Rodale spent decades promoting organic farming and healthy living
through his magazines and books. He appeared on the Cavett Show in 1971
to talk about his health philosophy and claimed he would live to be 100 years old because of his lifestyle.
During a break in taping, while another guest was being interviewed,
Rodale slumped over in his chair. He had suffered a heart attack and
died right there in the studio.
He was 72 years old. The show never aired that episode.
I saw this today. It does not fix everything.
Jerome Irving Rodale
Rodale spent decades promoting organic farming and healthy living
through his magazines and books. He appeared on the Cavett Show in 1971
to talk about his health philosophy and claimed he would live to be 100 years old because of his lifestyle.
During a break in taping, while another guest was being interviewed,
Rodale slumped over in his chair. He had suffered a heart attack and
died right there in the studio.
He was 72 years old. The show never aired that episode.
I saw this today. It does not fix everything.
Jerome Irving Rodale
Rodale spent decades promoting organic farming and healthy living
through his magazines and books. He appeared on the Cavett Show in 1971
to talk about his health philosophy and claimed he would live to be 100 >years old because of his lifestyle.
During a break in taping, while another guest was being interviewed,
Rodale slumped over in his chair. He had suffered a heart attack and
died right there in the studio.
He was 72 years old. The show never aired that episode.
I saw this today. It does not fix everything.
Jerome Irving Rodale
Rodale spent decades promoting organic farming and healthy living
through his magazines and books. He appeared on the Cavett Show in 1971
to talk about his health philosophy and claimed he would live to be 100 years old because of his lifestyle.
During a break in taping, while another guest was being interviewed,
Rodale slumped over in his chair. He had suffered a heart attack and
died right there in the studio.
He was 72 years old. The show never aired that episode.
On 12/7/2025 3:26 PM, Ed P wrote:
I saw this today. It does not fix everything.
Jerome Irving Rodale
Rodale spent decades promoting organic farming and healthy living
through his magazines and books. He appeared on the Cavett Show in 1971
to talk about his health philosophy and claimed he would live to be 100
years old because of his lifestyle.
During a break in taping, while another guest was being interviewed,
Rodale slumped over in his chair. He had suffered a heart attack and
died right there in the studio.
He was 72 years old. The show never aired that episode.
Remember Euell Gibbons? He was an early promoter of eating health
foods. He wrote a book called "Stalking the wild Asparagus". He
promoted the breakfast cereal Grape Nuts. I remember seeing ads
featuring him on TV saying the taste "reminds me of wild hickory nuts"
He dropped dead of a heart attack at the age of 64 in 1975. But hey, he >never used the term "organic".
Ed P <esp@snet.n> posted:
I saw this today. It does not fix everything.
Jerome Irving Rodale
Rodale spent decades promoting organic farming and healthy living
through his magazines and books. He appeared on the Cavett Show in 1971
to talk about his health philosophy and claimed he would live to be 100
years old because of his lifestyle.
During a break in taping, while another guest was being interviewed,
Rodale slumped over in his chair. He had suffered a heart attack and
died right there in the studio.
He was 72 years old. The show never aired that episode.
I see organic food mostly as a marketing strategy. My guess is that you should >just forget about organic and start taking large doses of Metformin every day.
On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 15:54:30 -0500, jmquown <j_mcquown@comcast.net>
wrote:
Remember Euell Gibbons? He was an early promoter of eating health
foods. He wrote a book called "Stalking the wild Asparagus". He
promoted the breakfast cereal Grape Nuts. I remember seeing ads
featuring him on TV saying the taste "reminds me of wild hickory nuts"
He dropped dead of a heart attack at the age of 64 in 1975. But hey, he >never used the term "organic".
Maybe he smoked. Maybe he had bad genes. Maybe he steamed his
asparagus.
I saw this today. It does not fix everything....
Maybe he smoked. Maybe he had bad genes. Maybe he steamed his
asparagus.
He looked older than his 64 years when he died of a ruptured aorta.
On Sun, 07 Dec 2025 21:24:20 GMT, dsi1
<user4746@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Ed P <esp@snet.n> posted:
I saw this today. It does not fix everything.
Jerome Irving Rodale
Rodale spent decades promoting organic farming and healthy living
through his magazines and books. He appeared on the Cavett Show in 1971
to talk about his health philosophy and claimed he would live to be 100
years old because of his lifestyle.
During a break in taping, while another guest was being interviewed,
Rodale slumped over in his chair. He had suffered a heart attack and
died right there in the studio.
He was 72 years old. The show never aired that episode.
I see organic food mostly as a marketing strategy. My guess is that you should
just forget about organic and start taking large doses of Metformin every day.
I think it depends whether there is some form of control on pesticides
and herbicides in fruit and vegetables. I have no idea about that in
AU, let alone US.
On 2025-12-07 5:48 p.m., ItsJoanNotJoAnn@webtv.net wrote:
Maybe he smoked. Maybe he had bad genes. Maybe he steamed his
asparagus.
He looked older than his 64 years when he died of a ruptured aorta.
You never know. I knew a guy who died of a ruptured aorta.
On 12/7/2025 4:47 PM, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2025 21:24:20 GMT, dsi1The government has controls on things like that, so, I have complete >confidence in how they are used.
<user4746@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Ed P <esp@snet.n> posted:
I saw this today. It does not fix everything.
Jerome Irving Rodale
Rodale spent decades promoting organic farming and healthy living
through his magazines and books. He appeared on the Cavett Show in 1971 >>>> to talk about his health philosophy and claimed he would live to be 100 >>>> years old because of his lifestyle.
During a break in taping, while another guest was being interviewed,
Rodale slumped over in his chair. He had suffered a heart attack and
died right there in the studio.
He was 72 years old. The show never aired that episode.
I see organic food mostly as a marketing strategy. My guess is that you should
just forget about organic and start taking large doses of Metformin every day.
I think it depends whether there is some form of control on pesticides
and herbicides in fruit and vegetables. I have no idea about that in
AU, let alone US.
Ed P wrote:
...
I saw this today. It does not fix everything.
if you consider what has been going on for the past 50yrs
there's been very little actual science done on nutrition
and pollution effects.
the current goobermint is also being trashed as far as
any science and regulations of contaminants.
this will be considered a rather dark age in terms of
human health and welfare of many squandered years and
the wasting of billions for many poorly done studies
along with the generally poor quality health-care if you
compare it to what other countries are managing to get
done with less.
On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 18:56:06 -0500, Ed P <esp@snet.n> wrote:
On 12/7/2025 4:47 PM, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2025 21:24:20 GMT, dsi1The government has controls on things like that, so, I have complete
<user4746@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Ed P <esp@snet.n> posted:
I saw this today. It does not fix everything.
Jerome Irving Rodale
Rodale spent decades promoting organic farming and healthy living
through his magazines and books. He appeared on the Cavett Show in 1971 >>>>> to talk about his health philosophy and claimed he would live to be 100 >>>>> years old because of his lifestyle.
During a break in taping, while another guest was being interviewed, >>>>> Rodale slumped over in his chair. He had suffered a heart attack and >>>>> died right there in the studio.
He was 72 years old. The show never aired that episode.
I see organic food mostly as a marketing strategy. My guess is that you should
just forget about organic and start taking large doses of Metformin every day.
I think it depends whether there is some form of control on pesticides
and herbicides in fruit and vegetables. I have no idea about that in
AU, let alone US.
confidence in how they are used.
Sometimes consumer organisations do random tests with supermarket
produce. The results tend to be bad.
On 12/7/2025 8:07 PM, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 18:56:06 -0500, Ed P <esp@snet.n> wrote:I'm sure they are. If you go to Amazon, you will find many styles of >stickers that say "organic" Slap on a sticker, raise the price 20% and
The government has controls on things like that, so, I have complete
confidence in how they are used.
Sometimes consumer organisations do random tests with supermarket
produce. The results tend to be bad.
you are good.
On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 20:55:01 -0500, Ed P <esp@snet.n> wrote:
On 12/7/2025 8:07 PM, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 18:56:06 -0500, Ed P <esp@snet.n> wrote:I'm sure they are. If you go to Amazon, you will find many styles of
The government has controls on things like that, so, I have complete
confidence in how they are used.
Sometimes consumer organisations do random tests with supermarket
produce. The results tend to be bad.
stickers that say "organic" Slap on a sticker, raise the price 20% and
you are good.
I meant that consumer organisations test non organic produce. I don't
know of tests of organic produce. They should exist. I also don't know
how well the "Organic" claim is checked in our various countries. But
as long as y'all call chains like Flippies, Dickies and Wendy's
"restaurants" and like to eat there, I wouldn't worry too much about supermarket produce.
On Sun, 07 Dec 2025 21:24:20 GMT, dsi1
<user4746@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Ed P <esp@snet.n> posted:
I saw this today. It does not fix everything.
Jerome Irving Rodale
Rodale spent decades promoting organic farming and healthy living
through his magazines and books. He appeared on the Cavett Show in 1971 >> to talk about his health philosophy and claimed he would live to be 100 >> years old because of his lifestyle.
During a break in taping, while another guest was being interviewed,
Rodale slumped over in his chair. He had suffered a heart attack and
died right there in the studio.
He was 72 years old. The show never aired that episode.
I see organic food mostly as a marketing strategy.
just forget about organic and start taking large doses of Metformin every day.
I think it depends whether there is some form of control on pesticides
and herbicides in fruit and vegetables. I have no idea about that in
AU, let alone US.
In article <10h4sm4$3opm0$1@dont-email.me>,
Bruce@invalid.invalid says...
On Sun, 07 Dec 2025 21:24:20 GMT, dsi1
<user4746@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
I see organic food mostly as a marketing strategy.
It's truly astonishing that anyone on a food-cooking
group could be so uninformed about it.
My guess is that you should
just forget about organic and start taking large doses of Metformin every day.
