I seem to remember reading that. I know it keeps the meat from turning grey. Never mattered to me because I'm pretty color blind, but I think we've got better/safer preservatives if you're just trying to extend shelf life.
what made me give up processed meats was finding out how it was we figured out nitrates caused cancer: a bunch of cows were being fed expired herring and getting liver cancer at abnormally high rates. Now, to be fair those cows ate a _lot_ more nitrates than what's expected in a day, but then again so do a lot of Americans...
To be fair I don't care much for meat (I've got a weak sense of taste and mostly pick up on texture in foods so meat's kinda bleah to me).
one of the Scandinavian countries did it, I forget which one. Drug hard use went down. The catch was they treated hard drugs as an illness. If you wanted to shoot up Heroine the government paid for it. You went to a clinic, got high, and as soon as you came down you went straight to drug rehab.
Folks don't shoot up and/or take meth for kicks. They're usually doing it to cope with mental illness. Treat the underlining cause and the problem goes away. Now, for most of those folks we can't really do that, because we just don't know enough about mental illness yet. But again, we can still treat it to some degree.
That said, I don't think we can do this in America. Too many Americans would be furious over tax dollars paying for "junkies" to shoot up (the fact we call them Junkies tells you how loaded our language is.... but such is life in America). You can point out that it's cheaper than the crimes they'd commit, but I've pressed these kinda folks on that before and if you keep at them they'll either stop talking to you or support forced work camps for the drug users. I mean, prison slavery _is_ one way to keep them away from drugs and not have to pay for it...
I worked at a fast food joint when I was a kid that kept being robbed. It's a minor miracle I wasn't. The owner kept the lobby open 24/7 until finally somebody got pistol whipped by a robber and the local cops told that owner "next time somebody gets hurt we're gonna hold you criminally liable". Only then did the owner close the lobbies after 10.
I can tell you that if you're running a business that can be robbed doing away with cash is a huge boon to the employees. Though it's going to be interesting when we become cashless and petty crime just goes away. I guess you can mug me for my shoes and my cell phone. But as soon as I get home I'm going to lock the cell phone (and modern DRM means you can't even use it for parts) and my shoes cost $50 bucks on Amazon.
See here for a list of common sense things that are just plain wrong.
The real world is a stupidly complex mess that very, very often operates counter-intuitively. There's a saying in science and math: "For every sufficiently complex problem there is a simple, elegant solution that is also wrong".
Jokes aside the reason nuclear is a nonstarter in America is Americans don't trust their government and private institutions to keep it safe. Given the levels of corruption we routinely see that's not unreasonable.
Now, I personally think if we could convince Americans that government regulation works it wouldn't be an issue. But sooner or later somebody comes in with talk of "Job Killing Regulations" and an anti-gov't ad blitz and gets 51% of the voters to put somebody in power that'll gut safety regs for short term profit.
Look at Fukushima. 3 70 year old executives more or less destroyed a city for a quick buck and they _might_ finish out a life of opulence and splendor in prison. Or they might tie it up in court until they die of old age. See the problem?
I'm sure she goes a few places with cash she doesn't want me to know about. But the fact is she still spent an awful lot of that trip time going to museums and tourist traps.
Two family illnesses followed by the 2008 crash devastated me. And I'm not alone. 60-80% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. That house you have a mortgage on? You don't own it, the bank does.
If I may digress for a moment, this is one of the reasons women's rights was such a problem for the ruling class. The rulers didn't want to give the masses real property and financial security. But any fool can see that's not fair. You spend your whole life working for the lord (or the robber baron as the case my be) and have nothing to show for it. Solution? Make women property. Then at least there's _something_ you own (your wife and the children she bore). I wish all those numbskull blue haired feminists could figure this out so they could actual do something useful for a change.
Everything is about money. Things get really fucked up really fast when you give 50%+ of civilization's output to 1% of the population. The shit you have to do to maintain that craziness is, well, batshit insane.
We already have social security. Put a stop to our massive, pointless wars (7 or 8 of them give or take since I _think_ we're pulling out of Yemen, not sure about Syria yet, believe it when I see it) and we'll be well on our way. Meanwhile we can start taxing taxing these guys. That'll account for 30% of the population right there.
