131–140 of 309 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An abundance of caution.
better a bit of caution than a slow and painful death? If history is any indicator it's a good idea to be more cautious than less
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My country has a supreme law written in 1978. Any other law that conflicts with this one is illegal and must be repelled. Anyone who wants to overturn our 1978 law is effectively declaring war to us.
I guess this is why geeks are largely not involved in political processes. People seeing all topics as 1s and 0s are called maximalists and typically laughed out of the room.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Someone with physics knowledge please calm me down? All radio is non-ionizing EM, far lower frequency then visible light, thermal, etc. UV, Xrays, and gamma rays are in the opposite direction, higher frequency. Radio cannot do anything except minor amounts of heating, and at milliwatts of transmission power and inverse square law that's REALLY minor amounts of heating. There is no link to any sort of health effects…
Sun! It emits far more radiation than anything else and we don’t care about walking in sunlight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My country has a supreme law written in 1978. Any other law that conflicts with this one is illegal and must be repelled. Anyone who wants to overturn our 1978 law is effectively declaring war to us.
I guess this is why geeks are largely not involved in political processes. People seeing all topics as 1s and 0s are called maximalists and typically laughed out of the room.
I love my Apple Watch ultra, because with cellular I can use it as a phone – a very lightweight phone without social media distractions. But I have to say I am a little bit uneasy about having a cellphone strapped to my arm. Someone with physics knowledge please calm me down?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You missed your chance then - treaties already require member countries to defer to European rules where conflicting.
My country has a supreme law written in 1978. Any other law that conflicts with this one is illegal and must be repelled. Anyone who wants to overturn our 1978 law is effectively declaring war to us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt it works this way. Regulatory bodies check your paperwork. They don't test things themselves.
From the article: > The mobile phones were tested by an accredited laboratory, which allows the ANFR to ensure that the SAR values comply with European regulation.
There was a similar case recently where Sweden's equivalent decided to test a bunch of models of EV chargers and found some lacking.
In general, outside of these random tests, "they check the paperwork, not the thing itself" is correct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The EU is not and never (on human time scales) will be, as there is no appetite for a federal union in many member states and unanimity would be required.
Anything can happen in the same way as it happened with Maastricht and the Euro: cooperating countries would just go forward with new entities that inherit the previous institutions, dissolving or mothballing old entities. In the long run, the hard core inevitably wins. Anything that includes France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, will inevitably drag everyone else one way or another.
Maybe so, but whatever it became wouldn't be the EU and wouldn't include most of the current members states. It's obviously still an impossibility, as there is no appetite in any of those four countries for a federal EU.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Proving a link between cancer and one specific environmental factor is the physical impossibility you're looking for. Epidemiological studies tracking humans over time aren't controlled and will at best show a correlation worth studying, lab animal studies aren't great analogs given all the confounding factors and environmental differences with humans in real life, and unless the cancer causing agent acts quickly a c…
> Proving a link between cancer and one specific environmental factor is the physical impossibility you're looking for. But.. that happens all the time? The link between excessive solar exposure ("tanning") and cancer is extremely well documented.
I've seen some really compelling research looking into diet changes that may impact risk of skin cancer, specifically an increase in saturated fats helping to reduce risk. The idea is that saturated fats are envloved in the process of your body turning UV into vitamin D. With more saturated fats in your system the UV has effectively has a job and is processed by the body.
My point is simply that the body is complex, cancer generally develops over years, and trying to narrow down a common link strong enough to claim causation is tricky if not impossible.