Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 09-29-2007, 11:00 AM   #41
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by bright eyed View Post
i just want to eat some good food that won't make me or my kids sick or start their menstruation before they hit the age of 12, make them hyper or obese...is that too much to ask!
You should be glad you live in modern times. We have the safest, cheapest food available to us in history. Of course you can buy cheap junk too, but it isn't too hard to figure out that sugar candy/cereal isn't the best thing to base your diet on.

There is no evidence that BGH is dangerous to humans.

Quote:
Canada's health board, Health Canada, commissioned a study which found "no biologically plausible reason for concern about human safety if rbST* were to be approved for sale in Canada.
*Bovine somatotropin (bST), or bovine growth hormone (BGH),

IOW, there are much bigger things to worry about. Anyone who makes a special trip or goes out of their way to buy organic is probably taking a much higher risk by being on the road an extra minute.

Over 40,000 deaths a year in traffic accidents, many more serious injuries, but deaths and injuries from our food supply are pretty rare. And some are from organic food (salmonella).

Misplaced concerns IMO.

-ERD50
__________________

__________________
ERD50 is offline  
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 09-29-2007, 02:08 PM   #42
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 567
Well, I guess it has been a while since I've bought milk, or, I've never paid attention to size. A gallon of Organic Valley is going for $6.49 at the local store. The other brands are a about $2 less. They also sell a non-homogenized, grass-fed brand that sells for a little more...
__________________

__________________
Webzter is offline  
Old 09-29-2007, 02:48 PM   #43
Full time employment: Posting here.
UncleHoney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Columbus
Posts: 769
I just bought 2 gallons of milk for $2.99/gal at Krogers. Central Ohio prices.

We go through about 2 gallons a week, 1 skim and 1 2%.
__________________
UncleHoney is offline  
Old 09-29-2007, 03:22 PM   #44
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
You should be glad you live in modern times. We have the safest, cheapest food available to us in history. Of course you can buy cheap junk too, but it isn't too hard to figure out that sugar candy/cereal isn't the best thing to base your diet on.

There is no evidence that BGH is dangerous to humans.

*Bovine somatotropin (bST), or bovine growth hormone (BGH),

IOW, there are much bigger things to worry about. Anyone who makes a special trip or goes out of their way to buy organic is probably taking a much higher risk by being on the road an extra minute.

Over 40,000 deaths a year in traffic accidents, many more serious injuries, but deaths and injuries from our food supply are pretty rare. And some are from organic food (salmonella).

Misplaced concerns IMO.

-ERD50
ERD50:

Raining here today.

"the safest, cheapest food . . . in history" I just don't know if that is even close to true. First, we do have loads of food (that comes mostly from the middle of the store) that is just loaded with various preservatives of all sorts--including salts. Many of these chemicals inhibit the natural breakdown of food, slow it down quite a bit, reducing methane release, bla, bla. Many of these chemicals simply retard seeing and smelling and tasting decay. And I won't mention red dye #?? which is used to make things appear fresher. What we do have in this country is a large quantity of food available that doesn't make you immediately sick.

Personally, that is not 'safe' as far as I'm concerned. By way of example, salt: We know blood pressure on average is way up in this country and many other modern and well off countries. We know salt, at minimum aggravates and raises BP. Salt, and I would say excessive salt, is an important ingredient in bread products. Fresh bread usually has less salt in it; typical Merkin bread that sits on a shelf for a week or two then at home for a week or two before getting moldy is full of salt and other preservatives. This is what prevents decay, and it also causes some (and maybe many) of the health problems folks face, especially as they grow older. Those preservatives slow mold down. Our food only has the appearance of safety.

In a sense, we are just trading one set of health problems for another in many cases IMO. The poor folks in Africa may have better blood pressure but there is a trade off in that they have many other contagious, etc. health problems. If they drink their milk directly out of the cow, they do pretty well, unless that cow is licking arsenic all day or some other toxin or being injected with some semi-toxin. Our food may appear cheap, but we pay for all that preservative use near the end of life (IMO) with incredibly high health care costs and pills that hide symptoms. Using your typical argument for things, food is not cheap. You need to include all the costs and consequences of eating it, not just the price at checkout.