?
I think it depends whether there is some form of control on pesticides
and herbicides in fruit and vegetables. I have no idea about that in
AU, let alone US.
Evidently you're equally ignorant of organic methods
of raising livestock, which is perhaps why you're under
the delusion they are all "tortured".
Hardly anybody in RFC eats
organic meat.
And even organically raised livestock is transported to a
slaughterhouse, killed and eaten. But maybe that's your idea of a nice
life.
But
as long as y'all call chains like Flippies, Dickies and Wendy's
"restaurants" and like to eat there, I wouldn't worry too much about supermarket produce.
He dropped dead of a heart attack at the age of 64 in 1975.
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 11:37:06 -0000, Janet <nobody@home.com> wrote:
In article <10h4sm4$3opm0$1@dont-email.me>,
Bruce@invalid.invalid says...
On Sun, 07 Dec 2025 21:24:20 GMT, dsi1
<user4746@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
I see organic food mostly as a marketing strategy.
It's truly astonishing that anyone on a food-cooking
group could be so uninformed about it.
He refuses to think about food. If you pay a bit of attention to what
you eat, you live in fear or are a fear monger. This attitude gave him diabetes but he's not afraid of that!
My guess is that you should
just forget about organic and start taking large doses of Metformin every day.
?
I think it depends whether there is some form of control on pesticides
and herbicides in fruit and vegetables. I have no idea about that in
AU, let alone US.
Evidently you're equally ignorant of organic methods
of raising livestock, which is perhaps why you're under
the delusion they are all "tortured".
You're talking out of your proverbial. Hardly anybody in RFC eats
organic meat.
And even organically raised livestock is transported to a
slaughterhouse, killed and eaten. But maybe that's your idea of a nice
life.
On 2025-12-08, Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 11:37:06 -0000, Janet <nobody@home.com> wrote:
In article <10h4sm4$3opm0$1@dont-email.me>,
Bruce@invalid.invalid says...
On Sun, 07 Dec 2025 21:24:20 GMT, dsi1
<user4746@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
I see organic food mostly as a marketing strategy.
It's truly astonishing that anyone on a food-cooking
group could be so uninformed about it.
He refuses to think about food. If you pay a bit of attention to what
you eat, you live in fear or are a fear monger. This attitude gave him
diabetes but he's not afraid of that!
My guess is that you should
just forget about organic and start taking large doses of Metformin every day.
?
I think it depends whether there is some form of control on pesticides >>>> and herbicides in fruit and vegetables. I have no idea about that in
AU, let alone US.
Evidently you're equally ignorant of organic methods
of raising livestock, which is perhaps why you're under
the delusion they are all "tortured".
You're talking out of your proverbial. Hardly anybody in RFC eats
organic meat.
And even organically raised livestock is transported to a
slaughterhouse, killed and eaten. But maybe that's your idea of a nice
life.
Hunted meat is probably the most humanely sourced. Depending on
the skill of the hunter, of course.
On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 15:54:30 -0500, jmquown <j_mcquown@comcast.net>
wrote:
Remember Euell Gibbons? He was an early promoter of eating health
foods. He wrote a book called "Stalking the wild Asparagus". He
promoted the breakfast cereal Grape Nuts. I remember seeing ads
featuring him on TV saying the taste "reminds me of wild hickory nuts"
He dropped dead of a heart attack at the age of 64 in 1975. But hey, he >>never used the term "organic".
Maybe he smoked. Maybe he had bad genes. Maybe he steamed his
asparagus.
On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 15:26:24 -0500, Ed P <esp@snet.n> wrote:
He was 72 years old. The show never aired that episode.
Maybe he'd have died at 52 if he hadn't eaten organic food.
On 2025-12-07, Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 15:26:24 -0500, Ed P <esp@snet.n> wrote:
He was 72 years old. The show never aired that episode.
Maybe he'd have died at 52 if he hadn't eaten organic food.
Maybe he'd have died at 82 if he didn't stress out on, and preach about
food. Luckily, no one here does that. Wait!
I meant that consumer organisations test non organic produce. I don't
know of tests of organic produce. They should exist. I also don't know
how well the "Organic" claim is checked in our various countries. But
as long as y'all call chains like Flippies, Dickies and Wendy's
"restaurants" and like to eat there, I wouldn't worry too much about supermarket produce.
On 2025-12-08, Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid> wrote:
I meant that consumer organisations test non organic produce. I don't
know of tests of organic produce. They should exist. I also don't know
how well the "Organic" claim is checked in our various countries. But
as long as y'all call chains like Flippies, Dickies and Wendy's
"restaurants" and like to eat there, I wouldn't worry too much about
supermarket produce.
Thank you! I won't. What is called *science* nowadays is mostly testing
small groups of people, interpreting or misinterpreting data and
pronouncing shocking results. That's how *scientists* and politicians
make money and a name for themselves.
Global cooling! Global warming! Climate change! Do you notice a theme?
We used to call it the weather.
On Mon, 08 Dec 2025 13:05:15 +1100
Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid> wrote:
But
as long as y'all call chains like Flippies, Dickies and Wendy's "restaurants" and like to eat there, I wouldn't worry too much about supermarket produce.
Never heard of the 1st two.
https://flippysfastfood.com/
https://franchise.dickeys.com/
Or at least how you misspelled them...
On 2025-12-08, Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid> wrote:
I meant that consumer organisations test non organic produce. I don't
know of tests of organic produce. They should exist. I also don't know
how well the "Organic" claim is checked in our various countries. But
as long as y'all call chains like Flippies, Dickies and Wendy's
"restaurants" and like to eat there, I wouldn't worry too much about
supermarket produce.
Thank you! I won't. What is called *science* nowadays is mostly testing
small groups of people, interpreting or misinterpreting data and
pronouncing shocking results. That's how *scientists* and politicians
make money and a name for themselves.
Global cooling! Global warming! Climate change! Do you notice a theme?
We used to call it the weather.
On 2025-12-08, Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid> wrote:
I meant that consumer organisations test non organic produce. I don't
know of tests of organic produce. They should exist. I also don't know
how well the "Organic" claim is checked in our various countries. But
as long as y'all call chains like Flippies, Dickies and Wendy's
"restaurants" and like to eat there, I wouldn't worry too much about
supermarket produce.
Thank you! I won't. What is called *science* nowadays is mostly testing
small groups of people, interpreting or misinterpreting data and
pronouncing shocking results. That's how *scientists* and politicians
make money and a name for themselves.
Global cooling! Global warming! Climate change! Do you notice a theme?
We used to call it the weather.
On 12/8/2025 9:28 PM, Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
On 2025-12-08, Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Thank you! I won't. What is called *science* nowadays is mostly testing
small groups of people, interpreting or misinterpreting data and
pronouncing shocking results. That's how *scientists* and politicians
make money and a name for themselves.
Global cooling! Global warming! Climate change! Do you notice a theme?
We used to call it the weather.
Yes, now we know what Bell was talking about many decades ago when he
said we should us solar, not fossil fuels.
Burning 150 million tons a day has to have some effect.
I am not going to deny that there is some change happening but I have to wonder how much of it is hype and how much has to do with the speed of modern communication. There have been a number of ice ages over the millennia. The last one sent an ice cap that ended just about where I
live. The soil here is sandy loam which was apparently dumped here by
the glacier. There is almost no rock in it. A mile to the south there
is clay. To the north is a kame. It has a lot of that sandy loam but
also a lot of gravel that had been pushed and carried by the ice. It started receding 15,000, Given the mathematics involved it is not
surprising that an equal rate of melting would see the ice cap receding faster and faster as the diameter is reduced
It is hard to say how much of it is caused by man. Those glaciers were receding 15,000 years ago, long before the industrial scale burning of fossil fuels.
The last 65 million years:
https://tinyurl.com/3aywzas7
On 9 Dec 2025 02:28:18 GMT, Leonard Blaisdell
<leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Thank you! I won't. What is called *science* nowadays is mostly testing >>small groups of people, interpreting or misinterpreting data and >>pronouncing shocking results. That's how *scientists* and politicians
make money and a name for themselves.
Global cooling! Global warming! Climate change! Do you notice a theme?
We used to call it the weather.
How we live has no influence on our health or on the planet. We can do anything we want. Nothing has any consequences. Yay, what a relief!
Whining and moaning about how others think may cause WWIII.
We don't know squat and
won't until we can truly explain the solar cycle.
On 2025-12-08 8:33 p.m., Dave Smith wrote:
I am not going to deny that there is some change happening but I
have to wonder how much of it is hype and how much has to do with
the speed of modern communication. There have been a number of ice
ages over the millennia. The last one sent an ice cap that ended
just about where I live. The soil here is sandy loam which was
apparently dumped here by the glacier. There is almost no rock in
it. A mile to the south there is clay. To the north is a kame. It
has a lot of that sandy loam but also a lot of gravel that had been
pushed and carried by the ice. It started receding 15,000, Given
the mathematics involved it is not surprising that an equal rate of
melting would see the ice cap receding faster and faster as the
diameter is reduced
It is hard to say how much of it is caused by man. Those glaciers
were receding 15,000 years ago, long before the industrial scale
burning of fossil fuels.
The last 65 million years:
https://tinyurl.com/3aywzas7
On 2025-12-09, Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid> wrote:
How we live has no influence on our health or on the planet. We can do
anything we want. Nothing has any consequences. Yay, what a relief!
How we live has important consequences to our health. Our genetics have >stronger consequences to our health.
Whining and moaning about how others think may cause WWIII. That will
have vast consequences to everyone's health.
Ease your mind, relax, and live your life as best as you can.
On 9 Dec 2025 02:07:29 GMT, Leonard Blaisdell
<leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2025-12-07, Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 15:26:24 -0500, Ed P <esp@snet.n> wrote:
He was 72 years old. The show never aired that episode.
Maybe he'd have died at 52 if he hadn't eaten organic food.
