DailyTech – EDITORIAL: CNN’s Colorful Account of Tokyo Radiation “Danger” is Inaccurate

Peer reviewed research indicates there’s no significant health risk of current radiation levels

19070_Dr_Gupta_Tokyo

Yesterday we posted an editorial on anMSNBC article describing the quake “risk” facing U.S. nuclear plants.  In our piece we discuss factual accuracy issues in that article and its overall sensational tone in failing to immediately address the supporting study’s key conclusion — that we’re at extremely little risk.

I.  CNN Claims Tokyo Residents May be in Danger

This morning CNN.com aired a similar story entitled “Gupta: ‘My radiation levels quadrupled’“.  The video featured none other that CNN.com’s respected chief medical correspondent, Sanjay Gupta Ph.D.

In it he discusses how he’s been tracking his radiation level during his time in Tokyo, Japan with a pocket dosimeter, following the minor leakage of radiation from a damaged Tokyo power plant in the Fukushima district.

In the video he begins by conservatively stating, “Interestingly, my levels quadrupled over the last 36 hours that I’ve been wearing this. Which in and of itself may sound concerning, but to put it in a little bit of context, it’s actually not that much higher than the levels you would get with background radiation.  It is higher for sure, and that makes sense given that if you’re measuring the air outside here in Tokyo official reports say its twenty times higher in terms of radiation levels that in normally is.”

CNN.com’s John King continues to try to prod Dr. Gupta to try to speculate that residents are at risk.  He states, “Your caution and perspective is very valuable.  Let me ask this way — if you’ve quadrupled in the last 36 hours, if it takes a couple of weeks, a couple of months to get this containment effort under control at this complex and there’s a release of consistent levels of what we’ve seen over the past couple days, what happens then.  You mentioned you are exposed to radiation you would get in a year in a matter… what happens if, people are exposed for… 7 more months.  Does it then become a risk?”

Now this was a curious assertion.  No one knows how long it will take to control the release, but seven months certainly seems like it would require a negligently slow effort.  And is it correct to be speculating on perspective scenarios when you could be covering the actual story that’s occurring?

Dr. Gupta’s responds there could be some risk under the scenario while going on to qualify the differences between long-term exposure and short-term exposure.  He also mentions possible routes of contamination such via food and drinking water.  And before he can put any more context or disclaimers on those numbers, Mr. King cuts him off.

II. The Real Risk?  Likely None, Says Peer-Reviewed Research

So what is the real risk?  Nowhere in the interview did they actually give a precise figure.  And that’s because the medical community isn’t sure if there is one, if they’re following peer-reviewed research.

Consider if John King’s wild scenario did play out, the Tokyo population could be exposed to approximately 8.6 mSv per year.  To put this in context, people in Yangjiang, China receive 3.51 mSv per year naturally; in Guarpan, Brazil, 5.5 mSv naturally; in Kerala, India 3.8 mSv naturally; and in Ramsar, Iran 10.2 mSv naturally [source].

A study [abstract] [full text] in the peer-reviewed journal Health Physics examined the population of Ramsar, Iran.

It concluded, “Specifically, inhabitants of high background radiation areas had about 56% theaverage number of induced chromosomal abnormalities of normal background radiation area inhabitants following this exposure. This suggests that adaptive response might be induced by chronic exposure to natural background radiation as opposed to acute exposure to higher (tens of mGy) levels of radiation in the laboratory. There were no differences in laboratory tests of the immune systems, and no noted differences in hematological alterations between these two groups of people.”

In other words, people exposed, in the real world to radiation levels higher than John King’s worse case scenario were no unhealthier than people in the U.S. or elsewhere.

To be fair, John King essentially goaded Dr. Gupta into stating a risk, postulating increasingly extreme scenarios.  And Dr. Gupta likely tried to postulate a response based on certain animal tests that suggested that low-level radiation exposure could have some adverse effect.  But there’s been no comprehensive study in the real world that’s showed similar effects in humans.

