Tech Talk

The sad toll from Hurricane Katrina continues. Today, we hear that coroners are using RFID chips to help keep track of the corpses that are being brought by emergency workers to the areas' morgues.

The tiny red cylinders that transmit unique radio frequencies have been put to use in the grim task of identifying victims of the storm and preparing their remains for a final return to their families. The chips are being either implanted under the skin or enclosed in the victim's body bag, according to the news report.

The chips, along with the scanners to read them, have been donated by Applied Digital, of Delray Beach, Fla., to the coroner's offices of Harrison and Lafayette Counties, Miss., under auspices of the U.S. Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Team (DMORT).

(Applied Digital has also lent a mobile clinic to the state's Department of Health to aid in emergency healthcare services for survivors. And they have offered officials in Louisiana the same help as that provided Mississippi, according to a company statement.)

The company's VeriChip technology has been approved for use in humans but has not been used in a morgue setting before now. It seems to be helping technicians perform their jobs more efficiently, the news report suggests.

Applied Digital's CEO, Scott R. Silverman, said: "The VeriChip was designed for emergency care situations and secure identification. Although its primary application is to access and retrieve medical records in an emergency and clinical environment, there are clear uses for our technology in disaster management. As future disaster management plans are re-organized after this disaster, we intend to offer VeriChip and all of our identification technologies to disaster management experts, DMORT, and the federal government."

We applaud them.

"Man has a limited biological capacity for change. When this capacity is overwhelmed, the capacity is in future shock." — Alvin Toffler

If it wasn't clear before, it is now: the future has arrived and there's nothing we can do to postpone it. When you can't walk down a street and avoid getting bumped by strangers on their cellphones, consulting their PDAs, too busy to watch where they're going, you're in a new world.

Today's model professional is wall-to-wall wired and wireless — all day long — at home, on the road, in the office, and virtually anywhere else you can think of.

The surest sign, though, that something has moved beyond success is the news story that says people are beginning to wonder whether too much of a good thing is a bad thing, and that's where we find ourselves today.

This afternoon's top story at CNN.Com is "Wireless Technology Changing Work and Play". Of an executive who runs an institute that studies science, technology, and society, the writer notes that being connected wherever the scientist goes has "made him more productive, but he's not entirely satisfied."

In a New York Times Magazine piece entitled "Meet the Life Hackers", last Sunday, a scientist who studies how high-tech devices affect our behavior noted that her daily interaction with wired colleagues, associates, and friends had become "madness."

Now, when the people who study how complex our technology has made our lives find that we're going a little bonkers with the constant interruptions of non-stop connectivity, it may be time to take a deep breath and think for a moment about where we're going.

What Toffler meant in his groundbreaking 1970 book Future Shock, we believe, is not that the future will be shocking but that if we absorb too much change too fast we will, at some future point, be shocked. Has that point now arrived?

(To be continued . . .)

In our Tech Expeditions feature this month, Associate Editor Erico Guizzo recounts his journey to the ice fields of Norway to cover the work of a British team of engineers and scientists studying the way glaciers are responding to climate change. His narrative, "Into Deep Ice", is an insightful close-up of technologists in the field at work on vital research.

Guizzo caught up with the team working on the GlacsWeb project earlier this year in the town of Olden, Norway, to document its work on the nearby Briksdalsbreen glacier, where they were in the middle of field-testing a wireless monitoring network embedded in the ice to record temperature, pressure, and other variables. The group's goal is to gain greater understanding of how Earth's ice masses are responding to the shifting temperature of the planet.

"The GlacsWeb system could shed light on [this] by allowing scientists to 'see' with unprecedented detail what goes on deep inside glaciers," Guizzo writes. "Their wireless probes could prove a good replacement for some of the conventional instruments used by glaciologists, like gauges that are also embedded in the ice but with wires running to the glacier's surface [which routinely break]."

The outcome of studies on glaciers has important implications for planetary climatology. "Earth has more than 160 000 glaciers," Guizzo relates. "Scientists study them because they are an integral part of our climatic system, affecting and being affected by it. Today, with the rise of global surface temperatures, the overall trend is of 'continuous if not accelerated glacier melting', according to the World Glacier Monitoring Service, in Zurich, Switzerland."

