MSG myths

[James Warren]

https://www.foodinsight.org/myth-bust-msg-food-allergy-safety

Let's Bust 3 Common Myths About MSG
By FACTS Network | Aug 24 2017
Last updated Aug 24 2017
Share on Facebook
Tweet on Twitter

Share this
Print

These days, there are too many food myths to count. Even with so much noise
out there, some common myths continue to capture our attention. Some of these
common misperceptions center on monosodium glutamate, or MSG. It’s about time
we expose a few of the common myths you may have heard.

But first, what exactly is MSG? MSG is created when sodium and glutamate (an
amino acid that is found in both plant and animal proteins) are combined. It
is naturally occurring in tomatoes, Parmesan cheese, walnuts, sardines,
mushrooms, clams, meat and asparagus. MSG is also used as a flavoring
component in foods to bring out savory, umami flavors to a dish.

Myth #1: “MSG gives me headaches and other problems.”

Over the years, we have seen anecdotal reports linking MSG to headaches and nausea.
Ever since the first incidents were reported, there’s been no strong, medical
evidence to support these claims. The FDA investigated some of these claims
and has “never been able to confirm that the MSG caused the reported effects.”
In addition, the FDA commissioned a group of independent scientists from the
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology to examine the
safety of MSG in the 1990s. The FASEB report determined that MSG is safe.

Myth #2: “I’m allergic to MSG.”

First off, MSG is not an allergen, so it will not cause allergies. The FDA,
leading health authorities, consumer advocates and researchers in the field
have identified eight common known allergens: wheat, soy, peanuts, tree nuts,
fish, shellfish, eggs and milk. These allergens are the leading foods that
cause the majority of reactions to individuals. Furthermore, decades of
research have failed to demonstrate that MSG causes allergic reactions.
However, if you’re having an allergic reaction dial 911 or consult a health
provider immediately.

Myth #3: “'No added MSG' does not mean there’s no MSG in the food.”

Even if it’s not added to food, MSG can still be present in the food since
it's just sodium and an amino acid, glutamate. Because of this, MSG is
naturally occurring in many popular foods, ranging from cheese and meat to
fermented sauces and some produce.

The bottom line is that MSG is safe and the circulating myths around it are
not aligned with the scientific consensus. So, the next time you hear someone
tell you a familiar myth about MSG, feel free to debunk it and remember the facts.

This post was written by Megan Meyer, PhD, and Anthony Flood.

Sources:

MSG From A – to – Z
FDA Questions and Answers on MSG
FDA Food Allergy
FASEB Report

[l***@fl.it]

On Thu, 3 May 2018 13:49:47 -0300, James Warren

Post by James Warren
https://www.foodinsight.org/myth-bust-msg-food-allergy-safety
Let's Bust 3 Common Myths About MSG

snipped

I can tell you that for years MSG had a disastrous effect on me, along
with perfumes which could likewise produce a migraine within 5 mins.
It took awhile for me to realise that with the drastic change in my
migraines about two years ago, I was no longer bothered by either.

I might run that past the specialist the end of this month when I see
him, I find it interesting but I am sure you will dismiss it as
'anecdotal'

[James Warren]

Post by l***@fl.it
On Thu, 3 May 2018 13:49:47 -0300, James Warren

Post by James Warren
https://www.foodinsight.org/myth-bust-msg-food-allergy-safety
Let's Bust 3 Common Myths About MSG

snipped
I can tell you that for years MSG had a disastrous effect on me, along
with perfumes which could likewise produce a migraine within 5 mins.
It took awhile for me to realise that with the drastic change in my
migraines about two years ago, I was no longer bothered by either.
I might run that past the specialist the end of this month when I see
him, I find it interesting but I am sure you will dismiss it as
'anecdotal'

You might have a rare condition or you might be subject to the nocebo effect
with MSG.

As for perfume sensitivities, it is harder to say. It might also be a nocebo
effect. These people if exposed without their knowledge to their sensitive
substances mostly don't react.

In any case, whether real or a conditioned response, the reaction is real. It
is probably best to avoid. I have a similar reaction to clams. I'll probably
never know if it is a conditioned response or not.

