Actually it’s both. The final forms aren’t stable in the real world, they shed particles that are ingested, vapors inhaled, who knows, they are likely absorbed through the skin from many products.

Assume they aren’t actually toxic, functioning as designed they coat digestive systems and, if the report is to be believed, individual cells in extreme cases, leading to things like digestive issues and vaccinations not working. In developing children, it sounds disastrous…and it’s everywhere and in everyone….often in high levels.

This is akin to a crop that’s mildly toxic, not one adjacent to a pre existing separate toxic weed. You can’t plant this crop without permanently contaminating the field, and adjacent fields, and the local water sources, and to lesser extent anyone who uses the crop. There’s no separate toxic weed here, just a toxic crop we keep planting in new places, making the contamination much much more widespread at constantly increasing levels with no way to clean it up and little knowledge of the long term effects of such contamination. Pretty big gamble to take with the entire planet just so your thin rain coat doesn’t leak, don’t you think? Especially with a non biodegradable easily spread but impossible to remove toxic chemical with relatively unknown cumulative effects and no method whatsoever for removing it from people or the environment….like this one.

Carnivorous is the wrong word. Carnivorous plants have digestion systems that allow them to take nutrients directly from their victims.
Flagitious or sanguinary self fertilizing seems a more appropriate label for his hypothesis.

You are once again mistaken....
Real verified stats are had to come by, but: "In the coral reef community there are many species of fish which fill this ecological role: roughly 25 percent of the fishes are herbivores or make plants a part of their diet/omnivores (Deloach, 1999)."
That's just fish, far more abundant than land animals by number or biomass, as a group are at least 75% carnivore (not omnivore).

"obligate carnivore" is not honest, scientific, or reasonable. That means 10% CAN'T eat plants, not that only 10% does. Most animals are neither pure vegetarian or carnivore. I know vegans have a history of ignoring omnivores as a category, because it erases their positions/arguments, but that doesn't mean it's not a major category, in fact it's THE major category.

Herbivores have digestive systems designed to break down cellulose. Humans have one stomach, not designed to break down cellulose, so if it's a choice between carnivore or herbivore, biologically we are carnivores, which makes removing the omnivore category just plain silly for vegans.

Scientists have confirmed this is analogous to what your digestive system goes through processing Chef-Boyardee

I know it was just an instant reaction and they were thinking about the photos and stuff, but they probably just killed that little whale. I highly doubt it's digestive system can handle lures and spinners and weights and stuff.

This is how creationists think the digestive system works.

I can't wait for this chemical to end up in the environment and in our digestive systems.

Be thirsty... FOREVER!!

Wow! People really do whine a lot about what is essentially a harmless act.

I've seen my own child make similar faces and reactions to some of the jarred/pureed/mass-produced shit that people happily feed their infants. Maybe we should get angry at them as well.

Also, there is this misconception that baby food must be bland and free of spices and herbs until the child is a toddler. That is just ridiculous. After about 6 months, a baby's digestive system can handle pretty much anything that you would put in your own food. The longer you wait to expose your child to those flavors and tastes, the more likely they are to reject foods when you try to introduce them at a later age.

Parents in a culture whose common foods are heavily spiced (e.g. India, South-east Asia, Mexico) have a duty to introduce these tastes to their children at some point. Why not start when they are young, more tolerant and less resistant?

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

What's the difference between feeding a baby a lemon vs. wasabi?

It's food. It's harmless. So calm down all you bleeding hearts. (¬_¬)


That is just ignorant. A babies digestive system is different than a five year olds, you do not feed babies spicy things like that, although its not like she piped in a tube full. I have a problem big time with putting that sort of burning sensation into an unwilling parties mouth, I do not know if it would do any out right damage to the baby but I equate it with pouring salt in a dogs eye so see the reaction.

Well bread and milk probably isn't the best thing for a humans digestive system. I'll go with that, with people have digestive problems it kinda makes sense to go back to basics. I don't get why David won't believe it though, just because you live a long time doesn't mean your body operated perfectly with what you were giving it.

>> ^TheGenk:

Good for them that it helped them, but they should not stay on a 100% raw food diet for long amounts of time. The weight loss they all experienced is due to the fact that a huge amount of raw food would be needed to satisfy their daily calorie needs, so the body uses it's fat reserves.
As for the insulin requirements, the tend to get less with decreased body mass, so nothing special here.
Sadly, they never mention the risks to your health of this kind of diet.
Don't get me wrong, I got nothing against raw food, I got something against going to extremes with it(and other things) and claiming only benefits when there are severe risks involved too.
Cooking unlocks lots of nutrients, therefore providing more energy as the same amount of uncooked food.
I remember a BBC documentary were they tried raw food diets and they stopped the experiments due to severe health problems of the participants. They concluded that the human digestive system needs processed/cooked food in order to get enough energy for your body. (BBC documentaries are no scientific studies, but they are the closest thing to em you can get on television )


Yes I think common sense is a good idea when it comes to food, if a food is more nutritious when cooked, then eat the cooked version. There are many chemicals in raw food that inhibit absorption (phytates, chelating agents to name a couple), so cooking is certainly not always bad, as it can make nutrients more bioavailable.

The most important thing is just to make sure that the food you eat is nutrient dense, so fruit and vegetables should make up a large proportion of the diet, because they are the best nutrient dense foods available for our bodies.

Good for them that it helped them, but they should not stay on a 100% raw food diet for long amounts of time. The weight loss they all experienced is due to the fact that a huge amount of raw food would be needed to satisfy their daily calorie needs, so the body uses it's fat reserves.
As for the insulin requirements, the tend to get less with decreased body mass, so nothing special here.
Sadly, they never mention the risks to your health of this kind of diet.

Don't get me wrong, I got nothing against raw food, I got something against going to extremes with it(and other things) and claiming only benefits when there are severe risks involved too.

Cooking unlocks lots of nutrients, therefore providing more energy as the same amount of uncooked food.
I remember a BBC documentary were they tried raw food diets and they stopped the experiments due to severe health problems of the participants. They concluded that the human digestive system needs processed/cooked food in order to get enough energy for your body. (BBC documentaries are no scientific studies, but they are the closest thing to em you can get on television

The nervous system (brain, spinal cord, nerves) is an organ system just like your digestive system ( liver, intestines, salivary glands, etc.). People injure and mess up parts of their nervous system all the time, through accidents and what-not. While liver damage can lead to things like renal failure, injuries to the brain can lead to changes in memory access and retention, cognition,... interesting things that make up 'personality'.

I think consciousness is biological, and human consciousness is as biological as the consciousness of other animals. I think we are extraordinary at communication, and that's the major thing making us special in the animal kingdom... we love sounds and music and seeing friends and talking and learning about people and things. We are hyper vigilant with respect to personalities, and the fine details make everyone's unique in our eyes. So when a friend dies this personality that we knew so well now only exists as a detailed set of memories in our brain. And because this isn't terribly comforting, and because we're so keen on other people, we like to think that such an amazing thing as a personality continues on somehow after death.

my two cents!

Vex: "If you actually read the comments, no one here has blamed the victim. They are merely pointing out that the network and the crew failed to realize that sending a white, female reporter into a mob of sexually repressed men in a frenzied state is a terrible idea."

Really?

Luxury_pie: "But her in this mob not concerned at least a bit AND withouth any knowledge of what is BOUND to happen? That's like going straight into a horde of hungry lions, covered in tasty tasty blood, attacking their chilren and wondering why am I in a lion's digestive system suddenly? In case you did not know, lions like digesting things"

Adrianblack: " "Since you are a woman and won't be strong enough to defend yourself if someone is deadly serious on their intent - never allow yourself to get into a situation where you could be compromised."

Excellent advice from a sage lady...I wish that Lara would have realized that herself."

It was "bound to happen" so she "should have been more careful". If "Lara would have realized that herself" then it would not have happened.

This appears to me like the typical reaction to a rape story. They are looking for what the woman victimized has done wrong. I believe that the wrong lies solely with the rapist, in all circumstances.

She had no idea? Well read a book once in a while...
I mean, don't get me wrong, in my western view of things, this is a report of the most horrible and disgusting human behaviour.

But her in this mob not concerned at least a bit AND withouth any knowledge of what is BOUND to happen? That's like going straight into a horde of hungry lions, covered in tasty tasty blood, attacking their chilren and wondering why am I in a lion's digestive system suddenly? In case you did not know, lions like digesting things.