I wish this was true so that there would be a hard limit to within this century, on how much ff related damage we will do.

Unfortunately, they are still finding more, particularly in the north. How much yet-to-be-proven oil still out there is what really should be considered along with technology improvements that increase how much oil can be effectively recovered.

proved reserves only represent the oil that a given region can theoretically extract based on the infrastructure it has planned or in place. This is only “the tip of the iceberg,” says Steven Grape, who works with proven oil reserves for the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Yes, we are. That bus bombing is first record of violence in response to the UN mandate. Ball is in your court to find an earlier tu quoque otherwise Israel might not look like the bad-guy and we can’t have that!

This is all some sensationalist fiction drummed up by an outcast anti-Israel author. You lose the plot when you say ‘EB is wrong here’. Your guy is unproven and intentionally controversial and you lap it up because he says what you want to be true. He is wrong. I’ll stick with the unbiased opinion TYVM.

Not only that, but your citation here supports what I’m saying. “Zionists and Arabs had clearly shown they had absolutely no inclination to live together under the same governmental umbrella”. And yet, the Zionists agreed with a proposal in the end.

Face it, you’re in the wrong here. All your links point to meaningless historical footnotes on the diplomatic process and ignore the fact that the Arabs refused to accept either final UN proposal, nor lobbied in favour of one or the other. They were the first to resort to violence and all because they refuse to relinquish land taken from the Jews in the first place.

It is this insistence on resorting to violence that has cost them so dearly ever since. Even the settlements are predicated on security justified by previous terrorism. No terrorism, no need for a security buffer.

Edit: and ‘plans for gaza’ are themselves meaningless when they aren’t enacted prior to a terror attack. Anticipating more terrorism is prudent at this point.

The first talks about discussions 2 decades prior.

The second can be reworded more succinctly: Ultimately, UNSCOP delivered two proposals: that of the majority, which recommended two separate states joined economically, and that of the minority, which supported the formation of a single binational state made up of autonomous Jewish and Palestinian areas. The Jewish community approved of the first of these proposals, while the Arabs opposed them both.

No, it doesn’t. Arabs refused both plans and so the UN chose the one at least one ‘side’ wanted. The ‘plan’ BS is just an excuse. Palestinians would have been pissy regardless. Had the UN chose the other option nothing would have changed historically.

I notice you haven’t found a copypasta for land taken that wasn’t in response to a precursor attack so where would the borders be had there never been any attacks on Israel? My guess: right where the UN said they should be…

That information is mentioned in the video

Could have said that in your first reply instead of arguing. But you know… I’m the one that needs better self-awareness.

Also, despite being ‘safe’ there are still “regulatory dosage limits” that apply (and this device seemingly does comply with).

You mean the re-settlement project. The UN mandated Israel’s existence and despite this mandate, Arabs committed the first of a seemingly never-ending series of terrorist acts by attacking a bus Nov 30th, 1947.

It’s been perpetual ‘refusing to learn the lesson’ since. All that BS copy pasta that says nothing to refute what I stated… Can you reference a conflict which doesn’t have an ‘instigated by radical Islamists’ precursor? Has any land been confiscated beyond the green line that wasn’t because terrorists or their supporting nations FAFO?

why they are justified in defending themselves from people refusing to return their stolen land in defiance of a UN mandate.

FTFY

spinscore

A 6W laser could easily damage the retina.

I’m not interested in rhetorical arguments guessing ‘it should be fine’. I want a radiation output comparison between this lamp and other common avenues of UV exposure (sunlight, welding, tanning beds, etc…), or the creators/relevant 3rd party safety board flat out declare the possibility of eye damage was considered/tested and ruled out.

As it stands now, the article conspicuously avoids mentioning eyes to talk about how safe the skin is and that makes me wary.

Most of the power in welding doesn’t go into UV generation, but this lamp is all about the radiation. I’d like to see a comparison of their respective UV outputs to be sure.

wavelength is that it is long enough to deactivate viral and bacterial air contaminants, but short enough not to pass through the outer layer of dead skin or the tear-layer of humans.

What about the eyes? As a welder the first thing I think of is getting Welder’s Flash.

Nope, just somebody that can understand complete sentences.

OOC what’s the casualty count at? You think name calling is going to bring them back, or is it just to make you feel better for not doing anything substantial to save lives?

I woke up with horrible neck pain because apparently I did that thing I’ve been doing every day for my entire life, sleeping, wrong.

Here you go!

I’ll make my own determination tyvm. And as already stated, I agree with their analysis. Find a less biased source.

Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY

Analysis / Bias

Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor mainly focuses on human rights violations, especially in conflict zones like Gaza. The organization’s articles often use emotionally loaded language. Headlines like “Int’l committee must investigate Israel’s holding of dead bodies in Gaza​” exemplify this. The cited sources, such as NPR, are often credible but can lean towards perspectives emphasizing violations by certain state actors, potentially omitting broader contextual details, which could lead to a one-sided view of the situation. This selection of stories and framing indicates a significant bias against actions taken by Israel.