Maybe he'd have died at 82 if he didn't stress out on, and preach
about food. Luckily, no one here does that. Wait!
I don't preach about food, only sometimes about animal abuse.
Thee is also the green house gases.
Burning 150 million tons a day has to have some effect.
Global cooling! Global warming! Climate change! Do you notice a theme?
We used to call it the weather.
The main thing I did for my health, was to
quit smoking 20 years ago.
"Dr. Rocktor" <drr@in.valid> posted:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2025 13:05:15 +1100
Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid> wrote:
But
as long as y'all call chains like Flippies, Dickies and Wendy's
"restaurants" and like to eat there, I wouldn't worry too much about
supermarket produce.
Never heard of the 1st two.
https://flippysfastfood.com/
https://franchise.dickeys.com/
Or at least how you misspelled them...
I'd eat at Flippy's Fast Food. To be honest, it doesn't look very good but it does
look like real American fast food from the middle of the mainland. As an added
bonus, it's not food indulging in the excesses that tends to happen on the American coasts.
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 22:44:34 -0500
Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Thee is also the green house gases.
C02 = .04% of atmospheric gasses, you uneducated gasbag.
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 22:29:59 -0500
Ed P <esp@snet.n> wrote:
Burning 150 million tons a day has to have some effect.
Not a whisker worth.
On 12/9/2025 2:26 AM, Dr. Rocktor wrote:
Not a whisker worth.Your opinion.
What is the plan for our grandchildren once oil becomes very scarce and eventually gone? Seems this is a good time to plan alternatives.
On 2025-12-09 8:43 a.m., Ed P wrote:
On 12/9/2025 2:26 AM, Dr. Rocktor wrote:
Not a whisker worth.Your opinion.
What is the plan for our grandchildren once oil becomes very scarce
and eventually gone? Seems this is a good time to plan alternatives.
Our national energy policy seems to have been a point of contention
between the federal government and them province of Alberta, which is
major oil producer. Being in the business, they understandably want to
make money off it. Sustainability is another issue. My understanding of
the policy was that it was intended to have us use the relatively cheap foreign oil until prices and improved methods made our domestic oil economically viable rather than paying a lot to process our oil until it
ran out and then make us dependent on foreign sources.
It is counter to The Trumptopian policy of pumping it all now and to
hell with future generations.
On 12/9/2025 9:19 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
It is counter to The Trumptopian policy of pumping it all now and to
hell with future generations.
The oil industry does provide many people with a good living, be it in
the fields, on rigs, or just pumping gas at the local station. Nice
that we have it, but lets look at the future.
Trump not only wants to "drill baby drill", he wants to stop other
energy sources, such as off shore wind. It is OK to put oil rigs out there, just not wind power.
Donald Trump views solar and wind energy negatively, calling them the
"scam of the century," blaming them for high electricity costs, and
actively working to curb their growth through policies like early termination of tax credits and restrictions on new projects, favoring
fossil fuels instead, despite industry pushback and some conflicting
signals from his administration. He believes renewables destroy
landscapes and hinder American energy dominance, while his
administration has introduced policies to reduce reliance on foreign
energy sources and promote traditional fuels
On 2025-12-09 9:36 a.m., Ed P wrote:
On 12/9/2025 9:19 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
It is counter to The Trumptopian policy of pumping it all now and to
hell with future generations.
The oil industry does provide many people with a good living, be it in
the fields, on rigs, or just pumping gas at the local station. Nice
that we have it, but lets look at the future.
Trump not only wants to "drill baby drill", he wants to stop other
energy sources, such as off shore wind. It is OK to put oil rigs out
there, just not wind power.
Donald Trump views solar and wind energy negatively, calling them the
"scam of the century," blaming them for high electricity costs, and
actively working to curb their growth through policies like early
termination of tax credits and restrictions on new projects, favoring
fossil fuels instead, despite industry pushback and some conflicting
signals from his administration. He believes renewables destroy
landscapes and hinder American energy dominance, while his
administration has introduced policies to reduce reliance on foreign
energy sources and promote traditional fuels
In the eyes of he and his followers it does look like like he is
reducing reliance on foreign energy, but that is only on the short term. They are cranking up production and lowering prices which then
encourages people to get bigger cars, crank up the heat and drive up
demand even more. The oil is not going to last for ever. When American
oil runs out you are going to be totally dependent on foreign oil. Then watch the prices rise.
As Christmas rolls around people are sticking up their Christmas
lighting. The new LED lighting uses only about 20% as much energy as the
old incandescent lights. One might expect that to mean we will be using
only 1/5 as much power to run the Christmas decorations. Instead,
because they use so much less power people put up ten times as many lights. We are likely using a lot more power because we are so energy efficient.
On 2025-12-09, Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 9 Dec 2025 02:28:18 GMT, Leonard Blaisdell
<leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Thank you! I won't. What is called *science* nowadays is mostly testing >>small groups of people, interpreting or misinterpreting data and >>pronouncing shocking results. That's how *scientists* and politicians >>make money and a name for themselves.
Global cooling! Global warming! Climate change! Do you notice a theme?
We used to call it the weather.
How we live has no influence on our health or on the planet. We can do anything we want. Nothing has any consequences. Yay, what a relief!
How we live has important consequences to our health. Our genetics have stronger consequences to our health.
Whining and moaning about how others think may cause WWIII. That will
have vast consequences to everyone's health.
Ease your mind, relax, and live your life as best as you can.
Psssssst! The planet doesn't give a crap about you or mankind. Hold onto
that idea and start a religion. It's worked before.
In article <mpq07bF73inU3@mid.individual.net>,
leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net says...
On 2025-12-09, Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 9 Dec 2025 02:28:18 GMT, Leonard Blaisdell
<leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Thank you! I won't. What is called *science* nowadays is mostly testing >>>> small groups of people, interpreting or misinterpreting data and
pronouncing shocking results. That's how *scientists* and politicians
make money and a name for themselves.
Global cooling! Global warming! Climate change! Do you notice a theme? >>>> We used to call it the weather.
How we live has no influence on our health or on the planet. We can do
anything we want. Nothing has any consequences. Yay, what a relief!
How we live has important consequences to our health. Our genetics have
stronger consequences to our health.
Leo's mother didn't eat enough spinach, so he missed
out on the irony gene
On 2025-12-09, dsi1 <user4746@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
"Dr. Rocktor" <drr@in.valid> posted:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2025 13:05:15 +1100
Never heard of the 1st two.
https://flippysfastfood.com/
https://franchise.dickeys.com/
Or at least how you misspelled them...
I'd eat at Flippy's Fast Food. To be honest, it doesn't look very good but it does
look like real American fast food from the middle of the mainland. As an added
bonus, it's not food indulging in the excesses that tends to happen on the >> American coasts.
What excesses are those?
On 2025-12-09, dsi1 <user4746@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
"Dr. Rocktor" <drr@in.valid> posted:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2025 13:05:15 +1100
Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid> wrote:
But
as long as y'all call chains like Flippies, Dickies and Wendy's
"restaurants" and like to eat there, I wouldn't worry too much
about supermarket produce.
Never heard of the 1st two.
https://flippysfastfood.com/
https://franchise.dickeys.com/
Or at least how you misspelled them...
I'd eat at Flippy's Fast Food. To be honest, it doesn't look very
good but it does look like real American fast food from the middle
of the mainland. As an added bonus, it's not food indulging in the
excesses that tends to happen on the American coasts.
What excesses are those?
On 12/9/2025 2:24 AM, Dr. Rocktor wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 22:44:34 -0500
Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Thee is also the green house gases.
C02 = .04% of atmospheric gasses, you uneducated gasbag.
Alarming CO2 levels depend on the context: in the atmosphere, levels
above 400 ppm are rising and concerning for climate change (currently
~423 ppm);
On 12/9/2025 2:26 AM, Dr. Rocktor wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 22:29:59 -0500
Ed P <esp@snet.n> wrote:
Burning 150 million tons a day has to have some effect.
Not a whisker worth.Your opinion.
What is the plan for our grandchildren once oil becomes very scarce
and eventually gone?
Seems this is a good time to plan alternatives.
On 2025-12-09 8:43 a.m., Ed P wrote:
On 12/9/2025 2:26 AM, Dr. Rocktor wrote:
Not a whisker worth.Your opinion.
What is the plan for our grandchildren once oil becomes very scarce
and eventually gone? Seems this is a good time to plan
alternatives.
Our national energy policy seems to have been a point of contention
between the federal government and them province of Alberta, which is
major oil producer. Being in the business, they understandably want
to make money off it. Sustainability is another issue. My
understanding of the policy was that it was intended to have us use
the relatively cheap foreign oil until prices and improved methods
made our domestic oil economically viable rather than paying a lot to
process our oil until it ran out and then make us dependent on
foreign sources.
It is counter to The Trumptopian policy of pumping it all now and to
hell with future generations.
On 12/9/2025 9:19 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
On 2025-12-09 8:43 a.m., Ed P wrote:
On 12/9/2025 2:26 AM, Dr. Rocktor wrote:
Not a whisker worth.Your opinion.
What is the plan for our grandchildren once oil becomes very
scarce and eventually gone? Seems this is a good time to plan
alternatives.
So you missed out on the fuel cell and hydrogen replacement tech?Our national energy policy seems to have been a point of contention between the federal government and them province of Alberta, which
is major oil producer. Being in the business, they understandably
want to make money off it. Sustainability is another issue. My understanding of the policy was that it was intended to have us use
the relatively cheap foreign oil until prices and improved methods
made our domestic oil economically viable rather than paying a lot
to process our oil until it ran out and then make us dependent on
foreign sources.
It is counter to The Trumptopian policy of pumping it all now and
to hell with future generations.
The oil industry does provide many people with a good living, be it
in the fields, on rigs, or just pumping gas at the local station.
Nice that we have it, but lets look at the future.
Trump not only wants to "drill baby drill", he wants to stop otherFool - it was John Kerry who first banned them from his precious Hyannis
energy sources, such as off shore wind. It is OK to put oil rigs out
there, just not wind power.
Donald Trump views solar and wind energy negatively, calling them theLike the 8 BILLION$$ that went into giverment EV charging stations?
"scam of the century," blaming them for high electricity costs, and
actively working to curb their growth through policies like early termination of tax credits
and restrictions on new projects, favoringYes, wind farms do, along with killing birds like a spinning scythe.
fossil fuels instead, despite industry pushback and some conflicting
signals from his administration. He believes renewables destroy
landscapes
and hinder American energy dominance, while hisAnd yet still we sit on over 400 years of easily mined coal reserves.
administration has introduced policies to reduce reliance on foreign
energy sources and promote traditional fuels
On 12/9/2025 2:26 AM, Dr. Rocktor wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 22:29:59 Ed P <esp@snet.n> wrote:
Burning 150 million tons a day has to have some effect.
Not a whisker worth.
Your opinion.
What is the plan for our grandchildren once oil
becomes very scarce and eventually gone?
In the eyes of he and his followers it does look like like he isIs that why he just approved Kei cars for domestic sale and production?
reducing reliance on foreign energy, but that is only on the short
term. They are cranking up production and lowering prices which then encourages people to get bigger cars,
As Christmas rolls around people are sticking up their Christmas
lighting. The new LED lighting uses only about 20% as much energy as
the old incandescent lights. One might expect that to mean we will be
using only 1/5 as much power to run the Christmas decorations.
Instead, because they use so much less power people put up ten times
as many lights.
On 2025-12-09, Ed P wrote:
What is the plan for our grandchildren once oil
becomes very scarce and eventually gone?
As David pointed out in a parallel message, burning oil
causes other problems, the worst being 'greenhouse'
gasses. (A misnomer because plants within such a structure
tend to deplete the CO2 by turning it into cellulose.)
The only reason we need to ramp up oil use (in the short term)
is because DJT's blind ambition to be the biggest asshole
in history has derailed all the sacrifices we the people
outside of the USA have been making to make the world
a better place for future generations as opposed to
making more money for DJT.
On 2025-12-09, Ed P wrote:As what?
On 12/9/2025 2:26 AM, Dr. Rocktor wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 22:29:59 Ed P <esp@snet.n> wrote:
Burning 150 million tons a day has to have some effect.
Not a whisker worth.
Your opinion.
He is quite accurate as far as quantitative discussions
here seem to perambulate, despite that his assertion was
a colloquialism lacking any objective metrics.
Heat sources for this planet:
90% Radionucleide decay.
09% Tidal friction within the mantle,
01% Insolation. (Incoming solar radiation.)
Fossil fuels for the most part are from the Carboniferous era,
(350+ million years ago) and by all estimates 'peak' oil will
occur within 350 years of the start of the industrial revolution.
Thus if you define a 'whisker' as one-millionth,
he is accurate enough for us to at least acknowledge.
Non factor.What is the plan for our grandchildren once oil
becomes very scarce and eventually gone?
As David pointed out in a parallel message, burning oil
causes other problems, the worst being 'greenhouse'
gasses. (A misnomer because plants within such a structure
tend to deplete the CO2 by turning it into cellulose.)
The only reason we need to ramp up oil use (in the short term)what conceivable part of the world striving and sacrificing to 'make us
is because DJT's blind ambition to be the biggest asshole
in history has derailed all the sacrifices we the people
outside of the USA have been making to make the world
a better place for future generations as opposed to
making more money for DJT.
Oil is largely abiotic, self-renewing on a planetary basis.
The same holds for gold and other precious metals carried by magma.
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 08:40:36 -0500
Ed P <esp@snet.n> wrote:
On 12/9/2025 2:24 AM, Dr. Rocktor wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 22:44:34 -0500
Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Thee is also the green house gases.
C02 = .04% of atmospheric gasses, you uneducated gasbag.
Alarming CO2 levels depend on the context: in the atmosphere, levels
above 400 ppm are rising and concerning for climate change (currently
~423 ppm);
During earth's most fecund and prolific epoch levels stood at 1,200
ppm.
You are a willing byproduct of systemic misinformation.
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 09:36:21 -0500
Ed P <esp@snet.n> wrote:
On 12/9/2025 9:19 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
On 2025-12-09 8:43 a.m., Ed P wrote:
On 12/9/2025 2:26 AM, Dr. Rocktor wrote:
Not a whisker worth.Your opinion.
What is the plan for our grandchildren once oil becomes very
scarce and eventually gone? Seems this is a good time to plan
alternatives.
Our national energy policy seems to have been a point of contention
between the federal government and them province of Alberta, which
is major oil producer. Being in the business, they understandably
want to make money off it. Sustainability is another issue. My
understanding of the policy was that it was intended to have us use
the relatively cheap foreign oil until prices and improved methods
made our domestic oil economically viable rather than paying a lot
to process our oil until it ran out and then make us dependent on
foreign sources.
It is counter to The Trumptopian policy of pumping it all now and
to hell with future generations.
The oil industry does provide many people with a good living, be it
in the fields, on rigs, or just pumping gas at the local station.
Nice that we have it, but lets look at the future.
So you missed out on the fuel cell and hydrogen replacement tech?
Trump not only wants to "drill baby drill", he wants to stop other
energy sources, such as off shore wind. It is OK to put oil rigs out
there, just not wind power.
Fool - it was John Kerry who first banned them from his precious Hyannis
Port view lines.
Donald Trump views solar and wind energy negatively, calling them the
"scam of the century," blaming them for high electricity costs, and
actively working to curb their growth through policies like early
termination of tax credits
Like the 8 BILLION$$ that went into giverment EV charging stations?
All 8 of them?
You moron.
and restrictions on new projects, favoring
fossil fuels instead, despite industry pushback and some conflicting
signals from his administration. He believes renewables destroy
landscapes
Yes, wind farms do, along with killing birds like a spinning scythe.
and hinder American energy dominance, while his
administration has introduced policies to reduce reliance on foreign
energy sources and promote traditional fuels
And yet still we sit on over 400 years of easily mined coal reserves.
What makes you so damned stupid?
I also had a hard time with Canada's involvement in the Paris convention when we sent the single
largest number of delegates.
On 12/9/2025 12:58 PM, Dr. Rocktor wrote:
Oil is largely abiotic, self-renewing on a planetary basis.
The same holds for gold and other precious metals carried by magma.
How long does it take to self renew? Will it be ready for next week?
Next year? Please put a number on it.
On 12/9/2025 12:56 PM, Dr. Rocktor wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 08:40:36 -0500
Ed P <esp@snet.n> wrote:
On 12/9/2025 2:24 AM, Dr. Rocktor wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 22:44:34 -0500
Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Thee is also the green house gases.
C02 = .04% of atmospheric gasses, you uneducated gasbag.
Alarming CO2 levels depend on the context: in the atmosphere,
levels above 400 ppm are rising and concerning for climate change
(currently ~423 ppm);
During earth's most fecund and prolific epoch levels stood at 1,200
ppm.
You are a willing byproduct of systemic misinformation.
When, exactly, wast this?
Earth certainly has change over the past
few hundred million years and things we do every day effect it.
On 12/9/2025 1:02 PM, Dr. Rocktor wrote:For those not buying Eddie's subject-clouding chaff field: https://www.autoweek.com/news/a60702457/federal-funds-yield-only-8-ev-charging-stations/
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 09:36:21 -0500
Ed P <esp@snet.n> wrote:
On 12/9/2025 9:19 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
On 2025-12-09 8:43 a.m., Ed P wrote:
On 12/9/2025 2:26 AM, Dr. Rocktor wrote:
Not a whisker worth.Your opinion.
What is the plan for our grandchildren once oil becomes very
scarce and eventually gone? Seems this is a good time to plan
alternatives.
Our national energy policy seems to have been a point of
contention between the federal government and them province of
Alberta, which is major oil producer. Being in the business, they
understandably want to make money off it. Sustainability is
another issue. My understanding of the policy was that it was
intended to have us use the relatively cheap foreign oil until
prices and improved methods made our domestic oil economically
viable rather than paying a lot to process our oil until it ran
out and then make us dependent on foreign sources.
It is counter to The Trumptopian policy of pumping it all now and
to hell with future generations.
The oil industry does provide many people with a good living, be it
in the fields, on rigs, or just pumping gas at the local station.
Nice that we have it, but lets look at the future.
So you missed out on the fuel cell and hydrogen replacement tech?
Trump not only wants to "drill baby drill", he wants to stop other
energy sources, such as off shore wind. It is OK to put oil rigs
out there, just not wind power.
Fool - it was John Kerry who first banned them from his precious
Hyannis Port view lines.
Donald Trump views solar and wind energy negatively, calling them
the "scam of the century," blaming them for high electricity
costs, and actively working to curb their growth through policies
like early termination of tax credits
Like the 8 BILLION$$ that went into giverment EV charging stations?
All 8 of them?
You moron.
and restrictions on new projects, favoring
fossil fuels instead, despite industry pushback and some
conflicting signals from his administration. He believes
renewables destroy landscapes
Yes, wind farms do, along with killing birds like a spinning scythe.
and hinder American energy dominance, while his
administration has introduced policies to reduce reliance on
foreign energy sources and promote traditional fuels
And yet still we sit on over 400 years of easily mined coal
reserves.
What makes you so damned stupid?
Oh, how classy to revert to name calling. Shows who the real fool is.
Oil is largely abiotic, self-renewing on a planetary basis.
On 12/9/2025 1:02 PM, Dr. Rocktor wrote:
What makes you so damned stupid?
Oh, how classy to revert to name calling. Shows who the real fool is.
