It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cut Global Warming by being a Vegetarian?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test I am prepared to accept that some individuals find a vegetarian lifestyle preferable I certainly do not.
(emphasis mine)


Not meaning to pick on you personally, but your comment is most intriguing to me. (See bottom of the post for disclaimer.
)

Because the entire discussion really boils down to preference...

And, arguably, convenience.


I’ve heard every excuse in the book for eating animals, but I’ve yet to hear a convincing reason. It’s a pretty simple equation: since humans don’t need to consume animals to survive, killing them simply to satisfy our taste buds amounts to senseless slaughter. But our eating habits and appetites have very deep roots, and we prefer convenience over conscience. With a determination that belies an irrational attachment to animal flesh and secretions, otherwise sensible and sensitive people spend vast amounts of time and energy concocting outrageous excuses to justify this unnecessary habit. Using lyrical and exalted language, they extol the virtues of tradition, glorify the need to conserve “heritage breeds,” and wax poetic about our “evolutionary heritage.”
...
Affixed with meaningless labels that make it seem as if the animals sacrificed themselves for the pleasure of humans, the Holy Triumvirate of meat, dairy, and eggs remains the sacred foundation of the human diet, regarded as more of a right than a privilege. The marketing that surrounds these “products” suggests that not eating meat is downright un-American, and this is echoed by the mainstream public as well as “progressives.” One popular environmental magazine self-righteously suggested that vegans fast on Thanksgiving, since vegans are merely “mimicking dominant culture” by serving an “atrocious and non-local tofu log,” an insulting, inaccurate generalization of vegetarians if I ever heard one. Those who argue that we should eat meat because it’s traditional seem to imply that the meat-eater’s desires, traditions, culture, or taste buds are superior to anything — or anyone — else. Just because we’ve always done something doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. Culture and tradition are not excuses for cruelty.
source


It's not hard to see that habits are not automatically correct, simply because they are habits. I have a habit of smoking, of going to bed too late, of waiting until the last minute to do homework -- that doesn't make them correct. In fact, it would behoove me to work towards consciously changing my habits because of the long-term benefits.

Meat is still in my freezer -- and I shall finish what I bought. (Too broke to just throw it out.)

Yet, I still ponder this topic -- not because I'm worried about tradition (which undeniably changes with time), or animal cruelty (which, truthfully, ranges from humans on down, since humans are animals), or even preference.

I'm pondering vegetarianism and humans' moral responsibility... (see Value Incrementalism - a conversation had between two of my professors.)


The whole issue seriously weighs on preference.. on habit.. on convenience.

And humans have the capacity to change their habits and preferences...
So why are we relying on them?


**Again, I do not mean this as a 'why aren't you a vegetarian/vegan yet!?' comment.**

I'm certainly neither, so I would not, in full honesty, be able to say that.
I'm seriously pondering the issue's merits from both sides. I'm weighing the morals and ethics and the habits and the traditions and the consequences and the reasons...

IF this is true (animal farming being a leading cause of global warming), would I, you, random person x walking down the street, fall back on the convenience of habit, rather than working towards a conscious change?

...It takes a very long time to change anything, be it socially or personally. _Especially_ habits. (took me months to stop drinking soda... caffine is hard to turn down when I'm bleary eyed...) So obviously this wouldn't happen over night.

But are we _that_ unwilling to change our personal preferences and habits for something that (IF it's true) would be beneficial for _everyone_ on the planet?

[edit on 24-1-2007 by Diseria]




posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   
^Things don't change because people sit around waiting for someone else to do it.

People need to realise by changing themselves, they can change the world.
It starts with just one person.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   

People need to realise by changing themselves, they can change the world.
It starts with just one person.


To a point, your words are true.

Yet, how many people are vegetarians/vegans? How long as peta and its ilk been trying to sway the minds of people?

Change happens one person at a time, true.

But, that doesn't mean that others will automatically fall in line.

If I chose to become a vegetarian, that does not mean that my b/f, or my family, or my neighbors will 'turn', so to speak. We might have very intersting discussions, and we might learn from each other.

