Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mistermj who wrote (13069)	5/29/2007 12:34:20 AM
From: neolib	Respond to of 36921

I gave you two links both of which make that claim. If you want to look for another link which provides support for some other theory, get off your butt and look.

To: mistermj who wrote (13069)	5/29/2007 12:56:14 AM
From: neolib	Respond to of 36921

Let me put this a little more clearly for you. We have at least some data pointing to the possibility that a certain type of meat eating has resulted in the deaths of 25 million people, and will likely lead to the deaths of another 100 million or so. There is one research paper providing data which shows that the same behaviour continues and might result in this happening again. Now, what should we do? Please compare this to your views on the data on WMD and the need for war in Iraq. Think of the Niger trip (here we have a Cameroon trip, which actually produced some supporting data rather than contradictory data). You might then consider that 125 million deaths as the result of this meat eating practice would account for the near total annihilation of the following ME countries: Israel: 7M Pals: 4M Jordan: 6M Lebanon: 4M Syria: 19M Iraq: 26M Iran: 65M Total: 131M Now I well realise that AIDS kills at an age which is likely a bit above the mean population age of these countries, so a correction should be made for that, and further, AIDS has already killed, and a substantial fraction of those it will kill, are African, hence worth less than the above, so choose a correction factor for that, but we are still in the ballpark. But at least make an argument for why you react one way to a supposed threat with a certain level of evidence, and are totally unfazed by a similar threat, also having some supporting evidence, which for some reason, you don't think we should take any action on.