Page 2 of 3

Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 2:51 pm
by emordnilap
woodburner wrote:Modern "healthcare", it's there to make money, not to help people. What would you rather have, good health or lots of treatments?
Exactly. While there are a good many well-meaning people in medicine, they're largely unsuspecting firefighters.

On a recent visit to England, the number of people whose seeming single ambition is to own a mobility scooter was eye-opening.

And the so-called 'fight against cancer' is a case in point. There are mega millions to be made working on possible 'cures'. There's zero money to be made in prevention.

Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 3:25 pm
by woodburner
:lol: :lol: :lol: My overriding ambition is to AVOID having a motobility scooter.

As for cancer, Weston Price's book covers that too. Early medical practicioners in Africa found near zero cases of tumours, until their diet included the refined carbohydrates, among other western crap. That changed everything. They had large and regular quantities of data, and the indications were consistent.

Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 4:26 pm
by emordnilap
I've read quotes from that book and seen some of the photographs presented in evidence (teeth etc). Fascinating.

It takes some time for an individual to learn about stuff like that, people're so indoctrinated by cultural norms and advertising. It can take years to learn what's a sensible diet and, by then, it's sometimes too late.

A friend was recently told she should cut down on carbs and eat more fruit. She protested that she already didn't eat much bread or potatoes and she got through loads of fruit. This is true. Naturally, she didn't mention the chocolate she's addicted to nor the high proportion of meat she consumes with every meal. Fruit is not a cure.

Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 5:38 pm
by woodburner
Arguably fruit is a significant source of carbohydrates. Cutting down on carbs means a reduction of energy available and it has to be replaced. Usually this means fats, which of course the doctrine is to avouid it as you will suffer from heart attacks. Interesting claim since Russia and its satellites have a much larger incidence than France, and I'll let you find out which has the greater fat consumption.


This might help https://youtu.be/8ls9HWRxvMo at about 21min.

What has any of this got to do with wasting energy stuffuing CO2 into holes in the sea floor?

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 9:38 am
by Catweazle
One aspect of burial-at-sea-CCS that I don't recall seeing mentioned is the permanent loss of available Oxygen.

I assume that the amount is insignificant. If not, perhaps we should be concentrating on using photosynthesis to separate the carbon out.

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 10:14 am
by woodburner
That would be a good wheeze, then the trees can be buried and, in a few million years, maybe more, we can use the oil and gas formed. But companies could not get loads of money doing that. We would also have to stop devastating forests to grow agricultural crops, with all the attendant problems caused.

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 11:14 am
by Mark
woodburner wrote::lol: :lol: :lol: My overriding ambition is to AVOID having a motobility scooter.

As for cancer, Weston Price's book covers that too. Early medical practicioners in Africa found near zero cases of tumours, until their diet included the refined carbohydrates, among other western crap. That changed everything. They had large and regular quantities of data, and the indications were consistent.
There's obviously value in having a good lifestyle and natural diet, however, as with most issues, the causes of cancer is more complicated than that.... Some cases are due to genetics, some due to environmental problems and some due to poor lifestyle (inc. diet).... Cancers caused by genetic problems and some environmental problems will only be solved by the use of technology.......

It's been around for a long time in all communities.....

Cancer found in ancient human ancestor's foot
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-36912529

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 1:48 pm
by woodburner
From the BBC link
The researchers said the findings clearly show cancer is not a disease of modern society, as some people claim.
Drawing a conclusion from one case is not science. The incidence of cancer today seems to be far more common than a couple of centuries ago.

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:22 pm
by Mark
woodburner wrote:The incidence of cancer today seems to be far more common than a couple of centuries ago.
Again, it isn't as simple as that......
Cancer tends to be more prevalent as people get older....
People died of other things much younger a couple of centuries ago, perhaps before the cancers had time to develop/kill....?
Also, the data was a lot more unreliable back then - there would have been a lot fewer post mortems - just bury them - cause of death unknown....

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 4:13 pm
by woodburner
And it's not as simple as that. The lower expectancy was causes mostly by deaths in childhood. There were still people living to the ages of today. All this is not changing the rise of cancers found as revealed in Weston Price's book where populations had been introduced to western diets having been previously tumor free.

It's still got nothing to do with burying CO2 at sea.

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 10:23 am
by Mark
woodburner wrote:And it's not as simple as that. The lower expectancy was causes mostly by deaths in childhood. There were still people living to the ages of today. All this is not changing the rise of cancers found as revealed in Weston Price's book where populations had been introduced to western diets having been previously tumor free.

It's still got nothing to do with burying CO2 at sea.
I didn't say it was simple..., my point is that it's complex - some of what you say is no doubt true, but it's not the whole story.....
My main point is that technology can (generally) help to improve lives and solve (some of) the issues we're facing.....
Again, it's complex depending what you're looking at, but I don't think technology is 'all bad' as you seem to believe.....
Whether we like it or not, we're not going back to living in caves in our lifetimes....
We're both using a computer to exchange views (technology....) to maybe make things better...:)

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 12:52 pm
by woodburner
Technology is a disguise for one problem which usually creates another. There are no free lunches.

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 1:25 pm
by Mark
woodburner wrote:Technology is a disguise for one problem which usually creates another. There are no free lunches.
Assume you're going to get rid of the computer.....?
And then trot off to the hedgerow to gather some berries for lunch, dressed in animal hide........??
Somehow, don't think many will be rushing to join you.....

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 2:48 pm
by woodburner
On he one hand your reply is the typically silly response. On the other hand I know people who would be able to live without the technological adornments which most could not imagine living without. Those who could "go to the hedgerow" for lunch will be able to survive when the majority perish as result of failed adventures to bury CO2.

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 3:51 pm
by Little John
The answer is indeed to go back to the hedgerow.

The problem is that, as a species, we can't because we are evolutionarily behaviorally programmed to be lazy since it makes evolutionary "sense". Secondly, even if we did, it is too late because there are over 7 billion of us and there aren't enough hedgerows.

However, not going back to the hedgerow is not an answer either since by not doing so we are destroying the ecological systems on which both ourselves and our fellow earthlings depend to live.

Barring some natural disaster or sudden, catastrophic plague we are f***ed and there is no solution. All that remains to be seen is how much of the rest of life we take down to hell with us.