search results matching tag: Vegetables

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (200)     Sift Talk (7)     Blogs (14)     Comments (521)   

What Vaping Does to the Body

newtboy says...

No oils should be in properly made nicotine vape juice…but there is glycerin that comes from vegetable oil and often still contains oils, propylene glycol that’s not safe to breathe, sugars, formaldehyde, acroline (used in herbicides/damages DNA), unregulated “flavorings” and more, all of which are carcinogenic when heated.
Also, there’s plenty of fly by night nicotine vape juice makers that use whatever smokes, including massage oil in some cases.

The only way to be SURE what’s in it is to make your own from ingredients you either produce or vet well. Don’t buy it by the gallon on eBay or Craigslist.

As I mentioned above, I vape live rosen, which has zero additives and is simply heat pressed from fresh flowers. I’m not saying that’s healthy, but it is free of all carcinogenic man made chemical adulterants unlike ANY nicotine or most cannabis juices, and free of nearly all cellulose unlike plain tobacco or marijuana.

w1ndex said:

It would be nice if this video differentiated between nicotine and cannabis vaping in the title. Nicotine vapes are a lot safer than cannabis-based ones. There are no oils used in nicotine-based vapes.

Fed charges four officers in death of Breonna Taylor

luxintenebris says...

yeah...it's the situation where a person doesn't burn down the house to get to the cockroaches...unless the house is condemned...and there are fire folks at the ready...and the vegetation isn't too dry...damn it...just want some sense when lives are in the balance.

where it'd be like shooting into a crowd to get a perp. akin to the recent event - where cops shot into a crowd to get a perp!

newtboy said:

I think that’s totally wrong….
For instance, stopping the murder of George Floyd was worth another crime of assaulting (or killing) a police officer. Avenging that murder was worth another crime against police….it still is. All 4 deserve to be killed with their offspring. No vendetta for them.

Police staging/preparing to shoot up another house also is worth another crime of deadly defense against the murderous gang members.
There are many crimes cops commit that are worth killing or disabling them…daily. They aren’t worthy of consideration and their lives are worthless so long as they cover for their criminal gang.

Conversely (and I think this is what you were saying), there is no crime a citizen committed in the past that excuses police committing murder…including murder. There’s no crime ever that excuses police shooting innocent bystanders, which they often do. As authorities, they have a much higher duty. As a murderous criminal gang, their lives have much lower value than real humans.

Tonga Eruption Causes Tsunamis all around the Pacific

cloudballoon says...

Might be a tiny bit of good news on the warming front, but what about the sulfuric "pollution" effect of the areas the ashes reache? Vegetation, waterways, etc. I'm not just thinking about the effects on human, but on the living environment of animals.

newtboy said:

The Hunga Tonga undersea volcanic eruption was the largest on earth over the last 30 years, according to Research Physical Scientist Brian Brettschneider with the National Weather Service Alaska region.

Brettschneider said that the ash created by the eruption will likely cause a slight cooling effect on the climate, though not as dramatic as short-term climate changes from past volcanic eruptions. In 1815, the climate impacts caused by the Mount Tambora volcanic eruption caused what was called “the year without a summer.”

“What we’re seeing so far is a fairly minor amount of climate altering stratospheric sulfur particles have been detected so far,” Brettschneider said. “A pretty small amount relative to the size of the eruption, so kind of our first initial best guess is that there is going to be a pretty minor climate impact over the next few years.”

Of course, that can only account for the estimates of the blast so far, not any future eruptions that may or may not happen.
Estimates say the Hunga Tonga eruption was equivalent to 2% of the pressure released in the Krakatoa eruption for comparison.

Olympic Medals Table - Top 15 Nations by Gold Medals (2021)

BSR (Member Profile)

newtboy jokingly says...

It reminds me of the time my dad and I took my 21 year old brother's 32 year old girlfriend out to dinner at Churasco's, a Brazilian steak house. (I was 18) I ordered the churasco, a two lb steak, two baked tatos, vegetables, and bread. She bet me "anything I wanted" that I couldn't finish in an hour. Wrong move. I did, and tortured her for weeks over the vile sexual favors I was going to force her to preform on me with my brother's knowledge before finally settling on a pair of Godzilla slippers that roared. Good times.

Also, I expected her to say "butt stuff....with you receiving!" She screwed up such an unbelievable opportunity.

BSR said:

I like the way you think. LOL

Hoarding An Entire Store's Toilet Paper Inventory

cloudballoon says...

Here in Toronto Canada, we had these same panic buying of TP just the same as in the USA, Australia and other countries, no stock anywhere last week. But today the supermarkets has them on sale (~$10 CDN for a bag of 30 rolls.... that's like $7 USD) but under 1 bag per customer limit. All the TV news said the stock will be replenished soon.

What I'm worry about though, are the cleanliness of fresh produce. I've seen lots of a**holes coughing of fruits & vegetables AFTER they had their pick....

God damnit Chug.

newtboy says...

Certainly? You shouldn't try to speak for everyone. You don't have any idea how many people like pilk and or dilk. ;-)
I think most adult people are offput at the thought of drinking human milk, but it's undeniably healthy, and almost everyone has done it.

There actually is a highly regarded chef working on pig milk cheese who claims it's delicious, it's not the milk that's the problem there, it's the milking. Sows are not docile and don't have easily milked teats. Same for bitches (female dogs). If they had udders, there would definitely be cultures milking them.

Mongols created an empire from near nothing in part by drinking large quantities of milk, even though it seems they were likely all lactose intolerant when that started. They found it worth the discomfort.
The Massai also owe their existence to drinking milk, and they seem exceptionally healthy.

While it's true, most of the world doesn't NEED milk, they do need calcium and milk may be the only source available when calcium rich vegetables aren't. From precursory research it seems a majority of people around the world do drink some milk, but not enough to meet daily calcium recommendations.

I'll hazard a guess based on your comments that you're vegan. Please don't be a stereotype and food shame non vegans, especially if you're going to be fast and loose with facts to do it.

HerbWatson said:

Well milk is bovine

Large populations of our species just has got it's milks mixed up.

Certainly the thought of pig milk, or dog milk would make any person retch, but we've been conditioned to think that for some reason cows milk is also for us. So much so that we'll kill this little fellow just get his mother's milk. Of course we'll kill her too once her milk no longer flows economically enough. We'll hide it and call it humane to make ourselves feel like good civilised people, even perhaps decide that we need milk, even though most of the world doesn't and is healthier for it.

Why Shell's Marketing is so Disgusting

newtboy says...

No sir.
I even mentioned one group in America that never adopted petroleum...Amish...and I would counter your assertion with the fact that most people on earth don't live using oil, they're too poor, not too fortunate. 20-30 years ago, most Chinese had never been in a car or a commercial store bigger than a local vegetable stand.

Both customers and non customers are the victims.
Using (or selling) a product that clearly pollutes the air, land, and sea is immoral.

Yes, it's like our business is predicated on rebuilding wrecked cars overnight which we do by using massive amounts of meth. Sure, our products are death traps, sure, we lied about both our business practices and the safety of our product, sure, our teeth and brains are mush....but our business has been successful and allowed us to have 10 kids (8 on welfare, two adopted out), and if we quit using meth they'll starve and fight over scraps. That's proof meth is good and moral and you're mistaken to think otherwise. Duh.

Yes, we overpopulated, outpacing the planet's ability to support us by far...but instead of coming to terms with that and changing, many think we should just wring the juice out of the planet harder and have more kids. I think those people are narcissistic morons, we don't need more little yous. Sadly, we are well beyond the tipping point, even if no more people are ever born, those alive are enough to finish the biosphere's destruction. Guaranteed if they think like you seem to.

