Pony forced into Hawley lake, drowned

Link

BBC News, on a bizarre story that’s roughly relevant to where I live:

A pony harnessed to a trap died after it was forced into a Hampshire lake by a dozen people, the RSPCA has said.

A member of the public who tried to rescue the animal from Hawley Lake on Saturday afternoon was taken to hospital after the pony kicked out.

The animal was dragged down into the lake by its trap as it tried to swim.

Truly bizarre and utterly cruel. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was bored kids, but that doesn’t make it any more terrible. Bizarre parallels can be drawn between this and the swan found decapitated near the Fleet pond in 2007 (Get Surrey.)

So long, and thanks for all the tits

Man reading the News of the World on the tubeThe News of the World is to close. To be fair, given the furore over the voicemail hacking scandal, it’s hardly surprising, especially considering Rupert Murdoch’s desperation to appease the government enough to allow him to complete his takeover of BSkyB.

Shocking, however, it certainly is. It was certainly a shock to the hacks and printers at the News of the World, who were not told in advance (not even the editor) and were left crying at their desks. Shocking given that it was the first British newspaper Rupert Murdoch bought, and one of the most venerable tabloids in existence.

Yet more shocking, however, was that Rebekah Brooks, the editor of the News of the Screws at the time of the scandal, was heading up News International’s internal investigation. She has now been removed from this position, although she remains News International’s chief executive. Incidentally, she addressed the News of the World staff at 4pm today, and an audio recording has been leaked; instead of emerging with a vat of acid and dousing herself in it, she made her excuses and showed what might be interpreted as a sliver of remorse or compassion. Continue reading

On mobile phone use, and cancer

Aside: On mobile phone use, and cancer

The World Health Organisation has put mobile telephones on the list of “possibly carcinogenic” items and activities. In summary, this essentially means that the WHO has concluded that a causal link between heavy mobile use and a slight increase in the incidence of brain cancer, particularly glioma, cannot be ruled out.

Indeed, such a link is hardly implausible: you are, after all, when using any mobile telephone in “candybar” mode, you are holding a microwave transmitter to the side of your head, potentially exposing the tissue around it to ionising radiation. However, the sheer fact that there are millions upon millions of mobiles in use without issue (many for extended periods of time) along with the fact that it’s only now that the WHO has enough data to declare a minuscule potential risk should indicate that, by and large, mobile telephony is safe.

Let’s not forget that this list also contains coffee and dry-cleaning as potential risks. Furthermore, the BBC news article states:

However, any link is not certain – they concluded that it was “not clearly established that it does cause cancer in humans”.

[...]

Ed Yong, head of health information at Cancer Research UK, said: “The WHO’s verdict means that there is some evidence linking mobile phones to cancer but it is too weak to draw strong conclusions from.

“The vast majority of existing studies have not found a link between phones and cancer, and if such a link exists, it is unlikely to be a large one.

“The risk of brain cancer is similar in people who use mobile phones compared to those who don’t, and rates of this cancer have not gone up in recent years despite a dramatic rise in phone use during the 1980s.

“However, not enough is known to totally rule out a risk, and there has been very little research on the long-term effects of using phones.”

Of course, despite this relative safety (and the fact any risk could well be be decreasing, due to the proliferation of alternative communication methods such as video calling, SMS and e-mail) I can’t imagine the Mail or the Express will be showing much restraint.