This is a good legal take on the case, and one that assumes they are probably guilty on account of it not being a lawful citizens arrest, complete with case law.
Carrying guns while performing a chase will likely be considered unreasonable force, and I tend to agree. As I said before, it's a needless and dangerous escalation. There was no reason to think that guy was armed.
It's a good article from the point of clarity, but it does make the same sorts of assumptions that you've been criticizing from other posters:
- the idea of reasonable force is discounted, but that can only properly be assessed on the facts of the case, which are unlikely all to be present in the media reports.
- it is assumed that a gun was pointed at Arbery (which, unless justified, would itself be an aggravated assault). The basis for that assumption is that Arbery was shot through the hand when attempting to grab the gun - but that could easily happen as a result of Arbery grabbing, without necessarily meaning the gun was pointing at him beforehand.
I'm not saying that the assumptions in the article are unreasonable, quite the reverse. I'm just pointing out that everyone makes assumptions - that's just part of how we test arguments. You've done it yourself in the above post: "As I said before, it's a needless and dangerous escalation. There was no reason to think that guy was armed." The fact that you have existing assumptions does not mean you would be unable to challenge those in the light of the evidence presented in the trial, if you were on a jury for this case.
You've also suggested that this is an example of mob justice. As others have said, this seems to me to be almost exactly the opposite of that. As the article you've linked makes clear, there is a prima facie case to answer here, but that case was not being taken forward. It does seem incredible to me that a group of men could chase down an unarmed man, corner him and shoot him without even being arrested. I'm not ruling out the possibility those men have a legal defense for their actions, but the failure to arrest them in the first place cannot possibly be an example of even-handed justice for all. People pointing out that inconsistency, calmly and rationally, is the way in which I think such a lack of justice should be remedied in a democracy. That's not at all the same thing as using actual or threatened violence, or corrupt personal connections, in order to change expected decisions (that sort of use of personal connections does appear to have happened in this case, but not by those arguing on behalf of Arbery).
Citizens arrest is legal in this state provided you either witness or have first hand knowledge of a felony having been committed. Burglary, not trespassing, is a felony. It will all come down to what probable cause they had. You have no idea whether or not this particular case fits the legal definition any more than I do, and such bold statements only serve to show that you and many others have made up their minds the moment they read the headline.
There is also nothing in the law that states you can't open carry while making such an arrest.
Unfortunately on this point alone, you're completely wrong. They would need to have first hand accounting of the supposed burglary, which they did not. So in attempting to chase him down without that express first hand information of his supposed wrong doing, the citizen's arrest is invalid.
And so is your argument, which is flimsily predicated upon this single point.
It's conceivable they had first hand knowledge that he trespassed, but as has been pointed out - that's not a felony. Without knowing it was a burglary, then they cannot lawfully stop him.
We've now reached the point where not just the lockdown, but completely reasonable safety measures and even BASIC HYGIENE have been turned into a battle in the culture war. But I'm sure it's the fault of "both sides"................
You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. What supposedly happens is that the leftist ministry of truth and its thought police henchmen have reached the point where they are recognized as a greater threat to society than covid. Which, admittedly, sends chills down the spine.
Wearing a mask and maintaining space in a store during an ongoing pandemic where nearly 100,000 people have died in two months is not a chapter from "1984". It's called having basic courtesy to all the people in the store with you who may soon be in contact with vulnerable members of the population. And any arguments to the contrary are absurd, scientifically and morally.
You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Wearing masks and keeping distance is what the left says everyone must do. Under normal circumstances you'd ignore what they say and do what needs to be done instead, namely wear masks and keep distance. Sadly, in this case doing the right thing makes it appear as if you've been following their orders and gives them credit of authority which they misuse at every given opportunity. So people have got a choice - save themselves, or make a sacrifice to fight the enemy back. And it is really disturbing that a bunch NPCs are now being greater evil than risking the virus.
