Slashdot Mirror

I suggest you start with the World Health Organisation.

I suggest you start with the World Health Organisation.

I suggest you start with the World Health Organisation.

If antioxydant is a topic that interest you -- you would want to read this too: http://www.mercola.com/blog/2005/aug/29/coffee_ame ricas_leading_source_of_antioxidants

Don't be a Darwin awardee, do something smart, and cheap, to save yourself lots of misery, and save us (taxpayers) lots of unnecessary bills for misdirected medicine. Check these sites, how to prevent and reverse it: http://doctoryourself.com/diabetes.html http://www.mercola.com/2002/apr/10/diabetes.htm Cheap blood glucose tests at the discount stores, say $10-15 for the digital meter, $20-40 for the strips. MRI for diabetes - a gold hammer for slicing the fat out of milk... no wonder we are going broke.

No you are certainly not the only one, there really is no way to find out exactly what harms us out of the thousands of 'advancements' we make.
Certain vaccines are related to Autism due to high mercury content being introduced into infants.

This is basic business. Current product pays for future development.

And marketing and other functions, of course (basic business).

From http://www.mercola.com/2000/jun/24/pharmaceutical_ industry.htm:
According to its annual report, Pfizer spent 39.2 percent of its revenues on marketing and administration in 1999

From http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve5/1090pharm.html:
These [top ten drug] companies had the greatest return on revenues, reporting a profit of
18.5 cents for every $1 of sales, which was eight times higher than the
average for all other listed industries. Commercial banking, for example,
only returned 13.5 percent on revenue.

The drug industry also dominated others by realising a return on assets of
16.5 percent -- almost six times the average of 2.5 percent for all other
industries.

Yes, the practice of ex-political officials entering industry and using their contacts for lobbying purposes is common. However just because it is a common thing does not make it a good thing.

So true. I wonder how many people know about Mr. Donald Rumsfeld's connection with the approval of something for public consumption that was once proposed as an agent for chemical warfare. Check here for an explanation.

Making rude references to a persons post is just ur attempt to
lift your insecure ego out of the mud it wallows in .

http://www.mercola.com/2001/jun/27/mobile_phones.h tm

There has been some concern, even by the makers of cell phones .

Peace,
Ex-MislTech

I don't know which study you claim to have read from Dr. Giovannucci since no link to it was posted. However when I did find this site stating:

While acknowledging the dangers of the sun-related skin cancer melanoma that killed some 8,000 Americans last year, Giovannucci convincingly argued staying away from the sun -- preventing your body from making enough vitamin D on its own -- may add as much as 70 more cancer deaths per 100,000 people each year.

There are several other articles about the subject. And several scientists seem to agree that sun is one of the best delivery mechanisms for Vitamin D. Keeping in mind that, as with most things, you shouldn't over do it.

I don't know which study you claim to have read from Dr. Giovannucci since no link to it was posted. However when I did find this site stating:

While acknowledging the dangers of the sun-related skin cancer melanoma that killed some 8,000 Americans last year, Giovannucci convincingly argued staying away from the sun -- preventing your body from making enough vitamin D on its own -- may add as much as 70 more cancer deaths per 100,000 people each year.

There are several other articles about the subject. And several scientists seem to agree that sun is one of the best delivery mechanisms for Vitamin D. Keeping in mind that, as with most things, you shouldn't over do it.

And not only does the extra vitamin D help prevent cancer, but just not putting a chemical-laden substance on your body also helps prevent cancer. While I'm sure there are some safe, quality sun screens you can get at the health food store, most of what people are pouring all over them and their kids contain harsh chemicals:

http://www.mercola.com/2000/oct/15/sunscreen.htm

The main chemical used in sun lotions to filter out ultraviolet light may be TOXIC, particularly when exposed to sunshine.

Octyl methoxycinnamate (OMC), which is present in 90 per cent of sunscreen brands, was found to kill mouse cells even at low doses in a study by Norwegian scientists.

It is not certain that the effects on mice are repeated in human beings, although the findings reported in New Scientist magazine suggest that human cells could be damaged if a sunscreen containing OMC penetrates the outer layer of dead skin and comes into contact with living tissue.

Terje Christensen, a biophysicist from the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, near Oslo, said her research showed that sunscreens should be treated with caution, and used only when it was impractical to stay indoors or to shield the skin from the sun with clothes.

The chemical is used as a filter for the more harmful UVB light. In Dr Christensen's study, mouse tissue grown in culture was treated with a solution of OMC at five parts per million - a much lower concentration than in sunscreens. Half the cells treated with OMC died, compared with fewer than 10 per cent in a control experiment.

When researchers shone a lamp for two hours to simulate midday sunshine, more cells died. Dr Christensen suggested that the reaction between OMC and sunlight created an effect that was twice as toxic as the chemical alone.

The Cosmetic Toiletry and Perfumery Association, which represents sunscreen manufacturers in Britain, said that OMC "has been thoroughly tested for safety" and was approved by regulatory authorities in Europe and the US.

Dr. Mercola's Comment:

We ALL need sunshine to stay healthy. It is one of the essential ingredients for staying healthy. It is not the perniciously evil item that traditional medicine suggests that it is.

That does not mean that we should all go out and get sunburned. That should be avoided as it is likely to lead to an increase in skin cancer. However, prudent exposure to the sun, integrating the listening to your body concept, will not.

Adding sun screens is NOT a good way to limit your sun exposure. Staying out of the sun early on in the season and limiting your exposure until your system adjusts by increasing melanin pigmentation in your skin is.

Additionally, consuming many whole vegetables will increase antioxidant levels in the body which will also provide protection against any sun induced radiation damage.

So the bottom line is to avoid the sun screens. They are not necessary and will actually increase your risk of disease.

Related Articles:

Absorbing Titanium from Sunscreens

Sunscreens Don't Prevent Melanoma

I doubt a laptop CPU emits enough microwave radiation to irradiate your gonads. It may run at 2.4 GHz but as I understand it, it emits plain non-microwave heat - the type you get when a resistor is heated by an electric current.

It's well known that heat (hot bath, sauna, etc) causes a drop in male fertility, but it's temporary IIRC. Just don't use a laptop while trying to conceive a child.

Of more concern are studies on microwave cooking that suggest it induces molecular changes to the food that may be harmful to humans: here's a discussion about a Swiss study once subjected to a gag order. Some label this pseudoscience. However, it's a known fact that the mechanics of microwave cooking are fundamentally different from traditional cooking and can lead to worse nutritional outcomes

Yeah, but how many of them would you want to see naked? Unless you have a chub fetish, you're unlikely to find the US demographic pool particularly attractive.

On the other hand, you could just go grab a Livejournal account, join the communities "kaizersoze125" and "show_your_boobs", and marvel at the quantity of amateur porn folks throw out there for free.

Seriously. There's some high quality out there. Some of it's not even members-locked (earningtails, for instance).

--grendel drago

Just because some information is posted on a site called quackwatch does not make it the be all end all. People must judge for themselves, look at both sides, analyze the information and form your own conclusion. I personally feel the medical establishment is way off. The medical system is only good for emergency medicine. Humans were not meant to live dependent on drugs. Hippocrates once wrote "Let food be your medicine and medicine be your food" After years of searching for a big chunk of the answer regarding healthy living I believe one man is just about on target. http://www.mercola.com/ The point is use your mind, analyze all the information available and go with what feels right.

Anyhow, that leaves about 90M Americans who are not overweight and 36M who are starving in the streets. Are we to believe that only 54M (20% of) Americans eat a healthy amount of food? Neither too much nor too little?

That sounds a little implausable to me. But that shouldn't interrupt a good round of US-bashing.

good point. Usually it'd be tough to do a double-blind study on surgeries, but it has been done before. See: Arthroscopic Surgery for Knee Osteoarthritis No More Effective Than Sham Surgery

Sometimes surgery is important. And sometimes doctors go for surgery for the personal glory (holding someone's still-beating heart in your hands can contribute to a superiority complex) and the fungoles. Because they can charge $40-50k to perform a heart bypass surgery, and only $3000 for a non-surgical IV EDTA chellation therapy regimen. See Dr. Elmer Cranton's Bypassing Bypass

There's more to these things though. Myopia, for example has been linked to the higher consumtion of refinined sugars and grains in industrialized society. http://www.mercola.com/2002/apr/17/near-sightednes s.htm Likewise asthma and increased hygene http://allergies.about.com/b/a/2003_10_16.htm I'm not asserting the accuracy of either of these specific claims, just trying to make the point that environment plays a big role in these changes.

Still, there are always the fearful. FUD or truth?

There are consumer devices with BeO in them - I have seen several amateur radio amplifiers with "Danger Beryllium" stickers on them, particularly those with 8873 tubes. According to this article, "Beryllium is also used in consumer products, such as televisions, calculators, and personal computers, and in the coating on the inside of fluorescent lights." You can get a BeO metallized Peltier cooler here.

I'm not saying these products are dangerous, just that there are consumer devices with BeO in them today.

http://www.alkalizeforhealth.net/Lsweetdebate7.htm
http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_danger s.htm

Heh, checking the links I just noticed the second one (on sucralose/Splenda) is currently censored because of legal actions in the U.K. Oh well, you can do a google search on something like "splenda dangers" and find plenty of stuff.

I'm not giving an opinion on the veracity of the linked articles, just showing that, at the very least, some people have acute negative reactions to the chemicals used as artificial sweeteners, and the long-term effects of using them regularly are pretty much unknown.

Sometimes, too many links can obfuscate important content instead of helping to direct interested parties to it.

And just in time, as well.

Some guy invented magnetic paint.

Although not an intended purpose, I assume it will work just like anti-cellular wood panels.

And it might even free you from having to wear a tinfoil hat indoors.

Here is another interesting treatment option. I understand that scientists will de doing some formal human-centric studies with Curcumin at the the University of Utah.

But in the early 90's the computer industry and U.S. military quashed a paper to be released by the U.S. EPA that listed low frequency electromagnetic radiation from, among other sources, desktop PC power supplies as a Class B Carcinogen.

http://www.mercola.com/article/emf/emf_dangers.htm

Everybody's all up in arms about cell phones, but if you're parked in front of a desktop you might possibly have at least as much to worry about from other sources.

Well-balanced site which gives several takes on the issue:
http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/emf.htm#dangerous

Of course, they risk someone else either patenting or disclosing their improvements, and losing out entirely.

The drug issue should be dealt with not by patents but by the FDA giving monopoly licensing on drugs - anyone can use them in research, but selling them is controlled (as it already is). Allow other companies to be licensed, but only after they've done significant additional clinical trials. This gets additional testing done on the safety and efficacy of the drug, and still protects the original company for quite some time.

Besides, the stats I've heard indicate that pharmaceutical companies spend at least twice as much on marketing as on R&D (discovering new drugs, clinical trials). They're also some of the most profitable companies.

From an article I once read:

The power consumption of the human brain is around 20 watts, while the power consumption of the human body is 100 watts. As there are 100 billion neurons in the brain, power consumption for a single neuron is around 0.5 - 4 nanoWatts. Compare this to the peak power output of a mobile phone, which is around 1-2 watts.

It's already possible to detect a heartbeat remotely using a electric sensor sensitive enough to detect a heartbeat from 1 metre away.

If this can work with the electric field contained within the heart, then perhaps it is also possible to detect the electric field caused by the neurons of the visual system, although you'd need some really complex signal processing.

Interestingly, most of the cases of "remote viewing" claimed by people close to death, always involve having the brain being cooled down to hypothermia levels. Perhaps this reduces the "thermal noise" and sensory noise in the brain.

This balding guy (so you know he must be right!) confirms what the real car accident problem is; the driver is distracted. Cell phone, rubbernecking, in-car-Tivo, it doesn't matter.

From the article:
Besides nervousness over lawsuits, the American auto market has also been more cautious in offering features like television or karaoke, which are widely available in other countries. Some features will probably not be available here for years, if ever.

Uhm... what? Television?! STFU and drive!
As for karaoke, my car has a stereo; you KNOW I am screaming/singing at the top of my lungs!

Making America look more like a hellish pit of arrogance and ignorance, one forum post at a time. eh?

No way. We can find out with a little google? You hallucinated something (NASA taking insurance on the Rovers) and your "proof" is we can find the proof?

umm, whatever, 'phurd'.

Every space program since Sputnik has had Insurance Policies against failure. Do you even know what the word 'insurance' means? Do you know anything about multi-million dollar projects and the way they are organized, projected, and protected?

I do.

Therefore I don't need to use google to 'know' this, nor do I feel the need to justify every single thing I say with a google reference, since a) its freakin' obvious space program financial managers take out insurance, and b) I'm smart.

Since, perhaps 'phurd', you're a moron who is unable to use google, let alone think, for himself, and most certainly seem to have such a low opinion of the world and others living in it, here's a few choice links for you, off the top of the google:'space program insurance' stack:

Mission Costs, UToronto. ... nobody cared, except the insurance companies ... ... commercial insurance recovery ...

...

etc. I'll leave it up to you to find the one for the rover program, dud. I'm sure you can manage that.

My only beef with it is:

(a) The price (5 lb. equivilent bag of granulated Splenda costs about $8).

(b) Extremely limited availability. The only soda with Splenda is Diet Rite and Diet RC. Diet RC is hardly available, and Diet Rite comes only in caffeine free (insert vampire hiss here) form.

Well, until more people start deciding they need more chlorine in their diet, I can't see either of those problems changing. Of course, Splenda seems to be very popular in all the recent low-carb foods, so that might 'help' you. Couldn't stand the taste of it myself when I first tried it, and now that I know more about what it is I won't go near it.

I learned about it while consulting with a potential client who's an expert in the nutritional field (never turned into a client, but never mind). I am struggling to find any truly objective sources on the net, they seem to be vegetarian sites or die-hard protein sites, although this may be a start.

However, the base story comes from the fact that people in non-famined Africa will naturally gravitate towards a diet rich in fibers and grains, and Eskimos can easily eat semi-raw meat, yet both aren't known (like Westerners) to suffer from constipation or malnutrition. It all comes down to genetics at the end of the day, and while indigenous populations such as certain people in Africa, and eskimos, can have fixed dietary types.. mongrel types such as Europeans or Americans could be likely to swing iin either direction.

I tend to find a low meat, high carbohydrate, and high fiber diet works best for me.. but some people swear by high meat diets, and don't get the constipation that I would if I ate like them.

The 1998 study was highly controversial. Arpad Pusztai prematurely released results without verification or the support of his colleagues. Subsequent expert review by Tom Sanders (a University of London toxicologist) suggested that Pusztai's work failed to account for a number of factors. The symptoms described may also be caused by protein deficiency--which in turn would be expected in rats fed a diet solely of potatoes. There's a good timeline here.

Note also that the alarmist account linked by the parent poster is the work of Joseph Mercola, who seems more intent on selling his books than on presenting balanced information.

New toxins and allergens in foods Potentially, though unlikely. Geneticists aren't dumb enough to introduce genes from known allergens--a transgenic potato that contained genes from the peanut would be a risky proposition, but it would never get off the drawing board. The company lawyers would chew it to shreds first for fear of a lawsuit.
Whenever you buy food items in the supermarket, there's a small risk that there has been some cross-contamination with another food product, genetic modification or not. The produce guy crushed a tomato under some beets. The stock clerk dropped a jar of peanut butter.

Other damaging effects on health caused by unnatural foods This is rather a red herring. Be more specific. What effects? What does 'unnatural' mean?

Increased use of chemicals on crops, resulting in increased contamination of our water supply and food Yeah, I'm concerned about this one, too. Genes for pesticide resistance are troubling in this way, and I agree that we should discourage their use as much as possible. Trying to beat back nature with increasing doses of chemicals never works in the long term.

