"Take care up there, Markos" you are referring to your self hey? chuckle. you don't receive the truth very humbly or well hey? len
Seriously Len, why do you come to this forum? This is a permaculture forum. If you don't like permaculture, then I can only assume you come here to discredit it. Which in my opinion would constitute trolling.
G'day Len By genuinely wishing you well via the sign-off: "Take care up there, Markos", I was referring to your geo-physical position on the planet in relation to mine. Last time I looked, South East QLD was still north ("up there") of Bendigo. I did not bother to add anything in response to your previous post, because I simply feel I have nothing further worthwhile to add. Concerning your reference to "the truth": I would have thought by now that you would understand, you and I have a very different view regarding this concept. My 'truths' are born out of scientific enquiry. Yours are based on a very simplistic theological premise. Mine evolves. Yours, by it's very nature, cannot. But hey, like I said earlier, that's OK. I really do hope that you take care up there, Len, and that the world is kind to you. Humbly yours, Markos
ok mark, take care one day you will discover science on has theory no fact ever, so no truth. hey! did you see that human skull discovery over mexico way some truth in the theory so far it is only get this 1200 years old guess they have time to add naughts to make it appear mind boggling, oh and they also intimated it was some hapless expendable human being of low grade who was sacrificed to a pagan mythological god to end a drought, wow climate change was back then hey? now why didn't those intelligent mayan's bring in a carbon tax. anyway mark deep down there somewhere the truth may emerge or there is no hope for me and my kind. science if nothing else might be a good smoke and mirrors show. check the type 2 diabetes threads over at ALS, science is failing us. note i did not use the metaphor of you down there, it can be misinterpreted by the reader. len; yes mark you are in our prayers.
G'day Len In order to better understand your personal life circumstances, that no doubt help to inform your world views, and subsequently your posts here, I took your advice and went to the thread you suggested at ALS. Of this thread, I read the first page, and the last. I'm afraid constraints on my time prohibited me from reading any more. However, from reading these two pages it is clear to me that a) you live with type 2 diabetes, b) it causes you no end of discomfort in your life, c) you have little faith in pharmacological responses to your condition, and d) you feel 'science' has largely failed you in this regard. In response to the above: I'm sorry that diabetes so greatly effects your life. I can perhaps understand a little of how difficult life must be for you, as I have my own experiences - 2 members of my family live with type 2 diabetes - to draw upon. Unlike you, however, they are very happy with the treatment that modern 'science' offers them. For this - and for them - I am very grateful. I guess this comes to the crux of the issue, Len: For some - by far the majority of humanity, I would suggest - modern 'science' in the form of pharmacological responses prove to be quite positive, if one judges 'positive' in the sense of increased longevity of life, less disease, less pain/greater happiness, etc. Likewise, for some - by far the minority of humanity, I would suggest - modern 'science' in the form of pharmacological responses prove the opposite, and is unable to halt disease, pain and unhappiness processes. Does this then mean 'science' as a whole is a failure? I'm of the opinion that it is and does not. Of course, you have a right to express your own opinion regarding this or any other matter, and I respect your right to express it. However, I feel that I should also point out to you, that if by expressing your opinion others should wish to challenge what you have to say (write) by, for example, asking you to provide evidence* in support of your claims, I don't think you should respond in an angry/negative manner, or feel that its is your very own personal experiences or truths that are being 'attacked'. Rather, if you try to keep your responses calm, rational and generalised in nature, and remember that we all have our own views and opinions, garnered from a multitude of life experiences, then I'm sure you will find the whole mood of this thread, indeed this entire Forum will lift considerably. Concerning the opening paragraph of your post, as cited above: I'm sorry, but I simply do not have the time to respond to what I think are a multitude of questions you may be attempting to raise. * The Macquarie dictionary defines evidence as: 'ground for belief; that which tends to prove or disprove something; proof' Respectfully yours, Markos
thank you mark, you are quiet wrong of course i am not the only one who has issues with failing medications and no future help, no it does not cause m the issues you seem to have judged that it does, science has no hope of ever curing much at all especially in T2 DB as they have nt developed the tests needed to truly determine a patients needs, they do not and cannot or even recognise food group intolerance eg.,. gluten, wheat, corn and all grains, so the doc's, dieticians and nutritionists just go along and keep people on carbohydrate diets, long after i was diagnosed T2. seems you only read what you want to read, that it works for some probably attests to the fact that those people have no intolerance. not raising any questions just pointing out hapless science at work. i think it is most disrespectful that science thinks they can pillage someones final resting site, often using them as displays in museums as they have done. so please stop judging on the written word. so far you have gotten it wrong at all turns. scientific fixes + 50% of the time for 50% of the people, as involved with a small group of CFS sufferers with 28 in the room there where 28 different causes, CFS is a scientific anomily lots get put under, no test or managment for it, just whack 'em all in the too hard basket. and as for treatments many patients have no idea what is going on, many don't even daily monitor glucose and blood pressure. len
G'day Len Nowhere have I stated that you are alone in your plight. As previously stated, there are people for whom pharmacological responses offer no respite. What I am critical of is your claim that all of science has failed because, and most unfortunately for you, it offers you no respite. As always, respectfully yours, Markos
G'day Len Concerning your CFS edit/addition: I found studying the following to be very beneficial in non-pharmocologically responding to my own condition: Toulkidis et al (2002) Chronic fatigue syndrome Maybe there is something in there for you, maybe not. Either way, I wish you all the very best. Cheerio, Markos
thanks again mark, that AP dr lloyd sounds like the one i went to see a long time ago cost us over $600 in air fairs, no compassion in qantas, they wanted their money. anyhow much big talk from him, ran all sorts of tests even parvo virus, yeh granted he bulk billed me but hey? but small favours. in the end he was all puff and hiss like the barbers cat, he did confirm i was CFS. yep he writes in the med gazettes about it along with his at the time around 6 other youngish high rollers, the reason i went the specialist in brissy was booked out as was the one in rocky that was the status quo, sydney had at least 6 great night life in sydney, brissy still hick. couldn't even hint at a management plan. take care mark you need to get some lateral thinking going and forget about making judgements. we paid the $600+ back to ma' in law long ago. sorry bout this the bloke said to me after assessing me that he thought he had CFS down pat you know classic symptoms - classic cases, after me he said i was not classic symptoms but was a classic case so he revalued.
So yeah, getting back to that power issue... BAM! Japanese breakthrough will make wind power cheaper than nuclear Seems more and more to me that we can easily get away from Nukes, coal, and fossil fuel systems by restructuring infrastructure, which, >gasp< I understand will provide jobs.
dunno paka? wind power cheaper than nuce' maybe but not cheaper than coal, nice feeling for some, the masses lose out. plant forests not solar and wind farms, renewable will do better (not more affordable) if decentralised and unsubsidised, truly stand alone. len
Seems you didn't read the very 1st paragraph of the article, let me help. So Coal, & Nuke... out the window using today's technology. Oil can easily be replaced already as well, so I honestly, IMO no needs for fossil fuels, at all except in transition to get the funk off them.
Did anyone see Kevin Mcloud on the silly box with his poo digester? We simply have to get this back on the agenda. Imagine the parlement house being powered by the crap that comes out of that place.
G'day All Yeah, PP, I did mange to catch Kevin's shit-to-methane machine last night - great stuff (the chair and bed were pretty cool, too)! I'm an unabashed fan of Kevin's. I particularly like what he did with the Triangle in Swindon. It sure isn't Mandala Town. But for the individuals and families that now live there, it's probably the closest they'll get to it. Cheerio, Markos
I'm a Kevin fan too and that segment only served to make me like him even more. It seemed like such a simple thing to make! Wouldn't want to be around when the top blew off though.
So I started looking around on the internet and came across https://www.forbes.com/sites/singul...eration-is-the-challenge-to-renewable-energy/ Basically, it's saying that energy production isn't the problem, storage is the problem when it comes to renewables. We "need" energy on demand. It seems the way some people store the energy created is to pump water uphill with excess energy and then release it through turbines(hydro electricity) when more is needed(at night for example) and it can be ~70% efficient. Also has been mentioned in this thread was the use of heated salt water as storage(though I'm not sure if it was storage per se, but it could be). So what I gather from current technology is that again, it boils down to our inability to use electricity when it is being generated(making hay when the sun shines so to speak). Living in the hot and humid southern US, I can understand why you'd want electricity at night: cooling. Maybe we have too many people living in places where people shouldn't be living, or that we expect the standard of living to be standardized across different regions. Maybe people need to stop thinking on a national scale.
that's teh real issue isn't it unmutual? those who love the technology feel good green, don't want to mention down sides, i have asked about apart from put it to ground what does the unreliable system do with the excess? yes i have been told they heat up salt or was it they can heat up salt but are they doing any of that here in aus'? doubt it anything like that would instantly show the pollies they are getting it wrong. saw them building wind towers in the north sea near belgium, wow what a cost(others doing the same destroying ascetics of off shore, building marine hazards), who wears that cost? do they use salt, oil or steam with the unreliable excess? unreliable means power produced outside the on demand periods. it's all reactive subjective stuff at present as those who are sold and locked in will not in simple terms answer the important questions. give the people fully functional affordable product and every one will clamber on board. enough despotic stuff please? heating up salt or other enables them to then run steam turbines so another facility within a facility, some more expense and unreliability(more possible power outages), keep in mind it is not in full swing so lots of experimentation. and what a carbon foot print, special ships built all that steel used and transported after being mined and smelted, or do they now wave a wand over ore and magically turn it into usable product with no emissions? len
