tjcanno t1_j6dcjkq wrote

I agree. This is not something that can be addressed by the private sector because it is not profitable enough for them.

Look at the TVA. It is a quasi-government agency that brought power to a large area of the country that private enterprise would not serve. It worked.

We need rural TVA-like infrastructure built by quasi- government agency that is not just looking at profitability.

Honestly, I think satellite service makes sense for rural areas. But I’m open to anything that works well and can be deployed quickly.


tjcanno t1_j6a9t1y wrote

And 100 years ago, access to electricity was limited in rural areas. They lit with kerosene lamps. They heated with wood. They cooked with wood.

Somehow electric service made it’s way out to the poor country homes and farms. It took time.

I would imagine that the same will happen broadband Internet. Perhaps some “TVA-like” authority needs to be formed to make internet access more affordable in rural areas.


tjcanno t1_j6a8kcc wrote

The exposure of the workers will be chronic, which can lead to bad long-term health problems. I have seen this in guys that paint automobiles.

Clients will be exposed for short times every few weeks, which would reduce the risk.


tjcanno t1_j6a5e36 wrote

You totally misinterpret my question. Do you have any studies to show that when the polymer breaks down in UV that the products are poisonous?

I am not questioning that UV breaks down the polymer. I have seen it firsthand.


tjcanno t1_j6a4x8f wrote

As the polymers decompose in the UV, they break down to pieces as small as monomers. Do bacteria consume them? Naturally occurring microbes break down hydrocarbons in the ocean. It is reasonable to expect that something similar happens with polymers and monomers. So can anyone point to any research on that? Why is it assumed that the products of the UV degradation are poisonous?


tjcanno t1_j3l8p3t wrote

First you create a crisis by identifying something that a handful of scientists are willing to jump up and down to insist it’s a real problem and requires more research (more $$$ to them).

Then you get a bunch of journalists who have never studied science and don’t really understand the issue pick it up and blast it out everywhere 24/7 to really stir up the masses. Even more $$$ flow into research on the problem.

Get everyone so worked up that it can justify them changing their lifestyle, justify massive wealth redistribution (the real end game), and turn the global economy upside down.

Then find the solution and pat each other on the back for solving a problem that never existed. Rinse. Repeat.


tjcanno t1_j2lxb9g wrote

True. And then they had Sweden to point to and really question if our PH people knew what they were talking about.

Many people told me that our PH response was all about control. The govt. wanted to control us and soften us up (wear us down) with pandemic directives (store closing, masks, other controls). PH did not help this with their messaging.


tjcanno t1_iucg2vr wrote

The numbers that call you that are NOT in your Contact list on your phone go silently to your voicemail. They are not blocked. You are not disturbed.

When they leave a message, you see it and you call them back. It's about the same as if you were on the phone at the time they called and did not want to interrupt the call to answer them. You call them back a few minutes later.

Telemarketers seldom leave a message. If they do, you know what it's about and don't call them back. My VM greeting encourages people to leave a VM if they want me to call them back.

I will turn the feature off occasionally when I know I am expecting a call from someone not in my Contacts, and then switch it back on after they call.