The creation of herbicide-resistant weeds Perhaps. On the other hand, if these genes already exist in the wild in other organisms, they might get into weeds on their own. Also, this might discourage pesticide use and ultimately lead to crop choices better suited for competition with weeds, if the pesticides did stop working.

The spread of diseases across species barriers This is pretty unlikely, unless one is deliberately introducing vulnerabilities to diseases. Further, 'conventional' agriculture is occasionally affected by a new disease; it's inconvenient and costly but not the end of the world. The notion of a disease spreading from corn to humans merits no discussion.

Loss of bio-diversity in crops Too late. We've already got a problem with monocultures in farming. Genetic modification just supplies us with a different monoculture. It's no more or less vulnerable to disease or other problems than non-GM crops.

The disturbance of ecological balance What does that mean? If clearcutting forest and planting freakishly inbred corn and heavily sprayed cotton and millions of acres of wheat didn't already disturb the 'ecological balance' then inserting the odd transgene here or there isn't going to push us over the top.

Artificially induced characteristics and inevitable side-effects will be passed on to all subsequent generations and to other related organisms. Once released, they can never be recalled or contained. The consequences of this are incalculable. Well, yes and no. Many GM crops are engineered to be infertile, both as a safety mechanism and as a way for Monsanto to control their intellectual property. (That last bothers me a great deal.) If a field of GM crops doesn't behave the way you expect it to, plough it under and try again. There don't have to be subseque

• organ damage
• thickening of the small intestine
• poor brain development

Other dangers from this this article come to include:

• New toxins and allergens in foods
• Other damaging effects on health caused by unnatural foods
• Increased use of chemicals on crops, resulting in increased contamination of our water supply and food
• The creation of herbicide-resistant weeds
• The spread of diseases across species barriers
• Loss of bio-diversity in crops
• The disturbance of ecological balance
• Artificially induced characteristics and inevitable side-effects will be passed on to all subsequent generations and to other related organisms. Once released, they can never be recalled or contained. The consequences of this are incalculable.

Here is yet another article that you can read on this topic.

And lots of people are still afraid of them such as http://www.whale.to/vaccines.html and http://www.mercola.com/2001/aug/18/vaccine_myths.h tm for what they claim are very good reasons, including claims such as conflict-of-interest with vaccine manufacturers personel on regulatory boards, using children as guinea pigs without proper informed consent, supplying misleading information about historical disease patterns and whether vaccines really had a significant impact such as for measles, other disease cropping up to take the niche of supressed disease, known and unknown vaccine contaminates or preservatives potentially leading to cancer and autism, and more. This is one of the more balanced books on the subject: Vaccinations: A Thoughtful Parent's Guide: How to Make Safe, Sensible Decisions about the Risks, Benefits, and Alternatives by Aviva Jill Romm It includes a more complete history of Edward Jenner and early vaccination good and bad than in the typical purely pro-vaccine puff pieces on him.

My point -- if the history of vaccines is anything to judge by -- nanotech will be pushed by greed and fraud and leave people wondering if the risk are woth the rewards -- and yet citizens will be left with few legal options but to accept nanotechnology in their daily lives because of government mandates ("what your child hasn't had all 30 required nano-implants -- well no public school or day care for them, and parents -- you go off to prison for neglecting your child's welfare!")

No one has proved (yet) these plants are unsafe, but our governement wants studies showing they're safe (!unsafe != safe).

Um, yes. Before you go making irreversible changes to the biosystem by introducting new plants, you'd better prove it's safe. Don't fsck with our spaceship's life support system. That's common sense.

If, for some reason I can't fathom, you want to eat GM crops, hey, be my guest. Just grow them in greenhouses with biohazard protections to keep them from spreading.

If we were afraid of using new technology we would still not using the wheel.

Non sequitor. Adopting a technology like the wheel (or room-temperature supercondictors) is a reversable change. Putting poorly-understood transgenic plants into the ecosystem is not.

see Gregg Easterbrook's shuttle series for these words written by someone much smarter than all of us.

This one was written around 1979

this one was the cover of time after the columbia blew up, but it is now only available as a copyright infringement.

