First it was guns....now they are coming for meat and hamburgers! "the global ecological sustainability of farming habits has not been a major topic of conversation until the last few decades. It's only now that we're beginning to have a conversation about the role of meat in both of these debates, and the evidence suggests a reckoning with our habits is long overdue. Meat production doesn't just affect the ecosystem by production of gases, and studies now question the system of production's direct effect on global freshwater use, change in land use, and ocean acidification. A recent paper in Science claims that even the lowest-impact meat causes “much more” environmental impact than the least sustainable forms of plant and vegetable production. Population pressures, with global population predicted to increase by a third between 2010 and 2050, will push us past these breaking points. Another important addition to the conversation around meat is the PLoS One paper discussing health-related taxes for red meat. The paper offers up some compelling claims as justification, including the suggestion that the health-related costs directly attributable to the consumption of red and processed meat will be US$285 billion in 2020, or 0·3% of worldwide gross GDP. 4·4% of all deaths worldwide would be caused by red or processed meat. Of course, this causal mathematical model should be taken with a pinch of salt, but it does follow on from the 2015 WHO classification of some meats as proven carcinogens, based on the International Agency For Research On Cancer assessment of a “strong” link between red meat and the mechanistic evidence for carcinogenicity." https://www.thelancet.com/journals/...8)32971-4/fulltext?dgcid=raven_jbs_etoc_email The Lancet used to be a respectable source. Now they are tying meat consumption to the environment. Time to thank Trump for walking away from this global lunacy.
"A New York lawmaker is raising the question with a bill that would require police to scrutinize the social media activity and online searches of handgun license applicants, and disqualify those who have published violent or hateful posts. State Sen. Kevin Parker says he hopes his proposal sparks discussion about how to balance public safety and online privacy. The Brooklyn Democrat noted that mass killers often provide warning signs through their social media posts, as in the case of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting suspect, who ranted online that Jews were "children of Satan." "It's a new time. It's a new technology," Parker said. "It's time that we in fact start having that conversation about how we monitor social media in a way that we can create safety for our communities." Free-speech watchdogs and even some gun-control advocates have raised concerns about the bill, which would require handgun applicants to turn over login information to allow investigators to look at three years' worth of Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter and Instagram postings. Google, Yahoo and Bing searches over the previous year also would be checked. Licenses could be denied if investigators uncover threats of violence or terrorism or the use of racial or ethnic slurs. The process would be the same for five-year re-certifications." Just.....wow.
You've highlighted one of the obvious problems. "Investigators". Guarantee they'd be like the IRS....going after certain people with specific political affiliations. That doesn't even cover who the hell would turn over their login info to ANYONE much less a gubment "investigator".
And what's to stop you from creating two accounts one for submission and one for your"true" self. Its an all around a stupid proposition.
I remember when the gods at the us nutrition agency decided that it was fat that was killing us .... that we needed to eat more whole grains blah blah. The response was a huge increase in carbohydrates ..... and obesity .... and heart disease. It’s come full circle now, and we know that it is actually carbs .... including “whole grains” .... like wheat, rice etc. no surprise, the Keto diet, Atkins, Sugar Busters, Paleo, etc .... are the proven winner for decreasing obesity and heart disease.
Well, the gubment and big pharma also convinced women that estrogen as HRT in pill form was great! Hmmm....through the digestive system and the liver which had never dealt with it before. So liver sent it on to breast....and now we know why HRT causes so much breast cancer.
No offense usbvball .... but I did the human health risk assessment on ERT and HRT, and you have fallen for the hype. The risk in the WHI was driven by a faulty study design that included women that were way past menopause .... where they already knew it would lead to increased cardio and strokes, and where later stage differentiated breast cancers would be promoted. The reality, hrt and ert both did as they were expected, women who where 0-10 years post menopausal showed a 10% cardio benefit, women 10-20 PM had a marginal risk, and the 70-80 year olds in the study who were 20+ PM showed a significant increase in risk, and drove the “perception” of the study. Further, on the breast cancer front, there was actually a decrease in breast cancer in the ERT arm that was 0.002 statistical points away from being significant. The HRT arm showed a non-significant increase and it is pretty well accepted that it was associated with the higher dose of medroxyprogesterone in the prep used in the study. There is a lot you don’t know about that subject, including the fact that the press released results were driven by a competing Pharma company that was introducing a new SERM to the market for osteoporosis .... for which the Premarin franchise was standing in the way.
Simple question....is estrogen better delivered directly through the bloodstream via subdural time-release, or orally by pill and through the digestive system? Prempro isn't on my pharmacy list and it will remain so. What I do use isn't part of big pharma....wouldn't make them enough money.
