The Old Ones (Found On A Private Forum, Probably Not Exclusive Buit Cool/Kewl)

I can see this might get long, so I will engage in much trimming...

s a quotation or paraphrase from somewhere - the content was the kind of no nsense that you are known for, but the eloquence of the writing was suspici ous. "

Again, bear in mind that what is nonsense to you is not nonsense to everyon e.

s years ago, but it is, like many things, not cost effective) But they did what they could.

The same applies to every generation of people throughout human history." " People do what they can with what they have. "

So you suggest that they do what they could not do with what they had ? You go first.

Possibly true. If people know that those yields are deficient in essential minerals then it is fine. Give them supplements. just like they give cattle which would die without them before getting to market weight.

But not artificially produced minerals. There is a difference. In fact, eve n with artificial vitamins, so many people are unable to absorb them they a re not worth the trouble, according to more than one verified study.

having too much, or putting it in the wrong place. "

Absolutely, and that includes what I term "companion minerals". you get ple nty of calcium ? what about the manganese, phosphorous, magnesium and any f louride other than sodium based useless chemicals they sell ? I'll tell you , calcium deposits throughout your excretion system, bladder and ureter, an d bile system, gall bladder etc. those organs are supposed to get rid of th ose excess minerals. And they are not excess in your diet, when the compani on minerals disappear then out comes the calcium into your bloodstream to f orm stones.

Query your doctor on this and get back to me. If he says I am full of shit, I demand the right of rebuttal.

Are you new to this newsgroup? Trimming and snipping is frowned upon - standard practice here is to quote many hundreds of lines of text just to add a one line comment somewhere in the middle!

What is nonsense to me is nonsense - but clearly not everyone understands that it is not nonsense. (There should be a half-smiley here.)

People are always welcome to different opinions - but they should preferably be /informed/ opinion. And their information should come from reliable sources. People are /not/ welcome to different facts - but there is rarely complete clarity in the facts of any given issue. Usually there is a consensus, or set of possible facts that have the strongest evidence. What, if anything, should be done based on the facts is back to opinion again.

If you take global warming as an example, these break down as:

It is a fact that the earth's climate has been changing, with an increase in average temperature in recent times. Related facts include an increase in extreme weather patterns, coral reef bleaching, higher water levels, lower ice levels.

It is a fact that the CO? levels are higher now than they have been for a significant geological time period. It is a fact that CO? levels affect the climate - it is also a fact that there are many other things that affect the climate (orbital details, solar variations, etc.). And it is a fact that we don't know everything about how the climate works or how much effect CO? has - but that the models have been improving.

Then there are the points that have strong evidence and overwhelming consensus amongst scientists - but that are not "fact" because there are doubts, alternative explanations that can't be ruled out, missing information, approximations or assumptions, or large error bars in the quantitative conclusions. The key one here is that the climate change is very significantly the result of human activity.

Moving to the somewhat more speculative areas, we come to ways to delay, reverse, or otherwise influence this pattern.

Then there are the opinions, such as whether or not we should do anything about it, and who should pay for fixing the problems.

Finally, there is the nonsense. This includes "it's just normal natural climate variation", "it doesn't affect me anyway", "it snowed a lot last winter - clearly there is no global warming", "it is all a conspiracy by the Chinese", "it is Ragnarok / Armageddon / The end of the Mayan calendar".

People /do/ make such claims - and they believe them. But they are still nonsense.

That makes /no/ sense whatsoever. I said "people do what they can with what that they have". You quoted it. Surely you read it? How can you possibly interpret it as my suggesting a meaningless opposite?

Agreed.

"Artificially produced minerals"? What is that - iron generated inside a nuclear reactor? Magnesium made by transmutation? Of course there are some compounds that plants can use more easily than others - this is all well known, and artificial fertilizers contain the compounds that will be useful.

And there is no difference between "artificial vitamins" and "natural vitamins" - they are the same compounds. There is often a difference in what you have in addition to the vitamins, of course, and that makes a huge difference. Many vitamins (and minerals) require other nutrients in order for the body to absorb them - it is pointless taking huge quantities of vitamin X as pills if vitamin X requires fat as well in order to be taken up by the body.

