Reply With QuoteI would have thought that highly educated scientific person could spell 'fowl'.Originally Posted by Rheghead
1K.Orger
I'm sorry if you only see what you want to see. The water experts say the production of one egg requires 53 gallons on average. I do not make up the figures, I just report them here. I cannot control how you react to science but you clearly decided to ignore the fact and deny the science. I don't know why I waste my time on correcting your ignorance to be honest.
One thing is clear though, you are determined to ridicule any opposition to egg product by any fair means or foul.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
.Orger
I would have thought that highly educated scientific person could spell 'fowl'.
.Orger
One thing is clear though, you are determined to ridicule any opposition to egg product by any fair means or foul.
Unfortunately, you are the one who does this, not the rest of us who do not have a problem with it.
You admitted yourself, way back that you like meat and dairy products. I think that your anger and irritability results from your self imposed repression and consequent obsession with food but of course, I can't prove that and you will adamantly deny it. But there is a saying about 'converts to a cause' being more militant, evangelical and self righteous than other mere mortals and you certainly fit that picture but are the only one on here who cannot see it.
Don't kid yourself though, if you were stuck in a desert place, starving and with no food and a little furry animal or a ground dwelling bird happened by, you would kill it if you could and you would eat it in order to survive. You are lucky to not face those choices and to have the luxery of choice, as are we all, but unlike you we do not 'preach' about it under the guise of 'discussion'.
Last edited by Fulmar; 01-May-17 at 10:38.
.Orger
Please don't see this as a personal attack...I am just curious.....do you suffer from some sort of mental illness? If you do, I can then treat you a bit more sympathetically.
You say "I'm sorry if you only see what you want to see"
I see exactly what you post, I even take the trouble of reading your links and copy and paste the relevant information that you would prefer NOT to see.
You say "I cannot control how you react to science but you clearly decided to ignore the fact and deny the science"
I correct your mis-guided interpretation of the facts (you clearly do not like anyone standing up to you....were you a bully at school?)
I have proved beyond doubt that the UK egg industry does not use 53 gallons per egg by using your own scientific link (that must REALLY hurt)
You are still refusing to answer my two questions...why?
As I have repeatedly said, no matter how much water is truly used, 53 gallons or 5300 gallons, it is irrelevant as all water is returned to the water cycle to be used again and again. IT IS NOT LOST..... Do you accept this fact?
Another nice simple question for you..............Using your own link....do you accept that the UK egg industry uses far less than your headline figure of 53 gallons per egg?
If you disagree then please enlighten us as to why.
.Orger
I would also like you to explain where all your fruit/veg/pulses and grains come from (bearing in mind you have posted on other threads in the past). I ask because of your statement..."Do you think egg consumption and global environmental concerns is restricted to the UK? Your ignorance knows no limits."
What was it Delboy used to call Rodney? LOL
.Orger
More mis-information from Rheghead.
His link to the ‘expert’ study has a disclaimer that Rheg ‘forgot to mention’. It says
There are several uncertainties in this study in the quantification of the water footprint of animals and animal products. Due to a lack of data, many assumptions have to be made. There are a number of uncertainties in the study,
Another glaring mis-representation.
The study is using US gallons not Imperial. Makes a big difference
Another shocker for veggies
The actual factual data claims that pulses and nuts are far more damaging to the global environment. Will Rheghead now be campaigning to get them banned? A bet you wish you had read the information in your link properly! Click on picture for bigger version.
I’m sure I will find plenty more opportunities to show you for what you are. Keep posting your links!!
.Orger
some real science
Rheghead.
Some further reading for your journey to enlightenment.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/stayin...s-bad-and-good
Extract; For years, fat was a four-letter word. We were urged to banish it from our diets whenever possible. We switched to low-fat foods. But the shift didn't make us healthier
Extract; There are two broad categories of beneficial fats: monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats.
https://authoritynutrition.com/10-su...igh-fat-foods/
Read Item 4
Bottom Line: Whole eggs are among the most nutrient dense foods on the planet. Despite being high in fat and cholesterol, they are incredibly nutritious and healthy.
https://www.heartfoundation.org.au/h...ein-foods/eggs
(I chose Australian HF as you think UK HF is a Tesco subsidiary)
Extract; One egg has about 5 g of fat – but most of this is unsaturated, a fat that you need to be healthy
http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8539 British Medical journal study
Extract; However, eggs are also an inexpensive and low calorie source of many other nutrients, including minerals, proteins, and unsaturated fatty acids, which could lower the risk of cardiovascular disease.
Do I need to go on? Not only is this 'expert' advice I have provided proper links that easily show the information.
And to keep this 'water based', I have listed how much water is needed to produce 1g of needed fat. The information comes from your own link
Eggs 33L
Milk 33L
Nuts 47L
Pulses 180L
Vegetables 154L
Root veg 226L
Fruit 348L
Cereals 112L
It's not as black and white as you make out is it? Eat more eggs and drink more milk to help save water
Game, set and match to British Egg Farmers and British farming in general
Last edited by Goodfellers; 01-May-17 at 13:41.
1K.Orger
All science has uncertainties and assumptions. There is nothing new here.More mis-information from Rheghead.
His link to the ‘expert’ study has a disclaimer that Rheg ‘forgot to mention’. It says
There are several uncertainties in this study in the quantification of the water footprint of animals and animal products. Due to a lack of data, many assumptions have to be made. There are a number of uncertainties in the study,
Another glaring mis-representation.
The study is using US gallons not Imperial. Makes a big difference
Another shocker for veggies
The actual factual data claims that pulses and nuts are far more damaging to the global environment. Will Rheghead now be campaigning to get them banned? A bet you wish you had read the information in your link properly! Click on picture for bigger version.
I’m sure I will find plenty more opportunities to show you for what you are. Keep posting your links!!
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
1K.Orger
Now you have completely lost the argument by calling into question my mental health and my personal integrity by accusing me of being a bully. As a vegan I am for non-violence. I firmly believe that once the abattoirs have stopped killing animals and stealing their flesh , fur and secretions then we will have a non violent society, it makes little sense to kill each other once we start respecting all animal life on this planet.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
1K.Orger
I do not preach about veganism. I have never said 'thou shalt not eat meat and dairy'. I simply state the health, environmental and ethical problems with it and reply to wrong and misleading claims to the opposite. That is not preaching, that is just making a rational case for veganism. Whether you wish to ignore the facts or accept them then that is up to you. I'm not bothered, I cannot magically convert you and nor would I wish to.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
1K.Orger
Yes i do disagree. The amount of water used to produce eggs is important. Eggs are a staple food source for many people around the world so it will have a huge global impact on the environment. There is only so much average rainfall that happens in any one area. Rainfall and water management has an impact on yields for the grain and how much land you need to produce that grain. More land being used and increased water management means a greater impact on biodiversity and carbon emissions. Unless you haven't heard, this is important.
You have many times said that the 53 gallons figure is an average, I have not challenged that or tried to hide that, I provided the link in the first place so it would be pretty lame of me to claim otherwise.
I have a question for you. Since you do not think the water used to produce eggs is unimportant despite the evidence that it is, why are you making a big thing about it?
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
.Orger
I do not preach about veganism. I have never said 'thou shalt not eat meat and dairy'.
Really? Have you not actually read your posts? You have done absolutely everything you can think of to denigrate those who are non vegans, including sneers and jibes and misinformation, to name but a few. You have used every trick in the book.
As for not preaching about veganism, well, in that case what else are your posts about and please don't bother saying that they are about 'science'.
.Orger
There must be some truth in this Reggy/Eggy business after all. According to Police Scotland a curtain-sider truck carrying 150 cases of brown free range eggies was involved in a collision with a coo on the outskirts of Stranraer this morning. The cargo was a total loss and the coo was last seen swimming down Loch Ryan en route for Norn Iron.
Despite the attendance of emergency services including police,ambulance and 7 fire pumps the road was closed for several hours until the flood of biblical proportions could be sooked up. Deputy Firemaster Jeemag MacKay, on the scene, estimated that the escaped water amounted to at least 2,862,000 gallons. Our reporter on the spot asked how Jeemag arrived at this figure and he explained it was a simple calculation, i.e. 150 cases @ 30 dozen per case (a dozen being 12 off) so thats 150x30x12= 54,000 eggs with a water content of 53 gallons per egg = 2,862,000 gallons . This does not allow for double yokers etc. If these figures are correct its time to get e ark doon oot o e loft again.
.Orger
Rheghead, you ask
"I have a question for you. Since you do not think the water used to produce eggs is unimportant despite the evidence that it is, why are you making a big thing about it?" (Me.. as someone you claim is ignorant, I managed to make sense of the double negative in your statement).
Rheghead, I have stated many times that I don't worry about how much water is used in the production of UK eggs, as unlike you I understand the water cycle.
Your 'average' figure bears no relevance to UK egg production. I thought you would understand that. You are an Eco-warrior of the worst kind hypocritical. It seems we all have to be concerned about how much water is used to produce eggs in India, even though we will never eat them. However it's okay for you to buy and consume fruit, veg, nuts, pulses and rice from anywhere else in the world.
You might get more respect if you only ate locally sourced produce.
