Originally posted by robtcorl six below this morning, -25F wind chill.
Mrs Bob and I stayed up until 11PM, no incentive to ring in the new year.
We watched The Founder, it's about Ray Kroc's take over of McDonalds, pretty good flick.
all the way up to 14 below
all the birds and squirresl are scarfing up their new year's treats and basking in a fairly warm sun
even the puffed up finches look as big as robins
---------- Post added 01-01-18 at 09:13 AM ----------
Originally posted by tim60 Sorry for talking about photography, but I recall seeing a photo of one of the early Tour de France races showing the cyclists, themselves, smoking whilst racing. Smoking was actually believed to be good for one's performance. Would it have been banned as a performance enhancing drug if the current sensitivities were around over that issue? Apparently during WWII death by heart attack decreased at the same time as there was a decrease in the availability of tobacco to the general public.
The problem of proving these things:
There is a lot of correlational evidence.
There is evidence of the presence of various carcinogens in the smoke.
But can you prove that smoking CAUSED the cancer and not something else, or that the specific combination of carcinogens in smoke causes cancer?
A large part of that depends on what one considers, or is willing to accept as, proof of cause.
Philosophy, research methods and law collide creating a loud report.
if I understand what you're saying
on the basis of direct and absolute proof..
asbestos was safe
coal dust was safe
smoking was safe
well until it killed you
a friend dying of lung cancer insisted smoking didn't cause it
another friend of ours said if that was true he wouldn't be a murderer if he parked a bullet in his brain pan
the bullet would kill you not me