Cabo2005

BST Users
  • Content count

    13,138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

About Cabo2005

  • Rank
    Way too many!

Converted

  • Interests (Hobbies, favorite activities, etc.):
  • What I do for a living:
    Really expensive laundry!
  1. And the left wouldn't use anything to smear the President or his family? Very hypocritical of you. Cabo
  2. We are up in the White Mountains of New Hampshire for my niece's wedding at four. Still feels like late winter up here. Outdoor ceremony, going to be chilly. Writing the check in a bit. Cabo
  3. Even for a relative. Cabo
  4. Ours was, a grand a day in fuel no problem. I am glad she has a new home. Cabo
  5. Frank is everyone who doesn't agree with you a racist? You do toss around that term a lot. Cabo
  6. And that time frame would have been long after the I 131 was long gone. Only point I was making. My former boss did a trip there that actually went to the town where the reactors were. Cabo
  7. Interesting article from Fox News today, House Democrats are "heading into a world of hurt" if they escalate their fight with Attorney General Bill Barr over access to the full Robert Mueller report, according to constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley. Turley, a George Washington University law professor, issued the warning during testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. As lawmakers grilled him and other legal scholars on issues having to do with executive privilege and congressional oversight, Turley stated that while he generally tends to give weight to congressional power, they are sure to lose if they go to court for the purpose of holding Barr in contempt for not releasing the full Mueller report. "You are heading into a world of hurt if you go to the D.C. Circuit," Turley warned. House Democrats recently voted at the committee level to hold Barr in contempt for refusing to release a fully unredacted version of the Mueller report and underlying materials. Turley pointed out, as Barr has in the past, that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not allow Barr to disclose the secret grand jury information that was redacted in the previously released version. The D.C. Circuit recently ruled on this very issue, stating in the case of McKeever v. Barr that, outside of the specific exceptions outlined in Rule 6(e), courts do not have authority to order the disclosure of grand jury information. Since any legal action taken against Barr for contempt would likely end up before the D.C. Circuit, Turley made it clear that going down that road is a bad idea for Congress. "There’s no question that he cannot release this Rule 6(e) information," Turley said, calling Barr's position "unassailable." The professor said that Congress may have better luck in forcing witnesses to testify and acquiring some of the underlying documents referenced in the Mueller report, but he still cautioned Democrats regarding certain matters of executive privilege, which President Trump has invoked in an attempt to keep the material secret. For instance, Turley warned Democrats not to challenge Trump's assertion of executive privilege with regard to information shared with the Special Counsel's Office, which is part of the executive branch. He said case law is strong on this issue. "I strongly encourage you not to make that argument in federal court," he said. House Democrats, though, have pressed forward, accusing the Trump administration of obstructing their efforts to learn more about the Russia investigation. “We did not relish doing this, but we have no choice,” Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said after the contempt vote earlier this month, adding, "We’ve talked for a long time about approaching a constitutional crisis. We are now in it." Didn't we all know the grand jury information is secret and that is for a reason? Cabo
  8. From USA Today London Mayor Sadiq Khan announced a crackdown on knives Sunday in response to the rising levels of violence in London, which recently surpassed New York City's homicide rate for the first time. "No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife," Khan tweeted. "Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law." There have been more than 50 homicides in London so far in 2018, and much of the violence is tied to gangs. Guns are strictly regulated in the United Kingdom and the rising homicide rate in London is directly attributable to a rise in knife-related crimes, with stabbings claiming at least 31 lives to date in 2018. By contrast, New York — which has a population roughly the same size as London — has seen a steady decline in violent crime. There were 15 murders committed in London in February and another 22 in March, while New York saw 14 murders in February and 21 in March, according to murder rate statistics provided to USA TODAY by London's Metropolitan Police and the New York Police Department. In Britain, it is currently illegal to carry a knife longer than three inches in public "without good reason" and illegally carrying a knife can be punished with up to four years in prison and an "unlimited fine." Self-defense is not listed among the examples of "good reasons to carry a knife." The courts determine if someone's reason to carry a knife is valid. Condoned examples of knife-carrying include if it is necessary for a person's work or if it is being brought to a gallery for exhibition. Do you think the criminals in London will give up their knives? Cabo
  9. We do use a bunch of the ThermoFisher Radeye instruments. A little more complicated than the older ones. Cabo
  10. I'm feeling better! Cabo
  11. Someone had to. My work space in Japan 10 days after the Fukushima reactors meltdown. We were a about 10 miles from the exclusion zone border. Cabo
  12. Kind of strange though the the dems at the top haven't been screaming for Barr's head fo a couple of days. They worried about something? Cabo
  13. Gillibrand the 52 year old young mother. Makes me feel much younger today, I must be barely into middle age. Cabo
  14. Since you don't mention the year of the visit tough to make make assumptions. But, since they were officially allowing people in I am assuming this is years after the event. Thyroid cancers from the explosion were due to the high levels of Iodine 131 released which caused two pathways for exposure, inhalation and contamination of the forage eaten by humans and livestock. I 131 levels in milk were affected across Europe due to the fallout. I 131 has a half life of 8.02 days, which means approximately half the material decays off in that time. Meaning after 56 there is very little of the isotope remaining but the damage to young people (children) has been done. As to your cousin suffering thyroid damage from the I 131 released from Chernobyl, it is hard to correlate a linear cause and effect as the I 131 is gone from the environment. Plenty of other contamination still present especially Cesium 137 but that isotope isn't typically linked to thyroid issues. Some interesting reading on the subject: http://www-ns.iaea.org/downloads/rw/projects/emras/final-reports/iodine-131-report.pdf http://www.radioactivity.eu.com/site/pages/Chernobyl_Iodine_131.htm Second article is a tad less technical. Cabo
  15. Went to college with a bunch of them in the late 70's & early 80's. No problems with any of them. Cabo