Specifically, the GlacsWeb team is recording subglacial dynamics, the sliding of the ice masses that is responsible for most of the glacier's movement—an area that is poorly understood at present. "It's this piece of the puzzle that the British team hopes to supply," writes Guizzo. "The GlacsWeb probes . . . will be able to track one of the key variables needed to study the sediment layer: water. When glaciers move over a water-soaked layer of sediment, they are able to go faster. That's the case of the Briksdalsbreen, which is likely flowing over a bed of muddy sediment about 10 meters thick."

In the end, the GlacsWeb researchers were pleased with the results of their field work. They are receiving data from the glacier wirelessly via the Internet at the University of Southampton, in England. And Guizzo, who actually got to be of assistance by answering a last-minute request from the team to bring important chips and switches from the U.S. upon setting off for Norway, got the story and got to walk on a mountain of ice.

[Note: A fire recently destroyed much of the research laboratory at the University's School of Electronics and Computer Science, where the GlacsWeb team is based. Their equipment and research data were spared, however, and their work continues.]

With the aftermath of the devastating earthquake in Pakistan still in the headlines, our cover story this month, "Earthquake Alarm", takes on added relevance. Authors Tom Bleier, CEO of QuakeFinder, in Palo Alto, Calif., and Friedemann Freund, a senior researcher at NASA Ames Research Center, in Mountain View, Calif., consider the possibility that we may soon be able to predict where and when earthquakes will occur, enabling potential victims to take precautions.

"It seems that earthquakes should be predictable," write Bleier and Freund. "After all, we can predict hurricanes and floods using detailed satellite imagery and sophisticated computer models. Using advanced Doppler radar, we can even tell minutes ahead of time that a tornado will form."

So, why not earthquakes? The authors say that such short-term forecasts are within reach.

"They will come not from the mechanical phenomena—measurements of the movement of the earth's crust—that have been the focus of decades of study, but, rather, from electromagnetic phenomena. And, remarkably, these predictions will come from signals gathered not only at the earth's surface but also far above it, in the ionosphere."

The tell-tale signs of an impending earthquake have been noted for years by scientists, after the fact; it is only recently that technology is being put in place to take advantage of these signals in advance of a temblor.

One of the signs is a light or glow in the sky—white, blue, or orange in color, extending some hundreds of meters in the air and spreading for several kilometers across the ground. Another is a disturbance in the ultralow frequency radio band noticed in the weeks and more dramatically in the hours prior to an earthquake.

"Both the lights and the radio waves appear to be electromagnetic disturbances that happen when crystalline rocks are deformed—or even broken—by the slow grinding of the earth that occurs just before the dramatic slip that is an earthquake," the authors explain. "Although a rock in its normal state is, of course, an insulator, this cracking creates tremendous electric currents in the ground, which travel to the surface and into the air."

Soon, forecasters could use ground-based sensors and satellites "to detect all these precursor signals—electronically detected ELF and ULF magnetic-field changes, ionospheric changes, infrared luminescence, and air-conductivity changes—along with traditional mechanical and GPS monitoring of movements of the earth's crust."

"Forecasters may then be able to issue graduated warnings within weeks, days, and hours, declaring increasing threat levels as the evidence from different sensors begins pointing in the same direction."

Bleier and Freund believe we are only about ten years away from implementing a system that officials and the public will come to trust. "Then governments in active earthquake areas such as California, China, Japan, Russia, and Taiwan could install warning systems as early as 2015, saving lives and minimizing the chaos of earthquakes."

That will be a major boon to humankind.

Are all those iPods in the stockings bringing some coal along with them too? A Northwestern University audiologist says that misuse of the distinctive type of earphones that come with Apple Computer's hot-selling iPod line, as well as other MP3 players, can eventually lead to hearing loss. In an item on Science Daily's website, iPod's Popular Earbuds: Hip or Harmful?, Prof. Dean Garstecki says that the little earphones may be causing "the kind of hearing loss in younger people typically found in aging adults."

Garstecki sees the new earbud design, positioned directly in the ear, as being potentially more dangerous to your hearing than the "muff-type" earphones of earlier generations of music devices, such as the Walkman. Earbuds can boost the sound signal by as much as 6 to 9 decibels. "That's the difference in intensity between the sound made by a vacuum cleaner and the sound of a motorcycle engine," says Garstecki.