Finally, we don't as yet know what is really going on in food with all the things we've started adding to it in the past fifty years especially. Sure, the gov't says we can safely eat 3 parts/million of lead or 7 parts/million of mercury or 14 parts/million of cow growth hormone, whatever those number are, but the tests that determined that are, to my knowledge, done in isolation from each of the other sets of tests--e.g. a small amount of lead is safe in isolation from a small amount of arsenic. But we actually combine all those things in our body when we ingest bread, meat, veggies, and milk all in one meal. And if we nuke in plastic in the microwave I don't think anyone knows what really is happening inside us. We have ingested a largish number, yet small individual (and safe?) amounts, of toxins. I suspect that for a few these are black swan events not yet quite emergent in consciousness. For others they may just accumulate for decades then one day explode in some form, perhaps as cancer or heart disease, or some other modern western health problem thing.

There are millions of deaths each year from degenerative diseases, heart disease, cancers, strokes, etc., which can all, possibly, be partially attributed to poor diet and, possibly, different gestalts of small individual amounts of toxins. But I have no direct proof for you--as yet.

Fresh and as clean as possible from toxins is best IMO whenever possible.

--greg
__________________
Compounding: Never forget! Never not remember!
greg is offline  
Old 09-29-2007, 04:00 PM   #45
Full time employment: Posting here.
MikeD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Leesburg, VA
Posts: 805
When I was a kid (I'm 53) the butter would be a different color (yellow) during the spring, summer, and most of the fall. During the winter it was white. My mother said it was due to the cows eating hay during the winter instead of grass. The butter is always the same color now. I think they dye it.

Mike D.
__________________
MikeD is offline  
Old 09-29-2007, 05:36 PM   #46
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
twaddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by bright eyed View Post
i just want to eat some good food that won't make me or my kids sick or start their menstruation before they hit the age of 12, make them hyper or obese...is that too much to ask!
Tell them to eat their spinach, and then go outside and play.

Calcium and Milk: Nutrition Source, Harvard School of Public Health
__________________
twaddle is offline  
Old 09-29-2007, 06:46 PM   #47
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bright eyed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
You should be glad you live in modern times. We have the safest, cheapest food available to us in history. Of course you can buy cheap junk too, but it isn't too hard to figure out that sugar candy/cereal isn't the best thing to base your diet on.
-ERD50
ditto what greg said
__________________
If i think of something clever to say, i'll put it here...
bright eyed is offline  
Old 09-29-2007, 07:03 PM   #48
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,352
After speaking with my NYU professor neighbor, apt 45L, he believes the female cow's milk tastes differently depending on whether she had been recently "serviced" by the bull. It's a hormonal thing. He's friends with a biology professor.

So Al, it's probably a large dose of sperm that you drank. It may even invigorate you.

Glad to clear that up for you.
__________________
OldAgePensioner is offline  
Old 09-29-2007, 07:11 PM   #49
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg View Post
ERD50:

"the safest, cheapest food . . . in history" I just don't know if that is even close to true.
I think it is true. Folks used to regularly get tuberculosis from milk, then we started to pasteurize it (which is, of course "processing"). There's no doubt that the use of chemical fertilizers and insecticides has drastically reduced he cost of food. (In fact, if we turned to organic methods, we could only produce the needed crops by bulldozing huge tracts of present forests. All those in favor, say "Aye")"

Chemicals in milk? That's like saying "there's oxygen in air." All milk (straight from the teat or in the room-temperature little box) is just a mixture of chemicals. To a chemist, "organic" just means the chemical is based on carbon. All of the most dangerous nerve gases are organic.

Many of the most dangerous carcinogens and other hazardous chemicals in food are produced in nature, and can exist at hazardous levels in plants never exposed to man-made chemicals. Because natural milk was already in existence before modern food safety laws, the things in it have not been subjected to the same scrutiny as things later added by man.

Is there junky food in the supermarkets? Sure. If a shopper decides a diet of "Chocolate Covered Sugar Bombs" is a good one, then he/she can eat them all day. Is there anyone who hasn't heard that trans-fats are potentially bad for you? Well, they are spelled out on the label, along with the other fats and the salt. The improved labeling is another factor that makes foods better today--junk is easier to avoid.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is offline  
Old 09-29-2007, 07:37 PM   #50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Organic food exposed | COSMOS magazine

Link above provides an interesting view of the "big picture" costs and value of organic farming.

In part:

"Organic farmers . . . use only naturally-occurring products to control pests, such as the elements sulphur and copper; pyrethrins and rotenone (both made by plants); BT spray and Spinosad (both made by bacteria). However, these natural pesticides are not harmless. For instance, sulphur irritates the lungs, and rotenone has been shown to cause Parkinson's disease in rats."

"Even the freshest organic apples – as well as other plant foods – contain natural compounds which, when extracted and given to rats in high doses, cause tumours. Toxicologist Bruce Ames of the University of California became famous in the 1970s for sounding the alarm on the cancer-causing (or carcinogenic) potential of man-made chemicals.
But after testing 'natural' pesticides in rats, he called off the warning. A paper he published in 1990 said it all. Entitled, "Dietary Pesticides (99.99 per cent All Natural)", it reported that in a regular diet, people consume about 10,000 times more natural carcinogens than synthetic ones. According to Ames, a single cup of coffee contains more natural carcinogens than a year's worth of the pesticide residues eaten on fruit and vegetables."

"IF CHEMICAL PESTICIDES ARE hazardous to health, then farm workers should be most affected. The results of a 13-year study of nearly 90,000 farmers and their families in Iowa and North Carolina . . . suggests we really don't have much to worry about. These people were exposed to higher doses of agricultural chemicals because of their proximity to spraying, and 65 per cent of them had personally spent more than 10 years applying pesticides. If any group of people were going to show a link between pesticide use and cancer, it would be them. They didn't.
A preliminary report published in 2004 showed that, compared to the normal population, their rates of cancer were actually lower. And they did not show any increased rate of brain-damaging diseases like Parkinson's. There was one exception: prostate cancer. This seemed to be linked to farmers using a particular fungicide called methyl bromide, which is now in the process of being phased out. "

Chemicals are either good or bad based on what they do to us, not where they come from.

By Greg:
"There are millions of deaths each year from degenerative diseases, heart disease, cancers, strokes, etc., which can all, possibly, be partially attributed to poor diet and, possibly, different gestalts of small individual amounts of toxins. But I have no direct proof for you--as yet."

No, we know exactly what causes all of these things: Living a long time. Before pasteurization (and indoor plumbing, chlorination of water, inclusion of preservatives and proper packaging of food, and other modern marvels) people didn't live long enough to have these problems. So, in effect, modern food production and processing did help "cause" these degenerative diseases. Thank goodness!
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is offline  
Old 09-29-2007, 08:24 PM   #51
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by bright eyed View Post
ditto what greg said
ditto what samclem said

samclem provided data. greg said he is afraid.

samclem, thanks for the Ames quote. I have read about his work, and have seen some good quotes but that is very powerful.

Oh, and thanks for saving me time writing a long reply

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline  
Old 09-29-2007, 08:29 PM   #52
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldAgePensioner View Post

he believes the female cow's milk tastes differently
OAP, if that prof was tasting male cow's milk for reference, well...

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline  
Old 09-29-2007, 09:00 PM   #53
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg View Post
ERD50:

Finally, we don't as yet know what is really going on in food with all the things we've started adding to it in the past fifty years especially.

--greg
True. But if you take that to it's logical conclusion, we wouldn't do ANYTHING, for fear of what might happen in 50 years.

I might have polio today, if they tried to be too careful about testing the effects of say, how polio vaccine interacts with the electro-magnetic radiation from those new Television consoles. Or rock-a-billy music, or poodle skirts, or Cadilac fins.....

Just think of all the things that people have been scared to death about, and how few of them prove out. Cell phone brain cancer, EMI from power lines, fluoride in the water.... Never forget the laws of unintended consequences, a few lives saved by being too cautious can be a death sentence for the many that could have been helped.

There will always be a grey area, and reasonable debate over how safe is too safe, how lax is too lax. I hope emotion does not rule over good science in this regard.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline  
Old 09-30-2007, 08:31 AM   #54
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,071
Who woulda thunk a thread on milk could go political?

So, as momma bear might say, we don't want to run this thread too hot nor let this little node just shrivel up.

samclem:

I have trouble with a bit of your logic. You said "No, we know exactly what causes all of these things [degenerative diseases]: Living a long time." To me this is like saying life causes death and even more and longer life life may cause more death. So, if this is what you mean then the best way to avoid death is to never become alive. Am I seeing the logic in your statement wrong? To my mind, long life does not cause the degeneration of the body. What causes the degeneration of the body in may instances is the weakening of the various organs and systems. For example, excessive use of the toxin liquor oftentimes causes the degeneration of the liver. When the liver starts to fail, degenerate, then other systems also start to fail due to that initial degeneration. Docters, scientists, know the real causes and effects of liver disease. It is rarely old age.

Now it may be true that an old fart of ninty or one hundred has systemic weaknesses due to a wild and woolly younger life. This could consist of heart problems, circulation problems, a whole host of issues that may have related causes in past behaviors or even partially in genetic factors. Each of these separate issues could probably be traced back to a particular lifestyle or set of lifestyle related issues (e.g. Doctor to patient: You're a hundred pounds over weight and now everything is failing because you ate the wrong foods, were too sedentary and drank to much beer.) When this sort of system failure occurs the doctor may say it is just due to old age. He may be saying this to be polite though because I'm pretty sure that all doctors are well aware of some folks of very old age that have few, if any, serious degenerative problems. This stuff is not endemic to old age. What is endemic is that lots of folks lead hard lives, don't get enough sleep, don't take care of their bodies correctly, and look for excuses. When the doctor says the old person's problems are caused by old age, he may know (the doctor) it is time to quit fighting a losing battle: it is just time for the old and sick fart to just enjoy the last quality of life because the quantity of life is/may be rapidly deteriorating.

So, I see a flaw in your perceptions and subsequent conclusions.

Also, I should have done a better job of explanation too. What we do in this country is provide massive amounts of non or slowly perishing foods to folks. Pasturization, as you mentioned, is a good example. We can kill a lot of microbes and germs and stuff just by raising the temperature near boiling. This is wonderful, because if we didn't do that many, many children and others wouldn't have the nutrition they need to have healthy bodies and clear minds. This is good. And there are lots of examples of good stuff that gets foods to folks cheaply and quickly. My issue is confined to a subset of all those foods: Those foods, often but not always, in the center of the grocery store--all the canned, packaged, and altered with (toxic) chemicals. You about-faced my argument into one that said I was against all chemical--perhaps even H2O--a valuable ingredient used in making beer. You shouldn't twist things into what they are not--it's so RepublicanBush-like.

If you'd like to rework your arguments a tad, I'd be happy to continue down this milky way. I think my perceptions are valid and sound. And I'm willing to take you toward my conclusions. I can also address a few of your more legitimate concerns as best I can. Live long and prosper don't degenerate.
__________________
Compounding: Never forget! Never not remember!
greg is offline  
Old 09-30-2007, 09:09 AM   #55
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
True. But if you take that to it's logical conclusion, we wouldn't do ANYTHING, for fear of what might happen in 50 years.
...................poodle skirts...................
ERD50:

Ditto for you too. No, the above is NOT a logical or rational conclusion. It's an absurdity used to attempt a cheap, manipulative win. A rational, logical, and real world conclusion would be to find out if, for example, the wearing of poodle skirts does cause degenerative or harmful conditions to the wearer. My immediate perception and semi-rational thinking says "no, poodle skirts don't cause shorter lives; but evil, sick rapists that see girls in poodle skirts and then get sicko ideas, then, may cause girls that wear poodle skirts to have shorter lives." Just speculation, obviously. But one needs to be grounded in a good sense of what reality really is (as I imagine Ha might say).

That the logical conclusion to an unpleasant situation is always paralysis, while true in a few instances, is not true in general. Most folks react reasonably and prudently to dangers; and they try to rectify them so that they don't happen again. Action on and awareness of toxic chemicals are important issues in today's world, as you are well aware. They occur in the air, and water, and under our feet in the ground. And they also enter into our bodies. We need to be aware of the bad stuff. And the inference I draw from that is that we should examine some of the more obvious toxic brews, the preservatives that retard natural, organic processes--some of which are good and some of which are bad. Reasonable perceptions are a good place to start.
__________________
Compounding: Never forget! Never not remember!
greg is offline  
Old 09-30-2007, 09:30 AM   #56
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg View Post
Who woulda thunk a thread on milk could go political?

. . . You about-faced my argument into one that said I was against all chemical--perhaps even H2O--a valuable ingredient used in making beer. You shouldn't twist things into what they are not--it's so RepublicanBush-like.
Hey, iI think i found the point where it turned political.

Well, of course my "long life causes degenerative diseases" quip was a little flippant, but it does serve to highlight a point. Most of these diseases were virtually unknown in earlier times because people died of other things first. We don't die that early as a rule anymore largely because of advances brought by technology.
I think you might profitably re-analyze your thinking on degenerative diseases and what causes them. If organs failed only, or even primarlly, due to lack of sleep, poor nutrition, and bad habits, surely there'd be somebody, among the billions of humans who have lived, who lived to be at least twice the average human age. Just a standard distribution would lead one to expect that, and there are clearly millions of people leading a relaxing, sleep-filled, "toxin free" life. Where are the modern Methuselahs? There are none. Zero. (And I don't believe there were ancient ones, either)
I think most biologists believe human senescence runs very much in parallel with that of all other animals. Our bodies are built to last a certain length of time, and anything beyond that is gravy. That length of time is the duration needed to raise a crop of offspring. After that time, from a hard-hearted point of view, a person is a drag on the resources of his tribe. In the present time older people are highly valuable because they have skills and knowledge needed by the culture. But, from an evolutionary standpoint, our modern societies (with their need for older people) has existed for just a blink of an eye, far too short to have resulted in an adaptation of the species. Nope, for millions of years a man (or woman) was pretty much dead weight after they could no longer throw a spear or suckle a child. Food had always been scarce, so the fewer Grammies and Pappies who were around, the more chow was available for Mom ad Junior. So, it's no surprise that we aren't over-engineered to last decades longer than it takes to get the kids to be self-sufficient. There's even strong evidence that our cells are actually built with an expiration date (Google the term "telomere" for an interesting peek).

IMO, while it is very possible that there will be tremendous lengthening of the healthy portion of human life in the decades to come, it is unlikely to result from munching organic fruit, taking naps, and abstaining from beer. It will more likely result from the labors of well trained scientists in government and corporate labs. They'll continue to fend off the individual diseases that afflict us and also explore and tweak the mechanisms that cause us to wear out. And the more money we, as a society, put toward it, the faster the progress will come on all fronts. Draw your own conclusions about health care policy from that (politics aside)

(What would Momma bear say--not too hot yet, is it?)
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is offline  
Old 09-30-2007, 11:37 AM   #57
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg View Post
ERD50:
No, the above is NOT a logical or rational conclusion. It's an absurdity...
wow, greg. Who brought politics into this?

Geez, I though the poodle-fin reference I made was an obvious attempt at over-statement to make a point, not a serious analysis. I'll try to stay closer to topic if this is going to cause problems. I find this criticism a bit odd from someone who was recently making very loose references to monkey tools?

The point was, people did not know for certain what the effects of a polio vaccination would be 50 years down the road. But hopefully, we make educated appraisals, and evaluate risk vs reward. If we try to eliminate near 100% of the risk, we will be very, very slow to implement things that are beneficial. In the mean time, people suffer/die from lack of that benefit. And that suffering/death is on the hands of people who try to be too risk-adverse. A death is a death, whether due to lack of action, or due to well intentioned, but tragic results. We should aim to minimize suffering/deaths.

OK, very simply. One must look at age-adjusted incidences of cancer to try to determine if the causes of cancer are getting worse (due to food processing, for example). IOW, are cancer rates for age 40-45 YO people in 2006 increasing, compared to people 40-45 YO in 1940? Repeat for each age group and timeframe. Do not look at cancer deaths, as this can be affected by treatment changes. Even this is tricky, as the methods used to detect cancers change over time. And of course, lung cancers need to be separated out - those have been influenced heavily by lifestyle changes. However, we have this report. Most cancers declining, only a few specific types are increasing.

So, if pesticides, preservatives, food coloring, etc were all so bad for us, why are most trends declining?

We do need to be prudent. I myself tend to avoid heavily processed foods. But not so much out of fear, but simply because much of that processing is geared towards things I'm not interested in. I don't like the flavor of most heavily processed foods, I prefer simple, and process it to my liking. I'll take frozen food over most canned for example. Less sodium, not heat treated, less packaging. And, I can't see any benefit to ingesting a bunch of added preservatives that add no value that I see. If others see a benefit, that is their choice. There just might be some risk to those preservatives over time, so I avoid them where I can, but I don't get too excited about it. Bigger things to worry about, AFAIAC.

-ERD50

Questions and Answers: Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1973-1996, With a Special Section on Lung Cancer and Tobacco Smoking - 04/20/1999

Quote:
3. What is happening with cancer rates overall?

... incidence rates for all cancer sites combined decreased 0.9 percent per year during 1990 to 1996. ...

8. What is happening with breast cancer rates in women?

Female breast cancer incidence rates have been approximately level during the 1990s.

9. What is happening with prostate cancer rates?

Prostate cancer incidence rates continued to decline ....

10. What is happening with colon and rectum cancer rates?

Colorectal cancer incidence and death rates declined for males and females and for all racial and ethnic groups.

11. What other key sites had significant incidence and mortality findings?

During 1990 to 1996, incidence and death rates for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma continued to increase although the rates of increase are lower than in the 1980s.

Melanoma incidence rates also continued to increase on average 2.7 percent per year.

12. Are the rates of childhood cancer increasing or decreasing?

For children younger than 15 years of age, the incidence of cancer declined 0.4 percent per year between 1990 and 1996.
__________________
ERD50 is offline  
Old 09-30-2007, 12:03 PM   #58
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
HFWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lawn chair in Texas
Posts: 12,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
OAP, if that prof was tasting male cow's milk for reference, well...

-ERD50
Male cow?

Quote:
Originally Posted by twaddle View Post
Tell them to eat their spinach, and then go outside and play.

Calcium and Milk: Nutrition Source, Harvard School of Public Health
To quote one Willie Nelson, after the police found pot (and some psychoactive mushrooms) in his tour bus:

"Hell, if it had been spinach, we'd all be dead by now..."

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldAgePensioner View Post
After speaking with my NYU professor neighbor, apt 45L, he believes the female cow's milk tastes differently depending on whether she had been recently "serviced" by the bull. It's a hormonal thing. He's friends with a biology professor.

So Al, it's probably a large dose of sperm that you drank. It may even invigorate you.

Glad to clear that up for you.
Ulp...
__________________
Have Funds, Will Retire

...not doing anything of true substance...
HFWR is offline  
Milk question for liberals:
Old 09-30-2007, 12:08 PM   #59
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,261
Milk question for liberals:

Not political really, just a liberal philosophy question:

A) I've found no evidence that BGH (Bovine Growth Hormone) is a health risk.

B) Higher milk production due to BGH reduces the cost of milk, and might have environmental benefits (more milk from less feed...).

C) Poor people are impacted the most by the cost of food.

D) Some people (that would probably describe themselves as liberals) are in favor of a ban on BGH.

Wouldn't that hurt poor people? Don't liberals claim to be all about helping poor people? What to do?

It's a serious question, not a troll against liberals. I am honestly curious.

-ERD50

PS - I also find it odd that some of the same people that would be against giving cows a supplementary dose of the same hormone they produce naturally might be in favor of taking a supplementary dose of Vitamin C for themselves. What's the diff?
__________________
ERD50 is offline  
Old 09-30-2007, 12:18 PM   #60
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,352
HFWR,
my professor buddy is also convinced (evidently he visited a NJ dairy farm recently with a NJ pacifist) that the taste of milk is highly dependent on how well the cows teets are washed free of feces and urine.

I stopped drinking milk after watching an "organic" cow being milked. NO TEET WASHING. Evidently to avoid soap contamination.
__________________

__________________
OldAgePensioner is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:25 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.