To put it simply - eat a balanced diet, without excess or lack of the essential minerals. Yes, I know.

alas no, no-one's nonsense detector is capable of avoiding all false positi ves.

.)

It would surely make a better world. But with so much info on so many topic s, ignorance is bound to be the norm

when there are reliable sources. A lot of sources often regarded as reliabl e in reality aren't

hence differences on fact are inevitable, and sometimes valid

yes. The trouble is routinely it's wrong

en for

ls

ing.

the trouble with that list of claimed facts is it's too oversimplistic to l ead to any useful reliable conclusions. Too much is missing.

afaik the recent variations are within past bounds, making them necessarily normal. Whether they're natural or man-made is simply not known. Opinions are plentiful of course, along with the usual overconfidence in them.

it does

incorrect

Sure. And one of the issues with vitamins/minerals/nutrients is that we don 't know the full list of human requirements. Certainly looking at RDAs does n't get you there.

oversimply.

To sum up, what is often thought as factual, reasonable & logic often turns out to be not.

NT

True - but some people's nonsense detectors are quite good, other people's are hopeless.

No, ignorance is not bound to be the norm. There will always be /some/ ignorance, but it should be in the minority.

Again, true - but again, it is usually not hard to get a reasonable idea of the reliability of a source. A peer-reviewed academic publication has high reliability. A source with clear economic or other conflict of interest will likely have low reliability. A comic like the Daily Mail, or a propaganda organ like Russia Today can have entertainment value, but no rational person would consider them reliable sources.

That does not mean that generally reliable sources are always right, or that generally unreliable sources are always wrong. But it with a bit of effort and research, you can usually get something with a much higher likelihood of being correct than incorrect (or alternatively, of finding out that there is little chance of knowing the answer for sure).

A different understanding of fact is possible, as is ignorance of the facts. Different facts are not possible. A certain proportion of people cling to the concept of "alternative facts" as though reality and history can be changed just as long as a few powerful people say so.

There appears to be a modern idea that everyone's opinions and viewpoints are equally valid - and that facts are no more than opinion. This is /not/ a good idea, and it is not something we should accept as "inevitable".

No - routinely it is /right/. /Occasionally/ it is wrong.

That list of facts is a list of facts. There is always more to cover (as I said) - proper reports about the climate run to hundreds or thousands of pages, not a couple of paragraphs. But that is not an excuse for ignoring the matter - though it certainly is an excuse some people use.

And there we have it - nonsense. Uninformed thoughts expressed as though they were facts, running contrary to the overwhelming evidence and the overwhelming analysis of experts. (This does not mean that it is a proven fact that the climate variation is outside the norm - it means that to the best of mankind's collective knowledge and understand, it appears to be outside the norm.)

See above.

When the huge majority of experts say one thing, and a few people with heavy investments in polluting enterprises say something else, I think it is pretty clear where reality lies.

No, it does not.

Again, you are wrong.

Absolutely true. RDA's are very much a simplification - they are a useful starting point, but are far from a complete picture. But that is utterly irrelevant to a claim that "artificial vitamins" are different from "natural vitamins".

It is a far more useful simplification than nonsense about how your calcium leaks out of your bones and forms stones in your blood.

No, you have it all upside down.

What is often thought as factual - by serious sources - and is reasonable and logical is usually at least approximately correct. /Sometimes/ it is wrong, but not often.

sure.

That's entirely impossible. Some people become an expert in one subject, mo st in none. Those experts often get things wrong. Even for those experts, e very other subject they engage in they are ignorant about. Other people are ignorant on every topic. The sum of human knowledge outweighs personal lea rning capacity by a massive ratio, so ignorance is inevitably the norm. The world is centuries past the time when this was not the case.

I'm sorry but you're way off. I've read enough of them to know that IRL mos t have at least one of results that can not be duplicated, errors in logic leading to wrong conclusions, errors in basic assumptions & so on. That we' re taught as children that they're the experts does not come anywhere near making them reliable. I wish it did.

most research found in peer-reviewed academic publications has conflict of interest. Companies don't pay for it if they can't profit from it.

we'd all love the world to be that simple

that's missing the point. There is plenty of room for rational disagreement on a lot of matters of fact.

that's what they told you when you were 5.

been

hat

Trouble is it's a bit like saying: People die from overexposure to dihydrogen monoxide every year Over a million people have died from overexposure to dihydrogen monoxide Therefore we should ban dihydrogen monoxide. It's just too uninformative to be useful.

What you call experts I call people with a plain conflict of interest. What would happen to their careers if they said actually, we don't need to worr y? What happened when they said 'we have a huge problem & need a massive re search budget'?

It does, but you missed the point.

no I'm not.

obviously it's a different point.

It's too simplistic.

Ultimately your whole outlook on this is based on what we are all taught as children, that things are a certain way & it's all for the best. Those peo ple making money out of this are unbiased top experts working for the good of mankind, not people finding ways to make money.

I've read more than enough about medical matters to know that isn't how the world actually works. Not even close. Your ideas are based on assumption, even if you don't recognise that.

I've got too much else to do today.

NT

But people evolved in a zero-sum world of danger and scarcity, where tribes warred over resources. It's obviously not enough to "show" some people how to escape poverty, and especially how to let the "others" prosper too.

Especially to women.

, that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't g ood for the environment.

in my earlier days."

not care enough to save our environment f or future generations."

store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized a nd refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were truely recycled.

or numerous things, most memorable besides household garbage bags, was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our schoolbooks. This was to ens ure that public property, (the books provided for our use by the school) wa s not defaced by our scribblings. Then we were able to personalize our book s on the brown paper bags.

nd office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a

way kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine bur ning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back i n our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sist ers, not always brand-new clothing.

day.

m. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them? ), not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, we blende d and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everyt hing for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used w added up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap . Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pen s with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade go t dull.

o school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi servic e. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to rece ive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to f ind the nearest burger joint.

Luxury, we never had a paper bag. We would have been GLAD o a paper bag. We had to carry the groceries one by one from the shop and when we were finis hed our parents would hit us if we were lucky.

Why is it not enough to show people how they can make a living?

NT

We had to carry the groceries one by one from the shop and when we were fin ished our parents would hit us if we were lucky. "

Four Yorkshiremen anyone ? That is one of Monte Python's better efforts.

"And it you tell young people that today they won't believe you".

But we still have that as we drink our Chateau De Chateau there used to be kids going to school with a thermos of soup for lunch and in it were a coup le of pieces of carrot. If there ever was any meat it will be in dinner ton ight, tomorrow and possibly the next day.

Actually 100 years ago you might be able to live on that, but not now. It w asn't FDR who put a chicken in every pot, it was modern farming. We in the US enjoy ridiculously low food prices, and of course the quality. You can h ave an amount of essential minerals in one pound of food or ten pounds of f ood, your call. They get paid by the pound so they have no concern about nu tritional value. They have shareholders and are vested mandatorily in pensi ons, they have taxes and fees and so do their vendors. Plus it is economica lly impossible to fertilize comprehensively, if they did an apple would be five bucks.

No sir, this world cannot feed the biomass at its current mass. It could wi th a concerted effort that would also cost too much, but the best way right now is to use mineral supplements.

In the past you could live on less. Many had no choice. In about five more years when you tell kids about not having a microwave they will be in shock . Having to crank the windows manually in the car. Getting up and walking a cross the room to change the TV channel. If you are mean get a dial telepho ne and tell them to make a call. Or change a tire on a car.

When I was young we changed the tire, not call for a 3 ton truck equipped f or bear hunting and excavation to do it. Who is not green now ?

Because it is 2018 and the job market is f***ed. You either have jobs that require years of worthless school to teach common sense or a minimum wage j ob. We need those factory jobs for people who don't have alot of skill but are not useless. The truly useless just put them out on the ice. But there are plenty of able bodied people who can help pour cement, build things in a factory, be a foundry hand, whatever. But now those CRUCIAL jobs are all overseas and other countries are enjoying the benefits therefrom. The commo ners need jobs, not everyone can figure out higher math even to get an GED, they are just not cut out for it. But they have brains and working (well o perational) arms and legs. When you eliminate those low to mid skilled jobs you put to waste all of that resource. We can't afford that anymore.

