Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Modern feminism, women's rights?

I've been thinking about modern feminism, and I don't like it. I don't like it because its viewpoint is myopic, opinions all have to pass left wing, politically correct talking points muster.
Modern feminists will complain about men at the workplace who stare too long at women's breasts, but say absolutely NOTHING about the misogynistic and hate filled practices of Islam. You will NEVER hear them point out that in a sharia law court, a woman's testimony is considered to be less than a mans. They are silent about genital mutilation preformed on women in some Islamic countries. Honor killings of women? Not a peep said!

Modern feminism puts political correctness above the lives and welfare of millions of women world wide.
Lets take another issue, gun control. Again, this is a left wing agenda which does NOT benefit women in the LEAST, in fact it is harmful to them.
Men are generally stronger than women, and can bull them down one on one. It has been shown time and time again, men do not need a gun to bring grievous harm to women. India has strict gun laws, yet rape is rampant there. What gun control does do is protect male abusers. A abuser can be shot down by a determined woman, his strength counts for little after he gets riddled with bullets. Yet modern feminists want to deny women the best tool for self defense available to them.

There is nothing wrong with equal pay for equal work, the right to an abortion without being mobbed by religious assholes, and to expect a civil work environment.
But it's not enough. I wish more women would take a hard look at modern feminism and say, "yes, I agree with the rights they are pushing for, but I WANT MORE!" I would really like to see woman push for ALL their rights, not just the rights the democrat party finds acceptable, and when it comes to Islam, stand up and smell the abuse.

Saturday, January 3, 2015

Cameras - DSLRs vs Mirrorless

Are DSLRs going the way of the film camera? After reading this article, not yet.

Pro photographers are not going to put up with the smaller sensor a lot of the mirrorless cameras have. Some of the mirrorless cameras now have full size sensors so that issue has been addressed.

The lens mounts are different, and being a new product, the lens selection is way less than for DSLR's. I think a manufacturer who put out a camera that mounted Canon or Nikon standard lenses with a full size sensor would sell a lot of units.
From wikipedia.
"For manufacturers, this strategy eliminates price competition for their new lenses from second-hand legacy lenses."
Yeah DICKHEADS, it also causes a LOT of people NOT to buy one who would have because they don't like the limited lens selection and don't want to re-buy lenses they already have. Typical corporate greedhead mentality.

A number of mirrorless cameras have no viewfinder. I would NEVER pay $$$$ for a camera with no view finder as those work better in low light AND sometimes are better for framing shots. I don't always want to take pictures with the camera held away from me.
Some of the mirrorless cameras have an evf (electronic viewfinder). Those are OK, WAY better than no viewfinder, but having used both I would actually rather have the offset optical viewfinder that some point and shoots and non slr film cameras had. Not quite as accurate, but better than low light. That's what my canon point and shoot has and I've never had any issues with it. If I need more accuracy for close ups, I can use the lcd screen on it's back. Best of both worlds IMHO. Most of the pro's would probably rather have the evf though, as it shows exactly what the lens is seeing.

I think the biggest issue is the lens incompatibility with same make DSLR's, combined with limited lens choice. That, and there is 0 cost savings, they are as much or more as DSLRs.
Sony lost a sale, because if they took standard Sony dslr lenses, I would have considered buying one as an upgrade to my camera body. If I have to buy all new lenses, then I might as well get a canon DSLR instead. Or not, and just get a better Sony DSLR body.
Looking at the negatives, it's probably going to be a while before DSLRs fade away.

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

Nobody wants to take your guns

Not mine, but an excellent post on what gun grabbers really want. NEVER "come to the table" with these snakes.

Nobody wants to take your guns - by Coldservings
Whenever I, or others, object to "registration" or bans on transfers, or other forms of "gun control" and firearms restrictions as steps toward an eventual complete prohibition and the confiscation that such would necessarily entail, we get told we're paranoid and "nobody wants to take your guns."

