Disqus - Latest Comments for BubbaDude

Re: Biden and Trump Administrations Commit Combined Billions to mRNA Vaccine Technologies

Richard Bennett — Wed, 22 Jan 2025 19:07:23 -0000

A Ph.D. in human geography is a very impressive credential.

Re: Lockdowns: the Self-Inflicted Disaster

Richard Bennett — Wed, 19 Jul 2023 19:31:26 -0000

In other words, you pulled something out of [thin air] and now you want me to support it for you. Are you new to this Internet thing?

Re: Lockdowns: the Self-Inflicted Disaster

Richard Bennett — Tue, 18 Jul 2023 19:18:57 -0000

LOL, you haven't even read the GBD.

Re: Lockdowns: the Self-Inflicted Disaster

Richard Bennett — Tue, 18 Jul 2023 19:17:36 -0000

No man is an island.

Re: Lockdowns: the Self-Inflicted Disaster

Richard Bennett — Mon, 17 Jul 2023 21:38:29 -0000

The law is the law until it isn't. Right now, assault is unlawful.

Re: Lockdowns: the Self-Inflicted Disaster

Richard Bennett — Mon, 17 Jul 2023 20:18:36 -0000

Great Barrington Declaration was a genocidal scam.

Re: Lockdowns: the Self-Inflicted Disaster

Richard Bennett — Mon, 17 Jul 2023 20:17:13 -0000

Same amount of people died. Same group of people died.

Evidence?

Re: Lockdowns: the Self-Inflicted Disaster

Richard Bennett — Mon, 17 Jul 2023 20:14:33 -0000

As a matter of law, deliberately spreading a disease is assault.

Re: Lockdowns: the Self-Inflicted Disaster

Richard Bennett — Mon, 17 Jul 2023 20:12:49 -0000

Herd immunity LOL

Re: Lockdowns: the Self-Inflicted Disaster

Richard Bennett — Mon, 17 Jul 2023 16:40:05 -0000

Doctors wore bird masks so that other people could steer clear of them.

Re: Lockdowns: the Self-Inflicted Disaster

Richard Bennett — Mon, 17 Jul 2023 16:38:57 -0000

If you can't guarantee that the viruses you exhale won't infect other people you're not free to behave as you please.

Re: Lockdowns: the Self-Inflicted Disaster

Richard Bennett — Mon, 17 Jul 2023 16:37:35 -0000

Masks and school closures were part of the response to Spanish Flu in 1918. This is standard for respiratory viruses.

Re: Activist Vandana Shiva Is A Mortal Threat To the Most Vulnerable

Richard Bennett — Mon, 17 Jul 2023 16:35:58 -0000

I went to Flim-Flam Shiva's talk to the Sustainability program at CU Boulder a few years ago. She gave a speech and then answered some curated written questions from the audience. Her talk was so appalling in terms of alternative facts that the leader of the program knew she told lie after lie and accepted my question. If this is a typical experience, there's no need for a counterpoint speaker because she will hang herself in front of any moderately well informed audience.

She won't accept a gig that puts her in a debate format because she knows her story doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The red flags for the Boulder sponsor were wild health claims about organic food.

Re: Lockdowns: the Self-Inflicted Disaster

Richard Bennett — Tue, 11 Jul 2023 21:35:08 -0000

The masks were not fashion statements.

Re: Lockdowns: the Self-Inflicted Disaster

Richard Bennett — Sun, 09 Jul 2023 23:55:04 -0000

You're not entitled to deliberately make other people sick.

Re: Lockdowns: the Self-Inflicted Disaster

Richard Bennett — Sun, 09 Jul 2023 23:53:52 -0000

Doctors treating plague victims wore distinctive masks to warn people they may have been infected.

Re: Lockdowns: the Self-Inflicted Disaster

Richard Bennett — Fri, 07 Jul 2023 21:41:44 -0000

The term "quarantine" was coined in Venice during the Black Plague, there's one precedent for you. The larger problem with your reasoning is your failure to grasp that pandemics require swift mitigation, negating the possibility of testing every policy before implementation. Yeah, isolation can screw up the life of a society in myriad ways, but it beats the hell out of dying.

Re: Apple Takes Aim at CHD’s Arguments in Cellphone Radiation Case

Richard Bennett — Tue, 25 Apr 2023 15:51:47 -0000

You're confused about how the FCC develops RF safety standards. It consults with FDA directly, not simply through the docket. At FCC's request, FDA did a review of the significant literature titled “Review of Published Literature between 2008 and 2018 of Relevance to Radiofrequency Radiation and Cancer.” This is FDA's primary input. Here is its conclusion:

Based on the studies that are described in detail in this report, there is insufficient evidence to support a causal association between RFR exposure and tumorigenesis. There is a lack of clear dose response relationship, a lack of consistent findings or specificity, and a lack of biological mechanistic plausibility.

IEEE doesn't write RF safety standards or guidelines. The IEEE Standards Association, an independent IEEE affiliate organization, sponsors the International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES) and publishes its standards. ICES is composed of engineers, doctors, and health professionals. Here's a summary of how ICES works and what it finds:

The literature review also evaluated the possibility of adverse health effects associated with chronic low-level exposure. For exposures to electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields at frequencies between 0 Hz and 300 GHz, the following two conclusions were reached:

1. The weight-of-evidence provides no credible indication of adverse effects caused by chronic exposures below levels specified in IEEE Std C95.1™-2019.

2. No biophysical mechanisms have been scientifically validated that would link chronic exposures below levels specified in IEEE Std C95.1™-2019 to adverse health effects.

Based on the collective findings of recent reviews, the weight of the evidence continues to indicate that chronic exposure at levels specified in this standard is unlikely to cause adverse health effects. Nonetheless, ICES Subcommittees routinely evaluate new research and will, if appropriate, initiate revision of IEEE Std. C95.1-2019 (the ICES standard).

FCC takes the ICES guidelines and adds a 50X margin to them.

FCC also consults with the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP,) as does every other nation on Earth. ICNIRP is a 48-year-old international science non-profit that advises the World Health Organization and other organizations on standards exposure to EMF emissions. It is the world’s leading expert on non-ionizing radiation from 0 Hz to 100 GHz, far below and far above the frequency range used by 5G (700Mhz-37GHz in the US.)

And FCC also reads studies by other bodies such as the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, the European Commission body that regulates EMF safety. The combination of these agencies, committees, and bodies is powerful.

If the agency charged with regulations in a particular area doesn't do its job, the recourse is through the courts and through Congress. It is not appropriate for cities to go rogue and pretend to have powers that have never been bestowed on them.

Re: Apple Takes Aim at CHD’s Arguments in Cellphone Radiation Case

Richard Bennett — Mon, 24 Apr 2023 20:47:45 -0000

The article claims Apple "made multiple references to CHD’s filing — prompting CHD’s lead litigator for electromagnetic radiation (EMR) cases to suggest that CHD had a “big impact” and “hurt” Apple’s argument."

Reading the Apple brief, I see one reference to CHD, made in passing. On page 34:

"Finally, petitioners suggest the FCC’s views are entitled to no weight because they have changed over time. Pet. 9. Petitioners point to statements in which the FCC purportedly insisted” its RF “guidelines did not preempt state law regarding cellphone radiation.” Ibid.; see also Children’s Health Defense Br. 15-23."

Footnote 8 says: "Contrary to petitioners’ and amici’s view (Pet. 11; City of Berkeley Br. 8-9; CHD Br. 23-27), there is no requirement as to where or how an agency’s intent be expressed, so long as it is consistent."

Where are the big impact arguments? CHD's two arguments were made by others with greater weight. Both arguments were exceedingly lame and easily dismissed. The City of Berkeley can't overrule the FCC; city councils don't have the chops.

Re: Apple Takes Aim at CHD’s Arguments in Cellphone Radiation Case

Richard Bennett — Mon, 24 Apr 2023 19:55:19 -0000

CHD's "historic win" over the FCC is neither historic nor a win. It was a fairly routine remand of an administrative order to the agency for more detail. Insofar as it pertained to preemption, very loosely, it was simply wrong. As Apple correctly points out, the history of preemption cases weighs nearly 100% in the FCC's favor. The idea that cities can write their own safety standards for licensed wireless devices is, frankly, insane.

The Ninth Circuit correctly ruled that the plaintiff has no case. That decision is consistent with case law and would certainly survive Supreme Court review should the court decide it needs to be made even more clear. The court has bigger fish to fry so it's doubtful they will take up the case.

CHD's legal team appears to be quite inept, but that comes down the client's living in a fantasy world.

Re: US tweetdeck

Richard Bennett — Wed, 08 Feb 2023 19:51:07 -0000

Me too

Re: Tucker Slams ‘Liar’ Boris Johnson as ‘Terrified Old Woman’

Richard Bennett — Fri, 03 Feb 2023 16:01:17 -0000

Here's another Putin fanboi.

Re: Tucker Slams ‘Liar’ Boris Johnson as ‘Terrified Old Woman’

Richard Bennett — Fri, 03 Feb 2023 16:00:39 -0000

Tucker is clearly in Putin's pocket. I wonder what kompromat the dictator has on the girly man with the bad wig.

Re: Tucker Slams ‘Liar’ Boris Johnson as ‘Terrified Old Woman’

Richard Bennett — Fri, 03 Feb 2023 15:58:58 -0000

Tucker is garbage.

Re: Exclusive — Rep. Thomas Massie Vows to Strip Ukraine Funding from Must-Pass Spending Bills

Richard Bennett — Thu, 02 Feb 2023 19:08:06 -0000

Wrong.