Good points. Might be boiled down to "Laws exist to punish everyone for the sins of a few."

Change, or just that our sample size (er, length) is too small to know what the variances normally are?

Some of the Europeans I've run into say that Amtrak's on-board experience compares favorably to what they get in their countries, even if the trains are slower.

As someone who's travelled on more than his fair share of trains in Europeland - at least on the west coast, Amtrak trains are super-comfy. Big seats, loads of legroom, decent food (on the last trip - previous trip a few years ago involved a fossilised, tepid space-burger).

Best of all, there's often a carriage specifically for viewing the scenery going past. Of which there is a lot. Possibly including someone describing the scenery going past. I learned a lot about Mount Saint Helens that way. (Main reason for choosing trains - I fly a fair amount also.) Way better views than, say, the Eurostar - where you never even glimpse the sea you've been under.

I vaguely recall the WiFi working when I went from Seattle to Vancouver BC. Not terribly fast, but enough to email friends and family about the delays. (A swing-bridge had got stuck in the 'open' position, and the train had to wait for half an hour or so. The driver had then disappeared somewhere to get a sandwich, causing another ten minutes delay.)

Amtrak is great fun (some of the announcements on that Vancouver trip were gloriously surreal) but it's hardly an efficient means of transportation. I got the train from Seattle to Portland once, and realised it's a similar distance between the two cities as it is from Brussels to Paris. I used to catch the Thalys between Brussels and Paris - in the time it took to go from Seattle to Portland (including a freight-train-induced pause in sidings), I could have gone from Brussels to Paris to Brussels then back to Paris again.

http://blog.aacriminallaw.com/dwi/breathalyzer-101-fail-test-sober/

Not to mention
http://www.ladanlaw.com/how-accurate-are-breathalyzers-anyway.html
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/1055505643.html

How much redistribution is this, compared to say, the mass of ocean being moved by various forces, and the natural flex in the earth's crust? I suspect the mass of ice falls under "grain of sand at the beach".

I'm waiting for Firefox Down, myself.

I recall a study that concerned the accuracy of the BAC meters -- turns out it's not very good, with about 0.05% variance. Which may explain the variability of what's considered "drunk" as much as do individual tolerances.

0.05% testing variance and 0.05% as the threshold for DUI -- you can see the problem: someone who has drunk nothing at all could test "legally drunk".

Sure, you can eat uncooked grain and get by... but how long will your teeth last?

Most fruits and vegetables are largely or almost entirely water. Grain has to be cooked to be edible, so the edible product is either largely water, or has been cooked in water then dried. So it's not like water isn't a component, and often moreso than in meat.

Don't forget that the meat:feed ratio largely includes plant materials that humans can't digest, such as range grass that grows where it's not practical to grow crops (due to lack of water or lack of good soil). Feedlot finishing is a minor part of the calories that go into producing beef.

As to insects, nothing against 'em (I eat ants and aphids occasionally) but what are the relative processing costs? Say, for whole grasshopper. That chitinous exoskeleton is not digestible; indeed, it may be hazardous in sufficient quantity (I've had a cat kill itself by overindulging a taste for grasshoppers -- blocked intestine).

And remember, insects eat an appalling amount relative to their size. They are not free food that falls from the sky. So say we harvest 'em, but -- what do we feed 'em first? ever seen an area stripped by locusts? I have; they eat everything down to scoured wood and bare dirt.

That's an interesting point about contamination from plant matter being more likely to be toxic. How many common weeds contain some toxic compound? what is the relative damage from, say, moldy grain?

The worst I can see from animal contaminants would be parasite eggs/larva (those that can survive dehydration or cooking and are not species-specific), and protein-specific allergies (someone upstream mentioned his crustacean allergy apparently extended to insects). Admittedly not zero risk, but you could bite down on a rock in your bread and break a tooth, too.

I recall a study on coyotes, which concluded that they originated in the southwestern U.S., and their spread across the continent *followed the spread of human civilization*. (Which should surprise no one aware of how well coyotes get on in Los Angeles.) One wonders what other adaptable critters follow the same patern... rats, anyone??

And I particularly like certain types of ants. Fried or raw. :)

I remember a study that concluded Asian-style vegetarianism actually consumed about 20% animal-sourced protein, mainly from feces and insects.

Interesting about the FDA generally-acceptable contaminants levels... and that most are merely "asthetic" defects (well, of course, being essentially protein of varying digestibity). And now I'm wondering what our natural mycotoxin tolerance might be, since it's not exactly rare either.

Here you go.