You might not have a mental illness.....but you are special.
1K.Orger
No I do not preach. I make a good case for veganism with sound scientific sources. What you do with that information is up to you. The thread about dairy products causing cancer is full of scientific studies that suggests strongly there is a serious health problem with eating animals and there secretions. I do not make this up, it is not fake. It is science. What has been proved is that people who enjoy eating animal products are prepared to deny the health issues or run the risk to their health just because they can't change their food choices. In comparison, we see it all the time that people who enjoy using fossil fuels or profit from them are prepare to deny the science of climate change. You just fit in that jigsaw.
Last edited by Rheghead; 03-May-17 at 14:35.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
1K.Orger
What is hypocritical is saying you like animals and the natural world and go on to eat meat and dairy when animal agriculture is the number one threat to biodiversity and a major threat to climate change.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
.Orger
Sadly, your post is complete rubbish and you have proved absolutely nothing with regard to eating animal products and causation of cancer and utterly failed to grasp the complexities of cancer generation. You refuse to look at and evaluate the real evidence that is out there and that, as you are so fond of saying, is down to you and nothing any of us can do to change it.
In case you have forgotten, vegans also get cancer.
As Goodfellers has said (in relation to the topic under dispute on here but relevant overall) absolutely nothing is black and white.
As I have said, it is perfectly possible to eat animal products ethically and sparingly- but you refuse to accept any of that. Again, nothing any of us can do to change your mindset on that one so you will just have to agree to disagree and to stop preaching on the subject!
In comparison, we see it all the time that people who enjoy using fossil fuels or profit from them are prepare to deny the science of climate change. You just fit in that jigsaw.
As for this, well what in heavens name is this about (and I note again, the use of the Royal 'we' in this statement? For your enlightenment, it's not 'we' it's you! I'm not part of your 'we' and I never will be)! Are you maintaining then that you, the oh so pure and superior vegan uses no product or undertakes no activity that has any reliance on fossil fuels? If you are saying that, then it is not I who is the hypocrite.
I am perfectly acquainted with and accepting of the science of man made climate change, driven by very many industrial processes and modern transport, of which agriculture is only one aspect among very many and I do not require any lectures from you. I wonder what you personally do about all of that? Or do you think, encompassed as you are in your cloud of infinite superiority that your veganism is enough?
I know what I try and do, with the lifestyle that I have adopted and have bothered to look into all of that and thankfully, I will never ever be part of any jigsaw of your invention.
1K.Orger
Well if you value science and its message then you will accept that animal agriculture is responsible for approximately 15-20% of greenhouse gases. You can cut your carbon footprint immensely by going vegan and you will reduce your chances of getting a heart attack, diabetes, cancer and a whole host of other afflictions. It won't take a scientific breakthrough to achieve, it won't take any money out of your pocket, it doesn't even take any effort and it won't take a political revolution to make it happen either. If it is so easy and so beneficial then why aren't we doing it already?
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
1K.Orger
Do you still drive a big 4x4 and a large motorhome? You've a cheek to preach to others!
.Orger
I think Rheghead forgets, this is a relatively small community and many of us know him, so if he's not whiter than white, we will find out.
Rheghead, didn't I see a picture of you on the roof of Reay hall re-pointing the chimney? What were you using to re-point. I hope it was mud and not a cement based product. Do you know how much damage cement causes to the environment?
http://www.global-greenhouse-warming...emissions.html
Extract; Due to the large quantities of fuel used during manufacture and the release of carbon dioxide from the raw materials, cement production also generates more carbon emissions than any other industrial process. Cement clinker production contributes about 5% of global total CO2 emissions from fuel use and industrial activities. cement CO2 emissions
Carbon dioxide emissions and climate change
The concrete industry is one of two largest producers of carbon dioxide (CO2), creating up to 5% of worldwide man-made emissions of this gas, of which 50% is from the chemical process and 40% from burning fuel.[1] The carbon dioxide CO2 produced for the manufacture of one tonne of structural concrete (using ~14% cement) is estimated at 410 kg/m3 (~180 kg/tonne @ density of 2.3 g/cm3) (reduced to 290 kg/m3 with 30% fly ash replacement of cement).[3] The CO2 emission from the concrete production is directly proportional to the cement content used in the concrete mix; 900 kg of CO2 are emitted for the fabrication of every ton of cement, accounting for 88% of the emissions associated with the average concrete mix.[4][5] Cement manufacture contributes greenhouse gases both directly through the production of carbon dioxide when calcium carbonate is thermally decomposed, producing lime and carbon dioxide,[6] and also through the use of energy, particularly from the combustion of fossil fuels
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks