Whats good for the fast food salesman isnt goo d for the air-conditioning technician.

Page 1 of 2  

A new study shows that toxicperfluoroalkyls, which are used in surface protection treatments and coatings to keep grease from leaking through fast food wrappers, are being ingested by people through their food and showing up as contaminants in blood.
I thought the refrigerant FREON was banned because it contained Fluorine, so how come its still being used in Perfluoroalkyl. Is this hypocrisy or what?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/fast-food-health_b_800297.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Molly Brown wrote:

one should probably investigate what the differences are before asking this inane question. freon is chlorofluorocarbon. that isn't even remotely like perfluroalkyl, even though it has fluorine in it. there are many items with fluorine in it that are not comparable to freon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Molly Brown wrote:

the interweb broken where you are today?
http://tinyurl.com/267dfbp http://tinyurl.com/3yrwspr
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Molly Brown wrote:

Ask and you shall receive:
Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream!
You know when fluoridation first began?
Nineteen hundred and forty-six. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
Well, I, uh... I... I... first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love.
Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.
I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh... women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women, Mandrake.
But I... I do deny them my essence.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No shit, harry? No one else suspected that "the classic movie Dr. Strangelove" was Hollywood fiction. <what a maroon!>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Patrick Karl wrote:

Uh, yeah...
Fox has the top twelve cable shows. The 11:00 p.m. RERUN of the O'Reilly Factor has more viewers than the TOP show on MSNBC!
'Course that's mostly for "opinion" and "commentary" shows. Still, unbiased observers rate the Fox NEWS broadcasts the most "fair and balanced." There's little evidence of liberal (or conservative) bias in their straight news programs.
I don't think you'll ever hear a Fox news anchor have to say: "The facts were wrong, but the narrative was correct."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 08:22:01 -0600, The Daring Dufas

O'Reilly does it regularly. Even Hannity goes after the weenie Republicans. ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bud-- wrote:

<http://voices.washingtonpost.com/post-carbon/2010/12/2010_hottest_climate_year_on_r.html
<http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php?nid=&id=&pntg1&lb=
Thanks for the links. I won't bore you with links to alternative views. Suffice it to say: "You show me yours and I can show you mine."

## And guess what? They were correct.
(Wall Street Journal, December 29th) "On [last] Sunday, Robert Pear reported in the New York Times that Medicare will now pay for voluntary end-of-life counseling as part of seniors' annual physicals. A similar provision was originally included in ObamaCare, but Democrats stripped it out amid the death panel furor. Now Medicare will enact the same policy through regulation." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203731004576045702803914780.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
(San Jose Mercury News, December 27-28th) "Welcome back, death panels. Really. "New Medicare regulations taking effect Saturday will pay doctors who advise patients on end-of-life care, including options for advance directives on how they want to be treated. This is all the health care reform proposal ever intended." http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_16953576?nclick_check=1

Uh, yeah. This may be proof of intent but has no bearing on the quality of the results.

I can find no mention of the Sherrod tape being shown on a Fox news program. The controversy was reported (everywhere) as it developed, but showing the tape? I don't think so.

Res ipsa Loquitur.

I don't think so, mainly because the video was never shown on a straight news program.

In the case of the Sherrod tape, O'Reilly and others apologized for showing it. In their defense they showed the ENTIRE TAPE as it was given to them - they did not edit it in any way.
Or so they say. (CNN et al showed the SAME recording as FOX.)
O'Reilly (sort of) broke the original story (and apologized the next night). CNN, however, aired the same clip the same night as O'Reilly (Anderson Cooper 360). The next morning all three cable news networks reported the story. Sherrod, herself, was on the CNN show, American Morning. http://www.mediaite.com/online/one-more-look-at-how-fox-news-covered-the-shirley-sherrod-story /
In my view, the more important story was not whether Shirley Sherrod was a flaming racist; the real story was how the Obama administration went postal and over-reacted by firing Ms. Sherrod. Then there was the arrest of the black Harvard professor by a white policeman, the banning of oil drilling in the Gulf, terminal twitching over Israeli settlements, etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Umm, Obummercare doesn't start paying for anything until 2014.

Oh, it's already started, but nothing happens overnight. http://townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2010/12/30/she_told_us_so

It'll surely put a large dent in it. We'll be bankrupt.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 1 Jan 2011 06:16:50 -0800 (PST), snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

No, they are making judgments on the efficacy of treatments, not the viability of individuals. "Experimental" means something.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Certainly not! It *WAS* a rejection of Obama, and Obamacare, in particular.

Huh? "Sufficiently abated"? It stunningly accelerated, under absolute Democratic control!

