With the rise of Ebola and other infectious diseases worldwide, should airports adopt more technology like infrared thermal scanners? Also, a study shows using hands-free technology while driving is just as dangerous. Then, a federal judge has ordered the release of 28 videos showing force-feeding in Guantanamo Bay.
How equipped are US airports in detecting Ebola and other infectious diseases?
President Barack Obama on Monday said that the US is looking to implement additional screening measures for Ebola, two weeks after a Liberian man infected with the disease landed in Dallas. The President has not specified exactly what those measures would be, but the administration has ruled out a travel ban on people flying in from Ebola-stricken countries in West Africa.
In addition to President Obama’s announcement, the trade group Airlines for America yesterday held talks with federal officials yesterday to discuss whether current screening methods are sufficient.
After the SARS outbreak in 2003, the Hong Kong International Airport installed infrared thermal scanners to detect passengers with fevers—a telltale symptom of most infectious diseases. With the rise of infectious diseases around the world, should airports look to adopt that technology? Would infrared thermal scanners help mitigate the spread of Ebola? What are the costs?
Guests:
Dr. Amesh Adalja, MD; Senior Associate at the Center for Health Security at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, which works to protect people's health from the consequences of epidemics and disasters. He is also Assistant Clinical Professor in the Department of Critical Care Medicine at UPMC.
Dr. Melinda Moore, MD, MPH; senior natural scientist and health researcher at the RAND Corporation. Moore previously served with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for 20 years and the Department of Health and Human Services' Office Global Health Affairs for five years.
Hands free isn’t care-free — new driving study confirms what you might have suspected
A new study from the AAA and the University of Utah has found that using hands-off technology for making phone calls while driving can be at least as dangerous as using your phone. The study tested drivers in various cars equipped with automatic phone systems by putting them in driving simulations.
Drivers were graded on a five-point scale that measured cognitive distraction rather than visual distraction. In other words, the researchers studied the consequences of an increase in the mental workload of drivers while talking on the phone rather than the effects of a driver averting his or her eyes from the road. According to the researchers’ analysis of the data, use of these systems created significant cognitive distractions for the drivers. In addition, a related study by the same researchers found that Apple’s voice control system, Siri, caused a similar increase in cognitive load. The researchers stressed that while each car’s automatic phone system produced varying levels of distraction, the main takeaway of the study should be that increasing cognitive distractions, whether hands-on or hands-off, will lead to poorer driving. The study did not look at texting, accessing apps, or other systems that allow drivers to access their phone through their vehicle.
Will future technology be able to eliminate the threat posed by driving and talking? Are some drivers better at handling cognitive distractions than others?
Guest:
David Strayer, professor of psychology at the University of Utah and the lead author of the study
Female sprinter fights to run in the body she was born in
Dutee Chand, the 100-meter champion in the 18-and-under category in India, has hyperandrogenism, a condition that makes her body naturally produce levels of testosterone so high that she registers in the range of male athletes. As a result, the Indian sports authority has banned her from competition unless she reduces her level of testosterone by taking hormone inhibiting drugs or having surgery. In a landmark move, Chand is refusing to do so and challenging the ban. She says the rule is unethical and that since she was born this way, her condition should not be held against her.
Supporters of the ban say that while it might be an imperfect indicator, testosterone is what most easily distinguishes between the male and female sex. Critics of the ban say that the situation of “male” and “female” athletes, as defined by hormones, is inadequate and that such physiological conditions need to be redefined. They argue that athletic prowess is also influenced by weight, height, kinetics, socio-economic history, diet, and many other factors. This is not the first time sex has come into play in athletics. Most recently in 2009, there was the case of South African runner Caster Semanya, who was first barred, then allowed to compete after gender testing. Seven out of a thousand elite track and field athletes have hyperandrogenism – much more common than the general population of women.
Should female athletes with hyperandrogenism be forced to lower their levels of natural testosterone in order to compete with women? Would it be fair to other women sprinters with far lower testosterone if she were allowed to run? Is hyperandrogenism fundamentally different than having another natural advantage, such as extreme height?
Guests:
Katrina Karkazis, Sr. Research scholar in bioethics at Stanford
Eric Vilain, M.D., Ph.D., co-director at UCLA’s Institute for Society and Genetics
"Disturbing" videos of force-feeding Guantanamo prisoner could be released soon
This week, a federal court in Washington D.C. hears unprecedented arguments over the practice of force-feeding inmates who endanger their lives by going on hunger strikes at Guantanamo Bay.
While the hearing will focus on the legality of the practice, the judge ruled separately on Friday for the release of 28 videos showing prisoner Abu Wa'el Dhiab being force-fed through his nose. The Obama Administration had argued the videos would jeopardize national security and create dangerous propaganda. U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler wrote it "strains credulity to conclude that the release of these videos has a substantial probability of causing the harm the government predicts."
Several news organizations, include the Los Angeles Times, The Guardian and the Associated Press, along with human rights groups and Dhiab himself want the videos unsealed. An appeal is expected, but the Justice Department is still reviewing the decision and considering its options, according to The Miami Herald’s Carole Rosenberg.
How would the videos affect public opinion on force feeding? AirTalk has debated the legal, ethical and moral considerations of the practice, but what is different is the international implications. How would such tapes be viewed in the Arab world? How would the tapes affect America's reputation? What would happen if Dhiab was not forcibly fed and died as a result of his hunger strike?
Guest:
Laura Pitter, Senior National Security Research, US Program, Human Rights Watch
Jeffrey Addicott, Lt. Colonel (U.S. Army, ret.); Professor of Law at St. Mary's School of Law in San Antonio, where he is the director of the Center for Terrorism Law; Addicott's a 20 year JAG officer and was senior legal counsel to the Green Berets
After Angels beating: How can sports teams and stadiums improve security?
The severe beating of a fan in the Angels Stadium parking lot Friday raises the question of whether security is sufficient at sports venues. The fan in question was a former LAPD officer, and the assailant has yet to be identified or found. While the motive for the attack is unclear, this is not the first time a fight involving fans has broken out after an Angels game.
One fan died in the right-field pavilion at Angel stadium in 2009. It’s also been an issue at other stadiums in California, including 2011 beating of Bryan Stow in the parking lot at Dodgers stadium. Friday’s assault occurred despite regularly increased patrols by Anaheim police for playoff games. The Angels have commented that they are working in full cooperation with the police over this incident and that they evaluate security “every game, whether we have an incident or not.” Witnesses and others with information were asked to call Orange County Crime Stoppers at (855) TIP-OCCS.
Does hearing about altercations at stadiums deter you from going to games? Would more police presence ensure the security of fans? How physical should fans be able to get with each other before they need to be stopped?
Guest:
Steve Adelman, Sports and Entertainment lawyer based in Scottsdale, Arizona