 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
No need for farm animals.
Jahnu, don't waste your time arguing with them, it'll just give you stress,
and give them too much enjoyment. Actually Rick and Jonathon, I'm curious why you're so interested in arguing with the posters here. People don't typically hang out with those they vehemently disagree with. Is it just something you do for entertainment; are you members of the beef council looking for converts; is it a mission from God? Do vegetarians come to your "eat meat a lot" newsgroup and pounce on you, so you do this for retribution? Maybe it's a gang thing. I guess that would make you the bloods.... (ha ha) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jahnu" > Newsgroups: alt.philosophy,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.politics. animals,misc.rural,uk.busi ness.agriculture,alt.food.vegan Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 5:12 AM Subject: No need for farm animals. > On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:17:42 GMT, "Rubystars" > > wrote: > > > > >"Jahnu" > wrote in message > ><snip> > > > >Look Jahnu, I'm not saying there wouldn't be more *food* but forcing people > >to go on a vegan diet who don't know how to do so would cause malnutrition > >and at least some deaths from starvation. > > I am not an advocate of a vegan diet. I suggest a vegetarian diet, > which includes milk products. Nobody will die from starvation by > becoming a vegetarian. They will rather improve their mental and > physical health significantly by abstaining from meat. On the other > hand a lot of people die before their time from diseases related to > meat-eating. > > -jahnu > www.krishna.com > www.iskcon.org "rick etter" > wrote in message ... > > "Jahnu" > wrote in message > ... > > On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:17:42 GMT, "Rubystars" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >"Jahnu" > wrote in message > > ><snip> > > > > > >Look Jahnu, I'm not saying there wouldn't be more *food* but forcing > people > > >to go on a vegan diet who don't know how to do so would cause > malnutrition > > >and at least some deaths from starvation. > > > > I am not an advocate of a vegan diet. I suggest a vegetarian diet, > > which includes milk products. Nobody will die from starvation by > > becoming a vegetarian. They will rather improve their mental and > > physical health significantly by abstaining from meat. On the other > > hand a lot of people die before their time from diseases related to > > meat-eating. > =============== > Another ly. Too bad that's all you have, killer. > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
Allyb wrote:
> Jahnu, don't waste your time arguing with them, it'll just give you stress, > and give them too much enjoyment. Actually Rick and Jonathon, I'm curious > why you're so interested in arguing with the posters here. People don't > typically hang out with those they vehemently disagree with. Is it just > something you do for entertainment; are you members of the beef council > looking for converts; is it a mission from God? Why would you possibly care? Anyway, you have lots of lurid fantasies to keep you satisfied; you can vacillate among them as you see fit. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
I care because I think it's really interesting what you do. I'm not nearly
as interested in fantasy as I am about reality. I know you're probably going to have something biting to say about that since you think you know the lifestyle I live, but it's the truth. I'm honestly curious about what motivates you. Maybe I should have been an anthropologist............ I'm very interested in atypical responses to stimuli. I think it's atypical that anti-vegans spend so much time in a vegan newsgroup, you piqued my interest. I'm not a one issue girl ya know. "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message link.net... > Allyb wrote: > > > Jahnu, don't waste your time arguing with them, it'll just give you stress, > > and give them too much enjoyment. Actually Rick and Jonathon, I'm curious > > why you're so interested in arguing with the posters here. People don't > > typically hang out with those they vehemently disagree with. Is it just > > something you do for entertainment; are you members of the beef council > > looking for converts; is it a mission from God? > > Why would you possibly care? Anyway, you have lots of > lurid fantasies to keep you satisfied; you can > vacillate among them as you see fit. > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
"Allyb" > wrote in message ... > Jahnu, don't waste your time arguing with them, it'll just give you stress, > and give them too much enjoyment. ==================== The enjoyment of seeing your ignorance is there whether you respond to us or not. The amusment factor doesn't change. Actually Rick and Jonathon, I'm curious > why you're so interested in arguing with the posters here. ========================== Not 'arguing' stupid. Just pointing out all the lys that AR/vegan loons persist in promoting. Their delsuions are just plain ignorance and I'm here just to inform. People don't > typically hang out with those they vehemently disagree with. ===================== Too bad. You want justification for your ignorance, then keep it for like minded idiots. You spew it around the world for all to see and you'll be called on it. Is it just > something you do for entertainment; are you members of the beef council > looking for converts; is it a mission from God? ========================== Neither fool. Your ignornace is the reason. Do vegetarians come to your > "eat meat a lot" newsgroup and pounce on you, so you do this for > retribution? Maybe it's a gang thing. I guess that would make you the > bloods.... (ha ha) ==================== Wow, what wit. I guess that's all you have, eh killer. Obviously you can't refute what we say. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jahnu" > > Newsgroups: > alt.philosophy,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.politics. animals,misc.rural,uk.busi > ness.agriculture,alt.food.vegan > Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 5:12 AM > Subject: No need for farm animals. > > > > On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:17:42 GMT, "Rubystars" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >"Jahnu" > wrote in message > > ><snip> > > > > > >Look Jahnu, I'm not saying there wouldn't be more *food* but forcing > people > > >to go on a vegan diet who don't know how to do so would cause > malnutrition > > >and at least some deaths from starvation. > > > > I am not an advocate of a vegan diet. I suggest a vegetarian diet, > > which includes milk products. Nobody will die from starvation by > > becoming a vegetarian. They will rather improve their mental and > > physical health significantly by abstaining from meat. On the other > > hand a lot of people die before their time from diseases related to > > meat-eating. > > > > -jahnu > > www.krishna.com > > www.iskcon.org > > "rick etter" > wrote in message > ... > > > > "Jahnu" > wrote in message > > ... > > > On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:17:42 GMT, "Rubystars" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >"Jahnu" > wrote in message > > > ><snip> > > > > > > > >Look Jahnu, I'm not saying there wouldn't be more *food* but forcing > > people > > > >to go on a vegan diet who don't know how to do so would cause > > malnutrition > > > >and at least some deaths from starvation. > > > > > > I am not an advocate of a vegan diet. I suggest a vegetarian diet, > > > which includes milk products. Nobody will die from starvation by > > > becoming a vegetarian. They will rather improve their mental and > > > physical health significantly by abstaining from meat. On the other > > > hand a lot of people die before their time from diseases related to > > > meat-eating. > > =============== > > Another ly. Too bad that's all you have, killer. > > > > > > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
"Allyb" > wrote in message ... > I care because I think it's really interesting what you do. I'm not nearly > as interested in fantasy as I am about reality. I know you're probably > going to have something biting to say about that since you think you know > the lifestyle I live, but it's the truth. I'm honestly curious about what > motivates you. Maybe I should have been an anthropologist............ I'm > very interested in atypical responses to stimuli. I think it's atypical > that anti-vegans spend so much time in a vegan newsgroup, ======================= Hey stupid, just look at the headers. For once in your life try reading for comprehension. How many 'vegan' groups do you see there, dolt? you piqued my > interest. I'm not a one issue girl ya know. ================= Just a stupid one? Live your fantasy, killer. > > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message > link.net... > > Allyb wrote: > > > > > Jahnu, don't waste your time arguing with them, it'll just give you > stress, > > > and give them too much enjoyment. Actually Rick and Jonathon, I'm > curious > > > why you're so interested in arguing with the posters here. People don't > > > typically hang out with those they vehemently disagree with. Is it just > > > something you do for entertainment; are you members of the beef council > > > looking for converts; is it a mission from God? > > > > Why would you possibly care? Anyway, you have lots of > > lurid fantasies to keep you satisfied; you can > > vacillate among them as you see fit. > > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
Thanks for the enlightening answers rick and jonathon. Glad to know the
world has two such happy, outstanding human beings in it. "rick etter" > wrote in message ... > > "Allyb" > wrote in message > ... > > Jahnu, don't waste your time arguing with them, it'll just give you > stress, > > and give them too much enjoyment. > ==================== > The enjoyment of seeing your ignorance is there whether you respond to us or > not. The amusment factor doesn't change. > > > Actually Rick and Jonathon, I'm curious > > why you're so interested in arguing with the posters here. > ========================== > Not 'arguing' stupid. Just pointing out all the lys that AR/vegan loons > persist in promoting. Their delsuions are just plain ignorance and I'm here > just to inform. > > People don't > > typically hang out with those they vehemently disagree with. > ===================== > Too bad. You want justification for your ignorance, then keep it for like > minded idiots. You spew it around the world for all to see and you'll be > called on it. > > Is it just > > something you do for entertainment; are you members of the beef council > > looking for converts; is it a mission from God? > ========================== > Neither fool. Your ignornace is the reason. > > > Do vegetarians come to your > > "eat meat a lot" newsgroup and pounce on you, so you do this for > > retribution? Maybe it's a gang thing. I guess that would make you the > > bloods.... (ha ha) > ==================== > Wow, what wit. I guess that's all you have, eh killer. Obviously you can't > refute what we say. > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jahnu" > > > Newsgroups: > > > alt.philosophy,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.politics. animals,misc.rural,uk.busi > > ness.agriculture,alt.food.vegan > > Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 5:12 AM > > Subject: No need for farm animals. > > > > > > > On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:17:42 GMT, "Rubystars" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >"Jahnu" > wrote in message > > > ><snip> > > > > > > > >Look Jahnu, I'm not saying there wouldn't be more *food* but forcing > > people > > > >to go on a vegan diet who don't know how to do so would cause > > malnutrition > > > >and at least some deaths from starvation. > > > > > > I am not an advocate of a vegan diet. I suggest a vegetarian diet, > > > which includes milk products. Nobody will die from starvation by > > > becoming a vegetarian. They will rather improve their mental and > > > physical health significantly by abstaining from meat. On the other > > > hand a lot of people die before their time from diseases related to > > > meat-eating. > > > > > > -jahnu > > > www.krishna.com > > > www.iskcon.org > > > > "rick etter" > wrote in message > > ... > > > > > > "Jahnu" > wrote in message > > > ... > > > > On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:17:42 GMT, "Rubystars" > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"Jahnu" > wrote in message > > > > ><snip> > > > > > > > > > >Look Jahnu, I'm not saying there wouldn't be more *food* but forcing > > > people > > > > >to go on a vegan diet who don't know how to do so would cause > > > malnutrition > > > > >and at least some deaths from starvation. > > > > > > > > I am not an advocate of a vegan diet. I suggest a vegetarian diet, > > > > which includes milk products. Nobody will die from starvation by > > > > becoming a vegetarian. They will rather improve their mental and > > > > physical health significantly by abstaining from meat. On the other > > > > hand a lot of people die before their time from diseases related to > > > > meat-eating. > > > =============== > > > Another ly. Too bad that's all you have, killer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
