So I have a cold. It's not fun. Say around 10pm I decide that I'd like some decongestant to help with my stuffed up nose. Well, that's just too bad, since the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 was included in the Patriot Act in 2006. Now Sudafed is kept behind the counter. You have to ask a pharmacist for it and show your id. Well, the fake stuff didn't work against my cold. Later, I went to the pharmacy, stood in line, showed my id and bought the cold medicine.
From the FDA site: http://www.fda.gov/CDER/news/methamphetamine.htm
This law is ridiculus. All it does is inconvience people who'd like a little relief from a cold, people who'd like to breath through their nose.
The reason for all this trouble is that psudoephedrine can be used to make methamphetamines, an illegal drug. The idea is that the law will stop people from going to multiple pharmacies and buying out the psudoephedrine.
Well, news flash, this law isn't stopping people from making and selling meth. There are other ways to get the ingredients to make meth here in the US, and meth is made in large quantites in Mexico and imported.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9193186
We should not let a few bad apples spoil it for the rest of us. As an simple, midterm comprimse, how about letting any cashier check id to buy cold medicine, just like a cashier can check id for alcohol. That way if the pharmacy is closed, customers can still buy the Sudafed. I think an even better solution is to scrap this law and go after the root cause. Why do people want to use meth? Focus and education and prevention, before people get addicted. As long as there are people looking to buy, there will be dealers selling it. If the dealers and producers stop making a ton of money, it won't be worth it to them anymore.
Showing posts with label mild. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mild. Show all posts
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Much Ado About Nothing
In my internet browsing I found this article.
http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/30/largest-cleantech-industry-is%e2%80%a6carbon-credits-at-63-billion/
"Carbon credits were worth a staggering $63 billion in 2007 and $59 billion in the first half of 2008 alone." (Sarah Lozanova)
Carbon credits are a bigger industry than either solar or wind power. There is something wrong with this picture. How can the biggest clean technology not actually be a technology!?
Now I'm for reducing pollution, but I don't know how many times I need to say this. Carbon dioxide is not pollution. To all those who think it is, remember this: when you breath, you make carbon dioxide.
I just don't understand why people would buy carbon credits. Is it because they feel bad about making carbon dioxide? Where does that $63 billion go?
Why are they called carbon credits instead of carbon dioxide credits? If anyone has chunks of carbon just sitting around that they feel bad about, I would be happy to take them off your hand for a small "carbon credit" fee. I'm sure I could find a use for all that coal and diamonds.
Maybe I should make up a problem and charge people money for it. Anyone want to buy some Nitrogen credits? Everyday, you are breathing in and out way more nitrogen than carbon dioxide! If you think the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is alarming, than you should be even more alarmed at the amount of Nitrogen.
http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/30/largest-cleantech-industry-is%e2%80%a6carbon-credits-at-63-billion/
"Carbon credits were worth a staggering $63 billion in 2007 and $59 billion in the first half of 2008 alone." (Sarah Lozanova)
Carbon credits are a bigger industry than either solar or wind power. There is something wrong with this picture. How can the biggest clean technology not actually be a technology!?
Now I'm for reducing pollution, but I don't know how many times I need to say this. Carbon dioxide is not pollution. To all those who think it is, remember this: when you breath, you make carbon dioxide.
I just don't understand why people would buy carbon credits. Is it because they feel bad about making carbon dioxide? Where does that $63 billion go?
Why are they called carbon credits instead of carbon dioxide credits? If anyone has chunks of carbon just sitting around that they feel bad about, I would be happy to take them off your hand for a small "carbon credit" fee. I'm sure I could find a use for all that coal and diamonds.
Maybe I should make up a problem and charge people money for it. Anyone want to buy some Nitrogen credits? Everyday, you are breathing in and out way more nitrogen than carbon dioxide! If you think the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is alarming, than you should be even more alarmed at the amount of Nitrogen.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Give Me Real Sugar Instead of High Fructose Corn Syrup
By now most people know that High Fructose Corn Syrup is bad for you and worse than regular sugar, yet it is still being used in many foods and beverages simply because it is cheaper than sugar.
It is used in some products you wouldn't expect like Ben and Jerry's ice cream, Heinz Ketchup, Robitussin, and Wheat Thins.
Here is a list of foods that contain HFCS http://www.accidentalhedonist.com/index.php/2005/06/09/foods_and_products_containing_high_fruct
But why is High Fructose Corn Syrup, a highly processed substance cheaper than regular sugar?
Michael Pollan does a good job of explaining here http://www.michaelpollan.com/article.php?id=52
It is the tragedy of the commons, an economic term for something benefiting an individual but hurting the group. As production of corn increases, the price falls. Farmers as a whole should reduce production, but they increase production to make the same amount of money as before which in turn lowers the price further. One farmer growing more wouldn't make a big difference, but when they all do that, the price drops.
When there is an excess of food people try to turn it into something else to make money, a value added commodity. In the 1800s they turned the extra corn into whiskey, now they turn it into high fructose corn syrup. Yuck. I'd rather have cheap whiskey.
The government encourages this crazy overproduction with subsidies! Instead of encouraging overproduction (and in turn larger portion sizes and obesity) by writing farmers checks we should try something like the New Deal program to encourage a stable price for corn. In that system the government set a goal price for corn based on the cost of production. When the market price was below that the farmer could get a loan from the government instead of just selling the corn at the lower price. When the price of corn went back up he could sell it and if the price didn't go up right away, he just turned in the corn that was the collateral for the loan. Then the government stored the corn for when there was a shortage. It's a pretty neat system!
Then the 70s came and people complained about high food prices, so we switched to the current system of encouraging overproduction and subsidies making HFCS cheaper than sugar. Companies who care only about making a profit seized the opportunity of lower material costs in their food.
Cane and beet sugar is almost all sucrose while HFCS like is name suggests is more fructose than glucose. Both the extra fructose and the body not being able to control the rate of breakdown, make it bad for you. Sucrose is a molecule composed of the glucose and fructose molecules held together by a weak chemical bond. The body can control the rate at which those bonds are broken making the fructose part of sugar easier on the liver than the fructose in HFCS.
"Sucrose is composed of glucose and fructose. When sugar is given to rats in high amounts, the rats develop multiple health problems, especially when the rats were deficient in certain nutrients, such as copper. The researchers wanted to know whether it was the fructose or the glucose moiety that was causing the problems. So they repeated their studies with two groups of rats, one given high amounts of glucose and one given high amounts of fructose. The glucose group was unaffected but the fructose group had disastrous results. The male rats did not reach adulthood. They had anemia, high cholesterol and heart hypertrophy--that means that their hearts enlarged until they exploded. They also had delayed testicular development. Dr. Field explains that fructose in combination with copper deficiency in the growing animal interferes with collagen production. (Copper deficiency, by the way, is widespread in America.) In a nutshell, the little bodies of the rats just fell apart. The females were not so affected, but they were unable to produce live young." from author Linda Forristal at http://www.westonaprice.org/motherlinda/cornsyrup.html.
More info here:
http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/highfructose.html
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/high-fructose-corn-syrup/AN01588
In summary we need to solve the problem of overproduction. If sugar was cheaper than HFCS then companies would use that like they do in the rest of the world (ever wonder why sweets and pop from other countries taste better?)
Let's set up a system similar to before to give farmers loans instead of writing checks and dumping the corn on the market. Let's get rid of sugar tariffs.
Let's get rid of high fructose corn syrup.
It is used in some products you wouldn't expect like Ben and Jerry's ice cream, Heinz Ketchup, Robitussin, and Wheat Thins.
Here is a list of foods that contain HFCS http://www.accidentalhedonist.com/index.php/2005/06/09/foods_and_products_containing_high_fruct
But why is High Fructose Corn Syrup, a highly processed substance cheaper than regular sugar?
Michael Pollan does a good job of explaining here http://www.michaelpollan.com/article.php?id=52
It is the tragedy of the commons, an economic term for something benefiting an individual but hurting the group. As production of corn increases, the price falls. Farmers as a whole should reduce production, but they increase production to make the same amount of money as before which in turn lowers the price further. One farmer growing more wouldn't make a big difference, but when they all do that, the price drops.
When there is an excess of food people try to turn it into something else to make money, a value added commodity. In the 1800s they turned the extra corn into whiskey, now they turn it into high fructose corn syrup. Yuck. I'd rather have cheap whiskey.
The government encourages this crazy overproduction with subsidies! Instead of encouraging overproduction (and in turn larger portion sizes and obesity) by writing farmers checks we should try something like the New Deal program to encourage a stable price for corn. In that system the government set a goal price for corn based on the cost of production. When the market price was below that the farmer could get a loan from the government instead of just selling the corn at the lower price. When the price of corn went back up he could sell it and if the price didn't go up right away, he just turned in the corn that was the collateral for the loan. Then the government stored the corn for when there was a shortage. It's a pretty neat system!
Then the 70s came and people complained about high food prices, so we switched to the current system of encouraging overproduction and subsidies making HFCS cheaper than sugar. Companies who care only about making a profit seized the opportunity of lower material costs in their food.
Cane and beet sugar is almost all sucrose while HFCS like is name suggests is more fructose than glucose. Both the extra fructose and the body not being able to control the rate of breakdown, make it bad for you. Sucrose is a molecule composed of the glucose and fructose molecules held together by a weak chemical bond. The body can control the rate at which those bonds are broken making the fructose part of sugar easier on the liver than the fructose in HFCS.
"Sucrose is composed of glucose and fructose. When sugar is given to rats in high amounts, the rats develop multiple health problems, especially when the rats were deficient in certain nutrients, such as copper. The researchers wanted to know whether it was the fructose or the glucose moiety that was causing the problems. So they repeated their studies with two groups of rats, one given high amounts of glucose and one given high amounts of fructose. The glucose group was unaffected but the fructose group had disastrous results. The male rats did not reach adulthood. They had anemia, high cholesterol and heart hypertrophy--that means that their hearts enlarged until they exploded. They also had delayed testicular development. Dr. Field explains that fructose in combination with copper deficiency in the growing animal interferes with collagen production. (Copper deficiency, by the way, is widespread in America.) In a nutshell, the little bodies of the rats just fell apart. The females were not so affected, but they were unable to produce live young." from author Linda Forristal at http://www.westonaprice.org/motherlinda/cornsyrup.html.
More info here:
http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/highfructose.html
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/high-fructose-corn-syrup/AN01588
In summary we need to solve the problem of overproduction. If sugar was cheaper than HFCS then companies would use that like they do in the rest of the world (ever wonder why sweets and pop from other countries taste better?)
Let's set up a system similar to before to give farmers loans instead of writing checks and dumping the corn on the market. Let's get rid of sugar tariffs.
Let's get rid of high fructose corn syrup.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Diamonds Are Organic
We're starting off with something that I think isn't very controversial: the use of the word "organic." Now organic basically means contains carbon or having to do with plants or animals.
If you don't believe me..
So, I'm organic, you're organic (if you're human, if you're a robot you might want to check on that). Most food is organic; salt is not.
For a while now, people have been marketing certain foods as organic. If your food was grown without pesticides then say that. It sets your food apart more than calling it organic.
I mean, think about. This sounds kinda silly right?
Hey Everybody! Buy my vegetables! They're not salt!
A different word to describe food as produced following certain criteria would be helpful.
Sadly, I think that new use of the word "organic" is here to stay with the end result being that the meaning will be more vague.
"All Natural" doesn't work, because that really doesn't mean much in food. Crushed up dead bugs and high fructose corn syrup qualify as all natural. It's gross, but true. So how about a completely new word? Hmmm...
Naturalic
And speaking of certifying things as naturalic, one of the requirements is that the food can't be genetically modified. In a lot of plants and animals that is very hard to find. Selective breeding is a form of genetic modification. So just try and find some corn that isn't genetically modified. Now if you mean a specific method of genetic modification such as recumbent DNA technology then just say that.
Anyone up for some rational discussion?
If you don't believe me..
So, I'm organic, you're organic (if you're human, if you're a robot you might want to check on that). Most food is organic; salt is not.
For a while now, people have been marketing certain foods as organic. If your food was grown without pesticides then say that. It sets your food apart more than calling it organic.
I mean, think about. This sounds kinda silly right?
Hey Everybody! Buy my vegetables! They're not salt!
A different word to describe food as produced following certain criteria would be helpful.
Sadly, I think that new use of the word "organic" is here to stay with the end result being that the meaning will be more vague.
"All Natural" doesn't work, because that really doesn't mean much in food. Crushed up dead bugs and high fructose corn syrup qualify as all natural. It's gross, but true. So how about a completely new word? Hmmm...
Naturalic
And speaking of certifying things as naturalic, one of the requirements is that the food can't be genetically modified. In a lot of plants and animals that is very hard to find. Selective breeding is a form of genetic modification. So just try and find some corn that isn't genetically modified. Now if you mean a specific method of genetic modification such as recumbent DNA technology then just say that.
Anyone up for some rational discussion?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)