|
Motronic posted:Gas stoves, ovens and dryers are very much available all over the US. I'm suspecting this poster is trying to go for a specific look to keep things period correct.
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 04:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 10:59 |
|
|
It's really hard to find a watch which just tells you the time and nothing else. It's a requirement for it to have a million other features and cost +$100.
America Inc. fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Sep 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 20:33
|
|
|
no hay camino posted:It's really hard to find a watch which just tells you the time and nothing else. New thread title?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 20:35
|
|
|
no hay camino posted:It's really hard to find a watch which just tells you the time and nothing else. It's a requirement for it to have a million other features and cost +$100. No, it isn't. Watches are a fashion choice, and "minimalist analog time-only" is just another option in the catalog. There are a lot of things where The Market has decided you can't get a simple, low-feature option, and that's real annoying, but watches aren't one. Timex, Skagen, and Casio all make a ton of inexpensive round dial time-only watches. You can probably find any of these much cheaper by looking around for a bit, but here are three example options that took me a couple of minutes to find by going to the manufacturer sites and sorting by price. https://www.casio.com/products/watches/classic/mq24-7b2 https://www.skagen.com/en-us/products/jorn-brown-leather-watch/SKW6552.html https://www.timex.com/easy-reader-3...one-Black-White Space Gopher fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Sep 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 21:04
|
|
|
no hay camino posted:It's really hard to find a watch which just tells you the time and nothing else. It's a requirement for it to have a million other features and cost +$100. There are hundreds of plain analog watches on Amazon for <$25
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 21:13
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Watches are a fashion choice yeah, its this. people don't wear watches to tell the time anymore, we all have phones in our pockets for that. watches for utility are gonna be smart watches just to extend that utility to a slightly more convenient place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 02:02
|
|
|
ah yes because MORE technology, and management or peers knowing that you have have access to even easier comms and thus should have nano second replys is good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 02:06
|
|
|
Admittedly yes I found a watch while I was in the store. Onto a different topic: is there a risk of getting cancer from wireless headphones (or Bluetooth devices in general)? I would think not given that Bluetooth frequencies and radio waves in general are non-ionizing, and I've heard this line of questioning before about 5G and stuff like that. But wireless headphones present a different concern because of their proximity to the head (although they emit less than a cell phone). I was unaware that the International Agency for Research on Cancer had classified radio frequency radiation (RFR) as "possibly carcinogenic to humans", potentially causing glioma, a type of malignant brain cancer. quote:Dr Jonathan Samet (University of Southern California, USA), overall Chairman of the Working There's also a separate study from the National Toxicology Program which indicates that high exposure to RFR in rats could cause cancer. But of course there's no research saying directly that say, wearing Apple Airpods can cause cancer (yet). It appears there's still research to be done in the subject, but even the possibility of getting brain cancer seems pretty concerning. It appears that reducing usage of wireless devices may be prudent. Could someone perhaps demonstrate that I'm worrying about nothing? E: something reassuring: RF engineers who are regularly exposed to RFR have not been found to have a higher risk of cancer. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Sep 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 05:03
|
|
|
No they don’t cause cancer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 05:18
|
|
|
no hay camino posted:Could someone perhaps demonstrate that I'm worrying about nothing? Cell phone towers have been in 100% near continuous operation since the 80s/90s, radio and television signals have been in operation for a full century, and the average home has around two dozen+ devices capable of sending and receiving wi-fi/bluetooth signals at all times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 05:26
|
|
|
Non‐ionizing radiation is a possible carcinogen in the say way that water is a possible carcinogen: if you get a burn from it, the scar tissue is more likely to spin off a tumor than undamaged tissue would be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 05:39
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Cell phone towers have been in 100% near continuous operation since the 80s/90s, radio and television signals have been in operation for a full century, and the average home has around two dozen+ devices capable of sending and receiving wi-fi/bluetooth signals at all times. At the end of the day we don't really know though. Look at what leaded gas did to boomers. Who knows what'll happen to us when (if) we grow old. It might not cause cancer but we are still woefully ignorant about the inner workings lf the brain and how environmental factors affect it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 08:50
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:At the end of the day we don't really know though. Look at what leaded gas did to boomers. Who knows what'll happen to us when (if) we grow old. It might not cause cancer but we are still woefully ignorant about the inner workings lf the brain and how environmental factors affect it. the toxic effect of lead in general and the lead compound used as an additive in gasoline were well understood prior to their widespread introduction to american infrastructure in the early to mid 20th century. workers would regularly die in the early 20's while working in the manufacturing process. it wasn't some super subtle mystery effect that only could be teased out retrospectively http://www.hvonstorch.de/klima/pdf/blei/seyferth_2003.pdf
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 09:10
|
|
|
What's with the name of this thread?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 09:11
|
|
|
if i remember correctly, a week or two back an adult website bought out a defunct video platform that used to service a bunch of websites in the early to mid 2010's and a bunch of previously dead links to the old video player suddenly went live again with adult videos this affected a bunch of decade old washington post articles
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 09:16
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:At the end of the day we don't really know though. Look at what leaded gas did to boomers. Who knows what'll happen to us when (if) we grow old. It might not cause cancer but we are still woefully ignorant about the inner workings lf the brain and how environmental factors affect it. Tetraethyl lead was originally sold as "ethyl fluid" and they had people go out and claim the additive was safe to use (please ignore the news about our manufacturing plants). The people involved absolutely knew what was going with lead back then.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 09:50
|
|
|
The lead poisoning for millennials is Boomer parenting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 11:40
|
|
|
RF radiation levels are so much weaker than solar illumination levels. A quick skim of this linked article; https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/ol.2019.10899 suggests that they are at most 0.0001 of 1 sun solar intensity/irradiance (1 kW/m^2) on apartment balconies which are close to cell phone base stations. IMO, it would make more sense to avoid going outside, even with sunscreen on, than to try to avoid wireless technology. The people who study the effect of RF radiation on human health have no theory for why dilute levels of RF radiation could be bad for the human body. It is really hard to imagine how such a dilute quantity with no mechanism for damage to the human body could be dangerous. edit: The FCC requires that cell phone manufacturers perform tests on cell phone designs before they are released as products. One test is that they operate the cell phone next to a dielectric model for a human head, and measure how much RF radiation gets absorbed by the facsimile human head. If you make an assumption about human tissue (it has the same density as water, and absorbs and doesn't reflect the transmitted RF signal) and perform a back of the envelope calculation to convert the FCC requirement (1.6 W/kg over a 1 g mass of the model which absorbs the most signal) into an RF intensity/irradiance, the FCC specific absorption rate (SAR) requirement states that the levels can be at most ~1/100 of one sun illumination. Again, IMO it makes more sense to try to avoid going outside than to try to avoid using cellular handsets. I would use cell phone handset results as a pessimistic proxy for the safety of wireless headphones--the max RF transmitter power levels used in cell phone communication (~ 1 Watt) are much much higher than Bluetooth (10 mW, and now Google is telling me that they've increased the power in the new Bluetooth standards to 100 mW). So cell phones emit roughly 10x - 100x higher RF levels than bluetooth headphones. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 13:36 on Sep 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 12:38
|
|
|
no hay camino posted:Onto a different topic: is there a risk of getting cancer from wireless headphones (or Bluetooth devices in general)? ANIME AKBAR fucked around with this message at 14:04 on Sep 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 14:01
|
|
|
Yeah, I think going outside with sunscreen on is more dangerous than using a cell phone or bluetooth headphones. The people who study the effect of RF radiation on health have no theory for why it could be bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 14:40
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:What's with the name of this thread? said third party went under and pornotube company bought up the valuable name and sent every broken link to hardcore porn so wapo had just hardcore porn embeds on their website for a bit
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 15:42
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Yeah, I think going outside with sunscreen on is more dangerous than using a cell phone or bluetooth headphones. quote:The people who study the effect of RF radiation on health have no theory for why it could be bad. The best rebuttal against the whole issue is the Interphone study, which interviewed five thousand people with brain tumors across 13 countries, looking for links between cell phone usage and brain tumors. No significant correlation found. Other similar studies have been conducted since, AFAIK none have ever produced significant results. ANIME AKBAR fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Sep 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 01:53
|
|
|
if you really want to worry about long term environmental health effects of the modern era just go with microplastics
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 01:57
|
|
|
or for something thats already happening you could look at the obesity crisis but i guess thats not as exciting since it actually exists and is ongoing. doesnt have the spice of havana syndrome
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 02:00
|
|
|
Stexils posted:if you really want to worry about long term environmental health effects of the modern era just go with microplastics Or climate change.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 02:15
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:RF radiation levels are so much weaker than solar illumination levels. ... this isn't really a relevant comparison, though? Nobody is contesting that solar UV can give you skin cancer, but the proposed sensical mechanism for cell phones damaging your brain is just gently microwaving the tissue (or blood, I suppose). Seemingly credible studies have been done to measure the effect (that's a recent one for 5G). None of them suggest that cell phones will cook your brain, or that any given amount of heating will give you brain tumours, but it's perfectly reasonable work to inform safe limits on broadcast power for Cuban microwave guns, obviously. Anyway, if you're really concerned, first, your cell phone is vastly more likely to kill you by distracting you when you're crossing a street or (don't do this for gently caress's sake) driving. If you're still worried, don't hold it against your head and/or gonads for hours at a time when you have a weak signal. Also, don't give cellular towers long and tight hugs. e: the original question was about Bluetooth anyway, and as you said, headsets/earbuds are even less powerful than phones and again, vastly more likely to kill you by distracting you. And on that note, if you or someone you know likes engaging in dangerous activities like cycling on busy roads with earbuds blasting loud music, please use bone conduction headphones instead. Precambrian Video Games fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Sep 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 03:08
