View Single Post
  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.diabetic
Trawley Trash Trawley Trash is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 82
Default Opinion piece on artificial sweeteners

On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 16:23:22 -0700
Billy > wrote:

> 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/> ?


Sorry. I've seen too many wild predictions like this. Not even
going to read your link. If you believe past projections, we must
surely be dead by now. Yet we always find ways to cope. Human
ingenuity is not predictable by this kind of analysis.

We do need to keep track of the problems so that we can act as
necessary.

> > 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?


How about recognizing that forest fires cause massive air pollution.

> > > 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.


That organic matter that goes up in smoke will decay into topsoil.
So that is future topsoil vanishing. Given the right conditions
and millions of years it might even decay into fossil fuel. And
even the existing topsoil burns when the fire gets hot enough.

> > 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?


There is a difference between conspiracy and mismanagement.

> > > 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?


Clue: adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine are not carbohydrates.

> <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.


It is more complicated than that. Every plant has different
requirements. Some are better off with less nitrogen.


--
I'm Trawley Trash, and you haven't heard the last of me yet.