I knew a guy worked at J & L Steel and then LTV who bought them. Got in on the high tier pay. Worked some overtime and always made the performance inc entive with whatever team he was on. He could walk into the office smoking a cigarette when it was actually illegal and nothing was said. On long shif ts he took naps but when the steel rolled so did he, his job was to get it moved on his crane. He made about $ 75K per year toward the and but always made good money. One of the highest rated employees that company ever had.

Couldn't read.

Worth is not really recognized anymore, only credentials which are largely useless. Disagree ? State your case.

Some people knew better. I was scared silly of trichlorethylene, and where the lab instructions said pipette it by mouth, I used a pipetting bulb - you flattened a rubber bulb and it let it suck the toxic chemical into the pipette.

And that was the mid-1960s.

Carbon tetrachloride was even worse, but dry-cleaners had used it, and the ones that got casual about it ended up dead quickly enough that people noticed the connection.

Jim's probably wrong about his pancreatic cancer. There's an association with kidney and liver cancers, but it isn't clear how TCE would get to the pancreas or why it might accumulate there.

Smoking, drinking too much and being fat are known risk factors for pancreatic cancer. Jim may be blaming the wrong agent.

Phil Hobbs may think this, but he hasn't got any peer-reviewed research that supports it.

It does rather depend on the idea that one thinks in concepts that match nouns that exist in you native language, and connects the concepts in ways that match verbs that exist in your native language.

Anybody who has ever had to struggle to write up nice clear idea that doesn't map easily into English sentences would be skeptical about this.

The people who though up relativity theory and quantum mechanics - which are notoriously difficult to describe in regular English (or German) - wouldn't be too happy about being written off as not being able to think well either.

Natural language expresses concepts and relationship that are of frequent interest to people going about their regular business. Mathematics exists because natural language falls short when it comes to expressing certain specific and useful relationships.

It might have been incorrect when people started looking for vitamins - "Vi tamin B" turned out to be a grab-bag of eight different compounds, which is why you now have vitamin B-12

Today's vitamins are specific chemical compounds, and work just the same wa y no matter how they were made.

Some synthetic routes might leave you with unfortunate impurities, in the v itamin you are taking, but that isn't a natural/unnatural distinction - "na tural products" are, if anything, more prone to unfortunate impurities.

on't know the full list of human requirements. Certainly looking at RDAs do esn't get you there.

Recommended Dietary Allowances are based on what we do know, so they obviou sly don't tell us anything about what we don't know.

Population studies - looking at who gets sick, and how - is about the only route that might pick up differences in health associated with differences in food intake, but you need to know a lot about the food intakes of the di fferent populations looked at.

aims to document all the proteins in the human body, and that might give us a different handle on what we might have to eat to let us synthesise every last protein.

Of course if there is a protein which we all need, and none of us can synth esise, that won't make it into the human proteome project either.

ns out to be not.

Not often, but it has been known to happen. Sadly, the world is full of nut

-cases who want to use the rare occasions when jumping to the obvious concl usion gave the wrong answer, as an excuse for jumping to all sorts of bizar re conclusions, when the correct approach is to be a lot more careful in co ming to conclusions.

NT seems to be fully paid member of the group that wants to jump to any num ber of bizarre conclusions.

Recycling old Monty Python sketches may be a cottage industry where you come from, but you are going to get a bill from Monty Python Inc. any moment now.

Distain and contempt from the s.e.d. community is free, and arrives sooner.

On Monday, 11 June 2018 00:57:13 UTC+1, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote: nt:

t require years of worthless school to teach common sense or a minimum wage job.

Making a living does not require getting a job. However education produces people with exam results, many of whom can then get a job. That's just a fa ct. Saying 'the job market is f***ed' is almost meaningless. In every count ry in the world there are jobs to be done.

e not useless. The truly useless just put them out on the ice. But there ar e plenty of able bodied people who can help pour cement, build things in a factory, be a foundry hand, whatever. But now those CRUCIAL jobs are all ov erseas and other countries are enjoying the benefits therefrom. The commone rs need jobs, not everyone can figure out higher math even to get an GED, t hey are just not cut out for it. But they have brains and working (well ope rational) arms and legs. When you eliminate those low to mid skilled jobs y ou put to waste all of that resource. We can't afford that anymore.

it would take too much time to point out what's wrong with that paragraph

n the high tier pay. Worked some overtime and always made the performance i ncentive with whatever team he was on. He could walk into the office smokin g a cigarette when it was actually illegal and nothing was said. On long sh ifts he took naps but when the steel rolled so did he, his job was to get i t moved on his crane. He made about $ 75K per year toward the and but alway s made good money. One of the highest rated employees that company ever had .

y useless.

often true. My foray into bigcorp showed me an organisation that valued bul l and did not value what actually counted: productivity & solutions.

Back to the point. I stated that one only need show people how they can mak e a living. You've not really offered anything that counters that.

The world is not a zero sum game. If we work out how to make a living makin g goods from rubbish & sell them at a lower price than the existing compara ble goods a) a bunch of people are now in work b) a factory somewhere will no longer produce that line of goods, they will mfr something else c) purchasers will be left with more money in their pocket and go buy other goods too d) Some of the money made will be spent on food, ie farmers will see extra income and grow more food to reap that income. The sum is not zero.

NT

Vitamin B" turned out to be a grab-bag of eight different compounds, which is why you now have vitamin B-12

way no matter how they were made.

vitamin you are taking, but that isn't a natural/unnatural distinction - " natural products" are, if anything, more prone to unfortunate impurities.

For each vitamin there is more than one compound used to provide it. In som e cases some of these compounds are natural only, some are artificial only. It is simply incorrect to state that artificial and natural vitamins are t he exact same compounds.

don't know the full list of human requirements. Certainly looking at RDAs doesn't get you there.

ously don't tell us anything about what we don't know.

it's not nearly that black & white. As well as definitely known there are a lso grey area nutrients eg B17, silver, gold, cannabinoids and many others.

There are also wide differences in opinion on the required intakes even on the nutrients everyone agrees are essential. Also the RDA doesn't even atte mpt to provide optimum intake levels.

y route that might pick up differences in health associated with difference s in food intake,

certainly not the only one, but a very valuable one

tions looked at.

more than that, other things affect them too. A very simple example is hat you don't need as much vitamin D in sunny areas as you do where it's dark f or months on end. There are many other interactions between nutrient intake & other factors.

urns out to be not.

actually it's routine. There's no lack of people that think themselves reas onable but fail to escape unreason. It's the human norm.

when jumping to the obvious conclusion gave the wrong answer, as an excuse for jumping to all sorts of bizarre conclusions, when the correct approach is to be a lot more careful in coming to conclusions.

a good example of failure of reason.

usual childishness snipped

NT

al

"Vitamin B" turned out to be a grab-bag of eight different compounds, whic h is why you now have vitamin B-12

e way no matter how they were made.

he vitamin you are taking, but that isn't a natural/unnatural distinction - "natural products" are, if anything, more prone to unfortunate impurities.

What are the "alternative compounds" that provide the same effect as Vitami n B-12?

\

or l-ascorbic acid - Vitamin C.

al only. It is simply incorrect to state that artificial and natural vitami ns are the exact same compounds.

They are chemical compounds. It doesn't matter how you end up with a partic ular configuration of atoms - once you've got it you've got something with the same chemical activity. If you don't understand that, you've failed to understand what chemistry is about. There is a lunatic fringe belief called vitalism

but it qualifies as a "superseded scientific theory" which is a polite way of saying that idea was discarded as nonsense some time ago

s a

nts

in

we don't know the full list of human requirements. Certainly looking at RDA s doesn't get you there.

viously don't tell us anything about what we don't know.

also grey area nutrients eg B17, silver, gold, cannabinoids and many other s.

There's no grey area around B17 - laetrile or amygdalin. It's misrepresente d by quack doctors, and can kill you if you take enough of it.

n the nutrients everyone agrees are essential. Also the RDA doesn't even at tempt to provide optimum intake levels.

Which recommended daily intake? There are lots of authorities brave enough to publish recommended daily intakes, though the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council got cold feet about theirs in 2005.

nly route that might pick up differences in health associated with differen ces in food intake,

lations looked at.

at you don't need as much vitamin D in sunny areas as you do where it's dar k for months on end. There are many other interactions between nutrient int ake & other factors.

The vitamin D question depends rather more on how much you need. I live in Sydney, which is pretty sunny, and still have to take twice the recommended dose of vitamin D pills to keep my blood serum levels high enough to make my GP happy.

That's individual variation, which complicates the matter no end.

he

turns out to be not.

It can look that way to the unreasonable. They really do want to poison the mselves with vitamin B17, but the unreasonable health authorities won't let them.

cape unreason. It's the human norm.

You seem to be a prime example.

s when jumping to the obvious conclusion gave the wrong answer, as an excus e for jumping to all sorts of bizarre conclusions, when the correct approac h is to be a lot more careful in coming to conclusions.

An unreasonable - and unjustified - claim.

NT does get petulant when he is shown up as a gullible nutcase.

ural

- "Vitamin B" turned out to be a grab-bag of eight different compounds, wh ich is why you now have vitamin B-12

ame way no matter how they were made.

the vitamin you are taking, but that isn't a natural/unnatural distinction - "natural products" are, if anything, more prone to unfortunate impuritie s.

min B-12?

For vitamin A: "Vitamin A is a group of unsaturated nutritional organic compounds that inc ludes retinol, retinal, retinoic acid, and several provitamin A carotenoids (most notably beta-carotene)."

For vitamin C: "The most commonly used supplement compounds are ascorbic acid, sodium asco rbate and calcium ascorbate.[1] Vitamin C molecules can also be bound to th e fatty acid palmitate, creating ascorbyl palmitate, or else incorporated i nto liposomes.[83]"

etc etc etc. Anyone that knows anything about vitamins is already aware of this, and anyone that doesn't but has a brain cell can do the reading.

cial only. It is simply incorrect to state that artificial and natural vita mins are the exact same compounds.

icular configuration of atoms - once you've got it you've got something wit h the same chemical activity. If you don't understand that, you've failed t o understand what chemistry is about.

whoosh

kes a

ients

l in

t we don't know the full list of human requirements. Certainly looking at R DAs doesn't get you there.

obviously don't tell us anything about what we don't know.

re also grey area nutrients eg B17, silver, gold, cannabinoids and many oth ers.

ted by quack doctors, and can kill you if you take enough of it.

wrong answer

on the nutrients everyone agrees are essential. Also the RDA doesn't even attempt to provide optimum intake levels.

none that I'm aware of even attempt to provide optimum intake levels

ntakes, though the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council got cold feet about theirs in 2005.

only route that might pick up differences in health associated with differ ences in food intake,

pulations looked at.

that you don't need as much vitamin D in sunny areas as you do where it's d ark for months on end. There are many other interactions between nutrient i ntake & other factors.

n Sydney, which is pretty sunny, and still have to take twice the recommend ed dose of vitamin D pills to keep my blood serum levels high enough to mak e my GP happy.

of course. But we were discussing blanket recommendations.

the

en turns out to be not.

hemselves with vitamin B17, but the unreasonable health authorities won't l et them.

whoosh

escape unreason. It's the human norm.

most of the childishness snipped

I don't. I see you're approaching that plonk filter again. You seem very fo nd of it.

NT

Not strictly accurate. One of the contractors is suing NSW government for $A1.2 billion because they claim that the NSW government lied about the utilities under the streets that had to be dug up.

The trade unions don't come into it - except that that union members are digging up and repositioning all the utilities that have to be moved.

Nor does corruption - it just seems to be simple stupidity, and it will probably take the court case to work who exactly was the idiot who thought that you could dig up a city street without running into buried service connections.