Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
No, no, I mean this -- B is for Beer (i.e., Biofuel for Human B'ns, to keep this on topic: http://www.mcmenamins.com/Brewing/mrtipsy1.html#Anchor-363 And now I think I'll go have another glass of vitamins and protein, er, I mean, biofuel, or whatever. Christopher Witmer Tokyo Appal Energy wrote: Sadly that practice has yet to be criminalized in the US yet. I believe it is unaffectionately called lawn mower or near beer. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Christopher Witmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:38 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? Just make sure your draft beer hasn't had the yeast filtered out of it and you'll be just fine. :-) Appal Energy wrote: What is easy is harming one's health by trying. I suppose that's why I'm getting older by the day.If I had only visited the meat counter with greater frequency this never would have happened. Todd Swearingen Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
several pounds of undigested meat found in the lower intestinal track and colon of dead meat eaters [Western diet meat-eaters who have died] (Diet for a New America, John Robbins). Maybe they died because they weren't healthy and digesting their food. Slow bowels are often a product of white flour and other junk in the SAD (standard American Diet) The literal translation of the Cherokee word for cheese is choke ass Americans eat wy too much dairy. When you eat something and you get mucus, and you can tell because you are now clearing your throat and have enhanced drainage, why do you eat it again? Mucus is the reaction to an irritant. Seems many are oblivious to their body. How can a mucus producing substance be rationalized as healthy? Kirk -Original Message- From: Appal Energy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 9:21 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? Well Chris, I'll tell ya' this. All that beneficial meat processing bacteria is certainly not doing its job as efficiently as one would be led to believe, considering the several pounds of undigested meat found in the lower intestinal track and colon of dead meat eaters [Western diet meat-eaters who have died] (Diet for a New America, John Robbins). Yes, it's rather easy to see that different diets in different environments would be metabolized in variant fashions and would take some indeterminant period to completely adjust to. After all, every living thing is one big biological and chemical equation. Try going from 3,000' on any diet to 14,000 feet over night and see if you get fully acclimatized before a two week period has passed, no matter how much your continual fluid uptake. If your body and your mind are accustomed to something, they will certainly take notice of its absence or any deviation from it. I think the part I had most difficulty with was the suggestion with such certainty that a departure from a heavily meat concentrated diet (Western diet) would create harm, perhaps catastrophically. What is easy is harming one's health by trying. I suppose that's why I'm getting older by the day.If I had only visited the meat counter with greater frequency this never would have happened. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Christopher Witmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 8:54 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? Todd, In a rare twist, it is a lot easier to find information on this in Japanese Internet than in English; this may be due to Japanese researchers' language limitations. Japanese-only link at Chiba University: http://photo-m.tp.chiba-u.ac.jp/~adeno/sci/bio.htm I first heard about this on a Japanese television program -- Japanese-only link to the television program's webpage on this subject: http://www.ntv.co.jp/FERC/research/19980208/f0518.html I wasn't able to find anything in English on the Internet, although I did find passing references to one of the key studies in this area: Bergersen, F.J. and E.H. Hipsley (1970). The presence of N2 - fixing bacteria in the intestines of man and animals. Journal of Tropical Pediatrics 11: 28-34. To summarize the theory, the Papua highlander diet consists primarily of yams and taro (average of about 1.5kg per day), from which they are able to *directly* assimilate only 15g of protein. The amount of directly assimilated protein is simply insufficient to maintain their heavy musculature (and these people tend to be very muscular) let alone the minimum level needed for survival over time. A professor Mitsuoka of Tokyo University theorizes that the intestinal flora of the Papua highlander are different from those of peoples accustomed to eating meat. Indeed, when people from outside the region try to eat the Papua highlander diet, they suffer from extreme flatulence, to the great amusement of the Papua highlanders, who have very little or none. Conversely, consumption of pork can make Papua highlanders ill, sometimes fatally so, whilst people accustomed to eating meat suffer from no ill effects. Analysis of feces of Papua highlanders reveals total nitrogen content to be double that of the pre-assimilated food. This increase is in all likelihood due to the presence of nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the intestines of Papua highlanders. (Apparently the same sorts of bacteria associated with leguminous nitrogen fixation are taking atmospheric nitrogen and fixing it in the intestines of the Papua highlanders.) These bacteria then in turn become the source of adequate protein for the Papua highlanders. Another possibility is that ammonia is somehow being converted into protein (pigs and cows have this ability); Papua highlander feces are found to have twice the ammonia content of Japanese. It is suspected -- though hardly conclusively proven -- that half of the protein
Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
This X lbs. of undigested meat in the intestine sounds like a bit of a burpin' legend IMO. FWIW: http://www.snopes2.com/toxins/fecal.htm I have Robbins' book and think there's a lot of good stuff in it, and I also think fasting and cleansing the body can be good for you, but if I do it, it's not because I'm worried about accumulations of undigested meat in my lower GI Joe. By the way, I am a huge eater of cheese -- often on the order of half a kilogram per day -- and I am also a real regular guy and as mucus-free as anyone I know. I think this probably varies quite a bit from person to person. By all means, listen to what your body is telling you! (Your Body Knows Best is the title of a very good book on diet. I think it was written by Louise Gittleman. I also recommend her Guess What Came to Dinner, a book about parasites -- a much bigger problem even in advanced countries than most people suspect.) I will say this, however: eating a lot of animal protein definitely gives anyone a stronger body odor than if they have a diet low in animal protein. On the other hand, a high veggie diet tends to give people a lot of gas -- hey, biofuel! Still on topic . . . ;-) Christopher Witmer Tokyo kirk wrote: several pounds of undigested meat found in the lower intestinal track and colon of dead meat eaters [Western diet meat-eaters who have died] (Diet for a New America, John Robbins). Maybe they died because they weren't healthy and digesting their food. Slow bowels are often a product of white flour and other junk in the SAD (standard American Diet) The literal translation of the Cherokee word for cheese is choke ass Americans eat wy too much dairy. When you eat something and you get mucus, and you can tell because you are now clearing your throat and have enhanced drainage, why do you eat it again? Mucus is the reaction to an irritant. Seems many are oblivious to their body. How can a mucus producing substance be rationalized as healthy? Kirk -Original Message- From: Appal Energy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 9:21 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? Well Chris, I'll tell ya' this. All that beneficial meat processing bacteria is certainly not doing its job as efficiently as one would be led to believe, considering the several pounds of undigested meat found in the lower intestinal track and colon of dead meat eaters [Western diet meat-eaters who have died] (Diet for a New America, John Robbins). Yes, it's rather easy to see that different diets in different environments would be metabolized in variant fashions and would take some indeterminant period to completely adjust to. After all, every living thing is one big biological and chemical equation. Try going from 3,000' on any diet to 14,000 feet over night and see if you get fully acclimatized before a two week period has passed, no matter how much your continual fluid uptake. If your body and your mind are accustomed to something, they will certainly take notice of its absence or any deviation from it. I think the part I had most difficulty with was the suggestion with such certainty that a departure from a heavily meat concentrated diet (Western diet) would create harm, perhaps catastrophically. What is easy is harming one's health by trying. I suppose that's why I'm getting older by the day.If I had only visited the meat counter with greater frequency this never would have happened. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Christopher Witmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 8:54 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? Todd, In a rare twist, it is a lot easier to find information on this in Japanese Internet than in English; this may be due to Japanese researchers' language limitations. Japanese-only link at Chiba University: http://photo-m.tp.chiba-u.ac.jp/~adeno/sci/bio.htm I first heard about this on a Japanese television program -- Japanese-only link to the television program's webpage on this subject: http://www.ntv.co.jp/FERC/research/19980208/f0518.html I wasn't able to find anything in English on the Internet, although I did find passing references to one of the key studies in this area: Bergersen, F.J. and E.H. Hipsley (1970). The presence of N2 - fixing bacteria in the intestines of man and animals. Journal of Tropical Pediatrics 11: 28-34. To summarize the theory, the Papua highlander diet consists primarily of yams and taro (average of about 1.5kg per day), from which they are able to *directly* assimilate only 15g of protein. The amount of directly assimilated protein is simply insufficient to maintain their heavy musculature (and these people tend to be very muscular) let alone the minimum level needed for survival
Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
Todd, I'm really not saying highly meat centered diet... I've been through the diet gamut, vegetarianism, veganism, raw-foodism, brief flirtation with fruitarianism, for lots of years (20), . I am worried about the B-12 issue which seems to be directly related to the ammount of animal food consumed as shown in the studies. I am enamored with the philosophy of these theories...but my heros have expired at an early age, Fry, Shelton, Lovewisdom etc. etc. So I need to be realistic, I want truth in this matter...I wish, hope, we can get along without killing/taking other LIFE, but really I'm not so sure. Any dialogue appreciated. Are you and Keith co-owners/conspirators of this web??? And just what exactly the hell is that supposed to mean?? Keith Addison Thanks, Ken Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
I may be gullible enough to accept some things at face value, but this theory seriously pushes my probability limit.' Plausible? Perhaps. Harmful if tried? Uhya.right. Is that a printing press I hear in the background? Sounds like hand tooled metal plates on rag bond. B-o-h-h-h-h-h-g-u-s! I think those sounds of Westerners starving is more like a passle of whiney nosed snots who don't know what the first pang of hunger actually feels like, radically envisioning death throws within moments if they don't get a dead meat fixthe greasier the better. I suppose that federal governments are next going to step in and force organic vegetable markets to supply bottles of bovine bacteria to their customers with every ten heads of lettuceor face severe financial penalties for reckless endangerment? I'd like to see where this particular theory has been submitted for professional scrutiny. (Key word is professional here, not a bunch of home biofuel officianados.) The things some people will do to rationalize meat eating 8-( Kinda' like telling people that they can't survive without their Prozac. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Christopher Witmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 5:45 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? Some people are able to thrive on diets containing such extremely low levels of animal protein that most Westerners would starve to death on them. The people that thrive have different intestinal bacteria than meat-eating Westerners; the bacteria digest the vegetable matter and then the people digest the bacteria, which turn out to be their source of complete protein. If one eats a high animal protein diet those particular bacteria will be replaced by a different set of bacteria, and it will no longer be possible to get the necessary nutrition from vegetables alone. It is probably possible to change one's intestinal bacteria to those conducive to surviving on a non-animal diet, but it is not going to be easy. What is easy is harming one's health by trying. Christopher Witmer Tokyo Ken wrote: http://www.beyondveg.com/ More on that, and believe me I've tried... Ken Not everyone can stay healthy on a vegan diet. While I don't eat a lot of meat, I do require a 6 ounce serving, five times a week. Even the doctors that pushed the vegan diet have come to recognize this fact. I have a friend who is bipolar and she has to live on the high protein Adkins [sp?] diet, the drugs have given her problems with carbohydrates. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
