New York State Budget: Congestion Pricing Coming To Manhattan

It has worked in cities like London and Singapore and state lawmakers are hoping congestion pricing will decrease traffic in New York City, too.

CBS2’s Hazel Sanchez found out what Sunday’s historic news means for drivers.

Big Apple subway and buses will soon be getting some much-needed improvements at the expense of drivers heading into Manhattan.

“I think it’s a good idea,” one New Yorker said Sunday. “Every day it’s very, very (bad) traffic, so I think it can be better.”

Motorists entering Midtown Manhattan below 60th Street will be charged a toll, which is anticipated to raise more than $1 billion a year for the city’s ailing public transit system. A panel of experts will set the surcharges by the end of 2020, but sources told CBS2 drivers in cars will pay around $11.50 and truck drivers around $25.

“I work in Manhattan a lot and I don’t mind paying for it to get in there and if it helps congestion, even better,” Long Island resident Ed Crescimanni said.

Congestion pricing will be an added hardship for Charles Alvarez, who lives in the toll zone but needs to visit his mother in a Queens nursing home.

“That’s crazy. I can’t imagine doing that. But I have to see my mother and it’s something that would greatly impact me,” Alvarez said.

MORE: Gov. Cuomo Proud Of State Budget, Calling It “Probably The Strongest Progressive Statement That We’ve Made”

Traffic expert Sam Schwartz told CBS2 he thinks the system will make difference.

“The bottom line is the city is a competitive city. It is a world city. We can’t have a world city if our transit system is running 65 percent on time and our traffic is moving at 4.7 mph. This will get us back in the ball game to be a world-class city.”

It’s important to note that drivers will not be charged the toll more than once per day and the FDR and West Side highways will not be included.

FOLLOW THE LINK FOR THE FULL REPORT – JR

https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2019/03/31/nys-budget-deal-passes-congestion-pricing/

Trump: US “Closer Than Ever” to China Trade Deal

President Donald Trump praised the progress U.S. and Chinese negotiators made as they work to reach a sweeping trade agreement, saying China finally respects the U.S. again.

In Friday’s Rose Garden speech that largely revolved around his emergency declaration, Trump also told reporters trade talks with China have been going “extremely well” and that the U.S. is closer than ever before to reaching a “real” trade deal.

“In China we had a negotiation going on for about two days. It’s going extremely well. Who knows what that means because it only matters if we get it done, but we’re very much working very closely with China and President Xi, who I respect a lot,” Trump said. “And we’re a lot closer than we ever were in this country with having a real trade deal. We’re covering everything.”

His comments come after U.S. and Chinese representatives concluded two days of trade talks in Beijing. The meetings included top brass from both countries: U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Chinese President Xi Jinping.

While no final deal has been reached, both sides claim progress was made and have agreed to meet again in Washington, D.C., later in February. The next round of talks come as a U.S.-imposed deadline is fast approaching. Trump pledged to enact another round of tariffs on Chinese goods if the two sides fail to reach an agreement by March 1.

The back-and-forth negotiations are a product of Trump’s desire to correct China’s “unfair” trade imbalance with the U.S. — something he has adamantly criticized since running for office. Not only have Chinese leaders agreed to buy more U.S. agricultural products, such soybeans and natural gas, but Trump also wants to see the communist country restructure its industrial policies. Numerous Western governments have complained China unfairly supports state-owned enterprises while abusing foreign companies that try to enter its market.

(Photo by kees torn / Wikimedia Commons)

Trump — who already imposed a 10 percent tariff on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods — vowed to hike the rate to 25 percent until Xi agreed to trade talks in early December 2018. That began the 90-day trade negotiation process, slated to end March 1. China’s slowing economy — which in 2018 grew at its lowest rate in nearly three decades — has pressured communist leaders to reach a deal.

“The tariffs are hurting China very badly,” Trump said. “And the relationship with China is very good. But I think they finally respect our country. They haven’t respected us for a long time — not for a long time.”

