Thanks. How can we get them to stop adding it? How did it pass the approval cycle? Extending shelf life is hardly a justification for ruining human lives. They can deny that harm is involved, but in case of doubt, manufacturers' self-interest would suggest erring on the safe side. And why would doctors keep using it?

Haha...What's so wrong about that!?

Your subjective judgement is hypocritical.

The hysteria? Kind of like your post

Leftist (illegal?) anti-Trump immigrant threatens mass "casualties" (townhall.com)
Posted by ewv 6 months, 1 week ago to Politics
3 comments | Save | Ignore

Medical science preventing disease is not a "religion" and rejecting hysterical lies does not "demonstrate" otherwise. The editorial did not advocate "government execution squads for MASS MURDER". "Leave people" alone is not a defense for hysterical dishonesty.

Oh, and so your response lands way over here.
Whatever. I no longer care.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeRDB...

So you would call hanging non-violent? You could argue, as puzzlelady did, that you believe the writer(s) meant the threat figuratively rather than literally, but the actual words do advocate government-imposed death as the punishment for disagreeing with the opinions of mainstream doctors and bureaucrats regarding vaccines. Saying there wasn't a call for violence ignores the plain words of the article, and it excuses the extreme and vitriolic attitude of the mainstream media in defending the "powers that be" from critics.

Do we not have a First Amendment right to voice unpopular opinions without fear of government interference and punishment (not to mention a pre-existing natural right to the same)? This rag is advocating government violation of the Constitution - punishing speech with death - and you're defending it. Maybe it was just a joke, or an exaggeration for effect, but I don't find it funny. I find it sinister. Especially considering it's the second time a paper has published this view.

"Anything"? No state is all liberal.

The byline is the editorial staff . Yes many unconscious libzombies in Mass are Eliz.Warren dolts.

The editorial did not advocate "government execution squads for MASS MURDER" (capitalization in original at the top of this thread). It didn't say it. There is nothing to "soften". Your further misrepresentations insinuating what else I think so you can sell "bridges" only add to the dishonest evasions. The editorial did not advocate "government execution squads for MASS MURDER" and Ayn Rand was not an anti-vaxxer".

“International standard pitch,” in which the A above “middle” C (a' in the British system of pitch designation, A4 in the American system) is tuned to 440 Hz, was adopted in the Western world for concert music only in the twentieth century, after a long history of unstandardized pitch.

In Europe prior to the twentieth century, pitch varied widely from place to place and from century to century. How widely, and how erratically, is evident from studies of organs (either historic instruments that had not been modified when tests were made, or replicas of historic instruments), early treatises that mention pitch, and historic tuning forks, To take Germany prior to 1600 as an example, organ pitch there is thought to have varied from a high of A=567 Hz for the first simple pipe organs of the Middle Ages to a low of A=377 Hz for the early modern German organ around 1511.1 But not even at one particular time in one region of a country was standardization deemed necessary. It seems that composers and performers were accustomed to taking local variations in the tuning of organs and other keyboard instruments into account, either by writing a score in more than one key, or by transposing at sight – thereby accommodating the fixed pitch ranges of other instruments and the singers in the ensemble.Difficulties were naturally increased as scores and musicians traveled further. Two eighteenth-century international musicians, Handel and Mozart, are known to have favoured specific pitch levels — (again expressed in modern terms) A=423 Hz in the case of Handel and A=422 Hz in the case of Mozart, i.e. approximately one-half semitone lower than A=440 Hz.3The nineteenth century saw a trend in Europe and North American toward the inexorable raising of the pitch level of instruments in performances. Alexander Ellis attributed this to two nineteenth-century developments: larger venues, and new developments in instrument making. As compared to Haydn or Mozart’s day, public concerts in the nineteenth century were played before larger audiences, often in concert halls and opera houses larger than existed in previous times. These large rooms could accommodate – even required – high, brilliant pitches at climaxes, effects that could be achieved when playing eighteenth-century scores by employing instruments pitched higher than those that had performed the same scores in smaller rooms. For reasons such as this, nineteenth-century makers of wind instrument for band and orchestra sought to garner a niche in the market by developing and selling instruments pitched slightly higher so as to sound more brilliant than the competition’s. Meanwhile, improvements to the strings of stringed instruments meant that these could be stretched tighter, i.e., tuned higher, to match the tuning of the newly acquired wind instruments of, say, an opera house.most of history there were varying customary pitches employed depending on the musical style of the times, but a truly organized, accepted “gold standard” did not exist. In the mid-20th century this all changed. In 1939, Reich Master of Propaganda in Nazi Germany Joseph Goebbels was the first to push for the 440 Hz pitch to be standardized internationally– he succeeded in doing so only within Germany and, briefly, in England.

Prior to this, the American music industry had reached an informal standard of 440 Hz in 1926 for instrument manufacturing. In 1936, the American Standards Association recommended that the A above middle C be tuned to 440 Hz. This standard was taken up by the International Organization for Standardization in 1955. Although still not universally accepted, it has served since then as the audio frequency reference for the calibration of acoustic equipment and the tuning of pianos, violins, and other musical instruments. [2]

Prominent musician and manufacturer J.C. Deagan, who also campaigned for the 440 Hz standard, designed the 440 Hz-based war chimes that were used for World war II propaganda news reels. Interestingly, these same chimes are also used in the call signs for the NBC television network.

It should be noted that there exists an infinite number of frequencies out there — some see the standardization of 440 Hz as simply arbitrary, whereas others feel it’s downright sinister. Why attach so much animosity to a number? The answer lies in the work of two music-related scientific fields: Cymatics and psychoacoustics. Cymatics is the study of sound and vibration as they pertain to the physical plane.