Protecting democracy with intimidation? Shame on you USA. Put the intimidation and toxic personality politics aside and return to the debate.
10 ( +13 / -3 )
The sheer number of people who think it’s clever to impose their low level arsery on the world is a grinding oppression we could do without. Consuming food that doesn’t belong to you is a crime. Deliberately causing an obstruction on a very busy crossing is a crime. I don’t think the guy needs the book throwing at him, but he is a d!?k. I suggest YouTube demonetise his anti social content and take away the reward for bad behaviour.
2 ( +4 / -2 )
At 30%, 30% and 31% respectively, does that not just suggest a broad spectrum of people engage in this behaviour? In other words, people from any background can have a chip on their shoulder. And you could surmise the internet provides both a source and an outlet for their frustrations.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
theResident, I don’t think we’re too far apart. Sweden did suffer a substantial economic hit (over 8% drop in GDP) albeit much less than some others. Sweden’s demographics also are poles apart from the far more densely populated Spain, Italy, UK etc. But it does seem they found their balance at an acceptable cost.
I do think that the lockdowns were demonstrated the quickest way to reduce the spread of infection, especially in densely populated areas. Now of course, following those lockdowns major cities are proving a real headache to keep a grip on. It’ll be a while before everyone can go about their lives unfettered by COVID-19. At least if we wish to keep our vulnerable and older people around for a bit longer.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
theResident - ' Lockdown ''didn't work/doesn't work/will not work. It creates financial ruin.
I think the evidence contradicts you there. If the plan is to limit spread of the disease, lockdown clearly works and saves lives.
Theres no denying lockdown has severe financial consequences. So having got the disease under some level of control the authorities have to find a balance between allowing people to live their lives and the deaths of those that will succumb to the disease. Some countries have done a better job of finding that balance than others but there’s no avoiding a financial sacrifice in order to save lives.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
It’s short article. She’s been charged with abandoning the baby’s body, not murder. Presumably there’ll be an autopsy to discover the cause of death. If turns out to be drowning then no doubt a murder charge will follow. That said the young woman was clearly in distress. I doubt many here have given birth alone at home. Try to show some compassion. Or at least leave it to the judges to pass sentence.
4 ( +9 / -5 )
It is up to each person to assess their aversion to risk and their own situation. If you don't want to go out, just don't go. If you are at risk for various reasons, isolate yourself if you want to. Leave the rest of society alone.
Is it really too much to ask that people curtail a bit of excess in favour of allowing more people to return to work?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Just to be clear, no humans at all were harmed in the making of this model and no creatures gestated. The ‘embryo like models’ were not capable of developing into a human baby.
Great rhetoric, poor science.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Burning Bush, I disagree. And that’s because that group will then separate and potentially spread any contamination they come into contact with.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
Been having take away with her indoors each Friday instead of going to a restaurant. Otherwise everything prepared fresh at home. I think we’re eating better than ever.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
The over 60s are still human beings. This doctor appears to have left his empathy at home. Medical treatment should be provided on the basis of need. If treatment will cause more harm than good, or there’s a do not intervene request in place that’s all well and good. Otherwise need must be the humane deciding factor.
The economic contribution argument doesn’t wash either. The majority of pensioners aren’t just surviving on the state pension, most have private or company pensions and savings too. A fair chunk also go on to work well into retirement. The elderly are by no means “coasting”, the vast majority continue to contribute.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Burning BushToday 08:22 am JST
“A guideline is not a law.
There is no law that says you can not be near your friends or family outside”.
Guidelines are not law it’s true. However the emergency legislation requires people to follow the guidelines. Think of the guidelines as an approved code of practice backed up by law.
The guidelines are there to reduce the risk not just of individual infection but further transmission. A person is free to do what they like, but that freedom stops when it harms others.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
wtfjapan Today 12:10 pm JST
and so how do you eat with a mask and shield on!? yeah sort of point less isnt it.
Heavens matey, there aren’t many words in the article.
gloves and masks, which must remain in place on the customer’s face whenever they’re not actively eating or drinking.
0 ( +3 / -3 )
OssanAmericaToday 06:49 pm JST
Why do you blame society? Don't you think there's something very wrong with this individual? If society was the cause there would be thousands of such incidents every day.
Don’t think Mat blamed society, but he’s perfectly right in pointing out that our society helps produce individuals like this. You can’t think society has no influence on individuals, and vice versa for that matter? Human beings don’t come about in isolation.
-4 ( +7 / -11 )
The shortage of PPE is global. But raincoats instead of gowns is a new one. Do they get washed after each use or binned?
13 ( +14 / -1 )
Delivery workers come into contact with many people during their working day. With that in mind their employers should be adjusting the delivery process to enable social distancing and providing workers with disposable gloves, masks, and hand sanitiser.
If UberEats aren’t providing safety equipment, they should pay their workers extra so they can buy the supplies they need.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
BigYen, that 25,150 cases figure is only the confirmed cases figure. The number of actual cases is far higher but unknown because testing is not yet widespread. The actual death toll is far less than 7% but with little confirmation it’s impossible to give an accurate figure. Said that not to minimise the tragedy, just to a little realism to the situation.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Probably shouldn’t be washing your hands in your beer, eh Mr Kipling?
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Poor sod. That’s not how you want a night out to end. Stay away from the platform edge when you’ve been drinking peeps.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
The cars are ok but Tesla’s true value is in its battery research.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
There are so many things wrong with this it beggars belief. Why no barriers? Why was he not attached to a line via an A-frame to the top man? What was he doing lifting a manhole cover from below? Very poor confined space working practice. I’ve seen several unprotected underground utilities workers over the years. These accidents happen and it’s hard to understand why past lessons have not been learned. It’s sad that the guy is likely to be seen to be at least partly culpable for his own demise.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Rather than pointing to dubious popularist climate skeptic blogs, stick to the scientific consensus which overwhelmingly points to Mankind’s contribution to climate change.
Im no fan of Thunberg’s delivery but there’s no doubt she has the demonstrated facts on her side. Scientists that are climate change deniers are on the fringe with the number of published papers achingly small in comparison to those that support the consensus. The price to pay for ignoring the science is a very high one.
”Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming Environ," J. Cook et al., Res. Lett. 11 (2016).”
"The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists," J.S. Carlton et al., Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (2015)”
“Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,” J. Cook et al., Environ. Res. Lett., 8 024024 (2013).“
3 ( +4 / -1 )
Seems to me that if she was drinking Thursday evening and had her test at 06:30 Friday, she was breaking the old rules let alone the new.
11 ( +12 / -1 )
GreenPeas, my earlier response was a little impatient and appears to have been removed. In answer to your question, yes it is and I refer you to my previous posts to explain why.
And just to reinforce my point, the Active Denial System operates at different frequencies to 5G phone systems and also at high power.
The basic physics is that different atoms resonate at different frequencies. The resonance frequencies of atoms is known, as is the make up of the human body. This information is used to decide frequencies and power ratings during design. The many massive cohort studies done across the world to date back this up.
To others reading this and who may have questions. Don't just accept the hyperbole, do some balanced research.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
GreenPeas, I guess when you can’t refute my statements you attack me. No studies provide absolute certainty, including those submitted by your 252 scientists, but there is no suggestion anywhere of the impending health disaster of which you speak.
The uninformed claptrap to which I refer, “5G uses a millimetre wave and the body absorbs the energy just like a microwave oven to cook your food”, could possibly be called misinformed claptrap if you prefer, other than that I stand by the statement.
There are many hundreds of studies published in respectable journals for you to seek out. No study is perfect and the research goes on. But we know what we know and that is that low power radio is not ionising, doesn’t cause cancer and isn’t mutagenic. Research and testing has shown 5G to be safe enough to roll out.
Cancer Research UK
4G or 5G networks rely on radio waves to work just like older mobile phone networks. The difference with 4G or 5G networks is that they use higher frequency waves than older mobile networks, but they still don’t have enough energy to damage DNA to cause cancer.
US Department of Health National Cancer Institute
The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency radiation in humans is heating. Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating to the area of the body where a cell phone or other device is held (e.g., the ear and head). However, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature. There are no other clearly established effects on the human body from radiofrequency radiation.
The Million Women Study
During 7 years’ follow-up, 51 680 incident invasive cancers and 1 261 incident intracranial CNS tumours occurred. Risk among ever vs never users of mobile phones was not increased for all intracranial CNS tumours, for specified CNS tumour types nor for cancer at 18 other specified sites. For long-term users compared with never users, there was no appreciable association for glioma.
Lönn S, Forssén U, Vecchia P, Ahlbom A, Feychting M. Output power levels from mobile phones in different geographical areas; implications for exposure assessment. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2004.
The Interphone Study. International Agency for Research on Cancer (part of the WHO).
Johansen C, Boice J Jr, McLaughlin J, Olsen J. Cellular telephones and cancer: a nationwide cohort study in Denmark. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2001; and it’s update, Frei P, Poulsen AH, Johansen C, et al. Use of mobile phones and risk of brain tumours: update of Danish cohort study. British Medical Journal 2011.
Inskip PD, Hoover RN, Devesa SS. Brain cancer incidence trends in relation to cellular telephone use in the United States. Neuro-Oncology 2010.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
GreenPeas, 5G systems sit on the shoulders of all the work previously done on earlier communications systems by hundreds of thousands of engineers and scientists. Radio is well understood. The problem is you’re conflating high power, low power, RFR, EMF, microwaves, mobile phones and selected out of context pseudoscientific blah blah from conspiracy theorists and concluding mobile phones will cook people’s brains. You’re doing the 2 + 2 = 5 thing.
The 252 scientists appeal to the U.N. is about the levels of unnatural radio, microwave and EMF emissions in the background which they see as increasing further with 5G and are calling for more research. They are not calling for a stop to the 5G roll out. So far any increase in cancers and other problems due to radio emissions and EMF, if there are any, have been so insignificant as to be unquantifiable. Particularly in the face of the more obvious carcinogens from fossil fuels.
None of this is to say that life is perfect and some new horror won’t be unearthed. That is why research continues. But to say mobile phones act like microwaves on the brain and to insist 5G is a health disaster waiting to happen is uninformed claptrap.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
GreenPeas, no I looked for the results of credible research and found nothing other than unsupported assertions and claims. Like yours.
Microwave radiation in an oven is high powered and set at a frequency (2.4GHz) that resonates with the atoms of water molecules. They are emitted from different directions to form standing waves which excite the water molecules to heat your frozen dinner. 5G frequencies are 410MHz to 7125MHz and 24.25GHz to 52.6GHz and low power (hence the requirement for more transmitters). To the best of anyone’s knowledge, these frequencies don’t resonate with atoms within the human body and are transmitted rather than focussed so no, people cannot be cooked as you assert. Also, far as I can tell it’s only ionising radiation that impacts DNA when passing through or being absorbed. Radio is not ionising radiation.
Always willing to alter my thinking when presented with good evidence but remain sceptical enough to fact check.
2 ( +4 / -2 )
Been talk of problems from RF radiation for donkeys years. There’s been lots of assertions and misinformation but in fact there’s no evidence to suggest any health risk.
The Swiss Re report earlier in the year discusses the political, cyber and espionage risks. The health risks it discusses were also faced by the 3G and 4G implementations. The WHO notes RF radiation as a potential health hazard (possibly carcinogenic to humans). However a potential hazard that never manifests represents no risk.
1 ( +4 / -3 )
JuminRhee, the Starliner used more fuel than estimated to stabilise itself and get into orbit. Attaching thrusters to an orbiting spacecraft isn’t a simple thing.
If Boeing get the Starliner back safely, the mission can still be a success of sorts.
0 ( +0 / -0 )