and, on the last days of his presidency, we are reminded that trump won the nomination because he was the economic moderate on the ballot.

he's the only one of these idiots that seems to understand that stimulus is good for the economy. it's baffling. really.

so, no - he doesn't care about you. he cares about stock prices. he's just smart enough to figure out that giving people money to spend is good for stocks - and none of the rest of them are.

If humans are directly exposed to, for example, only 0.1% of this potential then our current daily exposure equates to 30 mg of aluminium. On a similar basis our exposure to aluminium would have been 1 mg per day in 1950 and will be 100 mg per day by 2050. 

https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2013/em/c3em00374d

there's not a lot of things happening right now.

while the undercurrents of inevitable crushing austerity do remain despite attempts to distract from it, they won't go after businesses, they'll go after poor people. that's how capitalism works.

this?

it's a slow news month. they'll forget about this.

they won't forget about you, though.

you thought it was free money, huh? so naive, you were. you're going to pay five times what they gave you in interest, in the end.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-government-searchable-database-subsidy-1.5852424

one thing i will say, though, is that the fact that i basically don't eat processed food means i don't have to worry about aluminum in additives.

it seems that that would probably be a serious cause of retardation in a large percentage of americans.

they actually do have an unlimited checking account.

and, it's the only one in the whole world, too.

and, should you be worried about the aluminum in vaccines?

yes.

but, depending on the context, you need to weigh it. you certainly don't want to inject yourself with aluminum very often, that's for sure. but, i've been over this a few times - almost everything i'm pointing out has a pro and a con.

so, if you're 90 years old and in sound mental health, you need to toy with it.

- yes, a vaccine could save your life.

- but, no, it's not so great for your brain (or your liver), either.

concern is justified.

fear needs to be weighed.

when i did the fluoride run through, i pointed out that fluoride may uptake various metals into the liver and that sufficient betaine is the best way to clear it out.

if you want to fight aluminum, betaine may be your best trick, as well:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289078440_Betaine_reverses_toxic_effects_of_aluminium_Implications_in_Alzheimer's_disease_AD_and_AD-like_pathology

this is also interesting, as fluoride is certainly much less dangerous than aluminum:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1617567/

i guess we could always try to find some way to increase elimination rates, if we can't get away from the stuff.

i mean, there's not a better idea.

just realize, for a minute, what your body does with aluminum.

it has no health benefits. at all. plants don't use it, either. and, you can only eliminate it at a certain rate.

do you know what your body does with the rest of it?

it stores it in your fucking brain.

now, you don't need too much schooling to know that storing metallic ions in your brain is a shit poor idea, all around. you don't want to do that - whether it's mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium....or aluminum, either.

we don't need hundreds of supplemental studies, we just need to know what your body does with it and realize immediately that that's the worst idea, ever.

there's still people arguing that aluminum is harmless, too.

the science is pretty clear, at this point - it's dangerous, at some level, and that level is much lower than we used to think, even if we're still working out bounds.

they used to eat mercury - they thought it was a medicine, and an immortality potion. i'm not joking: smart, powerful people at one point used to eat mercury thinking it would give them immortality. the logic was that it had unusual properties, and those unusual properties were tied into this mysticism that existed around magnets, electricity, rocks...

and, it wasn't that long ago that people would laugh at you if you tried to tell them lead was poisonous, too.

again: there's no upside to aluminium, and it's clearly dangerous in some quantity. there's no value in ignoring that, except laziness.

there's almost certainly aluminum in your bottled water, too. sorry. 

no.

way.

out...

well, except the expensive water filtration. that's how you do it...if you can....

so, the levels of aluminum in the surface water here are unusually high as it is, no doubt due to the automotive industry as a primary source. but, then they bombard the water with aluminum to try to clean it up - and, i mean, it's not like i don't get it, but there ought to be something done to filter out the remaining aluminum after, and it seems like there really isn't.

so, you get the heightened background aluminum levels and the aluminum chloride they dump in the water to remove things like lead.

the idea is that the aluminum bonds to the heavier elements and falls to the bottom. fine. but, they're overdoing it in order for it to work. that's the process - you put too much in, and hope it sticks. so, there's necessarily a large excess.

you can get the free chloride ions out with a basic carbon filter. the aluminum requires reverse osmosis, which is a $20K+ system.

otherwise, i'd have to do crazy things like start playing with sulphuric acid.

ugh.

hydroponics are

- healthier in terms of more nutritious food

- healthier in terms of less toxins in the food

- produce less carbon

- don't require pesticide inputs

- can potentially be cheaper, if they can get scaled up.

it's not just the best approach - it's a solution.

which is why nobody wants to do it.

to answer the question: there's a few things i can eat around here that are greenhouse grown, but we need bigger investments into more mature production, and it won't happen so long as you can hire slaves from mexico at a tenth the cost. we'll just keep poisoning ourselves, instead.

but, don't trick yourself into thinking that only certain classes of produce are hydroponically available. it's not true. you can grow carrots & beets & avocados and really anything you want from a hydroponic system. large trees like oranges & bananas may need to undergo some artificial selection before they're ready for indoor breeding, but it's just a size issue.

we need to get our food out of the soil. it's killing us...

i bet you think wheat and mules and bananas are unnatural, too? no?

you only think new technology is unnatural then?

....because you're afraid of it. admit it.

"but, indoor growing is unnatural."

oh, fuck off.

and, no, that little "organic" sticker on your fruit doesn't mean there's not aluminum in the soil.

what it means is that the grower only used pesticides made of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and perhaps nitrogen & sulfur. you might think "organic" means "natural" or "pesticide-free" or something, but that's because you're a horrible ignoramus. "organic" refers to "organic chemistry" and just means "uses a specific type of pesticides, and not this other type".

that actually, generally, means that they have to use more pesticide, because it's less effective than some gmo solutions, like round-up. further, these pesticides are often more poisonous to humans than "inorganic" pesticides, and are every bit as carcinogenic as well, if not more so. benzene, for example, would be considered a highly carcinogenic, organic pesticide - and your organic produce could very well be smothered in it.

so, i don't bother with "organic food". it's a scam.

what i would potentially pay a little more for, if i could, would be locally grown greenhouse produce, both because it's dramatically lower on emissions and because it could potentially avoid using any pesticides at all via proper indoor temperature control, cleaning and sealing. there is simply no way to profitably grow anything outside without pesticides nowadays, and your soil is so filthy that it wouldn't even be worthwhile to try. but, if you take the plants out of the soil and you bring the whole thing inside, then you all of a sudden don't need to introduce these chemicals into the growing process any more.

is it feasible to eat entirely out of greenhouses, here? i dunno...

if i really wanted to minimize the amount of aluminium i'm getting from food, i'd seek out food grown hydroponically, i guess.

and, there may be other good reasons to do that. lots of them...

mr. president,

do you know what the concern about aluminum in the food is?

well?

age related memory impairment.

fuck, if there's something good about a gerontocracy, maybe they could set some stricter limits on stuff like this, anyways?

aluminum has precisely no benefit to human health. it's not a useful byproduct of anything. it's legitimately just useless pollution that should be removed from the fields.

so, it took me a little longer than i wanted, but i doubled over the first bunch of elements, and i think it's ballparked enough. i mean, it's a range. it seems to be about as good as i'm going to get.

i need to read up on aluminum now and, as stated, it's kind of unsettling. it's not even the water that's freaking me out, it's the produce. if it's in the food, how do i avoid it? 

i have one request regarding the people referenced here.

i have intentionally made it either impossible or very easy to identify people referenced here, depending on who you are.

please wait for people to identify themselves, rather than go look for them. some very well might. others probably never will.

that is all.

do you know what these kids are, really?

they're career politicians.

they're just not old enough to have careers, yet.

like i say - i tried to give them a chance, but they've all failed. too slow. can they get out of the way and make space for some people with some experience and initiative, now?

(unfortunately, there's a lot of people that don't remember.)

see, this guy strikes me as far more likely to actually accomplish something - he actually has a resume.

remember when you needed a resume to get a job, rather than just be properly intersectional?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritchie_Torres

i can't prove it. by definition. it's been wiped out, very much on purpose.

but, i suspect that's the answer - that this historical black hole into jewish history that the bible had to fill the role of is a consequence of the carthaginian genocide, and if we had actual records then we might learn that the hebrews and carthaginians were more closely aligned than is currently understood.

i just rant, sometimes, as you can see; these are more just loose ends, bookended thought. i've posted about this more thoroughly, previously.

nnnnnnno, there weren't any jews in carthage, because there weren't any jews, yet.

but, there's this kind of thread throughout history where the romans kind of saw them as at least related. and, if you read between the lines, it's clear enough that the actual source of tension that romans - and so many since - have had with judaism has an ancestral root in the punic wars.

rome really had a fucking hate on for carthage.

no, her argument about people voting for it and then letting mitch mcconnell vote it down isn't the same as the reverse argument, because it's still a vote, at the end of the day. if the intent is strictly to see how people vote, then it's....there's always going to be specific issues in any bill, and people could outright change their mind, so there's really not any way to bank on a previous vote. but, this is going to be an issue in the opposite direction for more members than it is in the positive one; that is, more members are going to find themselves worried about a 'yes' vote following them around when they don't actually support it, if they have any further ambitions in politics. as clear as the polling is, it's also a career destroyer for most democrats. so, it's an argument rooted in a false equivalency - nobody would take that risk, if they weren't willing to accept being labeled as supporting it.

i mean, there's a very good chance that something like this could fail to get 10 votes. but, that would be important to realize - it would just demonstrate the depth of the problem, and the futility of continuing in the party.

actually, i think it's important to debunk this woman so that people stop putting faith in her. that's not to end her, entirely, it's to bring people back to earth and get them being real about it. this is a career politician that has never accomplished anything worthwhile in her life. it's important to see things clearly and take off the tinted glasses.

we don't accomplish things through hope and faith, we accomplish them through hard work and critical analysis.

taking her down a notch is a net benefit.