The rats were exposed to nine hours of radiation daily, in 10-minutes-on, 10-minutes-off intervals, over their whole bodies for two years. The researchers found increased incidences of rare brain and heart tumors starting at about the federally allowable level of cellphone radiation for brain exposure, with greater incidences at about two and four times those levels.
WTF does that study have to do with cell phone towers? Seriously, they put rats in a cage on top of a cell phone transmitter for two years with a "ten minute on/ten minute off"... How does that relate to living in a town with a cell tower?
In other words, ban what you want - but the FCC will ignore your ban and you have no legal standing as a city/town/State to say "we're worried about RF emissions" and use that as any part of the justification in banning new cell towers/sites.
When someone says they want to ban cell towers "for the children" ask them if their children have cell phones, and ask them why they think the cell tower on the other side of town is a greater threat to their children's health than the transmitter in their kid's pocket?
The telecom industry has long vociferously denied a link between antennas and health outcomes, although California's Department of Public Health has issued warnings about potential health effects of personal cell phone antennas.
Cell tower antennas are much different from personal cell phone antennas - one is on top of a tower and pointed towards the horizon, the other is typically between 1" to 6" away from your body/head.
Obviously, the antenna within a few inches of your body is the greater threat, but they want to eliminate the comparatively safe cell towers because it makes them "feel" like they've done something "for the children".
I read here that $25/hr was a good wage in the 1950's...
$50K/yr (40 hr/wk x 50 weeks/year = $50K/year) would have been a VERY good wage in 1950s - the average was more like $5K/yr which, adjusted for inflation would be $25/hr today.
modern people are expected to work 40+ hours a week to get less than 1/3rd of that.
No, they aren't. Median income in US is $61K - that means half of all Americans earn more than $61K, half less.
In America we've redefined "full time" to be 30+ hours/wk, which means part-time employees are only able to work 29 or fewer hours/week lest they be considered full-time employees and cost their employer mandated insurance subsidies.
In 2016, 79.9 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 58.7 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 701,000 workers earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
There are an estimated 701K workers earning minimum wage (one-third of $25/hr) of the nearly 80 million hourly workers, or about 1% of all hourly workers.
Wow. The workers choose to go in bottles because their non-Amazon employers have them on unreasonable schedules, not because Jeff Bezos denies them bathrooms.
Not in Newark, NJ - Mark Z. gave them $100M and it's all better now!
And let's not forget how Obama and his domestic terrorist neighbor Ayres whipped the schools in the south side of Chicago into shape with all that Annenberg money.
This man is pathetic, just another would-be American aristocrat throwing his money around
...and spending it on something the ones standing in judgement of him refuse to - education for the poorest among us. If the taxpayers were properly funding public school education there wouldn't be a need for someone like Bezos to step in and donate...
And a whole lot of teachers will be hired, classrooms will be built, and the poorest among us, for a while, will have a slightly better shot at "making it" than they did before he gave the money.
Why? He's giving a small percentage of his wealth to help the poorest among us - that seems very "un-prick like" to me. Why is there a need for this? Why haven't the taxpayers in each community focused more money on these groups?
Sure, it's only 1/80th of his calculated net worth of $160 BN, but even that low percentage is more than 47% of US tax filers pay in income taxes (which would be ZERO, as in they get a refund that exceeds the taxes withheld from their paychecks the previous year).
The problem is bigger than you think - if you took all the money from 'the rich' and used it to help the poor/homeless it would work, until a year or two after starting 'the rich' will run out of money to fund this.
Back in 2008 unemployment benefits ran for years, rather than the typical 26 weeks - Dems needed the votes so we kept declaring emergency extensions. Nancy Pelosi actually said unemployment checks were the best thing the gov't could possibly spend money on, since every dollar in unemployment benefits generated $2-3 in financial activity!
Bravo! With complete ignorance of the ACTUAL situation at boeing you literally invented everything in your post.
Perhaps it's more cost-effective to bring back trained employees with decades of experience to address a short term production issue than to wait months while you train new hires? Remember, the union had to agree to this decision to bring back retired workers.
Unless this survey that "proves" this correlation factored in the socio-economic realities, levels of parental environment and other factors I don't believe it.
Sign-up for service with a committed delivery speed, your attempts to get service at the highest advertised possible speed on a "best effort" home connection is a fools errand. You are entitled to the speed promised, not advertised as "possible".
It might even stimulate the rural economy, leading to higher incomes
And higher housing costs would drive lower-income locals away. Yay, government money helping solve rich people's problems, kinda like how government money makes teslas more affordable for the 3%ers.
If access was "a real problem" your in-laws would figure out a way to get faster internet access (satellite, cellular, etc.). That the lack of high-speed internet hasn't forced them to shutdown the farm and move into the better-served city a few miles away.
Local politicians gave away monopoly rights to the community in exchange for a free local cable access channel and some discounted/free internet access for the city (libraries, city hall, schools, fire/police departments, etc.).
Slashdot Mirror
The rats were exposed to nine hours of radiation daily, in 10-minutes-on, 10-minutes-off intervals, over their whole bodies for two years. The researchers found increased incidences of rare brain and heart tumors starting at about the federally allowable level of cellphone radiation for brain exposure, with greater incidences at about two and four times those levels.
WTF does that study have to do with cell phone towers? Seriously, they put rats in a cage on top of a cell phone transmitter for two years with a "ten minute on/ten minute off"... How does that relate to living in a town with a cell tower?
In other words, ban what you want - but the FCC will ignore your ban and you have no legal standing as a city/town/State to say "we're worried about RF emissions" and use that as any part of the justification in banning new cell towers/sites.
When someone says they want to ban cell towers "for the children" ask them if their children have cell phones, and ask them why they think the cell tower on the other side of town is a greater threat to their children's health than the transmitter in their kid's pocket?
The telecom industry has long vociferously denied a link between antennas and health outcomes, although California's Department of Public Health has issued warnings about potential health effects of personal cell phone antennas.
Cell tower antennas are much different from personal cell phone antennas - one is on top of a tower and pointed towards the horizon, the other is typically between 1" to 6" away from your body/head.
Obviously, the antenna within a few inches of your body is the greater threat, but they want to eliminate the comparatively safe cell towers because it makes them "feel" like they've done something "for the children".
I read here that $25/hr was a good wage in the 1950's...
$50K/yr (40 hr/wk x 50 weeks/year = $50K/year) would have been a VERY good wage in 1950s - the average was more like $5K/yr which, adjusted for inflation would be $25/hr today.
modern people are expected to work 40+ hours a week to get less than 1/3rd of that.
No, they aren't. Median income in US is $61K - that means half of all Americans earn more than $61K, half less.
In America we've redefined "full time" to be 30+ hours/wk, which means part-time employees are only able to work 29 or fewer hours/week lest they be considered full-time employees and cost their employer mandated insurance subsidies.
In 2016, 79.9 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 58.7 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 701,000 workers earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
There are an estimated 701K workers earning minimum wage (one-third of $25/hr) of the nearly 80 million hourly workers, or about 1% of all hourly workers.
That's a one-time gift, then the $2BN is gone, and the net change is what?
I said "if", I was pointing out that even if you took all the money "the rich" have you couldn't address the problem permanently.
Wow. The workers choose to go in bottles because their non-Amazon employers have them on unreasonable schedules, not because Jeff Bezos denies them bathrooms.
Not in Newark, NJ - Mark Z. gave them $100M and it's all better now!
And let's not forget how Obama and his domestic terrorist neighbor Ayres whipped the schools in the south side of Chicago into shape with all that Annenberg money.
He does not make $260M/day - that's asinine, $260M x 365 days/year = $94BN/year
You are confusing his stock appreciation with salary/bonuses. Unrealized earnings aren't income.
This man is pathetic, just another would-be American aristocrat throwing his money around
...and spending it on something the ones standing in judgement of him refuse to - education for the poorest among us. If the taxpayers were properly funding public school education there wouldn't be a need for someone like Bezos to step in and donate...
And a whole lot of teachers will be hired, classrooms will be built, and the poorest among us, for a while, will have a slightly better shot at "making it" than they did before he gave the money.
Why? He's giving a small percentage of his wealth to help the poorest among us - that seems very "un-prick like" to me. Why is there a need for this? Why haven't the taxpayers in each community focused more money on these groups?
Sure, it's only 1/80th of his calculated net worth of $160 BN, but even that low percentage is more than 47% of US tax filers pay in income taxes (which would be ZERO, as in they get a refund that exceeds the taxes withheld from their paychecks the previous year).
Are those Amazon employees or employees of contractors? People like to hold Bezos personally responsible for what other people pay their employees.
The problem is bigger than you think - if you took all the money from 'the rich' and used it to help the poor/homeless it would work, until a year or two after starting 'the rich' will run out of money to fund this.
Back in 2008 unemployment benefits ran for years, rather than the typical 26 weeks - Dems needed the votes so we kept declaring emergency extensions. Nancy Pelosi actually said unemployment checks were the best thing the gov't could possibly spend money on, since every dollar in unemployment benefits generated $2-3 in financial activity!
Missiles that are not delivered are not paid for.
You obviously weren't around for the dot com boom
You obviously think for dot com companies were "manufacturers" - most were not.
Bravo! With complete ignorance of the ACTUAL situation at boeing you literally invented everything in your post.
Perhaps it's more cost-effective to bring back trained employees with decades of experience to address a short term production issue than to wait months while you train new hires? Remember, the union had to agree to this decision to bring back retired workers.
BS.
Unless this survey that "proves" this correlation factored in the socio-economic realities, levels of parental environment and other factors I don't believe it.
Citation?
Sign-up for service with a committed delivery speed, your attempts to get service at the highest advertised possible speed on a "best effort" home connection is a fools errand. You are entitled to the speed promised, not advertised as "possible".
It might even stimulate the rural economy, leading to higher incomes
And higher housing costs would drive lower-income locals away. Yay, government money helping solve rich people's problems, kinda like how government money makes teslas more affordable for the 3%ers.
If access was "a real problem" your in-laws would figure out a way to get faster internet access (satellite, cellular, etc.). That the lack of high-speed internet hasn't forced them to shutdown the farm and move into the better-served city a few miles away.
70%+ of respondents said high-speed internet access is either a minor or no problem at all.
The answer is they aren't complaining, no more than people with high-speed internet access complain about their provider.
Local politicians gave away monopoly rights to the community in exchange for a free local cable access channel and some discounted/free internet access for the city (libraries, city hall, schools, fire/police departments, etc.).
Why did the Clinton administration do that and not hold them to the promises they made?