Charles, "abbreviations (MCD) is ironic, to say the least, given that stock's performance today."
Had to lookup the ticker MCD to see what you were referring to (McDonalds). Ironic for sure.
RE: "spelled meat"
And the word just behind "meet" was "meat", thus implying a typo. I type 90+ words per minute so expect to see more typos as well as spelling errors.
RE: "A statistically small chance of getting as serious an affliction as that involved here may still be significant "
The same person who believes this, shouldn't take the risk to leave their house, because that risk is worse than MC. Just making an analogy here.
RE: "Now you know of someone else who has no intention of eating beef until this is resolved."
Waiting until they pull all the processed meat from the inflicted cow, isn't unreasonable for men since they don't have quite the need for iron, and in fact, it's a bit risky for mens' hearts if they get too much iron.
But anything beyond that could be a bit agrophobia-madcow-like.
RE: "I certainly hope Congress is less sympathetic when the industry comes crying for a bailout from the result of its greed (which, I predict, won't take long)."
I bet this will cost us taxpayers around $40/person annual in tax money. Still way less costly for me than the $600M writeoff that Intel had.
Tend to agree with you on the testing needs and probably more importantly, the removal of downer cows from the system (.36% of them: 130k/36M). Also thought it was strange their test results occur after the non-contaminant muscle meat part has been introduced into the system - like you say, what if some micro remains of the brains could be mixed in there.
Oh well, you could eat organic cattle if you're worried - would guess they probably don't use downer cows and probably use safer feed.
My annoyance is with the lack of fast response by the Ag Dept to UPIs first request for information. I found it a bit suspicious the Ag Dept reports mad cow only 3 days after receiving a legal threat from UPI, after ignoring this request for 6 months according to a UPI report (I posted it). That potentially borders on a bit of a credibility issue, if the UPI report is true and if the Ag Dept was intentionally hiding information (which I doubt, because test results are test results. I tend to think Ag Dept probably only responds to requests when someone threatens legal action due to workloads). But as China found out, credibility is incredibilty important, so there's a cost in not being on top of providing test results. If this UPI report is true, then I'll trust Singapore before I trust our own Ag Dept.
Regards,
Amy J |
