> TomB wrote:
> PS - OO: I'm not sure I buy your comment that
What I mean with this is that working Gauss rifle prototypes already exist
(just like assault rifles using caseless ammo already exist), and unlike
the caseless ammo rifles the "only" serious problem remaining with the Gauss
prototypes was their power supply.
If you're worried about EM radiation causing brain cancer, then you really
shouldn't use those fancy helmet-mounted headsets and visor-mounted HUDs
:-) (Of course that'll leave you wide open to enemy laser dazzlers, and
you
can't use the tac-data net without taking a break from the fighting, but
that's life <g>)
FWIW, the cancer-risk-from-cell-phones figures I've seen said that the
old cell phones gave a ~80% increase of the risk of getting brain cancer,
meaning that the former very low brain cancer rate has increased by a
factor 1.8 - which is something very different from what you wrote,
namely a *total* risk of 80% (meaning that if you use an old cell phone you
have an 80% chance of getting brain cancer sooner or later). If you have a
source which actually says the latter, I'd be quite interested in reading
it :-)
Regards,
> On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 11:50, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
+++SNIP+++
> If you're worried about EM radiation causing brain cancer, then you
Regardless of the risk of having a bunch of EM emissions next to your head, be
it from a EMP rifle, Gauss rifle or electronics in your helmet, all of these
systems are ostensibly designed and intended to assist the you in locating and
killing the enemy and communicating with your fellow
troopies and your leaders about what's going on to co-ordinate the whole
business of killing people and breaking things.
So someone (Army or individual) who takes the increased chance of a tumor or
something by using the equipment is *Supposed* to be more effective than
someone who doesn't. Being more effective than the enemy is a good thing,
because that limits their ability to put bullets into your body... and frankly
I like my odds vs EM radiation induced brain cancer a lot better than the odds
vs. flying lead.
Besides, "Army studies (concoted lies) have shown that the risk of <whatever
it is that you're saying is harmful to it's user> is well within acceptable
parameters (because we decided we can bury the human cost after the war
anyway). Trust us, (you beguiled sheeple) we are not the lying, manipulative
warmongers that brought you Radiation tests on soldier, Agent Orange and the
Gulf War Syndrome, (but we're following in their footsteps by brining you Vets
from the Kra'Vak wars home with
brain seizures and short-term memory loss from repeated magnetic fields
scrambling their brains. It's a non-risk situation for us, because by
the time the Truth comes out, it will be decades from now and we'll just
name some high-ranking guy from today who died in the interim as the
decision-maker to be the scapegoat.)
Cynical? Me? Naah...
> Flak Magnet wrote:
> So someone (Army or individual) who takes the increased chance of a
Same here. And in a serious war situation (one where your home nation or
even species is threatened by destruction), I don't think that the
post-war
political fallout of fielding equipment that carried a small long-term
risk for the survivors would be very big if that equipment helped ensuring
that
there were any survivors at all :-/
And yes, I agree about the army studies. Well, some of them anyway :-/
Later,