[l***@fl.it]

On Sat, 5 May 2018 12:18:33 -0300, James Warren

Post by James Warren

Post by l***@fl.it
On Thu, 3 May 2018 13:49:47 -0300, James Warren

Post by James Warren
https://www.foodinsight.org/myth-bust-msg-food-allergy-safety
Let's Bust 3 Common Myths About MSG

snipped
I can tell you that for years MSG had a disastrous effect on me, along
with perfumes which could likewise produce a migraine within 5 mins.
It took awhile for me to realise that with the drastic change in my
migraines about two years ago, I was no longer bothered by either.
I might run that past the specialist the end of this month when I see
him, I find it interesting but I am sure you will dismiss it as
'anecdotal'

You might have a rare condition or you might be subject to the nocebo effect
with MSG.
As for perfume sensitivities, it is harder to say. It might also be a nocebo
effect. These people if exposed without their knowledge to their sensitive
substances mostly don't react.

It was something they used, perfume from living flowers had no effect
on me.

Post by James Warren
In any case, whether real or a conditioned response, the reaction is real. It
is probably best to avoid. I have a similar reaction to clams. I'll probably
never know if it is a conditioned response or not.

David developed a reaction to shellfish after he had chemo, he
persisted in trying to bad effect.

[James Warren]

Post by l***@fl.it
On Sat, 5 May 2018 12:18:33 -0300, James Warren

Post by James Warren

Post by l***@fl.it
On Thu, 3 May 2018 13:49:47 -0300, James Warren

Post by James Warren
https://www.foodinsight.org/myth-bust-msg-food-allergy-safety
Let's Bust 3 Common Myths About MSG

snipped
I can tell you that for years MSG had a disastrous effect on me, along
with perfumes which could likewise produce a migraine within 5 mins.
It took awhile for me to realise that with the drastic change in my
migraines about two years ago, I was no longer bothered by either.
I might run that past the specialist the end of this month when I see
him, I find it interesting but I am sure you will dismiss it as
'anecdotal'

You might have a rare condition or you might be subject to the nocebo effect
with MSG.
As for perfume sensitivities, it is harder to say. It might also be a nocebo
effect. These people if exposed without their knowledge to their sensitive
substances mostly don't react.

It was something they used, perfume from living flowers had no effect
on me.

It could be. It is hard to say for sure.

Post by l***@fl.it

Post by James Warren
In any case, whether real or a conditioned response, the reaction is real. It
is probably best to avoid. I have a similar reaction to clams. I'll probably
never know if it is a conditioned response or not.

David developed a reaction to shellfish after he had chemo, he
persisted in trying to bad effect.

Again, there might be a connection. Then again, it might be a conditioned response.
Chemo often causes nausea. Chemo - shellfish - nausea is the classic setup for
a conditioned response.

[l***@fl.it]

On Sat, 5 May 2018 12:47:46 -0300, James Warren

Post by James Warren

Post by l***@fl.it
On Sat, 5 May 2018 12:18:33 -0300, James Warren

Post by James Warren

Post by l***@fl.it
On Thu, 3 May 2018 13:49:47 -0300, James Warren

Post by James Warren
https://www.foodinsight.org/myth-bust-msg-food-allergy-safety
Let's Bust 3 Common Myths About MSG

snipped
I can tell you that for years MSG had a disastrous effect on me, along
with perfumes which could likewise produce a migraine within 5 mins.
It took awhile for me to realise that with the drastic change in my
migraines about two years ago, I was no longer bothered by either.
I might run that past the specialist the end of this month when I see
him, I find it interesting but I am sure you will dismiss it as
'anecdotal'

You might have a rare condition or you might be subject to the nocebo effect
with MSG.
As for perfume sensitivities, it is harder to say. It might also be a nocebo
effect. These people if exposed without their knowledge to their sensitive
substances mostly don't react.

It was something they used, perfume from living flowers had no effect
on me.

It could be. It is hard to say for sure.

Post by l***@fl.it

Post by James Warren
In any case, whether real or a conditioned response, the reaction is real. It
is probably best to avoid. I have a similar reaction to clams. I'll probably
never know if it is a conditioned response or not.

David developed a reaction to shellfish after he had chemo, he
persisted in trying to bad effect.

Again, there might be a connection. Then again, it might be a conditioned response.
Chemo often causes nausea. Chemo - shellfish - nausea is the classic setup for
a conditioned response.

Chemo is at the time nausea, not ongoing nausea.

[HRM Resident]

Post by James Warren
I have a similar reaction to clams. I'll
probably never know if it is a conditioned response or not.

I can get you lots of clams. Deep fried, steamed or freshly dug.
I think they go for about $20-25 a bucket, but I might be way off seeing
as I haven't bother in 10-15 years.

Either way, I suggest a double blind study. I can get some CLOs
(clam shaped objects) so authentic in look and taste that you won't be
able to tell the difference.

Then someone will alternate feeding you real clams and CSOs for a
week (you or I won't know which, only the one feeding you.) If your
reaction is real and caused by some sort of clam ingredient, after a
month, you'll either be posting here, healthy as ever, or in a hospital
or morgue. That's the scientific way . . . we'll do an evidence based
scientific study to try to verify your anecdotal evidence.

I have eaten clams all my life with no ill effects. My late mother
would puke if she ate one. She tried several times and always puked
them up within a minute. Clam allergies are real, but they need to be
proven by evidence. For what it's worth, for many years I always ate a
couple dozen raw ones whilst digging them. YUM! They look gross, feel
slimy and such, but are quite good raw.

Do you like your clams (and CSOs) well done or still with a bit of
fight left in them? :-)

[l***@fl.it]

Post by HRM Resident

Post by James Warren
I have a similar reaction to clams. I'll
probably never know if it is a conditioned response or not.

I can get you lots of clams. Deep fried, steamed or freshly dug.
I think they go for about $20-25 a bucket, but I might be way off seeing
as I haven't bother in 10-15 years.
Either way, I suggest a double blind study. I can get some CLOs
(clam shaped objects) so authentic in look and taste that you won't be
able to tell the difference.
Then someone will alternate feeding you real clams and CSOs for a
week (you or I won't know which, only the one feeding you.) If your
reaction is real and caused by some sort of clam ingredient, after a
month, you'll either be posting here, healthy as ever, or in a hospital
or morgue. That's the scientific way . . . we'll do an evidence based
scientific study to try to verify your anecdotal evidence.
I have eaten clams all my life with no ill effects. My late mother
would puke if she ate one. She tried several times and always puked
them up within a minute. Clam allergies are real, but they need to be
proven by evidence. For what it's worth, for many years I always ate a
couple dozen raw ones whilst digging them. YUM! They look gross, feel
slimy and such, but are quite good raw.
Do you like your clams (and CSOs) well done or still with a bit of
fight left in them? :-)

Have you tried the clams at Sams in Dartmouth ? Now they're to die
for :)

[HRM Resident]

Post by l***@fl.it

Post by HRM Resident

Post by James Warren
I have a similar reaction to clams. I'll
probably never know if it is a conditioned response or not.

I can get you lots of clams. Deep fried, steamed or freshly dug.
I think they go for about $20-25 a bucket, but I might be way off seeing
as I haven't bother in 10-15 years.
Either way, I suggest a double blind study. I can get some CLOs
(clam shaped objects) so authentic in look and taste that you won't be
able to tell the difference.
Then someone will alternate feeding you real clams and CSOs for a
week (you or I won't know which, only the one feeding you.) If your
reaction is real and caused by some sort of clam ingredient, after a
month, you'll either be posting here, healthy as ever, or in a hospital
or morgue. That's the scientific way . . . we'll do an evidence based
scientific study to try to verify your anecdotal evidence.
I have eaten clams all my life with no ill effects. My late mother
would puke if she ate one. She tried several times and always puked
them up within a minute. Clam allergies are real, but they need to be
proven by evidence. For what it's worth, for many years I always ate a
couple dozen raw ones whilst digging them. YUM! They look gross, feel
slimy and such, but are quite good raw.
Do you like your clams (and CSOs) well done or still with a bit of
fight left in them? :-)

Have you tried the clams at Sams in Dartmouth ? Now they're to die
for :)

I thought the gold standard was John's Lunch beside the ferry
terminal in Woodside. I haven't been there for over 10 years, but I
seem to recall a photo of GG Adrienne Clarkson and her husband their on
the wall. Anyhow, fried clams are fried clams . . . need lots of lard
and salt, which is why I only eat them raw or steamed these days. I
must admit I haven't heard of Sam's.

I grew up eating clams very often, but that was a long time ago and
I sort of moved on to other things. I'm waiting for the results of the
scientific test from James. :-)

[l***@fl.it]

Post by HRM Resident

Post by l***@fl.it
Have you tried the clams at Sams in Dartmouth ? Now they're to die
for :)

I thought the gold standard was John's Lunch beside the ferry
terminal in Woodside. I haven't been there for over 10 years, but I
seem to recall a photo of GG Adrienne Clarkson and her husband their on
the wall. Anyhow, fried clams are fried clams . . . need lots of lard
and salt, which is why I only eat them raw or steamed these days. I
must admit I haven't heard of Sam's.

Johns are excellent but seats are uncomfortable. Better at Sam's,
it's at the beginning of Main, in the middle with red roof, near the
big Sobeys there.

They are fried, but the batter is very light and that is what makes
them so good.

Post by HRM Resident
I grew up eating clams very often, but that was a long time ago and
I sort of moved on to other things. I'm waiting for the results of the
scientific test from James. :-)

I also like the fried clams at Willams in the north end but they are
entirely different, more chewy but great even so. That and fried fish
when I am out is probably the only fried food I eat, so I feel I am
allowed :)

[James Warren]

Post by James Warren
I have a similar reaction to clams. I'll
probably never know if it is a conditioned response or not.

     I can get you lots of clams.  Deep fried, steamed or freshly dug.
I think they go for about $20-25 a bucket, but I might be way off seeing
as I haven't bother in 10-15 years.
     Either way, I suggest a double blind study.  I can get some CLOs
(clam shaped objects) so authentic in look and taste that you won't be
able to tell the difference.
     Then someone will alternate feeding you real clams and CSOs for a
week (you or I won't know which, only the one feeding you.)  If your
reaction is real and caused by some sort of clam ingredient, after a
month, you'll either be posting here, healthy as ever, or in a hospital
or morgue.  That's the scientific way . . . we'll do an evidence based
scientific study to try to verify your anecdotal evidence.
     I have eaten clams all my life with no ill effects.  My late mother
would puke if she ate one.  She tried several times and always puked
them up within a minute.  Clam allergies are real, but they need to be
proven by evidence.  For what it's worth, for many years I always ate a
couple dozen raw ones whilst digging them.  YUM!  They look gross, feel
slimy and such, but are quite good raw.
     Do you like your clams (and CSOs) well done or still with a bit of
fight left in them? :-)

Have you tried the clams at Sams in Dartmouth ?  Now they're to die
for :)

    I thought the gold standard was John's Lunch beside the ferry terminal in Woodside.  I haven't
been there for over 10 years, but I seem to recall a photo of GG Adrienne Clarkson and her husband
their on the wall.  Anyhow, fried clams are fried clams . . . need lots of lard and salt, which is
why I only eat them raw or steamed these days.  I must admit I haven't heard of Sam's.
    I grew up eating clams very often, but that was a long time ago and I sort of moved on to other
things.  I'm waiting for the results of the scientific test from James. :-)

Results! Puke all over the floor! :)

Sam's in Dartmouth Crossing has great fish&chips.

[James Warren]

I have a similar reaction to clams. I'll probably never know if it is a conditioned response or not.

    I can get you lots of clams.  Deep fried, steamed or freshly dug. I think they go for about
$20-25 a bucket, but I might be way off seeing as I haven't bother in 10-15 years.
    Either way, I suggest a double blind study.  I can get some CLOs (clam shaped objects) so
authentic in look and taste that you won't be able to tell the difference.
    Then someone will alternate feeding you real clams and CSOs for a week (you or I won't know
which, only the one feeding you.)  If your reaction is real and caused by some sort of clam
ingredient, after a month, you'll either be posting here, healthy as ever, or in a hospital or
morgue.  That's the scientific way . . . we'll do an evidence based scientific study to try to
verify your anecdotal evidence.
    I have eaten clams all my life with no ill effects.  My late mother would puke if she ate one.
She tried several times and always puked them up within a minute.  Clam allergies are real, but they
need to be proven by evidence.  For what it's worth, for many years I always ate a couple dozen raw
ones whilst digging them.  YUM!  They look gross, feel slimy and such, but are quite good raw.
    Do you like your clams (and CSOs) well done or still with a bit of fight left in them? :-)

Would you conduct this experiment on your mother? I respectfully decline your invitation. :)

PS: It is a good study design nevertheless!

[HRM Resident]

Post by James Warren

I have a similar reaction to clams. I'll probably never know if it is
a conditioned response or not.

     I can get you lots of clams.  Deep fried, steamed or freshly dug.
I think they go for about $20-25 a bucket, but I might be way off
seeing as I haven't bother in 10-15 years.
     Either way, I suggest a double blind study.  I can get some CLOs
(clam shaped objects) so authentic in look and taste that you won't be
able to tell the difference.
     Then someone will alternate feeding you real clams and CSOs for a
week (you or I won't know which, only the one feeding you.)  If your
reaction is real and caused by some sort of clam ingredient, after a
month, you'll either be posting here, healthy as ever, or in a
hospital or morgue.  That's the scientific way . . . we'll do an
evidence based scientific study to try to verify your anecdotal evidence.
     I have eaten clams all my life with no ill effects.  My late
mother would puke if she ate one. She tried several times and always
puked them up within a minute.  Clam allergies are real, but they need
to be proven by evidence.  For what it's worth, for many years I
always ate a couple dozen raw ones whilst digging them.  YUM!  They
look gross, feel slimy and such, but are quite good raw.
     Do you like your clams (and CSOs) well done or still with a bit
of fight left in them? :-)

Would you conduct this experiment on your mother? I respectfully decline
your invitation. :)
PS: It is a good study design nevertheless!