"Allyb" > wrote in message ... > Thanks for the enlightening answers rick and jonathon. Glad to know the > world has two such happy, outstanding human beings in it. =========================== Glad to see you're just another loon that can't defend thrie idiocy nor refute wg=hat we say. All you have is your cute little posts. Posts that contribute to the death and suffering of animals btw for nothing more than your entertainment. Guess animals don't mean as much to you as you pretend, eh killer? snippage... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
****wit: I am lodging complaints with Mindspring every time you forge my name to a post
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message > >>****wit David Harrison forged my name and wrote: > >>****WIT, you really are going to hear from Mindspring > >>over this. Stop forging my name to your posts, ****WIT. > (snip) ****WIT's posting under my name > is prohibited by Mindspring's terms-of-use agreement. Stop being such a whiner you miserable hypocrite. You are contavening so many of your ISPs "Acceptable Use" policies that you can't legitimately criticise anyone for anything. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 12:49:11 -0500, "rick etter"
> wrote: > >"Jahnu" > wrote in message >> Hey meathead, you wouldn't know a sound argument if it fell on your >> head in broad daylight. >> ============== >Yes, I would, and yours isn't one of them... <blah blah> "Can a vegetarian diet improve or restore health? Can it prevent certain diseases?" Advocates of vegetarianism have said yes for many years, although they didin't have much support from modern science until recently. Now, medical researchers have discovered evidence of a link between meat-eating and such killers as heart disease and cancer, so they are giving vegetarianism another look. Since the 1960s, scientists have suspected that a meat based diet is somehow related to the development of arteriosclerosis and heart disease. As early as 1961, the Journal of the American Medical Association said: 'Ninety to ninety-seven percent of heart diseases can be prevented by a vegetarian diet.'1 Since that time, several well-organized studies have scientifically shown that after tobacco and alcohol, the consumption of meat is the greatest single cause pf mortality in Western Europe, The USA, Australia, and other affluent areas of the world.2 The human body is unable to deal with excessive amounts of animal fat and cholesterol.3 A poll of 214 scientists doing research on arteriosclerosis in 23 countries showed almost total agreement that there is a link between diet, serum cholesterol levels, and heart disease.4 When a person eats more cholesterol than the body needs (as he usual does with a meat-centered diet), the excess cholesterol gradually becomes a problem. It accumulates on the inner walls of the arteries, constricts the flow of blood to the heart, and can lead to high blood preassure, heart diseases, and strokes. On the other hand, scientists at the University of Milan and Maggiore Hospital have shown that vegetable protein may act to keep cholesterol levels low. In a report to the British medical journal 'The Lancet' D.C.R. Sirtori concluded that people with the type of high cholesterol associated with heart disease 'may benefit from a diet in which protein comes only from vegetables.'5 What about cancer? Research over the past twenty years strongly suggests a link between meat-eating and cancer of the colon, rectum, breast, and uterus. These types of cancer are rare among those who eat little or no meat, such as the Seventh-Day Adventists, Japanese, and Indians, but are prevalent among meat-eating populations.6 Another article in 'The Lancet' reported, 'People living in the areas with a high recorded incidence of carcinoma of the colon tend to live on diets containing large amounts of fat and animal protein; whereas those who live in areas with a low incidence live on largely vegetarian diets with little fat or animal matter.'7 Rollo Russell, in his 'Notes on the Causation of Cancer', says, 'I have found of 25 nations eating mostly flesh, 19 had a high cancer rate and only one had a low rate, and that of 35 nations eating little or no flesh, none had a high rate.'8 Why do meat-eaters seem more prone to these diseases? One reason given by biologists and nutritionists is that man's intestinal tract is simply not suited for digesting meat. Flesh-eating animals have short intestinal tracts (3 times the length of the animal's body), to quickly excrete rapidly decaying toxin-producing meat from the system. Since plant foods decay more slowly than meat, plant-eaters have intestines at least six times the length of the body. Man has the long intestinal tract of a herbivore, so if he eats meat, toxins can overload kidneys and lead to gout, arthritis, rheumatism, and even cancer. And then there are chemical added to meat. As soon as an animal is slaughtered its flesh begins to putrefy, and after several days it turns a sickly gray-green. The meat industry masks this discoloration by adding nitrites, nitrates, and other preservatives to give the meat a bright red color. But research has shown many of these preservatives to be carcinogenic.9 And what makes the problem worse is the massive amounts of chemicals fed to livestock. Gary and Steven Null, in their book, 'Poisons in your Body', show us something that ought to make anyone think twice before buying another steak or ham. 'The animals are kept alive and fattened by continuous administration of tranquilizers, hormones, antibiotics, and 2.700 other drugs. The process starts even before birth and continues long after death. Although these drugs will still be present in the meat when you eat it, the law does not require that they be listed on the package.'10 Because of findings like this, the American National Academy of Sciences reported in 1983 that, 'people may be able to prevent many common types of cancer by eating less fatty meats and more vegetables and grains.'11 But wait a minute! Weren't we human beings designed to be meat-eaters? Don't we need animal protein? The answer to both these questions is no. Although some historians and anthropologists say that man is historically omnivorous, our anatomical equipment - teeth, jaws, and digestive system - favors a fleshless diet. The American Dietetic Association notes that 'most of mankind for most of human history has lived on vegetarian or near-vegetarian diets.' And much of the world still lives that way. Even in most industrialized countries the love affair with meat is less than a hundred years old. It started with the refrigerator, car, and the 20th century consumer society. But even in the 20th century, man's body hasn't adapted to eating meat. The prominent Swedish scientist Karl von Linne states, 'Man's structure, external and internal, compared with that of the other animals, shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his natural food.' (The chart I have posted several times compare the anatomy of man with that of carnivorous and herbivorous animals.) As for the protein question, Dr.Paavo Airola, a leading authority on nutrition and natural biology, has this to say: 'The official daily recommendation for protein has gone down from the 150 grams recommended twenty years ago to only 45 grams today. Why? Because reliable worldwide research has shown that we do not need so much protein, that the actual daily need is only 30 to 45 grams. Protein consumed in excess of the actual daily need is not only wasted, but actually causes serious harm to the body and is even causatively related to such killer diseases as cancer and heart diesase. In order to obtain 45 grams of protein a day from your diet, you do not have to eat meat; you can get it from a 100% vegetarian diet of a variety of grains, lentils, nuts, vegetables, and fruits.'12 Dairy products, grains, beans, and nuts are all concentrated sources of protein. Cheese, peanuts, and lentils, for instance, contain more protein per ounce than hamburger, pork, or porter-house steak. Still nutritians thought until recently that only meat, fish, eggs, and milk products had complete proteins (containing the 8 amino acids not produced in the body), and that all vegetable proteins were incomplete (lacking one or more of these amino acids). But research at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden and the Max Planck Institute in Germany has shown that most vegetables, fruits, seeds, nuts, and grains are excellent sources of complete proteins. In fact, their proteins are easier to assimilate than those of meat - and they don't bring with them any toxins. It's nearly impossible to lack protein if you eat enough natural unrefined food. Remember, the vegetable kingdom is the real source of ALL protein. Vegetarians simply eat it 'direct' instead of getting it second-hand from the vegetarian animals." References: Can be had upon request. www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 06:31:28 -0600, "Russ Thompson" >
wrote: > >> It IS true. Only meatheads and idiots who have made a business out of >> killing animals will object to it. > >*** See the "uninformed and ignorant" part of my message. I retract the >"well meaning". > The message I replied to makes claims that are demonstratably false. > >Kala Thompson >Farmer >Richland Center, Wi MAD COWS OR MAD SCIENTISTS? THE SUPPRESSION OF ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS By David Crowe The smoke and flames from funeral pyres for hundreds of thousands of British cows are fading into distant memory, but the fear of this disease affecting livestock or wildlife continues to circulate the globe. Most people do not realize that there is a non-infectious explanation for Mad Cow disease and other spongiform encephalopathies and chronic wasting diseases. This is due to the reluctance of scientists, health and agriculture bureaucrats and most of the media to question a theory that affects public health once it is active policy. One man, Mark Purdey, has turned himself from organic dairy farmer into an amateur scientist and globe-trotting epidemiologist to doggedly continue building the major alternative theory. The infectious theory of Mad Cow disease not only resulted in the possibly unnecessary destruction of hundreds of thousands of cows, but it diverted attention from other causes of health problems facing livestock and wildlife. It created a fear of eating beef (perhaps not entirely misplaced, but for the wrong reasons) and resulted in the circulation of tons of toxic materials from the slaughtered cows into the atmosphere. It also prevented investigations into alternative solutions to the epidemic of disease, even though these might be cheaper, more constructive and far less destructive. The dominant belief is that Mad Cow disease (also known as Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy or BSE) and the related diseases Scrapie in Sheep and vCJD (variant Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease) in humans are caused by a prion, a mutant protein. These semi-living beings are thought to be able to withstand temperatures that would kill the hardiest bacteria, viruses and parasites. It is believed that this allowed them to be transmitted from sheep to cows through the rendering of sheep brains into MBM (Meat and Bone Meal) protein supplements for cows. An apparently unrelated health problem in cows