86% of the manufacturing jobs lost in America since the 70s were due to automation and process improvement, not outsourcing. Self driving cars and frictionless checkout are coming in the next 20 years tops, probably less. Farming robots are rapidly developing. Drones are already being used to replace professional crop dusters.
Face it, we're running out of the kind of work that 90% of the population can do. We can't all be surgeons. It doesn't matter how hard you want to work if you're hands aren't steady enough. Same with being a math wizard. Study all you want, you'll hit a wall somewhere. Most hit it long before Einstein (he famously joked about it and numbnuts misread it to think he was bad at math).
The world is full of billions of people not smart enough to live in the information economy. But they _are_ smart enough to hold a gun. If you abandon them, especially in a country like America where there are more guns than people, expect nasty things...
their power comes from money. Specifically they say who lives and who dies because we're a society where if you don't work, you don't eat. And they decide who gets to work. Maybe during the cold war when they were afraid of outsourcing their factories least they be seized by the communists, but that boogieman is long gone.
And no, UBI wouldn't be the masses living in poverty. We already have enough housing to end homelessness and enough food to feed everyone and enough medicine to care for everyone. Look it up. We owe most of that money to ourselves. Only about $6 trillion is owed overseas and most of that is basically tribute. It's people buying our bounds and in doing so making the US Dollar the defacto world currency. They're not doing that out of the goodness of their hearts or because we're just so competitive, they're doing that because we have 19 air carriers and China, our closest rival, has 2, both old Soviet retrofits.
And besides, did you even bother reading my post? We could pay off our national debt in 40 years with the money saved from Medicare for All. We could do the foreign debt in 6-8 years. But again, we don't want to. We _want_ to owe those folks money because it locks them into our currency.
The puritanical myth that people won't work unless they constantly fear death by starvation, the elements or lack of medicine is just that, a myth. One created by the ruling class' propaganda and indoctrination.
You're being manipulated by the ruling class. I really wish I could get people to see these patterns. It's not like the American ruling class is doing anything special. It's the same techniques since the bronze age: divide and conquer the working class along economic, religious and racial subdivisions. We see the pattern over and over again (the US Southern Strategy, India's caste system, Britain's classes, Hell, when the Japanese didn't have any racial or religious divides they just declared everyone in "unclean" professions low-caste and kept books of their names so they could oppress them.
It's called Kicking Down, and as a method of controlling a large population it's been almost completely effective. Every now and then cracks appear and are promptly spackle over. I just don't get why folks don't see it and get angry.
the ruling class not wanting to pay for it is holding it back.
I mean, we have massive amounts of data that single payer healthcare would be infinitely superior. The latest studies (real ones done by Universities) show $5 trillion savings every 10 years. We could pay off the national debt in my kid's lifetime with that and all our foreign held debt in _my_ lifetime. 70% of Americans support it.. Still no go.
Meanwhile several Democratic congressmen just exited Congress while imploring their party to abandon Medicare for All (funny that they all took big money from insurance & Phrama, I'm sure that was just them buying into their agenda).
America has a ruling class, but we like to pretend we don't. Like most things in life pretending the real world doesn't exist is bad juju.
I can see where she went and what she did based on the credit card receipts. She's a total milktoast. More than once she's remarked that it's only old folks where she goes, and I know she ain't lying because, again, I can see the admission fees and souvenirs on my credit card. I didn't even raise her this way. Doesn't help that she hasn't got much to rebel against (I'm kind of a loser, so the only "rebelling" she can do is not being a failure in life, also I'm pretty into death metal so there's not a whole hell of a lot of music she can "shock" me with. )
Anyway, Not every 20 year old is a party animal. This one was pretty clearly running a professional party for money. Anyone could do that, not just a 20 year old. The real problem is that you put 300 folks in a building meant for 20 tops it warps the floors.
as soon as we funded the DMV and put enough clerks in place. There's still a bit of a wait for your kid's driver license. All told I think it took me a couple of hours IIRC. But you can get away with that because most folks do that 2, maybe 3 times in their lives (4 if you count when they were kids waiting).
America has a ruling class. That ruling class uses propaganda against the working class. It is technically a conspiracy since the ruling class is doing this in concert.
Not all conspiracies are space aliens shooting JFK with magic bullets. A "conspiracy" is just two or more people getting together to plan and do something bad for their own profit.
That's not true. Bureaucrats don't pass laws, they enforce them. You seem to be using the word "bureaucrat" as a stand in for "anyone in the government I don't like". That's not what a bureaucrat is, but it _is_ how a certain group of people in America would like to think. You're being taken advantage of.
As for anger, look that the language you employed in your post ("Here I'll help you understand", "Wrong", "Unseen"). Those are blunt, angry words. You have good reason to be upset, you're just pointed at the wrong target.
right here that is how Trump is going to kill these regulations.
The TL;DR; is that the EPA is required to consider cost when implementing regulations, so if Trump wins this fight he can use that SCOTUS ruling to life the restrictions on mercury emissions. So yeah, the headline is spot on.
The article isn't all that well written though. I suspect it's hamstrung by the mainstream media's desperate attempts to seem "fair and balanced" and to present both sides of the issue to some extent. There really isn't two sides here though. Trump is fighting for more mercury in the air. That's all there is to it. The only argument is can we have more mercury without any noticeable health impacts.
Given what I know about mercury poisoning (admittedly not a expert but I know folks with mercury poisoning from relatively small doses over time due to fish) I'd say no.
I'm not trying to call the GP out for all this. I do these sort of things all the time on/.. This is a web forum and there isn't time to support every little point in a post before losing interest (either in typing it or reading it). The goal is to get a point across, which the GP did. But at the same time I'd be interested in something that supports that point (e.g. that the original rule limiting mercury emissions was unnecessary and likely done without honest intentions).
On the other hand it _is_ possible the GP's intentions are the best either, e.g. that they're supporting a pro-coal agenda for some reason. I doubt they're an astro turfer (we're too far away from an election for that) but they might have drunk some of the coal industry's kool-aid. As I mentioned, I'm pretty nervous about mercury all around.
Also, I am kinda fed up with companies externalizing their costs onto my health so that they can continue to run businesses that wouldn't be profitable if they had to pay to clean up their messes (or not make them in the first place). Finally, I'd like to see that "Green New Deal" the left is pushing. A massive infrastructure push is just what this country needs to tied us over until the next tech boom. So it's not like I don't have a horse in this race (or an Agenda, ooooo,scary....).:)
Btw of you read up on the case, you will also find that they *knew* that what they were doing was unlawful and improper
Emphasis added by me. By writing "improper" here directly after using the word "unlawful" the GP is implying that the ruling was done for less than honest reasons. The two words combined give that sense in English (I'll admit I'm not enough of a language expert to say why in detail, I can only say it's because of the context those words tend to be used).
GP than says an unnamed VIP (which on another thread somebody pointed out might have been Hilary) pushed the ruling. This implies that the VIP wanted to keep themselves secret. There was no reason to add this point otherwise. GP could have just said "The Obama Administration" since Obama was ultimately responsible for the ruling. This is again a tactic being used to cast doubt on the validity of the rule by implying the people responsible for it refused to own it.
just said that the EPA has to consider costs, it has nothing to do with whether or not somebody in the Obama administration put forward unnecessary regulations for less than honest reasons. That's the thing I'm looking for a citation for. Do you have something for that?
but in case it gets missed, can I get some citations? You're implying Obama knew that reducing mercury levels wasn't worthwhile but forced the EPA to implement this rule anyway, presumable for less than honest reasons (e.g. solar or nuclear lobbyists paid him to attack coal production). That's possible.
Obama certainly wasn't above doing what his donors asked him (his cabinet was chock full of the same Goldman Sach's folks Clinton (Bill) and Bush's were.
That said, I keep saying this but there are _no_ safe level of mercury exposure. And again, as mentioned on another thread I know folks who got sever mercury poisoning from tuna fish for Pete's sake. So I'm very much inclined to side with Obama on this one.
Now, one other possibility is that it was easier to regulate mercury emissions than other emissions they actually wanted to regulate, so they target mercury to get at those. This isn't strictly on the up and up but it would make sense given how bad mercury is. Still, if the end result is less mercury in the air I'm all for it.
Slashdot Mirror
I seem to remember reading that. I know it keeps the meat from turning grey. Never mattered to me because I'm pretty color blind, but I think we've got better/safer preservatives if you're just trying to extend shelf life.
what made me give up processed meats was finding out how it was we figured out nitrates caused cancer: a bunch of cows were being fed expired herring and getting liver cancer at abnormally high rates. Now, to be fair those cows ate a _lot_ more nitrates than what's expected in a day, but then again so do a lot of Americans...
To be fair I don't care much for meat (I've got a weak sense of taste and mostly pick up on texture in foods so meat's kinda bleah to me).
why nitrates in vegetables aren't really a problem
TL;DR; cooking a high protein food at high heat is what makes them cancerous.
one of the Scandinavian countries did it, I forget which one. Drug hard use went down. The catch was they treated hard drugs as an illness. If you wanted to shoot up Heroine the government paid for it. You went to a clinic, got high, and as soon as you came down you went straight to drug rehab.
Folks don't shoot up and/or take meth for kicks. They're usually doing it to cope with mental illness. Treat the underlining cause and the problem goes away. Now, for most of those folks we can't really do that, because we just don't know enough about mental illness yet. But again, we can still treat it to some degree.
That said, I don't think we can do this in America. Too many Americans would be furious over tax dollars paying for "junkies" to shoot up (the fact we call them Junkies tells you how loaded our language is.... but such is life in America). You can point out that it's cheaper than the crimes they'd commit, but I've pressed these kinda folks on that before and if you keep at them they'll either stop talking to you or support forced work camps for the drug users. I mean, prison slavery _is_ one way to keep them away from drugs and not have to pay for it...
just for different reasons.
I worked at a fast food joint when I was a kid that kept being robbed. It's a minor miracle I wasn't. The owner kept the lobby open 24/7 until finally somebody got pistol whipped by a robber and the local cops told that owner "next time somebody gets hurt we're gonna hold you criminally liable". Only then did the owner close the lobbies after 10.
I can tell you that if you're running a business that can be robbed doing away with cash is a huge boon to the employees. Though it's going to be interesting when we become cashless and petty crime just goes away. I guess you can mug me for my shoes and my cell phone. But as soon as I get home I'm going to lock the cell phone (and modern DRM means you can't even use it for parts) and my shoes cost $50 bucks on Amazon.
See here for a list of common sense things that are just plain wrong.
The real world is a stupidly complex mess that very, very often operates counter-intuitively. There's a saying in science and math: "For every sufficiently complex problem there is a simple, elegant solution that is also wrong".
when we've got Clean, Beautiful Coal?
Jokes aside the reason nuclear is a nonstarter in America is Americans don't trust their government and private institutions to keep it safe. Given the levels of corruption we routinely see that's not unreasonable.
Now, I personally think if we could convince Americans that government regulation works it wouldn't be an issue. But sooner or later somebody comes in with talk of "Job Killing Regulations" and an anti-gov't ad blitz and gets 51% of the voters to put somebody in power that'll gut safety regs for short term profit.
Look at Fukushima. 3 70 year old executives more or less destroyed a city for a quick buck and they _might_ finish out a life of opulence and splendor in prison. Or they might tie it up in court until they die of old age. See the problem?
I'm sure she goes a few places with cash she doesn't want me to know about. But the fact is she still spent an awful lot of that trip time going to museums and tourist traps.
Two family illnesses followed by the 2008 crash devastated me. And I'm not alone. 60-80% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. That house you have a mortgage on? You don't own it, the bank does.
If I may digress for a moment, this is one of the reasons women's rights was such a problem for the ruling class. The rulers didn't want to give the masses real property and financial security. But any fool can see that's not fair. You spend your whole life working for the lord (or the robber baron as the case my be) and have nothing to show for it. Solution? Make women property. Then at least there's _something_ you own (your wife and the children she bore). I wish all those numbskull blue haired feminists could figure this out so they could actual do something useful for a change.
Everything is about money. Things get really fucked up really fast when you give 50%+ of civilization's output to 1% of the population. The shit you have to do to maintain that craziness is, well, batshit insane.
we're about to put 3.5 million people out of work with another 3.4 million behind them.
We already have social security. Put a stop to our massive, pointless wars (7 or 8 of them give or take since I _think_ we're pulling out of Yemen, not sure about Syria yet, believe it when I see it) and we'll be well on our way. Meanwhile we can start taxing taxing these guys. That'll account for 30% of the population right there.
86% of the manufacturing jobs lost in America since the 70s were due to automation and process improvement, not outsourcing. Self driving cars and frictionless checkout are coming in the next 20 years tops, probably less. Farming robots are rapidly developing. Drones are already being used to replace professional crop dusters.
Face it, we're running out of the kind of work that 90% of the population can do. We can't all be surgeons. It doesn't matter how hard you want to work if you're hands aren't steady enough. Same with being a math wizard. Study all you want, you'll hit a wall somewhere. Most hit it long before Einstein (he famously joked about it and numbnuts misread it to think he was bad at math).
The world is full of billions of people not smart enough to live in the information economy. But they _are_ smart enough to hold a gun. If you abandon them, especially in a country like America where there are more guns than people, expect nasty things...
80% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, 60% if you don't consider "$1000 in the bank" paycheck to paycheck.
discussing how American can afford UBI.
their power comes from money. Specifically they say who lives and who dies because we're a society where if you don't work, you don't eat. And they decide who gets to work. Maybe during the cold war when they were afraid of outsourcing their factories least they be seized by the communists, but that boogieman is long gone.
And no, UBI wouldn't be the masses living in poverty. We already have enough housing to end homelessness and enough food to feed everyone and enough medicine to care for everyone. Look it up. We owe most of that money to ourselves. Only about $6 trillion is owed overseas and most of that is basically tribute. It's people buying our bounds and in doing so making the US Dollar the defacto world currency. They're not doing that out of the goodness of their hearts or because we're just so competitive, they're doing that because we have 19 air carriers and China, our closest rival, has 2, both old Soviet retrofits.
And besides, did you even bother reading my post? We could pay off our national debt in 40 years with the money saved from Medicare for All. We could do the foreign debt in 6-8 years. But again, we don't want to. We _want_ to owe those folks money because it locks them into our currency.
The puritanical myth that people won't work unless they constantly fear death by starvation, the elements or lack of medicine is just that, a myth. One created by the ruling class' propaganda and indoctrination.
You're being manipulated by the ruling class. I really wish I could get people to see these patterns. It's not like the American ruling class is doing anything special. It's the same techniques since the bronze age: divide and conquer the working class along economic, religious and racial subdivisions. We see the pattern over and over again (the US Southern Strategy, India's caste system, Britain's classes, Hell, when the Japanese didn't have any racial or religious divides they just declared everyone in "unclean" professions low-caste and kept books of their names so they could oppress them.
It's called Kicking Down, and as a method of controlling a large population it's been almost completely effective. Every now and then cracks appear and are promptly spackle over. I just don't get why folks don't see it and get angry.
the ruling class not wanting to pay for it is holding it back.
I mean, we have massive amounts of data that single payer healthcare would be infinitely superior. The latest studies (real ones done by Universities) show $5 trillion savings every 10 years. We could pay off the national debt in my kid's lifetime with that and all our foreign held debt in _my_ lifetime. 70% of Americans support it.. Still no go.
Meanwhile several Democratic congressmen just exited Congress while imploring their party to abandon Medicare for All (funny that they all took big money from insurance & Phrama, I'm sure that was just them buying into their agenda).
America has a ruling class, but we like to pretend we don't. Like most things in life pretending the real world doesn't exist is bad juju.
I can see where she went and what she did based on the credit card receipts. She's a total milktoast. More than once she's remarked that it's only old folks where she goes, and I know she ain't lying because, again, I can see the admission fees and souvenirs on my credit card. I didn't even raise her this way. Doesn't help that she hasn't got much to rebel against (I'm kind of a loser, so the only "rebelling" she can do is not being a failure in life, also I'm pretty into death metal so there's not a whole hell of a lot of music she can "shock" me with. )
Anyway, Not every 20 year old is a party animal. This one was pretty clearly running a professional party for money. Anyone could do that, not just a 20 year old. The real problem is that you put 300 folks in a building meant for 20 tops it warps the floors.
as soon as we funded the DMV and put enough clerks in place. There's still a bit of a wait for your kid's driver license. All told I think it took me a couple of hours IIRC. But you can get away with that because most folks do that 2, maybe 3 times in their lives (4 if you count when they were kids waiting).
I'm a conspiracy analyst :).
America has a ruling class. That ruling class uses propaganda against the working class. It is technically a conspiracy since the ruling class is doing this in concert.
Not all conspiracies are space aliens shooting JFK with magic bullets. A "conspiracy" is just two or more people getting together to plan and do something bad for their own profit.
That's not true. Bureaucrats don't pass laws, they enforce them. You seem to be using the word "bureaucrat" as a stand in for "anyone in the government I don't like". That's not what a bureaucrat is, but it _is_ how a certain group of people in America would like to think. You're being taken advantage of.
As for anger, look that the language you employed in your post ("Here I'll help you understand", "Wrong", "Unseen"). Those are blunt, angry words. You have good reason to be upset, you're just pointed at the wrong target.
right here that is how Trump is going to kill these regulations.
The TL;DR; is that the EPA is required to consider cost when implementing regulations, so if Trump wins this fight he can use that SCOTUS ruling to life the restrictions on mercury emissions. So yeah, the headline is spot on.
The article isn't all that well written though. I suspect it's hamstrung by the mainstream media's desperate attempts to seem "fair and balanced" and to present both sides of the issue to some extent. There really isn't two sides here though. Trump is fighting for more mercury in the air. That's all there is to it. The only argument is can we have more mercury without any noticeable health impacts.
Given what I know about mercury poisoning (admittedly not a expert but I know folks with mercury poisoning from relatively small doses over time due to fish) I'd say no.
I'm not trying to call the GP out for all this. I do these sort of things all the time on /.. This is a web forum and there isn't time to support every little point in a post before losing interest (either in typing it or reading it). The goal is to get a point across, which the GP did. But at the same time I'd be interested in something that supports that point (e.g. that the original rule limiting mercury emissions was unnecessary and likely done without honest intentions).
:)
On the other hand it _is_ possible the GP's intentions are the best either, e.g. that they're supporting a pro-coal agenda for some reason. I doubt they're an astro turfer (we're too far away from an election for that) but they might have drunk some of the coal industry's kool-aid. As I mentioned, I'm pretty nervous about mercury all around.
Also, I am kinda fed up with companies externalizing their costs onto my health so that they can continue to run businesses that wouldn't be profitable if they had to pay to clean up their messes (or not make them in the first place). Finally, I'd like to see that "Green New Deal" the left is pushing. A massive infrastructure push is just what this country needs to tied us over until the next tech boom. So it's not like I don't have a horse in this race (or an Agenda, ooooo,scary....).
Emphasis added by me. By writing "improper" here directly after using the word "unlawful" the GP is implying that the ruling was done for less than honest reasons. The two words combined give that sense in English (I'll admit I'm not enough of a language expert to say why in detail, I can only say it's because of the context those words tend to be used).
GP than says an unnamed VIP (which on another thread somebody pointed out might have been Hilary) pushed the ruling. This implies that the VIP wanted to keep themselves secret. There was no reason to add this point otherwise. GP could have just said "The Obama Administration" since Obama was ultimately responsible for the ruling. This is again a tactic being used to cast doubt on the validity of the rule by implying the people responsible for it refused to own it.
just said that the EPA has to consider costs, it has nothing to do with whether or not somebody in the Obama administration put forward unnecessary regulations for less than honest reasons. That's the thing I'm looking for a citation for. Do you have something for that?
but in case it gets missed, can I get some citations? You're implying Obama knew that reducing mercury levels wasn't worthwhile but forced the EPA to implement this rule anyway, presumable for less than honest reasons (e.g. solar or nuclear lobbyists paid him to attack coal production). That's possible.
Obama certainly wasn't above doing what his donors asked him (his cabinet was chock full of the same Goldman Sach's folks Clinton (Bill) and Bush's were.
That said, I keep saying this but there are _no_ safe level of mercury exposure. And again, as mentioned on another thread I know folks who got sever mercury poisoning from tuna fish for Pete's sake. So I'm very much inclined to side with Obama on this one.
Now, one other possibility is that it was easier to regulate mercury emissions than other emissions they actually wanted to regulate, so they target mercury to get at those. This isn't strictly on the up and up but it would make sense given how bad mercury is. Still, if the end result is less mercury in the air I'm all for it.