I convinced her to re-try clams a couple of times . . . she'd
learned about the "allergy" or whatever caused her to hurl years
earlier. However, I managed to whine enough with "Just try one"
arguments and "It likely was a bad clam" rationale that she did give one
a try. Barf! 10-12 years later, same thing. The next time I asked I
got a look that would stop a train! So I figured it was time to let it go.

Yeah, I thought it was a good design too. It worked. It got you
to admit you trusted anecdotal evidence as opposed to an evidence based
study. There may be hope for you yet! :-)

Seriously, one shouldn't care about where the "evidence" comes
from. If you repeatedly have a bad reaction to a certain food,
anecdotal evidence is good enough. I don't think I'm allergic to any
food. Might be, but I never felt squeamish or developed a rash/swelling
after eating.

There are a lot of people who won't touch clams . . . they say they
look like half dried snot . . . which is kinda true, but the do taste
good.

Regrettably, like LB, I limit my fried food to a few meals now and
then. I lost 45 pounds 6 years ago. I have been sitting between
150-155 ever since. If I see 155.1, it gets taken care of in a day or
two. It solved a lot of health issues and I feel better.

Doctor told me to lose the weight or start taking BP pills. I went
the weight loss route. It's not easy, but after a few years you stop
thinking of sugar, fat and the like. Even salt. I threw the salt
shaker away. If food "needs" salt, it's added sparingly during cooking.
My kids hate me! They want to shake a teaspoon of salt on everything
before they even taste it . . . but not here because there is no salt
shaker to be seen.

[James Warren]

Post by James Warren

I have a similar reaction to clams. I'll probably never know if it is a conditioned response or
not.

     I can get you lots of clams.  Deep fried, steamed or freshly dug. I think they go for about
$20-25 a bucket, but I might be way off seeing as I haven't bother in 10-15 years.
     Either way, I suggest a double blind study.  I can get some CLOs (clam shaped objects) so
authentic in look and taste that you won't be able to tell the difference.
     Then someone will alternate feeding you real clams and CSOs for a week (you or I won't know
which, only the one feeding you.)  If your reaction is real and caused by some sort of clam
ingredient, after a month, you'll either be posting here, healthy as ever, or in a hospital or
morgue.  That's the scientific way . . . we'll do an evidence based scientific study to try to
verify your anecdotal evidence.
     I have eaten clams all my life with no ill effects.  My late mother would puke if she ate
one. She tried several times and always puked them up within a minute.  Clam allergies are real,
but they need to be proven by evidence.  For what it's worth, for many years I always ate a
couple dozen raw ones whilst digging them.  YUM!  They look gross, feel slimy and such, but are
quite good raw.
     Do you like your clams (and CSOs) well done or still with a bit of fight left in them? :-)

Would you conduct this experiment on your mother? I respectfully decline your invitation. :)
PS: It is a good study design nevertheless!

    I convinced her to re-try clams a couple of times . . . she'd learned about the "allergy" or
whatever caused her to hurl years earlier.  However, I managed to whine enough with "Just try one"
arguments and "It likely was a bad clam" rationale that she did give one a try.  Barf!  10-12 years
later, same thing.  The next time I asked I got a look that would stop a train!  So I figured it was
time to let it go.
    Yeah, I thought it was a good design too.  It worked.  It got you to admit you trusted
anecdotal evidence as opposed to an evidence based study.  There may be hope for you yet! :-)

Not really anecdotal evidence. It's classical conditioning. We are born to avoid foods that make us
sick. Once an association is formed, it's hard wired and very resistant to extinction. You're stuck
with it. The only sensible behaviour is avoidance.

    Seriously, one shouldn't care about where the "evidence" comes from.  If you repeatedly have a
bad reaction to a certain food, anecdotal evidence is good enough.  I don't think I'm allergic to
any food.  Might be, but I never felt squeamish or developed a rash/swelling after eating.
    There are a lot of people who won't touch clams . . . they say they look like half dried snot .
. . which is kinda true, but the do taste good.

I first ate clams in 1978. Less than an hour later I barfed them into a toilet. I tried again a
few years later; same result. My first batch may have been bad. I have no way of knowing for sure.

