Identifying reliable internet sources

I decided to research a different myth than the ones suggested (unless I missed something), hopefully that's OK. I chose the rather controversial myth about mobile phones causing brain cancer. Personally I hate cell-phones. Of course, fears of brain tumors are not what makes me dislike them, but all the same I will try to keep any bias out of my reports.

Here is a link to an article bursting at the seams with "evidence" that mobiles are killers, to the point where it seems ridiculous in places.
http://www.rense.com/general63/FACTS.HTM
Maybe it's true, but I don't know; I'm not a scientist. It is clear however that this article's author has a bias against mobile phones stronger than mine, so I am loath to take this article at face value.

Here's an article at the other side of the argument (more accurately, it tells it like it is).
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_1_3X_Cellular_Phones.asp

As it is from the website for the American Cancer Society, most of us would logically assume that it is a trustworthy source. But wait, didn't Mr. Philpot warn us against such "Authority worship"? Bearing that in mind and reading the article, I really don't think it's an issue. The article avoids sounding biased by stating that cell phones might present some risk (so it's not openly denying the possibility), and goes on to give reports from tests. It even states that the testing has been limited (because mobiles haven't been around long). I feel that the article really presents both sides of the controversy equally, and gives the facts. At no point does any emotion enter the text, unlike the first article, in which it is apparent that the author feels quite strongly about this subject. Her emotions perhaps cloud her judgment (I really sounded like Yoda there). Jokes aside, I will finish by saying that the credibility of articles could be determined by:
The source of the article (e.g. some average Joe's blog versus an article from an accredited scientific website, such as nasa.gov)
The feel of the article (i.e. if emotions enter the picture)
How the information is presented (if an article doesn't even talk about the other side of the argument for instance, readers should be careful before accepting it as truth)

A note about emotion in articles: With this example, a writer's feelings or emotions might very well create a bias, which can easily blind them to the truth, or at least limit what they report. However I believe that there are some topics in which writers should put emotion into their words. This particular subject is not one where that should be done, in my opinion.

I was not able to bust this myth, because I'm not a scientist. But looking at these two articles (and others) I would have to say that the risk of getting brain cancer from using cell phones is very small, but to say it is non-existent would be unwise.

Still. I hate mobile phones.

Is School a Cave?

This is my reply to the "Is school a cave" question posed.
You can see the question here: http://teachingheads.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-02-18T12%3A40%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=1

I think that Plato's cave analogy is definitely very close to what the atmosphere of school is. There are many elements of school that are preparing all of us for life independent of our parents, where we have to learn to fend for ourselves. In fact, more than just school could be considered a cave, our entire childhood, up until graduation, could be considered living in a sheltered environment. It is a sheltered environment, but we are also trapped inside, like prisoners in the cave, until we reach a certain age. The elements of school that prepare us for life outside the cave: Interacting with other people. In school it is with classmates, outside the cave it is with co-workers or neighbours. Obeying orders from superiors. You have to do what the teachers say, or suffer consequences, and in the real world, disobey your boss or break the law, and you can lose your job or go to jail. You have to hand in work on time in school. Miss paying bills in the real world, and you’ll go into debt. The list goes on, and anyone can see that school (whether or not that is its primary purpose) is purely an immense training course for life outside the cave.

What should be taught in schools?

This is my list of what should be taught in schools, and yes, it is biased of course, with music at the top....

1: Theory of Music (Elective class)
2: Music Practical (playing instruments) (Elective class)
3: Visual Arts (for traditional and digital art, such as 3D modelling) (Elective class)
4: Languages (English, Spanish, French, Japanese, Chinese) (Mandatory for at least one language)
5: Theory of Knowledge (Mandatory)
6: Mathematics (Mandatory)
7: Humanities (Geography, History, Economics, Business & Management) (At least one is mandatory)
8: The sciences (Physics, Chemistry, Biology) (At least one is mandatory)
9: Physical fitness/Martial Arts (Elective class)

This is basically what is taught at the AICS, with some minor exceptions. I couldn't really think of anything different.

Religion is not listed because everyone will have different beliefs in a given class group; a class where atheists are taught about God and Christians are taught about Islam is obviously not practical.
Language: In my opinion, every school should offer at least all of those languages listed above.
Visual Arts: In this day and age, programs such as photoshop are being used more and more (e.g. advertisments) and we should be taught how to use it in school.
The Music practical class would simply be a time for students to practise playing their respective instruments. In my opinion, every school should have a concert grand piano... but I am getting off-subject....
I think that it is important that Physical Education be offered in schools, but for other students, their time would be better spent, say, practising the pianoforte, and thus PE shouldn't be mandatory, in my opinion.