Disenchanted with Liberals, Conservatives & NDP?

[Alta4ever]

If you have a gas stove (which I do) try breathing right beside it when it's on. Knowing that CO2 is "benign" doesn't make up for the lack of oxigen in the air.

There is no lack of oxygen when c02 is released into the atmosphere. What you are experiencing by the stove is a lack of oxygen due to the fact it is being used in the chemical reaction depriving that specific area of oxygen.

[PoliticalCitizen]

C02 is what the plants breath it is required for photosynthesis.

There is no lack of oxygen when c02 is released into the atmosphere. What you are experiencing by the stove is a lack of oxygen due to the fact it is being used in the chemical reaction depriving that specific area of oxygen.

Thanks!

I learned both of those about 25 years ago in school. I also learned at the same time that with no CO2 produced by man (except for breathing) plants would still have had plenty for photosynthesis. So, as I said before, we're not doing them or ourselves a service.

And the chemical reactions that take place in our bodies need oxigen, not CO2

[Alta4ever]

Thanks!

I learned both of those about 25 years ago in school. I also learned at the same time that with no CO2 produced by man (except for breathing) plants would still have had plenty for photosynthesis. So, as I said before, we're not doing them or ourselves a service.

And the chemical reactions that take place in our bodies need oxigen, not CO2

We are not removing the 02 from the atmosphere, and we also know that there have been much higher levels of c02 in the past and that the plant life thrived on it.

[Bryan]

Have you seen greesy sausages that claim zero trans fat? How about 0 calories coke?

What's your point? Are trying to imply that they are lying? Both claims are perfectly reasonable and verifiable. Manufacturers are able to make such claims because they've been tested.

[independent]

What's your point? Are trying to imply that they are lying? Both claims are perfectly reasonable and verifiable. Manufacturers are able to make such claims because they've been tested.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=231712

They are allowed to claim zero calories because the amount of calories are very small. I think food regulations are very stringent. Be careful with names of products though because I think the names can be misleading.

Edited October 2, 2008 by independent

[Bryan]

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=231712

They are allowed to claim zero calories because the amount of calories are very small. I think food regulations are very stringent. Be careful with names of products though because I think the names can be misleading.

In Canada, it's 0.4 calories per 355ml can for Diet Coke. If you do the math on the label, it does add up to 0.4. The rule is anything less than 0.5 is "legally" zero. Same with trans fat, it's anything less than 0.5 grams.

Besdies if anyone is worried about the effects of 0.4 calories, they have much bigger problems than their waistline.

[PoliticalCitizen]

In Canada, it's 0.4 calories per 355ml can for Diet Coke. If you do the math on the label, it does add up to 0.4. The rule is anything less than 0.5 is "legally" zero. Same with trans fat, it's anything less than 0.5 grams.

Besdies if anyone is worried about the effects of 0.4 calories, they have much bigger problems than their waistline.

Does the diet coke can say anything about ASPARTAME used instead of sugar?

[TCCK]

Does the diet coke can say anything about ASPARTAME used instead of sugar?

Oh and yes Aspertame is sooo good for you, do the research (what has not been removed from everywhere by the government because of the aspertame companies political bribes)

that stuff is just pure evil. REsearch and find out it is causing cancers at an alarming rate, alzhiemers, and numerous other health issues can all be easily traced back to aspertame but got approved so we should just leave it on the shelves for people because in North America we are all so fat so we need to help people lose eight even if it kills 20-30% of them with other health complications. We can alays blame the deaths on thier fatness and continue to let the companies that make aspertame get filthy rich.

Good investment tip, seriously, until they pull aspertame, invest in the companies that make it, high profits.

[PoliticalCitizen]

May's excellent performance in the debate scored well with the Canadians:

English Leaders Debate Audience Says Harper Comes Out on Top (31%), But Layton Not Far Behind (25%), and May (17%) Performs Well Above Expectations

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=4106

This result and fourthcoming spins by the media may help Greens win more votes in the election, hopefully not only at Liberals' expense

[segnosaur]

Oh and yes Aspertame is sooo good for you, do the research (what has not been removed from everywhere by the government because of the aspertame companies political bribes)

that stuff is just pure evil. REsearch and find out it is causing cancers at an alarming rate, alzhiemers, and numerous other health issues...

Ok, first of all, keep in mind that any suggestion that there is a big government/business conspriracy to cover up evidence against aspertame makes someone sound like a raging conspricy nut. There are plenty of 'anti-aspartame' references out there if someone wanted to do any research. (Unfotunately, much of the anti-aspartame information out there doesn't really have a firm grasp in reality.)

Secondly, the 'evidence' that Aspartame is dangerous is sketchy at best. You claim that it causes Alzheimers; yet the Alzheimer Association (and you'd figure they'd be knowlegable about the subject) belileves there is no cause/effect relationship between Alzheimers and aspartame. Same with the National Cancer Institute AMD the European Union who have found no link between aspartame and cancer.

http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_myth..._alzheimers.asp

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/AspartameQandA

http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/murmurs..._aspartame.html

Lastly, keep in mind that while yes, in the past there have been synthetic chemicals which have caused unexpected health problems, some of the most dangerous cancer-causing agents are actually all natural.

You see, this is the reason we need better scientific education in the western world. We are constantly exposed to information, some good and some bad. Many people have never been taught how to think critically, or to separate 'good' sources of information from 'bunk'.

[PoliticalCitizen]

You see, this is the reason we need better scientific education in the western world. We are constantly exposed to information, some good and some bad. Many people have never been taught how to think critically, or to separate 'good' sources of information from 'bunk'.

We are certainly exposed to different information, but that is easy to avoid.

The chemicals we are constantly exposed to are more difficult and costly to avoid: Aspartame in soft drinks, Fluoride in drinking water, Chlorine in swimming pools etc. Even though the immediate benefits of these substances are a scientific fact not everyone is happy and eager to introduce these potentially nocive substances into their bodies.

Other, non-chemical conserns brought by the evolution of technology are exposure to electro-magnetic fields, conditioned air inside and polluted of air outside; abuse of over-the-counter drugs, household chemicals etc...

Even though most of the above has been scientifically "proven" to be safe the rate at wich new chemicals and electromagnetic radiation sources are developed does not allow to say that they have been proven by time, as we see hundreds of such changes over the lifetime of a generation.

[segnosaur]

Yet you seem to support a party that is fighting against a bill (C-51) which would help provide safegards against poor quality control.

And under bill C-51, they won't be under the same rules as modern drug companies. But they will have more oversight than they have now; that oversight is justified by the fact that many alternative drugs A: do contain chemicals that are more harmful than you would find in, lets say, food, and B: often make false claims.

How much do you know of the Bill C-51?

Actually I know quite a bit about C-51... I've read through the bill, and I've seen quite a few 'claims' about the bill and the debunking of those claims.

Here are some interpretations of what's in it:

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/2359300...s-a-health-bill

Ever notice in all of his 'interpretation' of the bill, at no point does he ever actually point to the sections of the bill that are relevant?

Basically, there are a whole mess of false/misleading claims that have been debunked time and time again. If you actually read the bill (rather than relying on what some 'alternative healer' claims) you can see where and why their arguments fall short.

There are several good analysis done on Bill 51 by varous skeptics groups. They do a pretty good job at showing the flaws here...

http://www.ottawaskeptics.org/topics/alter...r-of-inspectors

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=1...referrerid=6535

Under Bill C-51 the State could:

• Enter private property without a warrant

Actually the reason that was put into place was because some "natural health care" companies were taking property and dividing it up, eliminating access to warehouse/production areas behind areas that had no ownership. Frankly, its kind of a scummy thing for a company to do... I can't think of any reputable manufacturer that needs to sell land surrounding their factories to prevent people from entering.

Its basically a right-of-access thing, and if you read the bill it actually gives descriptions about when such 'power' would be permitted.

• Take your property at their discretion

Again, there is a reason for that... The government has to test whatever product you're selling for impurities. Its always been the case (with any food/drug) that inspectors have to be able to take samples.