I'm afraid I have pretty much used all my ammunition on this. I'm not totally convinced myself, frankly. It sounds interesting and plausible, but if the paucity of information on the web is any indicator (and it probably is), this is either an area that needs a lot more research, or zero additional research. Even if it turns out to be true, obviously humans are never going to be as efficient at the whole process as ruminants, are, but it might have some very interesting positive implications for better human nutrition in certain parts of the world. And double thumbs up on Weston A. Price's books! Christopher Witmer Tokyo Keith Addison wrote: If you have any references for that, Christopher, I'd be most interested to see them. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
several pounds of undigested meat found in the lower intestinal track and colon of dead meat eaters [Western diet meat-eaters who have died] (Diet for a New America, John Robbins). Maybe they died because they weren't healthy and digesting their food. Slow bowels are often a product of white flour and other junk in the SAD (standard American Diet) The literal translation of the Cherokee word for cheese is choke ass Americans eat wy too much dairy. When you eat something and you get mucus, and you can tell because you are now clearing your throat and have enhanced drainage, why do you eat it again? Mucus is the reaction to an irritant. Seems many are oblivious to their body. How can a mucus producing substance be rationalized as healthy? Kirk But which particular dairy products are those, Kirk? Good clean stuff from a real dairy with milk from healthy cattle on healthy pasture, or the rBGH-laden, antibiotics-laden, over-processed, denatured stuff from badly-fed and badly-reared, diarrhoea-ridden, disease-ridden industrial beasts? You're dead right about refined carbohydrates - see Cleave, for instance: http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library.html#cleave There's no arguing with that. That and all the processing, and 5,000-odd food additives. But dairy is complicated - Cherokee's would have had a lactose-intolerance, like many people are said to have. Including the Chinese, though it's not that simple - dairy is standard fare in North China, and now in the South too, and if there are ill-health effects it comes from replacing their traditional diet with junk food, not from the dairy (though a lot of it is now industrial dairy). Best Keith -Original Message- From: Appal Energy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 9:21 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? Well Chris, I'll tell ya' this. All that beneficial meat processing bacteria is certainly not doing its job as efficiently as one would be led to believe, considering the several pounds of undigested meat found in the lower intestinal track and colon of dead meat eaters [Western diet meat-eaters who have died] (Diet for a New America, John Robbins). Yes, it's rather easy to see that different diets in different environments would be metabolized in variant fashions and would take some indeterminant period to completely adjust to. After all, every living thing is one big biological and chemical equation. Try going from 3,000' on any diet to 14,000 feet over night and see if you get fully acclimatized before a two week period has passed, no matter how much your continual fluid uptake. If your body and your mind are accustomed to something, they will certainly take notice of its absence or any deviation from it. I think the part I had most difficulty with was the suggestion with such certainty that a departure from a heavily meat concentrated diet (Western diet) would create harm, perhaps catastrophically. What is easy is harming one's health by trying. I suppose that's why I'm getting older by the day.If I had only visited the meat counter with greater frequency this never would have happened. Todd Swearingen Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
I'm afraid I have pretty much used all my ammunition on this. I'm not totally convinced myself, frankly. It sounds interesting and plausible, but if the paucity of information on the web is any indicator (and it probably is), this is either an area that needs a lot more research, or zero additional research. Even if it turns out to be true, obviously humans are never going to be as efficient at the whole process as ruminants, are, but it might have some very interesting positive implications for better human nutrition in certain parts of the world. And double thumbs up on Weston A. Price's books! Christopher Witmer Tokyo Thanks for posting thos references Chris. Interesting, and we can do the Japanese stuff. regards Keith Keith Addison wrote: If you have any references for that, Christopher, I'd be most interested to see them. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
healthy cow. Feed them high-protein concentrates and that no longer happens. One unhappy cow. A host of unhappy beef-eaters. Perhaps some happy agribiz corporations, but I doubt corps have the capacity for happiness, though they may be able to gloat. Actually earthworms and manure worms (red wrigglers, composting worms) also do that. They eat soil and decaying organic matter, but actually they derive their nutrition from explosions of micro-organisms in their gut. Yet their castings (shit) contain 8 times as many micro-organisms as the surrounding soil. Weirdly (or maybe not) the micro-organisms in the castings are the very ones which best favour plant growth, and the ones they consume are mostly pathogens. Isn't nature wonderful. But I've never heard of this happening in humans, as Christopher claims. No doubt the hyper-healthy Eskimoes of yore who only ate meat and the hyper-healthy Hunzakats who ate not much meat but lots of veggies, grains and fruit produced from their superb farming system, had rather different spectra of gut micro-organisms. But I doubt they could have been different in the way Christopher describes, with the low-meat eaters getting their extra protein from the micro-organism overgrowth. If you have any references for that, Christopher, I'd be most interested to see them. This is the main question, I think: Which particular meat/vegetables? How's it grown? Let's take produce raised from healthy, fertile soil on a sustainable integrated farm, pesticide-free, additive-free, and fresh. I'd venture to say that nobody will have health problems eating meat from such a system, but that some people might not be able to live healthily on the vegetables alone, though most people probably would be able to. Again (I have to say it often because it's an obstinate myth) there is no environment or starvation issue here, and no versus. The environment and starvation issues are between sustainable mixed-farming systems and unsustainable industrial practices, and between equitable economies and unjust economies. Sustainable mixed-farming systems can easily be equitable, industrial farming never is. Regards Keith OkayI may be gullible enough to accept some things at face value, but this theory seriously pushes my probability limit.' Plausible? Perhaps. Harmful if tried? Uhya.right. Is that a printing press I hear in the background? Sounds like hand tooled metal plates on rag bond. B-o-h-h-h-h-h-g-u-s! I think those sounds of Westerners starving is more like a passle of whiney nosed snots who don't know what the first pang of hunger actually feels like, radically envisioning death throws within moments if they don't get a dead meat fixthe greasier the better. I suppose that federal governments are next going to step in and force organic vegetable markets to supply bottles of bovine bacteria to their customers with every ten heads of lettuceor face severe financial penalties for reckless endangerment? I'd like to see where this particular theory has been submitted for professional scrutiny. (Key word is professional here, not a bunch of home biofuel officianados.) The things some people will do to rationalize meat eating 8-( Kinda' like telling people that they can't survive without their Prozac. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Christopher Witmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 5:45 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? Some people are able to thrive on diets containing such extremely low levels of animal protein that most Westerners would starve to death on them. The people that thrive have different intestinal bacteria than meat-eating Westerners; the bacteria digest the vegetable matter and then the people digest the bacteria, which turn out to be their source of complete protein. If one eats a high animal protein diet those particular bacteria will be replaced by a different set of bacteria, and it will no longer be possible to get the necessary nutrition from vegetables alone. It is probably possible to change one's intestinal bacteria to those conducive to surviving on a non-animal diet, but it is not going to be easy. What is easy is harming one's health by trying. Christopher Witmer Tokyo Ken wrote: http://www.beyondveg.com/ More on that, and believe me I've tried... Ken Not everyone can stay healthy on a vegan diet. While I don't eat a lot of meat, I do require a 6 ounce serving, five times a week. Even the doctors that pushed the vegan diet have come to recognize this fact. I have a friend who is bipolar and she has to live on the high protein Adkins [sp?] diet, the drugs have given her problems with carbohydrates. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list
Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
I do not consider 5 six ounce portions of meat a week, a highly meat centered diet. I call it balanced. There are major differences between types of meat, such as grassfed vs grain fed, beef vs emu as there are between miracle grow vegetables and organic vegetables. Grass fed milk is a totally different product than grain fed milk. It is real simple to understand, garbage in = garbage out. Feed an animal it's natural diet, the product from the animal is much healthier. The same goes for humans. See eatwild.com for more info. My doctor that attempted to put me on a vegetarian diet, says he is coming to believe it has something to do with metabolic rates. People that have naturally high rates do require some meat to stay healthy. And my body temperature is .5 of a degree lower than normal. I have familial cholesterol, so I have had to learn about my food. Everyone body has it's own idiosyncrasies. Some of it is natural, other parts are damage caused by environment. But we are all different. Oh yeah, and not all westerners are raised on a meat centered diet. Especially in the city where one can grow their own veggies but not meat. Bright Blessings, Kim Ken wrote: Todd, I'm really not saying highly meat centered diet... I've been through the diet gamut, vegetarianism, veganism, raw-foodism, brief flirtation with fruitarianism, for lots of years (20), . I am worried about the B-12 issue which seems to be directly related to the ammount of animal food consumed as shown in the studies. I am enamored with the philosophy of these theories...but my heros have expired at an early age, Fry, Shelton, Lovewisdom etc. etc. So I need to be realistic, I want truth in this matter...I wish, hope, we can get along without killing/taking other LIFE, but really I'm not so sure. Any dialogue appreciated. Are you and Keith co-owners/conspirators of this web??? Thanks, Ken - Original Message - From: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 7:47 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? Ken, I don't see any reference within the body of text that you site which supports any belief that a highly meat centered diet (Western diet) is necessary for human health. In fact, note was made that the levels of DHA and EPA (omega-3 poly-unsaturated fatty acids) between lacto- and/or lacto-ovo vegetarians and a meat centered Western diet were largely similar. It's rather clear that a meat centered diet (Western diet) has more to do with indoctrination and cultural acceptance than necessity to human survival. Which is fine for those who so choose. But there is little to no valid cause for making book that vegetarians or even vegans are going to start dropping in their death throes left and right. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Ken [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 6:39 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? Check out this: http://www.beyondveg.com/cat/topics/index.shtml Ken - Original Message - From: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:24 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? OkayI may be gullible enough to accept some things at face value, but this theory seriously pushes my probability limit.' Plausible? Perhaps. Harmful if tried? Uhya.right. Is that a printing press I hear in the background? Sounds like hand tooled metal plates on rag bond. B-o-h-h-h-h-h-g-u-s! I think those sounds of Westerners starving is more like a passle of whiney nosed snots who don't know what the first pang of hunger actually feels like, radically envisioning death throws within moments if they don't get a dead meat fixthe greasier the better. I suppose that federal governments are next going to step in and force organic vegetable markets to supply bottles of bovine bacteria to their customers with every ten heads of lettuceor face severe financial penalties for reckless endangerment? I'd like to see where this particular theory has been submitted for professional scrutiny. (Key word is professional here, not a bunch of home biofuel officianados.) The things some people will do to rationalize meat eating 8-( Kinda' like telling people that they can't survive without their Prozac. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Christopher Witmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 5:45 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better
Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
Keith's words below are very much in keeping with The Milk Book by William Campbell Douglass, MD: http://www.westonaprice.org/book_reviews/milk_book.html That book was a real eye-opener for me when I first read it several years ago! However, I'm sure most of it won't come as a surprise to people on this list, where there seems to be broad familiarity with the problems plaguing the modern meat and dairy industry. Christopher Witmer Tokyo Keith Addison wrote: But which particular dairy products are those, Kirk? Good clean stuff from a real dairy with milk from healthy cattle on healthy pasture, or the rBGH-laden, antibiotics-laden, over-processed, denatured stuff from badly-fed and badly-reared, diarrhoea-ridden, disease-ridden industrial beasts? You're dead right about refined carbohydrates - see Cleave, for instance: http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library.html#cleave There's no arguing with that. That and all the processing, and 5,000-odd food additives. But dairy is complicated - Cherokee's would have had a lactose-intolerance, like many people are said to have. Including the Chinese, though it's not that simple - dairy is standard fare in North China, and now in the South too, and if there are ill-health effects it comes from replacing their traditional diet with junk food, not from the dairy (though a lot of it is now industrial dairy). Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
Hello Hakan Keith, Thank you for a very good piece on the food question. As usual, you hit a lot of nails. I do want to add a couple of things and questions, - During the last 200 years, the average life span for the human have gone from 35 years to around 80 years in the industrialized countries and are still very much lower in other places. I don't have any faith in that figure, and it causes a lot of confusion. The work of Weston Price and many other investigators show it is a very one-sided statistic at best. Note the 200 years - what happened 200 years ago? The so-called Industrial Revolution (so-called because it wasn't really, mass-production long preceded it, it was an energy revolution, via steam). That's when population statistics started being recorded in earnest, and what was being measured were largely rural populations dislocated to extremely unhealthy mass-living conditions in ready-made urban slums, for use as factory fodder. And indeed they didn't live long. One thing that was totally disrupted was their diet. A lot of other things started happening round then and not long afterwards - steel-milling that denatured flour and the bread, canning and preserving, rising use of sugar and refined carbohydrates, the spread of trade foods. Looking at these same rural populations prior to their dislocation gives a quite different picture. In some instances it was not a pretty picture, mainly because of feudalism and induced poverty, but where traditional peoples were allowed to live on and off the land, people mostly lived a long time and had few ailments, and little or none of the degenerative diseases that have everywhere followed industrialization. So many times I've seen newspaper and journal articles saying something like an ancient crypt had been discovered somewhere, and researchers expected to find what you say: early deaths, poor diet, arthritic joints, bad teeth. If you take the trouble to follow them up, they find quite the opposite, to their surprise - long lives, no arthritis, full sets of healthy teeth. But the myth that we're healthier now and live longer now has such a firm grip that they're all just written off as exceptions. I've had a doctor tell me angrily: Of course we're healthier now, we have six times as many hospital beds! LOL! I burst out laughing, and he got furious. But see Weston Price - please!! http://journeytoforever.org/text_price.html What you have now in the industrialized nations is quite long life-expectancy, but not much health, and it's very expensive! Treating the symptom only, not the causes. In the countries where life-expectancy is low, it's mostly due to imposed poverty, that was not there previously. This happened usually during the colonial era, then it generally improved somewhat in the post-colonial era, and has been going backwards again since the rise of corporate globalization 20+ years ago. Poverty and environmental degradation are closely inter-related, and neither necessarily has anything to do with overpopulation (mostly another myth). Major contributors to this, was potatoes and antibiotics. Potatoes because it is one of the few food supplies that contains all what the body need and antibiotics because of its solution to the common infection problems. Potatoes are today covering up for much of the food habits in the industrial societies and give a fair survival rate for others. But the serious question is, if more than 35 years average life span is natural? If it is not, it might be a reason for much of the current problems. Personally, I find this to be a good development and if we work hard on solving the side effects in a good way, it would be responsible. See above. - Yes, it is enough food in the world, for everybody to eat. The problem is the system of distribution. If we take away the industrial food production and all the serious problems around it, we might have a general food shortage. How do we find a balance? Humanity is not known for its capacity to be balanced. Don't look at it from the top down, Hakan. Sustainable food production systems that actually feed people instead of just producing commodities for trade are making great headway in the Third World and elsewhere. It's not either-or, it's a steady, accelerating replacement. Probably most people in many Third World cities would not be fed anyway were it not for strictly local city-farming initiatives, the industrial stuff doesn't help much. Only a fraction of the potential of city-farming has yet been explored. In fact many local governments still put obstacles in its path. - Potatoes was accompanied by syphilis and we could maybe make a parallel with antibiotics and HIV. It is not a serious scientific suggestion from my side, only a side note. Nature might have its own ways of trying to fight humanity and its un-natural growth, I don't agree that human
RE: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
When you eat something and you get mucus, and you can tell because you are now clearing your throat and have enhanced drainage, why do you eat it again? Mucus is the reaction to an irritant. Seems many are oblivious to their body. How can a mucus producing substance be rationalized as healthy? Kirk But which particular dairy products are those, Kirk? Good clean stuff from a real dairy with milk from healthy cattle on healthy pasture, or the rBGH-laden, antibiotics-laden, over-processed, denatured stuff from badly-fed and badly-reared, diarrhoea-ridden, disease-ridden industrial beasts? You're dead right about refined carbohydrates - see Cleave, for instance: http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library.html#cleave There's no arguing with that. That and all the processing, and 5,000-odd food additives. But dairy is complicated - Cherokee's would have had a lactose-intolerance, like many people are said to have. Including the Chinese, though it's not that simple - dairy is standard fare in North China, and now in the South too, and if there are ill-health effects it comes from replacing their traditional diet with junk food, not from the dairy (though a lot of it is now industrial dairy). Best Keith Many Dairy cows today live without pasturage. This is true where the business is close to a city and land is too valuable to be used to grow grass. Price knew cows need green grass. As for dairy I have eliminated ice cream and milk and don't eat any cheese at the last meal of the day. Doing much better as a result. Kirk Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
At 10:25 PM 8/16/2002 +0900, you wrote: Hello Hakan Keith, Thank you for a very good piece on the food question. As usual, you hit a lot of nails. I do want to add a couple of things and questions, - During the last 200 years, the average life span for the human have gone from 35 years to around 80 years in the industrialized countries and are still very much lower in other places. I don't have any faith in that figure, and it causes a lot of confusion. The work of Weston Price and many other investigators show it is a very one-sided statistic at best. Note the 200 years - what happened 200 years ago? The so-called Industrial Revolution (so-called because it wasn't really, mass-production long preceded it, it was an energy revolution, via steam). I think that you will find the numbers about average life span well collaborated. Apart from that Europe at that time had well functioning registration of birth and death, the only thing that is needed for this. It even exist studies from that time. You will be surprised if you study engineering books published 150 years ago, I have some from my family. At least I know quite a lot of what happened in my family 200 years back. They were also involved in forest management around 150 years ago, which came from Germany. In Sweden and Ireland, the potato had already done major impacts and the average life span was well above 40. Other countries were less. That's when population statistics started being recorded in earnest, and what was being measured were largely rural populations dislocated to extremely unhealthy mass-living conditions in ready-made urban slums, for use as factory fodder. And indeed they didn't live long. One thing that was totally disrupted was their diet. A lot of other things started happening round then and not long afterwards - steel-milling that denatured flour and the bread, canning and preserving, rising use of sugar and refined carbohydrates, the spread of trade foods. Population statistics, started with Napoleon and was introduced in Europe during his reign. He was actually running the first large consulting organization in state economy/organization. With the introduction of the potato in Ireland, it tripled its population in a very short time span, lower child death and longer life. They had only one variety of potato, where other European countries used several. (The original potatoes came from the Andes in South America). When the variety that Ireland used was destroyed by a pest, it was a disaster and the start of the famous Irish potato fame. Therefore many of the Irish left for the New World. Looking at these same rural populations prior to their dislocation gives a quite different picture. In some instances it was not a pretty picture, mainly because of feudalism and induced poverty, but where traditional peoples were allowed to live on and off the land, people mostly lived a long time and had few ailments, and little or none of the degenerative diseases that have everywhere followed industrialization. The main killer, up to 70 years ago, was infections and bacteria. Degenerative diseases occurs mostly after 40 years of age and in this case we have no really reliable statistics. Many of those diseases had no names or diagnoses until the last few decades. We do not now very much, if anything, about the history of them, or if they would have occurred more frequently under same circumstances in the past. So many times I've seen newspaper and journal articles saying something like an ancient crypt had been discovered somewhere, and researchers expected to find what you say: early deaths, poor diet, arthritic joints, bad teeth. If you take the trouble to follow them up, they find quite the opposite, to their surprise - long lives, no arthritis, full sets of healthy teeth. It it possible that if you go to the special people that you find in crypts, they were amazingly healthy. The average life span for the Egyptians and Romans, was maybe longer. They had a culture of cleanliness and the big problems started with the Christians, when a clean soul was more important than a clean body. But the myth that we're healthier now and live longer now has such a firm grip that they're all just written off as exceptions. I've had a doctor tell me angrily: Of course we're healthier now, we have six times as many hospital beds! LOL! I burst out laughing, and he got furious. If you look at the living population, I do not think that you can assume that we are healthier now. Because it is so many diseases that are not fatal any longer, we probably have a lot of more both sick and ill people. It is a consequence of living longer. But see Weston Price - please!! http://journeytoforever.org/text_price.html What you have now in the industrialized nations is quite long life-expectancy, but not much health, and it's very expensive! Treating the symptom only, not the causes. Cannot agree more with this. In the countries
RE: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
200 years back we were suffering the effects of industrialization. You have to go further back than that. Many of those diseases had no names or diagnoses until the last few decades. We do not now very much, if anything, about the history of them, or if they would have occurred more frequently under same circumstances in the past. The old saw that cancer was prolific but they couldn't diagnose it stretches credulity to the max. Anyone who has ever visited an oncology ward can testify to that. To say a Dr. wouldn't know what it was staggers me, yet that is the official explanation. What Price and Pottenger said is almost universally met with denial. They have to sell us on how swell it is or we might want to drop out. As Freud said, civilization may not be worth the price. Kirk -Original Message- From: Hakan Falk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 11:18 AM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? At 10:25 PM 8/16/2002 +0900, you wrote: Hello Hakan Keith, Thank you for a very good piece on the food question. As usual, you hit a lot of nails. I do want to add a couple of things and questions, - During the last 200 years, the average life span for the human have gone from 35 years to around 80 years in the industrialized countries and are still very much lower in other places. I don't have any faith in that figure, and it causes a lot of confusion. The work of Weston Price and many other investigators show it is a very one-sided statistic at best. Note the 200 years - what happened 200 years ago? The so-called Industrial Revolution (so-called because it wasn't really, mass-production long preceded it, it was an energy revolution, via steam). I think that you will find the numbers about average life span well collaborated. Apart from that Europe at that time had well functioning registration of birth and death, the only thing that is needed for this. It even exist studies from that time. You will be surprised if you study engineering books published 150 years ago, I have some from my family. At least I know quite a lot of what happened in my family 200 years back. They were also involved in forest management around 150 years ago, which came from Germany. In Sweden and Ireland, the potato had already done major impacts and the average life span was well above 40. Other countries were less. That's when population statistics started being recorded in earnest, and what was being measured were largely rural populations dislocated to extremely unhealthy mass-living conditions in ready-made urban slums, for use as factory fodder. And indeed they didn't live long. One thing that was totally disrupted was their diet. A lot of other things started happening round then and not long afterwards - steel-milling that denatured flour and the bread, canning and preserving, rising use of sugar and refined carbohydrates, the spread of trade foods. Population statistics, started with Napoleon and was introduced in Europe during his reign. He was actually running the first large consulting organization in state economy/organization. With the introduction of the potato in Ireland, it tripled its population in a very short time span, lower child death and longer life. They had only one variety of potato, where other European countries used several. (The original potatoes came from the Andes in South America). When the variety that Ireland used was destroyed by a pest, it was a disaster and the start of the famous Irish potato fame. Therefore many of the Irish left for the New World. Looking at these same rural populations prior to their dislocation gives a quite different picture. In some instances it was not a pretty picture, mainly because of feudalism and induced poverty, but where traditional peoples were allowed to live on and off the land, people mostly lived a long time and had few ailments, and little or none of the degenerative diseases that have everywhere followed industrialization. The main killer, up to 70 years ago, was infections and bacteria. Degenerative diseases occurs mostly after 40 years of age and in this case we have no really reliable statistics. Many of those diseases had no names or diagnoses until the last few decades. We do not now very much, if anything, about the history of them, or if they would have occurred more frequently under same circumstances in the past. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info
Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
The end of the human race will be that we eventually die of civilization. Ralph Waldo Emerson - Original Message - From: kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 3:41 PM Subject: RE: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? [snip] As Freud said, civilization may not be worth the price. Kirk -Original Message- From: Hakan Falk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 11:18 AM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? At 10:25 PM 8/16/2002 +0900, you wrote: Hello Hakan Keith, Thank you for a very good piece on the food question. As usual, you hit a lot of nails. I do want to add a couple of things and questions, - During the last 200 years, the average life span for the human have gone from 35 years to around 80 years in the industrialized countries and are still very much lower in other places. I don't have any faith in that figure, and it causes a lot of confusion. The work of Weston Price and many other investigators show it is a very one-sided statistic at best. Note the 200 years - what happened 200 years ago? The so-called Industrial Revolution (so-called because it wasn't really, mass-production long preceded it, it was an energy revolution, via steam). I think that you will find the numbers about average life span well collaborated. Apart from that Europe at that time had well functioning registration of birth and death, the only thing that is needed for this. It even exist studies from that time. You will be surprised if you study engineering books published 150 years ago, I have some from my family. At least I know quite a lot of what happened in my family 200 years back. They were also involved in forest management around 150 years ago, which came from Germany. In Sweden and Ireland, the potato had already done major impacts and the average life span was well above 40. Other countries were less. That's when population statistics started being recorded in earnest, and what was being measured were largely rural populations dislocated to extremely unhealthy mass-living conditions in ready-made urban slums, for use as factory fodder. And indeed they didn't live long. One thing that was totally disrupted was their diet. A lot of other things started happening round then and not long afterwards - steel-milling that denatured flour and the bread, canning and preserving, rising use of sugar and refined carbohydrates, the spread of trade foods. Population statistics, started with Napoleon and was introduced in Europe during his reign. He was actually running the first large consulting organization in state economy/organization. With the introduction of the potato in Ireland, it tripled its population in a very short time span, lower child death and longer life. They had only one variety of potato, where other European countries used several. (The original potatoes came from the Andes in South America). When the variety that Ireland used was destroyed by a pest, it was a disaster and the start of the famous Irish potato fame. Therefore many of the Irish left for the New World. Looking at these same rural populations prior to their dislocation gives a quite different picture. In some instances it was not a pretty picture, mainly because of feudalism and induced poverty, but where traditional peoples were allowed to live on and off the land, people mostly lived a long time and had few ailments, and little or none of the degenerative diseases that have everywhere followed industrialization. The main killer, up to 70 years ago, was infections and bacteria. Degenerative diseases occurs mostly after 40 years of age and in this case we have no really reliable statistics. Many of those diseases had no names or diagnoses until the last few decades. We do not now very much, if anything, about the history of them, or if they would have occurred more frequently under same circumstances in the past. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM --- --~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http
Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
Kim, CBA.Cost Benefit Analysiswith costs other than economic being the motivator. Can you heat your water with renewable resources (animal fat, veg oil, biomass)? Then steam is the answer with less chemicals. Are you obligated to fossil fuels to generate steam? Then it's possible that no steam and the light use of chemicals has less impact. Or you could go vegan and turn the butcher shop into a summer kitchen. Move the bandsaw into the woodshop. And move what manure into the soil? Big difference too between a mowing machine and a ruminant, between a pig and a plough, between poultry and pesticides. Some people really hate it (and hate me) when I say these things, but there is no sustainable way of raising plants without animals. There is no traditional farming system that doesn't used animals, and never has been. It just doesn't work - soil fertility sooner or later fails, and then everything else fails too. Likewise in nature mixed farming is the rule, plants are always found with animals. God can't do it, and neither can we. Mixed farming does NOT mean miles of monocrop grains on one side of the fence and an intensive pig/chicken/turkey/beef farm (factory) on the other, with its shit-lagoon. But I know you know that, and so does Kim. Best Keith As for your neighbors, they could always get into downdraft wood gasification, using their brush piles that have been chipped. Benefits? Heat for space, hot water or processes. Electricity and/or transportation. http://www.gocpc.com/products/our_products.htm Lead with your head and your conscience. Your wallet will follow. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Kim Garth Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 8:06 AM Subject: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? It seems sometimes, that each group of environmentalists has their own agenda and that trying to make a selection amongst the choices is very difficult. For example: In doing heavy duty cleaning, such as cleaning my butcher shop; Is it better to use the chemicals and the bleach or the steam cleaners? I know chlorine is feminizing the environment and is real bad for a septic system [my grey water] and I imagine the rest of the antibacterial cleaners are about the same. So is using electricity bad for the environment. Or: Is it better to rescue wood from brush piles that were to be burned, then burn it in a HAHSA and add a little electricity in the form of recirculating pumps and use it for heat and hot water, or let the piles be burned and use propane to heat? The problem here is that while my neighbors may eventually get more environmentally sound [I wish] and quit burning brush piles, but I will be locked into burning wood. Is anyone else interested in this kind of debate? Bright Blessings, Kim Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
Keith and Kim, Personally? I'd settle for a few goats and chickens. And when need be, put the sharpest kitchen knife to butchering use. Not exactly what anyone who owns a butcher shop wants to hear, but centralized meat processing is one reason why the world consumes so much meat. Literally 99.99% of western [un]civilization has been desensitized to the process via their removal from it. Were everyone who ate meat forced to kill and clean their own, you can bank on the fact that there would be considerably fewer cattle on the face of the Earth, erego considerably more forest. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 6:16 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? Kim, CBA.Cost Benefit Analysiswith costs other than economic being the motivator. Can you heat your water with renewable resources (animal fat, veg oil, biomass)? Then steam is the answer with less chemicals. Are you obligated to fossil fuels to generate steam? Then it's possible that no steam and the light use of chemicals has less impact. Or you could go vegan and turn the butcher shop into a summer kitchen. Move the bandsaw into the woodshop. And move what manure into the soil? Big difference too between a mowing machine and a ruminant, between a pig and a plough, between poultry and pesticides. Some people really hate it (and hate me) when I say these things, but there is no sustainable way of raising plants without animals. There is no traditional farming system that doesn't used animals, and never has been. It just doesn't work - soil fertility sooner or later fails, and then everything else fails too. Likewise in nature mixed farming is the rule, plants are always found with animals. God can't do it, and neither can we. Mixed farming does NOT mean miles of monocrop grains on one side of the fence and an intensive pig/chicken/turkey/beef farm (factory) on the other, with its shit-lagoon. But I know you know that, and so does Kim. Best Keith As for your neighbors, they could always get into downdraft wood gasification, using their brush piles that have been chipped. Benefits? Heat for space, hot water or processes. Electricity and/or transportation. http://www.gocpc.com/products/our_products.htm Lead with your head and your conscience. Your wallet will follow. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Kim Garth Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 8:06 AM Subject: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? It seems sometimes, that each group of environmentalists has their own agenda and that trying to make a selection amongst the choices is very difficult. For example: In doing heavy duty cleaning, such as cleaning my butcher shop; Is it better to use the chemicals and the bleach or the steam cleaners? I know chlorine is feminizing the environment and is real bad for a septic system [my grey water] and I imagine the rest of the antibacterial cleaners are about the same. So is using electricity bad for the environment. Or: Is it better to rescue wood from brush piles that were to be burned, then burn it in a HAHSA and add a little electricity in the form of recirculating pumps and use it for heat and hot water, or let the piles be burned and use propane to heat? The problem here is that while my neighbors may eventually get more environmentally sound [I wish] and quit burning brush piles, but I will be locked into burning wood. Is anyone else interested in this kind of debate? Bright Blessings, Kim Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
I am talking about my personal butcher shop. I also use the same facility to make cheese, so cleanliness is vital. All of my ruminants will be strictly grass fed, when I get them. For now I buy on hoof from a certified grassfed farm. My birds are all on the range, emus, ducks, geese and chickens. My pigs are on concrete, but only so I can get something else done on the farm other than repenning them and fixing their pen. I am slow at bringing in ruminants, since I had to rebuild my soil to support them, I bought an old cotton, corn, then cattle farm. Out of curiosity, have you ever tried to butcher a goat with just a knife? Cutting through the backbone is hard enough with a hand held [muscle powered] meat saw, I wouldn't want to try it with a knife. What is wrong with have a meat saw? Some of my neighbors have started to butcher their own animals, at my place, using my equipment. This feeds the vultures and fire ants, not just the humans. Not everyone can stay healthy on a vegan diet. While I don't eat a lot of meat, I do require a 6 ounce serving, five times a week. Even the doctors that pushed the vegan diet have come to recognize this fact. I have a friend who is bipolar and she has to live on the high protein Adkins [sp?] diet, the drugs have given her problems with carbohydrates. Besides, my husband and I don't create enough manure to revitalize 20 acres, we need the help of our animals. Bright Blessings, Kim Appal Energy wrote: Keith and Kim, Personally? I'd settle for a few goats and chickens. And when need be, put the sharpest kitchen knife to butchering use. Not exactly what anyone who owns a butcher shop wants to hear, but centralized meat processing is one reason why the world consumes so much meat. Literally 99.99% of western [un]civilization has been desensitized to the process via their removal from it. Were everyone who ate meat forced to kill and clean their own, you can bank on the fact that there would be considerably fewer cattle on the face of the Earth, erego considerably more forest. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 6:16 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? Kim, CBA.Cost Benefit Analysiswith costs other than economic being the motivator. Can you heat your water with renewable resources (animal fat, veg oil, biomass)? Then steam is the answer with less chemicals. Are you obligated to fossil fuels to generate steam? Then it's possible that no steam and the light use of chemicals has less impact. Or you could go vegan and turn the butcher shop into a summer kitchen. Move the bandsaw into the woodshop. And move what manure into the soil? Big difference too between a mowing machine and a ruminant, between a pig and a plough, between poultry and pesticides. Some people really hate it (and hate me) when I say these things, but there is no sustainable way of raising plants without animals. There is no traditional farming system that doesn't used animals, and never has been. It just doesn't work - soil fertility sooner or later fails, and then everything else fails too. Likewise in nature mixed farming is the rule, plants are always found with animals. God can't do it, and neither can we. Mixed farming does NOT mean miles of monocrop grains on one side of the fence and an intensive pig/chicken/turkey/beef farm (factory) on the other, with its shit-lagoon. But I know you know that, and so does Kim. Best Keith As for your neighbors, they could always get into downdraft wood gasification, using their brush piles that have been chipped. Benefits? Heat for space, hot water or processes. Electricity and/or transportation. http://www.gocpc.com/products/our_products.htm Lead with your head and your conscience. Your wallet will follow. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Kim Garth Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 8:06 AM Subject: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? It seems sometimes, that each group of environmentalists has their own agenda and that trying to make a selection amongst the choices is very difficult. For example: In doing heavy duty cleaning, such as cleaning my butcher shop; Is it better to use the chemicals and the bleach or the steam cleaners? I know chlorine is feminizing the environment and is real bad for a septic system [my grey water] and I imagine the rest of the antibacterial cleaners are about the same. So is using electricity bad for the environment. Or: Is it better to rescue wood from brush piles that were
Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
http://www.beyondveg.com/ More on that, and believe me I've tried... Ken Not everyone can stay healthy on a vegan diet. While I don't eat a lot of meat, I do require a 6 ounce serving, five times a week. Even the doctors that pushed the vegan diet have come to recognize this fact. I have a friend who is bipolar and she has to live on the high protein Adkins [sp?] diet, the drugs have given her problems with carbohydrates. Besides, my husband and I don't create enough manure to revitalize 20 acres, we need the help of our animals. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
Keith and Kim, Personally? I'd settle for a few goats and chickens. Not enough, if you're producing crops for your family and for sale. And when need be, put the sharpest kitchen knife to butchering use. Not exactly what anyone who owns a butcher shop wants to hear, but centralized meat processing is one reason why the world consumes so much meat. I don't think Kim is doing anything remotely like centralized meat processing. That's the worst of all worlds, for the animals and for the consumers, and those animals are generally raised with high environment costs, externalized of course. Literally 99.99% of western [un]civilization has been desensitized to the process via their removal from it. That's only the West though, and I think the number's too high anyway. Were everyone who ate meat forced to kill and clean their own, you can bank on the fact that there would be considerably fewer cattle on the face of the Earth, erego considerably more forest. No, I don't agree with this. First, most of the world's people are not as divorced from it all as you think, a great many aren't divorced from it at all, and never have been. Western city-dwellers who take to the land don't seem to mind the butchery part of it at all - bit of a trauma the first time maybe, but they quickly get used to it. I follow the doings of American homesteaders, new homesteaders, would-be homesteaders, quite a lot, and it's not a major subject, surprisingly minor. Grassland - grazing land - and forests are opposites, as you indicate. Take the grazing animals away and the grass reverts to forest, eventually, through several stages. There have been several studies that found that grassland and pasture hold more carbon than forests do. I think it depends on the pasture, and on the forest, but there's probably not a big difference either way. On a mixed, integrated farm, the cattle (beef and dairy produce) are a by-product. The primary product of the grassland is soil fertility. You rotate the grass leys over the whole farm; the grass sod, ploughed in, provides more than enough fertility for 3-4 years of subsequent cropping. Trees are an integral part of a mixed farm - there are woodlots and orchards (plus livestock), hedges, and trees in the fields and everywhere else. There are no either-or's here, no externalizations, and it's perfectly sustainable. If you're talking about industrialized operations, I agree with you, but please don't confuse the two things. Take a guess what the main grazing animal of Europe is. Cattle? Sheep? The vole. Regards Keith Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 6:16 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? Kim, CBA.Cost Benefit Analysiswith costs other than economic being the motivator. Can you heat your water with renewable resources (animal fat, veg oil, biomass)? Then steam is the answer with less chemicals. Are you obligated to fossil fuels to generate steam? Then it's possible that no steam and the light use of chemicals has less impact. Or you could go vegan and turn the butcher shop into a summer kitchen. Move the bandsaw into the woodshop. And move what manure into the soil? Big difference too between a mowing machine and a ruminant, between a pig and a plough, between poultry and pesticides. Some people really hate it (and hate me) when I say these things, but there is no sustainable way of raising plants without animals. There is no traditional farming system that doesn't used animals, and never has been. It just doesn't work - soil fertility sooner or later fails, and then everything else fails too. Likewise in nature mixed farming is the rule, plants are always found with animals. God can't do it, and neither can we. Mixed farming does NOT mean miles of monocrop grains on one side of the fence and an intensive pig/chicken/turkey/beef farm (factory) on the other, with its shit-lagoon. But I know you know that, and so does Kim. Best Keith As for your neighbors, they could always get into downdraft wood gasification, using their brush piles that have been chipped. Benefits? Heat for space, hot water or processes. Electricity and/or transportation. http://www.gocpc.com/products/our_products.htm Lead with your head and your conscience. Your wallet will follow. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Kim Garth Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 8:06 AM Subject: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? It seems sometimes, that each group of environmentalists has their own agenda and that trying to make a selection amongst the choices is very difficult. For example: In doing heavy duty cleaning, such as cleaning my
Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
Kim, Can't say as I've butchered a goat with the kitchen knife yet. But I have done so with a white tail - sans back saw. Was and wasn't kidding about moving the bandsaw to the woodshop though. But then that would only be if there was no longer a need for it in the butcher shop. I guess I had the picture of something more akin to a butcher shop as a going concern, not a summer kitchen. By design we're rather lucky here, as we have little demand for meat beyond the occasional addition in a chef salad, soup or stew. Oddly enough, no one has reached withering status here yet or gone into fits of delirium whilst craving a sausage egg and cheese biscuit. However, I will confess. When it comes to eggs we've moved towards centralized production, as we don't consume enough to warrant keeping the first hen, much less maintaining a coop . Seems that trading services in exchange for a dozen or so eggs from a neighbor now and then is about the extent of the household needs. Still rather partial to the whole successionary idea, however - letting over-produced land return to the wild grass or forest that it once was. It takes far less space and effort to feed a human being with a less meat centered diet. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Kim Garth Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 9:49 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? I am talking about my personal butcher shop. I also use the same facility to make cheese, so cleanliness is vital. All of my ruminants will be strictly grass fed, when I get them. For now I buy on hoof from a certified grassfed farm. My birds are all on the range, emus, ducks, geese and chickens. My pigs are on concrete, but only so I can get something else done on the farm other than repenning them and fixing their pen. I am slow at bringing in ruminants, since I had to rebuild my soil to support them, I bought an old cotton, corn, then cattle farm. Out of curiosity, have you ever tried to butcher a goat with just a knife? Cutting through the backbone is hard enough with a hand held [muscle powered] meat saw, I wouldn't want to try it with a knife. What is wrong with have a meat saw? Some of my neighbors have started to butcher their own animals, at my place, using my equipment. This feeds the vultures and fire ants, not just the humans. Not everyone can stay healthy on a vegan diet. While I don't eat a lot of meat, I do require a 6 ounce serving, five times a week. Even the doctors that pushed the vegan diet have come to recognize this fact. I have a friend who is bipolar and she has to live on the high protein Adkins [sp?] diet, the drugs have given her problems with carbohydrates. Besides, my husband and I don't create enough manure to revitalize 20 acres, we need the help of our animals. Bright Blessings, Kim Appal Energy wrote: Keith and Kim, Personally? I'd settle for a few goats and chickens. And when need be, put the sharpest kitchen knife to butchering use. Not exactly what anyone who owns a butcher shop wants to hear, but centralized meat processing is one reason why the world consumes so much meat. Literally 99.99% of western [un]civilization has been desensitized to the process via their removal from it. Were everyone who ate meat forced to kill and clean their own, you can bank on the fact that there would be considerably fewer cattle on the face of the Earth, erego considerably more forest. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 6:16 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? Kim, CBA.Cost Benefit Analysiswith costs other than economic being the motivator. Can you heat your water with renewable resources (animal fat, veg oil, biomass)? Then steam is the answer with less chemicals. Are you obligated to fossil fuels to generate steam? Then it's possible that no steam and the light use of chemicals has less impact. Or you could go vegan and turn the butcher shop into a summer kitchen. Move the bandsaw into the woodshop. And move what manure into the soil? Big difference too between a mowing machine and a ruminant, between a pig and a plough, between poultry and pesticides. Some people really hate it (and hate me) when I say these things, but there is no sustainable way of raising plants without animals. There is no traditional farming system that doesn't used animals, and never has been. It just doesn't work - soil fertility sooner or later fails, and then everything else fails too. Likewise in nature mixed farming is the rule, plants are always found with animals. God can't do it, and neither can we. Mixed farming does NOT mean miles
Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
- Original Message - From: Kim Garth Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 07:49 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? Besides, my husband and I don't create enough manure to revitalize 20 acres, we need the help of our animals. Actualy you still may be in good condition to better the soil, on your farm. From you buchering opperation, the skin, hair, feathers and guts are high in Nitrogen, the bones can be ground up and will provide a little Nitrogen, plenty of Calicum as well as some Potassium, and Phospherous. If you burn the bone, ( need a hot fire ) it will decrease the amount of N, but, it will make it easier to grind, and if you use hard wood to burn it and use the ashes, you will add more Potassium, as well as some other macro, and, some micro nutrents. Wood ashes has a limeing effect on soil ( but, you need more to obtain the same amount ), but, adds the extra nutrents as well. Check out Kura Clover, at this web site ( I think you will like what you see ), it is about useing Kura Clover as a living mulch: http://agron.scijournals.org/cgi/mjgca?sendit=Get+All+Checked+Abstract%28s%2 9SEARCHID=1029430130370_860TITLEABSTRACT=Kura+clover%2CLiving+Mulch+JOURN ALCODE=FIRSTINDEX=0hits=10RESULTFORMAT=gca=agrojnl%3B92%2F4%2F698 Greg H. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
No problem, I am planning on getting my own small farm/ranch in the next 5-10 yrs., mean while I have been busy doing the learing now. If you have more questions/problems, let me know, I might just have an answer. Greg H. - Original Message - From: Kim Garth Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:01 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? Thanks for the information. I generally brain tan the skins, but using the rest I had not thought of, other than to feed the buzzards, that is. Bright Blessings, Kim Greg and April wrote: - Original Message - From: Kim Garth Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 07:49 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? Besides, my husband and I don't create enough manure to revitalize 20 acres, we need the help of our animals. Actualy you still may be in good condition to better the soil, on your farm. From you buchering opperation, the skin, hair, feathers and guts are high in Nitrogen, the bones can be ground up and will provide a little Nitrogen, plenty of Calicum as well as some Potassium, and Phospherous. If you burn the bone, ( need a hot fire ) it will decrease the amount of N, but, it will make it easier to grind, and if you use hard wood to burn it and use the ashes, you will add more Potassium, as well as some other macro, and, some micro nutrents. Wood ashes has a limeing effect on soil ( but, you need more to obtain the same amount ), but, adds the extra nutrents as well. Check out Kura Clover, at this web site ( I think you will like what you see ), it is about useing Kura Clover as a living mulch: http://agron.scijournals.org/cgi/mjgca?sendit=Get+All+Checked+Abstract%28s%2 9SEARCHID=1029430130370_860TITLEABSTRACT=Kura+clover%2CLiving+Mulch+JOURN ALCODE=FIRSTINDEX=0hits=10RESULTFORMAT=gca=agrojnl%3B92%2F4%2F698 Greg H. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ex/expert_city/300x250_youh1.gif http://rd.yahoo.com/M=231049.2208958.3660596.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=17050832 69:HM/A=1175219/R=0/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/grp/300_youH1/g22lp?Tar get=mm/g22lp.tmpl Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
Thanks for the information. I generally brain tan the skins, but using the rest I had not thought of, other than to feed the buzzards, that is. Bright Blessings, Kim Greg and April wrote: - Original Message - From: Kim Garth Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 07:49 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? Besides, my husband and I don't create enough manure to revitalize 20 acres, we need the help of our animals. Actualy you still may be in good condition to better the soil, on your farm. From you buchering opperation, the skin, hair, feathers and guts are high in Nitrogen, the bones can be ground up and will provide a little Nitrogen, plenty of Calicum as well as some Potassium, and Phospherous. If you burn the bone, ( need a hot fire ) it will decrease the amount of N, but, it will make it easier to grind, and if you use hard wood to burn it and use the ashes, you will add more Potassium, as well as some other macro, and, some micro nutrents. Wood ashes has a limeing effect on soil ( but, you need more to obtain the same amount ), but, adds the extra nutrents as well. Check out Kura Clover, at this web site ( I think you will like what you see ), it is about useing Kura Clover as a living mulch: http://agron.scijournals.org/cgi/mjgca?sendit=Get+All+Checked+Abstract%28s%2 9SEARCHID=1029430130370_860TITLEABSTRACT=Kura+clover%2CLiving+Mulch+JOURN ALCODE=FIRSTINDEX=0hits=10RESULTFORMAT=gca=agrojnl%3B92%2F4%2F698 Greg H. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ex/expert_city/300x250_youh1.gif http://rd.yahoo.com/M=231049.2208958.3660596.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705083269:HM/A=1175219/R=0/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/grp/300_youH1/g22lp?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
Keith wrote: There have been several studies that found that grassland and pasture hold more carbon than forests do. I think it depends on the pasture, and on the forest, but there's probably not a big difference either way. MH wrote: I've heard of similar studies suggesting root growth from various grasses exceed above ground growth effectively storing CO2. Trees, generally, on the other hand might produce more O2 but their growth above ground exceeds root growth thus slowly releasing CO2 during natural decomposition. Having read prior to the formation of a glacial period trees defoliate eventually replaced by grasses, assuming on my part, to sequester CO2 that may have caused or contributed to prior bouts with global warming and wild fires encouraging regrowth provided their drought tolerant. I'm guessing this is theory based on scientific facts and would welcome additional information and corrections. Thank you. `` Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
Some people are able to thrive on diets containing such extremely low levels of animal protein that most Westerners would starve to death on them. The people that thrive have different intestinal bacteria than meat-eating Westerners; the bacteria digest the vegetable matter and then the people digest the bacteria, which turn out to be their source of complete protein. If one eats a high animal protein diet those particular bacteria will be replaced by a different set of bacteria, and it will no longer be possible to get the necessary nutrition from vegetables alone. It is probably possible to change one's intestinal bacteria to those conducive to surviving on a non-animal diet, but it is not going to be easy. What is easy is harming one's health by trying. Christopher Witmer Tokyo Ken wrote: http://www.beyondveg.com/ More on that, and believe me I've tried... Ken Not everyone can stay healthy on a vegan diet. While I don't eat a lot of meat, I do require a 6 ounce serving, five times a week. Even the doctors that pushed the vegan diet have come to recognize this fact. I have a friend who is bipolar and she has to live on the high protein Adkins [sp?] diet, the drugs have given her problems with carbohydrates. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
Check out this: http://www.beyondveg.com/cat/topics/index.shtml Ken - Original Message - From: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:24 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? OkayI may be gullible enough to accept some things at face value, but this theory seriously pushes my probability limit.' Plausible? Perhaps. Harmful if tried? Uhya.right. Is that a printing press I hear in the background? Sounds like hand tooled metal plates on rag bond. B-o-h-h-h-h-h-g-u-s! I think those sounds of Westerners starving is more like a passle of whiney nosed snots who don't know what the first pang of hunger actually feels like, radically envisioning death throws within moments if they don't get a dead meat fixthe greasier the better. I suppose that federal governments are next going to step in and force organic vegetable markets to supply bottles of bovine bacteria to their customers with every ten heads of lettuceor face severe financial penalties for reckless endangerment? I'd like to see where this particular theory has been submitted for professional scrutiny. (Key word is professional here, not a bunch of home biofuel officianados.) The things some people will do to rationalize meat eating 8-( Kinda' like telling people that they can't survive without their Prozac. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Christopher Witmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 5:45 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? Some people are able to thrive on diets containing such extremely low levels of animal protein that most Westerners would starve to death on them. The people that thrive have different intestinal bacteria than meat-eating Westerners; the bacteria digest the vegetable matter and then the people digest the bacteria, which turn out to be their source of complete protein. If one eats a high animal protein diet those particular bacteria will be replaced by a different set of bacteria, and it will no longer be possible to get the necessary nutrition from vegetables alone. It is probably possible to change one's intestinal bacteria to those conducive to surviving on a non-animal diet, but it is not going to be easy. What is easy is harming one's health by trying. Christopher Witmer Tokyo Ken wrote: http://www.beyondveg.com/ More on that, and believe me I've tried... Ken Not everyone can stay healthy on a vegan diet. While I don't eat a lot of meat, I do require a 6 ounce serving, five times a week. Even the doctors that pushed the vegan diet have come to recognize this fact. I have a friend who is bipolar and she has to live on the high protein Adkins [sp?] diet, the drugs have given her problems with carbohydrates. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
Todd, In a rare twist, it is a lot easier to find information on this in Japanese Internet than in English; this may be due to Japanese researchers' language limitations. Japanese-only link at Chiba University: http://photo-m.tp.chiba-u.ac.jp/~adeno/sci/bio.htm I first heard about this on a Japanese television program -- Japanese-only link to the television program's webpage on this subject: http://www.ntv.co.jp/FERC/research/19980208/f0518.html I wasn't able to find anything in English on the Internet, although I did find passing references to one of the key studies in this area: Bergersen, F.J. and E.H. Hipsley (1970). The presence of N2 - fixing bacteria in the intestines of man and animals. Journal of Tropical Pediatrics 11: 28-34. To summarize the theory, the Papua highlander diet consists primarily of yams and taro (average of about 1.5kg per day), from which they are able to *directly* assimilate only 15g of protein. The amount of directly assimilated protein is simply insufficient to maintain their heavy musculature (and these people tend to be very muscular) let alone the minimum level needed for survival over time. A professor Mitsuoka of Tokyo University theorizes that the intestinal flora of the Papua highlander are different from those of peoples accustomed to eating meat. Indeed, when people from outside the region try to eat the Papua highlander diet, they suffer from extreme flatulence, to the great amusement of the Papua highlanders, who have very little or none. Conversely, consumption of pork can make Papua highlanders ill, sometimes fatally so, whilst people accustomed to eating meat suffer from no ill effects. Analysis of feces of Papua highlanders reveals total nitrogen content to be double that of the pre-assimilated food. This increase is in all likelihood due to the presence of nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the intestines of Papua highlanders. (Apparently the same sorts of bacteria associated with leguminous nitrogen fixation are taking atmospheric nitrogen and fixing it in the intestines of the Papua highlanders.) These bacteria then in turn become the source of adequate protein for the Papua highlanders. Another possibility is that ammonia is somehow being converted into protein (pigs and cows have this ability); Papua highlander feces are found to have twice the ammonia content of Japanese. It is suspected -- though hardly conclusively proven -- that half of the protein in the Papua highlander diet comes directly from yams and taro, and the other half from nitrogen fixing bacteria and/or ammonia conversion. Otherwise, it is hard to explain how these people are able to survive. Reportedly, it is possible to for meat eaters to adjust to the Papua highlander diet; however, it takes half a year for the intestinal environment to get to the point where adequate nutrition can be derived. (You can feel free to draw your own conclusions about whether this theory constitutes rationalization of meat eating.) Christopher Witmer Tokyo Appal Energy wrote: OkayI may be gullible enough to accept some things at face value, but this theory seriously pushes my probability limit.' Plausible? Perhaps. Harmful if tried? Uhya.right. Is that a printing press I hear in the background? Sounds like hand tooled metal plates on rag bond. B-o-h-h-h-h-h-g-u-s! I think those sounds of Westerners starving is more like a passle of whiney nosed snots who don't know what the first pang of hunger actually feels like, radically envisioning death throws within moments if they don't get a dead meat fixthe greasier the better. I suppose that federal governments are next going to step in and force organic vegetable markets to supply bottles of bovine bacteria to their customers with every ten heads of lettuceor face severe financial penalties for reckless endangerment? I'd like to see where this particular theory has been submitted for professional scrutiny. (Key word is professional here, not a bunch of home biofuel officianados.) The things some people will do to rationalize meat eating 8-( Kinda' like telling people that they can't survive without their Prozac. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Christopher Witmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 5:45 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? Some people are able to thrive on diets containing such extremely low levels of animal protein that most Westerners would starve to death on them. The people that thrive have different intestinal bacteria than meat-eating Westerners; the bacteria digest the vegetable matter and then the people digest the bacteria, which turn out to be their source of complete protein. If one eats a high animal protein diet those particular bacteria will be replaced by a different set of bacteria
Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
Ken, I don't see any reference within the body of text that you site which supports any belief that a highly meat centered diet (Western diet) is necessary for human health. In fact, note was made that the levels of DHA and EPA (omega-3 poly-unsaturated fatty acids) between lacto- and/or lacto-ovo vegetarians and a meat centered Western diet were largely similar. It's rather clear that a meat centered diet (Western diet) has more to do with indoctrination and cultural acceptance than necessity to human survival. Which is fine for those who so choose. But there is little to no valid cause for making book that vegetarians or even vegans are going to start dropping in their death throes left and right. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Ken [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 6:39 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? Check out this: http://www.beyondveg.com/cat/topics/index.shtml Ken - Original Message - From: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:24 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? OkayI may be gullible enough to accept some things at face value, but this theory seriously pushes my probability limit.' Plausible? Perhaps. Harmful if tried? Uhya.right. Is that a printing press I hear in the background? Sounds like hand tooled metal plates on rag bond. B-o-h-h-h-h-h-g-u-s! I think those sounds of Westerners starving is more like a passle of whiney nosed snots who don't know what the first pang of hunger actually feels like, radically envisioning death throws within moments if they don't get a dead meat fixthe greasier the better. I suppose that federal governments are next going to step in and force organic vegetable markets to supply bottles of bovine bacteria to their customers with every ten heads of lettuceor face severe financial penalties for reckless endangerment? I'd like to see where this particular theory has been submitted for professional scrutiny. (Key word is professional here, not a bunch of home biofuel officianados.) The things some people will do to rationalize meat eating 8-( Kinda' like telling people that they can't survive without their Prozac. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Christopher Witmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 5:45 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? Some people are able to thrive on diets containing such extremely low levels of animal protein that most Westerners would starve to death on them. The people that thrive have different intestinal bacteria than meat-eating Westerners; the bacteria digest the vegetable matter and then the people digest the bacteria, which turn out to be their source of complete protein. If one eats a high animal protein diet those particular bacteria will be replaced by a different set of bacteria, and it will no longer be possible to get the necessary nutrition from vegetables alone. It is probably possible to change one's intestinal bacteria to those conducive to surviving on a non-animal diet, but it is not going to be easy. What is easy is harming one's health by trying. Christopher Witmer Tokyo Ken wrote: http://www.beyondveg.com/ More on that, and believe me I've tried... Ken Not everyone can stay healthy on a vegan diet. While I don't eat a lot of meat, I do require a 6 ounce serving, five times a week. Even the doctors that pushed the vegan diet have come to recognize this fact. I have a friend who is bipolar and she has to live on the high protein Adkins [sp?] diet, the drugs have given her problems with carbohydrates. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list
Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
