Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Peterkro said:
You mean mainstream studies like the one who said Thalidomide was safe and useful drug (actually it's recently been used again for some illness,with very strong warnings about pregnancy obv). The chemo treatment I was on works in about 50% of cases and this of course has reams of paper to show it does.They don't know of course why it works.Sounds a bit like acupuncture does it not perhaps you think the five thousand history of it's use and success doesn't line up against a medical study where most of the participants are in the pay of the multi-pharmas.You have a charming and naive faith in the infallibility of scientific methodology that faith is not born out by scientific studies of course.The peer reviewed studies you refer to remind me of various studies of how many angels fit on a pinhead,theology the science of the time,sure we've moved on but science in the future will be looked on as much as religious mumbo jumbo is today(by thinking people obv.)

The bad thalidomide was a isomer sold as a generic. Now used for leprosy.

As for alternative treatments, the placebo effect can be very very strong. If it works, it works. A weekly acupuncture therapy session if it is as cheap and effective as the drugs, is fine by me.
 
True,the rubbish I wrote up there ^^^ was merely to point out that if something works it works,whether it's placebo effect,chemical or mumbo jumbo is pretty irrelevant,IMO.

PS Thalidomide is now in stage two trials for a virus affecting at least 200 million people worldwide HepC.
 
Peterkro said:
You mean mainstream studies like the one who said Thalidomide was safe and useful drug (actually it's recently been used again for some illness,with very strong warnings about pregnancy obv).

That's the beauty of science. It's dynamic. Feed it truth and you get an answer. Feed it more truth and you get a better one. But there must always be proof.

The chemo treatment I was on works in about 50% of cases and this of course has reams of paper to show it does.They don't know of course why it works.

I'd be willing to bet they do indeed have a very sound theory of how it works.

Sounds a bit like acupuncture does it not perhaps you think the five thousand history of it's use and success doesn't line up against a medical study where most of the participants are in the pay of the multi-pharmas.

Ah, the conspiracy. I'm to believe that an overwhelming force of researchers, including university-, government- and foundation-sponsored are corrupt beyond words.

You have a charming and naive faith in the infallibility of scientific methodology that faith is not born out by scientific studies of course.

I find it mind blowingly ironic that I'm being branded naive for not buying into "medicine" that has failed every proof-of-concept test to which it ever was put.
 
Applespider said:
Sometimes, but not all non-organic is laden in chemicals so it kinda depends on the provenance and where I'm buying it from. Organic pasta possibly not, organic fruit more likely.

I do the same but when organic pasta is on sale(or reasonable) I buy that to support the organic producers. They are up against the big companies and I don't want them to give up.

I always buy organic milk for my kids, no matter the cost because they drink so much milk and the hormones and antibiotics in there get me a little worried.
 
pseudobrit said:
I find it mind blowingly ironic that I'm being branded naive for not buying into "medicine" that has failed every proof-of-concept test to which it ever was put.
Assuming something is false just because there isn't proof is naive.
 
EricNau said:
...And tell me why recycling is bad. :confused:

It costs local municipalities more to pick it up at everyone's homes (and wastes more energy and fuel in such an inefficient process) than it saves in manufacturing costs or resource depletion. Much of it just ends up in landfill anyway, because no one wants the junk. Aluminum is the exception. Maybe someday the raw materials for things like paper and plastics will be depleted enough and/or the uses and processes for recycling will be efficient, profitable, environmentally sound enough that it does make sense, but in the meantime, recycling simply makes you feel good about yourself and is ultimately detrimental to the cause it seeks to advance. And if you knew that, you probably wouldn't recycle.

The other two -- reduce and reuse -- are infinitely more important. But they're not really "activities" like recycling, and it's harder to feel good about not doing something.

Also, did it ever occur to you that some people may buy hybrids to save money on gas?

They could buy a Yaris for much less than a Prius and save even more money in the end. Hybrids usually don't return the mileage promised on the Mahoney sticker and the manufacture alone of a new automobile requires a tremendous amount of resources and energy.

Hybrids do one thing very well, though: they help cut down on city smog. And if that's why someone buys one and pays the extra money then that's fine. But if they buy it to save the planet they're not helping and they've essentially paid a premium to deceive and feel good about themselves.
 
Hey I may be able to agree with Psuedobrit about something, recycling (the domestic variety at present being given the green wash) is essentially a waste of energy,a good proportion of the plastics and other stuff collected for recycling in the UK gets transported to China where it is economic to use.The reason it's economic to transport so far because China sents huge numbers of container ships to Europe full of manufactured goods (mainly plastic natch) and being as there's not much to send back just shift the rubbish back to China for next to nothing(ships got to return anyway).The answer isn't recycling it's to stop consuming such huge quantities of junk.This is not to say of course the recycling of some things (mainly metals ) is not a good idea.

Ditto with cars,stop using the things only answer.In the UK they collect milk from farms in Scotland transport by road to Southampton (other end of England from the Scottish border) package it then send it back to Scotland for sale.Don't you just love global capitalism and the insanity of it.
 
Peterkro said:
Hey I may be able to agree with Psuedobrit about something, recycling (the domestic variety at present being given the green wash) is essentially a waste of energy,a good proportion of the plastics and other stuff collected for recycling in the UK gets transported to China where it is economic to use.The reason it's economic to transport so far because China sents huge numbers of container ships to Europe full of manufactured goods (mainly plastic natch) and being as there's not much to send back just shift the rubbish back to China for next to nothing(ships got to return anyway).The answer isn't recycling it's to stop consuming such huge quantities of junk.This is not to say of course the recycling of some things (mainly metals ) is not a good idea.

Ditto with cars,stop using the things only answer.In the UK they collect milk from farms in Scotland transport by road to Southampton (other end of England from the Scottish border) package it then send it back to Scotland for sale.Don't you just love global capitalism and the insanity of it.

I blame my half-German blood for my inherent love of symmetry, efficiency, and steadfast devotion to logic and reason. Pseudoenvironmentalism falls in the same cult bucket as pseudomedicine and scientology.

I blame my Irish blood for everything else. Damn Guinness is so delicious.
 
Demon Hunter said:
I wouldn't call "potential long-term neurodegenerative effects" good stuff.

Perhaps you missed the preponderance of evidence:

There is no scientific evidence that the levels of glutamate in hydrolyzed proteins causes adverse effects or that other manufactured glutamate has effects different from glutamate normally found in foods.
...
In 1986, FDA's Advisory Committee on Hypersensitivity to Food Constituents concluded that MSG poses no threat to the general public but that reactions of brief duration might occur in some people. Other reports gave similar findings:
A 1991 report by the European Communities' (EC) Scientific Committee for Foods reaffirmed MSG's safety and classified its "acceptable daily intake" as "not specified", the most favorable designation for a food ingredient. In addition, the EC Committee said, "Infants, including prematures, have been shown to metabolize glutamate as efficiently as adults and therefore do not display any special susceptibility to elevated oral intakes of glutamate."
A 1992 report from the Council on Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association stated that glutamate in any form has not been shown to be a "significant health hazard".
Also, the 1987 Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization have placed MSG in the safest category of food ingredients.
Scientific knowledge about how the body metabolizes glutamate developed rapidly during the 1980s. Studies showed that glutamate in the body plays an important role in normal functioning of the nervous system. Questions then arose on the role glutamate in food plays in these functions and whether or not glutamate in food contributes to certain neurological diseases.

But if you drop all the qualifying statements and the word "possible" from everything, I'm sure you could get scared about it.
 
pseudobrit said:
I blame my half-German blood for my inherent love of symmetry, efficiency, and steadfast devotion to logic and reason. Pseudoenvironmentalism falls in the same cult bucket as pseudomedicine and scientology.

I blame my Irish blood for everything else. Damn Guinness is so delicious.

Strangely enough most of my origins are Irish(as if you've got a good memory you'll realise from my strongly republican posts in the past) also I'm not a Brit though I'm based in part of London.I still disagree with your Science good everything else crap position.Maybe that's the Irish in me.:)

PS even though I lived in Dublin for a number of years I think Guinness is crap,unless of course you want to give up eating and just drink it'll keep you alive.Incidently oral contraception was practised by Australian natives for thousands of years before science discovered it extracted the active bits patented it and made millions from it,sounds a bit like a conspiracy to me.
 
pseudobrit said:
It costs local municipalities more to pick it up at everyone's homes (and wastes more energy and fuel in such an inefficient process) than it saves in manufacturing costs or resource depletion. Much of it just ends up in landfill anyway, because no one wants the junk. Aluminum is the exception. Maybe someday the raw materials for things like paper and plastics will be depleted enough and/or the uses and processes for recycling will be efficient, profitable, environmentally sound enough that it does make sense, but in the meantime, recycling simply makes you feel good about yourself and is ultimately detrimental to the cause it seeks to advance. And if you knew that, you probably wouldn't recycle.