Well, perhaps we should consider these "nobodies":

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."
Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."
Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."
Rosie O'Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)

"Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option -- keep your gun but permit it."
Andrew Cuomo

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state."
Michael Dukakis

"If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all."
U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea ... Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."
Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post

"Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog."
Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94

"[To get a] permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn't count!"
John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990

"I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semiassault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step."
Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton, CA

"Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed."
Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy (interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969)

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."
Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."
U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview

"Yes, I'm for an outright ban (on handguns)."
Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes

"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime."
Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson

"I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers... No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun."
Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress

"I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think - I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it's the beginning. It's not the end of the process by any means."
William J. Clinton, 8/11/93

"The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take...we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases."
U.S. Representative William Clay, quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6,

"I don't believe gun owners have rights."
Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report "Handguns in America", October

"We must get rid of all the guns."
Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of HCI with Sheriff Jay Printz & others on "The Phil
Donahue Show" September 1994

"The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I'm just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough."
Sarah Brady 7/1/88

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns."
Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true..."
U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 11/30/93

"My bill ... establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns."
U.S. Representative Major Owens, Congressional Record, 11/10/93

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily, given political realities, going to be very modest. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns in the United States, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition illegal."
Nelson T. Shields of Hangun Control, Inc. as quoted in `New Yorker' magazine July 26, 1976. Page 53f

"Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun."
President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Michael K. Beard, Washington Times
12/6/93 p.A1

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned...We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep them."
The Washington Post - "Legal Guns Kill Too" - November 5, 1999

"There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to Change the Constitution."
USA Today - Michael Gartner - Former president of NBC News - "Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?" - January 16, 1992

"I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns," Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, 2012

4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:
  1. Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;
  2. Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or
  3. Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations."
Legislation introduced in Missouri. 2013 And you can repeat the exact same thing for Minnesota

"Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective." NIJ Memo on a new "Assault Weapon" Ban. 2013

"The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection" (Warrantless searches by law enforcement?) Washington State Senate Bill 5737 (2013)

"the state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don't give their weapons up in a buy-back program. Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them," Iowa state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla) 2013

California Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg 2013) would expand the definition of "Assault Weapons" to include ALL semi-auto rifles (including rimfire calibers) that accept a detachable magazine. SB374 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Senate Bill 47 (Yee 2013) would expand the definition of "Assault Weapons" to include rifles that have been designed/sold and or equipped to use the "bullet button" or similar device. SB47 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL those Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Assembly Bill 174 (Bonta 2013) would ban the possession of any firearms that were "grandfathered " for possession if registered in previous "Assault Weapons" gun control schemes. Californians that trusted the State of California and registered their firearms will be required to surrender the firearms to the Government or face arrest. Passage of AB174 would make SB374/SB47 (above) into confiscation mandates.

California Senate Bill 396 (Hancock 2013) would ban the possession of any magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 cartridges. ALL currently grandfathered "high-cap" magazines would become ILLEGAL to possess and the owners subject to arrest and the magazines confiscated. ("High-cap" means a capacity that has been standard, that the firearms were designed for, since the 40's--AK pattern rifles--or 60's--AR pattern rifles.)

"We want everything on the table. This is a moment of opportunity. There's no question about it...We're on a roll now, and I think we've got to take the-you know, we're gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can." Illinois Rep Jan Schakowsky says assault rifle ban just the beginning, 'moment of opportunity' and seeks to ban handguns (2013).

"People who own guns are essentially a sickness in our souls who must be cleansed." Colorado Senator (Majority Leader) John Morse. 2013 (Cleansed? "Final Solution" anyone?) (Emphasis added in the above).

"We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate." Discussion among Senator Loretta Weinberg (D37), Senator Sandra Cunningham (D31), Senator Linda Greenstein (D14) of New Jersey's State Legislature, May 9, 2013

"No one in this country should have guns." Superior Court Judge, Robert C. Brunetti, Bristol, CT. September, 2013

Proposed Missouri Bill to ban "assault weapons": 4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution: (1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri; (2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or (3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

New York sends out Confiscation letters. "It is extremely important that individuals in the state of California do not own assault weapons. I mean that is just so crystal clear, there is no debate, no discussion," Leland Yee, California State Senator.

But nobody wants to take our guns?

Current Mood: nervousnervous

Friday, June 20, 2014

I am not a crook

Or, why I don't like America anymore.

One of the founding principles of American justice is, or WAS "innocent until proven guilty". Also referred to as, presumption of innocence it puts the burden of proof on the government.
The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted.
The fourth amendment of the constitution is supposed to protect the public from random, arbitrary searches by the government.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In other words, the government is supposed to have a REASON to conduct a search, "he looks suspicious" is NOT a valid reason for the government to search someone.

The sixth amendment states that if the government accuses you of a crime, it HAS to give you a trial.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

This IS freedom. This is the kind of law that made people from all over the world want to come to America.

But it's not like that anymore. Thanks to greedy, power hungry, rotten politicians and a LOT of compliant sheep who keep buying their bullshit more often than not the presumption now is guilty, until(at great legal expense) proven innocent.

The rot started with the so called "war on drugs". It got kick started by the prestigious and eminent president Richard Nixon

It kicked into full swing in the 80's, when the lapdog press began blurting out government talking points like "you have to give up some freedoms to prosecute the war on drugs". Most of the sheep watching the idiot box nodded in agreement as the government began its game play to make an end run around the constitution.

After about 20 or more years of this, even the sheep got antsy and there started to be some pushback.

9-11 to the rescue!

For a while things were lookin' bad for the politicians, with people beginning to tire of the war on drugs it was starting to look like the government might actually be forced to return some of those freedoms it "borrowed" from the American people.

Then, BOOM, the twin towers went down and soon after what did I hear from the media? The same, tired old mantra about how we have to "give up some freedom" to fight the new "war on terror".

For a while, this did NOT go quite as smoothly as it did under the war on drugs. President George W. Bush was not beloved by the main stream media and they rightfully called him out on some his shady, constitutionally questionable, activities. The press had lots to say about gitmo, phone tapping, and invading Iraq.

Then something happened. A miracle! The evil GWB was gone and Barack "Jesus Christ" Obama became president!
Hope and change! Freeeeeeedoom! The return of sanity and civil rights to a government which had been getting more repressive every year!

So what has happened under Chicago Barry's watch?
Gitmo closed?

Patriot act repealed?

Halted GWB's domestic spy program

Instead the NSA went from spying on so called "terror suspects" to spying on EVERYONE! Let freedom ring Barry!

It doesn't stop there, There is an indefinite detention clause in the NDAA.
This isn't something Obama signed reluctantly in order to "get soldiers paid", Obama insisted that provision be there.

But don't worry, be happy, the same guy who insisted the indefinite detention provision be included in the NDAA has promised us he will never use it.
Lets say he keeps that promise. What about the next president? Or the one after that...

Sunday, February 23, 2014

No jobs are expendable

It's time to demand a return of manufacturing to the U.S.
The economy has been sucking for years while jobs go outsourced, meanwhile the politicians shrug their shoulders and continue to fool the people with the tired old "It's the (insert democrats or republicans here) fault" partisan shell game.
I remember the sickening slickness and smarmyness oozing off the politicians when they sold out the country by passing NAFTA, telling the people that "we don't need those manufacturing jobs anymore."

Really? The politicians claimed that software jobs would replace them, but what are all the people who worked in the factories supposed to do? Pull $$$$ out of their ass to go to four years of school for computer science degrees?
What really happened is most of them were forced to take lower paying jobs in the service industry. "Would you like fries with that?"

Guess what happened to all those software jobs that were supposed to replaced manufacturing jobs? You guessed it, OUTSOURCED!
Of course the politicians trotted out the same tired old lines about "global economy" and "those guys will just have to re-train"

Now the U.S. economy has been sucking for years while China, who took all those jobs "America doesn't need", has a booming economy.
Instead of blatting on about minimum wage ALL the politicians should be doing everything they can to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. Fuck this "global economy" kumbaya shit, the Chinese don't think that way and neither should we.

Start by dumping the shitty trade agreements and levying tariffs on countries who are gaming the system.
Follow it up with tax breaks for companies that manufacture here and tax penalties for companies that outsource.

That will have a positive effect for everyone, people will make more money, more taxes go into the system, people with more money buy more goods which further stimulates the economy, everyone wins except the fucking greedheads in crony capitalism land, who would STILL be raking in money, but not as much as they would from outsourcing. Fuck those shitheads, the nations welfare should come before them being able to afford 12 mansions rather than 10.
Macci D's jobs would go back to being what they were supposed to be, where kids work to get a little spending money.

For a major change to the better people need to wake up and start squeezing the politicians by the balls.

No job is expendable, and any politician who has the balls to go on tv saying that and then bloviating about how those now out of work people he sold out need to "retrain" MUST be voted out of office.

Politicians have gotten away with selling out American jobs because there is this weird, unhealthy dynamic where people keep voting in incumbents, over and over again. This is further exacerbated by the ridiculous two party system where political partisans won't vote for a candidate from the other party even if their own parties candidate was Adolf Hitler or Caligula.

People need to break out of that mentality. They need to start letting the politicians know that partisan loyalty and endless incumbent re-elections are over. The politicians are the ones who's jobs need to be expendable, not the voters.

Friday, January 24, 2014

Emergency heat!!!

FYI, I did NOT come up with this myself, the original URLs will be provided as attribution.

