Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Second Turnback This Week Due to Unruly Pax

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Evan View Post
    My brother's long-time roommate died on a ventilator last week. He was 59. Cause of death: Omicron. I hope life gets better than this.
    every death is somewhat sad when it should/could have been prevented. every year, in the US alone, according to that of so wonderful govt agency called the cdc, over 600,000 people die of heart disease. according to the equally wonderful who, nearly 18,000,000 people annually worldwide. (and i'll bet there are ZERO govt directives telling doctors to wite cause of death as heart disease when it was reasonably likely). yet we dont have mandates about eating healthy, or better yet, producing healthier foods and banning trans-fats and other artificial shit. pesticides, herbicides, artificial growth enhancers, genetic modification--all potentially quite evil, yet most people sit back and continue killing themselves.

    to be sure, not all heart disease is currently preventable, but i'd guess a really sizeable bit of it is.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
      yet most people sit back and continue killing themselves.
      And, of course, they are free to do so.
      It's when they start killing those around them that we have a problem.
      This is about people killing other people, indirectly, through negligence, recklessness and disregard.
      But you don't see it.
      I don't understand how you can not see it. It's pure logic.
      And I'm done trying to point it out to you.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Evan View Post

        And, of course, they are free to do so.
        It's when they start killing those around them that we have a problem.
        This is about people killing other people, indirectly, through negligence, recklessness and disregard.
        But you don't see it.
        I don't understand how you can not see it. It's pure logic.
        And I'm done trying to point it out to you.
        who's missing the point here? the people using pesticides, herbicides etc, are doing it with GOVERNMENT approval. they are killing others....

        Comment


        • Well, this sure seems interesting. Is it Evan's favorite source?

          CDC Isn't Publishing Large Portions of the COVID-19 Data It Collects (yahoo.com)
          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
            Well, this sure seems interesting. Is it Evan's favorite source?

            CDC Isn't Publishing Large Portions of the COVID-19 Data It Collects (yahoo.com)
            There's a ton of data being collected, but actual research findings are what should guide you. You want to focus on studies conducted by medical researchers and published in leading medical journals and this article in today's NY Times is actually quite hopeful for those who are vaccinated:

            https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/21/h...s-t-cells.html

            Again, if everyone would just pull their pants on and get vaccinated, we would probably not need masks or mandates anymore.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Evan View Post
              ***Again, if everyone would just pull their pants on and get vaccinated, we would probably not need masks or mandates anymore.***
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                banning trans-fats and other artificial shit. pesticides, herbicides, artificial growth enhancers, genetic modification--all potentially quite evil
                Ok that hit a nerve in me.

                Pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers are not innocuous but, used appropriately, do much more good than harm. They are feeding the would. They are the key in that much fewer proportion of persons today suffer constant hunger compared with a century ago, even when there are much more mouths to feed today. They are saving lives from starvation. GMOs, on the other hand, are innocuous as far as we know (and a lot of studies trying to find something found nothing) AND they are saving millions of lives from starvation too. And for the ones that would likely still be able to acquire food, it makes us less poor since the supply would sink and the prices would skyrocket without these artificial productivity-enhancers.

                Let me invite you for dinner at home. I will prepare my special of rotten rat corpse with a side of turd seasoned with rattlesnake venom. All natural.
                You can come in your natural car, or take a natural flight. I'll send you my natural Google Maps fix that you can check in your natural iPhone. And by all means, stay away from vaccines, ibuprofen, antibiotics, chlorinated water, prescription glasses, toilets, soap and all that artificial and dangerous deadly shit. And remember: No matter what, don't cook you food! But go ahead and squeeze some beer from the beer fruit that grows naturally in your beer-tree in your garden. Goes great with spontaneously-popping natural cob while you enjoy reading this thread.

                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

                  Ok that hit a nerve in me.

                  Pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers are not innocuous but, used appropriately, do much more good than harm. They are feeding the would. They are the key in that much fewer proportion of persons today suffer constant hunger compared with a century ago, even when there are much more mouths to feed today. They are saving lives from starvation. GMOs, on the other hand, are innocuous as far as we know (and a lot of studies trying to find something found nothing) AND they are saving millions of lives from starvation too. And for the ones that would likely still be able to acquire food, it makes us less poor since the supply would sink and the prices would skyrocket without these artificial productivity-enhancers.

                  Let me invite you for dinner at home. I will prepare my special of rotten rat corpse with a side of turd seasoned with rattlesnake venom. All natural.
                  You can come in your natural car, or take a natural flight. I'll send you my natural Google Maps fix that you can check in your natural iPhone. And by all means, stay away from vaccines, ibuprofen, antibiotics, chlorinated water, prescription glasses, toilets, soap and all that artificial and dangerous deadly shit. And remember: No matter what, don't cook you food! But go ahead and squeeze some beer from the beer fruit that grows naturally in your beer-tree in your garden. Goes great with spontaneously-popping natural cob while you enjoy reading this thread.
                  hahaha, you sound as if you are a major shareholder in some of the fabulously caring mega corporations like monsanto or dupont--makers of wonderful products but also makers of some pretty deadly shit, which of course they never admit to, but end paying billions of dollars in settlements to the families of dead and dying folks exposed to their wonders of modern chemistry with absolutely no ulterior motivation except to make our lives better.

                  funny thing about being able to produce so much food: lots of it rots in silos in america's heartland and much more of it is being used for ethanol, all the while millions STARVE in places around the world. oh right. they cant afford to but the food so eff 'em, they dont get to eat.

                  gabe, you are beginning to sound dangerously black and white like someone else here.

                  not all chemicals are bad. not all fertilizers are bad. not all drugs are bad.

                  a lot of what you said is partially correct but mostly of the making of big corporations. you know, the ones that either bought up smaller farmers or worse drove them out of business. the same ones that, while making billions annually, get paid with us taxpayer money NOT to grow crops at some times. the ones that while making billions of dollars annually are paid farm subsidies with us taxpayer dollars.

                  tell me again how wonderful all this is and how it makes for more affordable food. as i see it, my taxes go up to pay them to keep food cheap. hmmmm.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Evan View Post

                    There's a ton of data being collected, but actual research findings are what should guide you. You want to focus on studies conducted by medical researchers and published in leading medical journals and this article in today's NY Times is actually quite hopeful for those who are vaccinated:

                    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/21/h...s-t-cells.html

                    Again, if everyone would just pull their pants on and get vaccinated, we would probably not need masks or mandates anymore.
                    wait, now the cdc is the only body capable of performing the needed research? what the quoted article pointed out is simply that while the cdc has been collecting the data it has refused to release the data to people quite capable of analyzing it properly. instead, they sat on important data that indicated that 18-49 did NOT need boosters.

                    begs the question.

                    can we really trust this giant, political juggernaut?

                    pages ago i said that i blamed the govt and cdc in particular for mixed-up confusing messaging. and while their screwy messaging is a fact, neither you, evan, nor the now whiny bb, admitted that the govt itself was partially to blame for what happened. rather you both pointed your fingers at trumpers and other anti-maskers. (anecdotally, i dont disagree that trumpers were partially to blame)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                      gabe, you are beginning to sound dangerously black and white like someone else here.
                      Originally posted by gabe
                      Pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers are not innocuous but, used appropriately, do much more good than harm.
                      Let me see... I agree that this stuff is not innocuous. I agree that they do harm, but I judge that they can do even more good than they do harm, but only provided that they are used appropriately... and I am becoming dangerously black and white? I give up.

                      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post

                        hahaha, you sound as if you are a major shareholder in some of the fabulously caring mega corporations like monsanto or dupont--makers of wonderful products but also makers of some pretty deadly shit, which of course they never admit to, but end paying billions of dollars in settlements to the families of dead and dying folks exposed to their wonders of modern chemistry with absolutely no ulterior motivation except to make our lives better.

                        funny thing about being able to produce so much food: lots of it rots in silos in america's heartland and much more of it is being used for ethanol, all the while millions STARVE in places around the world. oh right. they cant afford to but the food so eff 'em, they dont get to eat.

                        gabe, you are beginning to sound dangerously black and white like someone else here.

                        not all chemicals are bad. not all fertilizers are bad. not all drugs are bad.

                        a lot of what you said is partially correct but mostly of the making of big corporations. you know, the ones that either bought up smaller farmers or worse drove them out of business. the same ones that, while making billions annually, get paid with us taxpayer money NOT to grow crops at some times. the ones that while making billions of dollars annually are paid farm subsidies with us taxpayer dollars.

                        tell me again how wonderful all this is and how it makes for more affordable food. as i see it, my taxes go up to pay them to keep food cheap. hmmmm.
                        Factual data:

                        Since the 60's, the worlds population has increased by a factor of 2.5.
                        In the same period of time, the average quantity of calories available per person per day has increased (more calories per person + much more persons that's a whole more calories).
                        You say all that went to increase of obesity in developed countries.
                        But know what? Deaths due to famine, fraction of underweight children, and undernourishment all have been going own since then. And it was not the rich in developed countries the ones that stopped being malnourished, dying from famine, and rising underweight children.
                        More food per person is available for more persons, ESPECIALLY for the extreme poor. Yes, still a lot of work to do, we are still in an unacceptable situation, but we are much better, not worse or equal, than in the 60's.

                        That means that the food is not only more available but also more accessible. Ok, you may blame the subsidies payed with your and my tax dollars for that. Honestly, if it helps reduce world hunger, it is a good use of tax dollars.

                        But take a look a at this:
                        Not only the amount of calories available per person has increased, but the amount of proteins available per person also increased.
                        In particular, meat supply per person increased a lot (like doubled). On average, people is consuming a larger proportion of calories from animals and a lower proportion from plats. This is significant (and a disaster for the planet) because each calorie from animal products requires about 7 times as much land as the same amount of calories from plants.
                        So, more population consuming more calories with a greater proportion coming from less land efficient land use, that should equate a huuuuuge increase in land use, right?
                        Yet, all that was achieved with less agricultural land used per person. If today's volume and mix of food production was produced with the agricultural technology of the 60's we would be using 3 times as much land (if such land was available) and the cost (not price, that can be controlled with subsidies) would be enormously higher. You CANNOT do that with subsidies.
                        That is thanks to tripling the yields, that is, tripling the amount of food that can be produced for each hectare used. That is thanks, not totally but not in a minor part, to the development of advanced pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers and genetically modified crops that can resist the pesticides. And yes, I am talking about Glyphosate, a known carcinogenic that, when used appropriately, causes more good than harm.

                        Click image for larger version

Name:	Hunger.JPG
Views:	40
Size:	508.9 KB
ID:	1132124

                        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                        Comment


                        • if your idea of saving the world's malnourished is by the use of cancer causing chemicals, i guess i can't argue with you since you apparently believe that saving some by endangering all is ok.

                          how about this: very, very few people in developed countries (not surprisingly with lower birth rates) are malnourished. whereas, poverty stricken "developing" countries have seen massive population booms, even though they cant feed themselves. yeah, that makes sense! you and your wife are hungry so you make a few more kids.

                          this in your mind justifies americans alone using 250,000,000 pounds of just glyphosate PER YEAR on its FOOD crops. 250,000,000 POUNDS that stays in the soil, leaches into drinking water, becomes aerosolized and inhaled etc etc. worth it? 250,000,000 POUNDS. and that is just ONE chemical!

                          https://www.wfpusa.org/articles/8-fa...te-and-hunger/ 222,000,000 MILLION TONS OF FOOD WASTED EVERY YEAR. yet chemicals are the answer?

                          yet you believe we still need to produce more? no. we do not. people need to control their sexual urges and limit their family size to what they can feed. they need to live within their means. that may mean that growing a population in an area that cannot produce food to feed said population is just plain stupid.

                          for decades i've wondered why it is the responsibility of anyone to send food to areas where the population has and continues to grow despite the undeniable FACT that those areas CANNOT produce enough food to sustain the growth. amazing. and you think the answer lies in lacing the rest of the world's food with chemicals so we can grow more.

                          i'm in no way shape or form a natural/organic freak. but i am very aware that big corporations lie daily for profit. it doesn't take very much research to find dozens of lawsuits filed against chemical producers wherein it was proven that they knew the dangers of their chemicals yet promoted them as safe. governments are just as culpable in this regard. so when you say "used safely," it just doesn't work for me.

                          Comment


                          • In spite of my recent bromance with TeeVee, I better be the crop protection person I am.

                            We tend to kick and scream that our products are safe. But, then again, biology (and regulation) is not perfect and $ and politics are involved.

                            Most of our ag chemicals are many times safer than gasoline and jet fuel fumes…and you outsiders get ridiculously low exposure compared to us who live the dream…

                            You’ll never know what it’s like to line up on a test plot with a handful of an 8 nozzle 10 ft boom and 1,500 PSI of CO2 in your backpack…I love the smell of pendimethalin in the morning.

                            Yeah, I don’t spay in a swimsuit and I wash my hands before eating. Gloves reduce exposure 80%

                            Finally, if you don’t like non-organic food, park your airplane, sell your condo, buy 40 acres in flyover and hand weed it.

                            PS- you can walk to New York and greatly minimize your odds of dying in a crash…or you can accept risk and benefit by driving (hit a tree, and you may live). Or use high tech airplanes…statistically safe, but a bad day if Russia moves a tree and adjusts the glide slope.

                            Oh, by the way…pesticides cockroaches in restaurants, termites, flea collars…table salt and aspirin, all more toxic and persistent than glyphosate.
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                              if your idea of saving the world's malnourished is by the use of cancer causing chemicals, i guess i can't argue with you since you apparently believe that saving some by endangering all is ok.
                              Yeah, that's exactly what I am saying. Right, counselor? The rest of your answer is also unrelated to what I said so I will omit it.

                              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                                So, more population consuming more calories with a greater proportion coming from less land efficient land use, that should equate a huuuuuge increase in land use, right?
                                And it soon will, just different land as current croplands dry out and deforestation provides new croplands that will only accelerate the problem. TeeVee is right about one (very obvious) thing: if we don't reverse the trend in population growth, nothing is going to prevent massive malnourishment and famine. How is that done: education, birth control and social opportunity: things largely missing in the underdeveloped world. Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood on this very idea, but her encouragement of voluntary measures have been compared to forced eugenics and even genocide by dimwitted reactionary groups and she was recently 'cancelled'. And we also have resistance from moronic bible-bangers on the right. So we have ignorance on all sides impeding efforts toward education and that ignorance just reproduces at an ever-faster rate.

                                If we can't reverse population growth through education, birth control and social opportunity, humanity will reverse it through war, famine and man-made disaster. Using technology to feed populations without also educating and improving them only hastens that end.

                                Are we off-topic enough?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X