"Dave J." wrote in message ...
In MsgIDeUKBj.74184$w94.59582@pd7urf2no on Wed, 12 Mar 2008 06:39:06
GMT, in uk.current-events.bird-flu, 'Dutch' wrote:

"( _ /)" wrote
Eat less meat


How about just eat less, consume less, PERIOD? Why pick on meat? You
wouldn't have an ummm hidden agenda, would you?

Meat is (I believe) an inefficient use of resources in the production of
food. It also has a vast (and compared to decaying plant matter
unavoidable) amount of methane as a byproduct.

I speak BTW as a lifelong carnivore. The nearest I come to vegetarianism
is a vague effort to keep my meat consumption down to what I consider to
be the optimum minimal level that (again as I consider it) gives the
maximum yield in terms of bodily benefits.

'There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or
minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention
does not occur. These findings suggest that even small intakes of
foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in
plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn,
with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality
rates. - Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative
diseases: perspectives from China. Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59
(5 Suppl):1153S-1161S.'

'Analyses of data from the China studies by his collaborators and
others, Campbell told the epidemiology symposium, is leading to
policy recommendations. He mentioned three:

* The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the greater
the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known and unknown
nutrient needs.

* Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a healthful
and nutritionally complete diet can be attained without animal-based
food.

* The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal heating,
salting and processing - the greater will be the benefit.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicl..._Study_II.html

However from the facts I've read, you can't argue with the veggies for
saying that there's a hugely greater nutritional value from a given amount
of land if it's used for the right arable crops, intended for direct
consumption, than if it's used to support animals for us to eat.

'Depending on the type of meat, it takes 6-17 times more land to
feed the average American meat eater than to feed a vegetarian.30
...
30 L. Reijinders and Sam Soret, PhDs 2003,
...'
http://www.massanimalrights.org/enviroflier.html

What I want to see in the future is meat that's grown in tanks, with no
brain attached, and the nutrients directly supplied rather than being
inefficiently converted from foodstock. I imagine that route would knock
spots off the 'efficiency' argument against meat, it would also shut down
the 'cruel to bring about life just because you wanna eat it' argument.

Dave J.


--
Freeware Open Source Internet Television / Video RSS player. Fetches Video
RSS feeds or retrieves from regular searches on Youtube or Google video.
Dozens of feeds as defaults. Science, Politics, Music, Geekery...
Miro - Downloadable from http://www.GetMiro.org - Worth a try!

Dave J. writes
Meat is (I believe) an inefficient use of resources in the production of
food. It also has a vast (and compared to decaying plant matter unavoidable)
amount of methane as a byproduct.

That depends. If you are talking about most of upland britain, its
impossible to grow arable crops there so the ONLY resource is grazing by
livestock. In this case of course its NOT an inefficient use of
resources.

Also to note that all decaying plant matter emits methane, remember the
fuss when they recently discovered vast amounts were being emitted by
topsoils worldwide.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

In on Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:37:52
-0000, in uk.current-events.bird-flu, 'pearl' wrote:

I speak BTW as a lifelong carnivore. The nearest I come to vegetarianism
is a vague effort to keep my meat consumption down to what I consider to
be the optimum minimal level that (again as I consider it) gives the
maximum yield in terms of bodily benefits.

'There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or
minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention
does not occur. These findings suggest that even small intakes of
foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in
plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn,
with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality
rates. - Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative
diseases: perspectives from China. Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59
(5 Suppl):1153S-1161S.'

'Analyses of data from the China studies by his collaborators and
others, Campbell told the epidemiology symposium, is leading to
policy recommendations. He mentioned three:

* The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the greater
the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known and unknown
nutrient needs.

* Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a healthful
and nutritionally complete diet can be attained without animal-based
food.

* The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal hea


Hmm, fair enough I suppose, though I'm suspicious of any hidden motivation
behind the study. I've always figured that meat provides useful amino
chunks that are less easy to find in a vegetarian diet, with the
undesirable fats being a cost that should be kept to a minimum.

If the study holds water over the years then I suppose I'll just have to
give in and own up to having some meat because a) I like it and b) I'm too
lazy to organise a balanced vegetarian intake.

Dave J.

In on Wed, 19 Mar 2008
15:52:34 +0000, in uk.current-events.bird-flu, 'Oz' wrote:

Meat is (I believe) an inefficient use of resources in the production of
food. It also has a vast (and compared to decaying plant matter unavoidable)
amount of methane as a byproduct.

That depends. If you are talking about most of upland britain, its
impossible to grow arable crops there so the ONLY resource is grazing by
livestock. In this case of course its NOT an inefficient use of
resources.

Yes, that makes a good justification for minor meat consumption. Though
not for the American style gullet stuffing that's threatening to infect
the globe.

Also to note that all decaying plant matter emits methane, remember the
fuss when they recently discovered vast amounts were being emitted by
topsoils worldwide.

I've always figured though that the emissions from decaying vegetable
matter are more easily either controlled, reduced, or harnessed for
burning than those from animals.

Make no mistake, I'm in no way an advocate of humanity turning vegetarian,
I just see both sides of the debate and accept that we're swinging too far
into rain forest destroying hamburger-gulping greed that caries a massive,
almost karmic, future health cost.

Dave J.

In message , Dave J.
writes
In on Wed, 19 Mar 2008
15:52:34 +0000, in uk.current-events.bird-flu, 'Oz' wrote:

Meat is (I believe) an inefficient use of resources in the production of
food. It also has a vast (and compared to decaying plant matter unavoidable)
amount of methane as a byproduct.

That depends. If you are talking about most of upland britain, its
impossible to grow arable crops there so the ONLY resource is grazing by
livestock. In this case of course its NOT an inefficient use of
resources.

Yes, that makes a good justification for minor meat consumption. Though
not for the American style gullet stuffing that's threatening to infect
the globe.

Also to note that all decaying plant matter emits methane, remember the
fuss when they recently discovered vast amounts were being emitted by
topsoils worldwide.

I've always figured though that the emissions from decaying vegetable
matter are more easily either controlled, reduced, or harnessed for
burning than those from animals.

Make no mistake, I'm in no way an advocate of humanity turning vegetarian,
I just see both sides of the debate and accept that we're swinging too far
into rain forest destroying hamburger-gulping greed that caries a massive,
almost karmic, future health cost.

Dave J.

I'm obviously suffering from mental constipation but could someone
enlighten me as to what this rubbish has to do with a ng dedicated to
British birdwatching? By all means discuss this in the fullest possible
detail in the vegan, veggie, environmentally aware landfill sites,
methane and related gases and such focussed groups but please don't dump
this rubbish in the British birdwatching group. After all you have
around 60,000 other newsgroups to choose.

Hopefully an ill controlled rant will not ensue.

And I know I'm crossposting. Irritating isn't it!

--
Tom Withycombe
NW Dorset/UK

Tom Withycombe wrote:

I'm obviously suffering from mental constipation but could someone
enlighten me as to what this rubbish has to do with a ng dedicated to
British birdwatching?

Nothing at all Tom, just as it has little relevance to many of the
groups to which it is cross posted. However, Pete is so desperate for
attention that he always cross posts to at least six groups. In
addition, he frequently nymshifts in attempts to avoid the kill filters.

By all means discuss this in the fullest possible detail in the vegan, veggie, environmentally aware landfill sites,
methane and related gases and such focussed groups but please don't dump
this rubbish in the British birdwatching group. After all you have
around 60,000 other newsgroups to choose.

Pete just does not care.

Hopefully an ill controlled rant will not ensue.

Pete probably hopes that it will.

And I know I'm crossposting. Irritating isn't it!

Indeed but, as I have said, Pete does not care.


--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

In message , Old Codger
writes
Tom Withycombe wrote:
I'm obviously suffering from mental constipation but could someone
enlighten me as to what this rubbish has to do with a ng dedicated to
British birdwatching?

Nothing at all Tom, just as it has little relevance to many of the
groups to which it is cross posted. However, Pete is so desperate for
attention that he always cross posts to at least six groups. In
addition, he frequently nymshifts in attempts to avoid the kill filters.

By all means discuss this in the fullest possible detail in the
vegan, veggie, environmentally aware landfill sites, methane and
related gases and such focussed groups but please don't dump this
rubbish in the British birdwatching group. After all you have around
60,000 other newsgroups to choose.

Pete just does not care.

Hopefully an ill controlled rant will not ensue.

Pete probably hopes that it will.

And I know I'm crossposting. Irritating isn't it!

Indeed but, as I have said, Pete does not care.


Thanks. Fortunately I have not come across Peter before. Sounds like I
need to open the kerplonk file.
--
Tom Withycombe
Eagle Travel Marketing Ltd
Dorset/UK
Tel : +44 (0)1935 873344
Fax : +44 (0)1935 873331
Website: www.classichideaways.com

Tom Withycombe wrote:
In message , Old Codger
writes

Indeed but, as I have said, Pete does not care.


Thanks. Fortunately I have not come across Peter before. Sounds like I
need to open the kerplonk file.

Watch out for the nymshifting.


--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

On 20 Mar, 16:21, Old Codger wrote:
Tom Withycombe wrote:

I'm obviously suffering from mental constipation but could someone
enlighten me as to what this rubbish has to do with a ng dedicated to
British birdwatching?

Nothing at all Tom, just as it has little relevance to many of the
groups to which it is cross posted.

Of course the problem could be alleviated if everyone replying
to the guy removed all the irrelevant groups from the cross-post
first. It is easier for me to remember to do this than most people
because google groups never allows me to post to more than 5
groups at a time.

*However, Pete is so desperate for
attention that he always cross posts to at least six groups.

Why does he post to small groups instead of large ones if
that is his motivation?

*In
addition, he frequently nymshifts in attempts to avoid the kill filters.

If they don't want to read his posts he should respect that...

By all means discuss this in the fullest possible detail in the vegan, veggie, environmentally aware landfill sites,
methane and related gases and such focussed groups but please don't dump
this rubbish in the British birdwatching group. After all you have
around 60,000 other newsgroups to choose.

Pete just does not care.

Hopefully an ill controlled rant will not ensue.

Pete probably hopes that it will.

And I know I'm crossposting. Irritating isn't it!

Indeed but, as I have said, Pete does not care.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

Dave J. writes
15:52:34 +0000, in uk.current-events.bird-flu, 'Oz' wrote:


That depends. If you are talking about most of upland britain, its
impossible to grow arable crops there so the ONLY resource is grazing by
livestock. In this case of course its NOT an inefficient use of
resources.

Yes, that makes a good justification for minor meat consumption. Though
not for the American style gullet stuffing that's threatening to infect
the globe.

Yes, to an extent. Mind you, outside southern india 'the rest of the
globe' has tended to eat as much meat as it can afford, and always has
done. Its perhaps the total quantity eaten which many find offensive in
the US.

Also to note that all decaying plant matter emits methane, remember the
fuss when they recently discovered vast amounts were being emitted by
topsoils worldwide.

I've always figured though that the emissions from decaying vegetable
matter are more easily either controlled, reduced, or harnessed for
burning than those from animals.

Maybe, it would be nice to have decaying biomass of all sorts to help
power the wildlife in the world. From earthworms mighty lions feed (via
a few steps, its true).

Make no mistake, I'm in no way an advocate of humanity turning vegetarian,
I just see both sides of the debate and accept that we're swinging too far
into rain forest destroying hamburger-gulping greed that caries a massive,
almost karmic, future health cost.

Mostly its because the world population is way to big, and growing
bigger. Religions don't in general help, I note.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, THE GOOBER, a colossally
stupid ****wit and an OUTED queer - lied and presented
no challenge:

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:21:02 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze wrote:

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, THE GOOBER, a colossally stupid ****wit and an OUTED queer - lied and presented no challenge:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze wrote:
On 12 Mar, 07:25, Osvald Hotz De Baar
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 06:39:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"( _ /)" wrote
Eat less meat
How about just eat less, consume less, PERIOD? Why pick on meat? You
wouldn't have an ummm hidden agenda, would you?
Obesity is a serious problem due to animal products entirely. So
therefore Eat less meat
So if I had a diet of chips (that's French fries to Americans) which
are completely vegan - just potatoes, oil and salt - I would never get
fat, is that what you're REALLY claiming?
I'll never be able to understand faith-heads of any stripe....
I've recently learned that strong atheists are most amusing
about their faith.

You're an idiot.


Don't make unwarranted assumptions. The fact that I recognize
religious or quasi-religious fanatics ("faith-heads") does not mean
I'm an atheist.... As a matter of fact, I'm an agnostic.

I thought I was, but it turns out I'm a weak atheist since
part of being agnostic means you don't think it can be
known whether God exists or not. I believe it can be known
if he does,

You have no basis for that belief.

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:21:02 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze wrote:

On 17 Mar, 16:14, dh@. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze wrote:
On 12 Mar, 07:25, Osvald Hotz De Baar
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 06:39:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"( _ /)" wrote
Eat less meat

How about just eat less, consume less, PERIOD? Why pick on meat? You
wouldn't have an ummm hidden agenda, would you?

Obesity is a serious problem due to animal products entirely. So
therefore Eat less meat

So if I had a diet of chips (that's French fries to Americans) which
are completely vegan - just potatoes, oil and salt - I would never get
fat, is that what you're REALLY claiming?

I'll never be able to understand faith-heads of any stripe....

* * I've recently learned that strong atheists are most amusing
about their faith. I was first amused to learn that they deny
their faith that the tooth fairy doesn't exist, also Santa and
the Easter Bunny, etc. Then I was more amused to learn
they deny their own faith in the possibility that a creator
does not exist, and later that they deny their own faith in
everything they have faith in, including their faith that the
Earth will continue to rotate. How screwed up can you get?

Don't make unwarranted assumptions. The fact that I recognize
religious or quasi-religious fanatics ("faith-heads") does not mean
I'm an atheist.... As a matter of fact, I'm an agnostic.

I thought I was, but it turns out I'm a weak atheist since
part of being agnostic means you don't think it can be
known whether God exists or not. I believe it can be known
if he does, but not if he doesn't.

Now kindly address the issue: are you claiming that it would be
impossible to become obese on a vegan diet?

That was someone else's thing, not mine. It seems to me
a couple pounds of sugar a day would make for obesity,
and starch turns to sugar, then fat, so it seems like it should
be simple enough. Well the popular idea of eating protein
and fat, and cellulose but no starch, should be enough to
show that eliminating starchy/sugary stuff does as well or
better than eliminating animal products. It seems more like
the sort of diet humans would have developed around,
to me. Meat and insects, fruits and whatever vegetables,
and probably leaves. Before humans learned to make
flour and breads etc, there probably wasn't a whole lot
of starch in their diet. But now...

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:56:10 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

dh@. wrote in message ...
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
wrote:

On 12 Mar, 07:25, Osvald Hotz De Baar
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 06:39:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"( _ /)" wrote
Eat less meat

How about just eat less, consume less, PERIOD? Why pick on meat? You
wouldn't have an ummm hidden agenda, would you?

Obesity is a serious problem due to animal products entirely. So
therefore Eat less meat

So if I had a diet of chips (that's French fries to Americans) which
are completely vegan - just potatoes, oil and salt - I would never get
fat, is that what you're REALLY claiming?

I'll never be able to understand faith-heads of any stripe....

I've recently learned that strong atheists are most amusing
about their faith. I was first amused to learn that they deny
their faith that the tooth fairy doesn't exist, also Santa and
the Easter Bunny, etc. Then I was more amused to learn
they deny their own faith in the possibility that a creator
does not exist, and later that they deny their own faith in
everything they have faith in, including their faith that the
Earth will continue to rotate. How screwed up can you get?

People who claim to be "amused" are usually "confused".

Did you hear that on TV or something?

dh@. wrote in message news
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:56:10 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

dh@. wrote in message ...
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
wrote:

On 12 Mar, 07:25, Osvald Hotz De Baar
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 06:39:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"( _ /)" wrote
Eat less meat

How about just eat less, consume less, PERIOD? Why pick on meat? You
wouldn't have an ummm hidden agenda, would you?

Obesity is a serious problem due to animal products entirely. So
therefore Eat less meat

So if I had a diet of chips (that's French fries to Americans) which
are completely vegan - just potatoes, oil and salt - I would never get
fat, is that what you're REALLY claiming?

I'll never be able to understand faith-heads of any stripe....

I've recently learned that strong atheists are most amusing
about their faith. I was first amused to learn that they deny
their faith that the tooth fairy doesn't exist, also Santa and
the Easter Bunny, etc. Then I was more amused to learn
they deny their own faith in the possibility that a creator
does not exist, and later that they deny their own faith in
everything they have faith in, including their faith that the
Earth will continue to rotate. How screwed up can you get?

People who claim to be "amused" are usually "confused".

Did you hear that on TV or something?


Nope, you're transparent, you used the word three times in that paragraph,
you are not amused, you protest too much, you're in a horrible muddle.

"Oz" wrote in message
...

Also to note that all decaying plant matter emits methane, remember the
fuss when they recently discovered vast amounts were being emitted by
topsoils worldwide.



In an area of Salisbury which had a building estate using an ex-city dump
there was a sudden need to dig holes to release gas safely. The dump had
been disused for decades and had been deemed inactive.

I find it astonishing that it is accepted that a super-computer is needed
to inaccurately predict weather and yet "obvious aint it" is applied to the
global warming problem.

It will be interesting to see what the coming credit crunch driven downturn
in the economy does to people's views as jobs disappear and people realize
that
keeping the worlds economy going and reducing emissions is not going to be
easy.