FOLLOW THE LINK FOR THE FULL REPORT – JR

https://www.infowars.com/trump-us-closer-than-ever-to-china-trade-deal/

Andrew Sullivan: The Nature of Sex

It might be a sign of the end-times, or simply a function of our currently scrambled politics, but earlier this week, four feminist activists — three from a self-described radical feminist organization Women’s Liberation Front — appeared on a panel at the Heritage Foundation. Together they argued that sex was fundamentally biological, and not socially constructed, and that there is a difference between women and trans women that needs to be respected. For this, they were given a rousing round of applause by the Trump supporters, religious-right members, natural law theorists, and conservative intellectuals who comprised much of the crowd. If you think I’ve just discovered an extremely potent strain of weed and am hallucinating, check out the video of the event.

I’ve no doubt that many will see these women as anti-trans bigots, or appeasers of homophobes and transphobes, or simply deranged publicity seekers. (The moderator, Ryan Anderson, said they were speaking at Heritage because no similar liberal or leftist institution would give them space or time to make their case.) And it’s true that trans-exclusionary radical feminists or TERFs, as they are known, are one minority that is actively not tolerated by the LGBTQ establishment, and often demonized by the gay community. It’s also true that they can be inflammatory, offensive, and obsessive. But what interests me is their underlying argument, which deserves to be thought through, regardless of our political allegiances, sexual identities, or tribal attachments. Because it’s an argument that seems to me to contain a seed of truth. Hence, I suspect, the intensity of the urge to suppress it.

The title of the Heritage panel conversation — “The Inequality of the Equality Act” — refers to the main legislative goal for the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ lobbbying group in the US. The proposed Equality Act — a federal nondiscrimination bill that has been introduced multiple times over the years in various formulations — would add “gender identity” to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, rendering that class protected by anti-discrimination laws, just as sex is. The TERF argument is that viewing “gender identity” as interchangeable with sex, and abolishing clear biological distinctions between men and women, is actually a threat to lesbian identity and even existence — because it calls into question who is actually a woman, and includes in that category human beings who have been or are biologically male, and remain attracted to women. How can lesbianism be redefined as having sex with someone who has a penis, they argue, without undermining the concept of lesbianism as a whole? “Lesbians are female homosexuals, women who love women,” one of the speakers, Julia Beck, wrote last December, “but our spaces, resources and communities are on the verge of extinction.”

If this sounds like a massive overreach, consider the fact that the proposed Equality Act — with 201 co-sponsors in the last Congress — isn’t simply a ban on discriminating against trans people in employment, housing, and public accommodations (an idea with a lot of support in the American public). It includes and rests upon a critical redefinition of what is known as “sex.” We usually think of this as simply male or female, on biological grounds (as opposed to a more cultural notion of gender). But the Equality Act would define “sex” as including “gender identity,” and defines “gender identity” thus: “gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or characteristics, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.”

What the radical feminists are arguing is that the act doesn’t only blur the distinction between men and women (thereby minimizing what they see as the oppression of patriarchy and misogyny), but that its definition of gender identity must rely on stereotypical ideas of what gender expression means. What, after all, is a “gender-related characteristic”? It implies that a tomboy who loves sports is not a girl interested in stereotypically boyish things, but possibly a boy trapped in a female body. And a boy with a penchant for Barbies and Kens is possibly a trans girl — because, according to stereotypes, he’s behaving as a girl would. So instead of enlarging our understanding of gender expression — and allowing maximal freedom and variety within both sexes — the concept of “gender identity” actually narrows it, in more traditional and even regressive ways. What does “gender-related mannerisms” mean, if not stereotypes? It’s no accident that some of the most homophobic societies, like Iran, for example, are big proponents of sex-reassignment surgery for gender-nonconforming kids and adults (the government even pays for it) while being homosexual warrants the death penalty. Assuming that a non-stereotypical kid is trans rather than gay is, in fact, dangerously close to this worldview. (Some might even see a premature decision to change a child’s body from one sex to another as a form of conversion therapy to “fix” his or her gayness. This doesn’t mean that trans people shouldn’t have the right to reaffirm their gender by changing their bodies, which relieves a huge amount of pressure for many and saves lives. But that process should entail a great deal of caution and discernment.)