    Regrettably, like LB, I limit my fried food to a few meals now and then.  I lost 45 pounds 6
years ago.  I have been sitting between 150-155 ever since.  If I see 155.1, it gets taken care of
in a day or two.  It solved a lot of health issues and I feel better.
    Doctor told me to lose the weight or start taking BP pills.  I went the weight loss route.
It's not easy, but after a few years you stop thinking of sugar, fat and the like.  Even salt.  I
threw the salt shaker away.  If food "needs" salt, it's added sparingly during cooking.  My kids
hate me!  They want to shake a teaspoon of salt on everything before they even taste it . . . but
not here because there is no salt shaker to be seen.

The upside of OCD. :)

[HRM Resident]

Post by James Warren
The upside of OCD. :)

Indeed! OCD is the least of it. Paranoia is bad too. I have 12
security cameras surrounding the house as well as 8 motion sensor
devices that trigger alarms. I am going to install a few booby traps
with trip wires too . . . you can get lots of stuff on the Internet to
protect yourself from the upcoming apocalypse. I'd tell you about my
bunker and 8 year supply of food and water, but when all hell breaks
loose, everyone will try to bust in and steal my supplies.

Do you have your bunker finished? It's a lot of digging, but worth
it. I did mine in the winter when the ground was frozen. :-)

[James Warren]

Post by James Warren
The upside of OCD. :)

    Indeed!  OCD is the least of it.  Paranoia is bad too.  I have 12 security cameras surrounding
the house as well as 8 motion sensor devices that trigger alarms.  I am going to install a few booby
traps with trip wires too . . . you can get lots of stuff on the Internet to protect yourself from
the upcoming apocalypse.  I'd tell you about my bunker and 8 year supply of food and water, but when
all hell breaks loose, everyone will try to bust in and steal my supplies.
    Do you have your bunker finished?  It's a lot of digging, but worth it.  I did mine in the
winter when the ground was frozen.  :-)

Better double check that you didn't forget the can opener! That would be tragic!! :)

As for security, I have home insurance. It's probably cheaper that all your paranoid technology. :)

[l***@fl.it]

Post by HRM Resident

Post by James Warren
The upside of OCD. :)

Indeed! OCD is the least of it. Paranoia is bad too. I have 12
security cameras surrounding the house as well as 8 motion sensor
devices that trigger alarms. I am going to install a few booby traps
with trip wires too . . . you can get lots of stuff on the Internet to
protect yourself from the upcoming apocalypse. I'd tell you about my
bunker and 8 year supply of food and water, but when all hell breaks
loose, everyone will try to bust in and steal my supplies.
Do you have your bunker finished? It's a lot of digging, but worth
it. I did mine in the winter when the ground was frozen. :-)

A friend was in Hawaii after Xmas when they had that false alarm for a
nuclear bomb. We were discussing it, neither of them happened to hear
it, if they had they didn't know where to go and if they had known,
was there much point? Go to the nuclear shelter, then what?

I figure if my cell phone squawked, I'd just start working through the
160 litres of red wine I have on hand, might as well go out happy :)

[HRM Resident]

Post by l***@fl.it

Post by HRM Resident

Post by James Warren
The upside of OCD. :)

Indeed! OCD is the least of it. Paranoia is bad too. I have 12
security cameras surrounding the house as well as 8 motion sensor
devices that trigger alarms. I am going to install a few booby traps
with trip wires too . . . you can get lots of stuff on the Internet to
protect yourself from the upcoming apocalypse. I'd tell you about my
bunker and 8 year supply of food and water, but when all hell breaks
loose, everyone will try to bust in and steal my supplies.
Do you have your bunker finished? It's a lot of digging, but worth
it. I did mine in the winter when the ground was frozen. :-)

A friend was in Hawaii after Xmas when they had that false alarm for a
nuclear bomb. We were discussing it, neither of them happened to hear
it, if they had they didn't know where to go and if they had known,
was there much point? Go to the nuclear shelter, then what?
I figure if my cell phone squawked, I'd just start working through the
160 litres of red wine I have on hand, might as well go out happy :)

Sadly, my guess is that few would be warned of a nuclear attack.
These attacks, if someone is stupid enough to launch one, happen fast
and vaporize everything in range. I don't think a text message would
reach us before the blast . . . and if it did, I doubt anyone would have
time for a glass of wine.

That said, it's as good of a contingency plan as building a bunker! :-)

I wonder what part of mutually assured destruction (MAD) those with
nuclear weapons don't understand . . . probably the misguided thinking
is something like, "I'd rather destroy the planet than negotiate."

Truman knew the Japanese couldn't hit back in 1945. If the
Japanese had the same capability as the US back then, I wonder if the
Allies would have risked a vaporised LA and San Francisco when making
their decision to drop those two nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It
was a unique period when the US knew they could save ~2 million US
soldiers' lives by launching two nuclear strikes. That unique
conditions of just one side having a secret, massive weapon advantage
over the others is unlikely to be repeated.

It's a moot point now, because whoever pushes the first button will
effectively destroy humanity.

[l***@fl.it]

Post by HRM Resident
Sadly, my guess is that few would be warned of a nuclear attack.
These attacks, if someone is stupid enough to launch one, happen fast
and vaporize everything in range. I don't think a text message would
reach us before the blast . . . and if it did, I doubt anyone would have
time for a glass of wine.
That said, it's as good of a contingency plan as building a bunker! :-)
I wonder what part of mutually assured destruction (MAD) those with
nuclear weapons don't understand . . . probably the misguided thinking
is something like, "I'd rather destroy the planet than negotiate."
Truman knew the Japanese couldn't hit back in 1945. If the
Japanese had the same capability as the US back then, I wonder if the
Allies would have risked a vaporised LA and San Francisco when making
their decision to drop those two nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It
was a unique period when the US knew they could save ~2 million US
soldiers' lives by launching two nuclear strikes. That unique
conditions of just one side having a secret, massive weapon advantage
over the others is unlikely to be repeated.
It's a moot point now, because whoever pushes the first button will
effectively destroy humanity.

As a child of the blitz, even I was impressed when our train in Japan
passed Hiroshima en route to Tokyo. I expect that was a small bomb
too, nothing compared to what would be exploded today.

[James Warren]

Post by l***@fl.it

Post by James Warren
The upside of OCD. :)

     Indeed!  OCD is the least of it.  Paranoia is bad too.  I have 12
security cameras surrounding the house as well as 8 motion sensor
devices that trigger alarms.  I am going to install a few booby traps
with trip wires too . . . you can get lots of stuff on the Internet to
protect yourself from the upcoming apocalypse.  I'd tell you about my
bunker and 8 year supply of food and water, but when all hell breaks
loose, everyone will try to bust in and steal my supplies.
     Do you have your bunker finished?  It's a lot of digging, but worth
it.  I did mine in the winter when the ground was frozen.  :-)

A friend was in Hawaii after Xmas when they had that false alarm for a
nuclear bomb.  We were discussing it, neither of them happened to hear
it, if they had they didn't know where to go and if they had known,
was there much point?   Go to the nuclear shelter, then what?
I figure if my cell phone squawked, I'd just start working through the
160 litres of red wine I have on hand, might as well go out happy :)

    Sadly, my guess is that few would be warned of a nuclear attack. These attacks, if someone is
stupid enough to launch one, happen fast and vaporize everything in range.  I don't think a text
message would reach us before the blast . . . and if it did, I doubt anyone would have time for a
glass of wine.
    That said, it's as good of a contingency plan as building a bunker! :-)
    I wonder what part of mutually assured destruction (MAD) those with nuclear weapons don't
understand . . . probably the misguided thinking is something like, "I'd rather destroy the planet
than negotiate."
    Truman knew the Japanese couldn't hit back in 1945.  If the Japanese had the same capability as
the US back then, I wonder if the Allies would have risked a vaporised LA and San Francisco when
making their decision to drop those two nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  It was a unique period
when the US knew they could save ~2 million US soldiers' lives by launching two nuclear strikes.
That unique conditions of just one side having a secret, massive weapon advantage over the others is
unlikely to be repeated.
    It's a moot point now, because whoever pushes the first button will effectively destroy humanity.

This may be the reason why advanced technological life has not been found in our galaxy. The time
period during which they can be detected is very short before they self destruct. It would be
virtually impossible for two to exist at the same time.

[HRM Resident]

Post by James Warren
This may be the reason why advanced technological life has not been
found in our galaxy. The time
period during which they can be detected is very short before they self
destruct. It would be virtually impossible for two to exist at the same
time.

I saw a documentary on one of the science channels about this
theory in the past year. It makes a lot of sense. There are trillions
of stars out there, many with planets with probable conditions to
support some sort of life.

As you allude, we only have one data point, and that's us. We have
only existed for an almost unfathomably short period of time during the
estimated life of the universe. Humans are a spike the width of a human
hair on a timeline kilometres long, if I may use such an analogy.
That's the temporal problem you have identified. I agree completely.

It's even more improbable when one factors in the spatial
difference with the temporal difference. "Life-like things" winking in
and out of existence and separated by vast distances are very, very
unlikely to detect each other. Is it possible that intelligent life (as
we seem to think we are) can't develop technology and use it properly
for even a minuscule amount of time? It seems that no matter what
technology we've developed during our existence, from crude clubs to
species extinction calibre weapons, we always use them to fight against
ourselves. Maybe it's some fundamental law of nature that technology
advances until it destroys itself.

I often ponder such things . . . if time travel were possible, why
haven't we had visitors from the future? If there are planets with the
ability to support life, and they are actually developing lifeforms, do
they always advance from developing powerful technology to using it to
destroy themselves? Are we on that path? These questions don't keep me
awake at night, but they do make me wonder why we seem to be alone in an
infinite universe. Why hasn't someone called us, or us them? Probably
the temporal/spacial differences combined with this "law" that suggests
a species will quickly develop a way to destroy themselves . . . and
then use it.

[James Warren]

Post by James Warren
This may be the reason why advanced technological life has not been found in our galaxy. The time
period during which they can be detected is very short before they self destruct. It would be
virtually impossible for two to exist at the same time.

    I saw a documentary on one of the science channels about this theory in the past year.  It
makes a lot of sense.  There are trillions of stars out there, many with planets with probable
conditions to support some sort of life.
    As you allude, we only have one data point, and that's us.  We have only existed for an almost
unfathomably short period of time during the estimated life of the universe.  Humans are a spike the
width of a human hair on a timeline kilometres long, if I may use such an analogy. That's the
temporal problem you have identified.  I agree completely.
    It's even more improbable when one factors in the spatial difference with the temporal
difference.  "Life-like things" winking in and out of existence and separated by vast distances are
very, very unlikely to detect each other.  Is it possible that intelligent life (as we seem to think
we are) can't develop technology and use it properly for even a minuscule amount of time?  It seems
that no matter what technology we've developed during our existence, from crude clubs to species
extinction calibre weapons, we always use them to fight against ourselves.  Maybe it's some
fundamental law of nature that technology advances until it destroys itself.
    I often ponder such things . . . if time travel were possible, why haven't we had visitors from
the future?  If there are planets with the ability to support life, and they are actually developing
lifeforms, do they always advance from developing powerful technology to using it to destroy
themselves?  Are we on that path?  These questions don't keep me awake at night, but they do make me
wonder why we seem to be alone in an infinite universe.  Why hasn't someone called us, or us them?
Probably the temporal/spacial differences combined with this "law" that suggests a species will
quickly develop a way to destroy themselves . . . and then use it.

Another consideration is that we search for life signs (SETI) looking for electromagnetic radiation
emitted by technology. On earth that period lasted for only about 100 years. We are now sending
very little radiation into space. 100 years is far too short a time for us to be detected in this
way or for us to detect alien civilizations.

[James Warren]

Post by James Warren
This may be the reason why advanced technological life has not been found in our galaxy. The time
period during which they can be detected is very short before they self destruct. It would be
virtually impossible for two to exist at the same time.

    I saw a documentary on one of the science channels about this theory in the past year.  It
makes a lot of sense.  There are trillions of stars out there, many with planets with probable
conditions to support some sort of life.
    As you allude, we only have one data point, and that's us.  We have only existed for an almost
unfathomably short period of time during the estimated life of the universe.  Humans are a spike the
width of a human hair on a timeline kilometres long, if I may use such an analogy. That's the
temporal problem you have identified.  I agree completely.
    It's even more improbable when one factors in the spatial difference with the temporal
difference.  "Life-like things" winking in and out of existence and separated by vast distances are
very, very unlikely to detect each other.  Is it possible that intelligent life (as we seem to think
we are) can't develop technology and use it properly for even a minuscule amount of time?  It seems
that no matter what technology we've developed during our existence, from crude clubs to species
extinction calibre weapons, we always use them to fight against ourselves.  Maybe it's some
fundamental law of nature that technology advances until it destroys itself.
    I often ponder such things . . . if time travel were possible, why haven't we had visitors from
the future?  If there are planets with the ability to support life, and they are actually developing
lifeforms, do they always advance from developing powerful technology to using it to destroy
themselves?  Are we on that path?  These questions don't keep me awake at night, but they do make me
wonder why we seem to be alone in an infinite universe.  Why hasn't someone called us, or us them?
Probably the temporal/spacial differences combined with this "law" that suggests a species will
quickly develop a way to destroy themselves . . . and then use it.

Yet another possibility is that the real intelligence in the universe is silicon based. Assuming
biological life does not always self destruct before developing real AI, then more intelligent
silicon based life will be stable and would have very little interest in interacting with their
inferior biological creators.