Array tomography is a state-of-the-art imaging system invented by Stanford University researchers. It allows researchers to count the myriad connections between nerve cells, as well as to catalog those connections’ surprising variety.

A typical healthy human brain contains about 200 billion nerve cells, or neurons, linked to one another via hundreds of trillions of tiny contacts called synapses. It is at these synapses that an electrical impulse traveling along one neuron is relayed to another, either enhancing or inhibiting the likelihood that the second nerve will fire an impulse of its own. One neuron may make tens of thousands of synaptic contacts with other neurons, said Stephen Smith, PhD, senior author of a paper published Nov. 18 in Neuron.

The new imaging system allows researchers to “travel” through the 3-D mosaic of neurons and observe different colors corresponding to different synaptic types just as a voyager might transit outer space and note the different hues of the stars dotting the infinite blackness. And to make a movie of the whole trip.

This level of detailed visualization has never been achieved before. “The entire anatomical context of the synapses is preserved. You know right where each one is, and what kind it is. Observed in this manner, the brain’s overall complexity is almost beyond belief”, said Smith. “One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor —with both memory-storage and information-processing elements — than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth,” he said.

Researchers plan to use array tomography to tease out more such distinctions within classes of synapses. That should accelerate neuroscientists’ progress in, for example, identifying the synapses that are lost after traumatic brain injury, or in neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s.

Are business owners or landlords responsible to those injured due to the criminal acts of third parties? Sometimes. Because of the “special relationship” a California business owner has with its customers, the owner or landlord must take reasonable steps to keep the premises safe against foreseeable criminal acts of others. In determining whether the owner must compensate the victim for his injuries, courts consider:

  • the type of crime committed
  • the type of commercial property (for example the owner of a parking garage will likely have a greater responsibility for safety than a business owner in a shopping center)
  • Whether the owner had notice of any previous criminal conduct
  • whether the owner had any reason to anticipate the type of criminal conduct that actually occurred
  • whether the owner could have discovered that criminal acts were being committed on the property
  • whether the owner has hired security guards
  • whether the security guard acted reasonably at the time of the criminal act
  • whether the criminal act occurred on property under the owner’s control
  • whether the owner had any formal security policies
  • whether the owner’s employees complied with the stated policy

Several of these factors relate to whether the owner had notice of prior criminal acts and how it responded to those acts. Unless a victim reports the criminal act to the property owner, the business owner or landlord may never learn of it, even if the police responded. To allow the owner an opportunity to correct the security issues before someone is hurt, it is important to always report security issues directly to the owner, and not just to law enforcement.  

Every forty-one minutes, someone in America sustains a traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI) . Approximately eleven-thousand people in America experience a TSCI every year. Car accidents are a common cause of TSCI; however, there are a number of other causes: sports injuries, falls, and gunshot wounds. See here.

Patients treated at a Level I or II trauma center have less paralysis than those with similar injuries who are treated at a non-trauma center hospital. The most likely explanation for the better outcome is the availability of more surgeons and the greater use of spinal surgery at the trauma centers.

The designation of trauma facilities differs from state to state depending. In California, the Emergency Medical Services Authority is authorized to designate trauma centers. The American College of Surgeons (ACS) establishes guidelines for classification of hospitals and verifies whether a trauma center meets ACS’ established criteria at each level I-IV and pediatric. Key elements of a Level I trauma center include 24-hour in-house coverage by general surgeons and prompt availability of care in varying specialties such as orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, anesthesiology, emergency medicine, radiology, which are needed to adequately respond and care for various forms of trauma that a patient may suffer. Additionally, a Level I center has a program of research, is a leader in trauma education and injury prevention, and is a referral resource for communities in nearby regions.The Level II center works closely with a Level 1 center and provides comprehensive trauma care.

ACS recommends that all TSCI patients be taken to a level I or II trauma center. Those centers are listed on its website.

A vehicle spins out on a wet road or highway. It crosses the median divide and ends up in oncoming traffic. If the vehicle is an SUV or van, it may even roll.

The driver wasn’t speeding. And the road may have been perfectly straight. So what happened? Just another hydroplaning accident? Driver error? Maybe.

Wet Roads and Tire Placement AccidentsBut maybe not. Perhaps improper tire installation made the vehicle uncontrollable.

"Tire Placement" Is Crucial to Safety

A vehicle’s front tires tend to wear out faster than the rear. When a consumer buys two new tires, he or she may ask the installer to put them on the front, and leave the older tires where they are.

That may seem like the sensible thing to do. But the tire shop is supposed to know better. Under no circumstances are the new tires supposed to go on the front. It doesn’t matter whether the vehicle is front-wheel drive, rear-wheel drive, or all-wheel drive. The best tread is always supposed to go on the back.

It sounds counter-intuitive. But if the rule is not followed, and the better tread is placed on the front axle, the vehicle can easily "swap ends" when it hits a puddle. Especially if the driver taps on the brakes. And that can lead to a serious accident.

Tire Manufacturers Agree

Skeptical? Here’s what the tire manufacturers say:

Goodyear: “When you select a pair of replacement tires in the same size and construction as those oNew Tires Go on Rear Axlen the car, we recommend you put them on the rear axle.“

Dunlap: “When you select a pair of replacement tires in the same size and construction as those on the car, we recommend you put them on the rear axle.”

Michelin: “A pair of new tires should go in back.”

BF Goodrich: “. . whenever only two tires are replaced, the new ones should be put on the rear. The new tires, with deeper tread, may provide better grip and water evacuation in wet driving conditions.”

Most consumers don’t know that new tires are always supposed to go on the back. But tire installers and sellers do. Or at least they are supposed to. That’s their job. 

PG&E has finally agreed to move the pipeline from the Crestmoor neighborhood. PG&E would have us believe the decision was made out of concern for residents.  According to PG&E president Christopher Johns:

PG&E understands that no one wants the damaged section of Line 132 rebuilt at its current location.  We know residents in the neighborhood have suffered a terrible trauma and the pipe is a horrible reminder.

Is that the reason?  Or did PG&E simply figure out that moving it was in its financial best interests.  After all, the law makes PG&E liable for any diminution in the value of the neighborhood homes. As long as the pipe runs under the neighborhood, the homes are worth very little. Remove the pipe and values will rebound. In the end, it’s cheaper for PG&E to move the pipe than it is for it to leave it there.

Isn’t it as simple as that?

PG&E to Move Pipe

Martin Ricard reported on the lawsuits against PG&E that we filed today on behalf of some of the San Bruno fire victims. Ricard summed up the allegations in the six lawsuits, filed on behalf of nine different victims, succinctly:

According to the lawsuits, the residents’ injuries were a direct result of PG&E’s operation of the pipeline, which, the firm says, has been [marked by] a "run-to-failure" attitude toward replacing old pipes and maintenance practices known to cause risk.

What’s a "run-to-failure" attitude?

That’s the strategy of running old equipment until it fails and then dealing with the damage inflicted instead of investing the money necessary to prevent the failure from happening in the first place," Danko said. "The practice appears to be part of PG&E’s long-standing corporate culture of placing profits over people."

More on the lawsuits here.  More on PG&E’s run-to-failure mentality here.

The NTSB’s preliminary report on the San Bruno Fire has led some politicians to ask why it took PG&E so long to turn the gas off.

Jackie Speier. . . expressed bewilderment that PG&E failed to send anyone to turn off the ruptured pipe until "33 minutes after 100-foot-high flames . . .were clearly visible from (Highway) 101, more than 10 miles away.

Not a bad question.  But that’s not really the issue on which we should focus. Just for the moment, forget about where PG&E was after the fire erupted. Where was PG&E before?San Bruno Fire and Explosion

The Gas Line Was Leaking Before the Events of September 9

It’s unlikely that the pipe was just fine on September 8, and suddenly and without warning ripped apart on September 9.  Rather, in the days leading to September 9, the pipe likely had a small leak, sometimes called a “pencil leak.”  The pencil leak allowed gas to permeate the neighborhood. Gas found its way into the wall spaces of the nearby houses.  The gas met with an ignition source – perhaps a small spark from someone turning on a light switch. A flash fire began in the house.  The fire traveled back to the source of the gas – the pipe in the street. Only then did the pipe explode.

How do we know that?  Two reasons: Basic fire chemistry and residents’ reports of the smell of gas well before the explosion.

Fire Chemistry

Pure gas does not burn. Rather, for gas to ignite, it has to be mixed with air. Only when the gas-to-air mixture is 5-15 percent gas and 95-85% air will it burn. The gas-to-air mixture at the site of a high pressure pipe rupture is almost pure gas and so is generally too "rich" to burn.  A combustible mixture usually can be found only at some distance from the source of the leak.

Not only must the gas-to-air mixture be just right for it to be combustible, but that mixture needs to meet up with an ignition source.  Seldom is there an ignition source right at the site of the rupture. That’s another reason gas fires typically begin some distance away from the rupture and then work their way back to the leaking pipe.

The NTSB should quit hoping to find some flaw in the pipe that made it all come apart at once. It won’t find one. It should instead look for some small flaw that allowed a slow “pencil leak.”

Neighbors Smelled Gas

Next, we know that residents smelled gas in the days leading to the fire. Those residents include Chris Torres who lived at the epicenter, and others as reported here and here. The smell of gas in the days before the fire support the “pencil leak” theory.  But the preliminary report doesn’t talk about that at all. How can the NTSB ignore what the residents have to say?  

So, where exactly was PG&E in the days leading to the fire?  Unfortunately, the NTSB doesn’t seem to be interested in that part of the story.  Neither are the politicians.

By now, most drivers know how dangerous rollovers are. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, they make up only 3% of all accidents, but account for 31% percent of all traffic vehicular fatalities.

One reason rollovers are so dangerous is that, when a vehicle rolls over, its roof can crush down on the occupants, causing head injuries, paraplegia and death.

Windshields Keep the Roof Up

The surprise is that, in today’s vehicles, the windshield is engineered to provide much of the stiffness necessary to keep the roof from collapsing.  In fact, some experts say that the windshield accounts for up to 60% of the cabin’s structural integrity in a rollover.

If It Isn’t Installed Right, It Won’t Stay In

If the windshield pops out of the frame in a rollover accident, it can’t do its job of holding the roof up. Sometimes, an improperly installed windshield will pop out on the first roll, allowing the roof to crush down on the second. That’s why, when someone is killed in a rollover that should have been survivable, experienced accident investigators want to know about the windshield: Did it stay in the frame as it was supposed to? Or did it pop out? If it popped out, was it the factory original windshield or had the windshield been replaced at some point after the vehicle left the factory?

Because of the demands on the windshield, field replacement of a cracked or broken windshield has become a tricky procedure. For example, if an installer doesn’t wear disposable gloves when handling the replacement windshield, oils from his hands can contaminate the bonding surface. The process of "gluing" the windshield into place is also critical. Even if everything else is done right, the bond’s strength can be compromised if the car is left outside in the sun with the windows rolled up. Or if the car’s owner is allowed to drive off with the car too soon. Any resulting imperfection in the bond will allow the windshield to pop out in an accident.

The Danger Is Real

The National Glass Association has studied NHTSA’s crash data. It won’t say exactly how many of the deaths in NHTSA’s database resulted from improper windshield installation, but it concedes that "a measurable percentage of those fatalities occur when an improperly replaced windshield does not remain firmly bonded to the vehicle during a crash."

Of course, consumers are not in a position to inspect a windshield bond, or to otherwise ensure that the installation was done right.  But the expert installers know how important the job is, and they are supposed to get it right. There’s no question that, because of the way today’s cars are designed, it can mean the difference between life and death.

Safety regulations were supposed to prevent the San Bruno fire.  But they didn’t.  One reason is that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC president pictured) didn’t do its job.  Instead of enforcing the CPUC Commissioner Peeveyregulations, when the CPUC caught PG&E in a violation, it let PG&E slide.  Not just once. But more than 400 times in the past 6 years.  That’s according to the CPUC’s own records. 

PG&E is the worst safety violator of all the utilities in the state of California. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, 410 “probable” violations since 2005. Yet, in not one case did the CPUC fine PG&E. Instead, it let PG&E off with a warning.  Every time.

Why?  The CPUC says that it goes easy on PG&E for two reasons. First, it “assumes” PG&E has an interest in safety. According to the Chairman of the CPUC’s consumer safety division:

We operate under the assumption they are interested in having a safely operated system.

But given PG&E’s history of running its equipment to failure, why would the CPUC “assume” that PG&E is interested in safety? The fact of the matter is that PG&E is not interested in safety.  It is interested in profits.  Anyone who doubts that need only read PG&E’s somewhat indifferent warning to shareholders about the problems with its gas operations. Though PG&E showed great concern that an explosion might be a drain on profits, it expressed no concern for what an explosion might do to its customers.  PG&E gave the CPUC no real reason to believe it was interested in safety.

Next, the CPUC says it let PG&E slide because the CPUC didn’t see a disturbing ‘trend".

If we saw a trend that gave us concerns in terms of what we are finding out there, we would take enforcement action. 

A trend? How about 410 violations in the past 6 years? Does that not constitute a "trend"? Exactly how many violations does the CPUC need?

The fact of the matter is that Glenview homes aren’t worth today what they were on September 8.  That’s because some house hunters who might have considered buying in the Glenview neighborhood before the fire will now fear that the neigborhood is unsafe. Others, in light of all the pain the neighborhood has experienced, will simply prefer to buy elsewhere. 

In real estate terms, the explosion and fire has "stigmatized" the neighborhood. Stigma always depresses home values. Values will drop even more when some Glenview residents, unable to become once again comfortable in their homes, are forced to move out and to sell almost regardless of the price they get.  

The homes’ diminution in value represents a significant economic loss to Glenview residents.  The loss may be difficult to quantify, but it doesn’t make it any less real.  Even those homeowners who decide not to sell will be affected when, for example, they try to refinance or borrow against their properties.  

A home need not have burned to be “damaged” by the fire.  Whether Glenview residents decide to keep their homes or to sell, they have all suffered a loss. They are all deserving of compensation.