that truly aids doctors and patients, rather than trial-and-error attempts as developers test new features.
Combing through the catalog of medical apps is a tall order, with more than 40,000 mobile health apps contributing to the $718 million global industry, according to market research firm Research2Guidance. The Global mHealth Initiative will look at what apps can help patients, doctors and the medical community by comparing how the apps hold up against traditional methods.
Already the Internet changed the way people access health care information, with an estimated eight in 10 users looking up medical information online, according to findings from Pew Research Center's Internet and American Life Project.
But smartphone adoption is slower, with around 10 percent of users downloading the apps. As Hopkins evaluates health apps for legitimacy and purpose, it could encourage more widespread use by making doctors more aware of useful findings.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration took note of the developing trend, and it's mulling over potential regulation. As medical apps lean towards clinical uses, including checking vital stats like blood oxygen levels, heart rate and glucose, they transform into a medical device rather than an app designed to deliver useful information, putting them under the purview of the regulatory agency.
Medical apps are also known to help doctors in developing countries, like checking for malaria symptoms on site and tracking spread of infections like cholera. Some regard the developments as life-saving for doctors in areas with limited resources, but concerns exist about unregulated and uncoordinated use, slowing the potential in its tracks. Here, Hopkins' research offers an opporunity to streamline functionality.
Apps can also help the medical field from a logistical standpoint. In most cases, doctors with iPads can work more efficiently and spend more time with patients, instead of having to leave the bedside to order tests, check records, or grab a device. Similarly, they can stay up-to-date on patient information with mobile alerts, taking advantage of the amount of smartphones and tablets in the hands of doctors.
Given the thousands of apps meant to help people live healthy and monitor their well-being, the medical community has a sizable opportunity to use these programs for their best interests. By taking the lead, Hopkins will help boost the industry, and it could blossom into a niche that can move beyond convenience to do a world of good.
Tags:
