View Single Post
  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.diabetic
Billy[_8_] Billy[_8_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 168
Default Opinion piece on artificial sweeteners

In article >,
Trawley Trash > wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 11:17:02 -0700
> Billy > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Trawley Trash > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 23:09:58 -0700
> > > Billy > wrote:
> > >
> > > > First, it was the consumption of virgin top soil. More recently,
> > > > the protein that envelops us comes from the Fritz Haber Process
> > > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process>
> > > > and is responsible for the last 4 billion people to join the human
> > > > race.
> > >
> > > OK. The Haber process produces ammonia that can then be used
> > > as fertilizer. Other than the need to balance this with other
> > > nutrients, I don't see a problem here.
> > >
> > > The earth is supporting 7 billion at the moment, and I don't
> > > see any reason why it can't support 20 billion.

> >
> > I think it's a vision problem.
> >
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint
> > >

> > The ecological footprint is a measure of human demand on the Earth's
> > ecosystems. It is a standardized measure of demand for natural
> > capital that may be contrasted with the planet's ecological capacity
> > to regenerate. For 2007, humanity's total ecological footprint was
> > estimated at 1.5 planet Earths; that is, humanity uses ecological
> > services 1.5 times as quickly as Earth can renew them.

>
> As an engineer I would want to look carefully at the claimed capacity
> limit(s) before I would accept this.
> I would guess we have been operating at 1.5 planet earths for
> several thousand years.


Your guess vs
<http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/i...print_science_
introduction/> ?

> This is what provides the pressure
> for technological advancement. We just keep getting better
> at utilizing and distributing the available resources.
> Just because something sounds like science doesn't mean it is
> sound.

Doesn't even sound like it. The ozone was disappearing, there was no
better idea, so we reduced our use of CFCs and the Ozone Hole got
better. Acid rain was killing forests, and damaging crops, there was no
better idea, so we cleaned up smoke stacks and then the acid diminished.
Until you have a better idea, I'd say we stop over utilizing our
environment. Wadda ya think?
>
> > The nitrogen from the Haber Process ends up as NH3 ---> consumed by
> > plants & bugs ---> amino acids --> protein --> enzymes (including
> > photosynthesis) ---> plants which we eat, or fed to animals that we
> > eat ----> human protein.
> >
> > Top soil, stripped of its organic components requires increasing
> > amounts of NH3 to maintain yields. The stripped top soil doesn't have
> > tilth, and blows away, and washes away,
> > <http://www.ext.colostate.edu/mg/gardennotes/212.html>
> > GMOs have not increased yields, or nutrition.

>
> As a write this forest fires are raging. Our small city
> in the desert is choking in smog. In addition to pollution topsoil
> topsoil is burning away.

Not likely yet, but come the rainy season, it could be washed away
without vegetation to hold it.

> The federal government moved in
> and turned our state lands into national forests so they could
> "manage" them. Now they manage them by letting fires rage.

Noe you're starting to sound like a "Tea Bagger" with a conspiracy
theory. Are you saying that the government is encouraging the fire, that
threatens local communities like Big Creek or Huntington Lake, oooor
since the fire is in steep, rugged, inaccessible terrain, they are
burning off dry fuel that has accumulated over the years from fire
suppression? Did the government set the fire, too?


>
> > The worlds population wold be much smaller without the Haber process.
> >
> > With the Haber Process we are consuming 40-75% of energy intake as
> > carbohydrates, as opposed to 22 to 40%, back in the Paleolithic days.
> > Celiac disease, and lactose intolerance show that Homo sapiens are
> > still adapting to our new diet.

>
> This doesn't make any sense. Nitrogen is not needed to make
> carbohydrates. It is only found in protein.


What do you engineer?



Ever hear of DNA? Look at diagrams of adenine, guanine, cytosine, and
thymine. Where does all that nitrogen come from?

<http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e17/17e.htm>
Most proteins are enzymes that came into being rather early in
evolution; this means that all cells, bacteria, animal and plant cells,
have the same repertoire of enzymes. Everything summarized by the term
primary metabolism, i.e. glycolysis, citric acid cycle, amino acid
synthesis, carbohydrate synthesis, lipid and nucleotide synthesis is
controlled by a set of enzymes that differ only slightly from one group
of organism to another.

Even the sweet spot in chlorophyll (where the sugars are made) is
surrounded by NH3s, not to mention the enzymes (protein) that construct
starch, and cellulose from those sugars.


When you look at a bag of fertilizer it will give you three numbers,
like 5-1-1. That stands for 5% nitrogen, 1% Phosphorous, 1% Potassium.
Your seed may germinate, but the plant isn't going anywhere without
nitrogen for crucial enzymes.
--
Palestinian Child Detained
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzSzH38jYcg>

Remember Rachel Corrie
<http://www.rachelcorrie.org/>

Welcome to the New America.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg>