E85 EVO - '11 Mitsubishi Lancer EVO GSR 90 day: 21.38 mpg (US)
Thanks: 59
Thanked 59 Times in 47 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
Would you be skeptical of your heart surgeon when she says that you need to have a quintuple bypass?
Funny you mention that: Yes. Our medical industry is running off of outdated information, myths, half-truths, and misinformation perpetrated and paid for by the food companies.
Doctors would have you believe that clogged arteries are due to cholesterol. Wrong: it is due to the cholesterol composition.They would also have you believe that it is due to eating animal products. A half-truth: it is due to eating animal products who are raised eating foods that we ourselves shouldn't eat.
Doctors are trained in acute care, not to be lifestyle coaches. They only know what has been published in their field, by other doctors, and approved (meaning it was vetted and allowed to pass through -- or not -- based on the opinions of people with a financial interest). The two main lobbyists against healthy eating are the pharmaceutic and agricultural industries. The pharmaceutical industry only makes money if people are unhealthy, and the agricultural industry makes a smaller profit margin on healthy, chemical-free food. They shouldn't be the ones calling the shots, but they are, because they have the money and the financial interest.
I'm not saying that all doctors are hacks (I've occasionally met competent ones), but most of them are. If you have gotten to the point that you NEED a quadruple bypass, then your doctor was incompetent for letting you get to that point in the first place. Again, all they know is what they've been told by vetted, approved information. It makes their opinions about as sound as a priests: "The Bible is true because God says it is. God is always right because the Bible says he is."
Thanks Lagoda, well put! I would like to amend something though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ladogaboy
Doctors would have you believe that clogged arteries are due to cholesterol. Wrong: it is due to the cholesterol composition.They would also have you believe that it is due to eating animal products. A half-truth: it is due to eating animal products who are raised eating foods that we ourselves shouldn't eat.
From what I've read, it isn't what the animals eat, or animal products specifically. It's the combination between a high sugar diet and a diet heavy in animal products that produces inflammation in artery walls. Either one on its own is fairly harmless, but together they cause inflammation and cholesterol is the body's way of repairing damage.
I don't support the carbonated beverage industries because of this. I see them as almost as bad as tobacco companies. A can of Coke contains about 10 teaspoons of simple, processed sugars, and a can of Monster contains almost 20 teaspoons of sugar.
This would be an interesting, and valid point, IF Kilauea was the only active volcano on the planet. From the numbers I've read, Eyjafjallajoekull was releasing 3,000 tons of SO2 per day during its months-long active period. And many more add to the release of SO2.
Sure. And when there's a big eruption such as those I mentioned, the cooling effect lasts for months or years. (An effect which is accurately predicted by climate models.) The point is that there's an ongoing and fairly constant level of natural SO2 emission, which is part of the "Goldilocks effect" that keeps the present climate in its natural range. Add a big pulse of SO2 from a volcano, and you get extra cooling. Dump in a lot more SO2 over many years from fossil-fuel emissions, and you might get enough cooling to set off an Ice Age. Which is one reason we have emissions regulations on power plants, and low-sulfur diesel.
Quote:
To make matters more interesting, SO2 is one of the man contributors to the cooling of the troposphere, so wouldn't SO2 actually mitigate global warming?
Of course, and that's one of the proposed geoengineering schemes for mitigating GW. The problem is that SO2 has lots of other nasty effects, like acid rain. In addition, unlike CO2 it has an atmospheric residence time of only months to a few years, so you'd have to keep adding more.
If you have gotten to the point that you NEED a quadruple bypass, then your doctor was incompetent for letting you get to that point in the first place.
So how do doctors LET you get to that point? Do you think your doctor stands over you from birth, monitoring every mouthful you take, making sure you get plenty of exercise, yanking cigarettes out of your mouth, and otherwise forcing you to live a perfectly healthy lifestyle? Or is it more likely that the first time the heart specialist sees you is after the ambulance hauls you in to the ER?
As to the rest, I think I'd prefer verified, vetted information (perhaps by actual experimental studies, even), to the half-baked theories of someone who figures to make a pile of money from his latest fad diet plan.
"Red herring – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak to."
"Appeal to authority – where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it."
E85 EVO - '11 Mitsubishi Lancer EVO GSR 90 day: 21.38 mpg (US)
Thanks: 59
Thanked 59 Times in 47 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
The point is that there's an ongoing and fairly constant level of natural SO2 emission, which is part of the "Goldilocks effect" that keeps the present climate in its natural range.
Please define "present" and "natural range." Present and natural range meaning what we have experienced in the last 50 years? 100 years? 200 years? Are we talking about about the natural range that includes winters so bitter that the Delaware River froze over and soldiers literally froze to death while marching. A range that includes the Sahara Desert's expansion over the last 10,000 + years? (predating modern fossil fuel use)
Millions of species on this planet have come into being and went extinct over the course of history, and most of those extinctions were the result of geological shifts and weather and atmospheric shifts. If the species is strong enough to adapt or evolve, then it (or its descendants) will live on.
How are those people who are (supposedly) in awe of nature and the environment so afraid of change? Change will happen whether we want it to or not, and I am not so arrogant as to think that I have control over it. Is what we (humans) are doing affecting the environment? For sure it is, but it is a result of how we were programmed/made/evolved (whatever your belief). We are going to reap the results as a species, and those who are strong enough will survive. Those who aren't will die. Stop putting humans on a pedestal. We are just animals and a small (albeit efficacious) piece of the Earth's greater ecosystem.
E85 EVO - '11 Mitsubishi Lancer EVO GSR 90 day: 21.38 mpg (US)
Thanks: 59
Thanked 59 Times in 47 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
So how do doctors LET you get to that point?
People go in for regular check ups. Body fat percentage over 10%? Cholesterol and blood-work tests show interesting results? Resting heart rate? Blood pressure? All of these are things that the nurse checks, writes down on a sheet, and delivers to the doctor (who reviews the information before meeting with the patient).
Simple questions and life style suggestions are far better than the typical, "Your blood pressure seems high, so rather than doing anything to correct your lifestyle, I want you to take this drug to reduce your blood pressure. By the way, it might cause you to have hemophilia and slowly cause the degradation of your liver, but since I get a kickback from the pharmaceutical company for referring you, I want you to take it. And check back in a few weeks so that we can determine if there are any other side effects that would warrant my prescribing another drug to compensate."
"Just keep doing what you're doing, and in 15-20 years, you'll be back for a triple or quadruple bypass and possibly invasive procedures to take care of the prostate cancer you'll likely be suffering from."
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
As to the rest, I think I'd prefer verified, vetted information (perhaps by actual experimental studies, even), to the half-baked theories of someone who figures to make a pile of money from his latest fad diet plan.
You want to hear my dietary advice free of charge? Note: I stand to gain nothing and will be basing my suggestions on fundamental principles of human biology and anatomy that have been vetted and agreed upon by scientists and doctors for years. Please notice that no doctor will ever tell you that a raw vegan diet with occasional smatterings of seafood and wild game is bad for you, but they also are loath to tell you to stay away from processed foods that have billions of dollars backing their "healthful" qualities.
Yes, but tell me how many doctors will "prescribe" a lifestyle change instead of a pill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
Are you skeptical of the existence of Pangaea?
Japan moved almost 8 feet in the 2011 quake. The movements of the tectonic plates have been rather consistent for as long as we have measured them, and using basic math, it's safe to assume that in 1 million years, Japan will have moved many miles. It is not safe to assume, however, that my driving an internal combustion engine is the cause for Japan's movement.
So, how is it that you accept plate tectonics, which is a "younger" science than climate change? Do you think you get to pick and choose among various fields of science, and accept some but not others? There is actually a lot of overlap between climate change science and many other areas of science. If geologists or biologists or chemists or vulcanologists or oceanographers or dendrochronologists or astrophysicists had an issue with those overlapping areas of the science -- then they would certainly say so.
We know that when India was still an island moving across the southern ocean towards Asia that there was a lot of volcanic activity and the carbon dioxide level rose to about 1,000ppm, and there was no ice anywhere on the globe. There were alligators in what is now Alaska. Then when India bumped up against Asia and started forming the Himalayas, the level of carbon dioxide started dropping slowly, mostly through a weathering process. If I recall correctly, the rate of increase due to volcanoes was about 100ppm per million years.
As the level dropped to about 450ppm, that is about when the ice on Antarctica started to form. It kept dropping and about when it reached 350ppm, the Arctic ice started forming, and then it ultimately got down to ~270ppm where it stabilized for about 650,000 years.
And now in about 150 years we have raised the level of carbon dioxide to over 390ppm.
Now, so much ice has formed on Antarctica that it is pressing the land under it down almost 1/2 a MILE. This "warps" the gravitational pull of the earth as a whole, and changes sea level quite a bit. It also affects the tectonic plate movement, too; both by the displacement and the change in gravity.
Because the earth is spinning, the shape deforms from being a sphere to an oblate spheroid. And the huge mass of ice on Antarctica further distorts the shape pulling the bulge in the ocean level south of the equator.
There is a mountain in Ecuador called Mount Chimborazo that is closer to the moon and stars than Mount Everest.
So, the bottom line is that if you think that you are better qualified to make serious conclusions about the climate than the scientists who have multiple PhD's and know an staggering amount about isotopes and astrophysics and plate tectonics and geology and chemistry and biology and satellites and gravity and the oceans and paleontology -- then please show them your analysis of all the data and show them how wrong they are.
If you cannot show a better analysis than they have, then you cannot dismiss their conclusions any more than you can dismiss atomic theory or DNA or gravity or the Big Bang or medical surgery or evolution.
You just can't ignore the best understanding that we humans have of our earth's climate. There is no Planet B.
Today
Other popular topics in this forum...