The other two -- reduce and reuse -- are infinitely more important. But they're not really "activities" like recycling, and it's harder to feel good about not doing something.



They could buy a Yaris for much less than a Prius and save even more money in the end. Hybrids usually don't return the mileage promised on the Mahoney sticker and the manufacture alone of a new automobile requires a tremendous amount of resources and energy.

Hybrids do one thing very well, though: they help cut down on city smog. And if that's why someone buys one and pays the extra money then that's fine. But if they buy it to save the planet they're not helping and they've essentially paid a premium to deceive and feel good about themselves.


wow you understand of a lot of stuff is just hear say BS. Depending on what is recycle a lot of it cheaper to recycle it instead of wasting space in our land fills. Yeah right now might not be the best or the cheapest way but remember that our resources are limited and we are running out. WHen it gets to that point the only real opition is to recycle it. Metals it is cheaper to recycle it that it is to make new ones. A coke can for example is cheaper and more effecit to recycle the allumin than it is to make new Al.

As for the Hybrids they do pay for them selves is you do heavy city. They get better city mileage than highway. I have a friend how drives one his worse tank was at 50 mpg. He averages around 60mpg. That a lot better than my 30mpg I get when I drive per highway. He getting near 60 doing heavy city driving. I only get around 22 doing the same.
They do get a lot better gas mileage and depending on how many miles you drive everyone depends on how fast it will pay it self off in gas savings.

with gas prices getting really hiigh that ammount of time will drive it self down pretty quickly. Lets see with fuel costing me almost 3 bucks a gallon. 30 bucks to a tank for me and the range of my car over doubles (we use double for the math). That tank my tank a week to a tank every 2 weeks. so in a year that will save me 780 bucks in just gas (reallity is it be more like a 1000 bucks a year). Now the hybrd cost about 3-4k more than the nones. So in less than 4 years they pay themselves off and then it is all saving.
 
The bit about Coke cans,why is sugared water sold in cans in the first place if it's necessary to drink Coke (god knows why it would be) whats wrong with glass only energy it needs for recycling is to transport and wash i.e. not a lot,instead we have a Aluminium using huge amounts of energy to recycle cans.:confused:
 
Peterkro said:
The bit about Coke cans,why is sugared water sold in cans in the first place if it's necessary to drink Coke (god knows why it would be) whats wrong with glass only energy it needs for recycling is to transport and wash i.e. not a lot,instead we have a Aluminium using huge amounts of energy to recycle cans.:confused:

it cheaper to produce the cans. Glass is heavy and cost more to transport (a lot more engery wasted in transporting them). Aluminuin is cheap. Glass takes a lot more engery to make plus the supplies cost more.

Glass is breakable. Has sharp edges. The list goes on. Making Aluminuin take a huge ammount of engery and heat. Recycling it takes a fraction of it and the metal doesnt have problems in wearing out. melt back down and let the crystals reform and it a good as new.
 
Timepass said:
it cheaper to produce the cans. Glass is heavy and cost more to transport (a lot more engery wasted in transporting them). Aluminuin is cheap. Glass takes a lot more engery to make plus the supplies cost more.

Glass is breakable. Has sharp edges. The list goes on. Making Aluminuin take a huge ammount of engery and heat. Recycling it takes a fraction of it and the metal doesnt have problems in wearing out. melt back down and let the crystals reform and it a good as new.

Glass takes more energy to make than Aluminium are you sure (I've worked in a Aluminium smelter) the transport costs I would have thought were similar for this type of transport volume not weight is surely the major cost factor.The ingredients for glass are cheaper to buy.Sure glass is breakable but not easily and it doesn't crush.In bottle form glass doesn't have sharp edges.You don't have to recycle glass in the way you do Aluminium just wash and away you go for many cycles.I may be wrong but I'd like to see the figures.
 
quigleybc said:
I don't buy organic...

But it seems like everyone in Vancouver does....and pushes it like it's some kind of drug...
.

