Jump to content

The Politics Thread 2020

Guest

By Guest
in The Jim Smith Room

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 9.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
alexxxxx

alexxxxx

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

An organisation that they fund hundreds of millions of pounds each year, failed to take stringent measures that could have stopped the transmission of the virus around the world, I think I can understand why they are annoyed with them.

Trumps attitude to the crisis all the way through has to been to deflect blame as much as possible - even make it sound like deliberate attack on his presidency. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Archied

Archied

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

Trumps attitude to the crisis all the way through has to been to deflect blame as much as possible - even make it sound like deliberate attack on his presidency. 

Standard politicians behaviour 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, alexxxxx said:

Trumps attitude to the crisis all the way through has to been to deflect blame as much as possible - even make it sound like deliberate attack on his presidency. 

I'm not sure you can judge Trumps response when you say you've not seen the facts.

Not sure how you can judge his reaction if you dont know what he is reacting to.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rev

Rev

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, GboroRam said:

I would imagine they are safe, as none of the experts in the area of dentistry are suggesting they cause coronavirus, autism, tumours or any other sickness. But didn't the bloke that "what's the frequency Kenneth" is about believe that the FBI were listening in to his conversations through secret frequencies in his fillings? He's widely considered insane. But he's got a viewpoint, the experts have a different on. By saying "do you just accept everything?", effectively you are giving this guy support in his beliefs. Because he just thinks he's right and all the experts are wrong - and the rest of us sheep don't question enough.

In fairness, REM got a career best tune out of it, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alexxxxx

alexxxxx

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I'm not sure you can judge Trumps response when you say you've not seen the facts.

Not sure how you can judge his reaction if you dont know what he is reacting to.

 

I can judge him on his first press briefings where he was claiming that its overblown by the press to hurt him, his propaganda video of right wing media praising him. I'll judge him at taking shots at the head of the US governments centre for disease control. 

It all has to be about him and him winning. Even our politicians from our ruling party who I have little regard for have behaved for the most part. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of Clough

Ghost of Clough

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Archied said:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/5g-danger-13-reasons-5g-wireless-technology-will-be-a-catastrophe-for-humanity/5680503
 

honest question, anything in it of value or total guff?

Largely theory based.
Softer tissue = waves penetrate further, hence why mobile phone usage is more dangerous to children than adults. The study mention relates to the usage of phones being against the head (such as on a call). It’s worth noting that 5G has a much shorter range than 4G, and with the continuing trend of fewer people actually putting their phone near their head, the danger is significantly minimised. 
A lot of the rest has negligible impact, with some being balanced out by a change in diet. 5G crosses in to the microwave range compared to 4G Being completely in the radiowave range. Microwaves are known to have a heating effect (as you’ll know based on the typical microwave in your kitchen). However, evidence suggests this is a minuscule effect on people. 
One part mentions a WHO classification regarding carcinogens. I read atelier that it’s in the same classification as talcum powder and pickled veg!  
Another issue mentioned is the reduction in insects. I would put this down to change in environment rather than an increase of 3/4/5G networks over the past 20 years. 
It does pick up on the fact more transmitters will be required than 4G - due to the limited range of 5G. Probably more of a visual pollution issue than a health one. But, technology today means they can be easily disguised if companies chose to.

 

[Disclaimer: a few drinks in to the night so my memory may be playing tricks]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of Clough

Ghost of Clough

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Archied said:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/
 

now in the spirit of giving you the benefit of doubt that you are being genuine rather than just being a bit of a ,,,,,,,,ive taken two minutes to google something as I’m not really one to copy and paste or note every page I might happen on when looking round the net in case I have to sit an exam , there appears to be loads out there google it and make your own mind up ,,or not if that’s more your thing,

personally switch off if 5g is claimed to be the cause of or hidden behind corona virus but that headline grabbing claim prompted a bit of looking at the5 g argument 

Hope that’s ok with you ghosty 

Study based on rats and mice - zero noticeable impact on mice and female rats. This study was supposedly dismissed after further research.
Radio frequency limits one most countries are based on research from 30-40 years ago - yep maybe it is a good idea to revisit the current acceptable limits. Research into non-ionising waves (infrared, microwaves, radiowaves, etc...) should play a part.
Radiowaves (2/3/4G and everday 5G usage) cause insignificant levels of heating - yep. It’s not until you approach the microwave range (rarer 5G usage) than the waves cause heating effects. The heating effects of 5G are still negligible.

Risks mentioned: 
• Cancer - lack of evidence non-ionising waves can result in cancer. 
• Cellular stress - first time I recall this term. Seems like a wide range of ‘damage’ can be included. A change in temperature being a very simple example, with 5G being shown to have a negligible impact of temperature. 
• Free radicals - if this is a concern for you then you may want to chuck your microwave in the bin. General consensus from scientists say microwaves aren’t strong enough to cause electrons to jump out of their orbits. 
• Genetic damage - doesn’t this suggest impact on DNA? I’m not sure there are many who believe anything this side of visible light in the electromagnetic spectrum can cause DNA damage. 
• Reproductive damage - this sounds like the research was based on a small sample size. Similar to the laptop on your lap myth... it’s probably research based on long term temperature impact on the body/cells, except phones have a much lower impact on cell temperature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ariotofmyown

ariotofmyown

Posted
Posted

Remember back in the day when there was that kid at school, or that guy in the pub, who used to talk total garbage and would tell you things that he had heard were true, that were laughable? He's called the internet now.

And remember not long ago, when people used to make 'funny' digs at wikipedia's reliability, even though it was edited and referenced by lots of different people? The good old days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Archied

Archied

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

That was the only good song on Monster.  Think Night swimming was there best song myself.

Don’t go back to Rockville was a decent track and photograph with Natalie merchant sharing vocals was decent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...