I always knew cancer caused people to use cell phones!
Edit: on a serious note, the confidence interval for malignant tumors is an odds ratio of 1.2-3.4, although a quick google finds more recent studies (I.e.: not based off of 1990s cell phones) are even lower.
If we turned all of global beef demand into grass-fed, we’d literally decimate our output because there’s not enough grazable land.
Even land categorized as agriculturally grazable is often not realistically grazable (think mountains, etc)
So few cattle rely on by grass tho
IKEA is hit or miss with couches but if you’re set on reclining, I’m not sure they have any good ones. The Kallax is solid for a mid-range option if you don’t want reclining though.
They do offer a paid service through a third party now for delivery.
Can you give a real life example of a community banning folks only for these identifiers and not their behavior?
They get it from synthetic fertilizer? You think it comes from cattle lol?
Dude, you cut a cow and you need WAAAAAY less land and fertilizer than if you feed that cow.
And yes, not all land for cattle feed can be used for human crops, but even if we had zero beef, we’d have enough land to support human crops.
I honestly think you’re trolling now because you’re not only denying reality and making up absurd claims, but you’re ignoring my points and not responding to them lol.
Is synthetic fertilizer bad for the environment? Sure, but we need a hell of a lot less when we decrease beef production. If you add more cattle for natural manure fertilizers, you need more land to grow their feed. This is a self-perpetuating cycle.
Also, for the record, not every inch of land categorized as grazable is not able to support cattle (arid, bad soil fertility, mountains and other terrain issues, etc.). When I said we couldn’t meet current demand, that assumes those were non-issues.
Sure bud. Sure. Just make all the cattle free range and we solve every problem in the world.
Now we just have to subsidize beef even more than we already do so that people can afford their free range beef. God forbid they eat another form of protein that’s sustainable and environmentally friendly.
There’s reality and then there’s your hypotheticals. I’ll continue to discuss reality but not absurd hypotheticals like “let’s just change 95% of our beef production”.
And for the record, 5x is a vast overstatement. It’s closer to 2-3x. Still not plausible. Even if every single inch of grazable land on the planet were filled with cattle (and no other animal), we could not fill current beef demands. And that’s a demand that will grow very rapidly in the coming decades.
And about 30 seconds on google shows that’s less than 3% of beef production. That’s why deforestation is so rapid.
If we shifted all of our cattle to grazers, we’d have less than 1/3rd of our current beef production due to land constraints.
Sure, if “financing” didn’t involve interest
That’s not a gym, it’s a full on spa
Obligatory “not vegan” but it’s hilarious to me when people ignore this.
Why do you think we cut down trees? Yes, more farmland. Farmland for what? To feed the cattle lol
Even just the full set of free weights at a gym is the price of an annual membership (more than some discount gyms), let alone the expensive machines.
Surely this will end well.
Does that Lemmy remindme! bot still work?
lots
once a week
Uhhh
If it makes zero sense and there’s zero evidence…
Sorry, OP
This post is 1.8 years old lol
That’s not how odds ratios (or research) work. The compares groups of cell phone users and non-cell phone users.
With that being said, we’ve always known cell phone use has a correlation with very slightly increased cancer rates. That shouldn’t be controversial. It’s not concluding that there’s a direct cause or even, if they did cause it, that it’s from RF.