The "financial controls" implemented by the Democrats will do *NOTHING* to avert the next (or current, for that matter) crisis. That wasn't the point.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This BS. Everybody on the MCare Advantage would have to go elsewhere. So a lot of this is transferring the same dollars around hoping people get lost.
This is a insurance company subsidy used by

Everything I have seen indicates that the single biggest money batch comes from changing Dr.'s and hospital reimbursments. Of course this is also the largest part of "magic money". I call this magic money because it is just supposed to appear. The major reason this is MM is because a day or two before the bill passed with all of these"savings" in doctor's payment the COngress voted to suspend a 30% cut in Dr's payments. The reason it was so big was because that is the cumulated "cuts" since that had not occurred since the "Sustainable Medciare Growth formula had been passed in 1997, and overruled every year since. (Another piece of irony, the SMG formula was part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997). Reducing medical costs isn't a politically viable option. If anything, the hooha around the healthcare bill last year shows that EVERYBODY now not only views healthcare as a right, but an absolute right to however they much that they want at no (unhidden) cost to them,

In real life? Probably about as much as the Dems, meaning little or nothing.

But still a lot less than before with NO coverage whatsoever. Also, if you followed the debate at the time, the hole was largely put in to placate a couple of Democrats who were concerned about not "paying for it".
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Revisionist history. The surplus had peaked by FY 2000 and was almost gone by FY 2001 (starting a full month before the election). So Bush did not inherit a surplus and there is nothing to indicate that the debt got paid off. Clinton just happened to be around during the Greenspan-Gates bubble (Greenspan for the large length of time with easy money, and Gates as a proxy for the great (one-time) changes in productivity brought about by computers.

Nope. There were three major tides in the S&L. The first was during the inflation before the regulators (mostly Dem at the time) got around to letting S&Ls do things to balance the fact that before they had to loan long term for mortgages, but got their money most short term. WHen inflation took off S&L were saddled (by regulation) with income from long term mortgages that were nowhere near the interest rate needed to pay out what they needed to in interest. Second was when Congress screwed around with taxes (big surprise there). There were some major building projects that had been made "viable" by tax rules, they were more or less shelters. The tax laws were changed retroactive, and all of a sudden these project were no longer viable on paper. (So, two debates, whether Congress should have played with tax laws and whether banks should have loaned based on tax related issues instead of actual economics). The third wave was when Congress played with the rules again and again retroactively. In order to get good S&Ls to pick up bad ones, the appropriate regulators came up with "regulatory good will." This was an asset that the acquiring banks could use to offset some of the bad loans that they were taking on at the behest of the Government. Otherwise, the acquiring bank couldn't take the bad loans and stay solvent. Essentially the regulators said "We know you did not make this bad bet and since we appreciate your taking it (and the bad S&L) off your hands, we won't punish you. Congress later came around legislated the ending of regulatory goodwill and put a whole bunch of S&Ls out of business literally overnight. BTW: A whole line of cases where the courts said that Congress did indeed change the deal the federal government had made, that they had no right to, and that the S&Ls closed were owed billions of dollars in damages.

McCain was the only GOP member of the Keating Five, he was the only one of the five who agreed to testify for the plaintiffs in the ensuing civil trials. The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain (and in the spirit of full disclosure- John Glenn) in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against him.

Passed Congress (as required) by large (bipartisan0 votes in both Houses. 90-8 in the Senate and 362 to 7 in the House (BTW: of the people currently pontificating on how bad the bill was, only Barney Franks voted against (and did so in the House Committee, and the first House vote). Pelosi and Reid both voted to pass. BTW: If you go look at most of the bills that people point to, the same voting pattern holds. That idiot econ columnist for the New York Times tried to put it all on Reagan (big surpirse there, not) pointing to the repeal of some law (forget which one). At the time, I went to Thomas.gov and looked it up. It passed with only 5 dissenting votes in the House (Barney Frank again, I don;t like the man's politics, but you have to admire his steadfastness to his ideals). It was passed by unanimous acclimation in the Senate.

Yes those Evil Republicans once again "sneaking" things passed the Dems. Just read the damn things or shut up (and that goes for both sides of the aisle).

Bipartisan agreement (grin)

But the record is also ripe with indications that governments manage to mess it as bad.
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Death panels exist and have for years. Heck, look at Oregon's Medicaid program. They are the poster children for "good" health care rationing. They have a certain amount of money to spend, a list of priorities and when the money is gone it is gone. Whenever an Oregon health reporter gets lazy and wants an easy tear jerker, they go find a cancer patient. If you don't have above a certain likelihood that you will survive five years, you don't get the treatment. Then the Oregon reporters note that the Evil Pharmaceutical companies step in and give the person treatment.