Now, of course, it's more than likely that those are just a bunch of... carefree individuals with no regard for others' safety, shall we say... with no political agenda whatsoever, but you're the one who attributed it to cultural war
We've now reached the point where not just the lockdown, but completely reasonable safety measures and even BASIC HYGIENE have been turned into a battle in the culture war. But I'm sure it's the fault of "both sides"................
You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. What supposedly happens is that the leftist ministry of truth and its thought police henchmen have reached the point where they are recognized as a greater threat to society than covid. Which, admittedly, sends chills down the spine.
Wearing a mask and maintaining space in a store during an ongoing pandemic where nearly 100,000 people have died in two months is not a chapter from "1984". It's called having basic courtesy to all the people in the store with you who may soon be in contact with vulnerable members of the population. And any arguments to the contrary are absurd, scientifically and morally.
You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Wearing masks and keeping distance is what the left says everyone must do. Under normal circumstances you'd ignore what they say and do what needs to be done instead, namely wear masks and keep distance. Sadly, in this case doing the right thing makes it appear as if you've been following their orders and gives them credit of authority which they misuse at every given opportunity. So people have got a choice - save themselves, or make a sacrifice to fight the enemy back. And it is really disturbing that a bunch NPCs are now being greater evil than risking the virus.
Now, of course, it's more than likely that those are just a bunch of... carefree individuals with no regard for others' safety, shall we say... with no political agenda whatsoever, but you're the one who attributed it to cultural war
Example #1,467 of how the behavior of others can always be blamed on "the left" for simply existing and having an opinion.
Simply existing and having an opinion are universal human rights. Using a Pandemic to push human tracking software and taking away freedoms and liberties is against universal human rights and that's what most of the buzz is about. My opinion of course.
Simply existing and having an opinion are universal human rights. Using a Pandemic to push human tracking software and taking away freedoms and liberties is against universal human rights and that's what most of the buzz is about. My opinion of course.
"Even if the death toll were several times as “artificially inflated” as you ... believe it is that would still leave Covid-19 deadlier, bare minimum, than H1N1 was in a fraction the time. Your freedom hasn’t been taken away. People are going out and partying anyway, they’re just also dropping dead, ...."
Quoted from a blog, with elipses replacing insults.
Simply existing and having an opinion are universal human rights. Using a Pandemic to push human tracking software and taking away freedoms and liberties is against universal human rights and that's what most of the buzz is about. My opinion of course.
"Even if the death toll were several times as “artificially inflated” as you ... believe it is that would still leave Covid-19 deadlier, bare minimum, than H1N1 was in a fraction the time. Your freedom hasn’t been taken away. People are going out and partying anyway, they’re just also dropping dead, ...."
Quoted from a blog, with elipses replacing insults.
The whole H1N1 narrative (and the regular flu) narrative fell apart WEEKS ago, even if you take into account the fact that COVID-19 has been killing for about 2 months and numbers for the others were for an entire year. People are still using it anyway, which tells me they aren't interested in what is actually happening or anything resembling the truth. They just want a convenient talking point.
Simply existing and having an opinion are universal human rights. Using a Pandemic to push human tracking software and taking away freedoms and liberties is against universal human rights and that's what most of the buzz is about. My opinion of course.
Pandemic is just an excuse, we're all heading in that direction regardless of country and government. The question is when (preferably not during our lifespan), not whether.
Example #1,467 of how the behavior of others can always be blamed on "the left" for simply existing and having an opinion.
Well, if you are not right, that's the only option you have left
You can also be liberal, but it takes more will and mental fortitude than 99% are capable of.
Cellular towers have always been a danger to organics, 5g will make it worse especially if they are going to use us to bounce the signal. The Earth can't take that kind of steady wave, something will give. I'm surprised Gretta isn't on this seeing that it's a much more immediate threat to the Earth than warming.
This isn't to take away from COVID-19 but people have been sounding the 5g alarm for many years.
Cellular towers have always been a danger to organics, 5g will make it worse especially if they are going to use us to bounce the signal. The Earth can't take that kind of steady wave, something will give. I'm surprised Gretta isn't on this seeing that it's a much more immediate threat to the Earth than warming.
This isn't to take away from COVID-19 but people have been sounding the 5g alarm for many years.
The bits of research I've seen in the past suggesting there are specific impacts on health (such as that prompting the WHO statement on possible carcinogenic effects) all relate to cell phone usage rather than general population exposure to EMF - and one of the rationales for the introduction of 5g is to reduce the level of radiation associated with cell phones.
Nevertheless, I agree that the introduction of 5g is a cause for concern. The fact that it is being added to 2g, 3g and 4g emitters, rather than replacing them, will increase the general exposure levels. The higher frequencies used in 5g are already widely in use for other purposes (like security scanners and radar guns). However, the concerns are about the cumulative impact of continuous or repeated exposure. Consider how we treat X-rays for example - everyone agrees that the impact on you of an X-ray taken when you visit the dentist is negligible, but dentists themselves are warned about the real risks of cumulative exposure if they don't take appropriate precautions.
While I don't think the evidence of potential harm is at all in the same league as for climate change, the same type of argument applies. If you believe in the precautionary principle, you would not want to adopt what are essentially population level experiments where there's a risk of considerable harm occurring over many years - and that harm could not be undone once recognized.
It is all about perspective. Dentists need to be aware because they take pictures every day. But considering the dose there is only significant build up over many years equal to living a few days longer. However, better safe than sorry. If you can shield yourself then of course do so.
Airport security builds up much faster.
- Daily background exposure is about 3mSv
- Airport security is about to 0.1mSv
- Dentist x-ray is about 0.001mSv. Extreme case might be 0.01mSv
I don't know the 5G exposures but it should be very low compared to natural exposure for it to be 'safe' (note, natural exposure at that frequency)
Edit: right, so 5G is not in the order of uv and thereby non-ionising. It should not affect atoms in a destructive way.
That's the problem with people, only caring what damage is done to humans. We are not the only beings living on this Earth. Flora and Fauna will be affected as well.
Also if you keep adding low exposure tech wouldn't it add up to be unnatural exposure? Just keep piling it on till we're at dangerous levels for the sake of downloading porn in 0.00000001 secs?
We are not talking about a one time zap at the dentist, we are talking about a steady stream that is 24 hrs a day 7 days a week.
That's the problem with people, only caring what damage is done to humans. We are not the only beings living on this Earth. Flora and Fauna will be affected as well.
Also if you keep adding low exposure tech wouldn't it add up to be unnatural exposure? Just keep piling it on till we're at dangerous levels for the sake of downloading porn in 0.00000001 secs?
We are not talking about a one time zap at the dentist, we are talking about a steady stream that is 24 hrs a day 7 days a week.
Sorry but your response comes across as rather aggressive. Just because I do not mention flora and fauna does not mean I do not care. Rather I would have liked you to challenge me on what effect it would have on flora and fauna. I simply did not iterate on it. I do not see the need to jump your conclusions.
To elaborate.
The 3 mSv daily exposure to x-ray type radiation is natural background radiation from nature (elements, cosmic, etc), nothing man added. This therefore applies already to flora and fauna. Applied x-ray radiation is highly localised in clinical settings, in general away from flora and fauna.
5g is not x-ray radiation, it does not damage atoms and molecules. it still falls under radio waves I think, maybe classification is different, but at least it is a very high frequency (24+100GHz) where disorienting and detrimental signals to fauna are only up to 200kHz with 120k whales, 70k dog hearing, 200k bat echo location, 50k various insect orientations skills. There are no studies yet where outliers to the GHz-has-no-impact-assessment cannot be explained by secondary causes.