On 2025-12-09 10:58 a.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
Or not...Oil is largely abiotic, self-renewing on a planetary basis.WTF do you mean by "abiotic"?
Oil is derived from biological sources.
On 2025-12-09 10:58 a.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
WTF do you mean by "abiotic"?
Oil is largely abiotic, self-renewing on a planetary basis.
Oil is derived from biological sources.
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 16:13:53 -0500
Ed P <esp@snet.n> wrote:
On 12/9/2025 12:58 PM, Dr. Rocktor wrote:
Oil is largely abiotic, self-renewing on a planetary basis.
The same holds for gold and other precious metals carried by magma.
How long does it take to self renew? Will it be ready for next week?
Next year? Please put a number on it.
Does it matter when the planet functions of geologic time and always
has.
Why are 400 years of domestic coal "phased out"?
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 14:43:55 -0700
Graham <g.stereo@shaw.ca> wrote:
On 2025-12-09 10:58 a.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
WTF do you mean by "abiotic"?
Oil is largely abiotic, self-renewing on a planetary basis.
Oil is derived from biological sources.
Or not...
AI Overview
The concept of abiotic oil in Louisiana is tied to a controversial scientific theory, not widely accepted by mainstream geology, which suggests that oil at the Eugene Island 330 oil field in the Gulf of Mexico may have been generated from non-biological processes deep within the Earth.
The Abiotic Oil Theory
The prevailing biogenic theory posits that oil and natural gas (fossil fuels) form over millions of years from the decay of ancient plant and animal matter. The abiotic theory, however, argues that hydrocarbons can be naturally generated deep within the Earth's mantle through intense heat and pressure, with no biological matter required. Proponents suggest that these deep-earth hydrocarbons migrate upward and can replenish reservoirs that were previously thought to be depleted.
On 2025-12-09 4:43 p.m., Graham wrote:
On 2025-12-09 10:58 a.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
WTF do you mean by "abiotic"?
Oil is largely abiotic, self-renewing on a planetary basis.
Oil is derived from biological sources.
When a person is dumb enough to delude himself into thinking that he
can make up bullshit arguments that might fool people but it only
works on those who are even more stupid than himself.
On 12/9/2025 4:34 PM, Dr. Rocktor wrote:Not going to happen.
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 16:13:53 -0500
Ed P <esp@snet.n> wrote:
On 12/9/2025 12:58 PM, Dr. Rocktor wrote:
Oil is largely abiotic, self-renewing on a planetary basis.
The same holds for gold and other precious metals carried by
magma.
How long does it take to self renew? Will it be ready for next
week? Next year? Please put a number on it.
Does it matter when the planet functions of geologic time and always
has.
Yesm when we will run out in about 40 years.
You seem not to heard of clean coal or even OSHA: https://www.energy.gov/articles/energy-department-announces-625-million-investment-reinvigorate-and-expand-americas-coalWhy are 400 years of domestic coal "phased out"?
Pollution and black lung disease for starters.
On 2025-12-09 3:06 p.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 14:43:55 -0700
Graham <g.stereo@shaw.ca> wrote:
On 2025-12-09 10:58 a.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
WTF do you mean by "abiotic"?
Oil is largely abiotic, self-renewing on a planetary basis.
Oil is derived from biological sources.
Or not...
AI Overview
The concept of abiotic oil in Louisiana is tied to a controversial scientific theory, not widely accepted by mainstream geology, which suggests that oil at the Eugene Island 330 oil field in the Gulf of
Mexico may have been generated from non-biological processes deep
within the Earth. The Abiotic Oil Theory The prevailing biogenic
theory posits that oil and natural gas (fossil fuels) form over
millions of years from the decay of ancient plant and animal
matter. The abiotic theory, however, argues that hydrocarbons can
be naturally generated deep within the Earth's mantle through
intense heat and pressure, with no biological matter required.
Proponents suggest that these deep-earth hydrocarbons migrate
upward and can replenish reservoirs that were previously thought to
be depleted.
The people pushing that hypothesis are the equivalent of medical
quacks and are disregarded by the overwhelming number of real
scientists.
But regardless, nat. gas and coal is plentiful - onward!
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 15:18:07 -0700
Graham <g.stereo@shaw.ca> wrote:
On 2025-12-09 3:06 p.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 14:43:55 -0700
Graham <g.stereo@shaw.ca> wrote:
On 2025-12-09 10:58 a.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
WTF do you mean by "abiotic"?
Oil is largely abiotic, self-renewing on a planetary basis.
Oil is derived from biological sources.
Or not...
AI Overview
The concept of abiotic oil in Louisiana is tied to a controversial
scientific theory, not widely accepted by mainstream geology, which
suggests that oil at the Eugene Island 330 oil field in the Gulf of
Mexico may have been generated from non-biological processes deep
within the Earth. The Abiotic Oil Theory The prevailing biogenic
theory posits that oil and natural gas (fossil fuels) form over
millions of years from the decay of ancient plant and animal
matter. The abiotic theory, however, argues that hydrocarbons can
be naturally generated deep within the Earth's mantle through
intense heat and pressure, with no biological matter required.
Proponents suggest that these deep-earth hydrocarbons migrate
upward and can replenish reservoirs that were previously thought to
be depleted.
The people pushing that hypothesis are the equivalent of medical
quacks and are disregarded by the overwhelming number of real
scientists.
The "scientists/grant herded shills" doing the glo-BULL warming scare
are the real quacks.
But regardless, nat. gas and coal is plentiful - onward!
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 15:18:07 -0700
Graham <g.stereo@shaw.ca> wrote:
On 2025-12-09 3:06 p.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 14:43:55 -0700
Graham <g.stereo@shaw.ca> wrote:
On 2025-12-09 10:58 a.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
WTF do you mean by "abiotic"?
Oil is largely abiotic, self-renewing on a planetary basis.
Oil is derived from biological sources.
Or not...
AI Overview
The concept of abiotic oil in Louisiana is tied to a controversial
scientific theory, not widely accepted by mainstream geology, which
suggests that oil at the Eugene Island 330 oil field in the Gulf of
Mexico may have been generated from non-biological processes deep
within the Earth. The Abiotic Oil Theory The prevailing biogenic
theory posits that oil and natural gas (fossil fuels) form over
millions of years from the decay of ancient plant and animal
matter. The abiotic theory, however, argues that hydrocarbons can
be naturally generated deep within the Earth's mantle through
intense heat and pressure, with no biological matter required.
Proponents suggest that these deep-earth hydrocarbons migrate
upward and can replenish reservoirs that were previously thought to
be depleted.
The people pushing that hypothesis are the equivalent of medical
quacks and are disregarded by the overwhelming number of real
scientists.
The "scientists/grant herded shills" doing the glo-BULL warming scare
are the real quacks.
On 2025-12-09 4:35 p.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 15:18:07 -0700Do you rail against "Big Ag" and "Big Pharma" too?
Graham <g.stereo@shaw.ca> wrote:
On 2025-12-09 3:06 p.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 14:43:55 -0700
Graham <g.stereo@shaw.ca> wrote:
On 2025-12-09 10:58 a.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
WTF do you mean by "abiotic"?
Oil is largely abiotic, self-renewing on a planetary basis.
Oil is derived from biological sources.
Or not...
AI Overview
The concept of abiotic oil in Louisiana is tied to a controversial
scientific theory, not widely accepted by mainstream geology, which
suggests that oil at the Eugene Island 330 oil field in the Gulf of
Mexico may have been generated from non-biological processes deep
within the Earth. The Abiotic Oil Theory The prevailing biogenic
theory posits that oil and natural gas (fossil fuels) form over
millions of years from the decay of ancient plant and animal
matter. The abiotic theory, however, argues that hydrocarbons can
be naturally generated deep within the Earth's mantle through
intense heat and pressure, with no biological matter required.
Proponents suggest that these deep-earth hydrocarbons migrate
upward and can replenish reservoirs that were previously thought to
be depleted.
The people pushing that hypothesis are the equivalent of medical
quacks and are disregarded by the overwhelming number of real
scientists.
The "scientists/grant herded shills" doing the glo-BULL warming scare
are the real quacks.
On 2025-12-09 4:35 p.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
Where do you think natural gas comes from?
But regardless, nat. gas and coal is plentiful - onward!
On 12/9/2025 9:52 PM, Graham wrote:
On 2025-12-09 4:35 p.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
Where do you think natural gas comes from?
But regardless, nat. gas and coal is plentiful - onward!
Beans, cabbage, Brussels sprouts.
On 12/9/2025 6:35 PM, Dr. Rocktor wrote:
But regardless, nat. gas and coal is plentiful - onward!
Yes, you are producing large amounts of the natural gas.
On 2025-12-09 4:35 p.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 15:18:07 -0700
Graham <g.stereo@shaw.ca> wrote:
On 2025-12-09 3:06 p.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 14:43:55 -0700
Graham <g.stereo@shaw.ca> wrote:
On 2025-12-09 10:58 a.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
WTF do you mean by "abiotic"?
Oil is largely abiotic, self-renewing on a planetary basis.
Oil is derived from biological sources.
Or not...
AI Overview
The concept of abiotic oil in Louisiana is tied to a controversial
scientific theory, not widely accepted by mainstream geology,
which suggests that oil at the Eugene Island 330 oil field in the
Gulf of Mexico may have been generated from non-biological
processes deep within the Earth. The Abiotic Oil Theory The
prevailing biogenic theory posits that oil and natural gas
(fossil fuels) form over millions of years from the decay of
ancient plant and animal matter. The abiotic theory, however,
argues that hydrocarbons can be naturally generated deep within
the Earth's mantle through intense heat and pressure, with no
biological matter required. Proponents suggest that these
deep-earth hydrocarbons migrate upward and can replenish
reservoirs that were previously thought to be depleted.
The people pushing that hypothesis are the equivalent of medical
quacks and are disregarded by the overwhelming number of real
scientists.
