actually, the one I read was headlined and championed as proof as as a cancer causing agent. I read the whole thing and realized '5%', completely moved on, for good.
and it doesn't break down in your small intestine, it passes right through. That's why you get diarrhea.
if everything is automated, there is no more poor or middle class
besides, a poor country like the philippines: everyone has a maid and a driver. even the maids have maids and drivers
having people work for you is not proof of being rich. it's a proof of overpopulation
The EV might be ok for the american suburbs where everyone has a big house with a garage, but for for european ones where almost everyone live in apartments where you park your car either in the stress or on some parking lots.
Geez, I couldn't live like that. Just not having a place for my outdoor grill and smoker....or a place to set up my burners and pots for a crawfish boil (or do some home brewing) out back would drive me crazy.
I'd miss cooking out and having a bunch of friends over on the weekends.
It has RDA of calories, and if you're drinking soda, then 100% of the calories are from sugar (or corn syrup, for most soda in the US). There is no RDA for sugar specifically because there are no scientific guidelines, not because the FDA is part of some grand conspiracy to keep it a secret.
Well, the WHO tried to set very specific and LOW limits on what human daily sugar consumption should have been a few years ago. The US sugar consortium had our govt basically tell the WHO to remove such bad and low recommendations or we'd withhold our funds and a lot of that language was stricken from the WHO recommendations.
There was apparently an attempt to lower sugar recommendations from The McGovern committee to study food and the US.
And interesting video on the report too HERE.
Here's a little of what WHO was proposing
. Give this movie a watch, it is free to stream on Netflix, called Fed Up . It has some very interesting insights into sugar and its impact on society from since about the 70's...
I thought that was the only reason anyone had cable anymore, for the sportsing. Especially since HBONow is finally a thing.
The sports thing is only really important to me during college football season, other than that, I don't watch it.
But I would miss all the different cable news networks, I tend to default to them when nothing else is on, etc...
If I could stream and get all those, I'd likely cut the cable too. Right now I'm experimenting with an indoor HDTV OTA antenna and NF/Amazon streaming to see how much I can deal with that and not miss UVerse......right now it is mostly the missing the cable news shows, and the fact I don't have a mythtv box set up to act as DVR and distribution to all the TVs in my house.
That is one of my next projects, but until then...uverse stays.
I buy for taste and nutrition, and I'll pay that little extra more to have it.
It isn't like strawberries grown locally (I live in LA and love Pontachula strawberries) are going to break the bank on my budget. I buy them in season, enjoy the hell out of them, and then move onto the next seasonal fruit for my diet.
Aspartame does break down into poison. One of the components it breaks down into is methanol. Wood alcohol. The stuff that makes you blind. Drinking the amount of aspartame found in 14 cases of pop every day would fill your system with a large amount of methanol. No question that's going to have negative effects.
The amount of methanol actually found in *normal* consumption of diet sodas, however, is similar to the amount found in things like fruit juice. If your body can deal with fruit juice, it can deal with aspartame-sweetened drinks. As always, it's the dose that makes the poison.
Yes, there is a positive correlation between drinking diet sodas and being overweight. But that's an expected correlation, not a causation. Seriously, what sort of person who's not prone (for whatever reasons) to weight gain is suddenly going to decide, "You know, I want to switch from normal pepsi to diet."? The people who start drinking diet are the ones having trouble with weight gain already. The problem is, a can of pepsi is 150 calories. That's the amount of calories in 1/3 cup of raisins. Yeah, it helps somewhat with your calorie consumption, but it's not the big picture on its own.
it doesn't break down in your stomach, it breaks down above 112F or something.
The most recent study I read was in 2008 or so (and yes, I read the entire thing). The conclusion was the per-kilogram consumption level in mice found to increase the CHANCES (I don't recall if it was additive or multiplicative) of getting cancer by 5% was the quantity of aspartame found in 12-12oz cans of diet coke.
And you had to drink that quantity every day for
Sometime that I never, ever do or will do, and if I did, I would have teeth problems long before cancer problems
and even if you were drinking that much, the quality of life improvement because you enjoy it so is probably worth the 5% increase in risk for cancer
Seriously, WTF is an article about energy vectors doing on
I get headaches from spicy food. Doesn't mean it's killing me. My body just doesn't like capsaicin.
Oh wow.
I REALLY feel sorry for you man. That is really one of the great things in life to enjoy...chiles!!
And with a diet filled with plenty of chiles and beer, you never have to worry about regularity!!
Except they aren't losing weight, they're just gaining weight at a slightly reduced rate.
But
I saw an interesting program on Netflix the other day called Fed Up, and I didn't realize till now, that for sugar it is pretty much the only ingredient that does NOT have a daily % listed. It is due to the sugar lobby fighting reports from years back showing sugar is the real killer and reason for obesity in so many folks.
I doubt those colas would fee comfy showing that one can was like 120% of the recommended daily allowances of sugar for a day. 120% just being a made up number....I think it is in the ball park, but don't know for this posting.
if a disease can spread because it can find enough vectors since not enough vaccinate, you are also giving the disease time and space to tinker, and perhaps evolve a new strain that existing vaccines don't protect against
so: yup. but that's less superrich killing and more superstupid killing us
i always thought it would make a great conspiracy dystopian story where the superrich, with everything automated, don't need us anymore
so they simply kill us all off
the earth reduced to 700,000 souls from 7,000,000,000 in a matter of days (some sort of highly infectious agent?)
There is nothing in there constraining SizeA or SizeB relative to anything else, just the size relative to each other.
No, no constraints in that sense. Just the larger constraints introduced by the fact that the purpose of saying anything at all, in that context, is to communicate something meaningful about A's size. And by choosing the "ten times more" construction, part of what you're communicating is the fact that B, the thing to which you're comparing A, is by implication already considered small. That format (rather than saying, "A is a tenth B's size") is a choice of words that communicates the understand that B is small, and A is even more small. The phrase "ten times smaller" is using the word "smaller" in the sense of "more small."
The words "ten times" is a multiplier. It's used, in a comparison, to say that one value is LARGER than another. In this usage, the smallness of A is ten times larger than the smallness of B. Trotting out that multiplier is a deliberate choice made to focus on smallness in both A and B, with A having ten times more of it. That doesn't describe the size of B, but it communicates that notion that B is already - in the scheme of things - considered small, and A more so.
"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe
