I don't think curing it is a smart idea as long as people have moral issues with regulated global population control.

OK, assuming what you say is correct (I'm not taking the time now to check) you have a point, but the stats, even if only 1/2 as bad as it seems, still show there's absolutely no equivalence.

Well, if you ate like that, no wonder you think meat is deadly. Eating like that, it is. Eaten in moderation, meaning <50g of CURED meats, and probably less than 1/3 lb of non cured lean red meats, the conclusion I came to is reasonable....that it's in no way comparable to smoking in it's danger. it's not even comparable if you eat 5 times the studied portion of cured meats, although it is clearly not healthy to do so. I eat < 1/2 lb of steak, on the rare occasions I eat it. I eat 1/2 a chicken breast on a normal day, baked. Because I eat good meat, properly prepared, in moderation, there's little to no statistical increase in danger to my health over eating pure vegetarian.

No sir, your stats are wrong....here's direct from the WHO.....
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
12. How many cancer cases every year can be attributed to consumption of processed meat and red meat?

According to the most recent estimates by the Global Burden of Disease Project, an independent academic research organization, about 34 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to diets high in processed meat.
Eating red meat has not yet been established as a cause of cancer. However, if the reported associations were proven to be causal, the Global Burden of Disease Project has estimated that diets high in red meat could be responsible for 50 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide.
These numbers contrast with about 1 million cancer deaths per year globally due to tobacco smoking, 600 000 per year due to alcohol consumption, and more than 200 000 per year due to air pollution.

So, it's 34000 cancer deaths for cured meats (and IF the correlative results with red meat are in fact causative, another 50000 worldwide for red meat) VS 1000000 cancer tobacco deaths. So no, it's not 2/3 there, it's at best, IF red meat is the cause of cancers at the highest level possible (not at all proven) it's 1/12 of the way there....around 8.4%. Agreed, that's not good, but no where near what you (and he) claims.

Cholesterol and saturated fat only MAY cause heart disease and diabetes, not 'do without a doubt', and then usually only in high levels (in normal people). They raise the risk factor for those diseases, but do not automatically cause heart disease and/or diabetes, even in people with incredibly high levels.

Research indicates that you missed the mark with the 644000 number, it's more like 34000 (and maybe another 50000, unproven) according to the WHO, I'll take the stats of the organization whose study is being discussed.

So if you look at the real numbers, it's still not comparable at all. Cancer, and death rates are orders of magnitude different, far more than 10 times higher for smoking with every possible benefit of a doubt given to meats toxicity/effects, so not at all easily matched. Sorry.

(and you also appear to be 100% wrong about cancer survivability)
http://www.Cancer.org -Colon cancer-For stage IIB cancer, the survival rate is about 63%. The 5-year relative survival rate for stage IIIA colon cancers is about 89%. For stage IIIB cancers the survival rate is about 69%, and for stage IIIC cancers the survival rate is about 53%.
http://www.lung.org - Lung cancer-The five-year survival rate for lung cancer is 54 percent for cases detected when the disease is still localized (within the lungs). However, only 15 percent of lung cancer cases are diagnosed at an early stage. For distant tumors (spread to other organs) the five-year survival rate is only 4 percent.

So, to summarize, colon cancer 53%-89% survivability (depending largely on when it's caught) VS lung cancer 4% (for 85% of cases, and 54% for the 15% of lucky few with early detections)

OK, so cured meats cured with nitrates are now classified carcinogenic, but non cured meats, and meats cured without nitrates, salt, or smoke only "may" be slightly carcinogenic...or may not. So still, not all deli turkey, not all chicken nuggets (I make them at home from whole chicken with no preservatives) or bacon (I had some uncured bacon a few years back...it sucked, but it does exist)....so not ALL processed meats are in that category, and certainly not all nuggets, sliced turkey, or bacon...so exaggeration, even if you wish to say it's only exaggeration by omission of detail.

Because he strongly implies it's because they are meats, says "The World Health Organization recently published a report that puts chicken nuggets, deli turkey slices, bacon and other processed meats in the same category as cigarettes and asbestos: known carcinogens" without explanation, and extrapolates to imply that all meats are as carcinogenic as habitually smoking processed tobacco cigarettes.

In terms of disease, overall danger to a person's health, and morality, it's completely inaccurate, and grossly misleading. A processed plant diet (the norm) can be FAR worse for you and the environment than a sustainably raised, non processed meat based diet (which is not the norm). It's not cut and dry, details matter.
"The International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) used clearly defined guidelines to identify hazards (qualitative evaluation), i.e. whether an agent can cause cancer, but IARC does not assess level or the magnitude of risk.
Even though smoking is in the same category as processed meat (Group 1 carcinogen), the magnitude or level of risk associated with smoking is considerably higher (e.g., for lung cancer about 20 fold or 2000% increased risk) from those associated with processed meat – an analysis of data from 10 studies, cited in the IARC report showed an 18 percent increased risk in colorectal cancer per 50g processed meat increase per day. To put this in perspective, according to the Global Disease Burden Project 2012, over 34,000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to high processed meat intake vs. 1 million deaths per year attributable to tobacco smoke."
source- https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/report-says-eating-processed-meat-is-carcinogenic-understanding-the-findings/
So, smoking =2000% greater risk, eating meat daily-18% greater risk....so not honestly equivalent by any stretch.

I would agree that switching from a processed meat based diet to a non processed plant based (not even necessarily pure vegetarian) diet, in general, might be equivalent to quitting smoking (but smoking how much, and smoking what, depends on MANY variable factors, and it appears it's generally equivalent to smoking <2 cigarettes per week, while breathing air in most cities is equivalent to smoking a pack a day).

Duh. Soylent green is made from elderly people, not teenagers, and as such it's made from pretty tainted meat. I'll take some Soylent pink, made from pure milk fed baby.

Not murder if they're terminally ill and ask you to do it, in many states.

Far more ethical to work for proper animal treatment than to insist on something that will never happen in a way that makes those you wish to convince your adversaries. He'll get WAY farther towards ending some animal suffering that your methods ever will. Your methods have had many people reply to you that they will eat MORE meat just to spite you, or so you've said in the past....so your methods are obviously failing badly, so are unethical as they cause MORE animal suffering.

Most available vegan food is processed today, so is in the same category you put bacon and deli turkey. Unprocessed meats are also far healthier than processed meats, and are more nutrient dense than plants.

Depending on the curing process, it can be bad or good (and again, not PROVEN to cause cancer...you just backed off that claim on the other thread...so why make it again?)

He wants less harm done to animals....so he's winning. he wants people to eat MORE healthily, he's winning. He wants to move away from a zealous, all or nothing movement that's failing in it's goals and making enemies in the effort, he's winning.

There isn't enough available land to switch to purely vegetarianism either, you're point is ridiculous, no one is advocating feeding all people on pure meat....he's not even advocating for vegetarians to eat meat, and said so clearly. If you had a point to make, then you've failed.

You say that like vegans aren't mostly pasty sickly looking people that look about 2 years late for death by wasting syndrome.

Um no. The body has no problems combining ingredients, and storing certain essential ingredients for several months until the appropriate catalyst is introduced into the body. The real problem with most of these cures is that they ignore the basic principle of equivalent exchange. For every change you want to make in the body, you have to offer something of equal intrinsic value, or you'll suffer nasty rebound. And that's a good way to lose an arm and a leg.

From the vinyl collection. http://videosift.com/video/The-Cure-A-Japanese-Dream-Extended-Mix

When did this become a "challenge?" Are we curing Lou Gehrig's Disease or something?

Hair Cut with a Weedwacker Challenge? Nail Trimming with a Bench Grinder challenge? I can come up with more if we need to cure some more diseases.

