Is Stephen Colbert the 5th Beatle? Find out.
more about "Better Know a Beatle – Paul McCartney…", posted with vodpod
30
Jan
09
friday funny: the 5th beatle
Conyers To Introduce Universal Healthcare Bill Today
January 26, 2009
John Conyers plans to introduce his universal healthcare legislation today, a Conyers aide tells the Huffington Post. The bill – known last session as H.R. 676 – is a favorite of healthcare reformers who back a single-payer system.
The bill, which will again be H.R. 676, is one of the more elegant to be introduced in the House, clocking in at just a few pages.
The plan is simple: everyone is eligible for a version of Medicare under a new U.S. National Health Insurance Program.
The program would effectively put private insurers out of business. What to do with all those employees? Hire them, says Conyers’ bill.
“The Program shall provide that clerical, administrative, and billing personnel in insurance companies, doctors offices, hospitals, nursing facilities, and other facilities whose jobs are eliminated due to reduced administration (1) should have first priority in retraining and job placement in the new system; and (2) shall be eligible to receive 2 years of unemployment benefits.”
Conyers, a Michigan Democrat and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, last introduced his bill, which garnered 93 cosponsors, in February 2007. It was referred to committee but never given a hearing.
If the 647-page House stimulus bill was too much to get through, try Conyers’ out.
Developers in Dubai continue to try and one-up each other to create the most outrageous building and/or built environment. The latest and greatest is a 9,000 square foot refrigerated swimming pool and an artificially cooled beach, complete with giant wind machines to create a gentle breeze. I expect the next monstrosity built in Dubai to be along the lines of a small village enclosed in a giant glass bubble, climate controlled and equipped with snow machines to recreate the charm of the Swiss Alps in winter.
Chilling developments in Dubai
A refrigerated swimming pool and an artificially cooled beach – Dubai’s latest excesses are enough to make conservationists weep.
Leo Hickman, The Guardian
Thursday 18 December 2008
There will surely come a day when Dubai runs the world’s reserves of hyperbole dry. But in the meantime, we continue to draw a sharp intake of breath each time a new construction project is announced. We have had ski domes built in the desert, seen vast artificial islands rise from the sea and watched several structures vying for the title of world’s tallest building. Dubai represents the will, vision and ambition of our species. Yet many believe it shines an unflattering light on our tendency for folly and hubris, too.
This week, it was reported that the Palazzo Versace hotel – the Emirate’s latest offering for those still in the market for exorbitant luxury – will boast, when completed in 2010, a refrigerated 820sq metre swimming pool and a beach with artificially cooled sand to protect its guests from the excesses of a climate that can see summer temperatures exceeding 50C. Wind machines will even be on hand to provide a gentle breeze.
“We will suck the heat out of the sand to keep it cool enough to lie on,” said Soheil Abedian, founder and president of Palazzo Versace, a hotel group with plans for a further 15 luxury hotels around the world to add to the one that already exists on Australia’s Gold Coast. (I’m a Celebrity junkies will know this as the hotel where the celebrities are sent once voted out of the “jungle”.) “This is the kind of luxury that top people want,” he added.
The energy required to run this project can only be guessed at (when questioned, Hyder Consulting, the British company hired by the hotel to build these facilities, said it has signed a confidentiality agreement with Palazzo Versace and therefore couldn’t comment), but it is likely to leave the world’s environmentalists with their heads in their hands. First there is the energy required to power giant wind machines all day long, not to mention the electricity needed to pump coolant around tubes laid under the sand. However, the most energy-intensive element of this plan is likely to be the power needed to refrigerate a whole swimming pool under Dubai’s baking sun.
Of course, in a place like Dubai, this kind of audacious project goes relatively unnoticed, among the many others currently underway. To pick just one other example, 30,000 mature trees are scheduled to be shipped to Dubai to help landscape a new Tiger Woods-designed golf course that will be bordered by “22 palaces and 75 mansions”. Even without the twin threats of climate change and a global economic recession, Dubai’s grandiose plans might seem short-sighted to some. Is it really wise to be building at all, let alone on this scale, in a place that the United Nations describes as one of the most “water-imperilled” environments on the planet, but where per capita water use is three times the global average?
“It’s grotesque that while the world’s poorest people face the loss of their homes and livelihoods, as well as disease and starvation, because of climate change, the world’s richest people think it’s acceptable to waste precious energy so pointlessly on things such as artificially cooled beaches,” says Robin Oakley, head of climate and energy at Greenpeace UK. “While Abu Dhabi, like Barack Obama, is betting on green technology as the engine for growth this century and even building a zero-emissions city, Dubai is apparently still stuck in the 1980s.”
Dubai’s ruling elite insists it now places “sustainability” at the heart of its plans for existing and future projects. Last year, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Dubai’s ruler, spelled out the “Dubai Strategic Plan 2015″ in a speech. He explained that oil now contributes only 3% to Dubai’s GDP and that his plan is to “sustain Dubai’s environment, ensuring that it is safe and clean”. Each new construction project now boasts a paragraph in its brochure about how it will “follow environmental best practice”, but even if these new measures do materialise, Dubai is a place built on the ideology and convenience of cheap, free-flowing oil. Its business model, particularly its ever-expanding tourist sector, is based on the premise that people will always be willing and able to fly long distances to get there. (Some airlines now euphemistically describe Dubai as both a “long short-haul” destination and a “long-haul weekend break destination”.) A new six-runway mega airport is being built to serve a predicted capacity of 120 million passengers a year.
These latest plans for an artificially cooled beach may be causing ripples around the world, but why isn’t there more vocal opposition by environmentalists within Dubai? The simple answer is there are no environmentalists in Dubai; not in the sense of a campaigning, placard-bearing activist that you might find elsewhere. NGOs are barely tolerated within the United Arab Emirates, of which Dubai is a part. When I visited Dubai two years ago to investigate the environmental and social impacts of its tourism industry for a book I was writing, no one was willing to talk to me on the record, such was their fear of speaking out against the ruling class. The few environmental groups that do exist in Dubai rarely stray from a brief that seems largely limited to educating school-children about the importance of recycling.
The one place where dissent does seem to be allowed – or is harder to police – is the internet, where people can hide behind their anonymity. Discussion forums are a popular way to vent criticism about the direction Dubai is taking, as are blogs such as Secret Dubai Diary. One recent controversy is that over Sammy the Shark, a young whale shark that was caught in the Arabian Gulf and then transferred to the aquarium at the Atlantis Hotel, which opened last month with a £20m party and firework display. More than 16,000 people joined a Facebook group calling for its release, and one local newspaper started a campaign urging that the shark be returned to the sea. A local radio DJ has even been playing a “Free Sammy” interpretation of Michael Jackson’s Heal the World.
But while Dubai’s citizens fight for Sammy to be freed, its leaders refuse to be diverted from realising their vision. At the United Nations climate talks, held in Poland earlier this month, Dr Rashid Ahmad Bin Fahad, the UAE’s minister of environment and water, gave a speech in which he spoke of the need for his country to consider using nuclear power to desalinate its fresh water. Well, how else are they going to keep those swimming pools filled and chilled?
Batten down the hatches, the Yellowstone Caldera might bring in the new year with its own fireworks display. “Scientists are monitoring a cluster of earthquakes that have rattled Yellowstone National Park over the past few days amid concerns that a larger earthquake could be brewing.”
Yellowstone Park shaken by hundreds of earthquakes
Last Updated: 1:52PM GMT 31 Dec 2008
More than 250 tremors have been recorded since Friday including nine greater than magnitude 3.0 on the Richter scale, according to the University of Utah. The largest, a magnitude 3.9, struck on Saturday and the area was shaken by a 3.3 tremor just after midday on Monday.
While earthquakes are common in the giant park, which covers parts of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana and experiences about 1,000 to 2,000 tremors a year, the intense burst of seismic activity lasting several days has been described as unusual.
“They’re certainly not normal,” said Robert Smith, a professor of geophysics at the University of Utah. “We haven’t had earthquakes of this energy or extent in many years.”
Mr Smith, director of the Yellowstone Seismic Network, which operates seismic stations around the park, said the earthquakes have ranged in strength from barely detectable to Saturday’s 3.9. A magnitude 4 earthquake is capable of producing moderate damage.
“This is an active volcanic and tectonic area, and these are the kinds of things we have to pay attention to,” he said. “We might be seeing something precursory.
“Could it develop into a bigger fault or something related to hydrothermal activity? We don’t know. That’s what we’re there to do, to monitor it for public safety.”
So far, all the quakes have been centred beneath the northwest end of Yellowstone Lake. No damage has been reported and a park spokeswoman said there did not appear to be cause for alarm.
Yellowstone is situated on a giant, geologically active feature known as a supervolcano and boasts some 75 per cent of the world’s geysers. Much of the park sits in a caldera, or crater, which was formed when the massive volcano erupted 70,000 years ago.
Last year a report in the journal Science found the park’s central region was rising up at a rate of up to 7cm a year due to the movement of a pool of magma several miles below the surface.
Mr Smith said it was difficult to say what might be causing the current tremors. He added that the park’s famous geysers and hot springs were a reminder of the magma underground.
“That’s just the surface manifestation of the enormous amount of heat that’s being released through the system,” he said.
In 1959, a magnitude 7.5 earthquake near Hebgen Lake just west of Yellowstone National Park triggered a landslide that killed 28 people.
Link.
26
Dec
08
friday funny: analog to digital
A brief instructional video on converting your television from analog to digital.
more about "Hulu – Talkshow with Spike Feresten: …", posted with vodpod
Conservatives and the “liberal” media continue to spread lies about the wages of Union Auto Workers, claiming they make $70/hour. Are you serious? If that was the case, why would anyone go to university? (I’m not saying working in an auto plant is easy, but it’s highly unlikely I would ever see such a wage even with a bachelor’s and master’s degree.) The reason is because UNION AUTO WORKERS DO NOT MAKE $70/HOUR! That figure is the result of the fuzziest of fuzzy math. They summed all of the money paid out for wages and benefits to all of the workers, retired and current employees, and then divided only by the number of current employees. See the problem? Simple math people. I would like to believe that Americans aren’t gullible enough to fall for these bald faced lies but the rumor will not die. And now, Republicans blocked the auto bailout because of this dubious math. Where were the Republicans when the Wall Street bailout went through? Didn’t hear a squeak about the 6 figure wages for middle management and the golden parachutes for the insurance and banking industries. Why do they hate the lower and middle classes?
The media myth: Detroit’s $70-an-hour autoworker
by Eric Boehlert
It’s been one week since New York Times financial columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin wrote that at General Motors, “the average worker was paid about $70 an hour, including health care and pension costs.”
The nugget was part of a column in which Sorkin argued that the government should not bail out the ailing Big Three automakers and that they instead should embrace bankruptcy.
Sorkin’s point was that labor costs were out of control — workers enjoyed “gold-plated benefits” — and that during bankruptcy, the auto companies could address those runaway wages.
As I mentioned, it’s been one week since the column appeared, which seems like plenty of time for Sorkin and the Times to correct the misleading $70-an-hour claim. But to date, there’s been no clarification from the newspaper of record or from Sorkin himself.
And he isn’t alone. Appearing on NPR last week, Times senior business correspondent Micheline Maynard told listeners that the “hourly wage” of Detroit’s union autoworkers had been driven up “towards $80 an hour.”
Somebody at the Times needs to clarify the record, because the average United Auto Workers member is not paid $80 an hour. Or even $70. Not even close. Yet (thanks to the Times?) the issue has become a central talking point in the unfolding national debate about the future of America’s automotive industry.
Indeed, that $70-an-hour meme, actively promoted by the anti-union conservative media, has ricocheted around the traditional press as well as the political landscape, where it was picked up by congressional critics last week during hearings and used to argue against aiding GM, Ford, and Chrysler.
For the record, I’m not from Michigan, and I don’t have friends or family members who work in the auto or auto-supply business. And honestly, I think there are compelling arguments on both sides of the question about whether to bail out the U.S. auto industry. So I’m genuinely torn on the issue. But what’s obvious to me is that it’s harmful to public discourse when the press, on such a central issue facing our country, fails to clearly state the facts and instead perpetuates misinformation with sloppy reporting — reporting that seems to hold blue-collar workers to a different standard than their white-collar counterparts.
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that automotive executives should return to Washington in coming weeks to “make their case, to the Congress and the American people,” for a federal bailout. And as Times columnist and Nobel Prize winner for economics Paul Krugman wrote recently, “[M]aybe letting the auto companies die is the right decision, even though an auto industry collapse would be a huge blow to an already slumping economy. But it’s a decision that should be taken carefully” [emphasis added].
But having the media echo conservative misinformation and bandy about urban-myth salary figures about allegedly high-on-the-hog GM workers does not constitute a careful review of the facts.
Question: Is the press just being sloppy on this issue of supposedly pampered autoworkers, or are there other elements in play? Because honestly, I’ve had trouble escaping the not-very-subtle elitist, get-a-load-of-this tone that has run through the media’s misinformation on the topic; i.e., “These autoworkers get paid that?!”
Answer: No, they don’t, so please stop reporting it. (And why has the press been so reticent to note that Big Three autoworkers recently made significant concessions to management?)
And it’s funny, because I don’t remember hearing much coverage in the press about AIG workers’ six- and seven-figure salaries when the U.S. government announced it was bailing out the insurance giant. And I haven’t seen or heard a single press reference to the annual salaries pocketed by Citigroup employees, even though the government has moved in quickly to bail the banking giant out of a hole its executives dug.
As Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) pointed out during congressional hearings last week, “There is apparently a cultural condition that’s more ready to accept aid to a white-collar industry than the blue-collar industry, and that has to be confronted.”
That cultural condition seems to extend to, and be embraced by, today’s white-collar press corps.
Make no mistake: The $70-an-hour claim represents a classic case of conservative misinformation. It’s also a very dangerous one. The falsehood about autoworkers is being spread at a crucial time, when a make-or-break public debate is taking place, a debate that could affect millions of American workers.
-
* “Lavish contracts granted to the United Auto Workers, for instance, put GM on the hook for more than $70 an hour per worker.” [New York Post]
* “The United Auto Workers are keen on saving their jobs and the $70-an-hour paychecks that go with them.” [National Review]
* “[T]here’s no reason that a UAW worker should get total compensation of $70 an hour when the average American only makes about $25 an hour in total compensation.” [James Gattuso, from the conservative Heritage Foundation, appearing on MSNBC]
* “Given that we’re in tough economic times, it’s hard for the average American to muster a lot of sympathy for workers at the Big 3 automakers when all of the companies pay out over $70 per hour in wages, pension and health care benefits.” [Right Wing News]
* “The bailout as proposed today is a bailout of the UAW; it’s not the auto industry. A Big Three worker in Detroit makes $73 an hour if you include all the benefits.” [Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, appearing on the syndicated television show Inside Washington]
* “Companies at which union workers make $71 an hour in wages and benefits — compared to just $47 an hour at Toyota’s U.S. plants — are not going to be saved by a $25 billion government check.” [Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, writing at Human Events Online]
* “Big Three union workers, with their gold-plated health care plans, make about $73 an hour in total compensation.” [Conservative columnist Amanda Carpenter at Townhall.com]
* “When you’re paying $73.73 an hour to those people with salary and benefits and your competition is paying $48 to its workers, you’re going to get your butt kicked in the marketplace unfortunately.” [Conservative radio host Lars Larson]
* “The average Detroit autoworker makes more than $100K each year.” [On-screen Fox News graphic]
Let’s note that any suggestion in the press that most UAW workers earn, or are paid, $70 an hour is spectacularly dishonest. Period. (As one Daily Kos diarist pointed out last week, according to the UAW website, the base pay for a worker in a UAW plant is about $28 an hour.)
What that $70 figure (or $73) actually represents is what it costs GM in total labor expenses, on an hourly basis, to manufacture autos.
Do you see that there’s a big distinction? General Motors doles out $70 an hour in overall labor costs to manufacture cars. But individual employees don’t get paid $70 an hour to make cars. (The discrepancy between costs and wages is explained by additional benefits, pension fees, and health-care costs GM pays out to current and retired employees.)
Simply put, GM’s labor costs are not synonymous with hourly wages earned by UAW employees. Many in the press have casually used the two interchangeably. But they’re not.
Felix Salmon at Portfolio did perhaps the best job explaining the misinformation at play:
The average GM assembly-line worker makes about $28 per hour in wages, and I can assure you that GM is not paying $42 an hour in health insurance and pension plan contributions. Rather, the $70 per hour figure (or $73 an hour, or whatever) is a ridiculous number obtained by adding up GM’s total labor, health, and pension costs, and then dividing by the total number of hours worked. In other words, it includes all the healthcare and retirement costs of retired workers. [emphasis in original]
Indeed, according to this Associated Press report, a chunk of GM’s $70-an-hour labor costs goes toward paying current retirees’ pensions and health-care coverage. In other words, that’s money that’s not going to end up in the pocket of any autoworker when he cashes his paycheck this week. That’s money GM has to set aside in order to pay off costs associated with workers already in retirement. That money has absolutely nothing to do with calculating the hourly wage of a full-time UAW employee today. None.
So, no, UAW workers don’t make $70 an hour even if you factor in benefits, because a portion of those benefits are going to people who retired years ago.
Nonetheless, that formulation (wages+benefits=$70 an hour) has been widespread. That’s what Sorkin did in his Times column: “The average worker was paid about $70 an hour, including health care and pension costs.”
Not only is that inaccurate, but there’s also a problem in terms of perception. It’s true that autoworkers don’t earn annual salaries and that when calculating hourly wages, the cost of benefits paid directly to the worker can be included. But some media outlets have been so casual and sloppy in presenting the facts that news consumers are left with the false impression that GM workers pocket $70 an hour. That’s not true, and it seems some in the press are doing very little to correct that misperception.
For instance, BusinessWeek also used the same convoluted language: “Older UAW members make more than $70 per hour in combined wages and benefits.” Dallas Morning News columnist Cheryl Hall did it, too: “GM’s average worker makes $78.21 an hour in wages and benefits.”
Why does the press use that convoluted equation when calculating how much autoworkers supposedly make?
I have a hunch it’s because that $70 an hour is a real eyepopper. It makes a very deep impression within the space of just a few words.
I’m sure everybody understood the $70-an-hour implication in Sorkin’s column, especially since he also lamented the “gold-plated benefits” UAW workers enjoyed. (They were “off the charts,” he stressed.) And since it’s harder to back up a claim of gold-plated benefits by citing the actual hourly wage of UAW workers ($28), Sorkin went with the $70 figure, along with completely nebulous language about “health care and pension costs.”
The takeaway from Sorkin’s column was quite clear: GM is mismanaged, and its workers are wildly overpaid.
By the way, here’s the right way to cover the issue: In a November 18 column, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s David Nicklaus wrote that the Big Three “need to bring their labor costs, which average $72 an hour, closer to the Honda or Toyota level of about $45.” Note how Nicklaus never implied that labors costs equaled take-home wages. Why? Because they don’t. (And kudos to Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein, who refuses to use the $70-an-hour figure because it’s so misleading.)
How much money GM’s workers make is certainly relevant when discussing the unfolding automotive crisis. But the press should stop confusing the issue, and tainting the perceptions of news consumers, by casually suggesting that $70-an-hour labor costs represent what UAW workers pocket every 60 minutes.
That’s misleading and dishonest.
And that’s why it’s still not too late for Sorkin and the Times to correct the record.
—E.B.
04
Dec
08
prop 8 – the musical
The hilarious people at “Funny of Die” have put out a new video, “Prop 8 – The Musical.” The star-studded participants include Jack Black, Neil Patrick Harris, Margaret Cho, John C. Reilly, Maya Rudolph and many more familiar faces.
more about ""Prop 8 – The Musical" starring Jack …", posted with vodpod
Check out this collection of unusual buildings. Some of them are quality design. Some are just awful. I’ve posted a few examples below. Kunstler would have a field day with this group.
Kansas City Public Library, Kansas City, Missouri
Wonderworks, Pigeon Forge, Tennessee
The Hole House, Texas
Obama’s Use of Complete Sentences Stirs Controversy
Stunning Break with Last Eight Years
In the first two weeks since the election, President-elect Barack Obama has broken with a tradition established over the past eight years through his controversial use of complete sentences, political observers say.
Millions of Americans who watched Mr. Obama’s appearance on CBS’ “Sixty Minutes” on Sunday witnessed the president-elect’s unorthodox verbal tick, which had Mr. Obama employing grammatically correct sentences virtually every time he opened his mouth.
But Mr. Obama’s decision to use complete sentences in his public pronouncements carries with it certain risks, since after the last eight years many Americans may find his odd speaking style jarring.