Not only do today's devices boost sound signal input to the ears, they encourage prolonged exposure at higher volumes with their capacity to play music continuously and for much longer sessions, which also contributes to potential hearing damage. Northwestern researchers have measured the typical output of earbuds, to student users, at 110 to 120 decibels. "That's a sound level that's equivalent to the measures that are made at rock concerts," according to Garstecki, chairman of Northwestern's communication sciences and disorders department. "And it's enough to cause hearing loss after only about an hour and 15 minutes."

Garstecki advises that iPod/MP3 users limit their listening to 60 minutes at a time at a volume setting of 6 on the 10-point volume control. He also recommends that listeners simply replace the iconic earbuds with older-style headphones. "If music listeners are willing to turn the volume down further still and use different headphones, they can increase the amount of time that they can safely listen." He admits, though, that with today's style-conscious young people, these solutions might be a "hard sell." (Compounding matters among youthful music lovers who are fans of rock and rap, these genres are usually played even louder than other types of music, such as jazz and classical).

Here, you can listen to Prof. Garstecki's original comments. But don't play them too loud. And if you're thinking of giving the gift of iPod to a young person for the holidays, you might want to consider an alternative earphone. They may thank you, eventually.

p>To get you in the holiday spirit, we offer a story about how a simple mistake led to a Yuletide tradition carried on by one of the most technologically sophisticated centers on earth. This year, the North American Aerospace Defense Command will celebrate the 50th anniversary of its NORAD Tracks Santa project. Why does the joint Canadian-American air defense operation monitor the flight of a "jolly old elf" on his annual mission to bring gifts to the world's children? Well, it's not because he poses a security threat to the continent.

Technically, Santa Claus violates North American airspace on a regular basis once a year. He files no flight plan. He operates an unregistered vehicle. He lacks a pilot's license. He travels at excessive speed. He touches down and takes off from millions of locations without the slightest permission from any air-traffic control authority. And he knows when you are sleeping and knows when you're awake. All of which might make for some suspicion that this highly secretive individual might be up to something worthy of the attention of NORAD.

The truth of the matter is very different, though, of course. NORAD found itself in the Santa-tracking business purely by accident. The real story begins in 1955 with a typo in a newspaper ad. A Sears Roebuck and Co. store in Colorado Springs, Colo., placed an ad in a local paper with a phone number for children to call Santa on a special hotline. Unfortunately for Sears, but fortunately for children ever since, the number was mistyped. Instead of reaching a phone at Santa's workshop, callers were put in touch with the operations desk of the Continental Air Defense Command (CONAD) at Cheyenne Mountain, one of the most sensitive control centers of the Cold War.

The matter might have simply led to an investigation by the U.S. Air Force were it not for the fact that it was December 24th and the mistaken callers were all children from the nearby town. Using judicious command discretion, CONAD Director of Operations Col. Harry Shoup decided to order his staff to check their radar displays to see if there was any indication that Santa was making his way down from the North Pole and advise the children accordingly. And in the twinkle of a merry eye, a tradition was born.

The "job" of tracking Santa's progress on his annual flight was inherited by NORAD in 1958, when Canada and the United States joined forces to monitor the skies above North America. Today, the project has become a holiday hallmark.

"I think in the initial stages, back in the 50s and 60s, it was just a novelty kind of thing," said Master Sgt. John Tomassi, Santa Tracking Operations co-director, in a recent press release.

"We've recognized now that people have taken this program as a tradition, and what we can do is educate them," Tomassi continued. "We use the satellites to track Santa, we use the radar, we use jet fighters, but all of those exact same things are what we use to monitor the aerospace of North America. We think of it as a geography lesson, because the different places that Santa visits or sightings that we have, a lot of people haven't heard of. If we can get some children to go and look at a map to find out where Timbuktu is, or where India is, or Pakistan, or wherever, then we feel all the better for that."

With a presence on the Internet in six languages and international television coverage by the media, NORAD Tracks Santa is also a technological wonder. Handled completely on a voluntary basis and funded by charitable donation, the project gets over 900 million hits to its website, 35 000 email messages, and 55 000 phone calls. Technological assistance is provided by Akamai, America Online, Analytical Graphics, ClearCube, ICG Communications, MCI, Windows Live Local, and other providers.