By contrast to CNN.com’s sensationalism, ABC’s Hawaii affiliate had a refreshing, scientifically sound piece entitled “Everyone Receives Background Radiation.”  In that piece they write:

“Somewhere around 5,000 millirems per year for several years would be dangerous,” said [Toufiq Siddiqi, with Global Environment & Energy in the 21sr Century].
Leaked radiation at the Japanese nuclear power plants has been reported below that level, so far.

So not all news articles are sensationalizing the story, apparently — just a number of them.

CNN.com should beware using factually inaccurate fear mongering to support page views.  Making scientific claims in the media that are contradicted by peer-reviewed research is questionable.  About the only good thing is that the site later changed the title of the link on its homepage to the slightly less sensational “Gupta: Explaining radiation levels” — but his conclusions are still flawed, according to peer-reviewed research.

The media is certainly profiting off of drumming up public fervor with wild nuclear scare stories.  Unfortunately, many of these stories appear to be utterly factually inaccurate.
Source: DailyTech.

DailyTech – RSA — the Firm Founded by Encryption Standard’s Creators — Gets Hacked

Apparently even the security experts can’t stay secure

It is always embarrassing when a security firm gets hacked.  But it’s extraordinary and perhaps unprecedented when a senior firm behind one of the industry’s top security standards gets hacked.

That’s precisely what happened with RSA Security who self-reported [press release] an intrusion and possible lost of data this week.

RSA Security was founded in 1982 by Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir, and Leonard Adleman, three top cryptographers that developed a new public-key cryptography algorithm.  The algorithm, RSA, was named in honor of their last initials, and the company took on that name as well.

It operated independently supporting the standard and providing security services up until 2006.  Along the way it acquired several smaller security startups.  Then in 2006 it was acquired by the EMC Corporation in a deal worth $2.1B USD.

Apparently having three top industry pioneers isn’t an invulnerability charm, though.  RSA Security writes:

Recently, our security systems identified an extremely sophisticated cyber attack in progress being mounted against RSA. We took a variety of aggressive measures against the threat to protect our business and our customers, including further hardening of our IT infrastructure. We also immediately began an extensive investigation of the attack and are working closely with the appropriate authorities.

Our investigation has led us to believe that the attack is in the category of an Advanced Persistent Threat (APT). Our investigation also revealed that the attack resulted in certain information being extracted from RSA’s systems. Some of that information is specifically related to RSA’s SecurID two-factor authentication products. While at this time we are confident that the information extracted does not enable a successful direct attack on any of our RSA SecurID customers, this information could potentially be used to reduce the effectiveness of a current two-factor authentication implementation as part of a broader attack. We are very actively communicating this situation to RSA customers and providing immediate steps for them to take to strengthen their SecurID implementations. 

Despite the fact that it believes information was stolen RSA assures its customers that their personal info and the security of the company’s software products was not comprised.  Yet, they go on to advise clients to follow online advice to safeguard themselves against possible fallout from the data loss.

The company says it will assist its customers if they experience financial ramifications from the breach.  It also promises to “strengthen” it and its clients’ security in the wake of the incident.
Source: DailyTech.

DailyTech – Microsoft Releases Internet Explorer 9, Makes a Strong Case for Business Users

However, IE9 isn’t quite up to par with other consumer internet browsers on the market

banner_ie9

Microsoft’s Internet Explorer 9, Microsoft Corp.’s latest and greatest browser released today in finalized form.  So why should we care?

Well two stories dominated when it comes to IE9.  The first the media will be sure to talk about; the other you’ll probably hear little talk of.

I. IE9 as a Consumer Browser — Not Worth It

First the more obvious story — Microsoft is improving, but arguably not fast enough.  IE9 looks and feels like a modern browser.