According to presidential historian Davis Logsdon of the University of Minnesota, some Americans might find it “alienating” to have a President who speaks English as if it were his first language.
“Every time Obama opens his mouth, his subjects and verbs are in agreement,” says Mr. Logsdon. “If he keeps it up, he is running the risk of sounding like an elitist.”
The historian said that if Mr. Obama insists on using complete sentences in his speeches, the public may find itself saying, “Okay, subject, predicate, subject predicate – we get it, stop showing off.”
The President-elect’s stubborn insistence on using complete sentences has already attracted a rebuke from one of his harshest critics, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska.
“Talking with complete sentences there and also too talking in a way that ordinary Americans like Joe the Plumber and Tito the Builder can’t really do there, I think needing to do that isn’t tapping into what Americans are needing also,” she said.
Doctors and scientist fear common chemicals that are ubiquitous in our world are causing a drop off in the production of males. But good luck finding much more on this story because, as this article points out, it is not well publicized. Even the documentary has been pulled from CBC’s website.
The disappearing male: Studies show rise in birth defects, infertility among men
Sonja Puzic, Windsor Star
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Are males becoming an endangered species?
That’s the question scientists and researchers have been pondering since alarming trends in male fertility rates, birth defects and disorders began emerging around the world.
More and more boys are being born with genital defects and are suffering from learning disabilities, autism and Tourette’s syndrome, among other disorders.
Male infertility rates are on the rise and the quality of an average man’s sperm is declining, according to some studies.
But perhaps the most disconcerting of all trends is the growing gender imbalance in many parts of heavily industrialized nations, where the births of baby boys have been declining for many years.
What many scientists are calling the most important — and least publicized — issue surrounding the future of the human race will be highlighted in a CBC documentary that features two Windsor researchers who’ve studied the phenomenon.
Titled The Disappearing Male and premiering tonight at 9 on CBC-TV, the documentary includes interviews with Jim Brophy and Margaret Keith, adjunct sociology professors at the University of Windsor.
They have been studying the decline in the birth of male children in the Aamjiwnaang First Nation community located next to the infamous Chemical Valley, Canada’s largest concentration of petrochemical plants, near Sarnia.
A paper co-authored by Keith and published three years ago in the U.S. journal Environmental Health Perspectives suggests that exposure to various chemicals produced by industrial plants surrounding the Aamjiwnaang reserve land may be skewing the community’s sex ratio.
The researchers looked at the community’s birth records since 1984 and saw “a dramatic drop in the number of boys being born in the last 10 years, particularly in the five-year period between 1998 and 2003,” Brophy said.
Of 132 Aamjiwnaang babies born between 1999 and 2003, only 46 were boys. Typically, about 105 boys are born for every 100 girls in Canada.
High miscarriage rates and a unusually high number of children suffering from asthma were also noted by researchers.
Although the link between pollutants and human reproduction has not been firmly established, there is growing evidence that the birth sex ratio can be altered by exposure to certain chemicals, such as dioxin, PCBs and pesticides. Brophy said studies done in the United States, Japan and Europe seem to support the theory that the so-called endocrine disrupting chemicals have a particular effect on males.
Some of these chemicals are found in commonly used products such as baby bottles and cosmetics. They can also cause miscarriages and a “whole host” of disorders in a male child, Brophy said.
Brophy said soil and water contamination in and around the Aamjiwnaang reserve had been documented before, including in a University of Windsor study that found high levels of PCBs, lead, mercury and various chemicals in the area in the late 1990s. Accidental chemical spills in the area have not been uncommon.
GLOBAL AWARENESS
But it wasn’t until the Aamjiwnaang birth ratio study was published that the global science community really took notice.
“It triggered … calls from scientists and researchers from around the world who had been looking at this issue in Europe and the United States,” Brophy said. “Aamjiwnaang became almost the poster child.”
While Brophy has not seen The Disappearing Male documentary yet, he believes the story of the Aamjiwnaang community will be “the focal point.”
He said the documentary also includes interviews with “some of the foremost experts in the world” on environmental effects on reproductive health.
Brophy and Keith have also studied other occupational and environmental exposures to pollutants, including the link between breast cancer and certain types of jobs in the Windsor-Essex region.
© The Windsor Star 2008