Well Chris, I'll tell ya' this. All that beneficial meat processing bacteria is certainly not doing its job as efficiently as one would be led to believe, considering the several pounds of undigested meat found in the lower intestinal track and colon of dead meat eaters [Western diet meat-eaters who have died] (Diet for a New America, John Robbins). Yes, it's rather easy to see that different diets in different environments would be metabolized in variant fashions and would take some indeterminant period to completely adjust to. After all, every living thing is one big biological and chemical equation. Try going from 3,000' on any diet to 14,000 feet over night and see if you get fully acclimatized before a two week period has passed, no matter how much your continual fluid uptake. If your body and your mind are accustomed to something, they will certainly take notice of its absence or any deviation from it. I think the part I had most difficulty with was the suggestion with such certainty that a departure from a heavily meat concentrated diet (Western diet) would create harm, perhaps catastrophically. What is easy is harming one's health by trying. I suppose that's why I'm getting older by the day.If I had only visited the meat counter with greater frequency this never would have happened. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Christopher Witmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 8:54 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? Todd, In a rare twist, it is a lot easier to find information on this in Japanese Internet than in English; this may be due to Japanese researchers' language limitations. Japanese-only link at Chiba University: http://photo-m.tp.chiba-u.ac.jp/~adeno/sci/bio.htm I first heard about this on a Japanese television program -- Japanese-only link to the television program's webpage on this subject: http://www.ntv.co.jp/FERC/research/19980208/f0518.html I wasn't able to find anything in English on the Internet, although I did find passing references to one of the key studies in this area: Bergersen, F.J. and E.H. Hipsley (1970). The presence of N2 - fixing bacteria in the intestines of man and animals. Journal of Tropical Pediatrics 11: 28-34. To summarize the theory, the Papua highlander diet consists primarily of yams and taro (average of about 1.5kg per day), from which they are able to *directly* assimilate only 15g of protein. The amount of directly assimilated protein is simply insufficient to maintain their heavy musculature (and these people tend to be very muscular) let alone the minimum level needed for survival over time. A professor Mitsuoka of Tokyo University theorizes that the intestinal flora of the Papua highlander are different from those of peoples accustomed to eating meat. Indeed, when people from outside the region try to eat the Papua highlander diet, they suffer from extreme flatulence, to the great amusement of the Papua highlanders, who have very little or none. Conversely, consumption of pork can make Papua highlanders ill, sometimes fatally so, whilst people accustomed to eating meat suffer from no ill effects. Analysis of feces of Papua highlanders reveals total nitrogen content to be double that of the pre-assimilated food. This increase is in all likelihood due to the presence of nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the intestines of Papua highlanders. (Apparently the same sorts of bacteria associated with leguminous nitrogen fixation are taking atmospheric nitrogen and fixing it in the intestines of the Papua highlanders.) These bacteria then in turn become the source of adequate protein for the Papua highlanders. Another possibility is that ammonia is somehow being converted into protein (pigs and cows have this ability); Papua highlander feces are found to have twice the ammonia content of Japanese. It is suspected -- though hardly conclusively proven -- that half of the protein in the Papua highlander diet comes directly from yams and taro, and the other half from nitrogen fixing bacteria and/or ammonia conversion. Otherwise, it is hard to explain how these people are able to survive. Reportedly, it is possible to for meat eaters to adjust to the Papua highlander diet; however, it takes half a year for the intestinal environment to get to the point where adequate nutrition can be derived. (You can feel free to draw your own conclusions about whether this theory constitutes rationalization of meat eating.) Christopher Witmer Tokyo Appal Energy wrote: OkayI may be gullible enough to accept some things at face value, but this theory seriously pushes my probability limit.' Plausible? Perhaps. Harmful if tried? Uhya.right. Is that a printing press I hear in the background? Sounds like hand tooled metal plates on rag bond. B-o-h-h-h-h-h-g-u-s! I think those sounds
Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
Just make sure your draft beer hasn't had the yeast filtered out of it and you'll be just fine. :-) Appal Energy wrote: What is easy is harming one's health by trying. I suppose that's why I'm getting older by the day.If I had only visited the meat counter with greater frequency this never would have happened. Todd Swearingen Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
Ken, I kinda' figger it like this. If as a guest I'm served a meat dish, accept it for the gift that it is. In between, treat meat as a delicacy, rather than a mainstay. I believe that it was Socates who said Hunger is good sauce. Unbelievable levels of truth in those four simple words. As for co-conspiracy to anything with Young Master Addison other than the promotion of biofuels and sound principles, I must plead true ignorance. It just so happens that Keith is one very unique bird of considerably similar mind set, albeit a bit more nimble than my own. He, I and numerous others simply realize that there exists great need and make our feeble attempts to fill them. I gather that you are largely of similar cloth. Maybe we'll all partly smooth the path for future generations. Or better still help with the building of a better path. I know. I know. Who is to say that the path I or another might choose or prefer is better or more noble than another. But I tend to believe that if one is quiet or stands still briefly enough the right answers are as apparent and surrounding as the windor the lack thereof. Todd - Original Message - From: Ken [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:42 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? Todd, I'm really not saying highly meat centered diet... I've been through the diet gamut, vegetarianism, veganism, raw-foodism, brief flirtation with fruitarianism, for lots of years (20), . I am worried about the B-12 issue which seems to be directly related to the ammount of animal food consumed as shown in the studies. I am enamored with the philosophy of these theories...but my heros have expired at an early age, Fry, Shelton, Lovewisdom etc. etc. So I need to be realistic, I want truth in this matter...I wish, hope, we can get along without killing/taking other LIFE, but really I'm not so sure. Any dialogue appreciated. Are you and Keith co-owners/conspirators of this web??? Thanks, Ken - Original Message - From: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 7:47 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? Ken, I don't see any reference within the body of text that you site which supports any belief that a highly meat centered diet (Western diet) is necessary for human health. In fact, note was made that the levels of DHA and EPA (omega-3 poly-unsaturated fatty acids) between lacto- and/or lacto-ovo vegetarians and a meat centered Western diet were largely similar. It's rather clear that a meat centered diet (Western diet) has more to do with indoctrination and cultural acceptance than necessity to human survival. Which is fine for those who so choose. But there is little to no valid cause for making book that vegetarians or even vegans are going to start dropping in their death throes left and right. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Ken [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 6:39 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? Check out this: http://www.beyondveg.com/cat/topics/index.shtml Ken - Original Message - From: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:24 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? OkayI may be gullible enough to accept some things at face value, but this theory seriously pushes my probability limit.' Plausible? Perhaps. Harmful if tried? Uhya.right. Is that a printing press I hear in the background? Sounds like hand tooled metal plates on rag bond. B-o-h-h-h-h-h-g-u-s! I think those sounds of Westerners starving is more like a passle of whiney nosed snots who don't know what the first pang of hunger actually feels like, radically envisioning death throws within moments if they don't get a dead meat fixthe greasier the better. I suppose that federal governments are next going to step in and force organic vegetable markets to supply bottles of bovine bacteria to their customers with every ten heads of lettuceor face severe financial penalties for reckless endangerment? I'd like to see where this particular theory has been submitted for professional scrutiny. (Key word is professional here, not a bunch of home biofuel officianados.) The things some people will do to rationalize meat eating 8-( Kinda' like telling people that they can't survive without their Prozac. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Christopher Witmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 5:45 PM Subject: Re
Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
Sadly that practice has yet to be criminalized in the US yet. I believe it is unaffectionately called lawn mower or near beer. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Christopher Witmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:38 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? Just make sure your draft beer hasn't had the yeast filtered out of it and you'll be just fine. :-) Appal Energy wrote: What is easy is harming one's health by trying. I suppose that's why I'm getting older by the day.If I had only visited the meat counter with greater frequency this never would have happened. Todd Swearingen Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
Kim writes: Is anyone else interested in this kind of debate? Definitely! Is this the right place? Is it better to use the chemicals and the bleach or the steam cleaners? I know chlorine is feminizing the environment and is real bad for a septic system [my grey water] and I imagine the rest of the antibacterial cleaners are about the same. So is using electricity bad for the environment. Electricity is only bad if it's made in ways that pollute more than the chemical alternatives. But then chemicals are not all bad either. Chlorine compounds can form dioxins when burned, but hypochlorites (bleaches) in certain applications simply revert to NaCl and oxygen. Usually they revert to NaOH and chlorine, which, as you say, is bad. Or: Is it better to rescue wood from brush piles that were to be burned, then burn it in a HAHSA and add a little electricity in the form of recirculating pumps and use it for heat and hot water, or let the piles be burned and use propane to heat? That one's easy. Burn the wood for heat. It's not a tree anymore, so it's doomed to become CO2 one way or another. May as well get value out of it, and use the propane for something (like a car) that needs a mobile fuel. Global warming is a much greater threat now than smog. I'll submit my own fuel to the fire here :-) PAPER or PLASTIC? (bags, that is). I vote for plastic, using this logic -- polyethylene is nearly as good a carbon sink as petroleum. If it gets recycled, great. If it gets buried in a landfill, it sequesters carbon there for millions of years, just like if the petroleum was left in the ground. The only negatives are if it ends up getting burned, and also the energy and pollution produced in its refinement. Chopping down the tree not only removes the sequestering ability of the tree, but also initiates a relatively rapid conversion into CO2 one way or another. CO2 (and overpopulation) are the world's worst problems now. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment?
Kim, CBA.Cost Benefit Analysiswith costs other than economic being the motivator. Can you heat your water with renewable resources (animal fat, veg oil, biomass)? Then steam is the answer with less chemicals. Are you obligated to fossil fuels to generate steam? Then it's possible that no steam and the light use of chemicals has less impact. Or you could go vegan and turn the butcher shop into a summer kitchen. Move the bandsaw into the woodshop. As for your neighbors, they could always get into downdraft wood gasification, using their brush piles that have been chipped. Benefits? Heat for space, hot water or processes. Electricity and/or transportation. http://www.gocpc.com/products/our_products.htm Lead with your head and your conscience. Your wallet will follow. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Kim Garth Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 8:06 AM Subject: [biofuel] Which is better for the environment? It seems sometimes, that each group of environmentalists has their own agenda and that trying to make a selection amongst the choices is very difficult. For example: In doing heavy duty cleaning, such as cleaning my butcher shop; Is it better to use the chemicals and the bleach or the steam cleaners? I know chlorine is feminizing the environment and is real bad for a septic system [my grey water] and I imagine the rest of the antibacterial cleaners are about the same. So is using electricity bad for the environment. Or: Is it better to rescue wood from brush piles that were to be burned, then burn it in a HAHSA and add a little electricity in the form of recirculating pumps and use it for heat and hot water, or let the piles be burned and use propane to heat? The problem here is that while my neighbors may eventually get more environmentally sound [I wish] and quit burning brush piles, but I will be locked into burning wood. Is anyone else interested in this kind of debate? Bright Blessings, Kim Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/