Air force I might give you. It can be argued the only thing that they called for was a standing Navy. Of course, the other side is that they did not specifically ban and did give the Commander in Chief wide latitude on purpose. Regulation of airwaves is a bogus argument (no matter who makes it) since again, there was quite a bit of lattitude in allowed under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

No, it doesn't. You could have just as easily set things up as they are now with groups. If you have insurance (or had within a certain period) you are covered immediately. If not, then it gets sticky, but seems at least as good a way to cover people. Actually in MA under their current program, there is a line of studies showing that people are coming into and out of the program as needed. Seems that enforcement in real life is not viable.

Yet there are a long line of studies (from at least the mid-80s) that show people with regular insurance use the ERs just as much, if not more in some series, as those without insurance or with MCaid. The main thing with ERs is open later so they don't have to miss work.

What we have now is not even remotely related to free markets. First of all, as has been shown by the Annual Health Care Expenditures study (put out by the Office of Actuary of Medicare but covering everything.. BTW: The new is due out in a couple of weeks), you don't pay all that much of the costs. Over the last 20 or so years, this study has shown that less than 20% of all healthcare costs come from pocket (and that includes the out-of-pocket expense of the premiums). Nothing that is subsidized oer 80% by someone else is remotely free market. Add in the fact that payor of services (your company or federal programs) is divorced from the user of services (you and me) and makes the problems even worse. Which, is further exacerbated by the fact that since the subsidy is so heavy, we over consume to "not leave anything on the table" at the end of year. There are more reasons why I keep saying we should actually TRY free markets before we shut down. Lord knows, there is nothing remotely resembling a free market in what we see, now.

Revisionist history yet again. The Dems major problems were within their party. They couldn't get enough Dems to vote for it. They had an absolute, filibuster-proof majority for most of the first two years and couldn't get it through. The buying of the Dem Senators was to get the Dems to vote for it, not because of anything the GOP was doing.

See above. Unless you are going to send the IRS guys out to bring in people and talk some sense into them, the everyone having insurance is just a pipedream. MA shows us that.

Interesting studies suggest that the CBO doesn't do all that good of a job estimating. Back at least as far as the original MCare which was past 10 year spending within 6 years.

The FBI was given enough money a few years ago to hire a bunch of agents specifically tasked to MCare Fraud. Not a lot of good luck so far. This is one of those things that the politicians have been chasing since at least the mid-70s with little or no long term success. Too much money floating around not to be syphoned off. This failure is pretty much bipartisan.

Another untruth. There is a myth floating around that Mcare has this really small number for administration. This is taking the part that Mcare spends on its own staff, Congressional workers, some research and looking over the shoulders of the Fiscal Intermediaries (FI). The FI (EDS, the Blues, etc) are the ones that do the heavy lifting of actually paying and processing claims and doing most of the reports. If you factor in what the FIs are paid, the low overhead largely goes away.
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bud-- wrote:

Some conservatives bemoaned the deficit. Regarding Bush II, don't forget the nation experienced 9-11, Katrina, and two wars.
Still, as regrettable as the increase in the deficit was over the eight year period (some $800 billion), it was small potatoes compared to the $4 trillion debt under two years of the Obama administration.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

It's getting harder and harder to tell them apart.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Cindy Hamilton wrote:

Me too.
I sold a house and put $10,000 in a CD paying 9%. Yippee! I made $900.00.
Regrettably, inflation that year was 13% and I had to pay about $180 tax on the $900.00!
The Carter administration was just awful.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
A new study shows that toxicperfluoroalkyls, which are used in surface protection treatments and coatings to keep grease from leaking through fast food wrappers, are being ingested by people through their food and showing up as contaminants in blood.
I thought the refrigerant FREON was banned because it contained Fluorine, so how come its still being used in Perfluoroalkyl. Is this hypocrisy or what?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/fast-food-health_b_800297.html
============
Everything is safe if you have the funds to purchase those who determine safety.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Psst! Flourine is used in making Teflon. Keep it to yourself.
Aside: You remember the "Noble Gasses"? Those are gasses that do not combine with any other element (Helium, Neon, Argon, etc.).
One scientist didn't believe that. He pumped Xenon and Fluorine into an evacuated vessel, heated the sucker up to a goodly degree for a while, then opened the can.
A yellowish-powder was all that was left. Analysis showed the powder to be Xenon hexafloride.
Total cost for the experiment had to be less than a hundred bucks!
The Periodic Chart has been revised. Check yours.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Um, harry, chorine and sodium are not "locked" up in (table) salt. Just add water.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.