General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-01-2004, 01:32 AM
Nancy Young
 
Posts: n/a
Default "SuperMarket Me" - A documentary on my health problems from eatingsupermarket food

Julianne wrote:

I agree that the public morality took things to extremes with both drunk
driving and child molestation. What concerns me now is the push to lower
the legal limit from 1.0 to 0.8 for DWI. I'm not saying it is a bad idea
but I have yet to find compelling evidence that accidents happen in the
0.8 - 1.0 range that are directly related to alcohol.


It's gotten to be too extreme. You're right, if I have 2 glasses of
wine even over say 3 hours, I bet I'm legally drunk now. I promise
I would not be even remotely a danger to any other motorist or
pedestrian. None. Just a criminal.
I
I guess MADD controls a lot of votes.


And I would be surprised if most MADD members never drove over .08.

Society in general learned a lot from the McMartin case. While it is true
that children are not inherently dishonest, it is a fact that small children
will try desperately to please adults. They can be led and they are
convicted in their beliefs once they are planted.


That was a terrible thing. And that wasn't the only case, as I'm
sure you know. How many lives ruined by hysterical people.

Having said both things, drunk driving (a national past time to which I lost
two brothers in one night)


I cannot believe that happened to you, I'm so sorry. Like saying I'm
sorry helps, but, wow.

nancy

  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-01-2004, 01:51 AM
Julianne
 
Posts: n/a
Default "SuperMarket Me" - A documentary on my health problems from eating supermarket food

Thanks, Wendy. Even though it has been over twenty years, I still
appreciate the kind words of others where my brothers are concerned.

When I was 19, my 17 year old brother and my 21 year old brother died in a
drunk driving accident. There were only the three of use coming up and I
was suddenly left all alone. Because we lived overseas during much of my
teenage years and moved frequently, I was unusually close to my brothers.
It was painful.

About six years after they died, my son was born. He is named Brian Michael
after both of my brothers in the Jewish tradition in naming babies to
perpetuate the dead. It was when Brian was born that real healing began.
As Carl Sandberg said, "A baby is God's opinion that the world should go
on."

It was also after my son was born that I began to have an appreciation for
what my parents went through. They are still so very much in love. Now, I
understand how challenged they were.

Life does suck sometimes. After having been a nurse for so many years, I
can honestly say I would rather lose a loved one to death rather than a
persistive vegetative state like your cousin. And yet, every morning I wake
up with the belief that I can make my life better.

Was it Nietzsche who said, "That which doesn't kill you makes you stronger"?

Thank you again for your kind words. No, I do not have brothers to spare.
The hole in my life that my only two siblings left when they died is still
there. I visit with them in my dreams. I see them in my son who is their
namesake although I was adopted and there is no genetic link. It was my big
brother who taught me how to write and my little brother who taught me how
to be social. Both of those lessons keep me afloat today.

I feel good remembering them.

j


"Dally" wrote in message
...
Julianne wrote:

Having said both things, drunk driving (a national past time to which I

lost
two brothers in one night)


Julianne, that's horrible! (You said it so flippantly, like you had
brothers to spare, that I almost missed it.) I'm so sorry your family
had to go through this. Was it very long ago?

I lost two cousins to drunk driving when we were children. One was
killed instantly, the other was severely brain-damaged and is still
alive... but the person he was is gone. The drunk-driver, my Aunt's
ex-husband (their father) got a broken knee. Life sucks sometimes.

Dally



  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-01-2004, 02:13 AM
Julianne
 
Posts: n/a
Default "SuperMarket Me" - A documentary on my health problems from eating supermarket food


"Nancy Young" wrote in message
...
Julianne wrote:

I agree that the public morality took things to extremes with both drunk
driving and child molestation. What concerns me now is the push to

lower
the legal limit from 1.0 to 0.8 for DWI. I'm not saying it is a bad

idea
but I have yet to find compelling evidence that accidents happen in the
0.8 - 1.0 range that are directly related to alcohol.


It's gotten to be too extreme. You're right, if I have 2 glasses of
wine even over say 3 hours, I bet I'm legally drunk now. I promise
I would not be even remotely a danger to any other motorist or
pedestrian. None. Just a criminal.
I
I guess MADD controls a lot of votes.


And I would be surprised if most MADD members never drove over .08.

Society in general learned a lot from the McMartin case. While it is

true
that children are not inherently dishonest, it is a fact that small

children
will try desperately to please adults. They can be led and they are
convicted in their beliefs once they are planted.


That was a terrible thing. And that wasn't the only case, as I'm
sure you know. How many lives ruined by hysterical people.

Having said both things, drunk driving (a national past time to which I

lost
two brothers in one night)


I cannot believe that happened to you, I'm so sorry. Like saying I'm
sorry helps, but, wow.


Oddly, enough, it does help. Thank you. See my previous post to Wendy.

There are always extremes. As you can imagine, I cannot think of anything
more irresponsible than getting behind the wheel of a car and driving when I
am impaired. It doesn't happen often but occasionally, I have had a few
drinks on an empty stomach and seriously questioned my ability to drive. On
those occasions, I got another ride home. But, like you said, there are
many times when I have probably been 'legally' drunk. My darling BF and I
like to meet at a martini bar occasionally. I will have a couple of glasses
of wine. I would most likely be 'legally' drunk after two glasses of wine.

My original post had to deal with fast food and how it has become such an
intregal part of our society that we seldom think of it as being harmful.
Driving while intoxicated was not a big deal 20 years ago. It was very
important that the general public become educated to the dangers.
Meanwhile, there are the militants who have devoted their lives to a
campaign against drunk driving. Now, that they have a victory, there is
little purpose left in their lives unless they tighten the reins even
further. While their mission may have been truly in the interest of society
when it began, it has evolved into a self serving campaign to justify their
existance. I imagine that when fast food places offer alternative meals in
addition to fat laden, unhealthy choices, the fast food militants will
insist that only food they approve of will be on the menu!

And this is from someone who lost two brothers from drunk driving!

j

nancy





  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-01-2004, 02:24 AM
Julianne
 
Posts: n/a
Default "SuperMarket Me" - A documentary on my health problems from eating supermarket food


"mrbog" wrote in message
om...
(Geoff Miller) wrote in message

...
awareness increased
If cigarette smoke is so toxic that even secondhand exposure
to it is a health hazard, consider the level of concentration
of the smoke that people inhale directly from their cigarettes.
Why, it'd be so insanely toxic that smokers would all drop dead
right where they stood, after a single puff!


Musicians often have to play in bars. Bars are (used to be, at the
time you're discussing) very smoky. I mean. VERY SMOKEY. If you're a
jazz musician who doesn't smoke (yes, that exists), you'll have damn
near all the problems of a smoker anyway. I should be allowed to be a
musician without being a smoker. Other people's idiotic addiction
shouldn't be making me a smoker.


As a nurse, I am aware that any clinical position I take has risks. I could
get stuck with an HIV or Hepatitis B infected needle. I could put my back
out trying to move a very large patient. I could suffer psychological
damage if I inadvertently harmed a patient. In my current role as a
consultant, I could cost my clients millions of dollars if I did something
incorrect. There are risks that come with every job.

It seems to me that if a jazz musician wanted to work, he or she would take
into consideration the risks inherent with the job. When the risks are
greater than the benefits, it is time to move on. In the 80's, a lot of
nurses moved on because they were not comfortable with the risk of HIV.
Canadian nurses, not comfortable with SARS quit their jobs.

There is no law that says those who employ entertainers have to ensure that
jazz musicians have a smoke free environment. If you don't want to assume
the risk, find another line of work.

j


  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-01-2004, 11:19 AM
Frogleg
 
Posts: n/a
Default "SuperMarket Me" - A documentary on my health problems from eating supermarket food

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:32:07 -0500, Nancy Young
wrote:

Julianne wrote:

I agree that the public morality took things to extremes with both drunk
driving and child molestation. What concerns me now is the push to lower
the legal limit from 1.0 to 0.8 for DWI. I'm not saying it is a bad idea
but I have yet to find compelling evidence that accidents happen in the
0.8 - 1.0 range that are directly related to alcohol.


It's gotten to be too extreme. You're right, if I have 2 glasses of
wine even over say 3 hours, I bet I'm legally drunk now.


I'll bet you're not. According to a brief Google, a 170lb person would
have to consume 4 drinks in 1 hour; a 137lb(?) person, 3 to reach a
blood alcohol level of .08. Most other countries with DUI laws have
limits between 0.00 and 0.05. A glass of wine with dinner isn't going
to get you in trouble, nor will 2 glasses.

If you've ever seen one of those 'experiments' that usually test
people driving around cones in a parking lot, it is luminously clear
that even someone who *appears* perfectly sober is mildly impared at
fairly low blood-alcohol levels, and positively scary at anything
approaching 0.10.

http://www.state.ny.us/governor/ltgo.../april8_02.htm
  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-02-2004, 12:54 AM
mrbog
 
Posts: n/a
Default "SuperMarket Me" - A documentary on my health problems from eating supermarket food

"Julianne" wrote in message news:[email protected]

It seems to me that if a jazz musician wanted to work, he or she would take
into consideration the risks inherent with the job. When the risks are
greater than the benefits, it is time to move on. In the 80's, a lot of
nurses moved on because they were not comfortable with the risk of HIV.
Canadian nurses, not comfortable with SARS quit their jobs.

There is no law that says those who employ entertainers have to ensure that
jazz musicians have a smoke free environment. If you don't want to assume
the risk, find another line of work.

j


There is a law that (indirectly) prohibits you from tieing an aids
infected hyperdermic needle (or a chainsaw) to a stick and swinging it
around in a crowded room. If I'm a computer programmer and I work
somewhere where people swing chainsaws around for their own enjoyment,
at my risk, should I just consider that an occupational hazard and
change careers? I don't see how the job of writing computer programs
should require that I learn to dodge chainsaws, and I also don't see
how plying the trumpet should require musicians to risk lung cancer.

Your example falls apart because the dangers of your job are
unavoidable. It's not like the hospital makes a policy that you're
job *should* be dangerous. If anything, they do their best to reduce
your danger as much as reasonably possible. No one in the medical
field stands up and says "No, I think nurses should be MORE at risk,
not less." Smoking in public places is avoidable. So is swinging
hyperdermic needles around. There's law agains one, why not the
other.
  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-02-2004, 02:59 AM
Julianne
 
Posts: n/a
Default "SuperMarket Me" - A documentary on my health problems from eating supermarket food


"mrbog" wrote in message
om...
"Julianne" wrote in message

news:[email protected]

It seems to me that if a jazz musician wanted to work, he or she would

take
into consideration the risks inherent with the job. When the risks are
greater than the benefits, it is time to move on. In the 80's, a lot of
nurses moved on because they were not comfortable with the risk of HIV.
Canadian nurses, not comfortable with SARS quit their jobs.

There is no law that says those who employ entertainers have to ensure

that
jazz musicians have a smoke free environment. If you don't want to

assume
the risk, find another line of work.

j


There is a law that (indirectly) prohibits you from tieing an aids
infected hyperdermic needle (or a chainsaw) to a stick and swinging it
around in a crowded room. If I'm a computer programmer and I work
somewhere where people swing chainsaws around for their own enjoyment,
at my risk, should I just consider that an occupational hazard and
change careers? I don't see how the job of writing computer programs
should require that I learn to dodge chainsaws, and I also don't see
how plying the trumpet should require musicians to risk lung cancer.

Your example falls apart because the dangers of your job are
unavoidable. It's not like the hospital makes a policy that you're
job *should* be dangerous. If anything, they do their best to reduce
your danger as much as reasonably possible. No one in the medical
field stands up and says "No, I think nurses should be MORE at risk,
not less." Smoking in public places is avoidable. So is swinging
hyperdermic needles around. There's law agains one, why not the
other.


I do feel for you. Even though I enjoy a smoking on occasion, I am
miserable when I am in a smoke filled room.

There are three very solid positions on this issue. One is that if smoke
makes you miserable, avoid it. Surely, someone who can play trumpet can
also find other work of equal pay.

Another position is that smoking in public places should be banned. This is
a solid argument except I have seen no credible studies that indicate that
second hand smoke is a hazard. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence but
with the exception of small children and airline personnel who work on long
distance flights, there is no solid research. Thankfully, infants are not
often brought to jazz bars.

The last position is that smokers should be placed away from those who are
bothered by cigarette or cigar smoke. This might very well include the
band. The smokers would have the choice of abstaining for want of a better
seat or settling for a seat far away from the band.

Smoking in public places is avoidable. So is entertainment and relaxation.
There is no law that says I am entitled to a place where I can relax without
being bothered by the ways of others.

This afternoon, I attended a baby shower. I have severe migraines which are
frequently triggered by strong odors. Even pleasant perfumes have been
known to spark a migraine in me. My friends are most indulgent. There were
many people at this shower that I did not know, One of them wore a strong
perfume. I am less prone to actual migraines after Botox treatment but the
nausea and sensitivity to light was very real. So, should I move to ban
perfumes? Is it my responsibility to handle my insensitivity or should I
demand that others tend to my needs?

j


  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-02-2004, 08:10 AM
mrbog
 
Posts: n/a
Default "SuperMarket Me" - A documentary on my health problems from eating supermarket food

"Julianne" wrote in message news:[email protected]

There are three very solid positions on this issue. One is that if smoke
makes you miserable, avoid it. Surely, someone who can play trumpet can
also find other work of equal pay.


But isn't that just as absurd as saying that computer programmers who
don't like getting hit by chainsaws (in my previous example) should
change their profession, rather than making chainsaw swinging illegal?
I'm assuming this is not the stance you're taking of the two.

second hand smoke is a hazard. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence but
with the exception of small children and airline personnel who work on long
distance flights, there is no solid research. Thankfully, infants are not
often brought to jazz bars.


Yea but what about the airline personnel study? Did the study show
that they have negative health effects? You kind of quietly dodged
that there..

Smoking in public places is avoidable. So is entertainment and relaxation.
There is no law that says I am entitled to a place where I can relax without
being bothered by the ways of others.


Well no, but like I said, there is a law that you can't swing
chainsaws around for your entertainment and relaxation. In other
words, you're allowed to enjoy entertainment and relaxation, but not
at the expense of other people's health. You can't shoot skeet in
your backyard, because you might shoot someone, but you can do it
elsewhere where your enjoyment won't hurt me. How is that any
different from smoking?

(And by the way, there actually IS a "law that says I am entitled to a
place where I can relax without being bothered by the ways of others"-
that place is your own home, and there are books full of laws about
not being bothered by others while you're in your own home. I know
that's not our main argument here but your statement was flawed and I
had to point it out.)

nausea and sensitivity to light was very real. So, should I move to ban
perfumes? Is it my responsibility to handle my insensitivity or should I
demand that others tend to my needs?


This is a good one (and btw perfume gives me headaches too!) I guess
in this case, I plead "the majority", which I'm normally sheepish
about doing. Another similar example to yours would be the "boy in
the bubble"- someone with a terribly weak immune system, vulnerable to
even the slightest bit of uncleanliness. I guess the difference
between vulnerability to perfume and smoking is that second hand smoke
(if proven to be dangerous) is likely to be dangerous to just about
everyone, (kind of like swinging a chainsaw around).

So as a rule, I don't think anyone should be allowed to do ANYTHING
that directly endangers "most" types of people in the given area, even
if only moderately. Or at least allowing it should be a special case-
like a free speech rally or something, labelled as such in the laws
(like an amendment), and I can't imagine that you think smoking
tobacco qualifies for that kind of "essential liberty" status. So-
"Don't ride your bike on the sidewalk, Don't store explosives on your
front porch, Don't drive with your headlights off, Don't start a
bonfire in the middle of a thick forest, and why not 'don't smoke or
throw acid in a crowded room'". Seems to me that this is the
foundation of law in general, right?

I guess it depends on the study...


  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-02-2004, 08:10 AM
mrbog
 
Posts: n/a
Default "SuperMarket Me" - A documentary on my health problems from eating supermarket food

"Julianne" wrote in message news:[email protected]

There are three very solid positions on this issue. One is that if smoke
makes you miserable, avoid it. Surely, someone who can play trumpet can
also find other work of equal pay.


But isn't that just as absurd as saying that computer programmers who
don't like getting hit by chainsaws (in my previous example) should
change their profession, rather than making chainsaw swinging illegal?
I'm assuming this is not the stance you're taking of the two.

second hand smoke is a hazard. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence but
with the exception of small children and airline personnel who work on long
distance flights, there is no solid research. Thankfully, infants are not
often brought to jazz bars.


Yea but what about the airline personnel study? Did the study show
that they have negative health effects? You kind of quietly dodged
that there..

Smoking in public places is avoidable. So is entertainment and relaxation.
There is no law that says I am entitled to a place where I can relax without
being bothered by the ways of others.


Well no, but like I said, there is a law that you can't swing
chainsaws around for your entertainment and relaxation. In other
words, you're allowed to enjoy entertainment and relaxation, but not
at the expense of other people's health. You can't shoot skeet in
your backyard, because you might shoot someone, but you can do it
elsewhere where your enjoyment won't hurt me. How is that any
different from smoking?

(And by the way, there actually IS a "law that says I am entitled to a
place where I can relax without being bothered by the ways of others"-
that place is your own home, and there are books full of laws about
not being bothered by others while you're in your own home. I know
that's not our main argument here but your statement was flawed and I
had to point it out.)

nausea and sensitivity to light was very real. So, should I move to ban
perfumes? Is it my responsibility to handle my insensitivity or should I
demand that others tend to my needs?