At least, that is the science of it as I learned it and the results reported in scientific journals. You are welcome to prove this wrong. I would be very happy of new insights on the matter and I am open to feedback and a change of opinion if disproven. I seek knowledge and am able to switch sides if it makes sense.
Whether 5G is needed is a different question. My impression is rather that we should invest in renewable resources and future space exploration to reduce our impact on this world and investigate other worlds to compensate.
5g is not x-ray radiation, it does not damage atoms and molecules. it still falls under radio waves I think, maybe classification is different, but at least it is a very high frequency (24+100GHz) where disorienting and detrimental signals to fauna are only up to 200kHz with 120k whales, 70k dog hearing, 200k bat echo location, 50k various insect orientations skills. There are no studies yet where outliers to the GHz-has-no-impact-assessment cannot be explained by secondary causes.
At least, that is the science of it as I learned it and the results reported in scientific journals. You are welcome to prove this wrong. I would be very happy of new insights on the matter and I am open to feedback and a change of opinion if disproven. I seek knowledge and am able to switch sides if it makes sense.
I agree it's non-ionizing and therefore single, short, exposures won't cause perceptible damage. However, as I understand it, studies have shown pretty strong evidence that long term exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation can cause biological damage, for instance to DNA, and result in an increased risk of cancer. This paper discusses the issue and includes links to a number of studies that have shown increased risks.
The discussion also reminded me of the issue of declining fertility over time. I think I may have posted this article about that before, but information I've seen since confirms both there is a real decline in infertility and that no-one is sure why. Potential explanations include chemical exposure, lifestyle choices, overheating of the male scrotum and exposure to radiation (including RF). Personally, I think radiation seems less likely to be a major cause than other factors, but I wouldn't like to rule it out.
Whatever the dangers of 5G are, I'm sure most of us can agree that it has nothing to do with COVID-19. As for the Bill Gates thing, I mean, I can attest to this from Facebook message clips my aunt has sent me through text (because I'm not on the platform) of what family members are saying. There are a not insignificant number of people who think Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates have manufactured the virus (of course in coordination with the Chinese, or maybe that's a separate theory depending on the day) so the populace can be vaccinated. In the vaccination (so the theory goes) a microscopic chip will be planted inside your bloodstream, allowing you to be tracked going forward. Yes, this kind of shit is out there. And YES, it is making things worse, and harder to deal with.
Trump has encouraged this kind of batshit thinking since he took office. And since his supporters can't admit he's screwed the pooch, we get this shit instead. Last week there was a viral video going around called "Plandemic", marinating in the same bullshit, featuring a quack doctor who claims she manufactured Ebola. America isn't just handling this horribly because of incompetent leadership at the top. It's because that leadership constantly encourages it's citizens to be morons and then pats them on the back for doing so.
Sorry but your response comes across as rather aggressive.
Explaining in general that some of us do not think of the rest of the life on this planet when it comes to new tech, is not aggressive. I will apologize though if you thought I was to you. I was not and had no intention of.
Radiation, RF and the next new tech are always going to be dangers to this plant because no one wants to do complete and thorough long term studies. I would go as far as saying that funding would be cut if any lab or University would go that way.
When you put into google '5g dangers' for me atleast, this pops up. 'Some 5G conspiracy theorists contend that the new network generates radiofrequency radiation that can damage DNA and lead to cancer; cause oxidative damage that can cause premature aging; disrupt cell metabolism; and potentially lead to other diseases through the generation of stress proteins' It's from howtogeek.com. Starting a sentence with 'Some 5g conspiracy theorists' at the top of the search page is misleading. We will not know the damage done until years from now and If there is how irreversible it will be. Here is another study on 'not enough studies done'
Sorry but your response comes across as rather aggressive.
Explaining in general that some of us do not think of the rest of the life on this planet when it comes to new tech, is not aggressive. I will apologize though if you thought I was to you. I was not and had no intention of.
Radiation, RF and the next new tech are always going to be dangers to this plant because no one wants to do complete and thorough long term studies. I would go as far as saying that funding would be cut if any lab or University would go that way.
When you put into google '5g dangers' for me atleast, this pops up. 'Some 5G conspiracy theorists contend that the new network generates radiofrequency radiation that can damage DNA and lead to cancer; cause oxidative damage that can cause premature aging; disrupt cell metabolism; and potentially lead to other diseases through the generation of stress proteins' It's from howtogeek.com. Starting a sentence with 'Some 5g conspiracy theorists' at the top of the search page is misleading. We will not know the damage done until years from now and If there is how irreversible it will be. Here is another study on 'not enough studies done'
@MaleficentOne, @Grond0
Thank you for the links. This will be good reading material.
Overall it is a matter of whether the added radiation is above the threshold for background radiation such that it may become detrimental to environmental health.
Fertility in men is arranged by hormonal balance. This is very complex to prove because infertility is an imbalance that can be caused by very diverse alternate effects. Hormonal balance is regulated like a buffer solution. Not easy to grasp.
In news unrelated to conspiracy theories - AOC has been selected to co-chair (with John Kerry, admittedly) a climate taskforce for Biden's campaign.
This seems like a genuine nod towards the progressive wing of the party, trying to bring onboard progressive figures for important issues.
This + a Kamala Harris or Stacy Abrams pick would go a long way in terms of broadening his coalition (I wouldnt call Kamala Harris a dyed in the wool progressive, but she's about as far left as mainstream politicians go that arent explicitly progressive).
Trump's lawyers (and Attorney General Bill Barr):
"Criminal process targeting the President" violates the Constitution - Jay Sekulow.
So Trump is pushing "Obamagate" which is nothing but lets pretend it's something - it's nothing because according to Trump, nothing he does as President is illegal or wrong ever - Trump's been caught red-handed meddling in the 2020 election with Ukraine and Republicans didn't bat an eye so what could "Obamagate" possibly be that's worse than that hahahaa. Trump's pathetic.
Someone should ask Trump what he's going to charge Obama with and then ask him, whatever that answer was, why he should not be charged for that thing because no matter what it is that he lies and says Obama did, Trump has probably done it himself and there's evidence lol.
It's over the so-called "unmasking" of Flynn. Once again, this is a buzzword used in right-wing circles that a.) no one actually knows anything about and b.) is meant to get a Pavlovian response. Flynn was not being targeted by anyone. Intelligence agencies were conducting surveillance on Russians, and, lo and behold, guess who shows up in some of the calls conducting diplomacy a month before being legally able to do so?? That's right, Flynn. So his identity was made known to officials in the Executive Branch. Kinda the same way LBJ was clued in on Nixon basically engaging in treason when Johnson was trying to broker a deal with the North Vietnamese (the treachery goes back on LONG way with this crowd). Because it was HIGHLY alarming that the incoming National Security Director was showing up on this radar.
You know what else Obama did?? He warned Trump, directly, to his face, NOT to hire Flynn. Practically begged him not to. He was being completely magnanimous. He was trying to save Trump the trouble that would come less than 30 days into his Presidency because he knew what he was into. Did Trump listen?? Fuck no. And within a month, he was (and both Trump and Pence admitted this at the time) lying to the Vice President about his contacts and was fired. He then subsequently plead guilty to lying to the FBI. Without equivocation. And Judge Sullivan is no longer taking Barr's assault on the rule of law lying down. He is not accepting the dismissal on it's face, and is allowing challenges to be brought forth before him in court to what the DOJ is attempting.
Unmasking is simply making the identity of someone caught on foreign surveillance known to those who have the right to know about such things. The Trump Administration themselves have "unmasked" 10s of thousands of people. It is not only common, but not even remotely controversial. It's a buzzword for the flock.
Comments
It's a good article from the point of clarity, but it does make the same sorts of assumptions that you've been criticizing from other posters:
- the idea of reasonable force is discounted, but that can only properly be assessed on the facts of the case, which are unlikely all to be present in the media reports.
- it is assumed that a gun was pointed at Arbery (which, unless justified, would itself be an aggravated assault). The basis for that assumption is that Arbery was shot through the hand when attempting to grab the gun - but that could easily happen as a result of Arbery grabbing, without necessarily meaning the gun was pointing at him beforehand.
I'm not saying that the assumptions in the article are unreasonable, quite the reverse. I'm just pointing out that everyone makes assumptions - that's just part of how we test arguments. You've done it yourself in the above post: "As I said before, it's a needless and dangerous escalation. There was no reason to think that guy was armed." The fact that you have existing assumptions does not mean you would be unable to challenge those in the light of the evidence presented in the trial, if you were on a jury for this case.
You've also suggested that this is an example of mob justice. As others have said, this seems to me to be almost exactly the opposite of that. As the article you've linked makes clear, there is a prima facie case to answer here, but that case was not being taken forward. It does seem incredible to me that a group of men could chase down an unarmed man, corner him and shoot him without even being arrested. I'm not ruling out the possibility those men have a legal defense for their actions, but the failure to arrest them in the first place cannot possibly be an example of even-handed justice for all. People pointing out that inconsistency, calmly and rationally, is the way in which I think such a lack of justice should be remedied in a democracy. That's not at all the same thing as using actual or threatened violence, or corrupt personal connections, in order to change expected decisions (that sort of use of personal connections does appear to have happened in this case, but not by those arguing on behalf of Arbery).
Unfortunately on this point alone, you're completely wrong. They would need to have first hand accounting of the supposed burglary, which they did not. So in attempting to chase him down without that express first hand information of his supposed wrong doing, the citizen's arrest is invalid.
And so is your argument, which is flimsily predicated upon this single point.
It's conceivable they had first hand knowledge that he trespassed, but as has been pointed out - that's not a felony. Without knowing it was a burglary, then they cannot lawfully stop him.
https://nypost.com/2020/05/11/interpol-seeks-arrest-of-anne-sacoolas-in-harry-dunn-death/
Now, of course, it's more than likely that those are just a bunch of... carefree individuals with no regard for others' safety, shall we say... with no political agenda whatsoever, but you're the one who attributed it to cultural war
Example #1,467 of how the behavior of others can always be blamed on "the left" for simply existing and having an opinion.
"Even if the death toll were several times as “artificially inflated” as you ... believe it is that would still leave Covid-19 deadlier, bare minimum, than H1N1 was in a fraction the time. Your freedom hasn’t been taken away. People are going out and partying anyway, they’re just also dropping dead, ...."
Quoted from a blog, with elipses replacing insults.
The whole H1N1 narrative (and the regular flu) narrative fell apart WEEKS ago, even if you take into account the fact that COVID-19 has been killing for about 2 months and numbers for the others were for an entire year. People are still using it anyway, which tells me they aren't interested in what is actually happening or anything resembling the truth. They just want a convenient talking point.
Well, if you are not right, that's the only option you have left
You can also be liberal, but it takes more will and mental fortitude than 99% are capable of.
5G! Burn them towers to the ground!
It was to crash the economy right before the election! Deep state will do anything to make sure Trump’s not elected!
https://www.jrseco.com/european-union-5g-appeal-scientists-warn-of-potential-serious-health-effects-of-5g/
Cellular towers have always been a danger to organics, 5g will make it worse especially if they are going to use us to bounce the signal. The Earth can't take that kind of steady wave, something will give. I'm surprised Gretta isn't on this seeing that it's a much more immediate threat to the Earth than warming.
This isn't to take away from COVID-19 but people have been sounding the 5g alarm for many years.
The bits of research I've seen in the past suggesting there are specific impacts on health (such as that prompting the WHO statement on possible carcinogenic effects) all relate to cell phone usage rather than general population exposure to EMF - and one of the rationales for the introduction of 5g is to reduce the level of radiation associated with cell phones.
Nevertheless, I agree that the introduction of 5g is a cause for concern. The fact that it is being added to 2g, 3g and 4g emitters, rather than replacing them, will increase the general exposure levels. The higher frequencies used in 5g are already widely in use for other purposes (like security scanners and radar guns). However, the concerns are about the cumulative impact of continuous or repeated exposure. Consider how we treat X-rays for example - everyone agrees that the impact on you of an X-ray taken when you visit the dentist is negligible, but dentists themselves are warned about the real risks of cumulative exposure if they don't take appropriate precautions.
While I don't think the evidence of potential harm is at all in the same league as for climate change, the same type of argument applies. If you believe in the precautionary principle, you would not want to adopt what are essentially population level experiments where there's a risk of considerable harm occurring over many years - and that harm could not be undone once recognized.
Airport security builds up much faster.
- Daily background exposure is about 3mSv
- Airport security is about to 0.1mSv
- Dentist x-ray is about 0.001mSv. Extreme case might be 0.01mSv
I don't know the 5G exposures but it should be very low compared to natural exposure for it to be 'safe' (note, natural exposure at that frequency)
Edit: right, so 5G is not in the order of uv and thereby non-ionising. It should not affect atoms in a destructive way.
That's the problem with people, only caring what damage is done to humans. We are not the only beings living on this Earth. Flora and Fauna will be affected as well.
Also if you keep adding low exposure tech wouldn't it add up to be unnatural exposure? Just keep piling it on till we're at dangerous levels for the sake of downloading porn in 0.00000001 secs?
We are not talking about a one time zap at the dentist, we are talking about a steady stream that is 24 hrs a day 7 days a week.
Instead we have more than 80k dead and Fox saying Trump's doing the best job ever.
To elaborate.
The 3 mSv daily exposure to x-ray type radiation is natural background radiation from nature (elements, cosmic, etc), nothing man added. This therefore applies already to flora and fauna. Applied x-ray radiation is highly localised in clinical settings, in general away from flora and fauna.
5g is not x-ray radiation, it does not damage atoms and molecules. it still falls under radio waves I think, maybe classification is different, but at least it is a very high frequency (24+100GHz) where disorienting and detrimental signals to fauna are only up to 200kHz with 120k whales, 70k dog hearing, 200k bat echo location, 50k various insect orientations skills. There are no studies yet where outliers to the GHz-has-no-impact-assessment cannot be explained by secondary causes.
At least, that is the science of it as I learned it and the results reported in scientific journals. You are welcome to prove this wrong. I would be very happy of new insights on the matter and I am open to feedback and a change of opinion if disproven. I seek knowledge and am able to switch sides if it makes sense.
Whether 5G is needed is a different question. My impression is rather that we should invest in renewable resources and future space exploration to reduce our impact on this world and investigate other worlds to compensate.
I agree it's non-ionizing and therefore single, short, exposures won't cause perceptible damage. However, as I understand it, studies have shown pretty strong evidence that long term exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation can cause biological damage, for instance to DNA, and result in an increased risk of cancer. This paper discusses the issue and includes links to a number of studies that have shown increased risks.
The discussion also reminded me of the issue of declining fertility over time. I think I may have posted this article about that before, but information I've seen since confirms both there is a real decline in infertility and that no-one is sure why. Potential explanations include chemical exposure, lifestyle choices, overheating of the male scrotum and exposure to radiation (including RF). Personally, I think radiation seems less likely to be a major cause than other factors, but I wouldn't like to rule it out.
Trump has encouraged this kind of batshit thinking since he took office. And since his supporters can't admit he's screwed the pooch, we get this shit instead. Last week there was a viral video going around called "Plandemic", marinating in the same bullshit, featuring a quack doctor who claims she manufactured Ebola. America isn't just handling this horribly because of incompetent leadership at the top. It's because that leadership constantly encourages it's citizens to be morons and then pats them on the back for doing so.