FOLLOW THE LINK FOR THE FULL REPORT – JR

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/andrew-sullivan-the-nature-of-sex.html

GAO: IRS Had 4,487 Guns; 5,062,006 Rounds of Ammunition

The Internal Revenue Service had in its weapons inventory 4,487 guns and 5,062,006 rounds of ammunition as of late 2017, according to a report published this month by the Government Accountability Office.

Included in this arsenal, according to the GAO, were 15 “fully automatic firearms” and 56,000 rounds of ammunition for those fully automatic firearms.

The same report–“Federal Law Enforcement: Purchases and Inventory Controls of Firearms, Ammuntion, and Tactical Equipment“–says that the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services had 194 fully automatic firearms and 386,952 rounds of ammunition for those fully automatic firearms.

“The term ‘fully automatic’ used in this report,” says a footnote in the report, “encompasses a range of firearms classified as machine guns, including submachine guns, three round burst guns, and guns with a selector switch that can enable continuous fire.”

[Above is Table 4 from the GAO report.]

The guns in the IRS inventory also included 3,302 pistols, 623 shotguns, 543 rifles, and 4 revolvers.

The ammunition stockpiled by the IRS—in addition to the 56,000 rounds for its fully automatic firearms–included 3,156,046 pistol and revolver rounds, 368,592 shotgun rounds and 1,481,368 rifle rounds.

The IRS’s firearms and ammunition are used primarily by its Criminal Investigation (CI) unit, which is manned by 2,148 federal law enforcement officers. But some of it is also used by the IRS’s Police Officer Section, which includes only 9 federal law enforcement officers.

“IRS’ Criminal Investigation serves the American public by investigating potential criminal violations of the Internal Revenue Code and related financial crimes in compliance with the law,” the GAO explained in the report it published this month.

“IRS’ Police Officer Section,” said the report, “provides protection for the people, property and processes of its Enterprise Computing Center in Martinsburg, West Virginia, which houses 10 of IRS’ 19 critical tax processing functions.”

The GAO looked at how 20 federal agencies spent money on firearms and ammunition for the federal law enforcement officers (FLEOs) under their authority, whether they accurately reported those firearms and ammunition purchases, and how agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency and the IRS, practiced “inventory control” for their guns and ammunition.

“Federal law enforcement agencies purchase firearms, ammunition, and tactical equipment, such as riot shields, to support their missions,” the GAO said in summarizing its report. “GAO was asked to review these purchases for federal law enforcement agencies, and inventory controls at HHS, EPA and IRS specifically.”

The report listed five members of Congress as the requesters: House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Trey Gowdy (R.-S.C.), Rep. Mark Meadows (R.-N.C.), Sen. Jim Inhofe (R.-Okla.), Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R.- Mo.) and Rep, Richard Hudson (R.-N.C.)

“The 20 federal law enforcement agencies in GAO’s review reported spending at least $38.8 million on firearms, $325.9 million on ammunition, and $1.14 billion on tactical equipment—at least $1.5 billion in total—from fiscal years 2010 through 2017, based on data agencies provided to GAO,” said the report.

The report explained that the agencies in question purchase ammunition for use by federal law enforcement officers for both training and operations.

“At these federal agencies, FLEOs are authorized to carry firearms,, and are required to train in their use and pass certain firearms qualification standards,” says the report. “To help ensure officers maintain the firearms proficiency of their firearms-carrying workforce, these agencies purchase ammunition for training, qualifications, and operations.”

The report said that one of the questions the GAO examined was: “What types and quantities of firearms, ammunition, and selected tactical equipment do HHS, EPA and IRS have documented to be in their inventory systems, as of November 2017?”

The original report that the GAO produced on this included some information considered too “sensitive” by HHS, IRS and TSA to be released. So, the report was modified for review by the public.

Specifically, among other things, the report removed some information about “the number and some firearms, ammunition, and tactical equipment in NIH’s and IRS’s inventory.”

“This report is the public version of a sensitive report that we issued in October 2018,” said GAO. “HHS, IRS and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) deemed some of the information in our October report to be sensitive, which must be protected from public disclosure.

“Therefore,” said GAO, “this report omits sensitive information about the number of FLEOs at TSA, an illustration of how HHS’s National Institutes of Health Police secures its firearms, and the number and some firearms, ammunition, and tactical equipment in NIH’s and IRS’s inventory.”

FOLLOW THE LINK FOR THE FULL REPORT – JR

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/gao-irs-had-4487-guns-5062006-rounds-ammunition

Strategist: I expect a ‘very rough’ 2019 that may see US stocks tank 20 percent

U.S. markets, which have already taken a beating this month, could fall as much as 20 percent next year, according to a trading strategist.

Speaking with CNBC on Wednesday, Todd Horwitz, chief strategist at investment advisor Bubba Trading, predicted that next year is going to be “very rough.” For 2018, major indexes in America such as the Nasdaq and S&P 500 have so far fallen more than 10 percent.

“I do think we’re going into a recession, I think that next year is going to be a very rough year for markets and I can see another 10 to 15 to 20 percent, and a sell-off,” Horwitz said.

“I think we’re entering very rough times because of all these things that are going on, because of the weakening economy,” he said.

One of the big problems is debt, Horwitz told CNBC’s Nancy Hungerford: “We’ve got way too much debt in this country.”

Total corporate debt in America had swelled to nearly $9.1 trillion halfway through 2018, according to Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association data.

Horwitz said U.S. banks are “probably over-leveraged once again.”

Read more.

FOLLOW THE LINK FOR THE FULL REPORT – JR

https://www.infowars.com/strategist-i-expect-a-very-rough-2019-that-may-see-us-stocks-tank-20-percent/

Trump Orders Major Afghan Drawdown: 7,000 Troops To Return Home In Coming Weeks

CNN warns “officials brace for Trump announcement on Afghanistan” after Trump’s Wednesday bombshell Syria troop pullout announcement.

He’s now initiated “a major drawdown” of forces in Afghanistan too, and while inside the beltway neocon heads might continue to explode, the broader public for which the seventeen year long Afghan war is deeply unpopular will no doubt cheer the move. And already NBC reports Thursday evening based on defense sources the White House has asked the Pentagon to draw up plans presenting “multiple options” including a “complete withdrawal”. Following the “options” order it now appears Trump has pulled the trigger and “ordered the start of a reduction of American forces in Afghanistan” according to a breaking WSJ report:

More than 7,000 American troops will begin to return home from Afghanistan in the coming weeks, a U.S. official said. The move will come as the first stage of a phased drawdown and the start of a conclusion to the 17-year war that officials say could take at least many months. There now are more than 14,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

U.S. soldiers in Bagram, north of Kabul, Afghanistan, via AP

Further the WSJ reports it marks “the start of a total pullout that could take at least many months.”

The major reduction of U.S. troops in the country will begin as soon as within several weeks, according to sources cited in The Wall Street Journal. Currently there are about 14,000 troops in Afghanistan in continuation of a NATO advise, train and assist mission as part of the longest running war in United States history.

Trump reportedly stoked “anger and confusion” among some lawmakers and Pentagon officials over his Syria pullout decision; however, he appears to be sticking to his prior “bring the troops home” promises made on the campaign trail in 2016. In a series of Tweets, the president defended the 180 degree shift in Syria policy, which as of only less than a week ago was was expressed by US special envoy for Syria, Ambassador James Jeffrey, as “countering Iran”.

In a Thursday Tweet that could have just as well been about Afghanistan, Trump stated: “So hard to believe that Lindsey Graham would be against saving soldier lives & billions of $$$.” And added, “Time to focus on our Country & bring our youth back home where they belong!”

FOLLOW THE LINK FOR THE FULL REPORT – JR

https://www.infowars.com/trump-orders-major-afghan-drawdown-7000-troops-to-return-home-in-coming-weeks/

Pew Survey: Out Of 27 Nations Polled, Zero Want More Immigrants to Move to Their Country

Though the lying media in all of our nations act as though everyone opposed to open borders immigration policies are racist bigots, a new Pew Research survey shows not one single major country out of 27 polled wants more immigrants.

From Pew Research:

As the number of international migrants reaches new highs, people around the world show little appetite for more migration – both into and out of their countries, according to a Pew Research Center survey of 27 nations conducted in the spring of 2018.

Across the countries surveyed, a median of 45% say fewer or no immigrants should be allowed to move to their country, while 36% say they want about the same number of immigrants. Just 14% say their countries should allow more immigrants. (Those who said no immigrants should be allowed volunteered this response.)

In Europe, majorities in Greece (82%), Hungary (72%), Italy (71%) and Germany (58%) say fewer immigrants or no immigrants at all should be allowed to move to their countries. Each of these countries served as some of the most popular transit or destination countries during Europe’s recent surge in asylum seekers. (In several countries, most disapprove of how the European Union has handled the refugee issue.)

People in other countries around the world hold views similar to those in Europe. Large majorities in Israel (73%), Russia (67%), South Africa (65%) and Argentina (61%) say their countries should let in fewer immigrants. In every country surveyed, less than a third say their nation should allow more immigrants to enter.

Worldwide, a record 258 million people lived outside their country of birth in 2017, up from 153 million in 1990. Their share of the global population is also up, reaching 3.4% in 2017, compared with 2.9% in 1990.

In recent years, a surge in migration has focused public attention on issues related to this, leading to the rise of political parties that question national immigration policies in some destination countries. More than 2 million migrants have sought asylum in Europe since 2015. In the Americas, thousands of Central American families and children have sought to enter the United States. (Recently, immigration has declined as an issue of public concern in parts of Western Europe, even as it has remained a top issue in U.S.)

Together, the 27 countries surveyed by the Center have more than half of the world’s international migrants. The U.S., with 44.5 million immigrants in 2017, has the largest foreign-born population in the world, followed bySaudi Arabia (12.2 million), Germany (12.2 million) and Russia (11.7 million).

Meanwhile, among the countries surveyed, immigrants make up the largest shares of national populations in Australia (29%), Israel (24%), Canada (22%) and Sweden (18%). About 14% of the U.S. population is foreign born, a share comparable to that of Germany (15%), the UK (13%) and Spain (13%).

The 67 million or so recent immigrants already in the US want all their families and extend families to come in through chain migration, that’s why the numbers are so high.

Nonetheless, more Americans want fewer immigrants or none than want more.

This goes hand and hand with a new report from Gallup showing more than 750 million people worldwide would migrate if they could — with the top destination being the United States.

FOLLOW THE LINK FOR THE FULL REPORT – JR

https://www.infowars.com/pew-survey-out-of-27-nations-polled-zero-want-more-immigrants-to-move-to-their-country/

Flashback: Professor Exposes Hazards of Gay Frog Chemical in TEDTalks Lecture

Liberals often criticize Infowars for claiming chemicals in drinking water are lowering fertility.

But in a TEDTalks lecture from 2010, Professor Tyrone Hayes broke down his extensive research into the chemical atrazine, an herbicide used on crops, and its effect on frogs.

In 2003, Hayes found even minute levels of atrazine cause amphibians to suffer severe genetic mutations, the effects of which cascade down through future generations of frogs.

Here’s a summary of the lecture from TEDTalks:

Filmmaker Penelope Jagessar Chaffer was curious about the chemicals she was exposed to while pregnant: Could they affect her unborn child? So she asked scientist Tyrone Hayes to brief her on one he studied closely: atrazine, a herbicide used on corn. (Hayes, an expert on amphibians, is a critic of atrazine, which displays a disturbing effect on frog development.) Onstage together at TEDWomen, Hayes and Chaffer tell their story.

Check out the lecture below:

FOLLOW THE LINK FOR THE FULL REPORT – JR

https://www.infowars.com/flashback-professor-exposes-hazards-of-gay-frog-chemical-in-ted-talks-lecture/

Trump: John Kelly Will Depart White House By Year’s End

John Kelly is expected to depart his role as White House Chief of Staff by the end of the year, President Donald Trump said on Saturday, ending a tenure marked by tensions with his boss and confrontations with other key administration figures.

The president announced the news on the front lawn on the White House, following days of swirling speculation around the retired Marine Corps general’s exit for months amid disagreements with Trump. Nevertheless, in his brief remarks to reporters, Trump called Kelly “a great guy” and that he appreciated his service.

“We’ll be announcing who will be taking John’s place” over the next day or two, Trump said. Vice President Mike Pence’s chief of staff, Nick Ayers, is among the candidates who could succeed Kelly.

Read more

FOLLOW THE LINK FOR THE FULL REPORT – JR

https://www.infowars.com/trump-john-kelly-will-depart-white-house-by-years-end/

FLASHBACK : 5G smartphones cause cancer; Big Wireless doesn’t want you to know

*I HAVE BEEN waiting and waiting for this particular form of popular fear to surface again. Electro-radiation fear has been subterranean for decades now.

*If smartphones cause cancer (and who knows, maybe they do, why not) then it’s even more likely that electric blankets, high-tension lines, microwave ovens and even household electrical wiring cause even more cancer. Plus, there must be thousands of other things that cause far more cancer than 5G smartphones, as otherwise we’d be seeing a colossal mortality wave of men and women with brain tumors and most likely ear tumors.

*Ever been to California? Where you walk into certain buildings with loud, alarming signs that declare, “Something In Here Causes Cancer In the State of California, Only, There’s Nothing You Can Do About That, Except To Worry”? This is an intervention that is very much like that.

CONTACT: The Nation | press@thenation.com | 212-209-5426

Late yesterday, an independent peer review of the US National Toxicology Program’s cell phone study announced their findings of clear evidence that cell phone radiation causes cancer—validating The Nation’s new special investigation:

How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation
The disinformation campaign—and massive radiation increase—behind the 5G rollout.
The Nation 4-23-18

Mark Hertsgaard, the Nation’s investigative editor and the author of seven books, and award-winning investigative journalist Mark Dowie offer the first exposé of the wireless industry’s decades-long, global campaign to war-game science, manipulate media coverage, and massage government officials into convincing the public that cell phones are safer than independent science suggests.

Everyone knows Big Tobacco lied about cigarettes; Big Oil lied about climate change. This is the third leg of the stool: how Big Wireless used the same exact playbook to deceive the public and create the appearance of scientific uncertainty—making people think that cell phones are safer than independent science suggests. This, despite the fact that the wireless industry’s own scientists privately warned it decades ago there were “serious questions” about wireless radiation’s links to cancer and genetic damage.

(One key player has not been swayed by all the wireless-friendly research: the insurance industry. We found not a single insurance company that would sell a product-liability policy that covered cell-phone radiation. “Why would we want to do that?” one executive asked with a chuckle before pointing to more than two dozen lawsuits outstanding against wireless companies, demanding a total of $1.9 billion in damages.)

In the 1980s, cell phones were allowed onto the US consumer market without any government safety testing. This year, 5G is poised to roll out across the country, where antennas the size of a pizza box will have to be installed approximately every 250 feet to ensure connectivity. Wall Street is salivating at the potential trillions of dollars in economic activity—but by fast-tracking the technology and not doing premarket safety testing, will we make the same mistake with 5G as we did with cell phones?

According to the National Toxicology Program’s study, commissioned by the FDA in 1999, there is much more evidence of a cancer-cell phone connection than is widely assumed. More shockingly, NTP brass attempted to water down the public health implications of their findings—in line with the wireless industry’s long-standing denial that cell phone users face risks.

“How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation” is the April 23, 2018, cover story for The Nation, on stands the week of April 9. Hertsgaard is available for select interviews from San Francisco, CA. For bookings or further information, please see contact above.

ABOUT: Mark Hertsgaard, The Nation’s investigative editor at large, is the author of seven books that have been translated into sixteen languages, including On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency. His most recent books are Bravehearts: Whistle Blowing in the Age of Snowden and Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth.

Mark Dowie, an investigative historian based outside Willow Point, California, is the author of the new book, The Haida Gwaii Lesson: A Strategic Playbook for Indigenous Sovereignty.

Founded by abolitionists in 1865, The Nation has chronicled the breadth and depth of American political and cultural life from the debut of the telegraph to the rise of Twitter, serving as a critical, independent voice in American journalism and a platform for investigative reporting and spirited debate on the left.

###

…………………
The Nation Press Room
press@thenation.com
http://www.thenation.com

FOLLOW THE LINK FOR THE FULL REPORT – JR

https://www.wired.com/beyond-the-beyond/2018/03/5g-smartphones-cause-cancer-big-wireless-doesnt-want-know/