|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
 Posted - 04/26/2010 : 22:37:08 [Permalink]
|
...and sometimes these steps are taken by producers as they otherwise will face more regulations. Its better for them to show some good will and do something they might be forced to do anyway.
| "People really won't notice the difference in terms of taste, but your body will notice it," |
Anyway, this self inflicted tyranny is good news! |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
 |
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
 Posted - 05/04/2010 : 08:50:36 [Permalink]
|
"Debate" at The Colbert Nation.
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
 Posted - 05/06/2010 : 10:12:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by @tomic
And lets be honest, despite the protests from the right, the when people voted in the last election the expected more socialism. We wanted it and we got it. Lets go all the way with it. It's what the majority voted for. |
We voted for:
National Health Insurance Exchange
Warrantless Wiretaps
Earmark Transparancy
Rules Against Revolving Door for Lobbyists
End Income Tax for Seniors Making less than $50k
End No Bid Contracts > $25k
Allow Imported Prescription Drugs
Double Peace Corps
Double Funding Afterschool Programs
Support Manned Mission to Moon
National Service Plan w/o Increasing Deficit
State of the World Address
Reduce Earmarks to 1994 Levels
No Increase in Taxes for Families Making < $250k
Create Public Option Health Plan
etc...
But did not and will not get. Other promises he did keep. We are not getting what we asked for by voting for him as you say. The one bolded I consider huge promises not kept and reasons why he got elected.
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2010 : 10:45:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
...
No Increase in Taxes for Families Making < $250k
...
The one bolded I consider huge promises not kept and reasons why he got elected. |
Not kept? Everyone got a tax reduction last year. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2010 : 12:13:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by @tomic
And lets be honest, despite the protests from the right, the when people voted in the last election the expected more socialism. We wanted it and we got it. Lets go all the way with it. It's what the majority voted for. |
We voted for:
National Health Insurance Exchange
Warrantless Wiretaps
Earmark Transparancy
Rules Against Revolving Door for Lobbyists
End Income Tax for Seniors Making less than $50k
End No Bid Contracts > $25k
Allow Imported Prescription Drugs
Double Peace Corps
Double Funding Afterschool Programs
Support Manned Mission to Moon
National Service Plan w/o Increasing Deficit
State of the World Address
Reduce Earmarks to 1994 Levels
No Increase in Taxes for Families Making < $250k
Create Public Option Health Plan
etc...
But did not and will not get. Other promises he did keep. We are not getting what we asked for by voting for him as you say. The one bolded I consider huge promises not kept and reasons why he got elected.
|
Did you expect him to be able to implement all his policy actions. In a year?
Last I checked he:
1) Still has 2.5 years left
2) Has a republican opposition determined to vote against everything he proposes, even if they were for it up to the point where he proposed it.
3) Has a democratic party that still is weak and devided on all the issues you show above.
Or am I missing something here? |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2010 : 12:37:07 [Permalink]
|
| And the increased taxes on cigarattes and tanning definitely break his "no tax increases" promise. |
No kidding. It's getting so damn expensive to keep my nicotene intake at the proper level and my wife's olive skin at an appropriate level of darkness. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Farseeker
Skeptic Friend
Canada
76 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2010 : 20:19:42 [Permalink]
|
"too much salt, though, can be downright poisonous. Don't believe it? Go out and find a clean piece of ocean, if there are any left, and drink your fill...."
Of course almost anything in excess is "poisonous" in the sense it is bad for you. Don't believe it? Just find a big barrel of pure water and keep drinking. Your electrolytes will get out of balance and if you drink enough, heart failure.
I can not believe that no one questioned the premise that salt is bad. Don't tell me the research proves it, because the research proves that an imbalance of ordinary salt (sodium chloride) is bad. However, if you balance it with potassium in the correct amount, there is no harm (assuming appropriate water intake) unless really large amounts are consumed.
The following is based on studies"
"Sodium and potassium are essential dietary minerals and electrolytes, meaning that they dissociate into ions (charged particles) in solution, making them capable of conducting electricity. Normal body functioning depends on the right regulation of sodium and potassium both inside and outside of cells.
Sodium is the principal ion in the fluid outside of cells, while potassium is the principal ion in the fluid inside of cells. Sodium concentrations are more than ten times lower inside than outside cells, and potassium concentrations are about 30 times higher inside than outside cells. The concentration differences between potassium and sodium across cell membranes create an electrochemical gradient known as the membrane potential. A large portion of energy in the body is dedicated to maintaining sodium/potassium concentration gradients, underscoring the importance of the balance between sodium and potassium in sustaining life. Tight control of cell membrane potential is critical for heart function, as well as nerve impulse transmission and muscle contraction.
In Western industrialized countries, the daily intake of sodium chloride (salt) is about three times higher than the daily intake of potassium. The balance or equilibrium so necessary for these minerals is not achievable through the typical dietary choices of Westerners. Studies are showing that the relative imbalance of this ratio in the Western world is positively correlated with hypertension, heart disease and diabetes."
So, the point is not that sodium needs to be reduced but that potassium needs to be added. If you are going to regulate something, why not do it based on real science instead of flawed science?
and from Wikipedia:
"Insufficient intake
Although low dietary intake of potassium does not lead to hypokalemia in healthy individuals, many long-term health risks are related to insufficient dietary potassium.
The 2004 guidelines of the Institute of Medicine specify an RDA of 4700 mg of potassium for adults[2], based on intake levels that have been found to lower blood pressure, reduce salt sensitivity, and minimize the risk of kidney stones. However, most Americans consume only half that amount per day.[3] Similarly, in the European Union, particularly in Germany and Italy, insufficient potassium intake is widespread.[4]
Diseases that may be prevented by adequate potassium intake include stroke, osteoporosis, kidney stones, and hypertension"
Actually, that is a good argument against arbitrary regulation, by which I mean picking something to regulate for the sake of regulating. Where does it stop? Keep in mind, regulation without enforcement is meaningless, so we need more civil servants (so much for saving money on health care... especially if potassium imbalance is the real problem).
As for the argument that sodium intake causes problems that require the medical payment system to spend more money (either private or public), that can be simply solved by passing on the cost to the consumer via a specific item tax. If salt really were a problem, just calculate the effect and charge it to the packaged foods that use it to excess.
BTW, I live in Canada with health care paid by taxes. It means our poor people are covered, which is good, and rich people go to the States for treatment and the middle class get shafted with either long wait times, outmoded techniques or second rate doctors (not to imply we don't also have great doctors, just too few of them). On this subject I speak from personal experience, as I had to go to the USA to get a simple picture of my heart taken as we do not have the machines in Canada (Ultrafast CT scan). Strangely enough, it cost $500 for the scan and consult with a cardiologist, but it's the travel expenses that get you.
The best health care we had here was when the "user" paid 10% of the bill, to a maximum of $100. (about $250 in today's devalued money)
In any case, back to Salt. Should we not be skeptical about statistics and find out the actual problem by looking at the real science of biochemistry rather than the often misused science of statistics?
Ted
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Farseeker
Skeptic Friend
Canada
76 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2010 : 21:13:35 [Permalink]
|
I did not say equal amounts of potassium and sodium, I said "if you balance it with potassium in the correct amount".
the following is an excerpt proving my point.
Its from http://www.scientistlive.com/European-Science-News/Medical/Potassium_lowers_blood_pressure/21618/
"Researchers found that the ratio of sodium-to-potassium in subjects' urine was a much stronger predictor of cardiovascular disease than sodium or potassium alone.
"There isn't as much focus on potassium, but potassium seems to be effective in lowering blood pressure and the combination of a higher intake of potassium and lower consumption of sodium seems to be more effective than either on its own in reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease," said Dr. Paul Whelton, senior author of the study in the January 2009 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine. Whelton is an epidemiologist and president and CEO of Loyola University Health System.
Whelton is among the nation's top experts on high blood pressure. He has published more than 400 papers on the subject, and has been the principal investigator on more than $100 million of studies funded by the National Institutes of Health."
Journal of the American College of Nutrition, Vol. 25, No. 90003, 262S-270S (2006)
Published by the American College of Nutrition
Relationship and Interaction between Sodium and Potassium
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Farseeker
Skeptic Friend
Canada
76 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2010 : 21:28:33 [Permalink]
|
Perhaps I misread the intent in your question.
Are you asking, does high potassium intake plus high sodium intake balance each other out through the bodies ability to excrete both as required? I did say with adequate fluid intake.
The study I quoted did say it was the ratio that was important. They make no mention of absolute amounts, but the following is from Wikipedia:
"All supplements sold in the U.S. contain no more than 99 mg of potassium; a healthy individual would need to consume more than 180 such pills to experience severe health risks."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_in_biology
It seems reasonable that if you can not overdose from normal amounts available in food or reasonable supplementation, and if the health issue is the sodium / potassium balance, then there should be no problem balancing an American's sodium intake with an offsetting amount of potassium . |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2010 : 22:43:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Farseeker
It seems reasonable that if you can not overdose from normal amounts available in food or reasonable supplementation, and if the health issue is the sodium / potassium balance, then there should be no problem balancing an American's sodium intake with an offsetting amount of potassium. |
Yeah, that seems to be what doctors recommend.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/03/2010 22:44:02 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2010 : 23:10:17 [Permalink]
|
You should really read these things before posting cut-and-pastes from popular-press articles about the studies. That particular study didn't measure intake at all, but instead measured urinary output:CONCLUSION: A higher sodium to potassium excretion ratio is associated with increased risk of subsequent CVD, with an effect stronger than that of sodium or potassium alone. To prove your point, you'll have to find more data which proves that sodium and potassium excretion rates are always directly proportional to intake rates, even in disease states.Journal of the American College of Nutrition, Vol. 25, No. 90003, 262S-270S (2006)
Published by the American College of Nutrition
Relationship and Interaction between Sodium and Potassium |
This article, which Dr. Whelton didn't have anything to do with and so it's weird for you to cite it, is available free online, so why not talk about it directly? As far as hypertension is concerned, the article states in no uncertain terms that in low-potassium diets, salt reduction works extremely well to reduce hypertension. Better than salt reduction in people with high-potassium diets. So, because we can't force people to eat their fruits and veggies, mandating lower salt content in foods can achieve the same goals.
Either we're talking about a mandated reduction in salt, or a mandated increase in potassium. Which one is easier, cheaper, and makes food taste less crappy? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Farseeker
Skeptic Friend
Canada
76 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2010 : 23:14:29 [Permalink]
|
Thank you for the link. However, it does not seem to have been written by doctors.
No doubt, their research included doctors who have finally caught up with what biochemists have been saying for quite a while.
I recognize that the medical profession has a problem since the internet. Who can keep up with advances in North America, south America, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, China, India, etc?
This is why I believe we need to be skeptical of what our doctor tells us and use the world as a resource. And why a government panel of "experts" might be a panel expert on obsolete knowledge. Or a panel of biased people. Recent New England Journal of Medicine articles talk about the problem of bias to get funding, including falsification of data. It is healthy to be skeptical.
Ted |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
So it starts
