All Things considered

Tempted to post some off topic material in the Building Forums....... Want to talk about football, your neighbor's dog or exchange friendly barbs with other members?? Start your conversations here!!!

Moderators: Sometimewoodworker, MGV12, BKKBILL

Re: All Things considered

Postby MGV12 » Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:48 pm

Sometimes you just have to stand your ground.

Can this really be true ..... in China!


China's 'nail houses': The homeowners who refused to budge


China-nail-house.jpg


http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/19/asia/ ... index.html
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

“Some days I am an optimistic pessimist ... other days I am a pessimistic optimist”
User avatar
MGV12
 
Posts: 5350
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:23 pm
Location: Chiang Mai

Re: All Things considered

Postby Roger Ramjet » Thu Aug 13, 2015 4:07 pm

Just as a follow-up to the tier 3 stamp of disapproval by the US here's two articles that are related.
The first is about how many have actually been arrested, how many have warrants being sort against them, the number of witnesses willing to testify. Well, you'll get the picture.
http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.ph ... ypecate=06
The second is the capture of another refrigerated ship, who owns it, who operates it, how many more are out there and how they are loaded. Again, you'll get the picture. http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/asean/6 ... cargo-ship
User avatar
Roger Ramjet
 
Posts: 5285
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:55 pm

Re: All Things considered

Postby Roger Ramjet » Sun Aug 16, 2015 5:36 pm

I don't think the Bangkok Post considered putting this article in its newspaper too well. I have a feeling the BP might be subject to reeducation classes about what they should print and what they shouldn't. Very naughty of Alan Dawson, but as he's seen many wars he could always claim PTSD.
Here's the article: http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opin ... s-in-a-pot
User avatar
Roger Ramjet
 
Posts: 5285
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:55 pm

Re: All Things considered

Postby MGV12 » Mon Aug 17, 2015 3:43 pm

Indonesia to Sink 70 Captured Vessels

Indonesia demands its sovereign waters be respected. The country, which is celebrating its 70th year of independence, plans to make a statement by sinking 70 vessels captured poaching in its territorial waters.

The Indonesian Navy will sink the 70 vessels on August 17th as the nation celebrates and it will be the largest public vessel sinking of caputured poaching ships. In May, the government sank 41 vessels caught poaching. Indonesia then caught another 92 foreign vessels since January. The next mass sinking will included a Chinese vessel as well.

President Joko Widodo, who was elected last year, is taking issue with illegal poaching and fishing in the nation’s waters. Widodo instituted the “Sink The Vessels” policy soon after his election saying Jakarta would no longer tolerate the invasion of more than 5,000 ships illegally operating in its waters, which is estimated to cost the national about $20 billion.

http://www.maritime-executive.com/artic ... gn-vessels

“Some days I am an optimistic pessimist ... other days I am a pessimistic optimist”
User avatar
MGV12
 
Posts: 5350
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:23 pm
Location: Chiang Mai

Re: All Things considered

Postby Roger Ramjet » Mon Aug 17, 2015 4:35 pm

MGV12 wrote:Indonesia demands its sovereign waters be respected. The country, which is celebrating its 70th year of independence, plans to make a statement by sinking 70 vessels captured poaching in its territorial waters.

I bet the Silver Sea or Silver Sea 2 are not part of the "vessels" and I'd personally think after having a close look at the photo in the picture it won't be anything the size of a Thai trawler, but just some leaky tub well past its prime.
I wonder if the Silver Sea 2 is still even called the Silver Sea 2 because, even though at anchor, she's still running her motors, perhaps to keep all those poached fish frozen, which have not even been unloaded: http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/photos/ ... 5/#forward And why would you anchor a "pirate ship" in a harbour and not at dock?
User avatar
Roger Ramjet
 
Posts: 5285
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:55 pm

Re: All Things considered

Postby MGV12 » Wed Aug 19, 2015 9:13 pm

'Female Viagra': Libido pill Addyi approved by US drug agency

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved a libido-enhancing drug for women dubbed the "female Viagra".
Flibanserin, a drug produced by Sprout Pharmaceuticals and marketed as Addyi, recently passed an FDA advisory committee meeting.
It has been criticised as having only marginal benefits.
Unlike Viagra, which affects blood flow to the genitals, Addyi is designed to help women regain their sex drive by boosting levels of brain chemicals.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33979526

"Unlike Viagra, which affects blood flow to the genitals, Addyi is designed to help women regain their sex drive by boosting levels of brain chemicals." ... say no more

“Some days I am an optimistic pessimist ... other days I am a pessimistic optimist”
User avatar
MGV12
 
Posts: 5350
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:23 pm
Location: Chiang Mai

Re: All Things considered

Postby MGV12 » Thu Aug 20, 2015 7:27 pm

Apparently the first 3000 and last 10 miles are the hardest:

Irishman runs 3,100 miles in world’s longest race

Irishman Nirbhasa Magee is set to become the first Irish person to complete the world’s longest road race, The Self Transcendence 3,100 Mile Race, finishing an epic 52-day run in Queens, New York.

http://www.irishcentral.com/culture/com ... paign=paid

“Some days I am an optimistic pessimist ... other days I am a pessimistic optimist”
User avatar
MGV12
 
Posts: 5350
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:23 pm
Location: Chiang Mai

Re: All Things considered

Postby Roger Ramjet » Tue Oct 27, 2015 7:03 am

Bacon, sausages, ham and other processed meats are cancer-causing, red meat probably is too: WHO
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-27/p ... cy/6886882
I'm just wondering who paid for this study, why they paid for it and to what ends? 50,000 people worldwide "might" be at risk of colon cancer.... just the one cancer and all that money wasted on the study.
Should I stop eating red meat? Experts weigh in on UN report
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-27/s ... ts/6887248
And the experts have their say.
User avatar
Roger Ramjet
 
Posts: 5285
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:55 pm

Re: All Things considered

Postby MGV12 » Mon Nov 02, 2015 4:55 pm

If the previous post is not enough to concern regular meat eaters .............. complete article posted as some might not be able to access it:

New cancer alert over eating just ONE steak a week: Eating just 10oz of red meat can increase chance of bowel cancer by two-fifths

Eating just one steak a week increases the risk of bowel cancer by more than two-fifths, a major study reveals today.

Scientists warn that four portions of red meat – less than a single 10oz steak – could make you 42 per cent more likely to develop the disease.

And even having just two portions a week increases bowel cancer risk by almost a fifth, the Oxford research found.

The study, involving 500,000 middle-aged men and women, is one of the largest so far to look at the link between bowel cancer and our diets. Its findings come only days after the World Health Organisation warned processed meat was as big a cancer threat as cigarettes.

A typical portion size for red or processed meat is about 70g, official guidelines say – equivalent to two rashers of bacon, two slices of ham or one sausage.

But a quarter pounder burger is 200g – nearly three times this level – while a 10oz steak from a restaurant is equivalent to 284g, or more than four portions.

Bowel cancer is already the second-biggest cancer killer in the UK, leading to 16,000 deaths a year. Only lung cancer kills more patients.

Alarmingly, the research also found that adults who ate large amounts of fibre – found in fruit, vegetables or wholegrain foods – did not have a significantly lower risk of developing bowel cancer than those who consumed very little.

For years, NHS guidelines have urged Britons to eat five portions of fruit and veg a day, and opt for wholemeal bread and pasta to avoid cancer and other illnesses.

Mark Flannagan, chief executive of Beating Bowel Cancer, said: ‘We must not underestimate the importance of diet in reducing your risk of bowel cancer.

‘The evidence suggests there is a strong link between red and processed meat and bowel cancer, so we recommend eating both in moderation.’

Experts think the chemical haem in red meat damages the DNA of cells in the digestive system, triggering tumour growth.

But processed meat – including ham, sausages, bacon and burgers – is thought to be even more harmful as it contains cancer-causing additives as well as being high in fat and salt.

Professor Tim Key and Dr Kathryn Bradbury, of Oxford University, looked at the records of 500,008 British men and women aged 40 to 69. They had completed detailed questionnaires about how often they ate meat in a typical week, and were tracked over a four-year period between 2006 and 2010.

