Slashdot Mirror

I live at 9,000' and apparently high altitude accelerates cataract formation.

Interesting - not something I'd considered. Is that just due to UV levels, air pressure, or some other factor?

I spend most of my time at 890 metres (2,920 ft) so altitude might not be much of a problem. UV levels are high, and I have never worn sunglasses very often. I'm reconsidering the sunglasses now.

While wearing progressives, I had no problem shooting handguns or long arms. Post surgery, handguns are tough to shoot (can see the target, can't see the sights well) and rifles with telescopic sights were no problem.

No handguns at my place. That would be illegal.
From what little I've read progressive lenses may ruin my archery if they affect my ability to quickly judge distances. (I'm not certain that I do adjust for distance).

Fox shooting is usually with a Savage 1919 NRA Target rifle (tack hammer). Aperture rear sight, not a problem as I can stop and put on the distance glasses. It's mostly used at the 20 to 90m (65 - 300'). For rabbits I usually walk fast and flush (paddocks) using a recurve bow (instinctive gap). Range is now reduced to 5 to 40 metres (16 - 120') . That's more difficult these days, as I need the midrange glasses so I can clearly watching the ground at near my feet in my peripheral vision (Eastern Browns are very common on my place, and they'll sometimes try and bite if stood on). The distance glasses hurt my eyes if I'm watching the ground all the time.

Now just ramp that up a little bit. Don't forget http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3685264, so they are giving you a burst of radiation right before you going to get an extended burst of radiation. Now add in your typical sun bathing holiday and the return trip is even more dangerous. Just to add in that touch more fluorescent lights http://www.arpansa.gov.au/radiationprotection/factsheets/is_cfl.cfm and of course you have a ton of mobile phones in the vicinity as well as airport radar http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/rf/radar.asp.

I am sick of the repeated lie, don't worry ours is safe, on it's own heh heh. Compound affect, a modern US airport would have to be one of the most dangerous places to be. There more than anywhere else they should be taking steps to reduce exposure not add to it.

So let's start seeing some real numbers on total exposure. Drive to Airport exposed to airport radar, stand under bright florescent for a couple of hours, everybody using mobile phones lots of people in very close range, go through xray, exposed to extra radiation during flight, land at another airport with radar, couple of more hours under florescent lights, then go to beach and get sunburn. Skin cancer rates rising, use sunblock? Now we need a 24 hour a day 7 day week radiation block and they haven't finished yet. They'll keep adding in more 'safe on it's own devices' until future current youth will pay a huge price when they finally become short lived adults.

A colleague of mine is the project manager for the HyShot trial. It is being conducted at the Australian Defence Force's Woomera test and evaluation range and shooting north-west across the Australian desert.

Woomera and nearby areas has a long history of trials; several British designed rockets were trialled there, and several satellites were launched to earth orbit. Maralinga was one Australian site of British atom bomb tests in the late '40s and '50s.

HyShot is intended to be recovered, but it is a large area in which it might land. Watch this space!

Yes, exposure to EM radiation is dangerous. So is exposure to sunlight. While you should not needlessly expose yourself to EMR, the power involved is low compared to other sources that we are pretty blase about.

There is a lot of info available on the subject.

Actually, if you read a UN report on the matter, its scientists concluded that the lingering radiation from Chernobyl is equal to about 40% of the dose from all nuclear tests put together. Check the table at the bottom. I recall reading that the particular isotopes released by the explosion were worse than those from nuclear tests for some reason, but I haven't been able to locate the source of that information.

Why? Do magnets have cooties or something?

Sprint used to have a pretty big campaign advertising "Digital Clarity", but that's bullshit. The tests I've done say that analog sounds better. This doesn't mean it IS better, however. Digital networks are way cheaper to set up and run. Which, believe it or not, they do pass the savings on to you. This is why Sprint can offer what ammounts to $0.10 a minute peak and infinite offpeak usage (and tmobile is even cheaper).

As for me, I'm content with the sound quality of my digital phone (unless my reception is bad, people I'm talking to can't tell I'm on a cell phone) - but I'm very happy with the price.

And as for microwaving your brain, the analog phones put out a lot more power than than the digital ones - but the figures for american phones are like 600mW and 200mW (analog and digital) compared to the 1000KW a typical microwave oven will output (sucking about 1.5KW of electricity to do it) - hardly a reasonable comparison.

Actually, on second thought...

Peak power output corresponds to 2 Watts or 2000 milliwatts (mW) which averages to 250 mW of continuous power. An analogue phone (AMPS system) has peak power limited to 600mW.

Source