Explaining in general that some of us do not think of the rest of the life on this planet when it comes to new tech, is not aggressive. I will apologize though if you thought I was to you. I was not and had no intention of.
Radiation, RF and the next new tech are always going to be dangers to this plant because no one wants to do complete and thorough long term studies. I would go as far as saying that funding would be cut if any lab or University would go that way.
When you put into google '5g dangers' for me atleast, this pops up. 'Some 5G conspiracy theorists contend that the new network generates radiofrequency radiation that can damage DNA and lead to cancer; cause oxidative damage that can cause premature aging; disrupt cell metabolism; and potentially lead to other diseases through the generation of stress proteins' It's from howtogeek.com. Starting a sentence with 'Some 5g conspiracy theorists' at the top of the search page is misleading. We will not know the damage done until years from now and If there is how irreversible it will be. Here is another study on 'not enough studies done'
I would give that title to Alex Jones. He did it before it was cool.
Jones has graduated to threatening to resort to cannibalism of his neighbors in recent weeks, so, I'm not really sure where you go from there:
Can't imagine why Youtube wouldn't want this guy to host a channel on their website................
Thank you for the links. This will be good reading material.
Overall it is a matter of whether the added radiation is above the threshold for background radiation such that it may become detrimental to environmental health.
Fertility in men is arranged by hormonal balance. This is very complex to prove because infertility is an imbalance that can be caused by very diverse alternate effects. Hormonal balance is regulated like a buffer solution. Not easy to grasp.
This seems like a genuine nod towards the progressive wing of the party, trying to bring onboard progressive figures for important issues.
This + a Kamala Harris or Stacy Abrams pick would go a long way in terms of broadening his coalition (I wouldnt call Kamala Harris a dyed in the wool progressive, but she's about as far left as mainstream politicians go that arent explicitly progressive).
https://www.businessinsider.com/mcconnell-patriot-act-renewal-fbi-web-browsing-history-2020-5
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/coalition-decries-canada-s-piecemeal-response-to-beijing-sponsored-intimidation-1.4936201
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-canadians-have-had-it-with-chinas-dictators
They don't already?
President Obama's response:
Meanwhile in the Supreme Court:
Trump's lawyers (and Attorney General Bill Barr):
"Criminal process targeting the President" violates the Constitution - Jay Sekulow.
So Trump is pushing "Obamagate" which is nothing but lets pretend it's something - it's nothing because according to Trump, nothing he does as President is illegal or wrong ever - Trump's been caught red-handed meddling in the 2020 election with Ukraine and Republicans didn't bat an eye so what could "Obamagate" possibly be that's worse than that hahahaa. Trump's pathetic.
Someone should ask Trump what he's going to charge Obama with and then ask him, whatever that answer was, why he should not be charged for that thing because no matter what it is that he lies and says Obama did, Trump has probably done it himself and there's evidence lol.
You know what else Obama did?? He warned Trump, directly, to his face, NOT to hire Flynn. Practically begged him not to. He was being completely magnanimous. He was trying to save Trump the trouble that would come less than 30 days into his Presidency because he knew what he was into. Did Trump listen?? Fuck no. And within a month, he was (and both Trump and Pence admitted this at the time) lying to the Vice President about his contacts and was fired. He then subsequently plead guilty to lying to the FBI. Without equivocation. And Judge Sullivan is no longer taking Barr's assault on the rule of law lying down. He is not accepting the dismissal on it's face, and is allowing challenges to be brought forth before him in court to what the DOJ is attempting.
Unmasking is simply making the identity of someone caught on foreign surveillance known to those who have the right to know about such things. The Trump Administration themselves have "unmasked" 10s of thousands of people. It is not only common, but not even remotely controversial. It's a buzzword for the flock.