Bacon To Be Classified As Dangerous As Cigarettes By World Health Organization
- Thread starter deathmetal
- Start date
- Status
I was gonna reply to this bacon discussion But I did not want to be chastised for breaking rule # 7
as I did when I started the thread about tobacco subs. LOL
hoo
as I did when I started the thread about tobacco subs. LOL
hoo
Research links cancer to fruit and vegetables
Unfortunately, Lakeland flavoring not yet found to cause cancer, AIDS and Ebola in trifecta (although it sure tastes/smells that way).
Unfortunately, Lakeland flavoring not yet found to cause cancer, AIDS and Ebola in trifecta (although it sure tastes/smells that way).
Weird thread. What is a "nanny state"?
The toxicity of nitrates in processed meats and a direct linkage to a variety of ailment is ground well covered over the last 15 years. The study the WHO draws from takes a wider look at the industrial complex responsible for processing meat and highlights the processes that are used are themselves toxic. Keep in mind that the processes in treating meat can be changed to be less toxic, but it involves making people aware. What is there to complain about? The only conspiracy on the part of the WHO is to make the world a place less dangerous for people that can not protect themselves.
There's a reason toothpaste no longer contains asbestos. Similarly, while you may like your man-boobs, there's a reason pft's aren't in your water bottles today.
Buzzwords and knee jerks are big fun around here.
The toxicity of nitrates in processed meats and a direct linkage to a variety of ailment is ground well covered over the last 15 years. The study the WHO draws from takes a wider look at the industrial complex responsible for processing meat and highlights the processes that are used are themselves toxic. Keep in mind that the processes in treating meat can be changed to be less toxic, but it involves making people aware. What is there to complain about? The only conspiracy on the part of the WHO is to make the world a place less dangerous for people that can not protect themselves.
There's a reason toothpaste no longer contains asbestos. Similarly, while you may like your man-boobs, there's a reason pft's aren't in your water bottles today.
Buzzwords and knee jerks are big fun around here.
A nanny state is a state who's government feels it needs to pass laws to protect citizens from themselves. Such as outlawing large sodas, certain gun regulations, bacon free zones, ect., ect.
Ahhh, asbestos, that's why my teeth aren't getting as sparkling white as they used to. Ha! Yeh, seatbelts, helmets, no more arsenic in our pickles jams and jellies, embalming fluids in my liquor causing my cool Jake Leg, cigarettes, and now bacon. It's even getting harder and harder to cover myself in gasoline and set myself on fire. And, I am amazed every day that the government still lets us drive cars.
I am ambivalent on all of this. Some seem reasonable, some seem dumb. All in all, I do what I want.
I am ambivalent on all of this. Some seem reasonable, some seem dumb. All in all, I do what I want.
I am one of those with the belief that the UN has an agenda and that agenda has little to do with making people's lives better. My perspective tells me that the UN is all about trying to make the UN relevant and keeping the river of moneys from the rich states flowing into the UN for distribution as they see fit. Mostly the UN sees fit to enrich certain members and build huge edifices around the world.
Again, this is simply my opinion, unchangeable, ergo unassailable.
Again, this is simply my opinion, unchangeable, ergo unassailable.
But without a one-world government, how will we ever fend off the Klingons and Romulons when they find us?
Damn straight! I have no idea what hoops the UN would have to jump through in order for me to reevaluate my position. I just do not think it possible. The Security Council has relevance. The General Assembly is simply a bunch of members from countries which, for the most part, are unable to care for their own populations. I am a firm believer that one should have their own house in order before telling others how to live their lives.
I simply do not have sufficient time left on earth for anyone to present a cogent argument which would change my opinion regarding the UN's off-putting aroma of graft and deceit run rampant.
I simply do not have sufficient time left on earth for anyone to present a cogent argument which would change my opinion regarding the UN's off-putting aroma of graft and deceit run rampant.
Excellent point, except in some cases it is not so much unable as unwilling to care for their own population. Nothing grates me more than seeing a resource-rich country completely ill-managed and crying poverty.
I would posit that there is not sufficient time left ON EARTH to fashion a cogent argument in favor of that aroma you mention.
I would posit that there is not sufficient time left ON EARTH to fashion a cogent argument in favor of that aroma you mention.
Do they even deny this? It seems to be their public agenda, and the reason most people support them.
Nonetheless, great analysis.
Nanny States are states which pass laws to ostensibly keep people from hurting themselves, but actually merely strengthen the state.
If bacon is bad, there will be a commission for meat regulation with the bias that meat is bad. It will take a ton of tax money, raise costs to the consumer, and reduce the variety of meat products. But it will also have inspectors and bureaucrats and have given government a new reason to raid any house it wants; there could be smuggled bacon there.
It is for this reason that many of us heartily distrust government "in your best interests." That includes all welfare and benefits. Keep the roads built, the military healthy, and then do nothing else. We the people need to do the rest for ourselves.
Also: asbestos is no longer with us not because of government action, but private lawsuits
Naw, you got that backward. The federal government removed asbestos from US industry, lawsuits from Asbestos production lobby overcame the ban in court and got it put back in US industry where it continues to be used in a variety of areas, dental care excepted.
WHO health and Environmental initiatives:
PRIORITY RISKS TO ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH
Vector-borne disease
The urban environment
Indoor air pollution and household energy
Water, health and ecosystems
Climate change
Toxic substances
I'm sure banning bacon is on an alternate list, probably somewhere between banning Christmas and burning witches.
@bigpond- The WHO's #1 priority is "vector-borne disease"? What a sick joke that is. When Doctors Without Borders beseeched UN member nations to do more to "contain" the outbreak of Ebola in West Africa, what happened? A bunch of NGO workers who had contracted Ebola were "medically evacuated". I know Wikipedia can be sketchy, but the following quote is actually well-cited to reputable news sources: "The United States accepted four evacuees, three were flown to Germany, and France received two. Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom received one patient each."
I have either a poor grasp of the word "contain", or a poor grasp of the phrase "abysmally stupid bastards". The way I read it, the supposedly best medical minds in the world decided to "contain" a virus by sending it to eight countries on two continents and an island where it had never existed before. Sheer genius. I'm sure we can expect the same level of drooling imbecility in whatever these nitwits stick their moronic noses into next.
I have either a poor grasp of the word "contain", or a poor grasp of the phrase "abysmally stupid bastards". The way I read it, the supposedly best medical minds in the world decided to "contain" a virus by sending it to eight countries on two continents and an island where it had never existed before. Sheer genius. I'm sure we can expect the same level of drooling imbecility in whatever these nitwits stick their moronic noses into next.
- Status