Jump to content

BurntOnce

Members
  • Posts

    1,258
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

BurntOnce last won the day on August 10

BurntOnce had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

4,425 profile views

BurntOnce's Achievements

Master of Stock Proctology

Master of Stock Proctology (3/9)

11

Reputation

  1. it's amazing how few people are informed that stalin crushed ukraine in the 30s. this is nothing new. “Many survivors witnessed either cannibalism or, far more often, necrophagy, the consumption of corpses of people who had died of starvation,” she wrote. https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/03/12/holodomor-famine-ukraine-stalin/
  2. the two different colored eyes add to the sinister feel of "the head". the nose could use some touch-up. it takes a second gander or two to notice the mona lisa smile. bravo!
  3. JUST PUBLISHED! Investigative Report on the US Government and Wireless Radiation Breaking News: ProPublica just published a major investigation into how the FCC is shielding wireless companies' issues regarding health, safety and the environment! In the report, investigative journalist and senior reporter Peter Elkind covers everything from the Pittsfield Massachusetts Board of Health Order regarding the Verizon Cell Tower, the National Toxicology Program animal study finding cancer and DNA damage and how the U.S. FCC human exposure limits for cell phones, cell towers and wireless radiation are decades out of date. Elkind interviews numerous experts, including those who used to work at the FCC and US government agencies, all of whom are cautioning that the science has linked exposure to harmful effects and safety is not assured. “We’re really in the middle of a paradigm shift,” said Linda Birnbaum, who was director of the National Toxicology Program until 2019. It’s no longer right to assume cellphones are safe, she said. “Protective policy is needed today. We really don’t need more science to know that we should be reducing exposures.” The article features the Environmental Health Trust et al. lawsuit against the FCC which found that "the FCC had failed to meet “even the low threshold of reasoned analysis” in finding that its limits “adequately protect against the harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation unrelated to cancer.” The article also highlights EHT's database on international policy action and the Wyoming Governor Marc Gordon's letter to the FCC calling for "immediate action as directed by the courts to review the research and update any policies as necessary for the health and wellbeing of all citizens, including the most vulnerable, our children." https://www.propublica.org/article/fcc-5g-wireless-safety-cellphones-risk?emci=b9ffcace-f160-ed11-ade6-14cb6534a651&emdi=1953150b-0261-ed11-ade6-14cb6534a651&ceid=8485882
  4. it was in the wsj that japan is one of the largest holders of us trash. no telling what they're doing mementarily.
  5. chipzilla (intc) beats. things just couldn't get any worse after that last report.
  6. there will be some fireworks when the BOJ decides to pare purchases of US trashuries.
  7. The French revolution precipitated over the price of bread. How much did you pay for your French baguette today?
  8. Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF)* Abstract In the late-1990s, the FCC and ICNIRP adopted radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits to protect the public and workers from adverse effects of RFR. These limits were based on results from behavioral studies conducted in the 1980s involving 40–60-minute exposures in 5 monkeys and 8 rats, and then applying arbitrary safety factors to an apparent threshold specific absorption rate (SAR) of 4 W/kg. The limits were also based on two major assumptions: any biological effects were due to excessive tissue heating and no effects would occur below the putative threshold SAR, as well as twelve assumptions that were not specified by either the FCC or ICNIRP. In this paper, we show how the past 25 years of extensive research on RFR demonstrates that the assumptions underlying the FCC’s and ICNIRP’s exposure limits are invalid and continue to present a public health harm. Adverse effects observed at exposures below the assumed threshold SAR include non-thermal induction of reactive oxygen species, DNA damage, cardiomyopathy,carcinogenicity, sperm damage, and neurological effects, including electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Also, multiple human studies have found statistically significant associations between RFR exposure and increased brain and thyroid cancer risk. Yet, in 2020, and in light of the body of evidence reviewed in this article, the FCC and ICNIRP reaffirmed the same limits that were established in the 1990s. Consequently, these exposure limits, which are based on false sup-positions, do not adequately protect workers, children, hypersensitive individuals, and the general population from short-term or long-term RFR exposures. Thus, urgently needed are health protective exposure limits for humans and the environment. These limits must be based on scientific evidence rather than on erroneous assumptions, especially given the increasing worldwide exposures of people and the environment to RFR, including novel forms of radiation from 5G telecommunications for which there are no adequate health effects studies. https://icbe-emf.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/ICBE-EMF-paper-12940_2022_900_OnlinePDF_Patched-1.pdf
  9. a seventy to ninety five percent reduction in wild species ocurred within 50 decades (bbc), and they're still buying the dip.
  10. intel with a bid. it's at a 10 year low, paying 5% div and too big to fail.
  11. MURRAY V. MOTOROLA GOES TO TRIAL AFTER 21 YEARS The important legal case, Murray v. Motorola, case no. 2001 CA 008479 B in D.C. Superior Court, is holding evidentiary hearings before Judge Irving. The hearings began September 12 and will run through September 30. This is a lawsuit that was filed in 2001 by a group of plaintiffs who got brain cancer from their cell phones. The defendants are virtually the entire telecommunications industry: Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, T-Mobile, Bell South, Bell Atlantic, Motorola, Qualcomm, Samsung, SONY, Sanyo, Nokia, the CTIA, the FCC, and dozens of other telecommunications companies. In 2001 and 2002, Michael Patrick Murray and five other people, all of whom had brain tumors located beneath where they had held their cell phones, sued the telecommunications industry for damages. In 2010 and 2011, seven more brain cancer victims joined the case as additional plaintiffs. Because of delaying tactics and appeals by the industry defendants, this case has bounced back and forth from one court to another for 21 years. A majority of the plaintiffs have meanwhile died. Evidence and expert testimony is being taken beginning this week, and then, barring additional delays, the case will finally go before a jury. There is a tremendous amount at stake here for all of us. Arthur Firstenberg, President Cellular Phone Task Force
  12. there is a post-pandemic health crisis underway. costs are skyrocketing at 4x the national average in jersey. taxpayers are picking up 97% of the 22% increase for a million state employees. there are a lot of sick people out there.
×
  • Create New...