5 ideas for frozen peas

Few frozen foods can stand toe-to-toe with their fresh counterparts, but peas can: Freezing them just after picking locks in their sweet flavor and nutrients like vitamins A and C. Quick-thaw peas by placing them in a strainer and rinsing them with warm water.

1 CRIS-PEA FRITTERS In food processor, pulse 2 c. peas, 1/4 c. dried bread crumbs, 1 tsp. grated lemon peel, 1 Tbsp, fresh lemon juice, 1 tsp. curry powder, 1/4 tsp. salt, and 1/8 tsp. pepper until smooth. By heaping tablespoons, shape into 2-in.-wide patties; coat with 1/4 c. dried bread crumbs. Heat 3 Tbsp. olive oil in 12-in. skillet on medium. Cook patties 4 to 5 minutes or until golden brown, turning once. Serve with lemon wedges. Makes 10 fritters.

2 SAVORY SPICED BEEF In 12-in. skillet, sprinkle 1 lb. 85% lean ground beef with 1/2 tsp. each ground cinnamon, salt, and pepper. Cook on medium-high 5 to 7 minutes or until browned, breaking up with spoon. With slotted spoon, transfer to bowl. To skillet, add 2 cloves garlic, finely chopped; cook 30 seconds. Add 2 c. peas and 1/4 c. water; heat through. Stir in beef and 1/2 c. fresh mint, chopped. Cook 1 minute. Serve with rice. Serves 4.

3 BACON PEA SOUP In 4-qt. saucepan, cook 3 slices bacon, chopped, on medium until crisp, stirring; with slotted spoon, transfer to plate. Drain all but 1 Tbsp. fat from pan; add 1 shallot, sliced; 1 tsp. chopped peeled fresh ginger; 1/8 tsp, salt; and 1/4 tsp. pepper, and cook 1 minute, stirring. Add 3 c. peas and 2 c. lower-sodium chicken broth. Heat to boiling. Reduce heat; simmer 5 minutes. Puree in blender until smooth. Garnish with bacon. Makes 4 c.

4 SALMON WITH PEA PUREE Spray 2-qt. saucepan with cooking spray. Cook 1 c. sliced leeks on medium 2 minutes, stirring. Add 1 1/2 c. peas, 1/2 c. white wine, and 1/4 c, water; heat to boiling. Reduce heat to medium: simmer 5 to 6 minutes or until reduced by half Meanwhile, spray 12-in. nonstick skillet with cooking spray; heat on medium 1 minute. Sprinkle 4 (6-oz.) skinless salmon fillets with 1/4 tsp. salt; cook 10 minutes or until just opaque in center, turning once. While fish cooks, puree pea mixture in blender with 1/4 c. half-and-half, 1/4 tsp. salt, and 1/4 tsp. pepper. Serve with salmon. Serves 4.

5 RICE PEA -LAF In 4-qt. saucepot, heat 2 Tbsp. olive oil on medium. Add 1/2 sm. onion, finely chopped; 1/2 tsp. ground cumin; and 1/4 tsp. salt. Cook 2 minutes. Add 1 c. long-grain white rice; cook 2 minutes, stirring. Stir in 1 1/2 c. water; heat to boiling on high. Cover; reduce heat and simmer 20 minutes. Remove from heat; add 1 c. peas. Let stand covered 5 minutes. Fluff with fork. Serves 4.

Fast fish: even good cooks can become reliant on microwave ovens

Like most of my food-conscious friends, I never thought that a microwave oven would have a place in my kitchen. There wasn’t room. It either reheated food or cooked it badly. Then the writer Barbara Kafka, once a fellow hold-out, started telling me of the wonderful results she was having while researching her book Microwave Gourmet, which was recently published. I found room. Predictably, considering the strength and duration of my resistance, I now use the microwave oven more than any other appliance in my kitchen, including the stove.

Kafka’s book goes beyond anything written before on the subject, including, emphatically, owner’s manuals. It is the first book that shows serious cooks how they can find a microwave oven indispensable–for preparing components of complicated dishes–as well as showing harried cooks how microwave ovens can speed getting dinner on the table. Kafka does not make the usual claims that the microwave oven can do everything–no albino roasts, vinyl-like baked potatoes, or tan rubber brownies. Instead she maps out what it can do that nothing else does so well or so fast: cook vegetables, grains (polenta, my old favorite, comes out perfect), broths, pates, and jams, among many other unexpected foods. She breaks with most manuals and books by, for example, pronouncing that breads and conventional cakes are disasters. She finds most manufacturers’ defrosting programs, with their elaborate alternations of medium and low power, unnecessary; full power for a short time usually produces the same result. As for defrosting steak: “Don’t do it.” Most important, and most unlike other authors of books on microwave cooking, Kafka is an original and stylish cook, whose recipes would taste delicious no matter what they were cooked in.

A “dictionary” at the back of the book gives cooking times for most of the foods mentioned as ingredients in the recipes and for quite a few more, so that you can make up recipes of your own. The nature of microwave cooking requires precise timings and quantities; it does not forgive the abandon of effervescent improvisers, the way a stove often does. Unfortunately, different ovens cook in different ways, depending not only on how much power they generate but also on how they diffuse microwaves, and volumes of ingredients–say, chicken parts–vary everywhere. And every cook has his own idea of when something is done. So expect to make your own refinements in the cooking times and container sizes called for.

If you have not yet bought a microwave oven, I recommend that you buy a full-powered one–between 600 and 750 watts. I bought a medium-powered one–500 watts (small ovens are usually 400 watts)–and have found the difference in speed when using full-powered ovens so remarkable that I plan to buy one. I hear from people who test microwave recipes that some 500-watt ovens cook many foods nearly as fast as 700-watt ovens, but mine doesn’t. They also tell me that performance varies within brands from model to model, and that the only way to know that you will have the speed of a full-powered oven is to buy one.

I have gone from refusing houseroom to a space-saving oven to considering keeping two, even though I know that in large ovens it is possible (if tricky, because of timings) to cook two dishes at once, using a rack. Once you start cooking in a microwave oven regularly, you use it to cook components of one or more dishes, just as you would a stove, and you want to be able to cook several things at once. Whatever size you buy, pay the extra amount for a keypad that will allow you to time your cooking to the second. Dial controls are not precise enough for most recipes, and you’ll often want to put something in for only twenty or thirty seconds more.

Just as word processors cannot do the writing for you, microwave ovens can’t eliminate preparation time. I will admit that as obvious as this lesson seems, it came as an unpleasant surprise. The vegetables still have to be peeled, the onions chopped, the spices retrieved from the back of the cabinet. The prospect of a good, satisfying dinner in ten minutes is hard to realize if you insist on using only fresh foods. But a microwave oven brings that prospect a lot closer almost no matter what you’re making–and delivers it when you’re cooking fish.

Fish cooked in a microwave oven is the single best example of how owning one can change your life. First, fish needs no preparation. You take it out of the wrapping paper and put it on the plate you plan to serve it on. It needs nothing to make it taste good: no oil, no court bouillon to poach it in, no herbs you forgot to buy. Even a fish as bland as sole reveals itself to be much more interesting than it was when poached in a liquid that drew off its flavor or baked at a heat that dried it out. The inside and the outside of the fish cook at the same time (unless the fish is more than three inches thick), eliminating the problem of a raw center and a dry exterior. No more undercooked fish served in the fear of being caught serving dry fish. The appearance barrier doesn’t exist: fish isn’t supposed to brown unless it’s fried or broiled, in which case it’s probably overdone. It looks good white (and even better on a dark-colored plate), and it is snowy when it comes out of the microwave oven. I used to buy fish only rarely, despite my great fondness for it, out of reluctance to take the time to figure out how best to cook it and for how long. Now I buy any fish that I can find, knowing that I will taste it at its best after a few minutes. And I’ll have only the plate to wash.

Most kind of fish take the same time to cook in the microwave oven and call for the same technique. What determines cooking time is the weight and the shape of the fish. Although it might seem cumbersome to weigh pieces of fish (or translate the decimal weight on the package into ounces), doing so ensures proper cooking, and is easier than standing a ruler beside the thickest part of the fish and bending down beside a counter to decide what it measures–the prerequisite for the “Canadian” rule of cooking fish for ten minutes per inch of thickness. The Canadian rule is inexact from the start, because a steak might be an inch thick from one end to the other whereas a whole fish or fillet might be an inch thick in the center but very much thinner at the sides or ends; it also doesn’t take into account any liquid that may have been added, which can make a great difference in timing.

Although whole fish that aren’t bigger than your oven can be cooked in it with great success, I’ll give rules for fillets and steaks, because they are more widely available in markets. Kafka defines fillets as “halves or quarters of fish removed lengthwise from the bones,” and steaks as “cuts across the fish with or without bone.” Flat-boned fish such as flounder, sole, and perch are sold either whole or in fillets; big, thick fish such as swordfish and tuna are nearly always sold as steaks, and salmon often is. Leaving in bones and skin will not affect cooking times for fillets and steaks.

Fillets should be cooked on the smallest plates they can fit on in a single layer; a rectangular dish will suit several fillets. If the fillets have skin, slash it across the width of the fillet, so that the fish does not curl. If the steaks have tapered ends, place these pointing toward the center of the dish. Food at the edge of a dish receives moremicrowaves than food in the center, so anything thick or slow-cooking should always be placed along the rim.

Cover the fish tightly with plastic wrap. Wrapping stabilizes heat and moisture around the food being cooked, and helps to counteract the uneven pattern of microwaves in every oven–a defect that turntables remedy only incompletely. (You can buy a wind-up plastic turntable if your oven doesn’t come with one, or remember to rotate dishes that take more than five minutes to cook a quarter turn midway through cooking.) As the tightly covered food cooks, the plastic forms a dome over the dish, making it look like a terrarium, and as the dish cools, the plastic shrinks to encase the food, like Cryovac.

It may be tempting at first to imitate conventional cooking methods, such as poaching or steaming, but the most effective microwave cooking can be disconcertingly simple. For instance, any liquid beyond a teaspoon or two, which quickly turns to steam, will only slow cooking. A half cup of liquid will add about thirty seconds to cooking time, depending on the depth and width of the dish. A small amount of vegetables-less than half a cup–won’t affect the cooking time, if you scatter them around the fish rather than over it. A cup, or six ounces, will add a minute in a full-powered oven, a minute and a half in a small oven. If you want to add more than half a cup of slow-cooking vegetables, such as carrots, green beans, whole or quartered onions, or broccoli, precook them for a minute or two. (These measurements apply to liquid and vegetables added to the whole dish, not to each portion.) Quick-cooking vegetables, such as mushrooms, scallions, zucchini, and chopped onions, can be cooked with the fish.

The flavor of dried herbs is intensified in the microwave oven, so use less; because there is so little liquid to absorb it, use less salt; and pepper becomes so strong that you should add only a little at a time until you become used to the new gauge. The flavor of fresh herbs weakens, so add a bit more or add them just before the dish finishes cooking.

You can nearly always eliminate fat from any recipe you want to adapt to the microwave oven. If you do want to add it, a spoonful of olive oil or melted butter (nothing is faster or easier for melting butter than a microwave oven–see why you need two?) drizzled over the fish just before it is served will taste fresher and stronger than if cooked.

Kafka’s dictionary gives cooking times for fillets and steaks of various thicknesses and in various portions. I’ll give her times for one and two portions, and bear in mind that you can’t double times willy-nilly for more. For fillets a half inch thick and weighing six to eight ounces each, the time for one piece is two minutes or in a small oven three and a half minutes; for two pieces, two and a half minutes or in a small oven four minutes. For steaks three-quarters of an inch thick and without bone, weighing eight to nine ounces each, the time for one piece is three minutes or in a small ovenfour and a half to five minutes; for two pieces, four to five minutes or in a small oven six to seven minutes.

Fish will continue to cook if left in the oven and especially if left wrapped. Be very careful when removing plastic wrap. The plate may be only warm, but the steam under the wrap is hot and strong, and it can easily burn you. Prick the plastic with a knife to let steam escape, and gently pull back one corner, keeping your hands to the side of the dish. After you bring the plate to the table, you might start wondering what you’ll try in the microwave oven next, and counting the number of dishes you won’t have to wash.

Despite my enthusiasm for microwave ovens, I have been unable to persuade my entire acquaintance to buy them, and not only because of the counter-space problem. Friends worry that they aren’t being told about health dangers, and especially if they have children around, they don’t want to take an unknown and thus all the more frightening risk. No one to whom I spoke at the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health seems willing to corroborate their suspicions.

