I don't drive so my interactions with vehicles is as a pedestrian. I don't plan weaving within the traffic when there is a wave of cars but their is always a trough sooner or later, should that coincide with traffic lights is not a concern I have.

Still I have to accept that I'm getting old and I may gauge the spaces and time in error, not only that, it may well be that I fall and am not sprightly enough to bounce off the tarmac and dodge the steel.

What brought me to this spiel?
I was in Bristol this last weekend and I wove between the traffic with a young child in my arms; it's been playing on my mind and I feel dirty. That I put my notions of safety into to action like that with no thought of how the mother, who was watching, felt. Such levels of danger and inconsideration embarrass me.

I am not going to do it again. I will be more considerate to the young and their mothers, though I doubt I will show such consideration for the drivers.

Data from STATS 19 show that pedestrian accident rates are higher over the pedestrian crossing points than these away from it, or within 50 meters of pedestrian crossing facilities. This is contrary to the expectations that accidents should be least over these crossing facilities.
https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/p01_alnaqbi.pdf

The above reference is not to show any notion of safety at crossings as as far as I can tell there was no count of how many people crossed roads at different places. Given that more people cross roads at crossing then there may well be more accidents there, also crossing are provide where ther is clearly heavy traffic and increased danger.

Maths is fine, statistics is based on fear and to understand the probabilities touted by statisticians learn use logic and study maths maybe. For whereas an individual may study maths and logic to understand there position in the cosmos, statisticians are only concerned like politicians in manipulation others to their whimsical weaknesses

Although intended to query the spacial existence of em waves I hope to draw closer to the mental processes involved and the reasons for the processes.

There are two major theories to consider: a) Transparency: in that light passes through an object, read radio waves pass through air and brick and b) if light does at all travel or if there is a coincidence of apparent transmission and reception as in the quantum state that if one changes all must change. This later quantum argument is extreme and goes to the heart of all arguments.

Transparency Apart from the common concepts of light passing through glass and water, - no doubt crystals were thought of as glass like and modern plastics are another matter - there is the reception of radio waves inside an apparently opaque structure.

Light is a variety of electromagnetic waves that the eye responds to by sending signal to an interpreter in the brain; these frequencies are high compared to radio signals but essentially are no different that the fact that high and low notes in music are just different frequencies of air pressure changes on the ear drum.

Radio waves, in the case of the BBC world service transmitted from Rugby, used a frequency of 15,000 cycles per second, the modern term is 15KHz (15 kilo hertz)
Television is in the range of 100's of megahertz
Mobile Phone around the 0.9 to 1.9 gigahertz
Bluetooth and wifi 2 to 6 gigahertz

So we have gone from generating electromagnetic waves of 15K that if it were sound would be audible to many people, especially the young to frequencies a million times that.
It may be easier to compare by the length of a wave. EM waves travel at a constant speed in a vacuum and that is the usual figure used. So a frequency that oscillates twice as fast will have a wavelength half the size.
Rugby (15KHz) 20Km
BBC Caradon Hill Digital (482.166 or 530.166)Mhz around 60cm

EE on 800Mhz (Rural) 37.5cm on 2.6GHz (London) 11.5cm
http://www.4g.co.uk/4g-frequencies-uk-need-know/

The Wi-Fi standard IEEE 802.11ad (60Ghz) 5mm
Active Denial System (ADS) which emits a beam of radiation with a wavelength of 3 mm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_high_frequency

Carrying on from Food Availability
The obvious, eat or die brings up the same polarization and both cannot be addressed for what eats must by definition kill in turn and so will either be killed or die as ability to kill diminishes.

So we survive to kill another day, we kill so we can kill more. Is this the basis of conscious choice? That we perform to the DNA programme or refuse Does a plant have choice, does the sun? What of the consciousness of either are they unaware that their existence depends upon the annihilation of other beings, sentient or otherwise. Some plan!

The choice to feel, not just the warm or chilling breezes, the sun and see, the salt and sweetness, but the acquisition of security of consumption the company of other killers afraid to die but not to kill. A partner to justify and proliferate the killing DNA. These feeling generated by the mind of success in achievement and company. So is it a sunny holiday with a friendly killer on the beach of alone in the hills.

Is there really any benefit in one experience over the other? I can't seem to weight them like a speck of sand or a mountain, let alone a planet or solar system. That these experiences can be instilled by electrical impulses to the brain directly, without the holiday implies that it can be done without the killing, but can it be done without consumption.

What is this killing consumption we fight so hard for and call it life when it is only an idea of keeping at bay the fear that each of us may die and loose the ability to choose what to kill and at almost every turn it is really who should die for us to continue to kill. We best not kill the seed of killing but only the fruit, but is that enough or more properly is there enough fruit to consume - obviously not. Back to food availability

Consumption, Calories and Choice

Consumption
Food for one may be poison for another and vis a versa. Plants are clearly different from animals and the DNA structures that demand replication are limited by the DNA's own structure. Not so the sun which can absorb any matter and add to it's weight, by sheer gravity.

Once a choice is made the immediate consequence is a limitation of further choice, unless the original choice can be undone. DNA's impact upon choice are far reaching and the host body cannot presently (2017) change the DNA and undo any, let alone many or all, of the choices bound in it's programme; and where it is possible then the host body will change proportionately.

Each time a choice is made an infinite numbers of options are denied yet a seemingly alternative never-ending number of choices appear again.

With DNA based consumers the selection, although predetermined by ancestry, is more frighteningly controlled by the archaeologically defined habitat.

For carnivores there must be enough other animals to consume, for fruitarians - enough fruit. Clearly the omnivore has a better chance of survival, being able to obtain nutrition from all and sundry. Plants are not best described in such terms and so I will avoid their needs here.

On the human front, food supplies nutrition and noting the intellectual variables from other animals it is clear to see that each person has a choice on what to eat, given there is adequate consumables both in quantity and variance.

As with plants I will leave any views on the intellectual choices, at this juncture, and focus on nutrition; for although this is article is designed as food for though, and maybe be poison to some, it has no basis except for it's grounding in nutrition of the body and the DNA's design to survive.

I am consciously trying to develop a binary approach to this argument, that is - although at any point there are in finite options the ultimate choice is - to choose or not to. The sun does not choose, or at least that is the basis on which unfettered consumption relies.

Each of us makes a choice, to eat or not, and what to eat. There is a basic nutritional issue of obtaining enough calories to continue to the next meal. That there are other assets in the food of choice is not the issue here and again will be put aside with the sun, plants and intellect.

Page 2: calories Page 3: choice

Pages: 1· 2· 3

The extract below is from working conditions in Cwmbran but was, no doubt, common throughout Cornwall, Wales and Northern England.

Less than 200 years all members of a family would be miners.

Four year olds were employed to open air doors. They would have to sit in the dark, alone and wait of the sound of approaching trams. Sometimes there would be five or six doors to open and they would have to run ahead opening and closing the doors for which they were responsible. The working day was a twelve-hour shift, many children became frightened and ran home, others grew so tired that it was common for them to fall asleep on the tramlines, with fatal consequences.

Older children were employed as carters. They would have to haul, often by crawling in low claustrophobic tunnels, carts of coal to the surface. They had a leather strap tied around their waists attached to the cart by a chain between their legs.

In 1842 it was made illegal for women, girls and boys under twelve to work underground. The decision devastated many families for there was no compensation for loss of earnings. But it took years for the law to be enforced and as late as 1860's some mines were still secretly employing children under twelve.

My recent tiredness led me to sleep-in a while whence I reflected on recent experiences, which I won't elaborate on unless asked, though no doubt I will voice them a few times.

The outcome was that I wondered why I was such a bully at times and turned to using force and violence to get my way. I really don't have a way of knowing so it must all be down to fear of loosing and loosing not just physical assets but mental security.

It seems I have used my intellect to navigate the traumas I have encountered. I accept that my traumas are insignificant to many person's, but all is relative.

Navigation seems to be a simple mathematical process applied to the body and obstacles can be pushed aside with enough strength: and intellectual strength can be used on certain people, especially those who show a dependency on something I can control. Emotional blackmail may be terms I could use also.

Negotiation is something I would rarely use, so much so I cannot think of an instance where I have negotiated. There are many instances of implied and superficial agreements but none that have taken any effort on my part.

I do not like to be beholding to another and negotiation reeks of weakness and insecurity. Sure I am not physically strong enough to take what I want, nor do I wish to use a gun or extreme tools to bully. My own body and mind should be enough to get what I want I hope, yet I still seem to used them in a bullying manner.

There is no doubt a history wherein I could find the instigator(s) of this mechanism. I can see my addiction to being more independent and self sufficient as off-springs of both the trend to bully and the attempt to escape the bulling environment, which is how I see the world around me.

The will has guided me to try and remove myself from this facet of consciousness yet I still persist in this world of consumerism.

I can trace my induction to navigation from the repeated ability of authority laying down the rules of my behaviour when to all intents and purposes those authoritarians have no integrity, at least to my intellectual assessment.

So today that I have considered that negotiation is a tool I could use and wonder why it has taken nearly 70 years to note. I cannot fathom why it has been so difficult to negotiate but am wary of it. My view is that most negotiators are devious, deceitful and degraded individuals. I will give general examples of how common it appears to me and therein is the reason that I avoid negotiation and revert to navigation.

Navigation requires no consideration for the environment, people and rocks can be pushed aside given enough leverage and those levers are physical strength and logical argument.

Like logical argument negotiation uses arguments to persuade the mind of another to provide or step aside. The issue I have a problem with is the regularity and repetitive use of ambiguous words rather than mathematical language, to persuade people to act en-mass. This is most obviously seen in religion, political parties, campaign groups, charities etc. The process is always to persuade people that there is a better way to be a consumer and if you subscribe to their movement, someone at least, if not all will be better off and happier.

The problem as I see it is that happiness cannot be achieved in such a way as the dumbing down dependence on the intellect where emotions guide the body to consume; as in Facebook and Twitter where just a few word can be amplified and is really just low level bullying on a massive scale.

So now I am turning to negotiate but can I do it without the bulling engine that has been such a reliable lever for, well, ever. I am afraid that I won't succeed and just become a devious bastard but I think I owe it to myself to see if I can remain independent and become a negotiator at least in part. Of course what comes to mind and is the hurdle to navigate or should I say negotiate is ~ not wanting to be a consumer ~ so what is the focus of my negotiation and with whom may I engage.