that existed before Mad Cow disease was warble fly infestation. These flies lay their eggs in a cow’s skin, causing health problems and reducing the value of cow hides. To combat this, in the early 1980’s the British government mandated the use of heavy doses of organophosphate insecticides. These were poured in an oil-based liquid along the spinal column of cows. It was intended that they be systemic, absorbed into the cow’s body, as it was believed that this was necessary to provide full and enduring protection from warble flies. Mark Purdey was one of a handful of farmers who refused to use organophosphates (such as Phosmet) on their cows in 1982. He was concerned that the high doses would damage the health of his cows because the application was so close to the spinal column. He was also concerned about the health of people who drank milk from his cows. In 1984, Purdey won his court fight, and gained the right to use less toxic methods to combat warble fly. When the first cases of neurological problems were reported in cows in 1985, Purdey felt that his avoidance of these pesticides had been vindicated. However, researchers and the British Government had a different idea, blaming the rapidly emerging disease on the recently postulated prion, based on the detection of protein plaques in the brains of sick cows. Purdey started to publicly argue his theory that organophosphate pesticides were actually the cause of neurological problems, attracting some attention, and seriously annoying the British scientific establishment and government who were starting to act as if the infectious theory was fact. Purdey noted many inconsistencies in the prion theory. Cows were supposedly infected by feeding on supplements containing the brains of sheep with Scrapie, yet Shetland Islanders had been eating potted sheep brains for centuries without similar diseases occurring. He also noted that British byproducts were exported around the world, yet the 170,000 British cases of BSE far outnumbered the total in the rest of the world. Cases of BSE had been found on organic farms with cows brought in from outside, but not on those raised from birth on the organic farms, even though organic farming rules allow restricted amounts of the suspect MBM feeds. Other ruminants, such as goats and sheep, were not affected by Mad Cow-like diseases in England, even though they were fed MBM supplements. Conversely, several antelopes at the London Zoo and cattle at the Liscombe experimental farm developed BSE, but had never been fed MBM supplements. When BSE was found in other countries it was in places like Bretagne in northwest France where organophosphate pesticides were first encouraged by the French government. As in the UK, BSE cases first occurred a few years after the pesticide program was initiated. The lower number of cases may be due to the lower doses used, the use of annual treatments (as opposed to twice a year in the UK) and because the program was not mandatory. As further evidence, the decline in BSE cases in the UK began about the same time the warble fly eradication program ended. British cases of vCJD in humans also fit the environmental theory. The disease was found in some long-term vegetarians and in humans who had never eaten cow brains. There is no good explanation of why cows could only get BSE from eating sheep brains, but humans could get it from eating only other parts of cows. Although there was a great deal of panic, there were actually few cases in humans. Purdey noted that about 80% of the 82 cases were in rural areas, even though more than 80% of Britons live in urban areas. One cluster in the Weald district of Kent is in a hops growing area where organophosphate pesticides are used at 100 times average levels for all crops. Purdey lobbied for government funding to test his research. Eventually, he did get a small amount, and Dr. Stephen Whatley of the University of London was able to show in a test tube that organophosphates were found to produce 3 of the 4 protein transformations required to create the mutant prion protein. A victory, but also a major defeat. The UK BSE inquiry admitted that "the door is not yet closed on the possibility that OPs [organophosphates] played a role in rendering cattle susceptible to BSE infectivity," but the infectious theory was still cast in the primary role because of the inability of Whatley to show all four transformations. Purdey was not about to give up. He felt that there must be a co-factor that he had missed. To find it he went on a tour of places in the world where spongiform encepalopathies had existed in animals or humans for some time, collecting samples of soil and feed. In these places, where organophosphates had little or no use, he found extremely high Manganese levels and low Copper, Selenium, Zinc and Iron. He did not find this in geographically similar areas where no illness was found. The causes of this mineral imbalance varied, including acid rain, volcanic emissions, lead-free gasoline production, emissions from steel, glass, ceramic, dye and munitions manufacturing and the take-off zones of major airports. BSE-like diseases were found in Colorado among deer and elk in an area of the front ranges where overpopulation often forced starving animals to graze on pine needles. These showed very high levels of Manganese, perhaps due to acid rain from upwind smelters. In Iceland, Purdey found Scrapie associated with similar high Manganese/low Copper soil conditions. In Slovakia the two clusters of CJD are close to ferromanganese factories and glassworks (heavy users of Manganese). These cases may well be related to the almost eradicated occupational disease known as "Manganese Madness" which occurred among miners exposed to poorly ventilated working conditions. Its symptoms and brain pathology are similar to spongiform encephalopathies. Purdey was not just randomly testing for mineral abnormalities. Copper is a constituent of the normal prion protein, and Manganese could be a replacement when Copper is deficient, or when Manganese is present at high levels, such as in many mineral supplements for cattle. It is at this point that Organophosphates re-enter the theory. They can remove copper from the body, leaving the door open for Manganese (or other similar metals) to replace it in the prion protein. This results in a non-functional conformation of the molecule, particularly when Manganese is from the 2+ form to the oxidative 3+ and 4+ forms. Recently, Purdey traveled to Groote Eylandt, an island north-east of Australia where 25% of the world’s Manganese is currently produced. About one in thirty people in the largely aboriginal Agurugu village, where the fine mine dust regularly settles most heavily, have Groote Syndrome, a progressive neurological disease. Researchers supported by the mining company hypothesize a genetic defect introduced by Portuguese sailors 300 years ago, even though this theory does not explain why some white mine workers also have this syndrome, nor does it explain the emergence of this syndrome since open pit mining began in the 1960s. Purdey’s theory was now multi-factorial. Organophosphates were a major factor, but the copper/manganese imbalance could be exacerbated by animal feeds or mineral supplements. Similar situations could occur where the soil is low in the antioxidant metals and high in Manganese. After extending the theory, David Brown, a researcher at Cambridge University performed experiments that incorporated high Manganese and low Copper conditions and was able to reproduce all four protein changes in vitro, thus providing full laboratory confirmation that Purdey's theory is at least plausible. At the height of the Mad Cow frenzy, the British government invited Purdey to make a detailed proposal for research funding. Predictably, after sitting on the proposal for more than a year, they rejected it, and then funded two of its reviewers for some of the studies suggested by it. A cynic might conclude that they had asked for a grant proposal solely to have Purdey reveal his arguments and thoughts in full detail, so that they could then fund some ‘reliable’ researchers to debunk them, without giving Purdey resources that might strengthen his arguments. Interest in Purdey’s ideas is still growing in a grass roots fashion, although slowly, and usually beneath the radar of major media outlets. Purdey has a small grant from the US Fats and Protein Research Foundation, supervised by Dr. Larry Berger of the Animal Science Lab in Urbana, Illinois. Purdey recently gave 14 lectures in Japan, some Slovakian researchers are studying the influence of Manganese and Copper on familial and sporadic cases of CJD. Some British universities are also quietly investigating in this area. Purdey is attempting to obtain brain samples from Groote Eylandt to test for manganese and copper levels, and has persuaded one local GP there to see whether a chelating drug that removes Manganese will have beneficial effects. Purdey is now investigating whether ultra-violet light is an additional factor in the development of SE diseases, perhaps in concert with a haze of terpines from the pine trees that often grow at these elevations. He hypothesizes that the eyes could act as a trigger, because of their concentration of nerves exposed to light. Purdey and other researchers have turned up many potential factors that could stimulate the development of spongiform encephalopathies and chronic wasting diseases. If some or all components of this theory prove to be valid, the solutions to these devastating diseases could be incredibly simple. It may also open new avenues of research into mental illness. Supplementation of cattle feeds with minute amounts of copper and regulation of the manganese levels could work near miracles, at minimal cost. Chelation could be used to reduce the levels found in people or animals suffering from these illnesses. Yet, it is likely that governments and the scientific establishment will continue to concentrate their efforts almost exclusively on infectious agents and genetic defects, suppressing anybody brave enough to argue against them on this or other health issues. _______________ Mark Purdey can be reached via his website: http://www.markpurdey.com or by email to . Further Reading: The Inquiry into BSE and variant CJD in the United Kingdom: http://www.bse.org.uk.2000 Purdey M. Ecosystems supporting clusters of sporadic TSEs demonstrate excesses of the radical-generating divalent cation manganese and deficiencies of antioxidant cofactors Cu, Se, Fe, Zn. Medical Hypotheses, 2000; 54(2), 278-306 Brown DR et al. Consequences of Manganese replacement of Copper for prion protein function and proteinase resistance. EMBO J, 2000 Mar 15; 19(6): 1180-6. Purdey M. The Purdey Environmental Home Page: http://www.markpurdey.com www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 12:50:50 -0500, "rick etter"
> wrote: >snippage of more AR/vegan BS, lys and delusions. Too bad that's all you've >got, killer. How Now Mad Cow? by Professor Richard Lacey The risk of mass infection of BSE in humans is very real. Richard Lacey is Professor of Clinical Microbiology at Leeds University. He has a degree in medicine from Cambridge University and a Ph.D in clinical microbiology from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Bristol. As well as publishing over 200 papers in scientific and medical journals, Professor Lacey has lectured extensively overseas and broadcast frequently on radio and television. His work has won him a number of prizes, including the Evian Health Prize for Medicine and the Caroline Walker Award for Science. Professor Lacey has been an advisor to the British Government and is widely recognised as a world authority on mad cow disease. What is BSE and how did it start? BSE, better known as mad cow disease, stands for bovine spongiform encephalopathy, an infectious and incurable disease which slowly attacks the brain and nervous system of cattle. Spongiform encephalopathies are nothing new and are not confined to cattle. Scrapie, the form of the disease found in sheep, has been common in Britain for the past 200 years and a human version, Kuru, was once epidemic in tribal New Guinea. By late 1994, a handful of people in Britain had died from another human version, Creutzfeldt Jakob disease (CJD). BSE has been epidemic in British cattle for the last ten years. The first confirmed cases were reported in late 1986 but it is believed that the first case may have occurred in Hampshire in 1985. By early 1995 it had been identified in almost 150,000 cattle and more than half of all British herds. The exact origin of BSE is not known, but simplistic claims that it came from sheep are now discredited. BSE is an incurable disease caused by a mystery 'infectious agent'. The agent is not a virus or bacteria - nobody knows what it is. It has broken the most basic rules of biology. Any cure still lies at the very limits of present-day science. What does it do? The period between becoming infected and showing symptoms for spongiform encephalopathies is long in relation to the life span of the animal or human involved. For example, Kuru in humans can take as long as 30 years before the person becomes visibly ill. The disease bores into the brain and nervous system very slowly but once established it rapidly causes dementia and death. No treatment works. Post mortems show the brain to be sponge-like and full of holes, hence the name 'spongiform'. In cattle, the first signs occur when the cow is put under any slight pressure or stress. Movement to a milking station might induce fear, panic and stumbling and the infected animal may stand away from the rest of the herd, holding it's head in an awkward posture. Despite a good appetite, the amount of milk she produces may drop and she usually loses a lot of weight. As the muscles waste away, there may be twitchings, quiverings and shaking. Strange behaviour can occur, such as grinding teeth and sometimes the moo is odd. The cow over-reacts to touch and becomes very jumpy. Eventually, she will shake violently, stagger and in the end be completely unable to stand up. It is the combination of a drop in milk and the fear that the cow will fall and be unable to stand again that makes the farmer call in the vet. If the animal does not recover, it is slaughtered and the head (with it's nervous tissue) is removed for examination as it is officially believed that this is the only infected part of the animal. This is unlikely as flesh also contains nervous tissue. It also ignores the possibility of the disease being passed from mother to calf. The rest of the cow's body should be burnt but as many as 30% of infected carcasses end up in landfill sites where they could be disturbed by tractors, bulldozers, dogs or rodents. As BSE is an extremely strong disease, it remains infective even after years in the soil. When cattle are killed for food, the same procedure applies - the head (and some other parts such as the spinal cord, spleen and thymus - 'specified offal') is removed. The Government say that people will not be at risk when they eat cows but the flesh (containing infected nervous tissue) is eaten and the bones are eventually made into gelatine which finds it's way into many products. How widespread is BSE? By late 1994, the disease had been identified in nearly 150,000 animals and in just over half of all cattle herds in Britain. Some scientists including myself believe that the only way to tackle the problem would be to destroy all herds with cattle incubating the disease. BSE has affected all breeds including, significantly, Jersey and Guernsey cattle on their respective islands. The black and white Friesian Holstein cows are the most commonly affected simply because there are far more of them in Britain than other breeds. The youngest case so far recorded of a cow showing the symptoms of BSE was 20 months and the oldest 18 years. The cattle industry in Britain is under constant pressure to produce more milk and dairy products at the lowest possible cost because we, the public, demand it. The price of our daily pinta is paid for dearly by the suffering of animals. To provide as much milk as possible, cows are often fed protein-rich concentrated food made from the carcasses of other dead animals that have been sent to knackers yards or rendering plants. Cows only produce milk when they have had a calf. After a nine month pregnancy, the calf is removed within a day or two of birth. A few months later, while still producing milk, the cow is artificially inseminated again. Cows have around three or four pregnancies before their milk yield begins to drop.They are eventually slaughtered at six or seven years old, even though its natural lifespan would be 20 years or more. Most parts of the cow are used to make burgers, sausages, pies, stocks and pet food. Until 1989, this also included the brain. More than 90 per cent of BSE cases have been in cows rather than bulls, simply because cows live longer. Beef animals are usually slaughtered around three years old and veal calves at six months. As BSE appears when the animal is around four to five years old, most beef animals are slaughtered before they are old enough to show symptoms, although they may have the disease. Is BSE a danger to humans? All the evidence so far suggests that humans are not immune from infection. The Fore tribe live in Papua New Guinea, a place unexplored by Westerners until the second half of the twentieth century. Cannibalism, especially by women hoping to increase fertility, was common until very recently, and this led to an outbreak of 'Kuru', a human form of scrapie. Kuru killed up to 80 per cent of women in some villages but how it first started is unknown. Because it occurred within families and mostly amongst women, it was first thought that Kuru was inherited genetically. Scientists have since proved beyond doubt that Kuru is infectious and that the disease was transmitted by eating meat, in this case human meat. If BSE can be transmitted to humans then the resulting illness is expected to be like our own form of Kuru - Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD). As a spongiform encephalopathy, this is again a disease of the brain and is always fatal. Like Kuru, patients first show symptoms of mental changes, such as problems with co-ordination, recent memory loss and slurred speech. Sometimes obvious twitching of muscles can be seen, the facial expression becomes fixed and the person may stumble and fall over. Over the next few weeks, the person becomes confused and unaware, unable to read or recognise even close relatives. Towards the end of the illness the patient is unconscious and not reacting to anyone, often having fits or jerking spasms and is doubly incontinent, blind, deaf and speechless. Patients continue to be fed but are rarely placed on a respirator nor given antibiotics for infections, particularly of the lung. It is the latter which usually results in death. During the post mortem, extreme care must be taken because the disease is ncredibly infectious. The pathologist wears a mask, goggles, gloves, boots and a plastic apron and any instruments that have been used on patients suffering from CJD have to be thoroughly sterilised. For example, the silver needles used for the EEG (brain examination) must be treated with high pressure steam for prolonged periods of time or put through six successive heat cycles in a steriliser. Even then there is no guarantee of destroying the infection. If contaminated instruments are used on another patient (which they will be if the person was not visibly ill with CJD), the disease can, and indeed has been, transferred. CJD is so feared by some people in the medical profession that they have refused to perform autopsies on patients suspected of dying from it. Some hospitals have even refused to admit patients suffering from it. What is the connection? It is now known that regular eaters of veal (and other beef products) are 13 times more likely to die of CJD than those who don't. The prospect of a huge number of people dying from BSE as CJD next century is very real; that is, CJD and BSE are one and the same. What is being done? Very little. The British Government has hidden the facts and fiddled the evidence at every stage of the investigation into mad cow disease. It has told expert scientists, including it's own advisors, to keep quiet in case the hugely profitable meat industry suffers. In May 1988, the government set up The Southwood Committee to examine the risks of BSE to both animal and human health. Extraordinarily, it had no experts on spongiform encephalopathies and none were consulted. Although experts in their own areas, none of the members of the Southwood Committee had done any research into spongiform diseases. A month after the first meeting, the Government, on the advice of the committee, ordered the compulsory slaughter and destruction of carcasses of all affected cattle. It was already too late. Between the date of the first known case of BSE in late 1986 and the middle of 1988, at least 600 obviously diseased cows (plus an unknown number of animals not yet obviously ill) had been slaughtered and their meat had found its way onto supermarket shelves. Half the normal price of carcasses was paid in compensation, which encouraged farmers not to report suspect cattle. The real extent of the problem remained unknown. The second recommendation of the Southwood Committee was to set up another committee to do more research, which simply admitted that the problem was too big. The next meeting of the committee was five months later, some indication of how serious the Government regarded the problem. The report admitted that spongiform encephalopathies are a danger to humans and stated: 'With the very long incubation period of spongiform encephalopathies in humans, it may be a decade or more before complete reassurance can be given.' The Southwood Committee went on to say how they thought the disease was passed on, saying that eating was low down on the list of possible reasons. While admitting that all cows had got the disease by eating, they were suggesting one rule for cattle and another for humans. It was easy for a cow to get BSE through eating but very difficult for humans to get CJD by doing the same. Two other general conclusions of the Southwood report were that the risk of vertical transmission of BSE (passing the disease from mother to calf) was non-existent (since proved incorrect) and that cattle would prove to be a 'dead-end host', which means the disease would stop at cows and not infect other species. This introduces the revolutionary biological concept of a non-infectious infection. Cattle are not a dead-end host. BSE has been spread to other species and this was known at the time of the report. The Southwood report stated that '...if our assessment of these likelihoods (of possible human infection) are incorrect, the implications would be extremely serious.' Their assessments have been shown to be incorrect. We do have a terrible crisis on our hands. Who cares? Evidence that the Government was less than concerned about the risk to the British public comes from the Tyrell Report, produced by the research committee set up as a result of the Southwood Report. For example, this said that the brains of cattle normally sent for slaughter should be checked to see if some animals had BSE and were not yet ill with it. This would have shown how big the problem really was. Not surprisingly, this has never been done, despite numerous requests from the UK Parliament, because it would have been 'too expensive'. Too expensive for the meat industry, that is. Once consumers realised that they were eating infected meat, profits would have plummeted. The report also recommended monitoring all UK cases of CJD over the next 20 years (as a matter of 'urgency'!) to reassure the public that there was no link with BSE. At present 'monitoring' means that a researcher checks death certificates for CJD. That's it as far as the UK Department of Health is concerned. Of course, a real investigation was not planned because it would admit that the government was scared of a major public health problem. It finished by saying that more research was needed and that the controls at that time to prevent the disease spreading were not enough. Overall, the report was an excellent analysis of the situation as it was in 1989 but many of the proposals it made were ignored by the government. This report, dated June 1989, was not released until January 9 1990, showing just how urgent the Government thought it was. By this time they had accepted that they did not know whether the disease could pass from cow to calf whether it was possible other species could get BSE, or that the recent suggested increase in sheep scrapie was the cause of the rise in BSE cases. In April 1990, the Tyrell Committee became 'permanent', a surprising development as, according to the government, BSE was about to disappear. The feed ban As part of the cannibalistic merry-go-round that is an economically essential part of the meat industry, all the bits of animals from slaughterhouses unsuitable for human consumption are boiled up to produce fat and protein. The protein makes animal feed. Apart from the obvious high risk of different infections being passed on, it seems strange that nobody had actually questioned the biological sense of forcing naturally vegetarian animals to become carnivores, eating the remains of other animals. This is probably what has caused the spread of BSE. In June 1988, the government imposed a six-month ban on feeding animal protein to cows and sheep as it was thought this was the most likely way these animals would become infected. In December, the ban was extended for 12 months and laws stopped the sale of milk from cattle suspected of having the disease. Banning infected feed did not stop the rise of BSE. Cases rose from 500 per month in January 1989 to 900 per month in December 1989. The 'mysterious agent' that causes spongiform encephalopathies has been found in many of the organs and tissues of animals. For example, cells from the spleen, thymus and tonsils ('specified offal' banned for use in animal feed in 1989) enter the blood and find their way to many organs including the liver and bones. The bones of old cows are one of the major sources of the protein gelatine, used in many foods from peppermints to pork pies. The greatest risk could come from bones because the procedures used to concentrate and purify gelatine could create a stronger source of BSE. With the passing from mother to calf of BSE confirmed in 1993/94, blood could also contain the disease, at least as far as cattle are concerned. The problem, of course, did not go away. The number of BSE cases per month rose from 800 in January 1990 to 1,500 in December 1990. The Southwood Committee had predicted a maximum of 400 cases per month. We were wrong but we're not sorry... After four years of Government reassurances that BSE could not infect other species, tests carried out in February 1990 proved the opposite. BSE was transmitted to mice by feeding and to other cattle by injection. Cattle were no longer 'dead-end hosts'. The disease had never been previously reported in cats but in May of the same year, a domestic cat died from a spongiform encephalopathy. Even then the Government stuck to its guns and denied that spongiform encephalopathies could jump species. In fact, that is the very nature of the disease. By the time 52 other cats had died in July, the government finally admitted that they had contracted the disease through eating 'pet food'. The question was no longer 'Can BSE affect other species?' but 'How many species will it affect?' A month before, in January, trading standards officers revealed that infected cattle were still being sent to market because farmers were still only being given half of the normal price for their cows. A Ministry official denied that BSE was finding it's way into our food but some people weren't quite so convinced. In April 1990, Humberside County Council banned the use of British beef in school meals. The number of known cases of BSE passed the 10,000 mark. In April 1991, the Ministry of Agriculture predicted that a peak in the number of BSE cases would occur in 1991 and the disease would disappear by 1994. By the end of the year, 25,025 cases had been confirmed in Great Britain, providing the first indications that, despite government claims to the contrary, the disease was being passed from cow to calf. The following year, BSE was transmitted experimentally to seven out of eight species of mammal, including pigs and marmoset monkeys. In four experiments, this was by eating. A puma and a cheetah were also reported to have died of the disease. Evidence was mounting of an uncontrollable epidemic, with serious implications for humans. CJD, the human form of BSE, claimed the lives of two dairy farmers who had tended herds with BSE infected cattle. The number of human CJD cases in Great Britain was nearly ten times higher than the annual number recorded 25 years earlier and twice as high as the number recorded five years earlier. Vicky Rimmer, a 15 year old Welsh girl, developed the symptoms of CJD, despite no family history of the disease or medical mishaps such as faulty blood transfusion. She was also extremely young considering the very long period it normally takes for symptoms to show. This meant that the disease was most probably contracted from an external source, more than likely food. A doctor from the CJD surveillance unit examined Vicky and told her mother not to make her daughter's casepublic. According to the Daily Mirror (January 25 1994) he told her she should think of the economy and the Common Market. More than 17,000 cases of BSE were confirmed in cattle born after the feed ban, with 500 cases known to have come from mothers which later developed BSE. This meant that BSE was infecting cows by means other than infected food. However, the government tries to explain this by blaming farmers, feed compounders and renderers for breaking the law - they accuse them of continuing to put ground-up sheep and cattle into cattle feed. This is manifest nonsense and is the last ditch attempt to deny the occurrence of vertical transfer of BSE (where the mother passes on BSE to her calf in the womb). The existence of vertical transfer means that the infectious agent must be in the cow's blood and will therefore be found in virtually all beef products. In 1994 the government had still taken no action to control cattle being moved from BSE infected herds to other herds, nor had they taken any other steps to control the epidemic. The total number of BSE cases confirmed exceeded 137,000 by the end of August 1994 - more than six times the number predicted by the Southwood Committee in their 'worst case scenario'. However, in April 1994, it was admitted that cows did pass BSE on to their calves. What can we conclude from this? Basically two things. Firstly, almost 10 years after BSE was first identified, expert knowledge is still virtually nil. And, as if to cover this up, all the available evidence suggests that the government has carefully manipulated the facts to avoid doing anything about it. The main reason is to protect the huge vested interests of the meat industry - the cost of compensation for replacing six million infected cattle could run into billions of pounds. The bad international publicity from this would endanger UK food exports, tourism and even much of our industry. Secondly, there is a very real risk of mass infection in the human population. The government has made sure of that. And while the time bomb of the twentieth century equivalent to bubonic plague ticks away, we all have to take responsibility into our own hands. The simple and safest answer of course is to stop eating animals. In the absence of any accurate, reliable or simply truthful information coming from 'the experts', the choice has to be yours. www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 15:59:44 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> wrote: >Jahnu wrote: >> It's funny how meat heads > >Oh, *there* is a calm, rational, discussion-advancing >expression. You mean like this one: >Russ Thompson wrote: "That's but a minor impediment to the irrational religious fanatics known as "animal rights activists". >> always go balistic > >I didn't. I described, rather, how so-called "ethical" >vegetarians have no regard for the constitution, in >their fanatical wish to impose their views on others. Constitution? You forget I am from Europe. I couldn't care less about your constitution. >> and have to resort to all >> kinds of imbecile and moronic responses when the subject of >> vegetarianism comes up. I wonder why that is. > >It isn't. You have invented it in your sick, sordid >imagination. Invented? Look at the responses I got from the scientific facts I sent about the harmful effects of meat-eating. Are we being a little selective here? >> I guess they have >> neither empathy for other living entities > >False. Anyone who supports the mass slaughter of animals in the modern consumer culture must be completely devoid of any empathy towards other living entities. >It isn't. You are an irrational, overwrought crackpot. I am merely stating facts, that's all. But note how hysterical the meat heads get when some one dares point out their nefarious ways. > You exist, barely, at the fringe of civilized >society. The truly strange thing is, you voluntarily >went out onto the fringe. Now, that's real rational  www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 12:51:40 -0500, "rick etter"
> wrote: >Another ly. Too bad that's all you have, killer. HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER The New York Times, Tuesday, June 20, 1989 The Hunger Argument Number of people worldwide who will die of starvation this year: 60 million. Number of people who could be adequately fed with the grain saved if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10 perc.: 60 million Human beings in America: 243 million Number of people who could be fed with grain and soybeans now eaten by U.S. livestock: 1.3 billion Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20 Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80 Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95 Percentage of protein waste by cycling grain through livestock: 99 How frequently a child starves to death: every 2 seconds Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an ac 20.OOO Pounds of beef produced on an ac 165 Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56 Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of beef: 16 The Environmental Argument Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels needed to produce a meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free diet: 50 times more Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75 Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising: 85 Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce meat-centered diet: 260 million Amount of meat U.S. imports annually from Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: 200 million pounds Average per capita meat consumption in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: less than eaten by average U.S. housecat. Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every 1/4 pound hamburger: 55 sq.ft. Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1.000 per year The Cancer Argument Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat 4 times a week vs. less than once a week: 4 times For women who eat eggs daily vs. less than once a week: 3 times Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who eat meat daily vs. sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times The Natural Resources Argument Use of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.: livestock portion. Amount of water used in production of the average steer: sufficient to float a destroyer. Gallons to produce a pound of wheat: 25 Gallons to produce a pound of meat: 2.500 Cost of common hamburger if water used by meat industry was not subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer: 35 dollars a pound Current cost of pound of protein from beefsteak, if water was no longer subsidized: 89 dollars Years the world's known oil reserves would last if every human ate a meat-centered diet: 13 Years they would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260 Barrels of oil imported into U.S. daily: 6.8 million Percentage of fossil fuel returned as food energy by most efficient factory farming of meat: 34.5 Percentage returned from least efficient plant food: 32.8 Percentage of raw materials consumed by U.S. to produce present meat-centered diet: 33 The Cholesterol Argument Number of U.S. medical schools: 125 Number requiring a course in nutrition: 30 Nutrition training received by average U.S. physician during four years in medical school: 25 hours Most common cause of death in U.S.: heart attack How frequently a heart attack kills in U.S.: every 45 seconds Average U.S. man's risk of death from heart attack: 50 perc. Risk for average U.S. man who avoids the meat-centered diet: 15 perc. Meat industry claims you should not be concerned about your blood cholesterol if it is: normal Your risk of dying of a disease caused by clogged arteries if your blood cholesterol is 'normal': over 50 perc. The Antibiotic Argument Percentage of U.S. antibiotics fed to livestock: 55 Percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin in 1960: 13 Percentage resistant in 1988: 91 Response of European Economic Community to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: ban Response of U.S. meat and pharmaceutical industries to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: full and complete support The Pesticide Argument Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by grains: 1 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by fruits: 4 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet suppl. by dairy products: 23 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by meat: 55 Pesticide contamination of breast milk from meat-eating mothers vs. non meat-eating: 35 times higher What USDA tells us: meat is inspected Percentage of slaughtered animals inspected for residues of toxin chemicals including dioxin and DDT: less than 0.00004 The Ethical Argument Number of animals killed for meat per hour in U.S.: 500.000 Occupation with highest turnover rate in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker Occupation with highest rate of on-the-job injury in U.S: slaughterhouse worker Cost to render animal unconscious with captive bolt pistol before slaughter.: 1 cent Reason given by meat industry for non using that pistol: too expensive The Survival Argument Athlete to win Ironman Triathlon more than twice: Dave Scott (6 time winner) Food choices of Dave Scott: Vegetarian Largest meat eater than ever lived: Tyrannosaurus Rex Last sighting of Tyrannosaurus Rex: 100.000.000 B.C. Famous pop stars - vegetarians: ------------------------------- Candice Bergen, David Bowie, Paul Mc Cartney, Darryl Hannah, Janet Jackson, k.d.lang, Sting 'I am a great eater of beef, and I believe that does harm to my wit.' --William Shakespeare "Twelfth Night," Act I, Scene 3 www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 14:02:18 -0500, "Allyb" > wrote:
>I care because I think it's really interesting what you do. I'm not nearly >as interested in fantasy as I am about reality. I know you're probably >going to have something biting to say about that since you think you know >the lifestyle I live, but it's the truth. I'm honestly curious about what >motivates you. Maybe I should have been an anthropologist............ I'm >very interested in atypical responses to stimuli. I think it's atypical >that anti-vegans spend so much time in a vegan newsgroup, you piqued my >interest. I'm not a one issue girl ya know. The reason that they hang out in Vegan news groups and spew their BS is simply because they don't have anywhere else to vent all the anger and envy that come from their bad diet. I mean, just imagine what it does to your brain to eat a Big Mac (which is basically a piece of stool in a bun garnished with snot), and these guys grew up on the stuff. On top of that they are probably Americans which means they were placed in front of the TV as soon as they could keep their little wobbly heads up by themselves and then spoonfed with Disney and Power Rangers. No wonder they are brain dead. www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 13:34:46 -0500, "Allyb" > wrote:
>Jahnu, don't waste your time arguing with them, it'll just give you stress, >and give them too much enjoyment. Allyb, I appreciate your concern, but it doesn't distress me to smash and crush meat-head atheists with facts. It gives me great pleasure to see how they squirm and try to dodge the facts with their lame and imbecile responses. But it never ceases to amaze me that they don't seem to get how idiotic and uninformed they sound. >Actually Rick and Jonathon, I'm curious >why you're so interested in arguing with the posters here. People don't >typically hang out with those they vehemently disagree with. Is it just >something you do for entertainment; are you members of the beef council >looking for converts; is it a mission from God? Do vegetarians come to your >"eat meat a lot" newsgroup and pounce on you, so you do this for >retribution? Maybe it's a gang thing. I guess that would make you the >bloods.... (ha ha) The fact is that they are just a bunch of cowards who feel very brave behind their little key-boards. The only way they can find a voice is here on usenet because in real life nobody (with a brain) cares for what they have to say. www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
"Jahnu" > wrote in message ... > On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 13:34:46 -0500, "Allyb" > wrote: > > >Jahnu, don't waste your time arguing with them, it'll just give you stress, > >and give them too much enjoyment. > > Allyb, I appreciate your concern, but it doesn't distress me to smash > and crush meat-head atheists with facts. It gives me great pleasure > to see how they squirm and try to dodge the facts with their lame and > imbecile responses. But it never ceases to amaze me that they don't > seem to get how idiotic and uninformed they sound. > > >Actually Rick and Jonathon, I'm curious > >why you're so interested in arguing with the posters here. People don't > >typically hang out with those they vehemently disagree with. Is it just > >something you do for entertainment; are you members of the beef council > >looking for converts; is it a mission from God? Do vegetarians come to your > >"eat meat a lot" newsgroup and pounce on you, so you do this for > >retribution? Maybe it's a gang thing. I guess that would make you the > >bloods.... (ha ha) > > The fact is that they are just a bunch of cowards who feel very brave > behind their little key-boards. The only way they can find a voice is > here on usenet because in real life nobody (with a brain) cares for > what they have to say. > > > > www.krishna.com > www.iskcon.org > Ha ha. I see that you avoid "the facts" when it suits you. Once again - how do you suggest that people in Northern climates survive without eating animals? Or should they simply die because they don't fit in with your vegan ideology? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
> >> It IS true. Only meatheads and idiots who have made a business out of
> >> killing animals will object to it. > > > >*** See the "uninformed and ignorant" part of my message. I retract the > >"well meaning". > > The message I replied to makes claims that are demonstratably false. > > > >Kala Thompson > >Farmer > >Richland Center, Wi > > MAD COWS OR MAD SCIENTISTS? > > THE SUPPRESSION OF ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS (snip a long irrelevent artical that has nothing to do with the current discussion) What is you point in changing the subject? Couldn't find any support for you origional claims? Kala Thompson Farmer Richland Center, Wi, USA -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
> You mean like this one:
> > >Russ Thompson wrote: > > "That's but a minor impediment to the irrational > religious fanatics known as "animal rights activists". I didn't write that. Kala Thompson Farmer Richland Center, WI USA -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 08:40:58 -0600, "Russ Thompson" >
wrote: >> MAD COWS OR MAD SCIENTISTS? >> >> THE SUPPRESSION OF ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS > >(snip a long irrelevent artical that has nothing to do with the current >discussion) > > What is you point in changing the subject? Couldn't find any support for >you origional claims? It has everything to do with the current discussion. www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 08:42:57 -0600, "Russ Thompson" >
wrote: >> You mean like this one: >> >> >Russ Thompson wrote: >> >> "That's but a minor impediment to the irrational >> religious fanatics known as "animal rights activists". > >I didn't write that. > >Kala Thompson >Farmer >Richland Center, WI USA I know, but someone did. Why don't you complain about him being irrational? www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 08:59:01 -0500, "Tim" <aaa> wrote:
>Ha ha. I see that you avoid "the facts" when it suits you. Once again - how >do you suggest that people in Northern climates survive without eating >animals? Or should they simply die because they don't fit in with your vegan >ideology? How does a moose survive in the Swedish woods in minus 30 C? I come from Scandinavia. That's a northern climate. I have survived the last 25 years without meat. Gee, how do you figure I did that? BTW, I don't advocate veganism. I advocate vegetarianism. Still mooses don't take milk products. www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
"Jahnu" > wrote in message ... > On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 08:59:01 -0500, "Tim" <aaa> wrote: > > >Ha ha. I see that you avoid "the facts" when it suits you. Once again - how > >do you suggest that people in Northern climates survive without eating > >animals? Or should they simply die because they don't fit in with your vegan > >ideology? > > How does a moose survive in the Swedish woods in minus 30 C? I come > from Scandinavia. That's a northern climate. I have survived the last > 25 years without meat. Gee, how do you figure I did that? > > BTW, I don't advocate veganism. I advocate vegetarianism. Still mooses > don't take milk products. > > > www.krishna.com > www.iskcon.org > FYI. A moose is not a human. Moose have a tendency to be covered in hair. Avacados and what ever else you ate don't grow in -30c. Also you probably lived in a heated house. Still moose aren't human. And you call my point moronic - ha. Like you point out veggies don't grow where Eskimos live. How then can they be herbivores? The fat afforded by certain veggies will not help someone exposed to the elements. Again living in a nice heated house doesn't equate you with an Eskimo or Siberian. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
****wit: I am lodging complaints with Mindspring every timeyou forge my name to a post
Fran wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message > >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message > > >>>>****wit David Harrison forged my name and wrote: > > >>>>****WIT, you really are going to hear from Mindspring >>>>over this. Stop forging my name to your posts, ****WIT. > > >>(snip) ****WIT's posting under my name >>is prohibited by Mindspring's terms-of-use agreement. > > > Stop being such a whiner you miserable hypocrite. Go **** yourself with a broken bottle, fat slag. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
"Jahnu" > wrote in message ... > On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 12:49:11 -0500, "rick etter" > > wrote: > > > > >"Jahnu" > wrote in message > > >> Hey meathead, you wouldn't know a sound argument if it fell on your > >> head in broad daylight. > >> ============== > >Yes, I would, and yours isn't one of them... > > <blah blah> ============== yep, that's all you have.... snippage of nothing... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
"Jahnu" > wrote in message ... > On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 12:50:50 -0500, "rick etter" > > wrote: > > > >snippage of more AR/vegan BS, lys and delusions. Too bad that's all you've > >got, killer. snippage of more from a cut-n-paste bozo that has nothing to say of his own, mainly because his veagn diet has diminished his one remaining braincell to mush... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
"Russ Thompson" > wrote in message ... > > >> It IS true. Only meatheads and idiots who have made a business out of > > >> killing animals will object to it. > > > > > >*** See the "uninformed and ignorant" part of my message. I retract the > > >"well meaning". > > > The message I replied to makes claims that are demonstratably false. > > > > > >Kala Thompson > > >Farmer > > >Richland Center, Wi > > > > MAD COWS OR MAD SCIENTISTS? > > > > THE SUPPRESSION OF ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS > > (snip a long irrelevent artical that has nothing to do with the current > discussion) > > What is you point in changing the subject? Couldn't find any support for > you origional claims? ================== That's all he has, cut-n-paste. Never has anything to actually refute what he doens't like said, and can never really defend his own position. > > Kala Thompson > Farmer > Richland Center, Wi, USA > > > > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