NORAD Tracks Santa is made possible by the people of Cheyenne Mountain and Peterson Air Force Base, who staff the Santa Tracking Operations Center. Its phone numbers—and these are correct—are 877-446-6723 (toll-free in the United States) and 719-474-2111. In two days, they will assemble a small army (make that air force) to keep us all posted on the whereabouts of a most remarkable fellow.

It's a noble effort, in every way.

Happy holidays to all.

We return today to the question of whether it's safe to operate wireless devices, in general, on commercial airliners (see our earlier comments here). With the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) set to auction off radio spectrum to enable in-flight wireless communications on May 10, the issue has piqued increasing public interest, as well as spirited debate among technology professionals.

According to the FCC, its Auction No. 65 will award licenses to the highest bidders for nationwide commercial air-ground radiotelephone services in the 800-MHz band. The licenses will be offered in three band plans: two overlapping, shared, cross-polarized 3-MHz licenses; an exclusive 3-MHz license and an exclusive 1-MHz one; and an exclusive 1-MHz license and an exclusive 3-MHz one. The configurations are mutually incompatible. The plan that receives the highest aggregate bids is the one that will be implemented.

This will toss the ball to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for approval. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal last week (which relied heavily on our content), the FAA has hired the non-profit technical advisory body RTCA (the former Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics) to study the issue and file a formal report by December. A spokesperson for the RTCA committee told the Journal that the report will likely outline requirements for supporters to prove the safety of onboard electronic devices.

The Journal article specifically cites our feature on the topic, "Unsafe at Any Airspeed?", to emphasize the tricky nature of the technical questions involved. The Carnegie-Mellon scientists who penned our summary of their in-flight research pointed to the phenomenon of intermodulation as being a hazard that must be overcome before critical cockpit instrumentation, such as GPS transceivers, can be secured from possible interference from passenger devices in the cabin. New onboard pico-cell antennas allow cellphones and wireless units to operate at low power levels, with correspondingly lower levels of interference. However, until the RTCA study findings are complete, we still won't know just how much of a reduction of risk we can count on from pico-cell technology.

In the meantime, we are caught in the middle. Various commercial operators, such as Lufthansa and American Airlines, have already run successful test programs for wireless services in flight. And it would seem that the traveling public (especially business fliers) would readily embrace the convenience of using their BlackBerrys and Treos as they approach their destinations. But conventional wisdom may be wrong in this instance.

"Of 8000 comments to the FCC when it proposed dropping its ban, only two or three were in favor," the Journal article reports. "The rest, except for the 50 or so technical reports, were from travelers vociferously opposed, arguing that airplanes should be a refuge from calls and emails. Flight attendant unions are also opposed, fearing obnoxious phone habits could lead to air-rage incidents."

Moreover, we asked Spectrum Online readers earlier this month what you thought about the issue, and your response was overwhelmingly negative. Answering the question "Is it safe to use cellphones and wireless devices on airliners?" in our "Your Opinion" poll, only 251 of you thought it was safe. A whopping 468 readers voted unsafe. And 384 more cast their ballots for the "needs further study" option.

As we wrote in this month's "Spectral Lines" editorial: "Like it or not, wireless technology will soon become a permanent feature of aircraft cabins"; however, "we believe the current ban should be kept in place while data are collected and analyzed and while the technical issues surrounding the setup of these networks in the air are sorted out." It's unquestionably a very small price to pay to ensure our safety.

V Scofield responding to A League Of Extraordinary Women, on 3/24/06, said:

I am a female that holds both a BSEE and a BSCS degrees and would like to offer an my insight of why women don't go into engineering. I have found that there is a pervasive attitude that women are incapable of the task and are covertly and overtly discouraged. While I was in school, head of the department stated I would never make it through the program the first time I met him (luckily, he retired the next year and was replaced by a great person). I was constantly asked by my peers in college if I was there for my M.R.S. among other things. Not only did I make it through (one of three females in my class), but I made it through with a double major.

Now my daughter is persuing her BSEE and is finding the same attitude but more overtly.

I believe attitudes are the key to encouraging future women engineers: positive attitudes from others, the individuals' own belief in herself and a skin of steel.