|
|
|
I made fun of the lady at Conspiracy Con for suggesting dirty electricity was coming from my phone and my smart meter and could cause cancer. But then I got cancer so guess who owned who?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 03:29
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:I made fun of the lady at Conspiracy Con for suggesting dirty electricity was coming from my phone and my smart meter and could cause cancer. I use smooth, filtered electricity, provided by only the finest Taiwanese power supply.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 03:43
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:wapo used embedded video from a third party. This reminds me of an early 2000's strategy a bunch of us used in an immature attack on some forum being run by a bunch of problematic types. We signed up and made a bunch of innocuous posts for a while, including emoticons that looked like the ones from the forum itself, but were actually hosted elsewhere. Then at some point we replaced all the image files on the server with a bunch of other larger ones.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 05:50
|
|
|
eXXon posted:... this isn't really a relevant comparison, though? Nobody is contesting that solar UV can give you skin cancer, but the proposed sensical mechanism for cell phones damaging your brain is just gently microwaving the tissue (or blood, I suppose). Seemingly credible studies have been done to measure the effect (that's a recent one for 5G). None of them suggest that cell phones will cook your brain, or that any given amount of heating will give you brain tumours, but it's perfectly reasonable work to inform safe limits on broadcast power for Cuban microwave guns, obviously. Your brain likely experiences more heating from a hot shower. I know you're not boosting this study as evidence of carcinogenic RF, just giving some more context for other people who aren't familiar with the background.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 07:57
|
|
|
eXXon posted:... this isn't really a relevant comparison, though? Read the rest of my post! I think it is a great comparison to make. Even if you filter out the UV radiation, which I made sure to mention in all of my posts on the subject, the sun is a stronger radiator by far than all of the man-made RF sources. But people who are afraid of RF usually aren't afraid of the sun. I say that they should be afraid of the sun, if they are afraid of RF.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 10:39
|
|
|
eXXon posted:Seemingly credible studies have been done to measure the effect (that's a recent one for 5G). None of them suggest that cell phones will cook your brain, or that any given amount of heating will give you brain tumours, but it's perfectly reasonable work to inform safe limits on broadcast power for Cuban microwave guns, obviously. Measurements of specific absorption rate (SAR), using a dielectric model and not dead cow brains like in your linked article, are performed on every new cell phone design before it becomes approved by the FCC, and cellular handsets have to be below an FCC requirement on SAR. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 10:51 on Sep 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 10:48
|
|
|
If you eggheads know of an easier way to cook cow brains then I'm all ears!
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 12:05
|
|
|
Try a crock pot
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 19:58
|
|
|
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/05/covid-coronavirus-work-home-office-surveillancequote:That’s because, within their first week of remote work, David and his team were introduced to a digital surveillance platform called Sneek.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 20:10
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/05/covid-coronavirus-work-home-office-surveillance People asking a lot of questions already answered by the name of my service.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 20:19
|
|
|
Bear Enthusiast posted:If you eggheads know of an easier way to cook cow brains then I'm all ears! Global warming them inside their cow skulls
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 20:42
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/05/covid-coronavirus-work-home-office-surveillance The culture of management in this country is just so loving stupid. I know the answer is control but honest to god, if work is getting done, if production is up, if things are working, why the gently caress do you care so much about what someone is doing? And also, the meeting culture in businesses and non-profits needs to end too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 21:20
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:The culture of management in this country is just so loving stupid. I know the answer is control but honest to god, if work is getting done, if production is up, if things are working, why the gently caress do you care so much about what someone is doing? Because most managers are poo poo and have no idea how to manage or measure the productivity of their employees. A lot of them couldn't do this even when everyone was in the same office, so it's not much different now other than perception.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 10:59 |
|
|
ANIME AKBAR posted:Just to clarify, this study (both links go to the same thing, and it doesn't mention 5G) is indeed legit. But the only effect explored in that study is heating in the tissue due to being blasted with up to 2W of continuous RF power for ten minutes straight. They state clearly that they are not addressing any health-related effects of the exposure. Sorry, I accidentally posted the same link twice; this was supposed to be the second one. It seems to be fairly straightforward in terms of what they did and how, but not so much why. silence_kit posted:Read the rest of my post! I think it is a great comparison to make. Not at 2.45 Ghz! Also, the article you linked measured RF exposure at 30‑300 GHz, which is not as commonly used for telecommunications.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 23:47
|
|