what are y'all saving from the wild to deal with coming crisis?

[Ra_]

However, it has toxic substances called pyrrolizidine alkaloids that damage the liver and can lead to death. Comfrey is no longer sold in the U.S., except in creams or ointments. The United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and Germany also have bannedthe sale of oral products containing comfrey

From page 4 of the link I provided.
From Martin Jaegar:
"All this controversy started because a guy in Australia decided to self-medicate using Comfrey, and could not be bothered to research it enough to know what he was doing. Basically he brewed up a cup of Comfrey tea, using couple teaspoons of the root each time, and drunk two or three cups every day, day after day, week after week, month after month, until the pyrrolizidine alkaloids (symphytine, echimidine, symglandine and lycopsamine) built up enough to poison his liver. I don't recall how many months that took to kill him...I'd guess six months to a year. So then the Aussie equivalent of our FDA banned Comfrey as a deadly substance, and not to be outdone, our beloved FDA tried to do the same. It would seem neither understands that everything has an overdose potential, and everything that has a good effect also has a bad effect. Chug a big bottle of Bacardi 151 Rum, and you die. Take too many AMA-sponsored, FDA-approved, doctor-prescribed sleeping pills, and you die. Anyway, using comfrey leaf poultice, salve, etc., is not dangerous. Comfrey leaf tea is not dangerous if taken sensibly. Comfrey root should only be used by a actual herbalist that knows what he is doing."

Should be noted also that the root is ten times as powerful as the leaves.

 

[ocap]

just came back from a road trip. lots of road kill that will probably be a source of maggots for our hens

 

[Conan]

Super interesting, and thought provoking, thread.

I think it's important to remember that not agreeing often equals learning. It's not really productive to sit around with a bunch of people of like mind nodding and patting each other on the back.
It's pretty clear that there are scientific articles out there that back up any mindset or way of thinking down to what sources different folks consider reliable.
I think the sentiment is the same from all of us. We like our planet. We want to do what's best for it, but can we all just agree that there isn't ONE perfect way of doing this? Just because one person or idea is "right", does not necessarily mean that someone else's beliefs are "wrong".

I'm glad that this thread is featured. Hopefully, dissenting opinions continue from all over the place. That's what makes the world interesting.

P.S. Let's be honest here, if SHTF, most of us are dead meat sans those that live in third world countries, or have legitimate survival skills.

 

[ocap]

I remember taking a course 50 years ago in "Economic Decision Making".
If I could remember the methods it would allow me to compare energy choices but would be worthless in solving the opposite points of view expressed on this thread because there is a problem with getting information from a source we trust.
I would again like to invite you to view the YouTube I posted (#314). It concerns the hate and loss of trust created in a "Victim Culture".

 

[LaserDeathChicken]

Actually, it's totally a technical problem. With the current state of technology it is impossible to run a 24/7 industrialized society on 100% renewable power. Ships, airplanes, trucking, etc. etc; the list goes on and on. People who think otherwise are living in a dream world and don't know how the real world works.

It's fairly obvious to me you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and are preaching from an agenda, so I'll just let it be.

 

[LaserDeathChicken]

Super interesting, and thought provoking, thread.

I think it's important to remember that not agreeing often equals learning. It's not really productive to sit around with a bunch of people of like mind nodding and patting each other on the back.
It's pretty clear that there are scientific articles out there that back up any mindset or way of thinking down to what sources different folks consider reliable.
I think the sentiment is the same from all of us. We like our planet. We want to do what's best for it, but can we all just agree that there isn't ONE perfect way of doing this? Just because one person or idea is "right", does not necessarily mean that someone else's beliefs are "wrong".

I'm glad that this thread is featured. Hopefully, dissenting opinions continue from all over the place. That's what makes the world interesting.

P.S. Let's be honest here, if SHTF, most of us are dead meat sans those that live in third world countries, or have legitimate survival skills.

The problem is that opinions can dissent all they like, but when some people intentionally misrepresent facts, falsify data and present factually incorrect information as truth and then go on to complain about the "untrustworthiness" of their counterparts, it derails the discussion from what you are painting it as - a conversation between rational people discussion disparate viewpoints - to one side intentionally doing everything it can to undermine the other in order to promote its agenda.

The fact is that there is zero science, zero fact and zero substance to people who deny climate change or the benefits of renewable energy. The overwhelming opinion of the scientific community is that climate change is real, it is caused by humans and that renewable energy sources are both more financially sound and accessible than current chemical fuel sources.

The problem is that regardless of how many mountains of data is piled up to demonstrate this, some people will just keep watching FOX news or Facebook gifs because it validates something for them.

So no, there are not scientific articles to back up "any mindset" - there are blog posts by people who construct strawmen to suit their own agendas, and there is science. There is a false equivalence between NASA and some conservative news junkie pumping out garbage data into a blog post.

Either way, this is not going to change any time soon, so whatever. Let the galaxy burn, as they say.

 

[HenOnAJuneBug]

It's fairly obvious to me you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and are preaching from an agenda, so I'll just let it be.

OK, well carry on and have a great life. I'll leave this with you to consider how unrealistic existing battery technology is for large-scale storage of electricity. Fresh off the press (today). A lot of knowledgeable people in the comments section.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06...finitesimally-small-part-of-electrical-power/

.

 

[Conan]

The problem is that opinions can dissent all they like, but when some people intentionally misrepresent facts, falsify data and present factually incorrect information as truth and then go on to complain about the "untrustworthiness" of their counterparts, it derails the discussion from what you are painting it as - a conversation between rational people discussion disparate viewpoints - to one side intentionally doing everything it can to undermine the other in order to promote its agenda.

The fact is that there is zero science, zero fact and zero substance to people who deny climate change or the benefits of renewable energy. The overwhelming opinion of the scientific community is that climate change is real, it is caused by humans and that renewable energy sources are both more financially sound and accessible than current chemical fuel sources.

The problem is that regardless of how many mountains of data is piled up to demonstrate this, some people will just keep watching FOX news or Facebook gifs because it validates something for them.

So no, there are not scientific articles to back up "any mindset" - there are blog posts by people who construct strawmen to suit their own agendas, and there is science. There is a false equivalence between NASA and some conservative news junkie pumping out garbage data into a blog post.

Either way, this is not going to change any time soon, so whatever. Let the galaxy burn, as they say.

You're kind of proving my point. Pigeon holing people that don't agree with you into some sort of stereotype isn't all that helpful.
I think that nothing escapes the taint of politics. That includes science.

 

[IdyllwildAcres]

Climate change is a natural event it’s going to happen no matter what we do...

Uhm no. The planet is warming due to humans. Period, you are wrong. Read a book. But just don't spout off like that its dangerous.

Gary

 

[HenOnAJuneBug]

The overwhelming opinion of the scientific community...

FWIW, the scientific community extends beyond professional organizations. This is the most scientifically educated populace in the history of mankind. Consequently, there are many people outside the "halls of science" who are well qualified to examine the practices of professional scientists to judge if their their methods conform to the ideals of science. Sadly, in many cases they don't.