Halcitron wrote:
>>From: Keynes >>Newsgroups: alt.philosophy, talk.philosophy.misc, talk.politics.animals, >>misc.rural, uk.business.agriculture, alt.food.vegan >>Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 21:49:38 -0600 > > > >>On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 02:25:22 GMT, "Rubystars" > wrote: >> >> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message rthlink.net... >>> >>>>Rubystars wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message om... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any >>>>>>farm animals. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>That would force a lot of people to go on vegan diets though and most >>>>>wouldn't know how to do so properly, even some who do know how to do the >>>>>right things have to stop. >>>> >>>>They could figure it out. The point is, farm animals >>>>aren't necessary to feed people. >>> >>>At the population we have now, I think they are. >>> >>>If there was a smaller population broken up into villages, etc. then sure, >>>we wouldn't need farm animals, but we do right now. >>> >>>-Rubystars >> >>It's just customary. Pre WWII folks in the US ate less than half as >>much meat per capita. A political candidate ran on the platform >>of 'a chicken in every pot'. Even meat on sundays was a luxury >>for many (bacon possibly excepted). > > > Can you name that politician? And was not the promise based on more jobs? It was Herbert Hoover, and the slogan was very much a promise of overall prosperity. The full slogan is, "A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage." Now, THAT has to make the vegetarian/environmental extremists happy! [...] >>It takes about nine pounds of feed to make a pound of beef, NO!!! That's wrong. It takes about 6-8 pounds of feed to produce an *additional* pound of animal, once the animal has gone to the feedlot. However, the animal *enters* the feedlot already weighing 500-750 pounds, a lot of which is edible beef. It takes ZERO pounds of feed to make all the edible beef already on the animal when it entered the feedlot. This is one of the most common and most egregious errors made by the "animal rights" loons every time they stupidly try to discuss the issue: they assume that the ratio of grain:beef, ranging from 6:1 to 8:1, applies to *all* the edible beef. It doesn't; it only applies to the additional weight gained in the feedlot. >>not counting quite a bit of water both for cows and feed. >>(You have to feed a cow for years. That feed is gone away.) > > > Nope it is recyled as nitrogen-rich fertilizer. > > >>Purely grass fed beef would be economical, but feeding them >>is wasteful. Chickens, turkeys and fish have a 2-3 pound feed >>to one pound of meat ratio. Eggs are even more efficient. >>(Unfortunately, livestock is chock full of added hormones >>and antibiotics. That can't be good in the long run.) >> >>Most of the US grain goes into feed, with excesses exported to >>feed livestock in other countries. If we ate plants directly we'd have >>a huge surplus (which would be a bit of an economic problem since >>grain is already grown at a loss, requiring subsidies). > > > Are you sure there wouldn't be more competiton for vegetables, thus driving the > prices up? No, there would not be more competition for vegetables. There would be more *competitors* on the supply side of vegetables, probably driving prices down. There's no getting around it: meat is more expensive to produce than vegetables, which is why it costs more. It's beside the point, though: people are *willing* to pay more for meat, and there's no reason they shouldn't have that for which they are willing to pay, assuming the product is legal and no rights are violated in producing it. Those conditions are met for the production, sale and consumption of meat. Thus, the market provides us with meat. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
"Jahnu" > wrote in message ... > On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 14:02:18 -0500, "Allyb" > wrote: > > >I care because I think it's really interesting what you do. I'm not nearly > >as interested in fantasy as I am about reality. I know you're probably > >going to have something biting to say about that since you think you know > >the lifestyle I live, but it's the truth. I'm honestly curious about what > >motivates you. Maybe I should have been an anthropologist............ I'm > >very interested in atypical responses to stimuli. I think it's atypical > >that anti-vegans spend so much time in a vegan newsgroup, you piqued my > >interest. I'm not a one issue girl ya know. > > The reason that they hang out in Vegan news groups and spew their BS > is simply because they don't have anywhere else to vent all the anger > and envy that come from their bad diet. ============================== Hey loser, you too should check the headers. How many vegan groups do you see there? As for diet, check the lists of people who live the longest, they aren't dominated by vegans, killer. I mean, just imagine what it > does to your brain to eat a Big Mac (which is basically a piece of > stool in a bun garnished with snot), and these guys grew up on the > stuff. On top of that they are probably Americans which means they > were placed in front of the TV as soon as they could keep their little > wobbly heads up by themselves and then spoonfed with Disney and Power > Rangers. No wonder they are brain dead. ==================== You sould know all about brain-dead killer, your two braincells are really trying to work overtime here to keep your udiocy flowing. > > > www.krishna.com > www.iskcon.org |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
"Jahnu" > wrote in message ... > On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 08:59:01 -0500, "Tim" <aaa> wrote: > > >Ha ha. I see that you avoid "the facts" when it suits you. Once again - how > >do you suggest that people in Northern climates survive without eating > >animals? Or should they simply die because they don't fit in with your vegan > >ideology? > > How does a moose survive in the Swedish woods in minus 30 C? ========================== Then why can't you live like the moose stupid? What's the matter, you haven't learned that you cannot eat grass yet killer? I come > from Scandinavia. That's a northern climate. I have survived the last > 25 years without meat. Gee, how do you figure I did that? ================= Hey stupid, your diet hen causes far more animal deathand suffering than almost anybody else. Do you think all that imported stuff just falls like manna from heaven? The transportation costs alone for your food is a massive killer. You are truely one brain dead hypocrite. > > BTW, I don't advocate veganism. I advocate vegetarianism. Still mooses > don't take milk products. ================== The you're still an idiot. Your diet causes far more death and suffering than it needs to. > > > www.krishna.com > www.iskcon.org |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
"Jahnu" > wrote in message ... > On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 12:51:40 -0500, "rick etter" > > wrote: > > >Another ly. Too bad that's all you have, killer. > > > HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER ================== Something you've never done, killer. > > The New York Times, Tuesday, June 20, snippage of 'factoids' that have no bearing on the massive amounts of death and suffering *you* cause by you diet. Are you really so stupid as to believe that a veg*n diet in the far north is benificial to animals overall? ou really need to feed those two braincells of yours if you do, killer. Now, go have that nice blood-drenched dinner, hypocrite. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
"Jahnu" > wrote in message ... > On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 08:42:57 -0600, "Russ Thompson" > > wrote: > > >> You mean like this one: > >> > >> >Russ Thompson wrote: > >> > >> "That's but a minor impediment to the irrational > >> religious fanatics known as "animal rights activists". > > > >I didn't write that. > > > >Kala Thompson > >Farmer > >Richland Center, WI USA > > I know, ================ Then why did you ly, again? Lys seem to be the only things that you have to post, eh killer? Now, go have that nice blood-drenched dinner, hypocrite. but someone did. Why don't you complain about him being > irrational? > > > www.krishna.com > www.iskcon.org |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
"Jahnu" > wrote in message ... > On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 13:34:46 -0500, "Allyb" > wrote: > > >Jahnu, don't waste your time arguing with them, it'll just give you stress, > >and give them too much enjoyment. > > Allyb, I appreciate your concern, but it doesn't distress me to smash > and crush meat-head atheists with facts. It gives me great pleasure > to see how they squirm and try to dodge the facts with their lame and > imbecile responses. ======================== ROTFLMAO This from the cut-n-paster that has never refuted anything I've said. What a hoot! Ignoring what people say, and then posting a bunch of idiocy that doesn't address what was siad is not watching anyone squirm but you, killer. \ But it never ceases to amaze me that they don't > seem to get how idiotic and uninformed they sound. > ======================= Maybe because you can't read for comprehension, hypocrite? > >Actually Rick and Jonathon, I'm curious > >why you're so interested in arguing with the posters here. People don't > >typically hang out with those they vehemently disagree with. Is it just > >something you do for entertainment; are you members of the beef council > >looking for converts; is it a mission from God? Do vegetarians come to your > >"eat meat a lot" newsgroup and pounce on you, so you do this for > >retribution? Maybe it's a gang thing. I guess that would make you the > >bloods.... (ha ha) > > The fact is that they are just a bunch of cowards who feel very brave > behind their little key-boards. The only way they can find a voice is > here on usenet because in real life nobody (with a brain) cares for > what they have to say. ======================= LOL Then why do you keep responding idiot? And I might add, responding nut never addressing what is dais. Why you doing all the tap dancing and dodging, killer? > > > > www.krishna.com > www.iskcon.org |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
> I know, but someone did. Why don't you complain about him being
> irrational? *** I don't think it is helpful to complain about anyone being irrational. When a person is being irrational it is pretty clear to all normal reasonable people. Kala Thompson Farmer Richland Center, Wi USA -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
Jahnu wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 08:42:57 -0600, "Russ Thompson" > > wrote: > > >>>You mean like this one: >>> >>> >>>>Russ Thompson wrote: >>> >>>"That's but a minor impediment to the irrational >>>religious fanatics known as "animal rights activists". >> >>I didn't write that. >> >>Kala Thompson >>Farmer >>Richland Center, WI USA > > > I know, but someone did. Why don't you complain about him being > irrational? It wasn't irrational. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
Jahnu wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 15:59:44 GMT, Jonathan Ball > > wrote: > > >>Jahnu wrote: >> >>>It's funny how meat heads >> >>Oh, *there* is a calm, rational, discussion-advancing >>expression. >> >>> always go balistic >> >>I didn't. I described, rather, how so-called "ethical" >>vegetarians have no regard for the constitution, in >>their fanatical wish to impose their views on others. > > > Constitution? You forget I am from Europe. I couldn't care less about > your constitution. Irrelevant, and truly a stupid, ****witted dodge. The point is that stupid irrational "vegans" want to overthrow the legitimate, lawful, constitutional governments wherever they are, in order to impose their benighted values on others. > > >>>and have to resort to all >>>kinds of imbecile and moronic responses when the subject of >>>vegetarianism comes up. I wonder why that is. >> >>It isn't. You have invented it in your sick, sordid >>imagination. > > > Invented? Yes: invented, in your sordid imagination. >>>I guess they have >>>neither empathy for other living entities >> >>False. > > > Anyone who supports the mass slaughter of animals in the modern > consumer culture must be completely devoid of any empathy towards > other living entities. False. Repeating it, and using more words to do so, will not make it true. Your claim is false. > > >>It isn't. You are an irrational, overwrought crackpot. > > > I am merely stating facts, that's all. No, you are not stating facts. You are venting your spleen; nothing more. > >> You exist, barely, at the fringe of civilized >>society. The truly strange thing is, you voluntarily >>went out onto the fringe. > > > Now, that's real rational Yes, it is. It is a rational observation of you and your social milieu. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
> BTW, I don't advocate veganism. I advocate vegetarianism. Still mooses
> don't take milk products. What do you suppose happens to the cows who produced the milk that makes your cheese after they are no longer productive? Kala Thompson Farmer Richland Center, Wi USA -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 13:10:05 -0500, "rick etter"
> wrote: >yep, that's all you have.... ARE HUMANS ENDANGERED IF CATTLE DINE ON CHICKEN MANURE? August 23, 1997 Web posted at: 1:52 p.m. EDT (1752 GMT) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As federal food safety inspectors search for the source of E. coli bacteria that contaminated ground beef from a Nebraska processing plant, a serious new threat to the U.S. beef supply is being overlooked, according to an upcoming article in U.S. News and World Report. Increasingly, American cattle farmers feed their herds chicken manure, which health officials warn could contain dangerous bacteria that ends up in ground meat eaten by humans, the magazine reports in its September 1 issue. The waste that is mixed with livestock feed is a less expensive alternative to using grains and hay. The practice is increasingly being used by cattle farmers in regions where there are large poultry operations -- and thus a ready supply of cheap manure -- such as California, the South and the mid-Atlantic states. The U.S. News article cites as an example Dardanelle, Arkansas, farmer Lamar Carter, who recently bought 745 tons of manure from local chicken houses to feed his 800 head of cattle. "My cows are as fat as butterballs," Carter said. "If I didn't have chicken litter, I'd have to sell half my herd. Other feed's too expensive." HEATING MANURE TO 160 DEGREES KILLS BACTERIA Chicken manure often contains campylobacteria and salmonella bacteria, which can make humans sick. Intestinal parasites, veterinary drug residues and heavy toxic metals such as arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury are also often present in the waste, the article says. The article points to a scientific study, soon to be published in the journal Preventive Medicine, that warns about the potential dangers of recycling chicken waste by feeding it to cattle. "Feeding manure that has not been properly processed is supercharging the cattle feces with pathogens likely to cause disease in consumers," Dr. Neal Barnard, author of the study, warns in the U.S. News article. While it may sound distasteful, this can be safe if the manure is heated to 160 degrees to kill the bacteria. But, the study says many farmers don't take that precaution. There are no accurate statistics on how common the practice of feeding chicken manure to cattle is, the magazine report says, but with a recent ban on the use of slaughterhouse byproducts -- imposed because of the "mad cow" disease scare -- there is a shortage of cattle feed filler. Until the ban, about 75 percent of the 90 million cattle in the United States were fed slaughterhouse wastes that included blood, bones and viscera. Millions of euthanized cats and dogs, collected from veterinarians and animal shelters, have long been rendered into livestock feed each year, the article says. © 1997 Cable News Network, Inc. All Rights Reserved. www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 13:12:59 -0500, "rick etter"
> wrote: >That's all he has, cut-n-paste. Never has anything to actually refute what >he doens't like said, and can never really defend his own position. HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER The New York Times, Tuesday, June 20, 1989 The Hunger Argument Number of people worldwide who will die of starvation this year: 60 million. Number of people who could be adequately fed with the grain saved if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10 perc.: 60 million Human beings in America: 243 million Number of people who could be fed with grain and soybeans now eaten by U.S. livestock: 1.3 billion Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20 Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80 Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95 Percentage of protein waste by cycling grain through livestock: 99 How frequently a child starves to death: every 2 seconds Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an ac 20.OOO Pounds of beef produced on an ac 165 Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56 Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of beef: 16 The Environmental Argument Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels needed to produce a meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free diet: 50 times more Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75 Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising: 85 Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce meat-centered diet: 260 million Amount of meat U.S. imports annually from Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: 200 million pounds Average per capita meat consumption in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: less than eaten by average U.S. housecat. Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every 1/4 pound hamburger: 55 sq.ft. Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1.000 per year The Cancer Argument Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat 4 times a week vs. less than once a week: 4 times For women who eat eggs daily vs. less than once a week: 3 times Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who eat meat daily vs. sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times The Natural Resources Argument Use of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.: livestock portion. Amount of water used in production of the average steer: sufficient to float a destroyer. Gallons to produce a pound of wheat: 25 Gallons to produce a pound of meat: 2.500 Cost of common hamburger if water used by meat industry was not subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer: 35 dollars a pound Current cost of pound of protein from beefsteak, if water was no longer subsidized: 89 dollars Years the world's known oil reserves would last if every human ate a meat-centered diet: 13 Years they would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260 Barrels of oil imported into U.S. daily: 6.8 million Percentage of fossil fuel returned as food energy by most efficient factory farming of meat: 34.5 Percentage returned from least efficient plant food: 32.8 Percentage of raw materials consumed by U.S. to produce present meat-centered diet: 33 The Cholesterol Argument Number of U.S. medical schools: 125 Number requiring a course in nutrition: 30 Nutrition training received by average U.S. physician during four years in medical school: 25 hours Most common cause of death in U.S.: heart attack How frequently a heart attack kills in U.S.: every 45 seconds Average U.S. man's risk of death from heart attack: 50 perc. Risk for average U.S. man who avoids the meat-centered diet: 15 perc. Meat industry claims you should not be concerned about your blood cholesterol if it is: normal Your risk of dying of a disease caused by clogged arteries if your blood cholesterol is ?normal?: over 50 perc. The Antibiotic Argument Percentage of U.S. antibiotics fed to livestock: 55 Percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin in 1960: 13 Percentage resistant in 1988: 91 Response of European Economic Community to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: ban Response of U.S. meat and pharmaceutical industries to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: full and complete support The Pesticide Argument Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by grains: 1 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by fruits: 4 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet suppl. by dairy products: 23 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by meat: 55 Pesticide contamination of breast milk from meat-eating mothers vs. non meat-eating: 35 times higher What USDA tells us: meat is inspected Percentage of slaughtered animals inspected for residues of toxin chemicals including dioxin and DDT: less than 0.00004 The Ethical Argument Number of animals killed for meat per hour in U.S.: 500.000 Occupation with highest turnover rate in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker Occupation with highest rate of on-the-job injury in U.S:slaughterhouse worker Cost to render animal unconscious with captive bolt pistol before slaughter.: 1 cent Reason given by meat industry for non using that pistol: too expensive The Survival Argument Athlete to win Ironman Triathlon more than twice: Dave Scott (6 time winner) Food choices of Dave Scott: Vegetarian Largest meat eater than ever lived: Tyrannosaurus Rex Last sighting of Tyrannosaurus Rex: 100.000.000 B.C. Famous pop stars - vegetarians: ------------------------------- Candice Bergen, David Bowie, Paul Mc Cartney, Darryl Hannah, Janet Jackson, k.d.lang, Sting 'I am a great eater of beef, and I believe that does harm to my wit.' --William Shakespeare "Twelfth Night," Act I, Scene 3 www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 13:11:38 -0500, "rick etter"
> wrote: > >"Jahnu" > wrote in message >snippage of more from a cut-n-paste bozo that has nothing to say of his own, >mainly because his veagn diet has diminished his one remaining braincell to >mush... At least I have something to cut and paste to support my position. What have you posted to support your position, except whine and bicker over the irrefutable facts that I keep sending? But keep squirming meat-head. I am going to flood you with facts until you finally shut up and crawl back under the stone where you came from. Here is some mo Dear Editor Last week's headlines have brought alarming news about the sorry state of our public and planetary health. The USDA has forced the recall of 25 million pounds of hamburger meat that may be contaminated with deadly E. coli bacteria and the closure of the offending plant. Excessive use of antibiotics in raising farm animals and in medical practice has forged a Staphylococcus bacterium that is immune to all these drugs. Effluents from farm animal waste have nurtured toxic algae that have killed billions of fish and devastated fisheries throughout the eastern seaboard, from Delaware to Louisiana. Cornell University Professor David Pimentel told a national animal science meeting that our soil, water, and energy resources can not sustain current levels of animal agriculture. The Worldwatch Institute has warned that world grain production is falling behind meat consumption, leading to higher grain and meat prices and widespread famines in developing countries. Surely, the time has come for consumers to see the handwriting on the wall and to adopt a plant-based diet advocated by leading health and environmental authorities for the past 25 years. Sincerely, 1997 Maynard S. Clark P. O. Box 38-1068, Cambridge, MA 02238-1068 617-625-3790 (Voice) 617-357-2064 (Facsimile) http://www.tiac.net/users/vrc/index.htm http://www.tiac.net/users/vrc/maynard.htm http://www.tiac.net/users/srs/cal_list.html#major www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Lab-Grown Meat May Save a Lot More than Farm Animals’ Lives | General Cooking | |||
| How producing “ethical, zero-harm” plant food for vegans and vegetarians kills more animals than, well, actually killing animals for the purpose of eating them. | General Cooking | |||
| "Consideration for the lives of farm animals" - meaningless tripe | Vegan | |||
| Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals | Vegan | |||
| A day on the farm | General Cooking | |||
Linear Mode