This is a good one (and btw perfume gives me headaches too!) I guess
in this case, I plead "the majority", which I'm normally sheepish
about doing. Another similar example to yours would be the "boy in
the bubble"- someone with a terribly weak immune system, vulnerable to
even the slightest bit of uncleanliness. I guess the difference
between vulnerability to perfume and smoking is that second hand smoke
(if proven to be dangerous) is likely to be dangerous to just about
everyone, (kind of like swinging a chainsaw around).

So as a rule, I don't think anyone should be allowed to do ANYTHING
that directly endangers "most" types of people in the given area, even
if only moderately. Or at least allowing it should be a special case-
like a free speech rally or something, labelled as such in the laws
(like an amendment), and I can't imagine that you think smoking
tobacco qualifies for that kind of "essential liberty" status. So-
"Don't ride your bike on the sidewalk, Don't store explosives on your
front porch, Don't drive with your headlights off, Don't start a
bonfire in the middle of a thick forest, and why not 'don't smoke or
throw acid in a crowded room'". Seems to me that this is the
foundation of law in general, right?

I guess it depends on the study...
  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-02-2004, 11:28 AM
Rhonda Anderson
 
Posts: n/a
Default "SuperMarket Me" - A documentary on my health problems from eating supermarket food

"Julianne" wrote in
news:[email protected]:

I am less prone to actual
migraines after Botox treatment but the nausea and sensitivity to
light was very real.


Found this interesting - you've answered a question for me. I suffer from
migraines, and had heard a little about the use of Botox. I'd read that it
was working by interfering with the trigeminal (think I got that right!)
nerve. I figured this meant that the Botox did not actually stop the
migraine from occurring, but stopped the symptom of pain whilst other
symptoms - aura, nausea etc. would remain. Your post seems to have
confirmed this - thanks for the info!

Rhonda Anderson
Cranebrook, NSW, Australia

  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-02-2004, 06:39 AM
Ping Pong Penis
 
Posts: n/a
Default "SuperMarket Me" - A documentary on my health problems from eating supermarket food

Why eat food that you shouldn't eat everyday?


"SuperMarket Me" - A documentary on my health problems from eating at
the supermarket.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Jan 27, 2004

I coducted a study of the effects of eating food only from American
supermarkets. The piece is intended to reveal the nature of the
problem of obesity in America.

Over the thirty day period my health deteriorated rapidly. My
cholesterol went up by 59 points, I had problems with my vision, I was
depressed and vomiting, I lost confidence in myself, and I considered
becoming a woman.

The documentary reveals the source of the health problems in America:
fatty foods, sugar-rich foods, insufficient vegetables, mentholyptus,
and mints. The result of eating these foods caused my blood pressure
to increase by 14 pounds per square inch. By the third day, the
vomiting I endured was so frequent and spontaneous that people called
me "projectile boy".

I am submitting my 184 minute feature production to the Cannes Film
Festival, in the hopes that it will get noticed big directors like
Steven Speilberg, James Cameron, Raymond Martino, and Nacho Vidal.

Oh by the way, I only ate corned beef, heavy cream, butter, kosher
salt, and sudafed. But it was all purchased from American
supermarkets. I call it "The American Supermarket Diet".



Does it seem like crappy logic to anyone else? McDonalds has salads,
parfaits, the mclean burger, and probably other stuff I don't know
about because I never eat there myself. (I remember the salads were
actually very good.) You can eat only mcdonalds for thirty days and
end up looking even better than Jared.

  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-02-2004, 07:14 AM
Ping Pong Penis
 
Posts: n/a
Default I'm not a "troll" "SuperMarket Me" - A documentary on my health problems from eating supermarket food

Geoff, you must shut up.

Excuse me? Do you disagree with my explanation of trolling, or
perhaps object to my presence in one of the above newsgroups?
What, specifically, is your beef?



Geoff



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fast food health problems.Read before you eat another big mac meph144 General Cooking 10 13-09-2012 11:29 PM
How to identify GMO food at the supermarket...if you care to. ImStillMags General Cooking 32 30-03-2012 12:28 PM
Off to the supermarket George Shirley Preserving 0 10-11-2005 04:13 PM
Fun at the supermarket! Andy General Cooking 63 21-06-2005 01:21 PM
'Critic' Reviews Grotesque Supermarket 'Food' Items 666 General Cooking 0 20-05-2005 06:11 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2020 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017