Tables ladders and chairs

The original Den of Iniquity
User avatar
Alfonso Bedoya
Legend
Posts: 13448
Joined: 8 years ago

5 years ago

FuB wrote:
Alfonso Bedoya wrote:
Steggo wrote:
Alfonso Bedoya wrote:Doctors are largely like that... it's a well paying profession to get into... yeah we see lots of great examples on the telly about the selfless dedication of some of the good ones, like Médecins Sans Frontières... but they're by a long way the minority... most are more about the country club lifestyle...

Years ago, I went to a doctor for some advice about boils on my back... I had linked it to the vitamins I had started taking... I asked him, if there was something in the vitamins that weren't agreeing with me... this prick told me, no word of a lie, that "you don't need vitamins, just eat well, people fret too much about their diet, the human body can survive on a Big Mac and a milkshake once a day"...

It is a very hard profession to get into and maintain standards. GPs are sick and tired (literally) of people self diagnosing and self prescribing.Why had you started taking vitamins?On whose advice. Don't forget that most of the vitamins and supplements are produced by the big pharmaceuticals so they have a vested interest in getting you on a product you really don't need. What your doctor told you was absolutely correct. What he should have asked you is why you thought you needed extra vitamins-what was the problem.That he didn't was poor doctoring. If there was a reason for you taking vitamins there are a whole battery of tests he could and should have arranged.If not ask-your'e entitled!
To be honest, Steggs, I think that's rubbish... people take vitamins because it's getting hard to eat properly these days... and even if you try, the nutritional value of modern produce is less than it used to be, as the quality of growing medium has changed... but that's beside the point... not all vitamins are produced my drug barons and not all supplements are vitamins... the bottom line is, I went to the doctor for advice, and he gave me flippant shit... if I want that kind of advice, I'll ask my smart arse mates... I went to a doctor to get professional advice... that's what they're paid for... I don't give a fuck if they're sick and tired... if they find their job frustrating, that's their problem, not mine...
Sid, are you suggesting that GPs are tired in the same way as doctors and nurses in emergency wards? I'd be very surprised if that was the case.

Alf, when you say the nutritional value of modern produce is less than it used to be do you mean that the type of food produced is different than in the past, and therefore less nutritional or that, say, today's carrots are less nutritional than yesterdays?
Studies have shown that the nutritional value of most nonorganic supermarket produce has much less than it did 50 years ago, and even organic food isn't as potent... because the soil isn't as potent... it's not just the organic matter that's necessary for healthy food... and that's easily replaceable... minerals are important as well, and they're not being replaced... and then there's the microbes in the soil that are responsible for converting both rock dust and organic matter into the material that the plant can absorb...
"Badges, to god-damned hell with badges! We have no badges. In fact, we don't need badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges, you god-damned cabrón and ching' tu madre! Come out from that shit-hole of yours. I have to speak to you."
User avatar
FuB
Legend
Posts: 6881
Joined: 5 years ago
Location: Littlewoods Data Entry Department

5 years ago

Alfonso Bedoya wrote:and then there's the microbes in the soil that are responsible for converting both rock dust and organic matter into the material that the plant can absorb...
I assume you mean those that form parts of the nitrogen cycle but i'm not clear if you mean that they are on the decline too
Rant's official artificial intelligence
User avatar
Alfonso Bedoya
Legend
Posts: 13448
Joined: 8 years ago

5 years ago

FuB wrote:
Alfonso Bedoya wrote:and then there's the microbes in the soil that are responsible for converting both rock dust and organic matter into the material that the plant can absorb...
I assume you mean those that form parts of the nitrogen cycle but i'm not clear if you mean that they are on the decline too
Not clear, eh?
"Badges, to god-damned hell with badges! We have no badges. In fact, we don't need badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges, you god-damned cabrón and ching' tu madre! Come out from that shit-hole of yours. I have to speak to you."
User avatar
FuB
Legend
Posts: 6881
Joined: 5 years ago
Location: Littlewoods Data Entry Department

5 years ago

Alfonso Bedoya wrote:
FuB wrote:
Alfonso Bedoya wrote:and then there's the microbes in the soil that are responsible for converting both rock dust and organic matter into the material that the plant can absorb...
I assume you mean those that form parts of the nitrogen cycle but i'm not clear if you mean that they are on the decline too
Not clear, eh?
Well, I'm assuming you do mean that and it would follow that any microbial colony would, by nature, adjust itself to the available food. However, this would be a reaction to our failure to replenish the food source rather than us failing to add more microbes.
Can you point me to any of the studies you mentioned previously so I can read them for myself?
Rant's official artificial intelligence
Steggo
Legend
Posts: 1754
Joined: 7 years ago

5 years ago

FuB wrote:Well, I'm assuming you do mean that and it would follow that any microbial colony would, by nature, adjust itself to the available food. However, this would be a reaction to our failure to replenish the food source rather than us failing to add more microbes.
Can you point me to any of the studies you mentioned previously so I can read them for myself?
This might be of interest. http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... tion-loss/
User avatar
Alfonso Bedoya
Legend
Posts: 13448
Joined: 8 years ago

5 years ago

FuB wrote:
Alfonso Bedoya wrote:
FuB wrote:
Alfonso Bedoya wrote:and then there's the microbes in the soil that are responsible for converting both rock dust and organic matter into the material that the plant can absorb...
I assume you mean those that form parts of the nitrogen cycle but i'm not clear if you mean that they are on the decline too
Not clear, eh?
Well, I'm assuming you do mean that and it would follow that any microbial colony would, by nature, adjust itself to the available food. However, this would be a reaction to our failure to replenish the food source rather than us failing to add more microbes.
Can you point me to any of the studies you mentioned previously so I can read them for myself?
You don't replace microbes... they breed on their own... in healthy soil... the soil is NOT healthy, and the quality of soil has been declining since the introduction of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and modern agricultural practice... this isn't even debated... it's just accepted, and the answer is, we need more science... more chemical, more genetic modification...

"Can you point me to any of the studies you mentioned previously so I can read them for myself?"

I tell you what... Goggle, "the declining nutritional value of fruits and vegetables... and take your pick!
"Badges, to god-damned hell with badges! We have no badges. In fact, we don't need badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges, you god-damned cabrón and ching' tu madre! Come out from that shit-hole of yours. I have to speak to you."
User avatar
FuB
Legend
Posts: 6881
Joined: 5 years ago
Location: Littlewoods Data Entry Department

5 years ago

Alfonso Bedoya wrote: You don't replace microbes... they breed on their own... in healthy soil...
Yes, that's what I said above. A colony will adjust its size to availability of food.
Alfonso Bedoya wrote:this isn't even debated... it's just accepted, and the answer is, we need more science... more chemical, more genetic modification...
I wasn't intending to debate this with you. I was genuinely interested in reading the available information for myself and I thank Steggo for appreciating this.

Where I currently live, we are surrounded by fields and I get to watch modern agricultural practices literally the other side of the fence around our garden. I remember, as a kid, being taught that farmers rotate crops over a four year cycle with one of those years being a fallow year. It's taken me to actually have agriculture right on my doorstep to see that this isn't even remotely true. Farmers here seem to plant the same maize crop every year and only change that if the market is better for something else, like soya for instance.

Having seen this, it comes as no surprise to me (even with my school level knowledge of agriculture) that this has to have a damaging effect on the soil environment. It's not something that's popped up to the top of my mind to go off and investigate further so I thank you for bringing it to mind now.
Rant's official artificial intelligence
User avatar
Alfonso Bedoya
Legend
Posts: 13448
Joined: 8 years ago

5 years ago

FuB wrote:
Alfonso Bedoya wrote: You don't replace microbes... they breed on their own... in healthy soil...
Yes, that's what I said above. A colony will adjust its size to availability of food.
Alfonso Bedoya wrote:this isn't even debated... it's just accepted, and the answer is, we need more science... more chemical, more genetic modification...
I wasn't intending to debate this with you. I was genuinely interested in reading the available information for myself and I thank Steggo for appreciating this.

Where I currently live, we are surrounded by fields and I get to watch modern agricultural practices literally the other side of the fence around our garden. I remember, as a kid, being taught that farmers rotate crops over a four year cycle with one of those years being a fallow year. It's taken me to actually have agriculture right on my doorstep to see that this isn't even remotely true. Farmers here seem to plant the same maize crop every year and only change that if the market is better for something else, like soya for instance.

Having seen this, it comes as no surprise to me (even with my school level knowledge of agriculture) that this has to have a damaging effect on the soil environment. It's not something that's popped up to the top of my mind to go off and investigate further so I thank you for bringing it to mind now.
My apologies Mate... the way you asked, or perhaps the way I interpreted, I thought you were just fishing for an opportunity to challenge what I was saying... as if I was talking shit...

My knowledge on this is limited, but I do know a few things... I know about microbe management, from my own, *ahem*, agricultural experience... of which I'm fairly good at... but the declining quality of produce has been relatively common knowledge for decades... I say "relatively", because it's not a secret, but it is one of those subjects that, interestingly, we're not told near enough about...

Like you mentioned... crop rotation is a tried and proven method of soil management that goes back centuries... largely promoted by George Washington Carver, who advised ex slaves, who came into their own land, who knew nothing but growing cotton which is notoriously hard on soil... told them to grow peanuts...

Anyway... from what you wrote... it sounds like you're very pretty familiar with "modern agriculture practices"...

It actually doesn't take a great leap to find the conspiracy there...

Farmers had always known how to grow crops just fine... but nature can be cruel, and occasionally farmers would lose entire crops to blight, drought, pests, etc... so when some clever dick in a suit comes along and says, "we've got these seeds see, and they're fuckin great. They're resistant to mould, and dry seasons and they'll yield 50% more than what you've been used to"... "and on top of that, we've got our own market, and will see to it that you get a great price on your crop"...

"Really?" says the farmer... "golly mister, that's just swell"...

"Yeah" says clever dick... "there's just a couple things though"... "one, they produce so well, because we've changed the flowering process, so you won't get viable seeds from your own crop, but hey, that's no problem, because we'll just sell you more each year, right?"... "oh, and also, because these are laboratory crops, they don't have the same natural resistance to pests, and other natural issues that might arise from growing in manure"... "but hey, who wants to grow crops in shit, right, eh, am I right, haha..."... "nah, that's old farming pal".... "Science has moved on, and so should you buddy, we don't grow in shit any more, now we use chemicals", "premium quality, crop specific, nutritional requirement, supplemental regimes"...

Farmer... "wow mister, you sure are smart, but I don't know anything about that"...

Clever Dick... " don't you worry friend, it just so happens that we know all about these things and will sort you out with whatever you need... see, not only do we produce the worlds finest, hybrid seeds, but we also, just happen to produce all the chemical fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, that you will ever need"... "EVER"...
"Badges, to god-damned hell with badges! We have no badges. In fact, we don't need badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges, you god-damned cabrón and ching' tu madre! Come out from that shit-hole of yours. I have to speak to you."
User avatar
FuB
Legend
Posts: 6881
Joined: 5 years ago
Location: Littlewoods Data Entry Department

5 years ago

yeah, I can follow that dialogue and that I do understand and have already considered that side of it. I have to say that my observations of modern agriculture have made me think more about the (as you point out, particularly suspicious and open to vested interest) commercial driving forces than the soil chemistry and biology aspects of the picture (which is actually a bit silly given my scientific background and my wife being a biologist!).
What is also quite disturbing here is that, rather than manage their crop cycling and actually grow food for human consumption, virtually all (if not all) of the maize grown is for animal - and I think specifically chicken - feed... so they are growing produce which is evidently not fit for human consumption (or, with reference to what you say, nutritionally substandard) to feed to chickens that, clearly, are intended for human consumption or to produce eggs for human consumption.

I have to say that I think your imagined dialogue is very much nail on head but it even gets worse in that there are well-known cases of pesticide (etc.) manufacturers both sponsoring and publishing scientific papers to show how their big products are safe. A case in point there being that a large proportion of the "research" into bee colony collapse disorder was sponsored by the producers of neonicotinoids. The vested interests don't stop at tying in the "stupid farmer" to their full range of "beneficial" products but also to hoodwinking the "stupid population" into providing excellent scientific research to back these vested interests up.

That said... I do rail a little bit at the undercurrent there that "scientists" are cynically pulling the wool over everyone's eyes. I didn't initially go into science (and fail abysmally to stay in it) and my wife isn't in it in order to serve the vested interests of corporations.
Rant's official artificial intelligence
User avatar
Alfonso Bedoya
Legend
Posts: 13448
Joined: 8 years ago

5 years ago

FuB wrote:yeah, I can follow that dialogue and that I do understand and have already considered that side of it. I have to say that my observations of modern agriculture have made me think more about the (as you point out, particularly suspicious and open to vested interest) commercial driving forces than the soil chemistry and biology aspects of the picture (which is actually a bit silly given my scientific background and my wife being a biologist!).
What is also quite disturbing here is that, rather than manage their crop cycling and actually grow food for human consumption, virtually all (if not all) of the maize grown is for animal - and I think specifically chicken - feed... so they are growing produce which is evidently not fit for human consumption (or, with reference to what you say, nutritionally substandard) to feed to chickens that, clearly, are intended for human consumption or to produce eggs for human consumption.

I have to say that I think your imagined dialogue is very much nail on head but it even gets worse in that there are well-known cases of pesticide (etc.) manufacturers both sponsoring and publishing scientific papers to show how their big products are safe. A case in point there being that a large proportion of the "research" into bee colony collapse disorder was sponsored by the producers of neonicotinoids. The vested interests don't stop at tying in the "stupid farmer" to their full range of "beneficial" products but also to hoodwinking the "stupid population" into providing excellent scientific research to back these vested interests up.

That said... I do rail a little bit at the undercurrent there that "scientists" are cynically pulling the wool over everyone's eyes. I didn't initially go into science (and fail abysmally to stay in it) and my wife isn't in it in order to serve the vested interests of corporations.
No, of course not... but I bet you'd find research funding harder to come by...
"Badges, to god-damned hell with badges! We have no badges. In fact, we don't need badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges, you god-damned cabrón and ching' tu madre! Come out from that shit-hole of yours. I have to speak to you."
Post Reply