Author Topic: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)  (Read 19072 times)

Alf

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Barefoot is best.
    • View Profile
Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
« Reply #15 on: August 02, 2016, 10:39:18 PM »
I've read and listened to blogs on this subject and the advice to the level headed, non-extremist, reasonable person is that some sun exposure is extremely good and natural. As with many things, too much sun exposure can become a bad thing, so when I 'feel' the sun beating down too strong, I seek shade or I will use some chemical sun protection.

It is reasonable to believe that people who go out and shock their systems with the sun will increase their risk of bad effects like a short term sunburn or something worse.

../Alf

JOhnGw

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
  • Almost anything worth doing is better done naked.
    • View Profile
Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
« Reply #16 on: August 03, 2016, 10:28:51 AM »
The article certainly reinforces my prejudice against sun creams and supports my habit of seeking shade as soon as I feel my skin getting too heated from the sun.
JOhn

Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same.
George Bernard Shaw, Maxims for Revolutionaries

Greenbare Woods

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1948
  • Human bodies are natural, comfortable, and green.
    • View Profile
    • Greenbare Photos
Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
« Reply #17 on: August 03, 2016, 01:51:06 PM »
I don't use sun block chemicals either.  My plan is to go out into the sun an hour a day beginning in spring when it becomes warm enough to be naked.  By mid summer I'm covered with natural sun block and no longer getting sunburned even all day in the sun.

Sure, too much of anything good all of a sudden is too much, but too little is bad and toxic chemicals are not good for babies and other living things. 

Bob
Human bodies are natural, comfortable, and green.
To see more of Bob you can view his personal photo page
http://www.photos.bradkemp.com/greenbare.html

eyesup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2347
    • View Profile
Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
« Reply #18 on: August 09, 2016, 06:44:28 PM »
The level of severity of sunburn is determined by genetics. Northern Europeans can attest to this. So can the residents in the tropical zones. Everything reacts to solar radiation. No exceptions. What I do is manage it.

After the 1st couple of outings I stop burning and simply get darker. I don't stop reacting to the sun. Even though I am not burning I don't overdo it.

This is common sense. Or should be.

Duane

ric

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 423
    • View Profile
Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
« Reply #19 on: August 09, 2016, 07:32:08 PM »
Were on the last day of a week in fuerteventura'', were in an all inclusive hotel with buffet style catering' there's a couple of pools' , though were beach front its pebbly so we've been driving to a nice sandy beach after breakfast, 3 to 4 hours on the beach , naked' back to hotel for lunch ' spend the afternoon in the shade on our balcony , naked. Dress for dinner and a walk along the beach.
We people watch,  there's people round the pool who've not seen sun since god was a nipperr,, got lilly white skin and slapping on the suncream, we've seen one of down the beach in a bikini and leather furry ankle boots..  all the red sunburned bodies are covered in layers of cream, and still sitting in the sun or strutting down the beach.
Noticed one 20 something woman at dinner, plain pasta, spaghetti, for starter, followed by a plate of mashed potatoes.  The amount of bread people are shovelling away is amazing.
There's all sorts of salads' , vegetables, meats and fish available,  why eat white rolls and croisonts for breakfast?,if you don't want eggs, bacon, sausage, tomatoes, beans, there's all sorts of fruits, yogurts'', etc sets on offer.


Incidentally we haven't used sunscrean or sunglasses at all,  not only has the skin got to be free to react to the sun, we feel the whole system is getting information from the light in the eyes..  wear sunglasses and you're telling the Boddy its not sunny...hence you burn?

I don't like typing on a tablet, bloody thing keeps writing what it thinks I'm going to type

Conclusion is a lot of people having got a clue about healthy living.

Incidentally we having used suncream or sunglasses at all

eyesup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2347
    • View Profile
Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
« Reply #20 on: August 09, 2016, 08:15:29 PM »
Quote from: ric
I don't like typing on a tablet, bloody thing keeps writing what it thinks I'm going to type.

I hate that too!
I believe there's a way to turn it off in the preferences.

Duane

reubenT

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 160
    • View Profile
Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
« Reply #21 on: August 16, 2016, 04:59:10 AM »
It's our diet that causes skin cancer, very little to do with sun exposure.    The sun plays only a minor role in skin cancer and it's effect is played up way more than it deserves.  Too much animal fat does it.  Saturated fat I think they call it.  If the only fat one gets is raw plant source it'll create significant good results.   Just heating it too much changes it to a form not so good.  Along with naked life in nature,  God's design was for us to eat food picked fresh from the plants and trees,  no heating of it,  no second hand by way of animals.     And that diet I have learned can do amazing things for us,   provided it's grown on mineral rich soil.  Everything available to us through the regular produce production lines is very poor quality.  Worse than most people understand.  Which is why I'm determined to grow my own. 

  There were some things in that info I didn't know.  But it makes it even more obvious,   we were designed to go naked outside,  a lot.   When we don't it's compromising our health.  Those people who object to nudity are forming their opinions contrary to science and health.  And contrary to God's original plan for us.   

  I don't burn easy, even if I do it's very minor.   My brother burns much easier.  And he has ever so slight hint of reddish hair too.  He's starting to go bald on top at 41,  I'm 50 and every barber I go to is amazed at my thick heavy mop.     I don't know where my sunburn resistance came from.  All I know about is a general mixture of European ancestry.   But I have heard if a person's ancestry came through early America there's  high chance of american indian input.  Since I have several lines of ancestry going back to the 1600's at immigration, including one that was on the second trip of the mayflower according to my grandmother.   I guess I can assume there would be some Indian in me.   I like the thought for some reason.  Possibly because I can identify with their lifestyle to some extent. 

MartinM

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
« Reply #22 on: August 16, 2016, 09:15:37 AM »
There is plenty of evidence to prove a direct link between exposure to thr sun and skin cancer, but it is also much misrepresented. The risk is particularly to melanoma, the less serious kind of skin cancer. It is also, i believe, linked to behaviour, such as getting burned on foreign holidays, short shatp bouts of exposure for those who have not developed a tan. Use of sun cream may make matters worse by encouraging over exposure, especially in the middle of the day when the dun is strongest.

Mankind is omnivorous, and has been eating meat for 100s of thousands of years and has anatomy (teeth) to suit. Likewise, human use of fire and cooking go back a long way and is believed to have contributed to a burst in human evolution due to the more readily available calories through cooking. Having said that, diet would still have included a lot of uncooked food and fruits, so there is a question of balance. The diets most people eat are now very artificial and simplicity is clearly a way to improve diet. Some racial types eg inuit) are more evolved to survive on a largely meat and fish diet.

'God's plan' was for us to evolve to where we are, in tune with nature around us. Unfotunately, we are now very much 'out of tune', and risk evolving ourselves, and much around us, out of existence.

Most people eat far too much, especially processed food, and don't eat enough fruit and veg, including raw food. But there is no reason to suggest that moderate eating of meat and cooked food is in any way unhealthy. However, I do believe in keeping meat consumption down for environmental reasons.

Tread lightly upon the earth!

Greenbare Woods

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1948
  • Human bodies are natural, comfortable, and green.
    • View Profile
    • Greenbare Photos
Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
« Reply #23 on: August 16, 2016, 05:29:34 PM »

RANT

There are more silly superstitions about food and health than just about anything else.  Our evolution is based on cooked food, mostly cooked meat, for something around 2 million years.  Over that time our teeth and jaws have been reduced significantly compared to other primate species.  Wild chimpanzees spend about 8 hours per day chewing raw food, and now have much larger and stronger jaws and teeth then we do.  Our guts have also diminished and are less effective digesting raw foods.  Two humans can eat the same food and either starve or grow fat depending on whether it has been cooked.  That efficiency allowed our ancestors to spend time and energy on larger brains and social activity.

Despite decades of false or "quack" medical information telling us that saturated fats cause heart attacks and deaths, sunshine causes cancer, etc. etc. etc., the medicine show has been more recently demonstrated to be based on hooey.  The biochemistry of human digestion doesn't care if your fats are saturated or not, it all is chemically converted before it becomes absorbed.  Mega vitamins are another medicine show marketing gimmick. Most of us get sufficient vitamins from our food.  Mega amounts can be more destructive than helpful.  Most cancer "treatments" and other surgeries have been shown to be ineffective or harmful.  There are thousands of charlatans wanting to sell us some fad.   

Yes, some people get cancer and die young, most do not.  The 6 year old girl who lived across the street did not get brain cancer from eating the "wrong" food nor playing in the sunshine.  Some people get cancer and die.  Something goes wrong with the extremely complicated process.  Superstitious blaming it on whatever the medicine show is selling this week is not going to save our lives nor prevent us from dying.  There once was a time in Europe where troops of religious people went from town to town beating themselves bloody to stop the black plague.  Rather that bringing protection of their God, they spread plague to each town.  The medicine show is still just as nuts and still just as much believed.

Walk on the earth.  Enjoy the sunshine.  Live in harmony with nature and evolution.  Eat what your body wants, which is what you enjoy eating.  Listen to your body rather than the medicine show. So-called "junk food" is what we enjoy because our bodies tell us that is that to eat.  Death is, perhaps, the only thing more sure than taxes.  We can and should enjoy our lives as much as we can for as long as we can.

End Rant.   
Human bodies are natural, comfortable, and green.
To see more of Bob you can view his personal photo page
http://www.photos.bradkemp.com/greenbare.html

ric

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 423
    • View Profile
Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
« Reply #24 on: August 16, 2016, 06:58:13 PM »
sad fact is that the vast majority of medical and dietary research is either funded by somebody  trying to sell something or instigated by academics trying to reinforce their theories to get more funding for their team for the next few years

in short it aint worth the paper its printed on.

jbeegoode

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5349
    • View Profile
Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
« Reply #25 on: August 16, 2016, 08:10:03 PM »
Bob’s Rant: “Despite decades of false or "quack" medical information telling us that saturated fats cause heart attacks and deaths, sunshine causes cancer, etc. etc. etc., the medicine show has been more recently demonstrated to be based on hooey.”

HOO rah, Hoo Rah! Yup, since they told mothers that breast milk was inferior, since they cut out millions of thyroids because they didn’t do anything, that silly government nutritional pyramid, all cholesterol should be avoided, “these little blue pills will help your momma” and radiation cures cancer, going barefoot will give you flat feet because you need the arch support, on and on. This skin cancer thing is just another in a long list. The truth is plain simple.

The last few decades have brought us more and more often, companies with the scruples worse than any street pusher that I ever knew (I was a child of the 60’s and knew….). Senators telling me that big pharm owns congress, etc. Causing people to die just to make a profit for the investors is common practice. There are numerous ways to squirrel out of the consequences for these blackhearted pirates to use.

The idea that a body can’t handle too much sun is ludicrous. Of course you don’t want to burn. Of course some bodies burn easier than others, Of course some situations give stronger sun that others. Sunburn sucks, that should be enough. We evolved on the planet, we are adapted like ma earth born us and we need her milk.

I won’t eat meat that has been monocrop fed, shot up with unnatural hormones, stuck in conditions that breed disease, loaded with antibiotics to combat that problem. I don’t eat fish that has been grown in confined artificial conditions, set with weird GMO genetics, subjected to disease problems, like the cattle, and mono-fed. I don’t eat either of these, that have been over processed so that they only are fish and meat from sight, but actually are loaded with fats, chemicals, grains and processes, that have to be cooked way too much because they are unpredictably unfit, and don’t really have the taste of true meat.

We have had supplementary meat in our diet for millennia, we probably ate what was available, like fish, and plants mostly, depending on the location. Rolling thunder the bruho once told me to eat what my ancestors ate. That is a mess because my genetic background is all over. But I do know that they weren’t eating the fake food that is available in the supermarket (I hear and have read that European food supply is much more nutritious.  I know that the European cheeses don’t taste and cook like plastic, because they are more traditional. There are no GMOs there, too.

Even dogs are getting cancer tumors. People with the poor modern processed diet are getting associated diseases more and more as the food system becomes more and more corrupt and crappy meat oriented. I sit in any airport and watch the passengers waddle off of the planes, exhibiting old age that shouldn’t be there, back problems, obvious diabetes, etc. and I know that it is rampant and for profit that they a conned into thinking that they are doing great. They are eating fake food, that is rich in fat and sugar to disguise and make a false craving. They gobble it down instead of eating it, chewing it, because it has no nutritional value and they must eat more and the body keeps trying to get nutrition. Good food doesn’t require gobbling and shoveling. Good food taste so good you slow down, and you get satisfied quicker, much quicker.

People eat junk food because it is made to get people to eat lots of it, to create addiction and cravings. The studies show how this works and murderers are creating fake foods using that knowledge, knowingly. It isn’t that the body likes an ice-cream sandwich because it is nutritious. It is the fat and sugar combo, which are two things that mess bodies up. I have changed my diet over the years. I can see the difference. I can know the addictive science because I feel it. I feel sluggish, I gain weight, I have mood swings, I crave, and when I detox and fast, it gets amazingly weird and obvious what these foods do.

Doctors ARE pushing supplemental vitamins for a solution to the obvious problem and ric has it right. The studies are corrupt, even criminally irresponsible.

So, as usual, I agree with Bob and disagree. Rubin has it correct. It is all about real soil, over processing and not cooking out the nutritional value from your food, getting it fresh. I can feel and taste the difference. It is very apparent.

I’m staying barefoot all over in the sun and I’ll live longer and healthier while I’m at it. I don’t worry about these diseases that nearly everybody else does. I take my medicine, real food, exercise, sauna and these diseases go away. It is natural. These diseases, foods, and lifestyles that have taken over diet the last century are not natural, or healthy, or the diet and life that we evolved with up until these times. We can live longer and healthier.
Jbee
Barefoot all over, all over.

nuduke

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2327
    • View Profile
Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
« Reply #26 on: August 19, 2016, 01:08:28 AM »
Wow, Bob and Jbee
It's all hanging out in this thread!

Some strong views held here.  My stance is one of the rationalist reductionist.  If the evidence is good enough, it's a fact (at least for as long as that evidence isn't superseded by some more!  That's not cynical - Change happens.  Newtonian mechanics held sway for 300 years until Einstein changed it a bit, Galen was the medical authority even though totally wrong in some cases until Harvey and Pasteur amongst others defined the true knowledge from evidence.)

So Bob, whilst I entirely agree with your balance and moderation in all things argument, your points about the endless assault of poorly defined quack theories and your recommendations for things that create a balanced diet, I rather feel you rant a bit too loosely in dismissing entirely the combined efforts of medical science to date!  You mention numerous foods that are bad for us - those opinions can only have been formed with the help of the scientific research that created the view on those foods.

In Jbee's comments, I can, as usual, recognise the desire to get away from the processing and additives that could cause some of the many evils and pandemic ills of modern western society.  My experience of food in the US is that there is a much wider variety available of foods that are astoundingly more processed than in the UK & Europe, but skim off that difference and there is a big overlap.  But, as a biochemist by training, I've never been able to see why an organic carrot or potato is any different than one raised non-organically or a GM crop different from a normal one in nutritional terms provided that there isn't a definitely identifiable difference such as residual hormones in meat and chicken.  But if monocrop fed meat or GM tomatoes can't be distinguished from their traditionally produced counterparts, I fail to see what 'fluence' or 'miasma' they contain that is to be avoided.  For decades, plant breeders have naturally bred highly productive rice and wheat species that have essentially revolutionised farming and cropping and have saved the eastern world from mass starvation.  Yet these new species contain exactly the same sort of genetic differences as a species created by GM manipulation.  GM is in many cases just a shortcut to what nature might have done over millennia.  Why then is GM soya milk not the same product as soya milk when the GM difference is, say, bushier plants for better harvesting - nothing to do with the nutritional content.

So whilst I can't and don't wish to try to refute either Bob's recommendations for healthy balance or Jbees recommendations for imbalance towards the healthy and natural, because both views look pretty sensible, nevertheless I would ask whether those opinions are a little too generalised in the aspects of dismissing science, modern processing and the interests of industry in quite such general terms. 

What I would add to the conversation, is the opinion that what we believe and understand about our diet and lifestlye is tainted by the appallingly poor objectivity of those who disseminate our understanding in the media.  It is the media that peddle the crap guidance on food and correct consumption that Bob rightly rails against.  And in my experience, every new food fad or lifestyle adjustment e.g. less sun/more sun is created not by poor research (a proportion of which certainly exists, but that's a digression), but the media taking serious but specific research findings and extrapolating them way beyond scientific reality or the known facts and conclusions.  The number of unspecialised journos trying to scratch a living scrying barely recognisable conclusions following the publication of a paper in a science which relates strongly to our lifestyle (e.g. in nutrition) is too large!  My plea is for more serious and clear explanation of research and medical treatments that enables us to form an objective understanding and take personal and public dietary  action where necessary.

I used to work in pharmaceutical manufacturing in a factory that produced a number of large volume vitamin supplement products.  As a biochemist, I knew that in populations able to afford the luxury of buying vitamin tablets, dietary intake was usually more than sufficient to provide all vitamin requirements.  There was absolutely no need for vitamins in a normal diet (even one heavily skewed towards junk food) and that the vast majority of any ingested extra vitamin would be metabolised or excreted without ever being needed for the metabolic pathways that it participated in.  But the taking of vitamins is one of the most embedded myths in our society and the industry is truly vast that is devoted to making us take useless dietary supplements for everything that we might want to cure or aspire to. 

Has anyone reading this ever found anyone able to ascribe an objective effect of taking OTC dietary supplements that has not got a hereditary metabolic dysfunction that requires the taking of a specific vitamin (e.g. Vit B12 needed by some hemophiliacs)?  My prediction is that no-one has.  Has anyone observed a specific effect of a prescribed or administered drug?  (e.g. relief of a headache by paracetamol or the curing of an infection by antibiotics).  My prediction is that everyone has!
I would therefore say that to ignore where science guides us is foolhardy but to be sceptical of what we are told by the media is entirely healthy!

John     
« Last Edit: August 19, 2016, 01:18:39 AM by nuduke »

eyesup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2347
    • View Profile
Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
« Reply #27 on: August 19, 2016, 02:18:49 AM »
All this discussion about GMO's and such reminded me of a show I saw about corn. The three most consumed staple foods worldwide are corn, rice and wheat in that order. Corn does not reproduce readily on it's own. To get to the levels of production needed to provide food for millions, it is necessary to intervene in it's growth cycle. It has to be harvested processed and then planted. Every year.

Talk about a GMO! Of course most of the original modifications done on this grass was done over the course of hundreds of years ago in tried and true methods that Gregor Mendel would have recognized.

Duane

nuduke

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2327
    • View Profile
Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
« Reply #28 on: August 27, 2016, 06:07:19 PM »
Yes, Duane

Plant and animal breeding over the years have brought nutrition where previously only hunger was the future.  Problem is that a lot of additional yield is only possible, as you indicate, by a lot of technological support such as fertilisers.  Without being Malthusian, as a liberal i.e. simply asking the question without any implied meaning, I wonder what the world would be like today if those innovations in food production productivity hadn't occurred? 

I distinctly recall from my childhood and youth, in a world of 3 billion people at that time (1960s) that the TV documentaries and articles in the  science periodicals and news, not to mention governments and world organisations were of dangerous population growth and the likely shortage of food and oil to come.  In those days the prediction was for a doubling in population by the millennium (which happened) but a global food shortage and scarcity or complete loss of oil.  If technology and science hadn't moved on, I wonder what the world would have been like with not enough food?  My guess is less peaceful.

One also wonders whether the burgeoning of plenty in some parts of the world, and more than was predicted back then, and the concomitant increase in population is sustainable, ecologically and quantitatively speaking.  The prediction is 8-9bn by 2050.  I wonder therefore again, in the absence of those aspects of 'progress' that the post WW2 decades brought, and are still bringing, would populations have peaked and decreased? If so it may not have not been a world that many of us would have wished to live in.

Just a little idle speculation. :)

John

jbeegoode

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5349
    • View Profile
Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
« Reply #29 on: August 27, 2016, 07:49:04 PM »
Yes, Duane

Plant and animal breeding over the years have brought nutrition where previously only hunger was the future.  Problem is that a lot of additional yield is only possible, as you indicate, by a lot of technological support such as fertilisers.  Without being Malthusian, as a liberal i.e. simply asking the question without any implied meaning, I wonder what the world would be like today if those innovations in food production productivity hadn't occurred? 

I distinctly recall from my childhood and youth, in a world of 3 billion people at that time (1960s) that the TV documentaries and articles in the  science periodicals and news, not to mention governments and world organisations were of dangerous population growth and the likely shortage of food and oil to come.  In those days the prediction was for a doubling in population by the millennium (which happened) but a global food shortage and scarcity or complete loss of oil.  If technology and science hadn't moved on, I wonder what the world would have been like with not enough food?  My guess is less peaceful.

One also wonders whether the burgeoning of plenty in some parts of the world, and more than was predicted back then, and the concomitant increase in population is sustainable, ecologically and quantitatively speaking.  The prediction is 8-9bn by 2050.  I wonder therefore again, in the absence of those aspects of 'progress' that the post WW2 decades brought, and are still bringing, would populations have peaked and decreased? If so it may not have not been a world that many of us would have wished to live in.

Just a little idle speculation. :)

John
But NUDUKE! Your topic drift has left you with a post that has nothing to do with naked bodies! Maybe I can help…

…!

…Ah, I know how. Over population of people who possess way too much clothing drain huge amounts of resources. Cotton fields could be used for food production. Sustainable organic production and biodiversity being consumed locally, could make these fields more habitable, so there would of course be more space for all of those people and much less oil burned.  ::)

Cattle production takes many times the space, water and resources as plant food production. Eating less meat makes for better and much much more food. The production of animals will produce more carbon problems than oil by 2030 at current trends. Most famine is in places where animal production has replaced it, starving the people that traditionally lived there. Science (corporate PR) makes itself out to be a savior and tells us that we would all be starving if it wasn’t for big farms, pesticides, GMO crops, fertilizers, etc., and the need to eat lots of meat every day.  That just isn’t so. You get tons more bang for your buck out of small farms and plots. Cattle provide leather, which is clothing, so less leather, less clothing.  ;)

 I remember reading Science Illustrated when I was like 10, science telling me that there would only be about 15 square feet per person in 2020. I visioned a vast empty space with naked people standing just a few feet apart looking confused. :-\

There would be plenty of places to roam freely nude in the western United States, but the water natural habitat has been decimated by cattle production. Only 7% of meat comes from this vast area. This meat is nearly all sent to a fattening up station which is where antibiotics are injected, disease is produced among the meat, the most water pollution of all is produced, and it stinks to high heaven. If the public land was turned to nude hunting, nude fishing, nude hiking, nude camping and naturist tourists, (and I suppose it is okay to dress if you lean that way), then the rest of the country would miss just one hamburger every couple of weeks, more or less, and we would have a healthier planet. Meat production could be done on privately held land and we’d all be better off except for a few cattle corporations that are squeezing ranchers every which way anyhow. Then, of course the deer, elk and bison would probably wreak havoc on those small plots of plant production :D….I’m trying to inject humor into this along with the need for nudity discussion, if no one noticed…. :o


…91% of Amazon rainforests have been destroyed to raise cattle. Half of the US land mass and 45% landmass of the entire Earth is used to produce meat. More than 78% of land used for agriculture in the US is used to feed animals. 80% of the one billion people starving are in counties that produce food for meat eaters in other more well off countries. 15:1 ratio that plants produce more per acre than meat. More than half of the water used in the US is given to livestock. There will be a 40% shortage of water in the next 15 years worldwide. 30% to 50% of greenhouse gases are from livestock production. The apparent Earth bearing load of 565 gigatons will be exceeded by the year 2030 without any fossil fuel from vehicles, electricity, etc., JUST from eating meat. One can nit pick these statistics, but there is fire under that smoke and I’ll take naturism over a daily hamburger every time.  8)

There, we ARE talking getting’ naked again. :)
Jbee
Barefoot all over, all over.