The "scientists/grant herded shills" doing the glo-BULL warming
scare are the real quacks.
But regardless, nat. gas and coal is plentiful - onward!Where do you think natural gas comes from?
On 2025-12-09 4:35 p.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 15:18:07 -0700
Graham <g.stereo@shaw.ca> wrote:
On 2025-12-09 3:06 p.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 14:43:55 -0700
Graham <g.stereo@shaw.ca> wrote:
On 2025-12-09 10:58 a.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
WTF do you mean by "abiotic"?
Oil is largely abiotic, self-renewing on a planetary basis.
Oil is derived from biological sources.
Or not...
AI Overview
The concept of abiotic oil in Louisiana is tied to a controversial
scientific theory, not widely accepted by mainstream geology,
which suggests that oil at the Eugene Island 330 oil field in the
Gulf of Mexico may have been generated from non-biological
processes deep within the Earth. The Abiotic Oil Theory The
prevailing biogenic theory posits that oil and natural gas
(fossil fuels) form over millions of years from the decay of
ancient plant and animal matter. The abiotic theory, however,
argues that hydrocarbons can be naturally generated deep within
the Earth's mantle through intense heat and pressure, with no
biological matter required. Proponents suggest that these
deep-earth hydrocarbons migrate upward and can replenish
reservoirs that were previously thought to be depleted.
The people pushing that hypothesis are the equivalent of medical
quacks and are disregarded by the overwhelming number of real
scientists.
The "scientists/grant herded shills" doing the glo-BULL warmingDo rail against "Big Ag" and "Big Pharma" too?
scare are the real quacks.
What is the plan for our grandchildren once oil becomes very scarce and eventually gone? Seems this is a good time to plan alternatives.
we currently know of any other place we can get to that will
support us.
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 19:54:57 -0700
Graham <g.stereo@shaw.ca> wrote:
On 2025-12-09 4:35 p.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 15:18:07 -0700Do rail against "Big Ag" and "Big Pharma" too?
Graham <g.stereo@shaw.ca> wrote:
On 2025-12-09 3:06 p.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 14:43:55 -0700
Graham <g.stereo@shaw.ca> wrote:
On 2025-12-09 10:58 a.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
WTF do you mean by "abiotic"?
Oil is largely abiotic, self-renewing on a planetary basis.
Oil is derived from biological sources.
Or not...
AI Overview
The concept of abiotic oil in Louisiana is tied to a controversial
scientific theory, not widely accepted by mainstream geology,
which suggests that oil at the Eugene Island 330 oil field in the
Gulf of Mexico may have been generated from non-biological
processes deep within the Earth. The Abiotic Oil Theory The
prevailing biogenic theory posits that oil and natural gas
(fossil fuels) form over millions of years from the decay of
ancient plant and animal matter. The abiotic theory, however,
argues that hydrocarbons can be naturally generated deep within
the Earth's mantle through intense heat and pressure, with no
biological matter required. Proponents suggest that these
deep-earth hydrocarbons migrate upward and can replenish
reservoirs that were previously thought to be depleted.
The people pushing that hypothesis are the equivalent of medical
quacks and are disregarded by the overwhelming number of real
scientists.
The "scientists/grant herded shills" doing the glo-BULL warming
scare are the real quacks.
HELL YES!!!
Ed P wrote:
...
What is the plan for our grandchildren once oil becomes very scarce
and eventually gone? Seems this is a good time to plan
alternatives.
the coming issues from feedback effects that compound will
make the problems for children and grandchildren to swear about
the ignorant and selfish elders who ruined their only home planet.
we currently know of any other place we can get to that will
support us.
we need to treat this planet as our only spaceship that can
run thousands of years without needing anything else other than
sunlight (and protection from asteroids/comets and blathering
orange idiots).
older people complain about high taxes but when those bills
start coming due for coastal protection structures or moving
all those people and many many other things that are going
to happen... well let their whines be ignored as they're the
idiots fighting to ignore what in the end is going to become
compound interest. 40 trillion will be a drop in the bucket...
songbird
songbird wrote:
...
we currently know of any other place we can get to that will
support us.
we currently know of no other...
songbird (just in case that wasn't obviousTry again:
On 2025-12-09 10:18 p.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 19:54:57 -0700
Graham <g.stereo@shaw.ca> wrote:
On 2025-12-09 4:35 p.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 15:18:07 -0700Do rail against "Big Ag" and "Big Pharma" too?
Graham <g.stereo@shaw.ca> wrote:
On 2025-12-09 3:06 p.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 14:43:55 -0700
Graham <g.stereo@shaw.ca> wrote:
On 2025-12-09 10:58 a.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
WTF do you mean by "abiotic"?
Oil is largely abiotic, self-renewing on a planetary basis.
Oil is derived from biological sources.
Or not...
AI Overview
The concept of abiotic oil in Louisiana is tied to a
controversial scientific theory, not widely accepted by
mainstream geology, which suggests that oil at the Eugene
Island 330 oil field in the Gulf of Mexico may have been
generated from non-biological processes deep within the Earth.
The Abiotic Oil Theory The prevailing biogenic theory posits
that oil and natural gas (fossil fuels) form over millions of
years from the decay of ancient plant and animal matter. The
abiotic theory, however, argues that hydrocarbons can be
naturally generated deep within the Earth's mantle through
intense heat and pressure, with no biological matter required.
Proponents suggest that these deep-earth hydrocarbons migrate
upward and can replenish reservoirs that were previously
thought to be depleted.
The people pushing that hypothesis are the equivalent of medical
quacks and are disregarded by the overwhelming number of real
scientists.
The "scientists/grant herded shills" doing the glo-BULL warming
scare are the real quacks.
HELL YES!!!So, you're just another gullible conspiracy theorist.
On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 09:41:17 -0700
Graham <g.stereo@shaw.ca> wrote:
On 2025-12-09 10:18 p.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 19:54:57 -0700So, you're just another gullible conspiracy theorist.
Graham <g.stereo@shaw.ca> wrote:
On 2025-12-09 4:35 p.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 15:18:07 -0700Do rail against "Big Ag" and "Big Pharma" too?
Graham <g.stereo@shaw.ca> wrote:
On 2025-12-09 3:06 p.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 14:43:55 -0700
Graham <g.stereo@shaw.ca> wrote:
On 2025-12-09 10:58 a.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
WTF do you mean by "abiotic"?
Oil is largely abiotic, self-renewing on a planetary basis.
Oil is derived from biological sources.
Or not...
AI Overview
The concept of abiotic oil in Louisiana is tied to a
controversial scientific theory, not widely accepted by
mainstream geology, which suggests that oil at the Eugene
Island 330 oil field in the Gulf of Mexico may have been
generated from non-biological processes deep within the Earth.
The Abiotic Oil Theory The prevailing biogenic theory posits
that oil and natural gas (fossil fuels) form over millions of
years from the decay of ancient plant and animal matter. The
abiotic theory, however, argues that hydrocarbons can be
naturally generated deep within the Earth's mantle through
intense heat and pressure, with no biological matter required.
Proponents suggest that these deep-earth hydrocarbons migrate
upward and can replenish reservoirs that were previously
thought to be depleted.
The people pushing that hypothesis are the equivalent of medical
quacks and are disregarded by the overwhelming number of real
scientists.
The "scientists/grant herded shills" doing the glo-BULL warming
scare are the real quacks.
HELL YES!!!
So you are clueless wen it comes to corporate overreach and antitrust brinkmanship, yes?
?
Janet UK
On 2025-12-10 10:52 a.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:And barely competent in the English language to boot!
On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 09:41:17 -0700
Graham <g.stereo@shaw.ca> wrote:
On 2025-12-09 10:18 p.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 19:54:57 -0700So, you're just another gullible conspiracy theorist.
Graham <g.stereo@shaw.ca> wrote:
On 2025-12-09 4:35 p.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 15:18:07 -0700Do rail against "Big Ag" and "Big Pharma" too?
Graham <g.stereo@shaw.ca> wrote:
On 2025-12-09 3:06 p.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 14:43:55 -0700
Graham <g.stereo@shaw.ca> wrote:
On 2025-12-09 10:58 a.m., Dr. Rocktor wrote:
WTF do you mean by "abiotic"?
Oil is largely abiotic, self-renewing on a planetary basis. >>>>>>>>>
Oil is derived from biological sources.
Or not...
AI Overview
The concept of abiotic oil in Louisiana is tied to a
controversial scientific theory, not widely accepted by
mainstream geology, which suggests that oil at the Eugene
Island 330 oil field in the Gulf of Mexico may have been
generated from non-biological processes deep within the Earth. >>>>>>> The Abiotic Oil Theory The prevailing biogenic theory posits
that oil and natural gas (fossil fuels) form over millions of
years from the decay of ancient plant and animal matter. The
abiotic theory, however, argues that hydrocarbons can be
naturally generated deep within the Earth's mantle through
intense heat and pressure, with no biological matter required. >>>>>>> Proponents suggest that these deep-earth hydrocarbons migrate
upward and can replenish reservoirs that were previously
thought to be depleted.
The people pushing that hypothesis are the equivalent of
medical quacks and are disregarded by the overwhelming number
of real scientists.
The "scientists/grant herded shills" doing the glo-BULL warming
scare are the real quacks.
HELL YES!!!
So you are clueless wen it comes to corporate overreach andIrrelevant slang!
antitrust brinkmanship, yes?
My guess is that having parents/grandparents that had a long life is more >important to lifespan that any vegetable/fruit/meat raised in an oh-so-special >way that requires growers to be dedicated truth tellers.
On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 18:54:59 GMT, dsi1
<user4746@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
My guess is that having parents/grandparents that had a long life is more >important to lifespan that any vegetable/fruit/meat raised in an oh-so-special
way that requires growers to be dedicated truth tellers.