Thank you
Another person in Vancouver who does not push the organic hype.
I really cant justify paying $35 for a whole Organic Free Range Hugged Daily Chicken (Choices and Capers) when I can pick up a Lilydale chicken that is free range, feed on vegetable diet and is antibiotic free for $8 but for some reason isnt organic?!?
Plus I hateit when people think organic = pesticide , pollutant free... nope the fruits and veggies and meat grow in the same air, soil and water everything else does.
I try my best to buy from local farmers the food is fresher and better handled than the mass market stuff, it is problably better for you to eat local normal produce than shipped 1000 miles organic grown. Just my rant
 
I try to buy organic whenever the price difference isn't too huge -- to eat less contaminated food, and also to support farmers who refrain from polluting the environment with pesticides and artificial fertilizers. I don't like the idea of pesticides running off into the ground water, etc.

Plus I have a 4 year-old who I'd like to give the least contaminated foods to that I can find.
 
I don't make a specific point of buying organic living here in France, but I did more while in Santa Barbara. Here I buy most of my vegetables from the market down the street, so I don't really know their provenance, but I feel pretty sure that they are locally grown, and thus always in season. The biggest shopping change for me living in France vs. US is that I tend to only buy things in season, and I'm not expecting to get strawberries in December. Doing this helps to reduce the need for overstimulating foods to force them to be 'ripe' when it's not the right time, IMO.

Cheerrs
 
pseudobrit said:
I blame my half-German blood for my inherent love of symmetry, efficiency, and steadfast devotion to logic and reason. Pseudoenvironmentalism falls in the same cult bucket as pseudomedicine and scientology.

I blame my Irish blood for everything else. Damn Guinness is so delicious.

Your half-German-ness should embrace recycling, the German's love it!! I do agree that recycling in the UK is a joke. The efforts they do to collect small bins from people's homes is a joke. In Germany (I'm half German too) hey have recycling dumps (whatever those bottle bank like things are called) everywhere. They buy their big bottles of coke in re-useable bottles which they take back to get washed out and its just the normal done thing out there. My housemates at Uni are really into the whole recycling thing. I wish I could join their enthusiasm but its such a joke in this country that it really doesn't seem worth it. When it comes to back home in Brighton, well, I don't think I've ever seen a bottle bank down here.

Back to the organic thing, up at Uni for the last term I've been getting an organic box delivered each week. They're pretty good value because a lot of the stuff is local grown and in season (and you don't have to pay for it to be sent across the country and back for repackaging). Next term I plan on getting it again although I'll bring it down to only fruit, I'm just too picky with my vegetables!!
 
I do for some things, and not for others. Milk, eggs and produce I usually try to buy organic. My wife really likes the eggs a lot more, and I think the milk tastes better (though I hate the 5-6 day "shelf"-life of the milk). Other things like granola, which we don't buy much of anyway, I'll try to buy organic. I've started trying to buy organic meat (beef and chicken) when possible.
 
MongoTheGeek said:
Not quite. Certified organic food must be grown in soil that is certified free from pesticides. There are tests and licensing.

the problem is that the fda restrictions for labeling as organic are not all that tough (here in the USA of course).


i eat a good amount of organic stuff. i don't understand what the 'hippy' reasons are vs. the good health/environment ones.... :confused:
 
pseudobrit said:
A peer-reviewed, mainstream medical study conclusively proving its efficacy (like the ones you can find proving that chemotherapy works) would go a long way.

There are none; "alternative medicine" is a billion-dollar industry with no science behind it, only money and marketing. It astounds me that people will pay thousands to get their backs cracked (chiropractic) or for a nice rubdown (massage therapy) and think they're getting medical treatment when there's zero scientific evidence behind it.

It's much the same with organics. Where's the science? I know where the money is.

Yawn...

What a fantastically ill informed rant.
If theres one thing you can gaurantee, it's that studies are funded by their beneficiaries. I've been working with 2 friends unfortunate enough to have stage 4 cancer and both have been advised to go ahead with chemo but have discovered with further questioning that the oncologist has no belief whatsoever that it will cure them.

In their specific cases it's ritual prescription. Simple as that.

And what of the contributing causes? 'erm... Thats not our area'

The big plus with genuine organics is that it's one thing you can gaurantee won't contribute to a lower state of health and there are plenty of studies that indicate organics are pound for pound nutritionally superior to their conventional counterparts.

Plenty of studies also show outstanding results for complementary approaches to cancer ie: organic nutrition and controlled chemo programs, they're just not funded by the larger international medical bodies.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.