It also looks and feels noticeably slower than ChromeOpera, or even Firefox.  While the gap is not as wide as in past versions (e.g. IE8, or esp. IE 7) it is visibly apparent.  Open a page on DailyTech in Chrome, and you see text literally seconds a second or two later.  Open the same page in IE 9 and you get a distinct pause as several seconds pass, before article text loads.

This qualitative example is indicative of our test drives of IE9 as a whole.  While the speed isn’t horrible, if you’ve been using a modern browser like Chrome or Opera, you’ll definitely get frustrated at the ever-present delay.

Standards support is a remarkably similar story. Microsoft has gained ground by implementing parts of the HTML5 and CSS3 standards, but the percentage of support for these standards is far lower than rival browsers.

We’re still in the process of testing the beast, but it looks to support only about a quarter of the HTML5 standard, according to the test The HTML5 Test.  Microsoft would argue that’s because the standard isn’t fully defined.  But that seems a weak excuse — that hasn’t stopped Opera, Google, and Mozilla from not only taking an active part in the standard, but also support it more fully.

Microsoft finds itself in a familiar role of publicly arguing why it shouldn’t have to fully standards — but in an interesting twist it’s now committing itself to a bipolar effort of quietly trying to catch up in these same standards, as well.  The results, as one might imagine, are mixed.

Aside from speed and standards, Microsoft’s browser has a clean look to it.  Its sharp defined lines bring to mind Microsoft’s Metro GUI style, which the company used extensively on the defunct Zune and the active Windows Phone 7.

The browser lacks, though, cutting edge features being implemented elsewhere like tab stacking/grouping.  And while ostensibly it offers “add-ons”/”extensions”, its catalog is anemic to say the least.  Firefox, Opera, and Chrome users will wince at the lack of ad/JavaScript blocking.

Yet another place where Microsoft falls behind is in the installation process.  IE 9 requires a number of Windows Updates in order be able to install.  For us, one of these updates had been failing several times in Windows Update, so this was a rather painful process.  If Google, Mozilla, and Opera can make stand-alone installers, it’s inexcusable that Microsoft, the world’s largest software company, can’t.

II. IE9 as a Work Browser — Not so Shabby

So, the other story here is how IE 9 fares in the business setting.  While it languished in the world of home users, Microsoft remains strong in the workplace.

Overall Firefox and Chrome can be managed, but require a lot more IT effort than IE 9.  Internet Explorer remains the king of business browsers in terms of manageability, security, and reliability.  When you factor in that many business have built their portals’ web code to run optimally in Internet Explorer, IE 9 gains yet more of an advantage — though perhaps a bit unfair one.

At the end of the day, IE 9’s improvements will really start to shine for business users.  While IE 9 may seem dated and tardy as a consumer browser, in an IT setting we’re used to getting less.  If you were stuck with IE 8 before, IT department willing, you’ll get a huge boost with IE 9.

Most in the media, in their rush to note IE 9’s insufficiencies from a home user perspective, won’t stop to recognize that it is an excellent browser from a business perspective.  We feel this is an equally compelling story and definitely worth noting.

III. Conclusions

Microsoft has two key strengths when it comes to browsers — its strong business reputation and the fact that, for better or worse, in the U.S. it can still bundle its browser as the exclusive pre-installed browser in Windows.

The company currently owns between 55 and 65 percent of the browser market, depending on whose numbers you trust.  This dominant positions in underpinned by those aforementioned strengths.

Are people really to lazy to go out and download a third party browser?  In many cases the answer is “yes” (though obviously not for most of our readers).  Thus IE 9 will eventually roll out to these users through the Windows Update process and Microsoft will hang on to its lead.

On the other hand, Microsoft likely recognizes the writing on the wall.  Home users are becoming increasingly educated with each passing decade, and it can’t hope to keep relying on its pre-packaged approach to be able to push a sub-par product indefinitely.

In that regard IE 9 is perhaps a sign that Microsoft is getting serious about performance and standards.  And while it’s still far behind in these categories, its large market share arguably buys it the time it needs to catch up.
Source: DailyTech.