I think it's more about a moderate amount of exercise, no excessive overweightness, moderate alcohol, no smoking, no excessive sugar, fat
and carbs, no processed meat. I bet that has more of an effect than
whether your vegetables are organic or not, unless producers go
overboard.
On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 18:54:59 GMT, dsi1
<user4746@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
My guess is that having parents/grandparents that had a long life is more
important to lifespan that any vegetable/fruit/meat raised in an oh-so-special
way that requires growers to be dedicated truth tellers.
I think it's more about a moderate amount of exercise, no excessive overweightness, moderate alcohol, no smoking, no excessive sugar, fat
and carbs, no processed meat. I bet that has more of an effect than
whether your vegetables are organic or not, unless producers go
overboard.
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 09:19:17 -0500
Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:
On 2025-12-09 8:43 a.m., Ed P wrote:
On 12/9/2025 2:26 AM, Dr. Rocktor wrote:
Not a whisker worth.Your opinion.
What is the plan for our grandchildren once oil becomes very scarce
and eventually gone? Seems this is a good time to plan
alternatives.
Our national energy policy seems to have been a point of contention
between the federal government and them province of Alberta, which is
major oil producer. Being in the business, they understandably want
to make money off it. Sustainability is another issue. My
understanding of the policy was that it was intended to have us use
the relatively cheap foreign oil until prices and improved methods
made our domestic oil economically viable rather than paying a lot to
process our oil until it ran out and then make us dependent on
foreign sources.
It is counter to The Trumptopian policy of pumping it all now and to
hell with future generations.
Oil is largely abiotic, self-renewing on a planetary basis.
The same holds for gold and other precious metals carried by magma.
[...] many many other things that are going to happen...
On 12/9/2025 11:58 AM, Dr. Rocktor wrote:The evidence suggests not.
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 09:19:17 -0500
Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:
On 2025-12-09 8:43 a.m., Ed P wrote:
On 12/9/2025 2:26 AM, Dr. Rocktor wrote:
Not a whisker worth.Your opinion.
What is the plan for our grandchildren once oil becomes very
scarce and eventually gone? Seems this is a good time to plan
alternatives.
Our national energy policy seems to have been a point of contention
between the federal government and them province of Alberta, which
is major oil producer. Being in the business, they understandably
want to make money off it. Sustainability is another issue. My
understanding of the policy was that it was intended to have us use
the relatively cheap foreign oil until prices and improved methods
made our domestic oil economically viable rather than paying a lot
to process our oil until it ran out and then make us dependent on
foreign sources.
It is counter to The Trumptopian policy of pumping it all now and
to hell with future generations.
Oil is largely abiotic, self-renewing on a planetary basis.The Soviets believed that. Like many other things, they were wrong.>
Petroleum surely is, in part. https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2011/09/14/abiotic-oil-a-theory-worth-exploring#:~:text=Production%20at%20the%20oil%20field,that%20gushed%2010%20years%20ago.The same holds for gold and other precious metals carried by magma.Metals are abiotic. Petroleum is not.
On 12/10/2025 2:17 PM, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 18:54:59 GMT, dsi1Sounds reasonable. I've outlived my four grandparents and my parents by
<user4746@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
My guess is that having parents/grandparents that had a long life is more >>> important to lifespan that any vegetable/fruit/meat raised in an oh-so-special
way that requires growers to be dedicated truth tellers.
I think it's more about a moderate amount of exercise, no excessive
overweightness, moderate alcohol, no smoking, no excessive sugar, fat
and carbs, no processed meat. I bet that has more of an effect than
whether your vegetables are organic or not, unless producers go
overboard.
a few years already. Some of that I attribute to a better life overall
than what they had to work with many years ago.
Medication and immunization are factors too. My wife had the same
genetic heart condition her father had but outlived him by five years.
She had a couple of procedures that did not exist some years earlier.
On 2025-12-10, songbird wrote:
[...] many many other things that are going to happen...
This is one (?) thing that really bugs me. Universally,
all geophysicists believe that there is a huge earthquake
(Cascadian 'slip' Fault) that occurs about every 400 years.
The last one was about 400 years ago. Of course, they cannot
stop it, but how about moving everyone out of California &
Washington & BC &c for a few years and have an orderly plan
on how to re-build instead of a porkbelly-fueled land grab.
On 12/10/2025 2:17 PM, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 18:54:59 GMT, dsi1
<user4746@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
My guess is that having parents/grandparents that had a long life is more >> important to lifespan that any vegetable/fruit/meat raised in an oh-so-special
way that requires growers to be dedicated truth tellers.
I think it's more about a moderate amount of exercise, no excessive overweightness, moderate alcohol, no smoking, no excessive sugar, fat
and carbs, no processed meat. I bet that has more of an effect than
whether your vegetables are organic or not, unless producers go
overboard.
Sounds reasonable. I've outlived my four grandparents and my parents by
a few years already. Some of that I attribute to a better life overall
than what they had to work with many years ago.
Medication and immunization are factors too. My wife had the same
genetic heart condition her father had but outlived him by five years.
She had a couple of procedures that did not exist some years earlier.
Ed P <esp@snet.n> posted:
My guess is that what you believe depends on how long your parents/grandparents
lived. You'd be more inclined to believe in clean living if they didn't reach an
advanced age. My parents and their parents lived for quite a while. I suppose they
lived a clean life although I did see my grandma light one up a couple of times.
that was pretty shocking although it probably shouldn't have been. My dad used to
smoke it up until I was in my teens. Then he stopped. Did quitting smoking allow
him a longer life? I can't say. I won't say.
Ed P <esp@snet.n> posted:
Medication and immunization are factors too. My wife had the same
genetic heart condition her father had but outlived him by five years.
She had a couple of procedures that did not exist some years earlier.
My guess is that what you believe depends on how long your parents/grandparents
lived. You'd be more inclined to believe in clean living if they didn't reach an
advanced age. My parents and their parents lived for quite a while. I suppose they
lived a clean life although I did see my grandma light one up a couple of times.
that was pretty shocking although it probably shouldn't have been. My dad used to
smoke it up until I was in my teens. Then he stopped. Did quitting smoking allow
him a longer life? I can't say. I won't say.
On 12/11/2025 3:18 PM, dsi1 wrote:
smoke it up until I was in my teens. Then he stopped. Did quitting
smoking allow
him a longer life? I can't say. I won't say.
But smoking is cool, that why we started as teenagers! I did quit in my
20s though. It may be a factor as my parents and grandparents smoked. Growing up in the 40s, 50s,everyone smoked, even in hospitals.
Ed P <esp@snet.n> posted:
On 12/10/2025 2:17 PM, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 18:54:59 GMT, dsi1Sounds reasonable. I've outlived my four grandparents and my parents by
<user4746@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
My guess is that having parents/grandparents that had a long life is more >>>> important to lifespan that any vegetable/fruit/meat raised in an oh-so-special
way that requires growers to be dedicated truth tellers.
I think it's more about a moderate amount of exercise, no excessive
overweightness, moderate alcohol, no smoking, no excessive sugar, fat
and carbs, no processed meat. I bet that has more of an effect than
whether your vegetables are organic or not, unless producers go
overboard.
a few years already. Some of that I attribute to a better life overall
than what they had to work with many years ago.
Medication and immunization are factors too. My wife had the same
genetic heart condition her father had but outlived him by five years.
She had a couple of procedures that did not exist some years earlier.
My guess is that what you believe depends on how long your parents/grandparents
lived. You'd be more inclined to believe in clean living if they didn't reach an
advanced age. My parents and their parents lived for quite a while. I suppose they
lived a clean life although I did see my grandma light one up a couple of times.
that was pretty shocking although it probably shouldn't have been. My dad used to
smoke it up until I was in my teens. Then he stopped. Did quitting smoking allow
him a longer life? I can't say. I won't say.
On 12/11/2025 3:18 PM, dsi1 wrote:
Ed P <esp@snet.n> posted:
My guess is that what you believe depends on how long your parents/grandparents
lived. You'd be more inclined to believe in clean living if they didn't reach an
advanced age. My parents and their parents lived for quite a while. I suppose they
lived a clean life although I did see my grandma light one up a couple of times.
that was pretty shocking although it probably shouldn't have been. My dad used to
smoke it up until I was in my teens. Then he stopped. Did quitting smoking allow
him a longer life? I can't say. I won't say.
But smoking is cool, that why we started as teenagers! I did quit in my
20s though. It may be a factor as my parents and grandparents smoked. Growing up in the 40s, 50s,everyone smoked, even in hospitals.
On 2025-12-11 3:18 p.m., dsi1 wrote:
Ed P <esp@snet.n> posted:
Medication and immunization are factors too. My wife had the same
genetic heart condition her father had but outlived him by five years.
She had a couple of procedures that did not exist some years earlier.
My guess is that what you believe depends on how long your parents/
grandparents
lived. You'd be more inclined to believe in clean living if they
didn't reach an
advanced age. My parents and their parents lived for quite a while. I
suppose they
lived a clean life although I did see my grandma light one up a couple
of times.
that was pretty shocking although it probably shouldn't have been. My
dad used to
smoke it up until I was in my teens. Then he stopped. Did quitting
smoking allow
him a longer life? I can't say. I won't say.
The next time you watch an old movie turn on your laptop and Google the movie and the actors and see how many of them died in their 40s and 50s
of lung cancer, heart attacks or alcohol related issues.
But smoking is cool, that why we started as teenagers! I did quit in my
20s though. It may be a factor as my parents and grandparents smoked. Growing up in the 40s, 50s,everyone smoked, even in hospitals.
On 2025-12-11, Ed P <esp@snet.n> wrote:
But smoking is cool, that why we started as teenagers! I did quit in my
20s though. It may be a factor as my parents and grandparents smoked.
Growing up in the 40s, 50s,everyone smoked, even in hospitals.
I remember the grill cook, in a restaurant, smoking and ashes dropping
on the meat. It was acceptable. Houses stunk. Ashtrays were everywhere.
Dad quit when I was born. He was 46. He has emphysema (COPD) until he
died of something, not smoking related, at 83.
Me? Been addicted to chew for sixty years. Dad warned me!
Good news! Ain't no tar in chew, and I didn't smoke my teeth away like
nearly everyone of the older generation did.
The next time you watch an old movie turn on your laptop and Google the movie and the actors and see how many of them died in their 40s and 50s
of lung cancer, heart attacks or alcohol related issues.
On 2025-12-11, Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:
The next time you watch an old movie turn on your laptop and Google the
movie and the actors and see how many of them died in their 40s and 50s
of lung cancer, heart attacks or alcohol related issues.
I actually have, even without your reminder. The death rate was amazing.
John Wayne made it to 72!
Today's hard drugs are doing their best to lower the average age-of-death >again, and they're doing an excellent job. Start with one prescribed by
your doctor and go from there.
On 12/11/2025 5:48 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
On 2025-12-11 3:18 p.m., dsi1 wrote:Or not. There were lots of people who died of lung cancer who never smoked.
Ed P <esp@snet.n> posted:
Medication and immunization are factors too. My wife had the same
genetic heart condition her father had but outlived him by five years. >>>> She had a couple of procedures that did not exist some years earlier.
My guess is that what you believe depends on how long your parents/
grandparents
lived. You'd be more inclined to believe in clean living if they
didn't reach an
advanced age. My parents and their parents lived for quite a while. I
suppose they
lived a clean life although I did see my grandma light one up a
couple of times.
that was pretty shocking although it probably shouldn't have been. My
dad used to
smoke it up until I was in my teens. Then he stopped. Did quitting
smoking allow
him a longer life? I can't say. I won't say.
The next time you watch an old movie turn on your laptop and Google
the movie and the actors and see how many of them died in their 40s
and 50s of lung cancer, heart attacks or alcohol related issues.
On 2025-12-11, Ed P <esp@snet.n> wrote:
But smoking is cool, that why we started as teenagers! I did quit in my
20s though. It may be a factor as my parents and grandparents smoked.
Growing up in the 40s, 50s,everyone smoked, even in hospitals.
I remember the grill cook, in a restaurant, smoking and ashes dropping
on the meat. It was acceptable. Houses stunk. Ashtrays were everywhere.
Dad quit when I was born. He was 46. He has emphysema (COPD) until he
died of something, not smoking related, at 83.
Me? Been addicted to chew for sixty years. Dad warned me!
Good news! Ain't no tar in chew, and I didn't smoke my teeth away like
nearly everyone of the older generation did.
On 2025-12-11, Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:
The next time you watch an old movie turn on your laptop and Google the
movie and the actors and see how many of them died in their 40s and 50s
of lung cancer, heart attacks or alcohol related issues.
I actually have, even without your reminder. The death rate was amazing.
John Wayne made it to 72!
Today's hard drugs are doing their best to lower the average age-of-death again, and they're doing an excellent job. Start with one prescribed by
your doctor and go from there.
On 2025-12-11, Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:
The next time you watch an old movie turn on your laptop and Google the
movie and the actors and see how many of them died in their 40s and 50s
of lung cancer, heart attacks or alcohol related issues.
I actually have, even without your reminder. The death rate was amazing.
John Wayne made it to 72!
Today's hard drugs are doing their best to lower the average age-of-death again, and they're doing an excellent job. Start with one prescribed by
your doctor and go from there.
Or not. There were lots of people who died of lung cancer who never
The next time you watch an old movie turn on your laptop and Google
the movie and the actors and see how many of them died in their 40s
and 50s of lung cancer, heart attacks or alcohol related issues.
smoked.
True, but a lot of those who died young of lung cancer were heavy
smokers. My wife's BBFs' never smoked, not even one cigarette, but he
ended up getting lung cancer. Think he might have been a lucky guy
because a few weeks later he dropped dead of a heart attack. That meant
he missed dying a slow painful death.
My grandfather smoked three packs a day and then quit cold turkey. He
had a glass cigarette case on a coffee table in the living room with a
whole pack worth of cigarettes in it but he never touched them. He had
a serious heart attack about a month after he quit and then a heart
attack and fatal stroke about two months after that. He should have
just kept smoking.
On 12/11/2025 8:39 PM, Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:
The next time you watch an old movie turn on your laptop and Google the >>> movie and the actors and see how many of them died in their 40s and 50s
of lung cancer, heart attacks or alcohol related issues.
I actually have, even without your reminder. The death rate was amazing.
John Wayne made it to 72!
Today's hard drugs are doing their best to lower the average age-of-death
again, and they're doing an excellent job. Start with one prescribed by
your doctor and go from there.
Seems to me, celebrities seem to die younger than most. A Google search confirms my thoughts. I'd guess that the very young ones are related to drugs.
do celebrities die younger
Yes, studies suggest that famous people in performance, entertainment,
and sports often die younger than those in other fields like academia or business, with factors like intense public scrutiny, high-pressure lifestyles, substance abuse, risk-taking, and mental health challenges contributing to shorter lifespans. While the average age might be around 77-79 for performers compared to 80+ for others, the pressure and risks associated with fame, especially for artists and athletes, can indeed shorten lives, notes
On 12/11/2025 9:47 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
My grandfather smoked three packs a day and then quit cold turkey. He
had a glass cigarette case on a coffee table in the living room with a
whole pack worth of cigarettes in it but he never touched them. He
had a serious heart attack about a month after he quit and then a
heart attack and fatal stroke about two months after that. He should
have just kept smoking.
A friend of mine had a heart attack and the ambulance was called. The
EMT asked if he smoked. His reply, "I used to, but quit". EMT asked
how long ago? His reply, "when my wife called 911"
On 2025-12-11 10:14 p.m., Ed P wrote:
On 12/11/2025 9:47 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
My grandfather smoked three packs a day and then quit cold turkey. He >>> had a glass cigarette case on a coffee table in the living room with a
whole pack worth of cigarettes in it but he never touched them. He
had a serious heart attack about a month after he quit and then a
heart attack and fatal stroke about two months after that. He should >>> have just kept smoking.
A friend of mine had a heart attack and the ambulance was called. The
EMT asked if he smoked. His reply, "I used to, but quit". EMT asked
how long ago? His reply, "when my wife called 911"
LOL He came close to leaving his life but he didn't lose his sense of >humour.
My older brother had a heart attack at 49 and was told he had to quit >smoking and drinking, go on a diet and get exercise. He heeded that
advice for a couple weeks. That was 26 years ago and he is still hanging
in. He sits around all day watching television, drinking and smoking,
Many have been exposed to second hand smoke. It was common in our house when growing up. It was very common back then.
Ed P wrote:
...
Many have been exposed to second hand smoke. It was common in our house
when growing up. It was very common back then.
very true. i would have to spend some vacation time with
other family members who smoked a lot and they also had a
lot of other relatives who also smoked a lot.
i would come back from those visits and cough up brown
gunk for days.
On 2025-12-11, Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:
The next time you watch an old movie turn on your laptop and Google the
movie and the actors and see how many of them died in their 40s and 50s
of lung cancer, heart attacks or alcohol related issues.
I actually have, even without your reminder. The death rate was amazing.
John Wayne made it to 72!
Today's hard drugs are doing their best to lower the average age-of-death again, and they're doing an excellent job. Start with one prescribed by
your doctor and go from there.
On 2025-12-11 8:39 p.m., Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:
The next time you watch an old movie turn on your laptop and Google the >>> movie and the actors and see how many of them died in their 40s and 50s
of lung cancer, heart attacks or alcohol related issues.
I actually have, even without your reminder. The death rate was amazing.
John Wayne made it to 72!
Today's hard drugs are doing their best to lower the average age-of-death
again, and they're doing an excellent job. Start with one prescribed by
your doctor and go from there.
People frequently point out that a lot of people who get addicted to opiates started off with prescription pain medication. The part they overlook is that it usually isn't their prescription.
I have heard a lot of people comment about the great pain medication
they had for this or that. I have had perhaps more than my fair share
of injuries over the years and have been on some heavy duty pain
medication. No one ever heard me say that it was great stuff. I never
liked it. I liked that it took the edge of the pain but I didn't like
the other things that if did to me. I heeded the warnings and never took them unless I was actually in pain, never took more than one at a time
and stopped taking them before the prescriptions ran out.
Having been on pain killers a number of times I am always wary of them because I am aware of the risk of addiction. Between my broken collar
bone and heart surgery I broke a couple ribs and the ER doctor
prescribed a combination of Tylenol and Motrin. He said the combination
of the two was more effective than more of one or the other and without
the risk of higher doses of each. He was right. It worked and it didn't leave me stupid and constipated.
On 2025-12-12, Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:
On 2025-12-11 8:39 p.m., Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
Having been on pain killers a number of times I am always wary of them
because I am aware of the risk of addiction. Between my broken collar
bone and heart surgery I broke a couple ribs and the ER doctor
prescribed a combination of Tylenol and Motrin. He said the combination
of the two was more effective than more of one or the other and without
the risk of higher doses of each. He was right. It worked and it didn't
leave me stupid and constipated.
Chronic pain is different. My husband has been taking opioids of
one sort or another for 25 years. Now he's taking hydrocodone
and tramadol four times a day. He rounds out his pain meds with
gabapentin three times a day, Celecoxib twice a day, and a
microdose of THC at bedtime.
Heh. We don't see any point in preparing for the apocalypse.
He'll just put a bullet in his brain to avoid withdrawal.
| Sysop: | Scott |
|---|---|
| Location: | Freeburg, IL, USA, Earth |
| Users: | 4 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 246:09:36 |
| Calls: | 4 |
| Messages: | 14,713 |
