What a load of meaningless piffle.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Obviously not. You can have a geostationary satellite, but the earth is moving so it can't be at a fixed point in the universe.
I am looking for a satellite that is in a fixed point in the universe that it is in a FIXED distance and coordinates from the center of the earth.
Is that possible?
The Ramazzini study exposed 2448 Sprague-Dawley rats from prenatal life until their natural death to “environmental” cell tower radiation for 19 hours per day (1.8 GHz GSM radiofrequency radiation (RFR) of 5, 25 and 50 V/m). RI exposures mimicked base station emissions like those from cell tower antennas, and exposure levels were far less than those used in the NTP studies of cell phone radiation.
[The problem hanging over the Splenda finding is that which hangs over the Ramazzini Institute in general: Quality control. No matter what substance the Institute tests for cancer, the results always seem to be positive, whereas other laboratories testing the same substances repeatedly fail to come up with the same findings. […] All of this has made the Ramazzini Institute something of a joke in European and American science. But, of course, there’s nothing to laugh about when you use a charity conference on childhood cancer to promote an international cancer panic.
A 1972 study compared neoplasms in Sprague Dawley rats from six different commercial suppliers and found highly significant differences in the incidences of endocrine and mammary tumors. There were even significant variations in the incidences of adrenal medulla tumors among rats from the same source raised in different laboratories. All but one of the testicular tumors occurred in the rats from a single supplier. The researchers found that the incidence of tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats from different commercial sources varied as much from each other as from the other strains of rats. The authors of the study "stressed the need for extreme caution in evaluation of carcinogenicity studies conducted at different laboratories and/or on rats from different sources."So you need to do your epidemiology carefully even with rats!
He was getting sick during the week and recovering on the weekend. He concluded something at work was making him ill. He started working in different offices, and finally got relief in the basement. He worked out that there was no WiFi in the basement. The neurologist agreed with his conclusion.
I have challenged the industry to put forward executives to volunteer to be exposed to the radiation I have in my home for 3 months.Had a rep offer me an intracavitary dosemeter some years ago, with a bias voltage of about 1000V inside an insulated but rather thin sheath. "Absolutely safe" he said. "Fine", says I. "Shove it up your backside and switch it on, and I'll buy it." Never saw him again.
I would add that the argument that non-ionizing radiation cannot cause cancer because it cannot break DNA double bonds, has been disproven by the acceptance that the lower energy ultra-violet light can, with time, cause skin cancer.
If the Universe is infinite, and contains (an) infinite (number of) galaxies; could there be other galaxies, that are not included in this?That depends on your definition of universe. To most people, it means "everything", or, if you like, "every thing", so there can't be any things that are not members of the universe.
they won't realise that Africa, China and India are not part of the EU.citation needed.
One hundred and twenty-three organisations and individuals registered with as campaigners at the referendum. Altogether, the 123 campaigners reported spending £32,642,158 on campaigning at the referendum.
I noticed that academics are a very small fraction of the population.Not round here, nor on the telly or in the papers. Or in positions of direct influence on the young. And since more than half of the population now go to "uni", it's clearly an aspirational class.
Why do they spend so much money on it then?For the same reason that the remain side did. It's public money, so spend it.
sort of supported by the split of remain/ leave vs level of education. I noticed that those academics on EU -funded projects tended to support "remain" until it was pointed out that only 60% of the money the UK contributes to EU science actually returns as grants, the remainder being lost in the byzantine accounts. Among my educated friends, those not in receipt of EU funding were generally sceptical of its value.
Have you forgotten the focus on Calais etc?No. I am quite aware of the blatant failure of the EU to apply the United Nations ruling on the treatment of refugees. The only government that did what is actually required by international law was that of the UK, as proudly stated by the Rt Hon David Cameron, MA (Oxon).