Poem: A Birthday Wish

You were the most beautiful vision I’d ever seen.
Brilliant and clever, you were everyone’s dream.
You built yourself up, with millions in tow.
An inspiring example for everyone to follow.

You were a teacher, a leader, and a guide.
You paved the way and asked others to ride.
You called for a future that no one could see
You were so inspiring and everyone believed.

But lately, it seems, you’ve been out of touch.
You stopped creating, you’re not doing much.
For some time now you’ve lived on your legacy
Pardon my bluntness, but you’ve gotten lazy

You’ve gotten fat, you’re not doing enough
You just sit around and argue with yourself.
You change your direction all of the time
It seems you just can’t make up your mind.

Maybe you’ve forgotten where you were going?
You look like you’re lost, and ill winds are blowing.
Did you lose sight of the dream you helped create?
I think you’ve forgotten just what made you great.

You no longer lead, you just stand here waiting
You no longer inspire, and the dream is fading
Maybe, perhaps, your time has come and gone.
But remember that dream? It’s not yours alone.

It’s not too late, you can still change your ways.
But if you want to succeed, start changing today.
Get started right now, you can still lead the race
But you have to step up and start setting the pace.

Return to your values. Let your light shine again.
For the dream still lives on in the hearts of some men.
America, I miss you. So, for your birthday and mine,
Please reclaim your lead, before you run out of time.

Declare your independence. Don’t give up the fight.
Uphold the Constitution, and stand up for your rights.
Be the land of the free, and the home of the brave.
We The People run the show, make our rulers obey.

-- Geoff Strickler
-- July 1, 2011

How and Why I went (almost) Flash free on my Mac

Update 2015-02-05: Since Safari 5.x hasn't been supported in years, I switched to using Chrome and Firefox as my primary browsers several years ago. However, aside from that detail, the rest of this still applies.

I don't like Adobe Flash. I don't have anything against the concept, and it does offer some neat, and occasionally useful capabilities that are difficult to implement using other technologies. However, I got really tired of the need for constant security patches for Flash, the Flash based ads, the performance slowdowns, and the reduced battery life due to all the Flash based content on websites and in ads.

So for the past 6 months, I've gone Flash free on my Mac. To be clear, I'm not really Flash free, I do have Google Chrome with it's built-in (and automatically updated) Flash, but as you'll see below, that's my backup option for those occasions where I really want/need to access some content that requires Flash.

I mostly use Safari 5.x and find it very quick, that's the main reason I switched from Firefox a couple years ago. I deliberately don't have Flash loaded on my machine, and that helps with performance and battery life. When I encounter a site that requires Flash, I either use Chrome (with it's built-in Flash) or I don't use that site. This is simple when you enable the "Develop" menu in Safari, one of the options on that menu is to open a page in any of the other browsers installed in your machine. Not everyone will like that setup, but I've been using it for about 6 months and I like it. Here are instructions for setting it up.

http://daringfireball.net/2010/11/flash_free_and_cheating_with_google_chrome

I use two other Safari extensions. YouTube5, which tells YouTube to send HTML5/H.264 video rather than Flash video, and ClickToPlugin, which makes all other plugins require you to click on the content before it loads. That keeps plugins from slowing down my machine and using extra bandwidth. Here are links to those two.

http://www.verticalforest.com/2010/10/27/youtube5-version-2/
http://hoyois.github.com/safariextensions/clicktoplugin/

Also, since websites logs will show that I don't have Flash installed, it may eventually make them rethink their use of Flash, especially if a lot of people start doing this.

What I end up with is clean, fast browsing, no Flash ads, no extra junk slowing down my machine or using up battery. The trade-off is the minor inconvenience of having to occasionally click on some content to display it or open a page in Chrome. It's a trade-off I'm willing to make. Try it out for a couple weeks, you might find you like it.

Updates:
2011-07-11 - Flash Player "zero day" vulnerabilities exploited in the last 30 days = 3, this year, 6-10. Flash Player is insecure, inefficient, and a high profile target for people trying to compromise your computer.

2011-12-14 - Adobe Flash Player vulnerabilities by year.

2011-12-30 - Mac users, use Flush to remove existing "persistent Flash cookies". Alternatively, you can manually delete all your Flash preferences by deleting this folder:
~/Library/Preferences/Macromedia/Flash Player

2012-01-05 - Safari 5.1.x has significantly more issues than 5.0.x, so after a couple weeks of using 5.1.2, I reverted to 5.0.5.

2012-01-29 - My Windows machines have been using a similar setup for some time. However, Safari for Windows is distinctly inferior to Chrome and Firefox for Windows, so I have standardized on using Chrome for my primary browser for Windows. The Adobe Flash built-in to Chrome 16 on my Windows XP machine was crashing multiple times per week, so I disabled the Flash plug-in and am operating completely without Flash on this machine for now. Since I will need Flash for a few sites, I will probably download Portable Chrome and leave Flash enabled there. That's not as convenient because Chrome doesn't have a handy menu option allowing you to open the page in another browser, but copy & paste of the URL works well.

Poem: The Mavericks

The Mavericks
With apologies to Edgar Allen Poe

Once upon a midnight weary, the Mavs did beat the Lakers clearly
Over many a foul and furious shots within the Center's core.
While I shouted, nearly rasping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one loudly gasping, tapping on the wooden floor.
"Tis the Lakers," I uttered, "gasping up and down the floor -
Only them, and nothing more."

Ah, clearly I can say, twas in the joyous month of May
That each three pointer the Mavs did make, left no mark upon the wooden floor.
Eagerly I await tomorrow; - tickets I had sought to borrow
To relieve the past of sorrow - sorrow for the losses that came before
For the rare and jubilant reason to avenge the losses that came before
Forgotten now for evermore.

And the sad but certain unravelling of each yellow and purple jersey
Thrilled me – filled me with fantastic feelings never felt before
So that now, to the beating of my heart, I stood repeating
“Tis some visitors, getting swept upon our Center floor –
Some Laker visitors, getting clearly swept upon our home floor.
This it is, and nothing more.”

Presently my team grew stronger, hesitating then no longer,
“Sir,” said I, “or Madam, truly your indulgence I implore;
But the fact is I was clapping, as so weakly you came rapping,
And so faintly you came tapping, tapping upon our wooden floor,
That scarce was sure I heard you” – here we opened wide the score.
Lakers there, and then no more.

Deep into that score peering, long I stood there clapping, cheering,
Seeing, dreaming dreams no fan had ever dared to dream before.
But the shouting was unbroken, and the Lakers were but tokens,
And the only word there spoken was a shouted, “Gone in four!”
This I shouted, and the walls echoed back “Gone in four!”
Merely this, and nothing more.

[there may be more to come]

-- Geoff Strickler
-- May 4-8, 2011

Song: Flying with the TSA

Flying with the TSA
[to the tune of “Charlie on the MTA”]

[Spoken: This part isn’t on some of the recordings]

These are the times that try men's souls. In the course of our nation's history, the people of this nation have rallied bravely whenever the rights of men have been threatened. Today, a new crisis has arisen. The Transportation Security Agency, better known as the TSA, is executing illegal assaults on the population in the form of unconstitutional searches. Citizens, hear me out! This could happen to you!

[Sung:]
Well, let me tell you of the story of a man named Charlie,
On a tragic and fateful day.
He put his phone in his pocket, kissed his wife and family,
Went to fly in the USA

(Well, did he ever return? No, he never returned.)
(And his fate is still unlearned.)
(He may remain forever at the TSA checkpoint.)
(He's the man who never returned.)

Charlie showed them his ticket at the TSA checkpoint,
Just hoping to catch his Plane.
When he got there the agent told him, "One more pat down."
Charlie could't get onto that plane.

(But, did he ever return? No, he never returned.)
(And his fate is still unlearned.)
(He may remain forever in the airport terminal.)
(He's the man who never returned.)

Now, all night long Charlie stands spread eagle,
Wonderin’, "Where will they touch me next?
I can’t let this happen to my sister in Dallas,
It’s all based on a false pretext”

(But, did he ever return? No, he never returned.)
(And his fate is still unlearned.)
(He may remain forever in the airport terminal.)
(He's the man who never returned.)

Charlie's wife goes down to the TSA checkpoint,
Every day at quarter past two.
And she keeps filming those pat downs as Charlie stands helpless,
As the TSA searches continue.

(Well, did he ever return? No, he never returned.)
(And his fate is still unlearned.)
(He may remain forever at the TSA checkpoint.)
(He's the man who never returned.)

Now citizens of the nation, don't you think it's a scandal,
How people are assaulted every day?
Fight for sane and sensible airport security!
Let’s get rid of the TSA!

(Or else we'll never return. No, we'll never return.)
(And our fate will be unlearn'd.)
(We may remain forever at the TSA checkpoint.)
(We'll be the ones who never returned.)
(We'll be the ones who never returned.)
(We'll be the ones who never returned.)

-- Geoff Strickler
-- May 8, 2011

Poem: Divisionist History

Divisionist History

We fight for many reasons,
We fight for what we believe.
We’re right, they’re wrong,
And they’re trying to deceive.

We start a fight, or defend ourselves,
In battles won or lost.
War rages on forever,
And no one knows the cost.

We teach “divide and conquer”,
Study tactics and strategy.
And each day we keep on killing,
Because they’re not like me.

We keep building better weapons,
To kill Them more efficiently.
Why should we even care a bit,
They are the enemy.

Millions die and billions suffer.
The atrocities abound.
A dozen here, thousands there,
We’re indifferent to the sound.

To some “it” never happened.
Others argue that “it” did.
Some say “it” might have happened,
But not the way “They” said.

Each side tells their story,
Convinced that what they say is true.
But the victors always get to say,
And write history anew.

We’ll never truly know the reasons,
Only what the victors say,
Cause They’re the ones who write the books.
It doesn’t matter anyway.

One day I hope we’ll stop the madness,
It’s causing quite a fright.
But that doesn’t really seem to matter,
When we go to bed at night.

We’re no specific country,
Nation, state, or faith.
Nor race, nor creed, nor color,
We are the human race.

We can’t ever know the reasons.
We can’t begin to count the cost.
We can’t even know the truth.
We can only mourn the loss.

But any way you view it,
I hope we all can see.
Our righteousness perpetuates
Our divisionist history.

-- Geoff Strickler
-- March 31, 2007

Why the EPA Limits for Drinking Water Are Irrelevant to Radiation From Japan

Originally published as a note on my Facebook page Apr 25, 2011

The most recent results for iodine-131 levels in milk in Arizona have been widely misrepresented in media coverage as 1600x the EPA limit for drinking water. In fact, it's 16x (1600%), however, even that is meaningless. In fact, the EPA doesn't have a level for milk, and comparing it to the drinking water level is flawed as a level for milk and drinking water would not the same due to the differences in daily consumption. So any comparison to EPA levels is complete nonsense. The EPA levels serve a different purpose than the FDA levels, see info on EPA levels below. BTW, AZ publishes the readings from testing water and milk at http://www.azein.gov/azein/2011/Data%20landing%20page.pdf

The FDA sets limits for food and drink (including milk and drinking water), and the highest level reported is ~ 1/1000 of the FDA DIL (Derived Intervention Level). Now the FDA DIL is probably too lax for drinking water because of the amount of water consumed daily. For food and milk, the FDA limits are better, but are arguably still too lax (at least for extended exposure). However, they're far more appropriate to a transient exposure, and they're specific to ingested food and drink, so they're far more applicable than the EPA levels in this situation.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/iodine/standards_regulations.html

More info on EPA limits:
EPA limits are based on consuming the MCL every day for 70 years, which is to say they are for a maximum "every day" level, not a maximum "safe" level. The EPA levels don't differentiate between getting the MCL every day for a lifetime and getting a somewhat larger dose for a few days. As a maintenance level, it make some sense, but they don't address transient levels. They are flawed in other ways as well, for instance, they allow 5x higher dose from alpha emitters which are far more damaging when inhaled/ingested than they do for beta and gamma emitters. They allow 5x as much exposure to a type of radiation that is ~ 20x more damaging, how does that make sense?

The EPA limits are occupational exposure limits (Quoted from 40 CFR 141.66(d)(2)):
"Maximum Permissible Body Burdens and Maximum Permissible Concentrations of Radionuclides in Air and in Water for Occupational Exposure," NBS (National Bureau of Standards) Handbook 69 as amended August 1963, U.S. Department of Commerce.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/julqtr/pdf/40cfr141.66.pdf

Another article on why the FDA and EPA limits are so different.
http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffmcmahon/2011/04/14/why-does-fda-tolerate-more-radiation-than-epa/

A group of scientists working to update what is classified safe exposure levels, based upon the scientific evidence.
Time for the scientific, environmental and economic truth about nuclear power

Notes About Radiation Exposure

Originally published as a note on my Facebook page Mar 29, 2010

Is any level of radiation exposure "safe"? Is all radiation exposure "harmful". Below I apply a bit of logic and sanity to examining the effects of radiation exposure:

There is no difference between "naturally occurring" and "man-made" radiation exposure at the same level. However, there is a difference between external (radiation source outside your body) and internal (radiation source inside your body) radiation. Internal or external radiation can come from natural or man-made sources. Again, there is no difference between the two, when the dosage and internal/external are the same. In general, inhaled radioactive particles are most dangerous, since they're more likely to get into the blood stream where they can affect any part of the body. Ingested radioactivity is usually not absorbed as effectively and it's less likely to reach as much of the body. Both should be taken seriously. See the "Treatment" section below if you suspect you have received significant exposure,

Radiation comes in basically four varieties:

Alpha - can be very damaging if it reaches living tissue, however, it's easily stopped. A piece of paper or your skin will block almost all alpha particles. It's only a significant health risk if inhaled or ingested in notable quantities.

Beta - can be moderately damaging, but is also relatively easy to stop. It will penetrate slightly below the skin, so external beta sources are similar to a sunburn (for high levels) and the most likely health effects are similar to sun exposure, including possible skin cancer if the exposure is high enough for a long term.

Gamma - X-rays and "cosmic rays" are types of gamma radiation (technically, x-rays and gamma rays are different, but the difference is not important here). Because it's very common and more difficult to block, this is the type of radiation that we hear most about. There is little difference between internal and external exposure to gamma radiation because your skin and clothing provide almost no protection from it. It's a mixed blessing, as most will pass through the body without any effect, but some percentage will interact with atoms in your body. The percentage that interacts with your body can do significant damage in high enough doses.

Neutron - rarely encountered in notable levels outside of a nuclear reactor (or nuclear weapon), but it does exist in low levels in nature. This can cause atoms to split, or absorb a neutron, which may then give off a minute amount of one of the above 3 types of radiation. Most will pass through your body without interaction. Most of the atoms in your body are not prone to splitting, so low doses will have minimal impact on living tissues.

With any of those 4 types, low dose has no measurable effect on your body because most damage will either cause cell to die and be replaced, or your body is able to repair the damage quickly. However, a sufficiently high dose of any type, or an "unlucky hit" from a lower level, can cause more damage than the body can repair, or a type of damage that the body can't repair, thus causing short term or long term damage.

Given the above, it is incorrect to say that all radiation is harmful, as the vast majority of it will either have no effect at all or will do less damage than the body can repair. It's equally incorrect to say that any level is harmless, as an "unlucky hit" from a very small dose can cause a long term problem, it's just statistically extremely improbable.

Below the maximum "safe" levels, you have much better odds of winning a huge lottery jackpot than of having measurable long term effects. Between the maximum "safe" levels, and approximately 500 mSv in less than 48 hours, your chances of both short term and long term effects increase significantly with increasing dosage. Above 500mSv in 48 hrs, your chances of short term and/or long term effects become probable (e.g. at those doses, you're likely to have effects).

Because your body is constantly repairing and replacing cells, the same total dosage received as a lower dosage over a longer time (e.g. 5 mSv/day for 100 days rather than 500 mSv in one day) is dramatically less likely to cause any measurable short term or long term effects.

Clearly, minimizing your exposure minimizes your risk. But also realize there are levels below which the risk is not even measurable. Worrying about exposure below (or even slightly above) the maximum "safe" levels is about as useful as worrying about getting hit by an asteroid or whether the sun will rise in the morning. Likewise, for worrying about brief exposure to higher levels such as receiving a CT scan or PET scan.

A simple analogy:
To put radiation exposure in terms just about everyone can understand, it's a lot like alcohol.

Too much in a short time will make you ill, or possibly kill you. That same amount spread out over days, weeks, or months won't even make you ill. However, too high a level long term can cause problems (e.g. cirrhosis, pancreatitis, cancer, infertility, etc.). Low doses for a long time are not known to cause problems (and at least with alcohol, appear to be beneficial).

In either case, if the dose is below what your body can process and repair any minor damage caused, there are few or no long term effects. If you exceed that level by too much, or for too long, the risks increase with both dosage and duration.

Treatment:
The first thing to know about getting treatment for any suspected radiation exposure is to seek medical treatment and decontamination immediately. If you have reason to believe you've been exposed to more than the maximum "safe" level, do not hesitate, seek immediate testing, decontamination, and treatment. This is particularly important if you may have inhaled or ingested a radioactive substance. Most common radioisotope inhalation or ingestion can be treated, but urgent treatment is critical to effective treatment.

For the two most common isotopes that released in nuclear power plant accidents, treatments are commonly available. For iodine-131 (aka 131I or I-131), treatment is usually done by taking potassium iodide (KI) tablets. This saturates the thyroid with non-radioactive iodine, minimizing the amount of I-131 that will be absorbed. For cesium-137 (aka 137Cs or Cs-137), treatment is usually done with medical grade "prussian blue". Prussian blue binds to many heavy metals, including Cs-137, and carries it out of the body. In both cases, the key is to get treatment BEFORE any significant amount has been absorbed by the body.

Most other radioisotopes can be treated, if treatment begins quickly enough.

Prevention:
Activated charcoal filters are effective at reducing the amount of iodine in air/water, so if your water supply has elevated levels of I-131, a good charcoal filter will help. Air purifiers that use activated charcoal will help remove I-131 from the air.

Charcoal filters will also remove some heavy metals, so they may reduce the level of Cs-137, but unless they've been specifically designed to remove Cs, they are not as effective at removing Cs as they are at removing iodine.

Useful links:
http://www.xkcd.com/radiation/
http://www.webpal.org/SAFE/aaareconstruction/immediate/medical/nuclear/ir%20critique.htm
Fukushima FAQ from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

This one is easy to comprehend, but some the the technical details are wrong so don't rely on the details. The overview and debunking of false claims are solid. True facts about Ocean Radiation and the Fukushima Disaster

Natural sources of radiation (background radiation and foods):
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm

Another viewpoint (his facts are valid, his proposals may be a little excessive)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842

MIT Nuclear Science Engineering, useful info on terminology and technical info.
http://mitnse.com/technical/

Information on acute radiation syndrome (radiation poisoning):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_radiation_syndrome

NYTimes article on effects of low level radiation exposure.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/health/05radiation.html?_r=1

IAEA international reference standards for radioisotope intake limits.
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1467_web.pdf

FDA's 6 age ranges and DC (Dose Coefficient) if various isotopes.
http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FoodContaminantsAdulteration/ChemicalContaminants/Radionuclides/UCM078341

LLNL Evaluation of Radiation Doses Due to Consumption of Contaminated Food Items and Calculation of Food Class-Specific Derived Intervention Levels
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/393663.pdf

ICRP Publications (most are not free)
http://www.icrp.org/publications.asp

Updated: 2011-03-29 @ 20:30 MDT - added notes about inhalation, ingestion, treatment, and prevention.
Updated: 2011-04-01 @ 09:30 MDT - added link on radiation poisoning.
Updated: 2011-04-01 @ 11:00 MDT - added simple analogy.