Over that time, 1,503 of the participants developed bowel cancer. The analysis showed that adults who had red or processed meat four times a week were 42 per cent more at risk than those who had it once or not at all.

And those who ate it at least twice a week were 18 per cent more at risk compared with vegetarians.

Professor Key, who will present the findings tomorrow at the National Cancer Research Institute conference in Liverpool, said: ‘People need to be aware of the risks and make modest changes if necessary.

‘Eating things other than meat seems to be the sensible approach. So eating plant-based proteins such as beans, chicken or fish.’

The questionnaires only asked adults how often they ate red meat each day – not how much.

But the researchers said their consumption could be estimated from average portion sizes. They now plan to carry out further analysis involving a more detailed survey of 200,000 men and women, asking exactly how much meat they consume.

Current Government guidelines recommend adults should eat no more than 70g of red or processed meat a day, or 500g over the course of a week.

But these guidelines are likely to be changed following the World Health Organisation’s report, which warned that red and processed meat were more dangerous than initially thought.

Officials classified processed meat on the same cancer-causing level as cigarettes, asbestos and arsenic.

Red meat was placed one grade lower as ‘probably cancerous’, although experts are less clear about the risks.

NHS guidelines also state adults should aim for 25g of fibre a day – five pieces of fruit or veg – to protect against bowel cancer, heart disease and obesity.

But the Oxford research found no significant link between high fibre consumption and decreased bowel cancer risk.

Sarah Williams, Cancer Research UK’s health information manager, said: ‘This study adds to the evidence that regularly eating these meats can increase the risk of bowel cancer.’

But she added: ‘This study suggested that how often people eat meat affects risk, but it only followed participants up [over] an average of less than four years.

‘So we would need more detailed studies over a longer time to prove this conclusively.’

The latest study was not able to determine whether eating processed meat is more harmful than red meat.

The researchers also stressed that, despite the evidence, red and processed meat cause far fewer cases of cancer than smoking.

Statistically, about 61 out of 1,000 Britons develop bowel cancer.

These latest findings would mean that out of 1,000 Britons who ate red or processed meat four times a week, 78 would get the illness.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... ifths.html

“Some days I am an optimistic pessimist ... other days I am a pessimistic optimist”
User avatar
MGV12
 
Posts: 5350
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:23 pm
Location: Chiang Mai

Re: All Things considered

Postby Roger Ramjet » Mon Nov 02, 2015 5:43 pm

MGV12 wrote:The latest study was not able to determine whether eating processed meat is more harmful than red meat.

Not a good protocol because there is a heck of a difference between processed meat and normal meat. I can recall when scientists got their hands on UK sausages and found that most contained only 40% meat, the rest was made up of bread and other "gone off" items from supermarkets. And now they have to lable how much meat is actually in the sausage. The fact that they include bacon as a processed meat is also iffy at the best, I've never seen bacon being processed and other ingredience added. How can you add ingredients when the bacon is cut directly from the back or shoulder. The processing part they talk about is smoking and other ingredients added by companies that package the meat.
And there's a conflict between the Australian study and the British study. There's also the finding that fruit and veg play no part in stopping or retarding bowel cancer.
MGV12 wrote:For years, NHS guidelines have urged Britons to eat five portions of fruit and veg a day, and opt for wholemeal bread and pasta to avoid cancer and other illnesses.

The NHS has absolutely no proof that their guidelines of 5 portions of fruit and veg a day can stop people from getting cancer and other illnesses, so where did thid bunkum come from?
I'm rather disappointed where all the funding from these "studies" are coming from and who sets the protocols for them. Now if it were an open to findings study they would have total detail of what people eat, how much and at what times....especially for shift workers and they would have weights of people included along with ages.
MGV12 wrote:Red meat was placed one grade lower as ‘probably cancerous’, although experts are less clear about the risks.

If experts are less clear about the risks then the study protocol is flawed. They should be able to show a statistical difference between processed meat and unprocessed meat, or as it's called a "more likely than not" difference to draw the conclusions they have.
All the study has done is reinforce what the NHS wanted it to find, which means it was funded by the NHS.
MGV12 wrote:Statistically, about 61 out of 1,000 Britons develop bowel cancer.

These latest findings would mean that out of 1,000 Britons who ate red or processed meat four times a week, 78 would get the illness.

Now there's a conflict even using their own figures.
User avatar
Roger Ramjet
 
Posts: 5285
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:55 pm

Re: All Things considered

Postby BKKBILL » Mon Nov 02, 2015 8:03 pm

Let's put things in perspective.

A good example to look at is the "bacon sandwich debate". A major report estimated that there was a 20% increased risk of bowel cancer if you eat 50g of processed meat every day — that's a large bacon sandwich. The Sun came up with the beautiful headline "Careless pork costs lives!", and other papers too seized on this result. The risk presented here is a relative risk and can sound quite frightening. For an average person, the chance of getting bowel cancer at some point in their life is around 5%. Now 20% of 5% is 1%, so a relative increase of 20% translates to a lifetime risk of 6%, or an increase of 1% in absolute risk, which now does not sound so bad.

Yet another way to think of this is to consider how many people would need to eat large bacon sandwiches all their life in order to lead to one extra case of bowel cancer. This final quantity is known as the number needed to treat (NNT), although in this context it would perhaps better be called the number needed to eat. To find the NNT, simply express the two risks (with and without whatever you are interested in) as decimals, subtract the smaller from the larger and invert: in this case we get 1/(0.06 - 0.05) = 100 — a hundred people would need to eat large bacon sandwiches all their lives in order for one extra case of bowel cancer to occur. Now the risk does not seem at all remarkable.

We can also spin the risk by changing the number we use to describe it. First, we can think of getting bowel cancer as an event that is similar to the flip of a coin or a throw of dice, unpredictable but with some physical basis. This creates an image of life as a gamble with the outcome determined by some invisible mechanism over which we have no control. A very popular alternative, used by most people trying to communicate risk, is to think of the frequency of the event expected to occur in a population of similar individuals, that is a group of "people like you", some of whom will get bowel cancer and others who won't. A disadvantage of this analogy is that people may feel that the risk in question has nothing to do with them: who's to say that a group of 100 people "just like you" really exists, and even if it does, you may well think that you are going to be one of the lucky ones.

https://plus.maths.org/content/understa ... ing-risk-0

And then we have this gem.

Vegetarians Have Fewer Cancers But Higher Risk Of Colorectal Cancer

Compared with meat eaters in the cohort, and after adjusting for age, sex and smoking status, the vegetarians in the cohort showed an 11 per cent lower incidence rate of all cancers.

However, for colorectal cancer, vegetarians showed a 39 per cent higher incidence rate compared with meat eaters.


studyhttp://www.medicalnewstoday.com/ar ... 142427.php

So with all these studies I have come to the conclusion none of us are getting off the earth alive,
It's not who you know, it's whom you know.
User avatar
BKKBILL
 
Posts: 2946
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 10:05 pm
Location: Mae Taeng, Chiang Mai

Re: All Things considered

Postby Roger Ramjet » Tue Nov 03, 2015 8:20 am

BKKBILL wrote:Let's put things in perspective.

Bill, thanks for that, but I already knew most of it from my days as an advocate wading through billions od dollars worth of useless scientific studies looking for that "More likely than not" phrase. That's where they can say that a persons cause of death at age 23-40 from some rare form of illness could be blamed on his/her war service. Then you have to find a Medical Practioner who's heard of the study or read it to make the same decision and be able to take the whole thing right through the court system without losing his credibility
I hate watching tax payer's money go down the gurggler over bullshit studies that were done in Australia and England where the protocol found what the NHS wanted them to find, so they could again change their previous figure in a downwards spiral....the recommended "dose" you can eat in a week.
Last night I became so disgusted with this latest bunkum that I went downstairs and had an Aussie Meat (beef) pie (weekly quota gone), followed by watching Heston Blumenthal making the perfect hamburger and got so hungry again I went and made two 1/4 pounders smothered in cheese, pickles, lettuce and tomato and scoffed them as well.....so that's my quota of red meat for this month or otherwise I might get bowel cancer. :lol: :lol: Or the bloke next door might get it because I ate his share.
I notice when they draw-up the protocol for the study they always seem to exclude the person's weight, or lack of normal exercise, or do you eat a balanced diet from the questions, which is the reason all these "studies" fail the scientific question: What positive/negative conclusions can be drawn from the complete study which includes lifestyle.
The only conclusion I can draw from the study is that the parliament cafeteria was losing money with too big a cut of beef, sausage or bacon going on the plate, so they commissioned a study to reduce that amount using NHS money.
I also noticed that someone in the Bangkok Post had again targeted cows milk as the major cause of all our ills, again quoting the totally flawed China Study. :lol: :lol:
User avatar
Roger Ramjet
 
Posts: 5285
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:55 pm

Re: All Things considered

Postby MGV12 » Tue Nov 03, 2015 12:53 pm

Roger Ramjet wrote:I notice when they draw-up the protocol for the study they always seem to exclude the person's weight, or lack of normal exercise, or do you eat a balanced diet from the questions, which is the reason all these "studies" fail


And then some .........................

We are all subject to toxins, bacteria and unknown substances in our food, water and the very air we breath on a daily basis. Not one single 'expert' [or group of 'experts] ... no matter how qualified they are ... knows more than a fraction of the things our body has to deal with; nor how it deals with them. Plus ... and that's a big plus ... every single one of us is different. Our genes are different and our chemical composition is different for a start ... plus all those lifestyle influences. They can find trends and indicators but even if the tests were carried out to the most strenuous standards and without bias ... worth repeating the 'without bias' ... they would not have the slightest idea why some can chain smoke and live to be a hundred ... or consume saturated fats until the cows come home and live to be a hundred ... or do neither and die at twenty whilst out on their daily 5 Km run. Consciously abusing your body and not 'listening' to it's needs and complaints is playing Russian Roulette ........ but aside from that you spin the wheel and take your chances. I have known a few who have lived to be 100 and it's not all it's cracked up to be :lol:

Live a quality life and reach a hundred ... why not?

Deprive yourself and exist to a hundred ... why?

“Some days I am an optimistic pessimist ... other days I am a pessimistic optimist”
User avatar
MGV12
 
Posts: 5350
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:23 pm
Location: Chiang Mai

Re: All Things considered

Postby BKKBILL » Tue Nov 03, 2015 4:40 pm

Compared with meat eaters in the cohort, and after adjusting for age, sex and smoking status, the vegetarians in the cohort showed an 11 per cent lower incidence rate of all cancers.

studyhttp://www.medicalnewstoday.com/ar ... 142427.php

This comment got me thinking about how many is a cohort and why was it used here.

Cohorts: (cohort) included 6 centuriae or a total of 480 fighting men, not including officers. In addition the first cohort was double strength but with only 5 centuriae instead of the normal 6.

http://www.unrv.com/military/legion.php

I would like to be posted in Cohort VI :mrgreen:

Goes to show even useless scientific studies can lead you some interesting places.
It's not who you know, it's whom you know.
User avatar
BKKBILL
 
Posts: 2946
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 10:05 pm
Location: Mae Taeng, Chiang Mai

Re: All Things considered

Postby Roger Ramjet » Tue Nov 03, 2015 5:30 pm

I can recall being involved in a study once conducted by the Sydney University. There were dozens of medical and other like minded students running around looking for numbers, bar codes and actual doctors, but all you were to them was a number or commodity. The questionnaire you filled out was huge and they even had spaces where you could bitch all you wanted to and the Doctors didn't even know your name, but did know what you did.........Prison Officer and then a bar code. The students doing all the donkey work taking blood, measuring fat with calipers, taking blood pressure and generally doing all the mundane stuff were all looking like nursing staff in a hospital who had been doing a double shift and had a plane crash right into the biggest wing in the hospital with too many survivors. It was great fun, except for the bar codes who got retired out of it, and you got little comments at the conclusion of the study, months later, that said "Try to drink less" "You need a stress free holiday" "Get a new job" and finally mine, which must have got mixed up with someone elses: "Work less hours".
The study was funded by the NSW Government just prior to Dr. Tony Vinson taking over the Corrective Services and he was the instigator of the study....smart man that.
User avatar
Roger Ramjet
 
Posts: 5285
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Friendly Banter

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest