As US attempts to have nice conversation, something I've tried many time.

Beach Runner wrote:

>
>
> usual suspect wrote:
>
>> Beach Runner wrote:
>>
>>>>> I'm embarrassed about my many typos.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You should be.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I wonder how you would type
>>
>>
>>
>> I type quite well, usually.
>
>
I used to be a great typist. In my early years of grad school, I
supplemented my incoming doing professional word processing.
>

How would you type if you lost control of some fingers?
>
>>

Answer that
>>>>> It is a step up the moral ladder to care about animal suffering.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, it isn't, at least inasmuch as veganism is offered as a solution
>>>> to it.
>>>>
>>>>> And American vegetarians live longer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wrong.

We are not in the top 20

>>>>
>>>> According to Dwyer, vegetarians' longevity is similar to or
>>>> greater than that of non-vegetarians, but is influenced in
>>>> Western countries by vegetarians' "adoption of many healthy
>>>> lifestyle habits in addition to diet, such as not smoking,
>>>> abstinence or moderation in the use of alcohol, being physically
>>>> active, resting adequately, seeking ongoing health surveillance,
>>>> and seeking guidance when health problems arise."
>>>> http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/895_vegdiet.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I will agree to the fact the vegetarians are more health oriented.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then stop making an ass out of yourself when citing such studies.
>> Whenever researchers make an attempt to account for variables like
>> exercise, smoking, alcohol consumption, etc., there is no quantifiable
>> difference between vegetarians and non-vegetarians.
>>
>>> However it reduces blood chemistry
>>
>>
Generally, it is the change a person makes. Even if it's reducing meat
75%. And adding heat healthy oils. And exercise.
>>
>> You're a dipshit.
>>

You're what the put the dip into.

>>> and bowel cancer.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ipse dixit. You can cite studies that find a correlation between HIGH
>> intake of certain meats and colorectal cancers, but none which show
>> the same risks from moderate or minimal consumption. Indeed, you and I
>> have already discussed the findings of one study which found that HIGH
>> consumption of poultry and fish had a protective benefit against
>> colorectal cancers.
>>
>
In general, vegetarians live longer, are more health aware, read labels.

> In general, people who live a vegetarian life style have longer lives
> and less cancer.
>
>>> And if you go organic, pesticides residuals which are harmful.
>>
>>
>>
>
> There is more than one kind of organic farming. One theory is based on
> less pesticides, and a wider variety of crops.
>
>> Liar.
>>
Certain plants discourage other insects.
That's one example.
The use of the Japanese beetle.
Bat houses.
Marigolds.

Read Square Foot Gardening for example.

So you site one study. There are other techniques.

>> [O]rganic pesticides have very real drawbacks. Most of them are
>> broad spectrum, meaning they kill beneficial insects (just like
>> those dangerous synthetic chemicals). They are not as thoroughly
>> tested as synthetics. Batch strength can vary. And, perhaps most
>> dangerous of all, they are perceived by the gardening public as
>> safe. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
>> http://www.headlice.org/news/2005/pesticidemyth.htm
>>
>>
>> Even if a product is considered to be organic, it is still a
>> pesticide. It is important to be careful when using any
>> pesticide, even organic or natural pesticides. Just because a
>> product is thought to be organic, or natural, does not mean that
>> it is not toxic. Some organic pesticides are as toxic, or even
>> more toxic, than many synthetic chemical pesticides. Organic
>> pesticides have specific modes of action, just as do synthetic
>> pesticides.
>> http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm
>>
>>
>> As new organic labeling laws take effect this week, the USDA has
>> pointed out that it "makes no claim that organically produced
>> food is safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced
>> food." However, this has not stopped organic marketers from
>> making such claims.

And consumer reports says organic grown food has less residual pesticide.

The article was years old and consume report charges for old material.


see
http://www.ecologic-ipm.com/cnn21899.html
which references it.


>> http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl.../oct_22_02.htm
>>
>>
>> The claim that organic food slows global warming is rendered
>> even more foolish by the fact that all those extra cattle
>> [required for manure to fertilize organic crops] would
>> emit lots of methane, a greenhouse gas that's 20 times as potent
>> as CO2. More cattle to produce manure for organic farming would
>> not only mean cutting all our trees, but additional clouds of
>> methane trapping heat in the atmosphere. Ms. Hammond even warns
>> us about methane from cattle when she tells us not to eat meat.
>>
>> Great. A billion extra cattle will eat our vegetation down to
>> dust, and we won't even eat the meat.
>> http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl.../dec_31_04.htm
>>
>>
>> The latest research from the University of Minnesota renews
>> concerns that organic produce has higher bacterial risks than
>> conventional fruits and vegetables. The Minnesota researchers
>> found significantly more E. coli and more Salmonella bacteria on
>> organic produce than conventional.
>>
>> But the researchers themselves say, "Don't worry." They say that
>> finding more E. coli bacteria on organic foods fertilized with
>> manure doesn't mean the organic stuff is more dangerous.
>> Instead, it merely "supports the idea that organic produce is
>> more susceptible to fecal contamination."
>> http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl.../may_26_04.htm
>>
>>
>> "It doesn't matter what's true, it only matters what consumers
>> believe." Sadly, these are the words of Horizon Organic Dairy
>> CEO Chuck Marcy commenting this year to dairy marketing
>> professionals on consumer misperceptions regarding non-existent
>> health and safety benefits of milk marketed as organic.
>> http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl...june_18_03.htm
>>
>> See also:
>> http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl...3/feb_6_03.htm
>> Etc.
>>
>>>> Those other factors are paramount.
>>>>
>>>>> The Bone Density documents how vegetarian diets build stronger bones.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, it hypothesizes about such things without any substantial evidence.
>>>
>>>

Is there a disagreement with the discussion in the book?
>>>
>>> No,
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, it hypothesizes about such things without any substantial evidence.

It's explained the same in every text book on how bones grow and are
constantly replenished. That's my concern about Fosamax, will it give
better tests, but weak bone?

We don't know the long term effects of Fosamax.