Um, really? Complete collapse of the food web isn't catastrophic?
Wars over hundreds of millions or billions of refugees aren't catastrophic? (odd because the same people who think that are incensed over thousands of Syrians, Africans, and or South and Central American refugees migrating)
Massive food shortage isn't catastrophic?
Loss of most farm land and hundreds of major cities to the sea isn't catastrophic?
Loss of corals, where >25% of ocean species live, and other miniscule organisms that are the base of the ocean food web isn't catastrophic?
Loss of well over 1/2 the producers of O2, and organisms that capture carbon, isn't catastrophic?
Eventual clouds of hydrogen sulfide from the ocean covering the land, poisoning 99%+ of all life isn't catastrophic?
Runaway greenhouse cycles making the planet uninhabitable for thousands if not hundreds of thousands or even millions of years isn't catastrophic?
Loss of access to water for billions of people isn't catastrophic?
I think you aren't paying attention to the outcomes here, and may be thinking only of the scenarios estimated for 2030-2050 which themselves are pretty scary, not the unavoidable planetary disaster that comes after the feedback loops are all fully in play. Try looking more long term....and note that every estimate of how fast the cycles collapse/reverse has been vastly under estimated....as two out of hundreds of examples, Greenland is melting faster than it was estimated to melt in 2075....far worse, frozen methane too.

You can reject the science, that doesn't make it wrong. It only makes you the ass who knowingly gambles with the planet's ability to support humans or other higher life forms based on nothing more than denial.

Edit: We are at approximately 1C rise from pre industrial records today, expected to be 1.5C in as little as 11 years. Even the IPCC (typically extremely conservative in their estimates) states that a 2C rise will trigger feedbacks that could exceed 12C. Many are already in full effect, like glacial melting, methane hydrate melting, peat burning, diatom collapse, coral collapse, forest fires, etc. It takes an average of 25 years for what we emit today to be absorbed (assuming the historical absorption cycles remain intact, which they aren't). That means we are likely well past the tipping point where natural cycles take over no matter what we do, and what we're doing is increasing emissions.

bcglorf said:

You asked at least 3 questions and all fo them very much leading questions.

To the first 2, my response is that it's only the extremely fortunate few that have the kind of financial security and freedom to make those adjustments, so lucky for them.

Your last question is:
do those companies get to continue to abdicate their responsibility, pawning it off on their customers?

Your question demands as part of it's base assumption that fossil fuels are inherently immoral or something and customers are clearly the victims. I reject that.

The entirety of the modern western world stands atop the usage of fossil fuels. If we cut ALL fossil fuel usage out tomorrow, mass global starvation would follow within a year, very nasty wars would rapidly follow that.

The massive gains in agricultural production we've seen over the last 100 years is extremely dependent on fossil fuels. Most importantly for efficiency in equipment run on fossil fuels, but also importantly on fertilizers produced by fossil fuels. Alternatives to that over the last 100 years did not exist. If you think Stalin and Mao's mass starvations were ugly, just know that the disruptions they made to agriculture were less severe than the gain/loss represented by fossil fuels.

All that is to state that simply saying don't use them because the future consequences are bad is extremely naive. The amount of future harm you must prove is coming is enormous, and the scientific community as represented by the IPCC hasn't even painted a worst case scenario so catastrophic.

WWI Bombs Are Still Being Found Over 100 Years Later

StukaFox says...

When I was in Belgium a couple of years ago, I visited a farm where they're still pulling WW1 iron out of the ground on a daily basis. "The Iron Harvest" it's called. Finding WW1 shells is so common that farmers in the area just collect them and put them at the end of their roads for the disposal guys to pick up.

The truly scary part is that somewhere in Belgium, there's about 87,000 kilos of high explosives, which was supposed to be used to blow an enormous hole in the German trenches became lost when the Brits had to fall back. To this day, no one knows where the explosives are. In 1955, lightning hit a similar "lost mine" and pretty much leveled an otherwise dull field of vegetables.

Article about these lost mines here: https://simonjoneshistorian.com/2017/05/01/lost-mines-of-messines/

BACON CAUSES CANCER!!!! MCDONALDS IS GIVING FREE CANCER!

Mordhaus says...

I, for one, am not trolling you. I agree that a vegetable based diet can have some healthy effects. I just do not see proof that it makes such a huge difference that it is a must follow plan. In addition, there are diets that limit the intake of certain proteins, like the Mediterranean diet, which have clearly shown to be just as effective as a non-animal based diet.

My major point of contention is that you are primarily posting videos that typically feature people or organizations that are WELL KNOWN for their tendency to overstate or blur the effectiveness of a Vegan diet. We are not herbivores, we are omnivores, and you can eat a protein restricted diet that is just as effective. But the PCRM and it's flunkies like Dr. Gregor would have you believe it is Vegan or nothing.

transmorpher said:

They aren't his claims though. That's what I'm trying to get you to understand.

You guys have to be trolling me, because I know you are smarter than this.

Can Alcohol Cause Cancer?

drradon says...

From Media Bias website: " Science Based Medicine debunks one by one, many of Dr. Gregers claims. They also claim that NutritionFacts cherry picks information that will always favor veganism. NutritionFacts.org does provide some valuable information and certainly a diet high in fruits and vegetables is preferred, but Dr. Gregers claims are extreme."

Not a consumer of alcohol myself, but this seems about right...

Kurzgesagt - Is Organic Food Really Better or is It a Scam?

newtboy says...

I recently saw a news piece that said in America there are standards for "organic" vegetables fruits and grains, but any fish can be called organic because there is no standard at all.

To be fair, GMO is a bit of a nonsense term as well, technically encompassing everything from crops selectively bred for taste and yield to those with various animal and or bacteria genes spliced in. I wish there were GMO labels and levels, telling us the method of modification, the source of the new genes if any, and even the expected benefits and hazards so we could make informed choices. I still can't believe the ballot proposition to require such labels in California failed.

ChaosEngine said:

Part of the problem with “organic” food (nonsense term, all food is organic by definition) is the fear-mongering around GMOs.

GMOs are going to be a big part of how we feed a population of 7 billion plus. Between the increased yield and lower requirement for pesticides, they have undeniable benefits.

Vegan Diet or Mediterranean Diet: Which Is Healthier?

newtboy says...

Maasai do not have heart disease or cholesterol problems attributed to red meat even though they eat almost exclusively cattle. Leading causes of death include pneumonia and diarrhoea, followed by other diseases not diet related issues.

Yes, people who cut out vegetables like Inuit have issues just like those who cut meat without going to extremes to replace what they're lacking, and most don't. You must be joking using them as an example of fish inclusive diets.
People with diets high in fish like Okinawans (1/2 an American sized serving per day isn't little to me, that's every other day having a full fish meal) that include other meat in moderation and is vegetable based are the healthiest in studies, as I indicated.

transmorpher said:

Both of your examples are demonstrably false.

Masaai have a life expectancy of what 44? http://www.bbc.co.uk/northamptonshire/features/2004/maasai/maasai_03.shtml


Who eats the most fish in the world? (factory farm cows actually) but in the human population, it's the Inuits. And they have the worst health of any people on earth. So clearly fish aren't the thing bringing the health. Their health actually gets better when they go to a standard american diet. that's how bad eating fresh wild caught fish is.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LvGiiZyn-M

Okinawans have the opposite diet of the Inuits - mostly plants, and little amounts of fish, and they have the opposite health of the Inuits too.

Less fish and more plants = better health. Therefore fish cannot be a health food.


It's also VERY easy to meet all of your nutritional needs as a vegan, yeah those hippie dippy idiots that eat all raw foods are asking for trouble, but anyone who eats regular food with grains, beans, fruit, nuts and vegetables will get everything they need. A few fortifided foods here and there and no supplements are required. (and please don't pretend like vegans are the only ones eating fortified foods- salt is fortified with iodine, and dairy is fortified with vitamin D by US law). Anyway, point is the cheapest and easiest foods to cook are the healthiest ones - the same foods that everyone in the bluezones eats, and nobody is saying those bluezone foods are expensive or hard to make.

That's what this whole video is about, identifying the foods that are health promoting, and in vegans and in Mediterranean diets (and other bluezones diets) it's the exact same foods that are providing the health. The plants, the cheap, easy to cook and readily available plants.

I'll even level with you, there's a lot of stupid people out there who happen to be vegan and they say a lot of stupid crap, but everything I post is backed up by science. I went vegan because of the health science, the ethics to me came later (perhaps I'm a bit slow, because I didn't want to see the ethics, while I was part of the system, but that's a story for another time )

Vegan Diet or Mediterranean Diet: Which Is Healthier?

transmorpher says...

Both of your examples are demonstrably false.

Masaai have a life expectancy of what 44? http://www.bbc.co.uk/northamptonshire/features/2004/maasai/maasai_03.shtml


Who eats the most fish in the world? (factory farm cows actually) but in the human population, it's the Inuits. And they have the worst health of any people on earth. So clearly fish aren't the thing bringing the health. Their health actually gets better when they go to a standard american diet. that's how bad eating fresh wild caught fish is.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LvGiiZyn-M

Okinawans have the opposite diet of the Inuits - mostly plants, and little amounts of fish, and they have the opposite health of the Inuits too.

Less fish and more plants = better health. Therefore fish cannot be a health food.


It's also VERY easy to meet all of your nutritional needs as a vegan, yeah those hippie dippy idiots that eat all raw foods are asking for trouble, but anyone who eats regular food with grains, beans, fruit, nuts and vegetables will get everything they need. A few fortifided foods here and there and no supplements are required. (and please don't pretend like vegans are the only ones eating fortified foods- salt is fortified with iodine, and dairy is fortified with vitamin D by US law). Anyway, point is the cheapest and easiest foods to cook are the healthiest ones - the same foods that everyone in the bluezones eats, and nobody is saying those bluezone foods are expensive or hard to make.

That's what this whole video is about, identifying the foods that are health promoting, and in vegans and in Mediterranean diets (and other bluezones diets) it's the exact same foods that are providing the health. The plants, the cheap, easy to cook and readily available plants.

I'll even level with you, there's a lot of stupid people out there who happen to be vegan and they say a lot of stupid crap, but everything I post is backed up by science. I went vegan because of the health science, the ethics to me came later (perhaps I'm a bit slow, because I didn't want to see the ethics, while I was part of the system, but that's a story for another time )

newtboy said:

No sir....we KNOW vegans are lying.
What I can't understand is why.
There's plenty of evidence that plant based (not vegetarian or vegan) diets are the healthiest choice.
There's plenty of evidence that vegan diets are almost always lacking in nutrition....they can be healthy but it's a full time and expensive proposition.
You are wrong, studies on cultures that eat large amounts of fish show it's good, and most weren't funded by the fishing industries. The Massai are pretty healthy too, and they eat and drink beef, blood, and milk almost exclusively. They have been studied extensively. You seem to always feel compelled to exaggerate enough to be wrong.

Kurzgesagt - Is Organic Food Really Better or is It a Scam?

newtboy says...

Repeatedly, companies large and small have been caught passing conventionally grown vegetables as organic. When they get caught, they pay a fine that's far less than the profit they make, and then they move on with little notice.
Recently I read about a huge grain supplier (i think for general mills) that had been selling their conventional grain as organic for decades, so all the higher priced organic products made from it weren't actually organic, but there's no refund coming for customers.

This means store bought organic food is a Crap shoot at best.

If you want fresh, clean, eco friendly vegetables, grow your own. It's really the only way to be sure what you're getting.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon