#101
|
|||
|
|||
FLU
Portland lacks bad coffee ?
|
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
FLU
On 2017-12-01 16:42, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 13:40:00 -0800, Joerg wrote: On 2017-11-29 17:01, John B. wrote: On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 08:01:31 -0800, Joerg wrote: On 2017-11-28 16:50, John B. wrote: On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 07:50:41 -0800, Joerg wrote: On 2017-11-27 16:21, John B. wrote: On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 13:16:19 -0800, Joerg wrote: On 2017-11-27 12:15, Frank Krygowski wrote: [...] Oh - and I'm sure your completely separate bike paths will be hermetically sealed, and given their own supply of filtered and purified air, right? It wouldn't do to have them downwind from some cars. One can't be too careful! The one I took on Friday does come close to roads and even ... gasp ... Highway 50 at one spot where you can hear faint vroom vroom sounds. Smells? Pine needle scent, foliage, earth, and oo, the occasionally horse poop. I rather smell horse poop than the soot from a big Diesel. You might be so city-addicted that you don't notice the difference but I sure do. Quite the opposite I would say. and, yes, I grew up in a rural environment so I am familiar with all the smells that exist "out in the country". But to those who actually reside in that environment don't even notice them, they are part of the normal atmosphere. It is only the city slickers who comment on "Oh... Smell the pine trees. Of course there is an odor of pine trees, there ought to be as all you can see is pine trees for miles around. Your comment about smelling "horse poop" is a dead giveaway. The correct term is "horse manure" and it is a normal part of the rural atmosphere, or at least the normal rural atmosphere in areas where horses are kept. In other areas it might be cow manure or chicken manure and is a perfectly normal part of the environment where those critters are raised. As a little kid I grew up in farm country. Scientifically correct expressions such as manure are mostly used by upscale folks that don't live there. Locals call it poop or ****. Which is what it is. Sometimes dung but that can already be seen as a frou-frou expression :-) Strange comment. At least in my experience. I never heard the term "**** spreader" used, they were called "manure spreaders". I heard that all the time, mostly in other languages. For example, "Guelle Anhaenger" (ue is an umlaut in there) which loosely translates to "**** trailer". That's how farmers called the "liquid manure" tank trailers they carted to their fields, opened a valve and then pulled it across behind the tractor. Leaving behind a serious stench. If you want to include non-English languages to interpreted to English than you open the gate to some pretty strange terms. For example, the correct term, in Thai, for cigarette ash is "cigarette ****". An ashtray is a "thing for cigarette ****". Of course "kee" the term I am translating to "****" doesn't imply feces in Thai, it means something more in line with the English term "waste". If you want to go further abroad, the correct term to identify a railway train is "fire wagon". Logically, if you wish to argue English language terms then it is probably logical to argue in English. Well, pretty much all Texans I know call horse manure horse **** or horse poop. Or is Texas outside the English language region in your eyes? To some folks it is ... [...] What you do to maintain the chemicals necessary to support plant life is spread "natural" fertilizers... i.e. manure on the farm land. Yes, cow dung. BTDT. Nope. Any type of manure although I seem to remember that chicken manure was used with some caution as it tended to "burn the field" as the old folks described it and chicken manure does have the highest amount of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium of common farm manures so perhaps they did know what they were talking about. They successfully ran farms that way. Else their bank would have taken over. Subsistence farming, i.e., a small family owned farm that supported the family is, and probably has been for a generation or more, pretty much a myth. Even when I was growing up in New England they were rare as one simply couldn't make a living doing everything yourself. Not at all. Many large farms out here (and where I grew up) are already squeezed to the hilt with taxes, fees, costly labor rules and so on. It's no subsistence, it's been their livelihood since generations. What was there about "small family owned farm" that you didn't understand? You might also want to google "Subsistence farming" try http://www.dictionary.com/browse/subsistence-farming Again, I am talking about operations that do not just feed the family but are also significant local employers, major donors to the church and to cheritable organizations. Not old Henry chugging along on his 1950's Farmall. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
FLU
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
FLU
On 12/2/2017 10:09 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-12-01 16:48, John B. wrote: On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 13:44:31 -0800, Joerg wrote: That's how it was in the village where I grew up except the smell was from "cow ****". The local ranchers regularly drove herds through the village. There was only that one street so no other options. It never bothered me. Diesel exhaust blasting into my face while riding on roads does though, big time. But that is very much a matter of personal preference, isn't it? You do know the difference between a nuisance smell and potential lung cancer, don't you? That's the point, Joerg. You obviously don't know the difference. You pretend that if you can smell diesel, you must be at significantly elevated risk for lung cancer. That's not the case. In enough concentration, diesel fumes do raise risk, but that concentration must be much higher than what a person can detect by smell. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
FLU
On 2017-12-02 16:21, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/2/2017 10:09 AM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-12-01 16:48, John B. wrote: On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 13:44:31 -0800, Joerg wrote: That's how it was in the village where I grew up except the smell was from "cow ****". The local ranchers regularly drove herds through the village. There was only that one street so no other options. It never bothered me. Diesel exhaust blasting into my face while riding on roads does though, big time. But that is very much a matter of personal preference, isn't it? You do know the difference between a nuisance smell and potential lung cancer, don't you? That's the point, Joerg. You obviously don't know the difference. You pretend that if you can smell diesel, you must be at significantly elevated risk for lung cancer. That's not the case. In enough concentration, diesel fumes do raise risk, but that concentration must be much higher than what a person can detect by smell. I have mentioned that often a cough sets in. Ask any doctor. When fumes trigger a cough they do increase cancer risk, big time. Once I am off that long county road for a while, no more coughing. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
FLU
On 12/3/2017 11:05 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-12-02 16:21, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 12/2/2017 10:09 AM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-12-01 16:48, John B. wrote: On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 13:44:31 -0800, Joerg wrote: That's how it was in the village where I grew up except the smell was from "cow ****". The local ranchers regularly drove herds through the village. There was only that one street so no other options. It never bothered me. Diesel exhaust blasting into my face while riding on roads does though, big time. But that is very much a matter of personal preference, isn't it? You do know the difference between a nuisance smell and potential lung cancer, don't you? That's the point, Joerg. You obviously don't know the difference. You pretend that if you can smell diesel, you must be at significantly elevated risk for lung cancer. That's not the case. In enough concentration, diesel fumes do raise risk, but that concentration must be much higher than what a person can detect by smell. I have mentioned that often a cough sets in. Ask any doctor. When fumes trigger a cough they do increase cancer risk, big time. Once I am off that long county road for a while, no more coughing. Oh good grief. My doctor tells me I may be allergic to pine pollen, because I get a cough every year around Christmas time when we have a live tree in the house. But he says it may be another allergen instead. Allergies are not cancer. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
FLU
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 08:05:20 -0800, Joerg
wrote: On 2017-12-02 16:21, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 12/2/2017 10:09 AM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-12-01 16:48, John B. wrote: On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 13:44:31 -0800, Joerg wrote: That's how it was in the village where I grew up except the smell was from "cow ****". The local ranchers regularly drove herds through the village. There was only that one street so no other options. It never bothered me. Diesel exhaust blasting into my face while riding on roads does though, big time. But that is very much a matter of personal preference, isn't it? You do know the difference between a nuisance smell and potential lung cancer, don't you? That's the point, Joerg. You obviously don't know the difference. You pretend that if you can smell diesel, you must be at significantly elevated risk for lung cancer. That's not the case. In enough concentration, diesel fumes do raise risk, but that concentration must be much higher than what a person can detect by smell. I have mentioned that often a cough sets in. Ask any doctor. When fumes trigger a cough they do increase cancer risk, big time. Once I am off that long county road for a while, no more coughing. Seriously, I wonder whether you don't have an over active imagination. I had some sort of internal combustion engine powered transportation device from the time I was 14 years old. I joined the A.F. and spent the next 20 years running up and down the flight line which was packed with various types of internal combustion engines roaring and belching smoke and flame. The I retired and almost immediately was hired firstly as a "Master Mechanic" working on construction equipment and later as a manager for construction projects which entailed considerable on site supervision. After some 70 years of being exposed almost continuously to devices burning gasoline, ave-gas and diesel fuel I have no breathing problems at all. Oh yes, I forgot, for several years, long before California's first clean air laws, I was also exposed to the Los Angeles Basin smog for longer or shorter periods. You, on the other hand, seem to open your front door, take a deep breath and (apparently) are in immediate danger of contracting cancer. Really? As an addendum, are you aware that simply cooking food creates an atmosphere that is conductive to cancer? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685804/ "When food is cooked at temperatures up to 300°C, carbohydrates, proteins, and fat are reduced to toxic products, such as aldehydes and alkanoic acids which can cause irritation of the airway mucosa. Cooking fumes also contains carcinogenic and mutagenic compounds, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heterocyclic compounds. Exposure to cooking fumes has also been associated in several studies with an increased risk of respiratory cancer..." -- Cheers, John B. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
FLU
On Mon, 04 Dec 2017 08:26:28 +0700, John B.
wrote: On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 08:05:20 -0800, Joerg wrote: On 2017-12-02 16:21, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 12/2/2017 10:09 AM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-12-01 16:48, John B. wrote: On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 13:44:31 -0800, Joerg wrote: That's how it was in the village where I grew up except the smell was from "cow ****". The local ranchers regularly drove herds through the village. There was only that one street so no other options. It never bothered me. Diesel exhaust blasting into my face while riding on roads does though, big time. But that is very much a matter of personal preference, isn't it? You do know the difference between a nuisance smell and potential lung cancer, don't you? That's the point, Joerg. You obviously don't know the difference. You pretend that if you can smell diesel, you must be at significantly elevated risk for lung cancer. That's not the case. In enough concentration, diesel fumes do raise risk, but that concentration must be much higher than what a person can detect by smell. I have mentioned that often a cough sets in. Ask any doctor. When fumes trigger a cough they do increase cancer risk, big time. Once I am off that long county road for a while, no more coughing. Seriously, I wonder whether you don't have an over active imagination. I had some sort of internal combustion engine powered transportation device from the time I was 14 years old. I joined the A.F. and spent the next 20 years running up and down the flight line which was packed with various types of internal combustion engines roaring and belching smoke and flame. The I retired and almost immediately was hired firstly as a "Master Mechanic" working on construction equipment and later as a manager for construction projects which entailed considerable on site supervision. After some 70 years of being exposed almost continuously to devices burning gasoline, ave-gas and diesel fuel I have no breathing problems at all. Oh yes, I forgot, for several years, long before California's first clean air laws, I was also exposed to the Los Angeles Basin smog for longer or shorter periods. You, on the other hand, seem to open your front door, take a deep breath and (apparently) are in immediate danger of contracting cancer. Really? As an addendum, are you aware that simply cooking food creates an atmosphere that is conductive to cancer? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685804/ "When food is cooked at temperatures up to 300°C, carbohydrates, proteins, and fat are reduced to toxic products, such as aldehydes and alkanoic acids which can cause irritation of the airway mucosa. Cooking fumes also contains carcinogenic and mutagenic compounds, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heterocyclic compounds. Exposure to cooking fumes has also been associated in several studies with an increased risk of respiratory cancer..." I recently came across the following and thought it might be of interest to those who wish to avoid cancer. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/abou...-causes-cancer The less alcohol you drink, the lower the risk of cancer. No type of alcohol is better or worse than another, it is the alcohol itself that leads to the damage, regardless of whether it is in wine, beer or spirits. Research has looked mainly at the amount of alcohol people drink in total and the effect on cancer risk. Drinking alcohol increases the risk of cancer whether you drink it all in one go or a bit at a time. Regularly drinking up to a pint of premium lager or a large glass of wine a day can increase the risk of mouth, upper throat, esophageal (food pipe), breast and bowel cancers. These drinks both include about 3 units of alcohol. Around 3,200 cases of breast cancer each year in the UK are linked to alcohol. Drinking alcohol regularly can increase the risk of 7 different cancers. It is likely that different cancers are caused in different ways. Cancers linked to alcohol include: Mouth cancer Pharyngeal cancer (upper throat) Esophageal cancer (food pipe) Laryngeal cancer (voice box) Breast cancer Bowel cancer Liver cancer In our bodies, alcohol (ethanol) is converted into a toxic chemical called acetaldehyde. It can cause cancer by damaging DNA and stopping our cells from repairing this damage. The International Agency for Research on Cancer have classified acetaldehyde formed as a result of drinking alcohol as being a cause of cancer, along with alcohol itself. There have been some studies in the past that suggested drinking a little bit of alcohol may be good for heart health. But recent reviews have called these findings into question and the UK Chief Medical Officer's review of the evidence concluded that potential benefits only apply to women aged 55 and over who drink very little (about 5 units per week). The new government guidelines clearly state that drinking for health reasons is not recommended. -- Cheers, John B. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
FLU
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
FLU
On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 11:53:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0925125145.htm have my shot have my shot in Florida with crosscurrents of global n heartland bacteria n virus brought by menials n snowbirds alike is possible contacting n suffering from 3-4 different strains during the current winter. absolutely beastly. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|