Przemyslaw Czerski, a physician and research biologist at the center, whose field is non-ionizing radiation and health protection and who has written a book on the biological effects of microwaves, says, “From the point of view of safety, particularly with children, I certainly prefer a microwave oven to a gas range, which will have boiling things that could be upset over a child.” (He does caution a mother heating her baby’s formula in a microwave oven to wait a minute until the formula stops heating, and then to shake the bottle and feel a drop on her wrist before giving it to the child; a cool bottle may hide a too-hot liquid.) Czerski says that within the emission limitations that the FDA currently requires of all microwave ovens, there are “no known experimentally proven or theoretically feasible health hazards, from what we know about the interactions of microwaves at this frequency range with living systems.”

Czerski is speaking of emissions of microwaves from ovens; microwaves leave no radiation in food. Another misconception he hastens to correct is the one caused by the frequent reassuring statements that television picture tubes emit more radiation than microwave ovens do. Picture tubes emit ionizing radiation (the kind x-rays emit) and microwave ovens emit non-ionizing radiation (the kind light bulbs and most household appliances emit); the two are not comparable.

Joanne Barron, the chief of the microwave and acoustics section of the office of compliance at the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, says that microwave ovens manufactured since 1976 have over their lifetimes held to the emissions requirements for microwave ovens fresh from the factory (the requirements, enacted in 1971, allow for slightly more leakage after the ovens are bought). The FDA also requires two interlock devices preventing theoven from producing microwaves when the door is open, and a monitor that will blow the oven’s fuse if for some reason both of the devices fail and the door is opened.

Louis Slesin, the editor of Microwave News, recently published the results of a report at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, in Batavia, Illinois, that found that leakage tends to increase with ovens‘ age, but that their interlock systems ensure leakage only at extremely low levels and very rarely at ones above the FDA standards. Slesin, whose newsletter deals with broadcast towers and video-display terminals much more often than it does with microwave ovens, thinks that both the short-term risk (of any part of the body being heated) and the long-term risk (of any ill effects of chronic exposure, none of which have yet been identified) to those who use microwave ovens at home is negligible, and he praises the FDA for enacting the “only enforceable non-ionizing radiation standard in the country.” This standard has brought justifiable confidence to consumers, he says. He does fear that workers who are exposed to microwave ovens in continuous use for hours every day may be in some as yet unspecified danger, and he is frustrated that “no one” is conducting studies of chronic long-term exposure.

The only risk that Slesin can imagine for children is that of staring, transfixed, at food through the window of the oven, where any leakage is greatest; the eye’s lens has no cooling mechanism, as most of the body does, and a child might develop cataracts. This is, he says, at the moment a scare scenario. If you don’t want your child staring into the oven, cover the door with something opaque, and if you want to minimize your own exposure, step back a few feet from it–exposure decreases geometrically with distance. Slesin, in short, cannot work up much concern about the home use of microwave ovens. He is not one to shy away from bringing consumers bad news that manufacturers don’t want them to hear, either–he publishes another newsletter about the dangers of non-ionizing radiation from video-display terminals.

Kafka’s book has itself raised other fears. Manufacturers of cookware and ovens are up in arms over her contention in four recipes (of 600 in the book) that it is safe to deep-fat fry in microwave ovens; they claim that flawed cookware can break, that people can burn themselves from splattered oil, and that oil can heat beyond control and catch fire. Kafka counters that cooks should check to be sure that containers are properly large and are free of cracks, chips, crazing, or mending and that her book both calls for small amounts of oil in deep containers and warns against attempting to deep-fat fry in small ovens, whose interiors might be too low to avoid splatters. She says that she has heated fat for thirty minutes in the microwave oven–twice as long as she recommends in any recipe–without having it surpass 385 degrees. The standard temperature for deep-fat frying is about 350 degrees; oil reaches the smoke point at about 475 degrees, at which point it will give an off flavor to food, and it can ignite at about 600 degrees. Both the smoke and flash points of oil are significantly lowered when oil is contaminated with water, and all food contains a lot of water; if you decide to try deep-fat frying in the microwave oven, be sure to use only fresh oil every time you do. However deep-fat frying is done, it is potentially dangerous (let alone nutritionally unacceptable), and manufacturers seem more concerned about hurt and possibly litigious customers than about damage to their ovens.

For similar reasons, manufacturers of plastic wraps call for consumers to vent wraps when covering food to be cooked in the microwave oven, by leaving open a small area at the edge of a dish. Kafka calls for unvented wrapping. Dr. Gertrude Armbruster, a teacher at the College of Human Ecology at Cornell University who specializes in microwave cooking, says that consumers “are worried when they see plastic wrap balloon” but that in her years of covering foods tightly with various kinds of plastic wrap she has never seen it burst from steam pressure, a danger that manufacturers hold out. Again, the danger manufacturers seem to fear most is that of consumers being burned, in this case by steam.

A possible hazard that no one has yet raised in the popular press is that of the leaching of chemicals from plastic wrap into food when the wrap is used in microwave cooking. The plastic wrap that works best by far for microwave cooking is polyvinyl chloride (PVC), which clings most tightly to containers. Unfortunately, the “reservoir of chemicals that could migrate into foods” is “much higher” in PVC wrap than in other kinds, according to Dr. Gregory Cramer, a chemist at the Food and Drug Administration who works on the regulation of plastics and new packaging. Those chemicals are plasticizers, which give PVC wrap its flexibility. There are fewer chemicals that could migrate from polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC), the basis of Saran Wrap, or polyethylene (PE), the basis of Glad Wrap; these resins require either less or no plasticizers to be flexible. Reynolds, the best-known manufacturer of PVC plastic wrap, says that its plasticizers have all been approved by the FDA; but the FDA’s regulations for plasticizers in plastic wrap were devised primarily for use at room temperature and below in the 1960s, when microwave applications were not envisioned. Migration takes place at the highest levels when plastics are in direct contact with fatty foods, which absorb chemicals much more efficiently than water condensing beneath the wrap used to cover a dish. The amount of chemicals that migrates depends not only on the nature of the plastic but also on how long the plastic is in contact With the food and at what temperature. For the moment, the FDA is not actively investigating the issue of plasticizer migration from plastic films in the microwave oven.

But as for the safety of using microwave ovens themselves, I could not elicit even a shadow of concern from either Czerski or Barron, at the FDA. When I asked Czerski if he used a microwave oven at home, he said, “The control panel on my microwave oven is broken, and I’m terribly upset that I have to live a few days without it.”

Eight low-cost power pedals from Korg and Zoom (Part 1)

Digital processing gets cheaper and cheaper. Guitarists love stompboxes. Such facts of life are abundantly clear to instrument manufacturers, who have bombarded the market with low-priced digital pedals that harness multi-processing power in humable pedalboard and stompbox housings. Korg and Zoom have each introduced four new pedals at prices designed to compete with such popular faves as ART’s Xtreme Plus ad FX-1 Multi-Effects, DigiTech’s Whammy/Wah and Modulator pedals, and DOD’s mini-pedalboards.

The key advantages of digital stompboxes are their affordability, range of sounds, and ability to store programs. However, they are generally less intuitive to use than analog stompboxes, and because the knobs don’t move as you change programs, you can rarely discern your current settings at a glance. Every one of the ingenious and ambitious devices covered here offers extraordinary bang for the buck. But in pursuit of competitive pricing, each makes its own compromises in sound, programmability, and hardware.

KORG PEDALS

Each of Korg‘s digital boxes—the 104ds Hyper Distortion, the 105od Classic Overdrive, the 301dl Dynamic Echo, and the 411fx Super Multi FX–boast roadworthy, all-metal housings and rugged jacks and pots. They require four AA batteries that power the pedal for up to 15 hours. Except for the 10-program Super Multi FX, each can store two programs in memory, with a two-tone LED indicating which program is engaged.

There is no numerical info about your current settings, but the program LED blinks whenever you rotate an edit knob past its stored value. The Hyper Distortion and Classic Overdrive have monaural, 1/4″ inputs and outputs; the Dynamic Echo and Super Multi FX output in stereo through a single 1/4″ TRS jack. Each pedal has an input gain switch optimized for low- and high-output pickups.

With their four simple knobs,the Korg pedals have a classic stompbox look all except the Classic Overdrive have a “shift” toggle that changes the function of each knob, for a total of eight adjustable parameters. It’s easy at first to screw up your sound by reaching for a knob checking how one toggle is set, but, on the whole, it’s an elegant compromise between programming depth and visual simplicity. Korg’s sketchy manuals could benefit from more applications info.

  • 104ds HYPER DISTORTION

The Hyper Distortion is the answer to the question “What is the best distortion pedal?”. As its name suggests, the Hyper Distortion ($190) is less about naturalistic overdrive than hot, Marshall-flavored hues. The box’s signature color is an interesting “cabinet resonance” simulator. Adjustable size and depth controls conjure the strongly flavored, frequency-canceled character of a multi-speaker, closed-back cabinet. The EQ section includes a sweepable midrange control that delivers aggressive, spiky contours, and a line-select switch engages a decent amp-simulating filter for direct recording. The Hyper Distortion isn’t a particularly dynamic pedal. It never cleans up much, even if you back off your guitar volume and opt for minimal gain settings. Nor is it especially loud–it doesn’t firebomb your preamp the way some super-gain pedals do. But while so many other gain pedals focus on evoking hard preamp buzz, the Hyper Distortion succeeds at imitating power amp and speaker cabinet coloration. In some senses, it occupies a midpoint between conventional fuzzes and Sans-Amp-style amp simulators. The Hyper Distortion is a uniquely voiced distortion pedal with some strong and distinctive flavors.

  • 105od CLASSIC OVERDRIVE

The Classic Overdrive ($190) is one of the best overdrive pedals and the simplest of the new Korg pedals. There is no function-shift toggle–the switch engages a gain-goosing boost mode. Even though the EQ section consists solely of an overall tone control and a contour knob (which emphasizes different midrange frequencies), the Classic Overdrive has a large repertoire of timbres and plenty of low-end impact. It’s aggressive enough to add craggy, ultra-present edges, transparent enough to preserve pickup character, and responds fairly organically to playing dynamics. The Classic Overdrive excels at tough, real-life tones–especially ones with overheated lows and toothy mids.

  • 301dl DYNAMIC ECHO

The Dynamic Echo ($200) is an ingenious pedal packed with extraordinary features. There’s nothing surprising about its one second of delay time and time/feedback/level controls. But the Dynamic Echo lets you tweak the color of its delays like no other stompbox. Not only does it include a high-frequency damping circuit for approximating warm analog fuzziness, it also offers low-frequency damping–which can replicate the classic reggae/dub effect of increasingly crisp and desiccated echoes that evoke leaves drying up and blowing away. Furthermore, there’s a Hi Fi/Lo Fi pot that can make the delays sound crappy in the best possible sense of the term, a predelay knob that allows you to dictate the onset of the first delay independently of the main delay time, and an adjustable ducking control that lowers the delayed signal as you play louder. (Your parts remain distinct, but ambient echoes blossom in the pauses between phrases.) The Dynamic Echo truly lives up to its name. It’s one of the coolest delay devices around–and required listening for anyone en-amored of funky/trashy, bottom-feeder tones. The only features the pedal misses are a tap-tempo function and the ability to set exact delay times by means other than one’s ears.

  • 411fx SUPER MULTI FX

The Super Multi FX ($200) is no less ingenious, but it suffers from the same power/price compromises as rival “do-it-all-for-cheap” boxes. It delivers up to four simultaneous effects (one each from the drive/compression, EQ, modulation, and ambience menus), plus adjustable noise reduction. The overdrive settings include five flavors of distortion and three presets designed for direct recording. The EQ section offers high and low shelving and sweepable midrange frequencies. Modulation effects include chorusing, flanging, phasing, tremolo/pan, vibrato, rotary speaker simulator, auto wah, and passive pitch shift. The ambience section offers seven simple echo programs with preset times ranging from 30 to 740 milliseconds, a 640ms ping-pong delay, and a room/hall reverb pair. (You can’t use reverb and modulation effects simultaneously.)

Unlike the other Korg boxes, which can only remember two programs, the Super Multi FX can store five banks of two sounds each, as well as six pairs of factory presets. The layout is simple. There are separate knobs for bank, effect group, and effect preset. A fourth knob regulates a single adjustable parameter for each effect (compression sensitivity, distortion drive, modulation speed, and ambience effect level). This stripped-down editing system works surprisingly well. You cant, say, set specific delay times and feedback amounts, but successive delay presets provide greater values for each parameter, so you can get the usual doubling/slapback/Alpine-yodel gradations. Another clever work around is an “auto rotary” effect that speeds up and slows down according to your playing dynamics. It’s not like playing a rotary simulator with fast/slow/ brake controls, but it’s a wily shorthand version of a Leslie’s ever-shifting rates. But for all the Super Multi FX’s ambition and intelligence, its sounds are merely okay. I was impressed by how much Korg crammed into a tiny, budget-priced package, but I wasn’t knocked out by any specific tones. But for those seeking a highly portable processor for non-critical applications, this box is hard to beat.

Even with air conditioning you need a whole-house fan

When I installed central air conditioning a few years ago, I could hardly wait to get rid of my 20-inch window fan. At that time, air conditioning cost less than a dollar a day, and the fan was nothing more than a nuisance.

But by last summer, my air-conditioning costs had nearly quadrupled. I began thinking about that slightly ugly and somewhat noisy fan, remembering how I had managed to cool my house with it on moderately hot days at a negligible operating cost. Right now, similar window fans cost up to $180. But for a little more money I found a better way to cut the cost of keeping cool: a whole-house fan.

I installed a fan in the ceiling of my central hallway, and began trial-and-error experiments with the airflow in my house (see drawing). After I developed a good ventilation scheme, I was able to get along without central air conditioning for all but a few days last summer. Depending on your house and climate, you too may be able to take care of most or all of your cooling needs this way. Whole-house fans are designed for easy installation and operation. Here’s how they work:

Ceiling exhaust fans draw air up through the house and push it out through attic gables or eave openings. For the fan to operate properly, you must open some windows, and perhaps exterior doors. Obviously, all hall doors must be ajar. Deciding which windows to open and fine-tuning your plan may take some time, but it will pay off in efficiency and comfort. One word of caution: You may be tempted to open doors and windows in a cool basement, but it’s more effective to bring air in through first-floor windows. And if you live in an area where radon is a concern, it’s especially important to circulate fresh outside air.

Early in the morning, when the house is cool, close your windows and doors. Keep blinds and shades drawn, to reflect sunlight. It takes time for heat to penetrate the walls and ceilings of your house. Outdoors, it’s usually warmest about 3 p.m., but the indoor peak generally occurs between 5 and 6 p.m. Wait until the outside temperature in the shade falls below the indoor temperature, then open your windows and turn on your fan.

As the fan pulls cool air into your house, it dramatically lowers the air temperature in the attic, which can reach 150 degrees F or so without air movement. The fan provides almost instantaneous relief because moving air feels about seven degrees cooler than static air. Makers of whole-house fans say–and I found it to be true–that the fans have limited usefulness when the outdoor temperature rises above 85 degrees F. That’s because most people are comfortable with air temperatures of 78 degrees or less.

Last summer I resorted to my central air only on the few days when temperatures reached the 90s and low 100s and humidity was high. Even then, I first ran the fan at full speed to purge hot air from the attic before starting the air conditioner. As soon as the outside temperature dropped in the evening, I switched back to the fan.

It’s difficult to compare last summer’s cooling costs with those of earlier years, because the weather was unusual in my area–with wide hot-cool swings and a shorter-than-normal hot spell. But I do know that when I run the ceiling fan, I am paying for only 1/3 horsepower. The air conditioner, combined with its fan and the furnace blower, is rated at three horsepower. So the fan’s operating cost is about 1/10 that of air conditioning. I expect to recover its cost in power savings within a couple of years.

My 30-inch variable-speed fan from Sears cost about $280. Smaller whole-house fans are available for as little as $100. The fan blades are direct- or belt-driven, with diameters of 20 to 42 inches. The motors are about 1/4 to 3/4 hp. Some are single-speed; others have two speeds or variable speeds. The fans can move anywhere from 3,000 to 17,000 cubic feet of air per minute.

The most popular fans are 24- and30-inch units, used in 1,200- and 1,700-square-foot houses, respectively. Airflow for these fans is 3,600 to 5,700 cubic feet per minute. Check fan specifications to find out which size you’ll need. When in doubt, choose the larger, higher-volume fan.

You can use a whole-house fan in a two-story house, too, but you should choose a fan based on the total square footage of both floors. Ideally, the fan should be centrally located in the upstairs hallway. One maker has this two-story tip: Keep the upstairs windows closed until evening, pulling all the air through the lower windows. When you retire, close the downstairs windows and open the others.

You may want to add accessories to your fan. I spent about $60 for a thermostat, an insulated winter cover, and a “firestat’–a safety device that shuts off the fan at 204 degrees F. In a fire, a running fan could act like a blast furnace. The fire stat also has a kill switch to shut down the fan when you are working around it. Never work near a powered fan.

My unit also has an automatic temperature control that shuts down the fan when the house cools to a selected temperature, but the fan must be manually started. The reason? To make you remember to open enough doors and windows to provide the minimum air intake specified for your fan. If you don’t furnish an adequate air supply, your fan may draw gases from the flues of fireplaces, furnaces, or water heaters inside your house.

Tasty tomatoes: 8 fresh recipes to give you a big bite of summer

2 easy tomato dishes

  • TOMATO SALAD WITH BASIL DRESSING

Process together 1/2 packed cup basil leaves, 1 Tbs. white wine vinegar, 1/2 tsp. salt, and 1/4 tsp. freshly ground pepper in a food processor until mixed well. With processor on, slowly pour in 1/4 cup extra-virgin olive oil; process until smooth. Divide 2 sliced yellow tomatoes, 2 sliced red tomatoes, and 2 cups cherry or pear tomatoes among 4 plates; drizzle with dressing. Makes 4 servings. Each serving: 160 cal., 14 g fat, 2 g protein, 9 g carb.

  • PARMESAN-BASIL-GRILLED TOMATOES

Cut 4 large beefsteak tomatoes in half horizontally; brush both halves with olive oil. Grill tomatoes, skin side down, over high heat with grill lid closed, 2 minutes. Turn and grill 2 minutes with lid closed. Turn again, then sprinkle with 1 tsp. kosher salt, 1/2 tsp. freshly ground pepper, 1/2 cup thinly sliced basil, and 1/2 cup finely grated Parmesan; cook with grill lid closed until cheese begins to melt, 1 to 2 minutes. Makes 8 servings. Each serving: 72 cal., 5 g fat, 3 g protein, 3 g carb.

  • GRILLED BEEFSTEAK-TOMATO-AND-BRIE SANDWICHES

Spread 1/2 Tbs. Dijon mustard on one side of each of 4 thick slices of white bread; remove rind of 6 oz. softened Brie and spread half on each of 2 of the slices. Top cheese with sliced tomato and cover with remaining bread. Melt 1 tsp. butter in a large skillet over medium heat and place sandwiches in skillet; cook 2 minutes. Add another tsp. butter to skillet; turn sandwiches and cook 2 more minutes. Makes 2 sandwiches. Each sandwich: 622 cal., 41 g fat, 26 g protein, 40 g carb.

  • TOMATO-MOZZARELLA TART

Roll 1 sheet of puff pastry into a 14 in. square, fit into a 9 in. pie plate, trim the corners, and tuck the edges under to form a crust; prick the bottom and sides of pastry with a fork. Top pastry with foil and fill with pie weights or uncooked rice and bake at 400[degrees] for 10 minutes; remove foil and weights and bake 8 more minutes. Layer pastry with, in the following order, 6 oz. thinly sliced fresh mozzarella, 3 Tbs. pesto, 1 thinly sliced large red tomato, 3 Tbs. pesto, 6 oz. thinly sliced mozzarella, 3 Tbs. pesto, and 1 thinly sliced large yellow tomato; then dot top with 3 Tbs. pesto. Cut into wedges. Makes 6 servings. Each serving: 481 cal., 35 g fat, 30cj protein, 13 g carb.

Tomato Sipper

Process 7 large tomatoes, 1 seeded jalapeno, 1 cup cilantro leaves, 4 chopped scallions, 1 garlic clove, 1/2 cup lime juice, 1/4 tsp. ground red pepper, 1 tsp. ground cumin and 1 tsp. salt in a food processor until smooth. Press through a strainer; discard solids. Chill and serve as is or with 2 Tbs. vodka stirred into each 8 oz. glass. Makes 6 cups. Each 1 cup serving (without vodka): 90 cal., 1 g fat, 4 g protein, 20 g carb.

TOMATO TIPS

  • Buy tomatoes at a farmer’s market if at all possible. Even during the peak summer season, the ones offered by many supermarkets are the same low-on-taste tomatoes that are sold during the winter.
  • Choose firm tomatoes that are heavy for their size and avoid any with soft spots. Select tomatoes that are ripe (bright red all over) or slightly under-ripe (a few streaks of green). Let them ripen at room temperature for a few days.
  • Never refrigerate tomatoes. Cold temperatures cause tomatoes to stop ripening and give them a mealy texture.
  • Plum tomatoes are less juicy than other varieties and are good for sauces. Juicy beefsteak tomatoes are good all-purpose tomatoes to eat on their own or to add to soups or salads. Cherry tomatoes are good in salads or quickly sauteed in olive oil and served as a side dish. Grape tomatoes are sweeter than cherry tomatoes, but you can use them the same way.

2 simple sauces

  • Tomato-dill vinaigrette

Whisk together 1/2 cup extra-virgin olive oil, 2 Tbs. white wine vinegar, 1 pressed garlic clove, 1 tsp. salt, and 1/2 tsp. freshly ground pepper in a large bowl. Stir in 2 peeled, seeded, and diced yellow tomatoes and 2 Tbs. chopped dill. Serve over grilled chicken or use as a dressing for pasta salad. Makes 1 3/4 clips. Each 2 Tbs. serving: 73 cat., 8 g fat, 0 g protein, 1 g carb.

  • Fresh tomato sauce

Combine 1/4 cup extra-virgin olive oil, 4 pressed garlic cloves, 2 tsp. salt, and 1/2 tsp. pepper in a large bowl. Quarter 10 plum tomatoes and add to a food processor with 10 basil leaves; process until chunky. Add tomato mixture to olive-oil mixture. Makes 5 cups sauce, enough to coat 1 lb. pasta. Each 1/2 cup serving: 74 cal., 6 g fat, 1 g protein, 6 g carb.

Pesto Pronto

Spoon this easy-to-make sauce over sliced tomatoes, or toss with hot pasta and chopped fresh tomatoes. Process together 2 cups basil leaves, 2 garlic cloves, 1/2 cup chopped toasted walnuts, 1/2 cup freshly grated Parmesan, 2 tsp. lemon juice, and 1 tsp. salt in a food processor until mixed well. With food processor on, slowly pour in 1/2 cup extra-virgin olive oil; process until smooth. Makes 1 cup. Each Tbs.: 100 cal., 10 g fat, 2 g protein, 1 g carb.

Heat-pump clothes dryer

At the Nyle Corp. in Bangor, Maine, there are a half-dozen prototype electric clothes dryers that claim some impressive attributes:

  • They are not vented, so they can be put nearly anywhere.
  • They run on 110-volt circuits; most electric dryers require 220 volts.
  • They circulate a larger volume of more humid air; thus they are gentler to fabrics and reduce static cling.
  • The cabinets are insulated, which makes the machines very quiet.
  • Best of all, they use one-third the energy of a standard electric dryer.

What are these machines? “Basically they are dehumidifiers,” explains Donald Lewis, president of Nyle and holder of the relevant patents. He explains: “Using a refrigeration cycle similar to what is used in a heat pump, we cool the air and condense out the water. The latent heat removed in condensing the water we immediately put back into the air. In addition, we constantly add heat from the compressor. And while most clothes dryers vent about five thousand cubic feet of air per drying cycle, we don’t vent any air, so the temperature keeps rising.”

Just as a heat pump in most climates will heat a house more efficiently than will electric-resistance elements, a heat-pump (or dehumidifying) clothes dryer will burn less energy to dry clothes. The diagram and caption give the details.

Nyle based the clothes-dryer design on much bigger machines.

“We make commercial lumber- and leather-drying systems and food dehydrators,” says Lewis. Looking for ways to expand the business, he decided the technology could be used in a residential clothes dryer. So he applied for and got a $90,000 U.S. Department of Energy grant (from the Inventions Program in the Office of Energy Utilization) to build the prototypes.

“There have been heat-pump dryers on the market in Europe,” Lewis points out, “but they’ve never been popular because they take a long time to dry a load of clothes.” That’s because they don’t get very hot.

Like most refrigeration systems, they are engineered to work within a narrow temperature range. Lewis explains: If the system is optimized to work at relatively low air temperatures, then as the temperature gets higher all the refrigerant inside the evaporator coil will boil and turn to gas without absorbing enough heat from the passing air to drop it to its dew point and condense out some water vapor. For this reason the European dryers have a top temperature of about 125 degrees F.

On the other hand, if the system is optimized to work at a relatively high air temperature, then at the beginning of the cycle when the temperature is low, the evaporator would chill the air so much that the coil would freeze. Lewis’s solution is to send only part of the air over the evaporator and to vary the percentage in response to changing temperature. So when the air contains fewer Btu, a greater volume of air is delivered. Conversely, when it contains more Btu, the quantity of air is reduced.

The dryer can use either automatic dampers (as shown) or a variable-speed fan at the evaporator coil to alter the airflow pattern. It operates efficiently within a temperature range of 60 to 160 degrees F, Lewis claims.

David Mello, the DOE invention coordinator who supervised the agency’s grant to Nyle, speaks highly of the heat-pump dryer. “It’s a fine product and makes a lot of sense for a lot of good reasons,” he notes. “Refrigeration systems are among the most trouble-free machines we have: You plug them in and they work. Except for the fact that it uses a chlorofluorocarbon,” Mello goes on, “the Nyle dryer really doesn’t seem to have a down side.” (Chlorofluorocarbons are implicated in the destruction of Earth’s protective ozone, but the dryers can be engineered to use whatever replacement fluids are developed, according to Lewis.)

Nyle had arranged for an offshore manufacturer to make the dryers, but economic problems in the country sank the deal. Now new negotiations are in progress.

A heat-pump dryer will sell for around $800, Lewis predicts, about twice the price of a conventional dryer. “People would have to pay more for them at first,” Mello concurs. “But if they ever caught on, the guys making the conventional kind would be hard pressed to compete.”

Blow dry

We began designing hair dryers back before the gun style was introduced, even before the development of the bonnet with the plastic belt hitch that helped you dry your hair and vacuum at the same time. In fact, we started out before the concept of towel drying, at a time when people dried their hair by sticking their heads out the window. Since then we’ve been allowed to design 1,139 models, both in and out of the sanatorium.

The first dryer we produced had a broad handle and a soft, feminine look, and, in fact, we needed only three attempts before we came up with “Myra,” the hair dryer shaped like a voluptuous woman. Our company, Mr. Dry, didn’t like where the hot air blew out, and when we refused to change it they had us put away.

After the treatments we designed a dryer with a different concept much more sedate and, well, psychotropic. In, fact, it was a hair dryer that looked like a giant Thorazine capsule, because, well, that was all we thought about in those days. It was cordless and had a cylinder that was half red and half clear, with white stuff inside. We ran into mechanical difficulties when the hot air blew inward and melted all the wiring.

When we got out, we decided, Damn it, let’s have a little fun. People are supposed to enjoy themselves while drying their hair, and we’re going to help them. In a frenzy we went to Macy’s and smashed all the hair dryers on the floor, and after Mr. Dry paid the bail we came up with a new model. Look, the brush element snaps on and off. And the comb element, see, you can snap that on and off too, and it also has a removable roller element. The handle snaps off too, and so does the motor.

After the Macy’s incident Mr. Dry decided that we should lie low for a while in a place like India, so they shipped us off with only our Japanese watch and told us to come back with some new designs.

Not one person we met during our stay in Calcutta had ever used a hair dryer, but they did have this marvelous philosophy where you sit around all day and think about just one thing or a sound or a word.

We thought about hair dryers not sometimes, but every minute of every day until they notified us of the hearing. The result was Essence of Hair Dryer. Of all the 4.5 billion people on this planet, we were chosen by God to create the ultimate hair dryer, and I’m telling you, this one is a beauty. Look at it–it’s simple yet it has a lot of detail. Look at the way the nozzle attaches to the body. It screws on like a light bulb. And the on/ off switch isn’t cluttered with a lot of confusing speeds like low, medium, and high. The switch is simple and direct on, off.

The day we returned from India, the judge ordered us to the home. They were very nice to us there, and to keep us quiet they gave us their entire collection of cardboard tubes from paper towels, mostly, and toilet tissue. Despite the treatments, we soon realized that the tubes reminded us of blow dryers. We liked playing with them, and the doctors encouraged us to pretend that we were drying our own hair, and they kept asking us how our mother felt about personal hair-care products. We began to feel and to relate in ways we had never dreamed of–if you reversed two tubes and had the air blow into your sleeve, what would that do? What if you took two small, three medium, and four large tubes and connected them to a lawn mower could you style your hair and cut grass at the same time? The ideas obsessed us until we arrived at the final product: a hair dryer that was nothing but different-sized paper tubes. It was a dryer we fell in love with. It was a dryer we wanted to do illicit things with. And in the end it was a dryer that spoke to us. That was when they took it away. Mr. Dry told us it sold very well in the stores, and that made up for every minute of the electroshock therapy.

After they found out that the electroshock had destroyed half of our brain cells, Mr. Dry thought we should design a dryer that expressed our sense of fun at having the mind of a six-year-old again. So we fashioned a dryer that was nonintellectual, illiterate, and, in the words of the television commercial, “fit for an idiot.” The excitement of youth shows in what we called it–“Baby Blow,” the little one, the one that leaves your hair wet no matter how long you stand there holding it to your head. We’ve projected the feeling of youth right through to the picture on the package a picture of a man drooling.

We find that people are very sensitive about their personal hair-care products and in particular that they want to have an enormous emotional high when grooming. For them it’s not just a matter of fixing the hair. It’s plugging into the cultural voltage of a whole generation.

Sometimes when we think about our accomplishments, we have to step back and say, “We have not created Truth or Beauty or even disposable neckties.” But let us not forget that we have created the Mr. Dry 901 and that people respond to it on a daily basis. And we know that how well the dryer works doesn’t matter, as long as it brings a little style into the home.

Cell phones + teen drivers = danger?

These days, teens always have their cell phones on hand. However, lawmakers want to make sure that the phones stay off when teens are driving. California passed a law in September prohibiting anyone under age 18 from using a cell phone while driving. Adults, however, may use hands-free devices while behind the wheel. Altogether, 17 states and the District of Columbia have banned or restricted teen drivers’ cell phone use.

Some lawmakers say that limiting phone usage will save teen lives. In 2005, the latest year for which data is available, 5,699 teens ages 16 to 20 died in car crashes. Drivers from 16 to 20 accounted for 27.4 percent of all fatal crashes, but they represented less than 7 percent of all drivers. Opponents of the new laws, however, say that the cell phone restriction should extend to all drivers, not just teens.

Two of CE’s student reporters took on this debate. Ky Sisson of Nevada takes the pro-ban stance, and Kayla Hill of Kentucky reports on why the law shouldn’t single out teens.

YES: IT’S A SAFER WAY TO GO

If teens are either talking or texting on their cell phones while driving, it’s a distraction. A 2002 study by the Ford Motor Company found teen drivers are more likely to be distracted by cell phones than adults are. Dialing a cellphone resulted in teens’ crossing lane lines 53.8 percent more often than when not using the phone, according to the study. That’s why California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the recent ban. “The simple fact is that teenage drivers are more easily distracted,” Schwarzenegger said.

Teens are less experienced drivers and need to keep their eyes on the road. Driver Kelly R., 17, of Reno, Nev., said texting is a big distraction. “I actually tried it once while driving and got honked at because my head was looking practically at my feet.”

NO: WE DESERVE EQUAL RIGHTS

Although the ban is meant to ensure the safety of young drivers, it is a prime example of stereotyping teenagers. Teens have the right to drive, so they should receive the same privileges that all drivers have. Teens should not be singled out when it comes to unsafe driving with the use of cell phones because all drivers can be careless behind the wheel, no matter how old they are.

Furthermore, if cell phones are banned now, what’s next? Many things can be driving distractions, such as eating and having passengers. Grace H., a teen from Louisville, Ky., stated, “If you want to put a ban on something that distracts people from driving, you might as well ban everything that could be considered a distraction like (passengers) or food.”

Get Talking

Ask students: Do you have a cell phone? If so, do you text message? Can you concentrate on other things while having a conversation or text messaging?

Notes Behind the News

  • In 2006, more than 400,000 passengers ages 15 to 19 were injured in motor vehicle crashes.
  • Teenage male drivers are one and a half times more likely to die in car crashes than teenage female drivers, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
  • A 2002 Ford Motor Company study found that teen drivers tend to follow other cars at closer distances and have less control of their vehicles than more experienced drivers. The study concluded that teens should be discouraged from using cell phones while driving because of the level of distraction the devices cause. The study included 48 adults ages 35 to 66 and 15 teenagers.
  • In 2006, there were 233 million cell phone subscribers in the United States, according to the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association. That’s 76 percent of U.S. households.

Doing More

Have students use the Internet to research teen driving and cell phone restrictions in your state. Does your state have a law restricting or banning cell phone use by teen drivers? Have students use their research to write essays explaining why they think their state’s law is good or bad.

Cell phone hang-up: should there be an all-out ban on cell phone use while driving?

More and more Americans are racking up minutes as they rack up miles. About 80 percent of U.S. drivers said they use cell phones at the wheel, according to a public opinion poll by Nationwide Insurance. The National Safety Council wants to reduce that number. NSC officials say all cell phone use should be banned behind the wheel–including hands-free devices.

They cited research from the University of Utah showing that using a hands-free phone is just as risky as using a handheld one. “It’s not that your hands aren’t on the wheel,” said David Strayer, principal author of the Utah study. “It’s that your mind is not on the road.” The researchers concluded that talking on a mobile phone while driving makes you four times more likely to get into an accident–posing the same level of risk as a drunken driver. “When our friends have been drinking, we take the car keys away. It’s time to take the cell phone away,” Janet Froetscher, NSC president, told CNN.

Opponents say an all-out ban would be impractical and hard to enforce. They say people need to stay connected, and drivers just have to be smart about when and how they use their cell phones.

“We believe there can be safe, sensible, responsible [cell phone] use for a brief period of time,” John Walls, CTIA-The Wireless Association’s vice president of public affairs, told CNN. That group says cell phones have been unfairly singled out from a host of other driving distractions, such as reaching for objects, listening to the radio, personal grooming, eating, reading, and other passengers.

Current Events student reporters Betsy Potter and Sam Hotchkiss pick up the debate.

HIT THE BRAKES

There should be an all-out ban on cell phones behind the wheel because talking on a cell phone while driving causes accidents. Studies say the risk is the same as drinking and driving, which is illegal. Banning cell phone use would help ensure the safety of all drivers as well as pedestrians.

When you are talking on the phone, your brain is focused on the conversation instead of on the road, and that can easily lead to an accident.

Jeanie Johnson, of Gothenburg, Neb., says such a ban should exist. “I think that there should be an all-out ban on cell phones while driving because having a conversation distracts drivers from paying attention to the road.”

Although it may be difficult to enforce and there is much controversy surrounding the issue, I think that all cell phone use by drivers should be banned. It is clear that they pose a safety risk for drivers.

KEEP IN TOUCH

A complete ban of cell phone use while driving is unnecessary. Only six states currently ban handheld calling while driving; no state bans all types of cell phone use while driving. States should ban handheld phones before they consider banning all cell phones. More studies need to be done to prove that an all-out ban would save lives.

There are a variety of other distractions that are just as dangerous as talking on a cell phone. If you get into a heated argument with a passenger, you may end up losing control of the car. And of course, drunken drivers are a major cause of car accidents, along with inexperienced drivers.

An all-out ban on using cell phones while driving would not work. People need to just be smart.

Get Talking

Ask: Do you think all cell phones should be banned while driving? What about texting? Should other distractions be banned? Why might such bans be difficult to enforce?

Notes Behind the News

* The first law banning handheld cell phone use while driving went into effect in New York in 2001. As of October 2008, four other states–California, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Washington–plus Washington, D.C., had also banned handheld cell phones while driving. Seventeen states and Washington, D.C., have laws banning or restricting young drivers from using cell phones. California bans the use of any mobile device by drivers younger than 18–including cell phones, broadband personal communication devices, specialized mobile radio devices, and laptop computers. Driving while texting is banned in seven states–Alaska, California, Connecticut, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Washington–plus Washington, D.C. Read about state driving laws at tinyurl.com/statelaws and at tinyurl.com/drivingphones.

* The University of Utah study of 96 drivers found that cell phone users had slower reaction times than non-cellphone users. Eye-tracking studies showed that while non-cell phone users continually looked from side to side, cellphone users tended to stare straight ahead.

* The National Safety Council also cited a 2003 study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis that estimated cellphone use when driving contributes to 6 percent of crashes each year, resulting in 330,000 injuries, 12,000 of them serious and 2,600 of them fatal. The study put the estimated annual cost of cell phone-related crashes at $43 billion.

Doing More

Have students create their own rules for cell phone etiquette. When is it proper to use cell phones? When is it not?

1 2