• Dispose of your property at will

• Not reimburse you for your losses

Yes, if its found to be contaminated / dangerous. Why should the goverment (and taxpayers) pay some herbal company if they decide to put rat poison in their drugs?

• Seize your bank accounts without a warrant

Read the bill... it clearly defines what can be seized and what can't be.

• Levy fines of up to $5,000,000.00 and/or seek 2 years in jail per charge

First of all, keep in mind that these fines are for actual charges that go before a judge (so its not like the inspectors can fine people without any oversight).

Secondly, the most important part of your claim is the phrase 'up to'. Judges can (and usually do) set the value of fines much less than the maximum. However, many of these 'alternative health' companies earn millions of dollars a year. Any proposed fines must be high enough to actually discourage them from doing things that might endanger people's health.

• They can charge you just for talking about or promoting natural alternatives

Err... no they can't. Please point to the section of the bill that actually suggests that.

Have you seen greesy sausages that claim zero trans fat?

Yes, its quite possible to have 'greasy' food with zero trans fat.

In case you didn't know, not all 'fat' is 'trans fat'. Trans fat is just one type of unsaturated fat. There are other types (such as saturated fats).

- Some 'alternative medicines' do actually contain chemicals that can be harmful if not used properly. Last time I checked, you weren't in much danger from overdosing on a BLT.

What about melanine in milk? Ring a bell?

Or our home-made disaster - "Death by a thousand cold cuts" listeriosis?

Differences is, people don't take milk specifically to get melamine, or eat meat specifically to get listeriosis. They are contaminates that the government/inspectors/society want to see eliminated.

On the other hand, when you take some sort of herbal medicine, you're actually taking it for whatever medicinal effects it has, and quite often those medicinal effects can be dangerous.

Yes, it is "everyone's personal choice". But I feel such choices should actually be informed choices. As such, anyone should have the right to buy and use any alternative medicine, but they should not be lied to about whether such alternatives actually work.

Everyone can conduct their personal trial, wich is (as long as you stick to brand names) quite safe and relatively inexpensive.

Actually, no you can't.

Doing your own 'personal trial' is nothing more than an anecdote, and by the time your don't your 'personal trial' your situation may have deteriorated (if you're talking about some sort of alternative medicine treatment). If you have (for example) cancer, trying varioius ineffective 'alternatives' is just going to allow the cancer to spread and prevent you from getting timely effective treatment from modern medicne.

[segnosaur]

I'd be willing to bet that most of your improved feelings of wellbeing came from quitting smoking and making other lifestyle changes. What you are attributing to those natural supplements is likely nothing more than a placebo effect.

You're partially right but I discontinue the intake of supplements for the week-ends / holidays / vacations (to allow the body to return to its status quo) and there is a noticeable difference.

Ummmm... you REALLY don't understand the concept of a proper scientific control, do you.

Lets see... you stop your supplmenets on the weekends and you feel different. But what else happens on the weekends? You probably go to bed/wake up at a different time, you may not eat the same foods/drink the same liquids. Mentally, you may expect to be more relaxed for the simple reason that you aren't expected to go to work. All of which will cause a 'noticable difference'.

In order to properly determine whether your 'suppliments' are having an effect, you'd have to have someone randomly substitute your suplements for some placebo (without telling you) and then have you try to determine whether your changes are due to your suplements or just the placebo effect.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Actually I know quite a bit about C-51... I've read through the bill, and I've seen quite a few 'claims' about the bill and the debunking of those claims.

Any bill that can allow for interpretations like the ones I quoted, no matter how far-fetched they are, sholdn't pass.

Just look at what happened to US with the homeland security measures - under Bush's TERROR campaign the country took a clear direction towards a police state.

Actually, no you can't.

Why, because you said so?

Doing your own 'personal trial' is nothing more than an anecdote, and by the time your don't your 'personal trial' your situation may have deteriorated (if you're talking about some sort of alternative medicine treatment). If you have (for example) cancer, trying varioius ineffective 'alternatives' is just going to allow the cancer to spread and prevent you from getting timely effective treatment from modern medicne.

Your argument is nothing more than an anecdote.

A terminally ill patient who wants to live will try ANYTHING, including the poisioning by chemotherapy and the slow death of radiotherapy. Both are not only ineffective but detrimental in the worst way.

Chemotherapy is like poisoning a city to try to kill a few criminals.

Radiotherapy is like nuking a region of the country to get rid of the mutants concentrated there and hoping that the radiation will not create new mutants.

Both amount to CRUEL and UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT of the body by the modern science.

Compared to the above anyhting: fasting, natural remedies, spiritual healers, urinotherapy - you name it - makes more sense AND may yield same or better results EVEN IF they could be attributed to the placebo effect.

[PoliticalCitizen]

You're partially right but I discontinue the intake of supplements for the week-ends / holidays / vacations (to allow the body to return to its status quo) and there is a noticeable difference.

Ummmm... you REALLY don't understand the concept of a proper scientific control, do you.

Lets see... you stop your supplmenets on the weekends and you feel different. But what else happens on the weekends? You probably go to bed/wake up at a different time, you may not eat the same foods/drink the same liquids. Mentally, you may expect to be more relaxed for the simple reason that you aren't expected to go to work. All of which will cause a 'noticable difference'.

In order to properly determine whether your 'suppliments' are having an effect, you'd have to have someone randomly substitute your suplements for some placebo (without telling you) and then have you try to determine whether your changes are due to your suplements or just the placebo effect.

You have a point. I'll try it sometime...

But the fact is that all these supplements all these years have not made me sick or dependent, and did not appear to have any detrimental effects.

That said - I am not promoting taking many supplements at the same time as the reaction is very individual.

[OddSox]

I'm not sure I understand...

- the Listeria outbreak is totally due to the fact that government supposedly relaxed the inspections and regulations

- the Watertown issue was totally due to the fact that government supposedly relaxed the inspections and regulations

- the government does not provide enough inspections and regulations for GM foods

- there are lots of "dangerous" drugs (Aspartame etc.) which are foisted on an unsuspecting public in spite of existing rules and regulations

but it's perfectly fine for 'natural' healers to recommend/sell/promote anything they want? "Deadly nightshade' is a natural plant...it grows all over the place (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_nightshade)

[M.Dancer]

A terminally ill patient who wants to live will try ANYTHING, including the poisioning by chemotherapy and the slow death of radiotherapy. Both are not only ineffective but detrimental in the worst way.

Chemotherapy is like poisoning a city to try to kill a few criminals.

Radiotherapy is like nuking a region of the country to get rid of the mutants concentrated there and hoping that the radiation will not create new mutants.

Both amount to CRUEL and UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT of the body by the modern science.

Don't tell me, you're not a real doctor but you pretend to be one on the interweb....

My brother in law had chemo and radiation almost 25 years ago...he's doing fine. Tens of thousand of people are alive today because of those treatments,

[segnosaur]

If you want to argue that people will be healthier/live longer if they're more active and eat right, I'd have to agree... yes they will. But that does not negate the science behind modern medicine.

I agree. It only makes it unnecessary for the ones conducting a phisically and spiritually healthy lifestyle.

Ummm... yeah, right.

Do you honestly think that if a person is lving a 'physically and spiritually healthy lifestyle' they will never need modern medicine or get sick? So, of the 2 million people who died every year from Smal Pox in the middle of this century (a disease that was wiped out via modern medicne, not one of them was living a 'healthy lifestyle'?

There's no reason to try to prove something that has been practiced for millenia, uless you really believe that people were idiots until very recently.

Actually, yes there is a need to prove stuff that's been practiced.

You see, humans are pattern-seeking animals. Its a trait we've evolved; we do our best to determine if Event A leads to Event B. However, we'll never be absolutely perfect at making that determination... sometimes Event A causes event B, sometimes they're unrelated and event B happens regadless of whether event A happened. Because our pattern-seeking is imperfect, there will be failures. However, usually its safer to fail by assuming A and B are related (when they're not), a so called false positive.

So, people take some 'natural' medication, and they get better. They assume (because we like to look for patterns) that taking the natural medication helped. In many cases they would have gotten better without the medication.

And no, I don't think people were 'idiots until very recently'. In fact, I figure most people are still idiots. (Except for me; I'm just a jerk.)

We're the same basic humans that we were thousands of years ago; what has changed is that in the 1600s-1800s, we started getting a critical mass of scientific knowledge and a few key ideas.

Before you go assuming that just having kowledge that goes back thousands of years makes a concept valid, remember that for centuries people believed the sun went around the earth. Why exactly are you relying on 'knowlege' that came about at the time people didn't even know the fundamentals of the solar system?

t appears that you are basing your 'proof' of their effectiveness on anecdotes and history. If so, ask yourself this: Do you believe in faith healing? That some religious person can heal the sick by touch or prayer? Do you believe in televangilists like Peter Popoff? Just like your 'alternative medicine', there has been a long history of faith healing (heck, its even in the bible). And just like alternative medicine, we can find anecdotes of people being 'healed' by Popoff.

I don't need to ask myself. I know what I believe, and I do not "believe" something that I have not experienced.

I am not a religious person but I am practicing some of the Eastern traditional self-healing / personal evolution methods. Based on what I have EXPERIENCED, I am ready to believe in healing by energy. It goes much futher than just healing and it also falls completely outside of what modern science is ready to admit.

You have totally ignored the issue, so I will state it again...

It is irrelevant whether you yourself are religious. However, other people have the exact same evidence that you do that 'faith healing' works.... They have 'experienced' improvements, and the practice of faith healing has lasted for thousands of years.

Because of that, do you pleave that Peter Popoff and other 'evangalists' have healed people?

Being the knowledgeable man you claim to be you probably know that for each case of "natural remedy" use going wrong there's probably tens of thousands of cases of bad effects for most drugs (including the most benign ones).

No, I don't know that. Please provide a statistical analysis.

For every death caused by NOT taking drugs there are probably hundreds of thousands of cases where death was a result of TAKING them (either the wrong ones, or incorrect dosage, or a bad combination, etc.)

Any deaths from taking drugs incorrectly, etc. must be weight against lives saved from taking drugs. Curing smallpox saves 2 million lives per year, many more than die from taking drugs incorrectly.

Are you saying we sholdn't do anything until we find the "holy grail" of environmental plans?

No, I never said that.

I said people should get a good grounding in the fundamentals of science and critical thinking. That way, they can best deterimine A: what areas of the environment actually need protectiing, and B: the best way to actually do the protection. Many green party supporters seem to have problems with that basic concept. Assuming 'any action is better than none' is part of that flawed mentality.

Not quite. Even at current levels of technology people can transform their houses from energy guzzlers into energy generators. There's a big initial investment required, but that's where the government could pitch in with incentives like no tax and 0% interests on loans to "green" your home.

Of course, if the government does decide to interfere too much, they could damage the economy, and by doing so actually harm the environmental movement.

Remember the old cold-war years? In the communist east, the government controlled everything; in the west we had a more 'free enterprise' ideology. Yet the western world had a much better environmental record. Why? Probaby because our greater incomes and higher standards of living allowed us more flexibility to use technology that was better for the environment. (When you're struggling to survive, often the environment is the last thing on your mind.)

This doesn't mean that I think industry should be given a 'blank check' to pollute any way they want; only that we should weigh all factors in determining environmental policy.

[PoliticalCitizen]

I'm not sure I understand...

- the Listeria outbreak is totally due to the fact that government supposedly relaxed the inspections and regulations

- the Watertown issue was totally due to the fact that government supposedly relaxed the inspections and regulations

- the government does not provide enough inspections and regulations for GM foods

- there are lots of "dangerous" drugs (Aspartame etc.) which are foisted on an unsuspecting public in spite of existing rules and regulations

but it's perfectly fine for 'natural' healers to recommend/sell/promote anything they want? "Deadly nightshade' is a natural plant...it grows all over the place (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_nightshade)

I'm not suggesting NO regulation or LESS regulation, just saying that we don't need MORE regulation, especially with such a draconian bill.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Don't tell me, you're not a real doctor but you pretend to be one on the interweb....

My brother in law had chemo and radiation almost 25 years ago...he's doing fine. Tens of thousand of people are alive today because of those treatments,

I'm not a doctor. My mother was an oncologist.

There could be very good chances your brother would have survived without chemo and radio, depending on what tipe of cancer he had and how advanced it was.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Ummm... yeah, right.

Do you honestly think that if a person is lving a 'physically and spiritually healthy lifestyle' they will never need modern medicine or get sick?

With the exception of accidents (such as over-exposure to extreme elements, poisoning or physical trauma) - yes, I do. Even if they do get sick sometimes they should get better on their own, without doctors or drugs.

So, of the 2 million people who died every year from Smal Pox in the middle of this century (a disease that was wiped out via modern medicne, not one of them was living a 'healthy lifestyle'?

That's an extreme case... but so could have been SARS... all I can say is the ones that did survive could have been the ones that were bodily and spiritually healthy or genetically meant to survive.

As to smallpox being eradicated - there's always a new uncurable desease for every one that's been dealt with: AIDS, SARS, cancers, etc...

Actually, yes there is a need to prove stuff that's been practiced.

You see, humans are pattern-seeking animals. Its a trait we've evolved; we do our best to determine if Event A leads to Event B. However, we'll never be absolutely perfect at making that determination... sometimes Event A causes event B, sometimes they're unrelated and event B happens regadless of whether event A happened. Because our pattern-seeking is imperfect, there will be failures. However, usually its safer to fail by assuming A and B are related (when they're not), a so called false positive.

The practice of ancient healing arts relies on concepts such as spiritual energy, soul, afterlife and reincarnation just as much as on natural remedies.

The science is unable to acknowledge the above concepts because of its materialistic limitations, just like in the dark ages mainsream Christian religion was unable to acknowledge scientific methods.

And no, I don't think people were 'idiots until very recently'. In fact, I figure most people are still idiots. (Except for me; I'm just a jerk.)

That view betrays your age and explains your tone

We're the same basic humans that we were thousands of years ago; what has changed is that in the 1600s-1800s, we started getting a critical mass of scientific knowledge and a few key ideas.

Before you go assuming that just having kowledge that goes back thousands of years makes a concept valid, remember that for centuries people believed the sun went around the earth. Why exactly are you relying on 'knowlege' that came about at the time people didn't even know the fundamentals of the solar system?

That is a very good example of how newly-gained knowledge can be proved wrong in a couple of hundred years.

What I'm talking about is knowledge that dates back thousands of years. What we think we know today may be proven wrong in a couple of decades (just look at what happened to the "elemental" particles). Knowledge that is thousands of years old will most likely not be proven wrong in the next thousand years - it may be understood and expanded.

You have totally ignored the issue, so I will state it again...

It is irrelevant whether you yourself are religious. However, other people have the exact same evidence that you do that 'faith healing' works.... They have 'experienced' improvements, and the practice of faith healing has lasted for thousands of years.

Because of that, do you pleave that Peter Popoff and other 'evangalists' have healed people?

I don't know who Popoff is and I believe Christianity as a religion is too limited and narrow to allow spiritual evolution. As a matter of fact, most religions are.

Outside of that - I believe in healing by energy. The healers practicing this art may or may not be religious.

I said people should get a good grounding in the fundamentals of science and critical thinking. That way, they can best deterimine A: what areas of the environment actually need protectiing, and B: the best way to actually do the protection. Many green party supporters seem to have problems with that basic concept. Assuming 'any action is better than none' is part of that flawed mentality.

That was, of course, a very simplistic approach to a complex issue. The approach is valid (although imperfect): when you see a brick falling on your head the worst thing you could do is do nothing.

In our case: Harper's "environmental policy" is the equivalent of doing NOTHING. The Green (and liberal) policies will have AN IMPACT. It may work out as it did for the European countries that took same approach or may not, the time will show that.

[WIP]

QUOTE(WIP @ Oct 1 2008, 01:17 PM) *

CO2 levels are rising and we don't know what the consequences are going to be!

So why are we rushing into government policy.

QUOTE(PoliticalCitizen @ Oct 1 2008, 09:42 PM) *

Thanks!

I learned both of those about 25 years ago in school. I also learned at the same time that with no CO2 produced by man (except for breathing) plants would still have had plenty for photosynthesis. So, as I said before, we're not doing them or ourselves a service.

And the chemical reactions that take place in our bodies need oxigen, not CO2 wink.gif

We are not removing the 02 from the atmosphere, and we also know that there have been much higher levels of c02 in the past and that the plant life thrived on it.

If only we were rushing into government policy to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases! And yes, CO2 levels have been higher in the past, but the main drivers, like the formation of volcanic flood basalts were temporary changes caused by plate techtonics, and CO2 levels dropped when the Earth went through quieter periods of volcanic activity.

But today, we have one species of animals on Earth that has not reached a maximum population level yet, and even if population growth stopped, our economic activity will keep increasing CO2 levels for the indefinite future unless action is taken to phase out the oil and coal based economy, especially in the rapidly industrializing Third World; also, the practise of slash-and-burn agriculture has to be brought to a halt to stop rising greenhouse gas levels.

And on the subject of times past when CO2 levels were higher, it's worth taking a look back through the eyes of paleontologists who are studying periods in Earth's history, like the late Cretaceous, when CO2 levels were higher and may give us a little insight into what we are headed for in the future. I don't have a webpage handy that provides the info I want, so I'm typing this out from pages 94-95 of my copy of "The Life And Death Of Planet Earth" by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee:

Ocean currents take energy from the hot equatorial regions and export it to the cool poles. Then they dive to deep water and transport cold polar water toward the equator. This circulation is vital to keeping climate moderate on much of our planet. It also carries oxygen from the top to the bottom of the sea. Because of this, ocean water has roughly the same amount of oxygen in its depths as near the air. During the past, however, when global temperatures were higher, oceanic circulations systems were either sluggish or nonexistent. For enormous amounts of time the bottoms of the oceans held less oxygen than the surface. As a consequence great areas of ocean bottoms became much like the bottom of the Black Sea today -- anoxic, or without oxygen for fish and other marine creatures to breathe.

The warm Cretaceous climate produced this condition. There is abundant fossil and geochemical evidence that during the reign of the dinosaurs, warm-water marine animals and plants fled almost to the poles. Globally warm seas prevented the sinking of the cold water at high latitudes and so the depths were never replenished with oxygen. As sea levels rose, the deep, anoxic waters spread over the edges of the continents, producing a sticky, stinking goo that became black shale deposits. Moreover, by shutting off the normal circulation of the oceans that involves surface-water sinking and deepwater upwelling, the deep ocean can build up huge amounts of carbon dioxide, and carbon in the absence of oxygen. This material can become an underwater time bomb or, better yet, an underwater chemical weapon against the biosphere -- if it is rapidly released.

There is a modern-day analog to this future stagnation: the Black Sea. It is anoxic below because so much freshwater pours into it from large rivers such as the Danube, Dniepr, and Don that its surface water is too light to sink: it doesn't have enough salt. It is the world's largest stable anoxic basin. Black Sea water deeper than 100 meters are characterized by an absence of oxygen and elevated concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and methane. If the world's oceans as a whole were to lack vertical circulation like the Black Sea, more than 90% of the water on Earth would be anoxic -- just as it was in the Mesozoic era.

Ward and Brownlee foresaw these anoxic ocean conditions occurring from natural causes about 250 million years in the future, when continental drift would lead to the continents gathering together again as another supercontinent like Pangea, and unleashing tremendous volcanic activity. But in a more recent book, Ward predicts a near future mass extinction when man-made CO2 increases will shut down the ocean conveyor system mere decades from now, based on an examination of a prolonged period of anoxic conditions that occurred at the end of the Permian Era and caused the greatest mass extinction of all -- which wiped out up to 97% of the plant and animal species that lived on Earth at the time.

So, to sum it all up, you can't just give a wave of the hand dismissal to rising CO2 levels with something like "they were higher in the past" without considering that there is no present indication that we will stop increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, and more importantly, without acknowledging how many times almost all life on Earth was wiped out by "natural" climate changes in the past.

The next question is: do we have any reason to believe that the human race will survive the kind of catastrophic Earth changes that occurred during the K/T and the P/T extinctions? I would say the answer is a definite NO unless serious changes are made to the way the whole of humanity manages the resources on this planet.

[WIP]

You're partially right but I discontinue the intake of supplements for the week-ends / holidays / vacations (to allow the body to return to its status quo) and there is a noticeable difference.

If these supplements are causing real, physical changes, you are not going to notice a difference over a one or two day period. The difference you notice over such a short period of time sounds like the reverse of the placebo effect, where you feel something will go wrong if you miss taking your regular supplements.

Again, just to make sure I'm not misunderstood - I do not sell or work for a distributor of the supplements / remedies. I can recommend trying them (one at a time, for no longer than a week) if you feel chronically tired or need a mental boost at work. Then, based on your PERSONAL EXPERIENCE (not on something you read somewhere).

I'm more in the camp of advocating good diet, exercise, and plenty of sleep, for becoming healthier. Whenever I've been approached by people, especially at work, about how to lose weight or how to get back into shape, I get questions about supplements, what to eat, and even what kind of exercise to do -- but one thing I've noticed consistently, is that the people who are frustrated consistently even though they are trying to diet and exercise to lose weight or just to feel healthier, is that they are not getting enough sleep at night. If people are busy and get in the habit of sleeping 6, 5, or 4 hours a night, their bodies will adjust to the routine, but they will pay the price with weight gain, muscle or joint soreness, and being prone to catching colds or getting sick easily. The problem I have with the supplement industry is that they are implying that the cure is in a little bottle that costs 15 to 30 dollars for a months supply. The real solution for good health usually requires some major lifestyle changes that many people are unable or unwilling to make.

[DrGreenthumb]

How much do you know of the Bill C-51? Here are some interpretations of what's in it:

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/2359300...s-a-health-bill

Under Bill C-51 the State could:

• Enter private property without a warrant

• Take your property at their discretion

• Dispose of your property at will

• Not reimburse you for your losses

• Seize your bank accounts without a warrant

• Charge owners shipping and storage charges for seized property

• Store your property indefinitely

• Levy fines of up to $5,000,000.00 and/or seek 2 years in jail per charge

• Will not have to report seizures to a court.

• They can charge you just for talking about or promoting natural alternatives

Have you seen greesy sausages that claim zero trans fat? How about 0 calories coke?

What about melanine in milk? Ring a bell?

Or our home-made disaster - "Death by a thousand cold cuts" listeriosis? Would that be kosher?

See my reply to WIP above...

Everyone can conduct their personal trial, wich is (as long as you stick to brand names) quite safe and relatively inexpensive.

This is just one more example of the police state proposed by the conservatives. They would like to frighten everyone into accepting full Harper control over our lives. Forget making decisions for yourself, and accepting responsibility for your own actions/choices. The conservatives want absolute control over our lives and are willing to extinguish as many freedoms as necessary to do that.

No warrant searches? typical conservative police state agenda.

[blueblood]

This is just one more example of the police state proposed by the conservatives. They would like to frighten everyone into accepting full Harper control over our lives. Forget making decisions for yourself, and accepting responsibility for your own actions/choices. The conservatives want absolute control over our lives and are willing to extinguish as many freedoms as necessary to do that.

No warrant searches? typical conservative police state agenda.

If the NDP thinks its going to win based on these ridiculous conspiracy theories, no wonder 80% of Canadians reject that party. Does an NDP membership include a roll of tinfoil???