So you are in your apartment, it's freezing cold, and your heat goes out. For some people the options aren't good. They may not know anyone near by they can stay with, and going to a shelter(if you can even find one) to hang out with strangers isn't very appealing. An alternative is an emergency heater, here are a couple of options.

Coffee can heater

Hello, all! I live in an all-electric city apartment in central Connecticut, and my partner and I (along with hundreds of thousands of others) lost electricity for almost a week after the Halloween blizzard a few weeks back. Of course, I was very well-prepared where things like batteries/lanterns/light and no-cooking-necessary food was concerned, and we had running water, but our main problem was heat: we have no fireplace or wood stove, no kerosene heater or other portable fuel generator (and, quite frankly, due to CO poisoning concerns, I don't WANT one), no electrical generator because we have no outdoor space to set one up.

But I was able to get our apartment up to 66 degrees at night -- even when outdoor temps were in the high 20s -- and I will tell you how I did it: I made makeshift heaters out of coffee cans and metal-cup tealight candles.

It's very easy: take an empty METAL coffee can, make sure the inside is clean and contains no coffee grounds, and rip off the label from the outside (because it is a potential fire hazard). Then, make sure you have some tealight candles, the kind that come in little disposable metal cups. IKEA stores sell bricks of 100 tealight candles for $4; if you're not near an IKEA, you can still find inexpensive tealights in the candle section of pretty much any discount or department store. Each IKEA tealight burns about four hours before running out of wax.

Depending on how cold it was, I put anywhere from four to six tealights in the bottom of each coffee can. The sides of the can would get warm to the touch -- but not hot -- however, the heat coming out the top of the can was hot enough that you could not hold your hand directly above the can's opening without burning yourself.

During the actual blackout I only had three coffee-can heaters; I burned other candles on metal trays and other fireproof surfaces, but tealights in a coffee can seem to generate far more heat than the same number of tealights on, say, a metal or mirrored tray. The coffee can "focuses" the heat, in a way. Since the storm my partner and I have been saving our empty coffee cans -- my ultimate goal is to have an even dozen on hand; as of this morning we have seven -- and after the blackout ended and tings went back to normal, I spent $52 plus tax on 1300 IKEA tealight candles. I figure that would provide two weeks of heat in a situation like the blackout -- freezing nights, but daytime temps above freezing. In a super-cold snap, where temperatures stayed below freezing even during the day, those 1300 candles would provide heat for a week.

Your mileage may vary depending on variables -- how well-insulated is your home, how many cubic feet do you have to heat, etc. For my place, we shut all the bedroom doors and heated only the bathroom and common areas -- roughly 1,000 cubic feet, with thickly insulated walls. And I noticed that burning 40 candles made the interior temperature rise by about 20 degrees. (So, presumably, if it were REALLY cold, 80 candles would raise the temperature by 40 degrees in a thousand-cubic-foot space.)

The coffee cans not only amplify the heat of the candles, but greatly reduce fire hazards: even if you spill wax from a candle, the melted wax will stay in the metal can. And, since the candles are made of vegetable wax, there's no danger of CO emissions (though the smell when you extinguish 30 or 40 such candles at once is, I confess, not very nice. I had to take the battery out of the smoke detector before I blew out the candles, then put the battery back after the smoke dissipated.)

Ad, of course, some standard safety guidelines: DO NOT leave candles burning when you are asleep, or not home. DO NOT keep an active coffee-can heater near paper or anything else flammable. Set the cans on non-flammable surfaces: metal stovetop, metal washer/dryer top, etc. I took the rotating glass dish from off my microwave carousel, which was big enough to hold two cans.
- Last Edit: December 04, 2011, 06:04:34 PM by Jennifer -

You can also make one from a flower pot.

Friday, August 23, 2013

Fukushima rad poisoning - No it's NOT like an airplane flight...

I was thinking about a news report on Fukushima and some bullshit the pro nuke shills were unsuccessfully trying to get me to gag down.

They claim that the average exposure was less than you get from flying on a plane. Now, that in itself is probably a bald faced lie, but lets for sake of argument say that part is true. Here is what they left out. When you go on a plane or get x-rays, you get irradiated for a set time period, then it stops.

Fukushima BLEW UP! When that happened radioactive particles got spread out all over the place. Some of these particles have a looooong half life. People near that plants explosion most likely either breathed in or ingested some of those particles. Instead of the short term radiation exposure of an airplane flight or x-ray, someone with one of those particles cooking in their lungs gets continually exposed. So after 15-20 years of this, HELLOOO CANCER! Of course the long time period from being exposed to the contaminants to the cancer gives the pro nuke scums all the deniability they need.