I don't know about the Neural Feedback Training, but I'd suggest finding an alternative to Ritalin ASAP.

There are many studies out there about the inefficient conversion of ALA To EPA and DHA in people with ADHD, leading me to believe that pumping your kid full of stimulants is a (very) wrong answer.

Try Mercola.com, which has some very informative articles on ADHD. As a start, make sure your kid isn't having a lot of sugar and caffeine (ie drinking fruit juices and soda).

1) There are quite a few medical break-throughs being made outside of the U.S.A. as well as in. As many or more I would say. and

2) I think the money being made is being misdirected. For example, when a drug is ending its patent protection the drug companies pump money into modifying it just enough to get a new patent. And then they spend 3 times as much money on advertising the new drug than they did on the (of dubious use... my unschooled opinion only) research.

Take the acid reducing drug Prilosec for example. When it was coming out of patent protection, the company making it (AstraZeneca) did a bit of research ( Look for this quote here: Or once Prilosec comes off patent, you need to get the docs to prescribe generic Prilosec rather Nexium, the new purple pill that has--you know why it costs so much, don t you? It s those little gold bands on there.... from the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE MEDICAID DIRECTORS (NASMD) FALL 2001 MEETING) and came up with Nexium. There are many credible articles on the 'net you can find that will argue that the two drugs have near enough the same effect that it is basically silly to pay the added cost to purchase the patent protected Nexium over the now patent expired Prilosec. (See: How the Drug Companies Deceive You -- The Inside Story of Nexium as one example.) But the company has spent so much money advertising Nexium they often blind not only the public/patients, but the doctors as well.

If the companies would quit this stupid and basically useless waste of money (in a healthcare sense) then maybe your argument would be more valid. Then maybe the companies really would be funding useful research. Until then, most of the basic fundamental research where the initial discoveries are found will still be conducted where it always has been: in universities around the world, funded by governments. And then the drug companies can still take it from there... if they stop wasting money on bullshit ad campaigns.

:-) Have a nice day sir. Sorry, I have other plans.

I've gotten a lot of info from here

Low grain-based carbs, low saturated fat and trans-fatty acids, low refined sugar, more monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat, and more omega 3. I've lost 50 lbs in 15 weeks and I feel much more energetic. I've got about 25 lbs to go before I hit the BMI upper threshold for normal weight. The best part is that I'll have to go shopping soon for normal sized clothes.

I haven't started an exercise program and I probably wont (although I should but I am lazy as hell).

Seriously, Atkins (and it's derivatives) are the easiest diets I've ever seen. Younger and younger people are getting heart disease, diabetes, and other obesity-caused ailments. You should at least try it.

And lay off the carbohydrates too. This might start a flame war (Atkins diet arguments and such.) You should lay of the bread, chips, orange juice, and other things that have a lot of carbs. This stuff gets absorbed by your body and makes you fat. Actual fat is more or less just passing through and makes it into the toilet with your centrum multivitamin.

Cutting back on the carbohydrates and stepping up on the exercise is really what makes the difference.

Now, would anyone with a better understanding of dietary values care to correct me?

Sorta, kinda. Fat definitely does not "just pass through" in any sense. It's actually easier to digest and goes more directly to your flab. However the Atkins theory is that severely restricting carbohydrate consumption throws the body into a different metabolic state, where weight loss becomes much easier.

I've been following this lately, because some interesting data is now coming out. It turns out that all the physicians and nutrionists who have been mocking Atkins as pseudo-science for the past 30 years or so, did not have any actual scientific results to back up their criticisms--just common knowledge and assumptions. Assumptions which completely ignored what was being learned about endocrinology.

I think there's going to a real shit-storm within the next 5 years, because so much of what we've been told by the establishment (iow USDA and AHA in the US) was based on mere assumption but presented as science. And it's beginning to look like it was wrong--that the food pyramid with its big base in carbs (grains) is a recipe for obesity and Type II diabetes.

All through my 20s and 30s I practiced (mostly) the low-fat high-carb recommendations, and managed to stay pretty active overall. I always thought that Atkins was some kind of fringe quack, based on what I read. But now that the truth is coming out, there is no evidence that Atkins doesn't work, and never was. Where it has been studied recently, the data that is coming out suggests that it might work after all. And by work, I don't mean just rapid weight loss--I mean rapid weight loss, while increasing HDL, without increasing LDL, and none of the other dire health problems predicted by mainstream nutritional theory.

Just so you know this is not an ill-informed rant, here are a few references:

Here's a decent primer on more current nutrional thinking.

This article from the New York Times Magazine was one of the better ones, because it dug deeply enough to uncover the original gap in the science and the way it was glossed over for political expediency. Unfortunately, the article is old enough that it's in the for-pay archives. However, a quick google search for the title turns up a number of web sites with copies. For instance, here, here, here, here, and a pdf here.

There are other articles I've seen within the past 2 years that make what seem to me to be good solid scientific points, but I can't remember the reference. FYI, my interest all started when I read a small AP blurb in a newspaper about a nutrional researcher who got the idea to locate and examine the results of all the studies of the Atkins diet, then discovered that there were no such studies!

According to the study, rubbernecking accounted for 16 percent of accidents reported. This was followed by driver fatigue, which was responsible for 12 percent, looking at scenery or landmarks (10 percent), passenger or child distractions (nine percent), adjusting the radio, tape or CD player (seven percent), and cell phone use (five percent).

We can dig canals with nuclear bombs.

Exploring space doesnt destroy our living environment, so this is not a good example. If we try this, we will be unable to do quite a few more interesting things.

We can kill people who are diagnosed with terminal illnesses.

Its called euthenasia. It happens in every country, although its usually under the guise of pain reduction (just increase the dose of morphine).

We can create a society where every human movement is tracked by the government.

When you go shopping, there is a good chance that you are caught on tape. In some cities (ie. London), there are cameras in the streets that record your every move.

We can release terraforming gasses into our atmosphere to raise the temperature.

We are doing so, but not on purpose. Methane is produced by our cattle. CO2 is released when we burn fossil fuel. They are both greenhouse gasses.

We can breed deadly diseases.

Polio has been synthesized. The same technology can be used to create new viruses.

Less harmfully, we can grow enough food to feed everyone in the world (at least for now).

There is a surplus of food being produced. The problem is that many people cant get it or cant afford it. The distribution problem is quite complex. I dare you to solve it if you can.

We can move quantities of earth to fight erosion.

Thats exactly what happens in the dutch coastal regions.

We can produce flying cars.

I dont understand the fundamental difference between an airplane and a flying car. An airplane can move over the ground on wheels and can fly in the air. What more do you want?

We can build cities under the sea.

There is a deep sea facility in which divers can spend the night. It allows them to work for long periods of time without having to decompress after every dive. Building a city is just scaling up the same idea. Its not very useful or interesting though, so we dont.

We can cheaply produce enough drugs to bring the HIV epidemic under control in China and Africa.

True, but this is hardly a technological challenge. Producing enough drugs wont solve the problems of distribution, grey imports and providing proper healthcare. Solve these problems and youll be famous.

But do we go about trying to do these things? No.

We do actually. When we dont do something, its usually because its not very interesting or because we are unable to. "We do it because we can" doesnt mean that we will do everything that is possible. It means that humans are often interested in solving interesting problems that dont have a clear benefit. There is a limited amount of effort that a finite amount of humans can expend, but there are infinitely many things to do. So we do have to choose. You cant simply point out something that we dont do and refute this motto.

... omg, i've stooped so low as to post a comment with THAT subject line.. Oh well.

The advantage of a low carbohydrate diet is that the calories you do take in make you feel more satisfied, as well as not driving up your insulin levels.

This is so important. Read Dr. Mercola's pages on Insulin. Eating a diet based around carbohydrates is a lot like filling your car with gasoline, and neglecting the rest of the regular maintenance - no oil changes, no tranny service, no brake pad replacements, never replacing the windshield wipers, headlights, air filters or tires, etc.. Your car will run, well for a while, and it'll keep chugging along for even longer still - but eventually, the damn thing just doesn't work. Nutrition/food is the same way - carbohydrates provide energy to run the body, but are seriously lacking in the "routine care" maintenance nutrients present in veggies and animal products.

... omg, i've stooped so low as to post a comment with THAT subject line.. Oh well.

The advantage of a low carbohydrate diet is that the calories you do take in make you feel more satisfied, as well as not driving up your insulin levels.

This is so important. Read Dr. Mercola's pages on Insulin. Eating a diet based around carbohydrates is a lot like filling your car with gasoline, and neglecting the rest of the regular maintenance - no oil changes, no tranny service, no brake pad replacements, never replacing the windshield wipers, headlights, air filters or tires, etc.. Your car will run, well for a while, and it'll keep chugging along for even longer still - but eventually, the damn thing just doesn't work. Nutrition/food is the same way - carbohydrates provide energy to run the body, but are seriously lacking in the "routine care" maintenance nutrients present in veggies and animal products.

... omg, i've stooped so low as to post a comment with THAT subject line.. Oh well.

The advantage of a low carbohydrate diet is that the calories you do take in make you feel more satisfied, as well as not driving up your insulin levels.

This is so important. Read Dr. Mercola's pages on Insulin. Eating a diet based around carbohydrates is a lot like filling your car with gasoline, and neglecting the rest of the regular maintenance - no oil changes, no tranny service, no brake pad replacements, never replacing the windshield wipers, headlights, air filters or tires, etc.. Your car will run, well for a while, and it'll keep chugging along for even longer still - but eventually, the damn thing just doesn't work. Nutrition/food is the same way - carbohydrates provide energy to run the body, but are seriously lacking in the "routine care" maintenance nutrients present in veggies and animal products.

... omg, i've stooped so low as to post a comment with THAT subject line.. Oh well.

The advantage of a low carbohydrate diet is that the calories you do take in make you feel more satisfied, as well as not driving up your insulin levels.

This is so important. Read Dr. Mercola's pages on Insulin. Eating a diet based around carbohydrates is a lot like filling your car with gasoline, and neglecting the rest of the regular maintenance - no oil changes, no tranny service, no brake pad replacements, never replacing the windshield wipers, headlights, air filters or tires, etc.. Your car will run, well for a while, and it'll keep chugging along for even longer still - but eventually, the damn thing just doesn't work. Nutrition/food is the same way - carbohydrates provide energy to run the body, but are seriously lacking in the "routine care" maintenance nutrients present in veggies and animal products.

if your diet requires willpower to stay on it, then it's not the right kind of diet for you.

check out this site - imho, Dr. Mercola has some of the best guidelines around. Definitely look into "metabolic typing".

Man, you think wood and concrete are bad?

Look at this stuff! DHMO is so dangerous, hell, it can kill a man in mere minutes!

Did you know the majority of people want DHMO banned? The conspiracy of the companies selling this stuff is so obvious it's not even funny!

This substance is so deadly it kills without warning. Strangely enough, there are wacko groups who would support the continued use of DHMO!

Here's some more quality information on DHMO, please read it before you kill yourself with this horrible substance. Just look at the list of people addicted to this substance: The KKK, Hitler, Pedophiles, and Charles Manson. The substance clearly changes one's mood for the worse -- just look at the groups it is linked to.

Please sign the petition to ban this horrible substance now before we all die from it.

Thank you.

>I must admit that being from Norway, Europe
>We're currently strugling with The Sellafield Nuclear plant in England, as they dump their waste directly out in the sea, killing our coastline.

Uhhhh... you do realise that England isn't part of Norway, right? That they aren't even connected in the most remote manner? And that the majority of the radiation leakage ocurred when the plant was called Windscale, eh?

And you would suggest Americans are stupid...

Probably the biggest problem in medicine today is lack of sleep of interns, nurses, and doctors. No joke. So many of these people lack sleep and it is killing us all.

Long Hours, Little Sleep

Sleep Deprived Medical Residents Ask for Limited Work Hours

Fatigue, Sleepiness, and Medical Errors

Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the US, Causing 250,000 Deaths Every Year