But, like I said, it really comes down to 'personal preference'... which is meaningless in the face of ethics and morality. It's easier to satisfy my own personal preferences than to think about working towards _everyone's_ well-being, nevermind happiness.



One person can start a change.

But only if the other people are willing to hear it, are capable of understanding how the situation affects them, and how they affect the situation, and then choosing (by themselves, on their own) to change their habits and preferences.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   
^I agree, but if that one person doesn't make the start then it will never happen. You think it's better to not be that one person just because you think others won't follow? If everyone had that thinking nothing would ever get done.

Unfortunately a lot of people do think like that, and sit around waiting for others to do what they know they should be doing themselves.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diseria
Because the entire discussion really boils down to preference...

And, arguably, convenience.


Well, I would say it boils down to a little more than that that. Health is right up there too and my personal belief is that a properly balanced diet will include meat and dairy products to some extent. That should not be an excuse to eat them to excess at which stage you've wiped out any health benefit of course.



IF this is true (animal farming being a leading cause of global warming), would I, you, random person x walking down the street, fall back on the convenience of habit, rather than working towards a conscious change?


Well I'm not sure anybody actually said that. Livestock certainly produces a lot of methane but a radical change in global farming practices will have other consequences as Essan posted earlier, you can't just cherry pick the elements of a system, or its removal, that suit your argument without considering the costs of that action too.

So is it just preference? No it's not, that would be far too simplistic but let's be clear I certainly do prefer to eat meat and am perfectly prepared to kill animals personally to do so if necessary. If I want to save the planet my personal contribution could be far more effective by putting more effort into recycling, throwing away my car keys and never boarding an aeroplane again. Mass vegetarianism is an amusing discussion point but irrelevant in any real sense.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
Well, I would say it boils down to a little more than that that. Health is right up there too and my personal belief is that a properly balanced diet will include meat and dairy products to some extent. That should not be an excuse to eat them to excess at which stage you've wiped out any health benefit of course.


Okay, then let us get down to the nuts and bolts of health, as this pertains directly.


Meat is held in high esteem in most communities. It has prestige value, it is often regarded as the central food round which meals are planned, various types of meat are sometimes made the basis of festive and celebratory occasions, and from the popular as well as the scientific point of view, it is regarded as a food of high nutritive value.

While it is clear that meat is not essential in the diet, as witness the large number of vegetarians who have a nutritionally adequate diet, the inclusion of animal products makes it easier to ensure a good diet.
source

So, yes - meat has proteins and such that are required for good health.
However, eating meat is not the only way to get these nutrients -- and I think that that is where the issue of alternatives comes into play.


Although protein is certainly an essential nutrient which plays many key roles in the way our bodies function, we do not need huge quantities of it. In reality, we need small amounts of protein. Only one calorie out of every ten we take in needs to come from protein 1. Athletes do not need much more protein than the general public 2. Protein supplements are expensive, unnecessary, and even harmful for some people.
source

On that page is an 'example meal' which provides several alternatives to getting the necessary amount of protein.


Most recommendations for protein intake are based on animal-food sources of protein such as meat, cow's milk and eggs. However, studies show clearly that diets based solely on plant foods as sources of protein can be quite adequate and supply the recommended amounts of all essential amino acids for adults, even when a single plant food, such as rice, is virtually the sole source of protein. The American Dietetic Association emphasizes that protein combining at each meal is unnecessary, as long as a range of protein rich foods is eaten during the day.
source

Down near the bottom is a list of (non-meat) foods which contain protein.


The 'personal belief' of meat being on the same plate is habit and tradition.

The question then becomes: Is it (the habit, the tradition, meat in general) necessary?





Livestock certainly produces a lot of methane but a radical change in global farming practices will have other consequences as Essan posted earlier, you can't just cherry pick the elements of a system, or its removal, that suit your argument without considering the costs of that action too.


This is one of the key reasons why I brought this to the table (pun intended). What are the consequences?

Let us consider the _entire_ issue! That's why I'm bringing this up!





So is it just preference? No it's not, that would be far too simplistic but let's be clear I certainly do prefer to eat meat and am perfectly prepared to kill animals personally to do so if necessary. If I want to save the planet my personal contribution could be far more effective by putting more effort into recycling, throwing away my car keys and never boarding an aeroplane again.


I shall break this down into pieces parts...

a) Why is preference (tradition, habit) too simplistic? What else is there?

Meat as a source of protein? ..there are alternatives that provide the same nutrients, and do not require animal farming.


b) And if we were truly concerned about saving the planet, then _all_ of these would be put into effect... because you're right - picking one and not another is not truly solving the entire problem.

But, isn't picking one better than not doing anything at all?



Mass vegetarianism is an amusing discussion point but irrelevant in any real sense.


Why?


Here's some interesting factoids:


How many acres of tropical rainforests are destroyed every minute for livestock farming? 150 acres

How many trees spared per year by each individual who switches to a pure vegetarian diet? 1 acre

What is the cause of demise of many great civilisations? topsoil depletion

How frequently a child dies of starvation? every two seconds

How many children starve to death every day? 40,000

How many people will starve to death this year? 60,000,000

How many people could be adequately fed by the grain saved if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 20%? 60,000,000

How many pounds of beef can be produced on one acre of land? 165

How many pounds of potatoes can be grown on one acre of land? 20,000

How much water needed to produce one pound of wheat? 25 Gallons

How much water needed to produce one pound of meat? 2,500 Gallons

How long will the world's petroleum reserves last if all human beings eat meat? 13 years

How long will the world's petroleum reserves last if all humans adapt to vegetarian diet?
260 years
source (emphasis mine)



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test

[snip]
I certainly do prefer to eat meat and am perfectly prepared to kill animals personally to do so if necessary.
[/snip]


Meat is a descent source of protein, and should not be kicked out of a diet where legumes and nuts are not abundant.

Ted Nugent would love you


As a Vegan, I have no problem with people eating meat to survive. After all, that's how we did it for 2,000,000+ years... You'd be eating MUCH less meat that way though. Animals don't just jump into a fire


If I was trapped in the wilderness, or desert, or where ever, you'd better believe I'd eat any animal I came across. I

I just think, now, with our massive cross-country exports, and technology, it's pretty much not needed anymore (especially if you lead a sedintary lifestyle, as so many Americans do). It's just rediculous to think of all those animals locked up, and forced impregnated. Just so people can eat a 500 calorie bigmac, with a side of heart disease and colon cancer. But people can do what they want to do, so long as it doesn't hurt me.


I guess I'm one of the few Vegans who are that way for the health beneifts before anything else.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
^I agree, but if that one person doesn't make the start then it will never happen. You think it's better to not be that one person just because you think others won't follow? If everyone had that thinking nothing would ever get done.

Unfortunately a lot of people do think like that, and sit around waiting for others to do what they know they should be doing themselves.


Indeed, I agree.

And yet, lots of people are making, and have made, the start. But I'm not sure that the ball is rolling... why not?

Because each and every person has to want to make that change for themselves, by themselves. I.e., If I was forced to quit smoking, there's absolutely no guarentee that the change that is truly necessary (mental) has taken place... and I'm more likely to continue smoking once that force has been relinquished.

I don't mind being that one person, and I'd hope that others would follow (if I decide to go vegetarian/vegan). However, my point was that while the start is good, a sign that a change is at least possible, the emphasis is on other people seeing _why_ the change is needed, and _doing_ the change.

Exacting change is a very difficult process. I've just started down that path, and it's tough... primarily because I have to un-train myself of 'immediate gratification'. Many habits are unconscious, and those are wicked hard to pluck out of the brain.

The only person who can change me, truly change me, is myself.

And that follows for every other person.

Yes, it's easier if you've someone else to travel with down the path of change. But no matter the traveling companion, you are the one putting one foot forward... no one else.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   
^I think we are in total agreement with each other.

What else can you do but make the change in yourself and then try to educate others? If people refuse to see what you're trying to do then they deserve all the consequences of their actions.

It's like the old proverb...

If you see your friend getting beaten up by a dozen people, you wouldn't join in cause you couldn't do anything about it.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
If people refuse to see what you're trying to do then they deserve all the consequences of their actions.


My kneejerk reaction - yes, I agree. People deserve what's coming to them, especially if they prefer to keep their heads in the sand.

....and then a little voice peeps up: But, their collective refusal is (again, assuming that vegetarianism _would_ considerably counter global warming) directly affecting the earth, the ecosystem, humanity and life on the whole... and each individual person, including us.

I'm realizing that there's a fine line:
There's individual people who, by current standards, are allowed to have their own values, beliefs, principles, et cetera, and (in theory) tolerate everyone else's claim to personalized codes of behavior.
And then there's this 'everyone' concept, the 'all of humanity', and 'good for everybody' that looms over these individual codes and thoughts and feelings.

So, the line is drawn someplace (not sure where) between this concept of everyone (i.e. the planet, and the fact that every human being as to live here), and individual people -- the line being, specifically: when are (or should?) individual people's codes overridden by the needs of everyone? Is current society even capable of thinking in such broad terms as 'everyone' and truly understanding that this involves _every_single_human_being?




It's like the old proverb...

If you see your friend getting beaten up by a dozen people, you wouldn't join in cause you couldn't do anything about it.


Then I'd have to question the friendship... (This is one reason why I don't have many friends -- because I *would* jump in.)

(((..........wow. I just successfully amazed myself. I've been having a discussion about self-defense in the survival thread (woman's survival (starts about half-way down, and kinda takes over after that) and my position has been, for the most part, that I am against hurting other people. And yet, your words reminded me of a motto that I had in high school: If you're my Friend, then I'd lay my life down to save you without a second thought. ...I'm gonna hafta go post on that now.)))



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 01:17 AM
link   
More left coast Hollywood type feel-good nonsense. I have no problem with people being vegans, but to think the entire country would quit eating meat to "save the planet" from global warming is ludicrous. People just will not do it. Sorry.

By far, the most prevalent "greenhouse" gas is water vapor, so I suppose we should all quit drinking water, right? (make mine a Crown and Coke) Kill your pets because they are destroying the planet too? What next? activated granular carbon/lithium hydroxide "belch" filters for all animals?

This ridiculous idea does exactly the same for global warming that Al Gore does for it by buying "carbon credits" from himself, NOTHING.

If you want to help reduce global warming, just tell the global warming alarmists like cousin Al and his band of thieves to quit blowing so much hot air.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave_54
No. We would just be substituting human produced methane for livestock produced methane.

Cow farts versus people farts.


That's exactly what I was thinking.

Being a vegetarian means you need to eat beans and other vegetables with more fiber, all which increase flatulence. So you would be substituting one for the other, and even then, "you cannot deter or stop Climate Change"...



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Diseria


Here's some interesting factoids:


How many acres of tropical rainforests are destroyed every minute for livestock farming? 150 acres



And here's something else of interest to all you veggies:

news.independent.co.uk...

Save the planet: stop eating soya product!!!!



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Another simple factoid for you.. Darker colors, such as from forests, attract and trap more heat than the light colors from croplands....

Does that mean we should get rid of all forests?....



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Here's the Great Global Warming Swindle video:

The Great Global Warming Swindle



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Another simple factoid for you.. Darker colors, such as from forests, attract and trap more heat than the light colors from croplands....

Does that mean we should get rid of all forests?....


The obvious answer being no... the color of the leaves does not kow tow to the purpose of the leaves -- the forests would help to get rid of the CO2 and such.

Besides that, we are *already* getting rid of all the forests to make room for more animal production facilities... not because of the colors. So I guess the question's moot anyhow, eh?



Originally posted by TheAvenger
More left coast Hollywood type feel-good nonsense. I have no problem with people being vegans, but to think the entire country would quit eating meat to "save the planet" from global warming is ludicrous. People just will not do it. Sorry.


IF vegetarianism/veganism would help the environment (nevermind the 'threat of global warming' for two seconds), which affects all humans, and indeed all earthlings, would it not behoove us to do so?

What are the grounds that people will at least consider an alternative diet?

Moral?

Amoral?

(I'm assuming that left coast means west coast, considering the addition of Hollywood. However, I don't see how which coast one hails from has anything to do with the price of tea in Brazil.)




By far, the most prevalent "greenhouse" gas is water vapor, so I suppose we should all quit drinking water, right? (make mine a Crown and Coke)


You quote facts, but cite no sources.


WASHINGTON, DC, April 18, 2006 (ENS) - U.S. greenhouse gas emissions during 2004 increased by 1.7 percent from the previous year, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which released the figures Monday. This was the largest annual amount ever produced by any country on record, said The Royal Society, the UK national academy of science, warning that urgent action is needed to curb emissions.

The increase, which occurred during a period of economic expansion, was due primarily to an increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions associated with fuel and electricity consumption, said EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson.
(taken from source)

This website doesn't even include water vapors as a greenhouse gas.

So... from where did you find this 'fact'?



Kill your pets because they are destroying the planet too? What next? activated granular carbon/lithium hydroxide "belch" filters for all animals?


Disregarding the obvious slippery slope that you're broaching, how about we consider that humans are killing the planet much faster than all our pets combined?

Would you then say that I'm somehow advocating a species genocide/suicide?


What if my intent is to raise awareness to the moral obligation that humans have to this planet and all other earthlings living here -- simply because WE LIVE HERE...?




If you want to help reduce global warming, just tell the global warming alarmists like cousin Al and his band of thieves to quit blowing so much hot air.


The point is not to debate whether or not global warming is real.

The point is to raise awareness to how humans are directly affecting, and somehow remaining willfully ignorant, of how our current mode of existence is negatively impacting our habitat.

I'm not debating the moral agency of animals, whether or not they share the same basic rights that we do. I'm not even touching the morality of vegetarianism/veganism, or moral and ethical inconsistency of humanity's practices. I'm not touching it -- 'tis a debate for a different thread.

What I am debating is our LACK of awareness to our individual decisions, and how these tiny 'insignificant' molehills ARE and WILL further impact our species, in our lifetimes, in our children's lifetimes.


This is a discussion of past actions yielding results that we are seeing today (again, nevermind global warming -- you do realize that our environment is going to # because of the self-righteous, and rather species-ist, actions of humans, right?), and that we continue to ignore because we don't want to be 'weak' and 'touchy-feely tree-huggers'...

WHY is concern for the environment 'feel-good nonsense'?


Indeed, 'feel-good nonsense' has gotten us where we are today -- we act however feels good to us, and screw the consequences. That philosophy right there is utter malarky.


[edit on 20-3-2007 by Diseria]



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Parallelogram
It seems to me like what you're suggesting is that we abandon our primal nature so that we might more openly embrace the world of (polluting) technology that we have made for ourselves.


Nope. Not at all. (Besides, even IF we managed to abandon our primal nature, we're too in-love with our toys...)

Primal nature... interesting choice of words. Someone else suggested that because we have molars, and we have certain acids in the stomach which allow us to digest meat, that we should continue the practice (of meat-eating).

This reminds me of the is-ought problem...

Simply because, up to this point, evolution has given us these particular 'tools' and we have done action X, does that mean that we ought to continue that practice?

Even in light of new information?

Even if the practice itself is harmful, or has more harmful ends than an alternative action?


Eagles have phenominal eyes, dogs noses, and tuna their tails. Our greatest technology (at least so far) cannot match these particular biological achievements. Humans have their ability to reason -- that is our inimitable biological achievement. (BTW: Arguably, the ability to reason IS our primal nature... however, I'm fairly certain that this is not what you were thinking of when you used the phrase originally.)

So, why are we subsuming our ability to reason to events of the past, or preferences? Reason is the one thing that's kept us alive. And now... we seem to be abjuring it because it's inconvenient.

Keeping with this same line of thought -- we are, right now, 'embracing our primal nature' in many ways, and allowing technology to run amuk. Maybe if we embraced our ability to reason, our technology would grow leaps and bounds -- or at least be less polluting...




Science Without Humanity

If science becomes all technique and technology, it quickly degenerates into man against humanity. Technologies come from the paradigms of science. And if there's very little understanding of the higher human purposes that the technology is striving to serve, we becomes victims of our own technocracy. We see otherwise highly educated people climbing the scientific ladder of success, even though it's often missing the rung called humanity and leaning against the wrong wall.

The majority of the scientists who ever lived or living today, and they have brought about a scientific and technological explosion in the world. But if all they do is superimpose technology on the same old problems, nothing basic changes. We may see an evolution, an occasional "revolution" in science, but without humanity we see precious little real human advancement. All the old inequities and injustices are still with us.

About the only thing that hasn't evolved are these natural laws and principles - the true north on the compass. Science and technology have changed the face of most everything else. But the fundamental things still apply, as time goes by.
(taken from Gandhi's Seven Deadly Sins

What was Einstein's quote? ...something like, Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.




This proposition is symptomatic of a larger trend that really scares me. Must we strive so hard to destroy chaos? Eris prevails...


I am not advocating the desctruction or removal of chaos... (it makes life fun! ....frustrating, but fun.) I'm fully aware that chaos will step in and do whatever it wants, and in the process, muck up all our good intentions. (Best video game yet!
)

However, it seems to me that while there are many things that we cannot control, the choice of what we eat IS something that we may control.

Notice how many people kept referring to tradition, to preference, to convenience?

These are all things within our range of control. (Are they not?) We may consciously choose to change our traditions, our preferences, our actions & reactions. We control these things. (Do we not?)

Barring crazy environmental catastrophies, and all other things equal, why ought we NOT to control ourselves?





...human efforts to strip away our organic, disorderly nature will only end in tragedy.


Organic, disorderly nature?

Organic comes from order... disorder cannot, by its nature, organize itself in a disorderly manner to make anything, nevermind something organic...

(On a sorta-kinda tangent: This is what I understand the yin-yang to mean. There will always be disorder, and from that disorder comes order. Inherently, within that order is disorder, and vice versa. Each gives way to the other, creating a balance within or out of imbalance.)

Any human efforts made to order any (inherently) disorderly system are fallacious. That's a given. Likewise, any 'facts' that we discern from this ordering have to remain malleable, in light of new information. That, too, is a given.

However, does that mean that any effort to understand (read: make order out of disorder, no matter how limited the perspective is) is made in vain?

Even in the universe, which is a massive system of disorder, comes order. Most likely, the order varies -- the earth revolves around the sun, but not always in the exact same path as last time, or anytime. So the order itself is disorderly.


Are we not even moderately pleased at this level of orderly disorder? ....we wouldn't be here if the earth wasn't in this particular orbit...

We were created out of a random ordering within a disorderly system. Chaos 'allowed' for our creation. So no, I'm not trying to destroy chaos... (like I'd even know where to start!)

But within the chaotic society that is humanity, some level of order must be found. That much seems inherent to the system.

[edit on 20-3-2007 by Diseria]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   
don't know bout you,but when i eat lots of vege i get wayyyy too much wind.
yet this does not happen when i eat lots of meat.if animal farts/poo is a problem,then surely we're helping the enviroment by eating them!



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 12:51 AM
link   
"Red meat also contains sodium nitrate which is linked to various cancers, mostly pancreatic cancer."

Sodium nitrites are sometimes added to meats as a preservative. The nitrites combine with amino acids in the digestive system to form nitrosamines. While nitrosamines have been linked to certain cancers, you must put the amount of nitrites consumed by a typical human diet in perspective.

Barbecued grilled vegetables produce about the same amount of nitrosamines in your body as an equivalent weight of cured red meat. A single bottle of beer gives you approximately 5x the amount of nitrites as in a pound of cured bacon. A single marijuana cigarette gives you 100x the nitrites as eating a pound of bacon (any cigarette will, but so many people here insist marijuana is harmless, so I used pot as an example). The 'new car smell' everyone likes means you are inhaling nitrosamine-forming chemicals.

The nitrite argument fails. Find another reason to curtail the amount of red meat in your diet.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 01:12 AM
link   
This thread made an excellent read. OP was excellent.

I have just read some of the interesting posts on this thread and my input is that leave apart the fact that being vegetarian will help our environment or not- I feel being veggie is the best thing to do in more ways than one. It's good for the body,for the soul and for the poor animals whom we kill and eat. I'am strictly veg and plan to remain so all my life.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join