And this is the brilliance of Louis -- that he lays bare the humanity of even pedophiles. The truth of pedophiles.

(They are doing research now that supports the idea that sexual attraction towards children is indeed hard-coded and a "natural" part of the human sexuality spectrum. If that turns out to be true... that opens up a huge can of worms that reflects back on our historical treatment of homosexuals. Chemical or actual castration? Permanent imprisonment? Creating more communities like that place in Florida that is populated with convicted child sex offenders? If there is no "cure," is capital punishment the only solution? I feel paralyzed by the implications.)

The UK has done a much better job in handling the situation than the US has, it seems, though it has had more time to do so than the southern US. I don't think they achieved it by implementing systemic racism in the opposite direction, though. And let's be clear, even though we may feel justified in kicking out higher achieving students to replace them with a quota-satisfying minority group, that is systemically racist, the very thing we are trying to abolish. It is a clear example of committing a wrong to hopefully achieve a right. And it will never feel like anything short of racism to the individual student that gets short changed.

So let's say that it works, and black folk begin to integrate more successfully into the encompassing community, and the encompassing communities don't end up resenting them for the racist laws that are helping them to do s . Will we ever be remove these racist rules? Or will we be arguing about an ever small statistical deviation somewhere? Furthermore, all of the people that are unjustly damaged by these new racist rules (ie. Ashley), won't they then be due reparations in the future too? Who would pay those? Where would it end? Would it end?

I just doubt that more racism is the cure for racism.

While we definitely need tighter restrictions on the marketing of drugs and nutritional supplements in the US, I think such quack medical devices are handled the same way. The device would need to carry a warning "This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease." And the civil and criminal penalties of claiming your gadget really does treat any disease (not just cancer) are pretty severe.

Your video, Why You Can't Advertise Cancer Cures In Britain, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

OK, as I said, I don't know exactly how Vantablack is applied, but nanotubes could easily be incorporated in powder coatings and be totally sealed in the coating.
If Vantablack is grown on the surface, it should be even more 'attached' at the molecular level to that surface, shouldn't it? Once the loose powder was cleaned off, that seems like it would be much better than paint at sticking permanently, no?
A sprayable paint version would have to be mixed with a liquid that makes it sprayable and makes it stick, so I would expect it to be 'sealed' in that liquid once it cures, just like any pigment in any paint. Also, clear coats could seal it in if that's not the case, at least as good as any other toxic paint. EDIT: Since nanofibers can withstand high temperatures, they could even bake on a clear powder coating that's WAY tougher than clear coat to seal it if needed.
Most paints use highly toxic chemicals too. Just because there's no lead doesn't mean it's non toxic....in fact, it might be MORE toxic, just not in the same "brain damaging" way.

I have actually personally worked with nanotubes. I had a friend I worked with that had a carbon fiber business that did dozens of experiments with it for multiple projects, including a carbon fiber bullet and machine-able solid carbon blocks. He'll probably be the one to watch to see how dangerous they are, he rarely used any type of protection and I'm sure he inhaled multiple grams worth of nanotubes in his time, and has them imbedded in his skin all over his body. All of his products used resin to liquefy and harden the nanotubes into the shapes he wanted, so in the end products, it was "sealed" into a non-powder form, but not during production.

Okay first off, powdercoating is different. It's a powder that is closer to glass than paint, and it's cured in an oven which melts it onto the surface. Vantablack is grown on a surface and they recommend it is never used in an application where skin contact is involved as it would be unsafe. The sprayable paint version uses another form of carbon nanotubes in a different structure, which is considered "safer," but there's not enough data on it for me to trust it. They also make no mention of it being "sealed" as you claim.

You can if you want. Lead paint was once considered safe, as was asbestos, and aspartame, and cigarettes (at least publicly). Go for it. But we won't agree.

Can PEE Cure Ant Stings?! has been added as a related post - related requested by ant on that post.

Can PEE Cure Ant Stings?! has been added as a related post - related requested by ant on that post.