[Nekko Fox]'s diary
Written about Friday 2014-07-11
Written: (3936 days ago)
Later this year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture may approve the Arctic Granny and Arctic Golden, the first genetically modified apples to hit the market. Although it will probably be another two years before the non-browning fruits appears in stores, at least one producer is already scrambling to label its apples GMO-free.
The looming apple campaign is just the latest salvo in the ongoing war over genetically modified organisms (GMOs)—one that's grown increasingly contentious. Over the past decade, the controversy surrounding GMOs has sparked worldwide riots and the vandalism of crops in Oregon, the United Kingdom, Australia, and the Philippines. In May, the governor of Vermont signed a law that will likely make it the first U.S. state to require labels for genetically engineered ingredients; more than 50 nations already mandate them. Vermont State Senator David Zuckerman told Democracy Now!, "As consumers, we are guinea pigs, because we really don't understand the ramifications.
But the truth is, GMOs have been studied intensively, and they look a lot more prosaic than the hype contends. To make Arctic apples, biologists took genes from Granny Smith and Golden Delicious varieties, modified them to suppress the enzyme that causes browning, and reinserted them in the leaf tissue. It's a lot more accurate than traditional methods, which involve breeders hand-pollinati
So what, exactly, do consumers have to fear? To find out, Popular Science chose 10 of the most common claims about GMOs and interviewed nearly a dozen scientists. Their collective answer: not much at all.
1) Claim: Genetic engineering is a radical technology.
Humans have been manipulating the genes of crops for millennia by selectively breeding plants with desirable traits. (A perfect example: the thousands of apple varieties.) Virtually all of our food crops have been genetically modified in some way. In that sense, GMOs are not radical at all. But the technique does differ dramatically from traditional plant breeding.
Here's how it works: Scientists extract a bit of DNA from an organism, modify or make copies of it, and incorporate it into the genome of the same species or a second one. They do this by either using bacteria to deliver the new genetic material, or by shooting tiny DNA-coated metal pellets into plant cells with a gene gun. While scientists can't control exactly where the foreign DNA will land, they can repeat the experiment until they get a genome with the right information in the right place.
That process allows for greater precision. "With GMOs, we know the genetic information we are using, we know where it goes in the genome, and we can see if it is near an allergen or a toxin or if it is going to turn [another gene] off," says Peggy G. Lemaux, a plant biologist at the University of California, Berkeley. "That is not true when you cross widely different varieties in traditional breeding."
2) Claim: GMOs are too new for us to know if they are dangerous.
It depends on how you define new. Genetically engineered plants first appeared in the lab about 30 years ago and became a commercial product in 1994. Since then, more than 1,700 peer-reviewed safety studies have been published, including five lengthy reports from the National Research Council, that focus on human health and the environment. The scientific consensus is that existing GMOs are no more or less risky than conventional crops.
3) Claim: Farmers can't replant genetically modified seeds.
So-called terminator genes, which can make seeds sterile, never made it out of the patent office in the 1990s. Seed companies do require farmers to sign agreements that prohibit replanting in order to ensure annual sales, but Kent Bradford, a plant scientist at the University of California, Davis, says large-scale commercial growers typically don't save seeds anyway. Corn is a hybrid of two lines from the same species, so its seeds won't pass on the right traits to the next generation. Cotton and soy seeds could be saved, but most farmers don't bother. "The quality deteriorates—t
4) Claim: We don't need GMOs—there are other ways to feed the world.
GMOs alone probably won't solve the planet's food problems. But with climate change and population growth threatening food supplies, genetically modified crops could significantly boost crop output. "GMOs are just one tool to make sure the world is food-secure when we add two billion more people by 2050," says Pedro Sanchez, director of the Agriculture and Food Security Center at Columbia University's Earth Institute. "It's not the only answer, and it is not essential, but it is certainly one good thing in our arsenal."
5) Claim: GMOs cause allergies, cancer, and other health problems.
Many people worry that genetic engineering introduces hazardous proteins, particularly allergens and toxins, into the food chain. It's a reasonable concern: Theoretically, it's possible for a new gene to express a protein that provokes an immune response. That's why biotech companies consult with the Food and Drug Administration about potential GMO foods and perform extensive allergy and toxicity testing. Those tests are voluntary but commonplace; if they're not done, the FDA can block the products.
One frequently cited study, published in 2012 by researchers from the University of Caen in France, claimed that one of Monsanto's corn GMOs caused tumors in lab rats. But the study was widely discredited because of faulty test methods, and the journal retracted it in 2013. More recently, researchers from the University of Perugia in Italy published a review of 1,783 GMO safety tests; 770 examined the health impact on humans or animals. They found no evidence that the foods are dangerous.
6) Claim: All research on GMOs has been funded by Big Ag.
This simply isn't true. Over the past decade, hundreds of independent researchers have published peer-reviewed safety studies. At least a dozen medical and scientific groups worldwide, including the World Health Organization and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, have stated that the GMOs currently approved for market are safe.
7) Claim: Genetically modified crops cause farmers to overuse pesticides and herbicides.
This claim requires a little parsing. Two relevant GMOs dominate the market. The first enables crops to express a protein from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which is toxic to certain insects. It's also the active ingredient in pesticides used by organic farmers. Bt crops have dramatically reduced reliance on chemical insecticides in some regions, says Bruce Tabashnik, a University of Arizona entomologist.
The second allows crops to tolerate the herbicide glyphosate so that farmers can spray entire fields more liberally yet kill only weeds. Glyphosate use has skyrocketed in the U.S. since these GMOs were introduced in 1996. But glyphosate is among the mildest herbicides available, with a toxicity 25 times less than caffeine. Its use has decreased reliance on more toxic alternatives, such as atrazine.
8) Claim: GMOs create super-insects and super-weeds.
If farmers rely too heavily on Bt or glyphosate, then pesticide resistance is inevitable, says Tabashnik. That's evolution at work, and it's analogous to antibiotics creating hardier bacteria. It is an increasing problem and could lead to the return of harsher chemicals. The solution, he says, is to practice integrated pest management, which includes rotating crops. The same goes for any type of farming.
9) Claim: GMOs harm beneficial insect species.
This has been been partly debunked. Bt insecticides attach to proteins found in some insects' guts, killing select species. For most insects, a field of Bt crops is safer than one sprayed with an insecticide that kills indiscriminate
A 2012 paper from Iowa State University and the University of Minnesota suggested glyphosate-tol
10) Claim: Modified genes spread to other crops and wild plants, upending the ecosystem.
The first part could certainly be true: Plants swap genetic material all the time by way of pollen, which carries plant DNA—including any genetically engineered snippets.
According to Wayne Parrott, a crop geneticist at the University of Georgia, the risk for neighboring farms is relatively low. For starters, it's possible to reduce the chance of cross-pollinat
As for a GMO infiltrating wild plants, the offspring's survival partly depends on whether the trait provides an adaptive edge. Genes that help wild plants survive might spread, whereas those that, say, boost vitamin A content might remain at low levels or fizzle out entirely.
The Rise of GMO Crops
In the U.S., farmers have been planting increasing amounts GMO crops since the seeds became commercially available in 1996. Corn, cotton, and soy—which together occupy about 40 percent of U.S. cropland—are the three crops with the highest GMO fraction by area, each more than 90 percent in 2013.
The GMO fraction by area of corn, cotton, and soy in the top states that grow those crops. Data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Graphic by Rebecca Lantner.
Dinner, Dissected
Very few genetically modified crops end up on plates, but the ones that do can be found in roughly two-thirds of processed foods sold in the U.S. Genetically modified bacteria and yeasts are also critical to the production of some foods, including many wines and cheeses.
Cheese
Rennet is key in making firm cheeses—specif
Corn
Trait: Tolerates herbicides; resists insects
Total U.S. crop, by acreage: 85% herbicide-tole
Found in: Processed foods, such as crackers and cereals; corn on the cob; livestock feed
Cotton
Trait: Tolerates herbicides; resists insects
Total U.S. crop, by acreage: 82% herbicide-tole
Found in: Processed foods, including salad dressings; livestock feed
Papaya
Trait: Resists ringspot virus
Total U.S. crop, by acreage: More than 50%
Found in: Whole fruit and other products
Rapeseed
Trait: Tolerates herbicides
Total U.S. crop, by acreage: More than 50%
Found in: Canola oil; processed foods
Soy
Trait: Tolerates herbicides
Total U.S. crop, by acreage: 93%
Found in: Processed foods, such as cereals and breads; food additives, such as lecithin; livestock feed
Squash
Trait: Resists various viruses
Total U.S. crop, by acreage: 12%
Found in: Whole vegetables and other products
Sugar beets*
Trait: Tolerates herbicides
Total U.S. crop, by acreage: 95%
Found in: Refined sugar
Wine
Certain wine yeasts have been modified to remove histamines that can trigger migraines. One example is yeast strain ML01 in the U.S., which also boosts taste and color.
*No modified proteins remain in the final product.
The Future Of GMOs: Gene Editing
Today's most common GMO technology, recombinant DNA, inserts genes into a plant's cells via bacteria or specialized delivery tools, but it involves some trial and error. A new method called gene editing uses enzymes to snip out a specific bit of DNA to either delete it or replace it. This allows for more precise changes to a plant's genome. Scientists at the University of California, Berkeley are already working with it to create virus-resistan
Gene editing may also provide fodder for fresh controversy. Current GMO methods leave a trace behind—for example, a bit of the DNA from bacterium used to insert new genes. The enzymes used in gene editing don't leave such a fingerprint, so future genetically modified plants will be harder to detect with tests.
Birfday for me!
"
The Feminist View Of Domestic Violence
Vs.
Scientific Studies
One of the most pervasive myths of our society is that domestic violence is something men do to women. Solid scientific research reveals that domestic violence is something women do to men more frequently than men do it to women. While it is true that men account for most violence outside the home, women instigate most domestic violence and they injure men more frequently and more severely.
The Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, under grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, recently finished the last of three national studies on domestic violence.
The first two studies revealed results similar to the latest study. Anyone who would like a copy of the latest study may order it from the University of New Hampshire (ask for document V55). The data tape and documentation of the 1975 and 1985 studies are available from the Interuniversit
The average results in the "severe assault" category, are reported below:
Wives report they have been severely assaulted by husband 22 per 1000
Wives report they have severely assaulted husband 59 per 1000
Husbands report they have been severely assaulted by wives 32 per 1000
Husbands report they have severely assaulted wives 18 per 1000
Husbands & wives both report wife has been assaulted 20 per 1000
Husbands & wives both report husband has been assaulted 44 per 1000
There are dozens of other studies that reveal similar findings. For instance:
* Women are three times more likely than men to use weapons in domestic violence.
* Women initiate most incidents of domestic violence.
* Women commit most child abuse and most elder abuse.
* Women hit their male children more frequently and more severely than they hit their female children.
* Women commit most child murders and 64% of their victims are male children.
* When women murder adults the majority of their victims are men.
* Women commit 50% of spousal murders.
* Eighty two percent of all people have their first experience of violence at the hands of their mothers.
There is much confusion about whom to believe in the debate about domestic violence. On one side we have women's shelter advocates and feminists who rely on law enforcement statistics. On the other side we have social scientists who rely on scientifically structured studies. Unfortunately, the results of scientific studies do not receive media attention. America's press is seemingly more interested in political correctness than scientific accuracy. Therefore, the public perception, and the perception of many well intentioned domestic violence activists, is radically skewed away from the more balanced perception of social scientists.
The typical response of the abuse shelter feminists upon first hearing the results of the scientific studies is to "shoot the messenger". You can almost hear their minds snap closed. On the other hand, abuse shelter personnel who have not accepted the feminist "party line" are grateful to have accurate information upon which to implement rational programs for prevention, intervention, and treatment of abusers and their victims. What is happening at the abuse shelters in our community?
I could not find studies which compare the efficacy of scientifically based programs to programs based on feminist politics. However I am willing to wager that scientifically based programs are more effective than programs guided by feminist propaganda.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN OTHER COUNTRIES
It is important to note that there have been the same kind of studies done in many countries. There is cross cultural verification that women are more violent than men in domestic settings. When behavior has cross cultural verification it is safe to assume that it is part of human nature rather than a result of cultural conditioning. Females are most often the perpetrators in domestic violence in all cultures that have been studied so far. That leads many professionals to conclude that there is something biological about violent females in family situations. Researchers are now exploring the role of the "territorial imperative" as a factor in women's violence against men. Women see the home as their territory. Like many other species on the planet, we humans will ignore size difference when we experience conflict on our own territory. So, the scientific results that reveal the violence of American women are not unique to our culture, and do not indicate a special pathology among American women. World wide, women are more violent than men in domestic settings.
Below is a summary of the most recent and significant studies I could find about domestic violence in Canada. There were two waves of data collection. The first was done in 1990 the second was finished in 1992.
This study was done by "Ms." Reena Sommer, a research associate with the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation. I emphasize the "Ms" to call attention to the fact that scientific studies of DV are dominated by female social scientists. Someone mentioned that the figures might reveal a gender bias as if all scientists are male. In this field many of the recognized experts are women.
A survey of couples in Calgary, Canada found that the rate of severe husband-to-wif
THE PROPAGANDA PROBLEM AND THE SCIENTIFIC SOLUTION
Abuse shelter advocates and feminists have severely distorted the DV picture and deliberately produce fraudulent statistics and disinformation
What abuse shelter advocates always ignore is another finding of the same study, i.e.; 2 million men are assaulted by a wife or girl friend per year, which translates as, a man is the victim of domestic violence every 14 seconds. This is typical of the wide spread deception practiced by abuse shelter advocates.
America's press establishment is a party to this deception and shares the blame for exacerbating the DV problem by perpetuating a false diagnosis.
Women usually initiate domestic violence episodes (they hit first), and women hit more frequently, as well as using weapons three times more often then men. This combination of violent acts means that the efforts of finding solutions to the domestic violence problem need to focus on female perpetrators. We need to recognize that women are violent, and we need nationwide educational programs that emphasize the women's role as perpetrators. Other studies show that men are becoming less violent at the same time that women are becoming more violent. Educating men seems to be working. Educating women to be less violent should now be the main thrust of public education programs.
Any domestic violence program which accepts the "male abuser – female victim" paradigm is based on a false premise. These kind of domestic violence programs actually perpetuate the problem of domestic abuse and do not deserve to be supported by private citizens or government agencies. Many government agencies, and legitimate charities, have been funding a feminist political cause, rather than funding rational, solution focused, domestic violence prevention programs.
What kind of domestic violence prevention programs do we have in our community? Do our domestic violence prevention programs devote as much attention to violent females, as they do to violent males? If not, why not?
Let me quote from a book on the subject by McNeely, R.L.. and Robinson-Simps
"Yet, while repeated studies consistently show that men are victims of domestic violence at least as often as are women, both the lay public and many professionals regard a finding of no sex difference in rates of physical aggression among intimates as surprising, if not unreliable, the stereotype being that men are aggressive and women are exclusively victims."
However, part of the feminist agenda is to make men look as bad as they can. The American press cooperates with this libelous portrayal of men. The feminist view of domestic violence is part of the problem. The media boycott of news about the scientific studies is part of the problem. The scientific view gives us hope for solution. Please do your part to share this very important information with your community. "
A new study by Sonja Starr, an assistant law professor at the University of Michigan, found that men are given much higher sentences than women convicted of the same crimes in federal court.
The study found that men receive sentences that are 63 percent higher, on average, than their female counterparts with men receiving 51.52 months of imprisonment time as compared to women receiving 18.51 months for the same crime.
Men account for over 90% of combat deaths historically, 93% of workforce deaths and injuries, and 80% of suicide rates, but only account for 34% of divorce initiations and only 16% of custody battle winners.
Out of youths with issues (suicide, dropping out, behavioral issues, prison), most stem from fatherless households, with the minority stemming from motherless households. 63% of the suicides were from fatherless households, 90% were homeless or ran away, 85% with behavioral issues, 70% placed in state-run institutions, and 85% were sent to prison.
Men also account for 76% of homocide victims, and 86% of men who are sexually assaulted or raped are not believed. Men have access to all of 2 domestic violence shelters in the U.S.
Of the 80.1 percent of the parental abuse committed against a child, 17.9 percent was committed by fathers, 0.9 by fathers and another adult figure, 16.8 by mothers and fathers together, 5.7 percent of mothers and another adult figure while 38.7 percent was perpetrated by mothers alone according to a study done in 2007, and “Perpetrator Relationships of Fatalities, 2004 Child Maltreatment 2004” , child fatalities perpetrated by mothers or by “mother and other [not father]” comprise 40.6% of all child fatalities.
I firmly believe there is no real equality in our country.
NIOS
DOJ
CDC
US. Dept. of Health/Census
Justice & Behavior, Vol. 14, p. 403-36
National Principles Association Report
Rainbows For All God's Children
U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1998
Fulton co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction
http://thewall
http://thewall
http://www.cwc
http://www.ica
http://www.def
http://hatsrco
http://www.pob
http://www.cen
http://www.wor
http://fallenf
http://www.cdc
http://www.sen
http://www.ter
http://www.cdc
Perpetrator Relationships of Fatalities, 2004 Child Maltreatment 2004
Child Maltreatment 2004, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
http://www.acf
So much of what we do in society from national debt, to wars, to the family court policies is at the expense of the children for the sake of irresponsible adults.
"As a recap, we have a problem with human violence. Caused in early childhood. Women are in charge of early childhood. Women choose the men with whom they have children. Right? so, how do we break the cycle of violence? Lecturing men is ridiculous. I mean factually, scientifically
It was 932. Nine-hundred. And thirty-two times...a year. Does anyone want to guess the age ranges of the children? Anybody want to guess the bottom age of the children being hit 932 times a year? [...]
Seven months. Seven. Months. Of age. The top end was three, three-and-a-ha
Violence begins in early childhood as the result of abuse. Women are in charge of early childhood. Women are hitting children nine-hundred plus times a year after thirty seconds of the conflict beginning. You don't have to be Klingon-Shelro
https://www.yo
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
― Martin Luther King Jr.
Voltaire
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
― Voltaire, Questions sur les Miracles à M. Claparede, Professeur de Théologie à Genève, par un Proposant: Ou Extrait de Diverses Lettres de M. de Voltaire
Lemony Snicket
“People don't always get what they deserve in this world.”
― Lemony Snicket, The Blank Book
George Carlin
“The caterpillar does all the work, but the butterfly gets all the publicity.”
― George Carlin
“Rage — whether in reaction to social injustice, or to our leaders’ insanity, or to those who threaten or harm us — is a powerful energy that, with diligent practice, can be transformed into fierce compassion.”
― Bonnie Myotai Treace
Honoré de Balzac
“Laws are spider webs through which the big flies pass and the little ones get caught.”
― Honoré de Balzac
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956
Charles Darwin
“If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.”
― Charles Darwin, Voyage of the Beagle
Hugo Claus
“I am a person who is unhappy with things as they stand. We cannot accept the world as it is. Each day we should wake up foaming at the mouth because of the injustice of things.”
― Hugo Claus
Charles Dickens
“In the little world in which children have their existence, whosoever brings them up, there is nothing so finely perceived and so finely felt as injustice.”
― Charles Dickens, Great Expectations
Paulo Coelho
“In the beginning there was only a small amount of injustice abroad in the world, but everyone who came afterwards added their portion, always thinking it was very small and unimportant, and look where we have ended up today.”
― Paulo Coelho, The Devil and Miss Prym
Christine de Pizan
“Those who plead their cause in the absence of an opponent can invent to their heart's content, can pontificate without taking into account the opposite point of view and keep the best arguments for themselves, for aggressors are always quick to attack those who have no means of defence.”
― Christine de Pizan, Der Sendbrief vom Liebesgott / The Letter of the God of Love
Eric Bogosian
“It's my duty as a human being to be pissed off”
― Eric Bogosian, subUrbia
Voltaire
“Injustice in the end produces independence.”
― Voltaire
William Faulkner
“Some things you must always be unable to bear. Some things you must never stop refusing to bear. Injustice and outrage and dishonor and shame. No matter how young you are or how old you have got. Not for kudos and not for cash: your picture in the paper nor money in the back either. Just refuse to bear them.”
― William Faulkner, Intruder in the Dust
Charles Bukowski
“I guess the only time most people think about injustice is when it happens to them.”
― Charles Bukowski, Ham on Rye
John Stuart Mill
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice, — is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.”
― John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy
W.S. Gilbert
“I'm really very sorry for you all, but it's an unjust world, and virtue is triumphant only in theatrical performances.”
― W.S. Gilbert, The Mikado
“We first crush people to the earth, and then claim the right of trampling on them forever, because they are prostrate.”
― Lydia Maria Francis Child
Voltaire
“Men use thought only as authority for their injustice, and employ speech only to conceal their thoughts.”
― Voltaire
“It takes great courage to open one's heart and mind to the tremendous injustice and suffering in our world.”
― Vincent A. Gallagher, The True Cost of Low Prices: The Violence of Globalization
Ivo Andrić
“Lands of great discoveries are also lands of great injustices.”
― Ivo Andrić
Joseph O'Connor
“Love and freedom are such hideous words. So many cruelties have been done in their name.”
― Joseph O'Connor, Star of the Sea
Michelle Tea
“The world was fucked up. It was hard to say how exactly, but we could feel it. There was injustice, lots of it, we saw it as a dull shape coming into focus.”
― Michelle Tea
Samuel Johnson
“Justice is my being allowed to do whatever I like. Injustice is whatever prevents my doing so.”
― Samuel Johnson
“It would be easy to become a victim of our circumstances and continue feeling sad, scared or angry; or instead, we could choose to deal with injustice humanely and break the chains of negative thoughts and energies, and not let ourselves sink into it.”
― Erin Gruwell, The Freedom Writers Diary
Thomas Keneally
“But then what is the alternative to trying to tell the truth about the Holocaust, the Famine, the Armenian genocide, the injustice of dispossession in the Americas and Australia? That everyone should be reduced to silence? To pretend that the Holocaust was the work merely of a well-armed minority who didn’t do as much harm as is claimed-and likewise, to argue that the Irish Famine was either an inevitability or the fault of the Irish-is to say that both were mere unreliable rumors, and not the great motors of history they so obviously proved to be. It suited me to think so at the time, but still I believe it to be true, that if there are going to be areas of history which are off-bounds, then in principle we are reduced to fudging, to cosmetic narrative. ”
― Thomas Keneally, Searching for Schindler: A Memoir
Jack Gilbert
“We must risk delight. We can do without pleasure,
but not delight. Not enjoyment. We must have
the stubbornness to accept our gladness in the ruthless
furnace of this world. To make injustice the only
measure of our attention is to praise the Devil.”
― Jack Gilbert, Refusing Heaven
“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--forever.
― George Orwellll, 1984
Omar Khayyam
“It is a shame for anyone
to be well-known for righteousness.
It is a great disgrace to feel
distress at the injustice of
the turning of the wheels of fate.”
― Omar Khayyam, The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam
Written about Saturday 2014-06-28
Written: (3949 days ago)
Taken as a whole, a cooked cadaver would yield about 81,500 calories’ worth of food, says James Cole, a lecturer on human origins at the University of Brighton in England. But that’s only if you wolfed down every part that could be consumed. To create his “nutritional template” for cannibalism, Cole used body-compositi
A human arm would supply about 1,800 calories, for example, while each leg would yield 7,150 calories.
Cole determined that a human arm would supply about 1,800 calories, for example, while each leg would yield 7,150 calories. The lungs, liver, and alimentary canal each provide roughly 1,500 calories, while the brain, spinal cord, and nerve trunks together account for 2,700. And what lurks in the hearts of men? Seven hundred twenty-two calories, Cole says.
Archaeologists might use the nutritional template to help settle some tricky research questions. We know that some groups of early hominins engaged in cannibalistic behavior, but it’s hard to know whether they did so for ritual and social reasons (so-called cultural cannibalism) or as an occasional source of nutrients (gastronomic cannibalism). In a cave site east of Burgos, Spain, where Homo antecessor lived one million years ago, researchers have found cut-marks on hominin bones that suggest the latter. The marks look identical to those found on the bones of animals consumed as food. Cole hopes that his work could further help distinguish these behaviors. For example, researchers might check to see if H. antecessor’s cut-marks deliberately targeted the most nutritious body parts.
The 81,500 calories in a human body may sound like a lot, but it’s paltry next to what’s found in bigger animals. A horse contains more than 200,000 calories, and a bear three times that much. And that’s just from their most appetizing parts. It’s also worth considering that about half the calories in human meat come from adipose tissue. Consuming so much fat might pose problems of its own. “I’m not a nutritionist,” says Cole, “but I would imagine that it would not be very healthy.”
Written about Saturday 2014-06-28
Written: (3949 days ago)
Written about Sunday 2014-06-22
Written: (3955 days ago)
A little meme put here for my own use.
The road to purity is drenched in the blood of the martyred.
It is not the Horror of War that troubles me but the Unseen Horrors of Peace.
I have to say this. I hate kids. I really do. To be honest, if I don't have kids, I can't see any immediate problem with that situation.
Do you know what I hate more? Neglectful, self-congratul
I have not seen a larger group of misinformed, pretentious assholes in my life. They strut around, shouting how, with an hour of Google research beneath their belt, they are more informed and better educated than all of the scientific community arguing their case. They cite outdated resources, misrepresent facts, use propaganda and rhetoric in lieu of actual sources or links, and follow blindly this need for fear-mongering scare-tactics.
Why do I hate them? Because although I hate kids, what with them being loud, smelly, slobbering machines of uncontrolled destruction, they are innocent. They look up to their parents, and in fact any adult, as a source of knowledge, a means of staying safe, and a source of guidance. When these parents scream how vaccinations are bad you tend to have several problems.
First problem is the immediate issue of the child being in danger. Certainly, playing outside and eating right are great ways to build up ones immune system, but nobody blithely states 'Well, I'm gonna go catch measles and that way I'll be naturally immune'. Measles can be unpleasant; rash, coughing, runny nose and eyes. It can also cause inner ear infections that can cause deafness. It can cause encephalitis. I has a strong chance of bringing pneumonia into the picture. It can kill the child.
Kill them.
Dead.
Three million children are saved each year because of vaccinations. Nearly two million die from vaccine-preven
Any parent who doesn't vaccinate, in my opinion, is not only neglectful but actively endangering their child. And I've read so much nonsense from the anti-vaxxer crowd too. "Ooh, vaccines have mercury in them!" Your body naturally creatures mercury, and we eat it all the time. Also, there is a difference between ethyl and methyl alcohol, but you're not drinking both of them, are you? "B-b-b-but, what about the formaldehyde?" Your pear has 10,000 times the amount of formaldehyde as a vaccine does. "Well what about rat brains!" It's protein strains obtained to give the dormant or partial virus nutrients. It's also in a part per million amount and does not harm. "Well, I see there is aluminum..." What, you mean the most common metal on our planet, found literally everywhere, even in microscopic amounts in our own bodies? And you say you found it in a vaccine? NO SHIT.
The second issue that arises is that the children are losing their herd immunity. If one child is immunized, and no one else is, well, he would be safe, but everyone else is s.o.l. However, if, say, 90% of kids are immunized, there is no place for the disease to take hold and spread. You know who that helps? Children who are immunocompromi
Now it stops being a 'parents right' to not vaccinate their kid because their bullshittery is now having repercussions on kids other than their own. Do you think the grieving parents of the boy who died from the mumps your little sperm blossom gave him when he lugged it to school because he was unvaccinated would give a rats ass that you were just exercising your right to not vaccinate? Hell no. In fact, I hope the father punches you in the goddamned mouth, you'd deserve it.
Third, the mentality of these homes. I've seen so many variations, some sitting at the 'I'm not sure and need more info, lets talk to a doctor before we continue' mind-set (which I respect, skepticism is healthy, but be wary of your sources) all the way over to the other side, the side who smile while eating granola and their organic strawberries while getting acupuncture done by their masseuse who says that your emotional waves are causing distemper with the universe which is why you're in pain, just before they give you probiotics as a cure-all for everything.
Now, the majority don't fall on either extreme side, but the majority seem to push closer towards the 'fruitcake/nut
Finally, all this comes down to denying science. These parents turn to celebrities, bloggers, and journalists, all with none of the qualifications to make judgment calls on the benefits and risks of inoculations, to form an opinion. For a quick example, Sheldon's girlfriend, Mayim Bialik (Dr. Amy Farrah Fowler, for those who actually like that show). She is, in real life, a PhD carrying Neuroscientist
You know what else is natural? Death.
But at least the companies that make child-sized coffins will profit from all this stupidity.
These people make me sick.
"Punch-fisted in the shitter by a bear with shark arms" has got to be the best description of post-Taco Bell indigestion I have ever heard.
Thought for the Day:
An idealist is one whose perception of reality is untainted by the horrors perpetrated against mankind.
ego homini lupus