Crowd Control

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Its the ones that blind and maim that bother me. If your goal is to take people out of the battle then maiming is more efficient than killing, I understand that. But that isn't what we should consider doing to our own people. There are better ways. Even if it is a bunch of rioting thugs or idiots doing what idiots do.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Its the ones that blind and maim that bother me. If your goal is to take people out of the battle then maiming is more efficient than killing, I understand that. But that isn't what we should consider doing to our own people. There are better ways. Even if it is a bunch of rioting thugs or idiots doing what idiots do.

I fully agree, some of the laser units are right on the edge or even over it and have the capacity to create permanent blindness, *** even from reflections***. It's actually quite sad, this society... there are so many more ways to kill or maim people than there are to cure or save them.

I have stopped weapons projects (at least myself or my company's involvement) with governments when they became offensive, rather than defensive. Except for once, that was overseas, a long time ago and they needed something unique (they always did). However, I don't create offensive weapons anymore.

Unfortunately however, the new offensive weapons, the new WMD's are called politicians and they do so much damage it sometimes pales in comparison to what's out there in munitions and special projects.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
I thought the testicular cancer issue with police and microwave units was an interesting example. Physicians are seeing higher incidence of cancers in people exposed to microwave radiation.

Cheers - Dave

You linked the same Ukrainian article twice, the police officer's forum one is anecdotal. Yakimento publishes metastudy (without stats or math, if you notice) after metastudy on the same topic. Here's you one:

Experimental findings do not support carcinogenicity of em fields

We can bounce links back and forth, I don't have a lot of interest in ping pong. It reminds me too much of court BS. Anyone can look up almost anything they want and the articles supporting the pro or con opinions from "alleged" experts. I'll tell you, it wasn't like this in 1978 when I was on arpa through Control Data LOL. But then, there also wasn't a huge body of misinformation/disinformation. I am quite sure I can find sites telling us that Monsanto and Bayer are good and that GMO's will never hurt us or the planet.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
We can bounce links back and forth, I don't have a lot of interest in ping pong.

If the evidence wasn't equivocal, you would see a consensus. You don't. I don't see it as a conspiracy from "Big Microwave" or whatever, the data just isn't conclusive.