Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most of them that I have read do dispute that rubbish.
There is no website that has all scientists published on it.
No such website exists.
There are many, and there are many different opinions among scientists.
There does not exist any consensus among them.
Actually, that is complete bunk. Show me some PEER-REVIEWED articles backing up your opinion- I'm talking Science magazine-caliber publications, not one put out by a think tank funded by Exxon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forest beekeeper
Gore was even sued by some of his scientists for Gore’s claim that they had backed his rubbish.
This is simply not true.
Your earlier assertion was that Mad Cow requires an antibiotic.
There is still no antibiotic for Mad Cow.
Mad Cow comes from eating a protein, which has no bearing on close quarters as you keep trying to assert.
It comes from ranchers making their livestock to be cannibals.
Cows are not meant to eat beef.
Hmm, so now you accuse me of contaminating water?
And of keeping livestock in close quarters?
You clearly have no clue.
No, truly it is not.
This is so far off the deep end; I have no clue what you’re trying to say.
Get a grip.
Or perhaps you need to adjust your meds.
I didn't say Mad Cow requires an antibiotic, I said keeping livestock in close proximity does - Mad Cow is an example of the sad and desperate cost-cutting measures factory-farmers make. You concede they feed their cattle with cannibalism feed and think you've made a point HOW again?
and let's get this straight, are you saying cattle do NOT receive antibiotics? you better have something more than this ludicrous idea that Gore is a jerk to back that up - you tell me exactly what these problems are that "scientists" have with Gore's stuff (I'll cede that his "projections" are fairly alarmist - but they are also just a small % of the movie).
Perhaps you might want to begin your education by getting up to speed on how the Bush Administration censored its own NASA scientists on climate change -
Mad Cow was caused when cows had a small amount of meat scraps mixed with their feed ration to raise the protein a little.
That is not being done anymore.
What the mad cow scare has done is make it very expensive for a farm with cattle when they call the rendering plant.
You must have records on your farm to show the exact age of every animal cuz they charge a much steeper fee if a dead animal is over 30 months old.
On animals over 30 months old, the spinal cord must be removed before the dead cow can be utilized.
The real loss in Mad Cow disease is to the livestock raiser's pocketbook.
Everytime a case of Mad Cow is confirmed ( even with nobody even eating that cow's meat) the cattle price drops and new,costly, regulations come in place.
The longer it takes to trace that animal. the longer and louder the furror gets.
( even with no one eating that meat)
Even with a cow confirmed with Mad Cow, it is consumption of the brain and/or spinal cord that is dangerous.
We were living in Scotland when the Mad Cow thing was happening. All of UK beef was assumed to be tainted. And it was assumed that everyone living there may have been exposed.
If you ate Mad Cow beef, the protein may be in your brain, but there is no blood test to find out. You only know if you 'got it', if you begin showing symptoms, and then finally when they do the autopsy.
It only effected us in the context that we were told to never again donate blood. My Dw used to donate her maximum allowed amount.
Like has been stated it is not a virus, it is not a bacteria, it is a protein. If you eat it, and if it begins to replicate itself in your brain, then you may begin to show symptoms. But those are a bunch of 'if's.
Really as TexasHorseLady keeps pointing out, it was caught, UK beef was dealt with, and so far very few humans have actually came down with it.
Our youngest child, in highschool, was talked into donating blood. I contacted the Red Cross here and informed them about us having lived in the UK and exposed to Mad Cow, they said it is not their concern. Now our son is on the Red Cross' list and they call us about every 3 months asking if they can count on him to donate more blood. So clearly the scare is over, even the Red Cross does not care about it getting into their blood supply.
As to the beef industry:
I am more concerned about pen-fed cattle eating GMO high-fructose-corn.
But we dont eat much beef, and certainly no fast-food, so it really does not effect me.
My livestock wander beneath the forest canopy and eat brush. Our chickens pick through their droppings and produce eggs. I am not dumping Petroleum-fertilizer anywhere, and there is no antibiotics being fed to our animals. If an animal gets sick, it may get dosed, and it may die anyway, in which case it becomes dog food.
... I said keeping livestock in close proximity does
Wrong.
That is not how Mad Cow developed, and it is not how it happens.
Quote:
... Mad Cow is an example of the sad and desperate cost-cutting measures factory-farmers make. You concede they feed their cattle with cannibalism feed and think you've made a point HOW again?
Yes. I saw what you wrote. I acknowledged it and explained why it is only a small piece of big puzzle when it comes to the potential of this disease.
Quote:
I admit, prions are a MUCH better and more effective boogey-man than, say, automobile accidents or the flu - after all, look how you chose to describe them. Right out of the horror movies!
I am describing them how a neurosurgeon described them to me: terrifying.
Granted that a neurosurgeon may not be the world's foremost expert on brain proteins; maybe you should consult a neurologist if you want to split hairs, but surely his opinion is worth something.
-" my cattle wander beneath the forest canopy and eat brush" "I am not dumping Petroleum-fertilizer anywhere "
Sounds very scenic.
Not profitable if you had to make a living off your farm, however.
I know.
As you are aware, I am one of those 'homesteaders' of which you hate so much
I am career military. My lucrative career allowed me to invest a bit and upon retirement buy some land. I have a pension coming in. I now live in an extremely low-cost area, where my pension can support my family.
I needed to get away from urban stress a bit.
I am only producing what my family needs, and perhaps a small surplus for friends.
I am certainly not trying to support myself from 'farming', as you do.
The world includes many different kinds of people.
So back to the OP of 'Green living' and why meat may or may not be 'green'.
No Forest Breath, I am not referring to you as one of the "kooks" who have hijacked the organic farmers and act as their spokesperson.
The ones that I reffered to usually have good early retirement checks that they don't mention and hijack field days by posing as someone who actually is making a living the way they farm.
Ypu are honest,they are misleading.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
