Affect of Alcohol (Beer) on Soaring and Soaring Racing

[[email protected]]

I know Sebastian Kawa and a few others never touch alcohol. Some racing pilots stay away around competitions. Others have a beer waiting on ice when they land.

Is it just a high performance athlete focusing thing - or is there more to it. I did a search and couldn't fined any discussions.


WH

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 6:05:07 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> I know Sebastian Kawa and a few others never touch alcohol. Some racing pilots stay away around competitions. Others have a beer waiting on ice when they land.
>
> Is it just a high performance athlete focusing thing - or is there more to it. I did a search and couldn't fined any discussions.
>
>
> WH

God I love yacht clubs.

[Dan Marotta]

Why's that Jonathan?Â* Free beer?

On 2/19/2019 9:03 AM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 6:05:07 AM UTC-8, wrote:
>> I know Sebastian Kawa and a few others never touch alcohol. Some racing pilots stay away around competitions. Others have a beer waiting on ice when they land.
>>
>> Is it just a high performance athlete focusing thing - or is there more to it. I did a search and couldn't fined any discussions.
>>
>>
>> WH
> God I love yacht clubs.

--
Dan, 5J

[George Haeh]

Very important for landouts. One for the pilot and one for the farmer.

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

Several things.......
Some is, no alcohol ever.
Some is, "I believe beyond the 8hrs bottle to throttle".....no, most sailplanes have no throttle. Alcohol is also a negative way to lose fluids, we can get dehydrated enough just from flying and then have to work harder to be physically ready for the next contest day. So what a person does at home is not what they may do at a contest. Even beyond 8hrs, senses are dulled a bit, so maybe part of the performance aspect.

Curious to see other replies.

As an aside, decades ago, for a contest finish, a call to the crew may be, "ice the beer" so the pilot knew they had home made and wanted a cold one. A contest for me (1996?) I called, "ice the baby bottle" (I had a several month old kidlet, wife was crew with said kidlet). I landed and was handed a baby bottle full of beer......sheesh, I love my wife....;-) this was at HHSC.....

[AS]

On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 1:43:00 PM UTC-5, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> Several things.......
> Some is, no alcohol ever.
> Some is, "I believe beyond the 8hrs bottle to throttle".....no, most sailplanes have no throttle. Alcohol is also a negative way to lose fluids, we can get dehydrated enough just from flying and then have to work harder to be physically ready for the next contest day. So what a person does at home is not what they may do at a contest. Even beyond 8hrs, senses are dulled a bit, so maybe part of the performance aspect.
>
> Curious to see other replies.
>
> As an aside, decades ago, for a contest finish, a call to the crew may be, "ice the beer" so the pilot knew they had home made and wanted a cold one.. A contest for me (1996?) I called, "ice the baby bottle" (I had a several month old kidlet, wife was crew with said kidlet). I landed and was handed a baby bottle full of beer......sheesh, I love my wife....;-) this was at HHSC.....

Just watch 'The Sun Ship Games'! There are several scenes where the pilots - after successfully making it home - were greeted by their crews with a cold one. Other scenes show chain-smoking pilots in the cockpits - not only in the glider but everywhere else! And these were the top pilots of their days... :-)

Uli
'AS'

[Bob Youngblood]

On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 9:05:07 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> I know Sebastian Kawa and a few others never touch alcohol. Some racing pilots stay away around competitions. Others have a beer waiting on ice when they land.
>
> Is it just a high performance athlete focusing thing - or is there more to it. I did a search and couldn't fined any discussions.
>
>
> WH

Are you kidding me!!! Why even fly if you cannot have a few cold brews after a good day. Down here in Florida we certainly enjoy our beer, calling it an early day to final glide home and open the cooler is always refreshing. Now we most always have a cold ice packed cooler with some excellent beers awaiting the thirsty pilots. Our favorite brands would be Becks, Stella, Pacifico and a few yuenglings. We are always careful to recycle the glass bottles, we want to keep the greenies like OAC happy.

[Dan Marotta]

I used to carry home brew in my truck for just such a purpose.

On 2/19/2019 10:08 AM, George Haeh wrote:
> Very important for landouts. One for the pilot and one for the farmer.

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 9:05:07 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> I know Sebastian Kawa and a few others never touch alcohol. Some racing pilots stay away around competitions. Others have a beer waiting on ice when they land.
>
> Is it just a high performance athlete focusing thing - or is there more to it. I did a search and couldn't fined any discussions.
>
>
> WH

I don't recall seeing any data that shows that alcohol consumption improves performance.
I have seen some examples of the opposite.
I know I sleep better when I don't drink.
Others may have different experiences.
UH

[[email protected]]

Thanks - UH

It actually was a serious question :) - I just watched Free Solo - a guy focused on a extremely technical sport. Doesn't drink.

I also have been around several people with Olympic medals - it varies but most only drink at the very end of the competition season - for the reasons of better rest/recovery, focus and no desire to relax.

I have seen a few Kawa interviews and heard him say "If I see a competitor go for a beer, I know I can beat them" - I believe he thought it was more physiological.

I just thought it was an interesting topic and given that many Contest pilots read this - thought there may be data/information on the subject.

WH

[[email protected]]

Even when I drank (more than 30 years ago when I got into a big health thing), I hesitated to do so the night before flying and I'm not sure I ever did before or during a contest. Did it make a difference? No idea. It was one less thing to worry about.

I do know that Car & Driver magazine once did a test where they ran several of their experienced drivers through a slalom course repeatedly, timing each run, administering another drink, timing the next run, etc. Fairly closely controlled to allow the alcohol to get into their systems. IIRC, fastest times were generally after 1-2 drinks. Drivers were slightly slower when sober and their performance deteriorated rapidly after a few drinks, to the point where they started knocking over a lot of cones. The hypothesis was that these amateur (though race-experienced) drivers were a little less inhibited with a small amount of alcohol, but that more of it cost them judgment, response time, etc.

Not the same thing as for what we do, obviously.

Chip Bearden

[[email protected]]

Many years ago, in England at Motor Club monthly meeting at a nice country pub, as you entered a member had set up a reaction tester. Peered down a tube and when a light flashed pushed a button. Got two goes, set base line. Deal then was after two beers to repeat. Then all were collared for testing when we were thrown out at closing time (10:30 pm in them distant days).
Reaction times in general declined by 5+% after two beers and doubled by closing time. General reaction was shock. This was at the very beginning of awareness of drink and anything, not just driving.
I am always surprised how well attended (and supplied) bars still are at British gliding clubs.




On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 4:55:03 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Even when I drank (more than 30 years ago when I got into a big health thing), I hesitated to do so the night before flying and I'm not sure I ever did before or during a contest. Did it make a difference? No idea. It was one less thing to worry about.
>
> I do know that Car & Driver magazine once did a test where they ran several of their experienced drivers through a slalom course repeatedly, timing each run, administering another drink, timing the next run, etc. Fairly closely controlled to allow the alcohol to get into their systems. IIRC, fastest times were generally after 1-2 drinks. Drivers were slightly slower when sober and their performance deteriorated rapidly after a few drinks, to the point where they started knocking over a lot of cones. The hypothesis was that these amateur (though race-experienced) drivers were a little less inhibited with a small amount of alcohol, but that more of it cost them judgment, response time, etc.
>
> Not the same thing as for what we do, obviously.
>
> Chip Bearden

[Bob Youngblood]

On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 3:14:30 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 9:05:07 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > I know Sebastian Kawa and a few others never touch alcohol. Some racing pilots stay away around competitions. Others have a beer waiting on ice when they land.
> >
> > Is it just a high performance athlete focusing thing - or is there more to it. I did a search and couldn't fined any discussions.
> >
> >
> > WH
>
> I don't recall seeing any data that shows that alcohol consumption improves performance.
> I have seen some examples of the opposite.
> I know I sleep better when I don't drink.
> Others may have different experiences.
> UH

I have a very good friend that I flew with a long time ago, he was one of those Naval Aviator types, but did not wear it on his sleeve. His ride was an AD Skyraider, and the ole boy could fly. I asked him once what he did after his 12 hour missions flying in 1968 in a pretty nasty place. His reply way always the same, we went to the bar and had a few drinks to get ready for the next day.

[Roy B.]

This discussion reminds me of All But My Life, the biography of the great racing driver Sir Stirling Moss, who reported that when young he was so focused on his driving fitness and winning that he would not have sex for a week before a race. Then one evening due to some young lady he broke his own rule, and next day we won all of the races he had entered.
ROY

[danlj]

Well, ask a serious question on r.a.s., and see whether you get any serious answers.... We could start keeping score.

Seriously, when researching material in 2018 for my SSA talk, "29 Ways to Make Yourself Stupid," I discovered two interesting factoids:

1: Most studies of alcohol-related performance study things like, Can he still walk and chew gum after 12 beers?
But I found one study of the effect on alcohol on *complex cognitive performance.* This study found that a single ounce of alcohol produced a measurable loss.
Frankly, most flying does not entail complex cognitive skill any more than does riding a bicycle -- but contest flying in primarily cognitive, the flying skill a given,.

2: Late effects of alcohol. I found only 2 studies asking how long the impairment lasts after drinking.
This is important because alcohol is metabolized to aldehyde (think:formaldehyde). Alcohol has a half-life of about 2 hours; aldehyde has a half-live of about 6 hours.
Both studies brought subjects' blood alcohol levels to 0.10mg% (the legal limit in many places), then retested their performance repeatedly over time. In both studies, impaired performance was still significant at the end of the observation period: 24 hours in one and 48 hours in the other.

My take from this is that if you get drunk, you are still impaired on Day 3, and we have *no* data showing when you may actually return to normal.

I am sure that many competitors have done their own experiments, and would explain why elite athletes often defer alcohol to the end of the season or campaign.

With activities that produce anxiety, alcohol may improve performance by decreasing anxiety. But there are safer drugs for that (none of which are recommended by aviation medical experts).

On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 2:39:11 PM UTC-6, wrote:
>
> It actually was a serious question :) - I just watched Free Solo - a guy focused on a extremely technical sport. Doesn't drink.
>
> I also have been around several people with Olympic medals - it varies but most only drink at the very end of the competition season - for the reasons of better rest/recovery, focus and no desire to relax.
>
> I have seen a few Kawa interviews and heard him say "If I see a competitor go for a beer, I know I can beat them" - I believe he thought it was more physiological.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 8:41:14 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Why's that Jonathan?Â* Free beer?
>
> On 2/19/2019 9:03 AM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 6:05:07 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> >> I know Sebastian Kawa and a few others never touch alcohol. Some racing pilots stay away around competitions. Others have a beer waiting on ice when they land.
> >>
> >> Is it just a high performance athlete focusing thing - or is there more to it. I did a search and couldn't fined any discussions.
> >>
> >>
> >> WH
> > God I love yacht clubs.
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

Well, in Yacht clubs there is never a debate about whether or not to drink :))

[[email protected]]

Thanks.... very interesting. Kawa's take on it would be interesting to hear since he is a MD - maybe if he does another interview we can ask him.

my uneducated felling is that your assumptions are pretty on point. Another data point that would be interesting is if your body is use to a few drinks a night and then you stop, what is the affect. I know there have been lots of info on work and the effect of Caffeine both for improvement and what happens during withdraw.

Your comment on R.A.S. - point taken - I am OK with a tad of Humor.... often a good thing :) LOL - but I do think it is a interesting subject -

From a Contest/Safety view.... how we fuel our body and the effect it has on Soaring is very interesting... at least to me:) LOL

WH

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 9:14:11 AM UTC-5, danlj wrote:
> Well, ask a serious question on r.a.s., and see whether you get any serious answers.... We could start keeping score.
>
> Seriously, when researching material in 2018 for my SSA talk, "29 Ways to Make Yourself Stupid," I discovered two interesting factoids:
>
> 1: Most studies of alcohol-related performance study things like, Can he still walk and chew gum after 12 beers?
> But I found one study of the effect on alcohol on *complex cognitive performance.* This study found that a single ounce of alcohol produced a measurable loss.
> Frankly, most flying does not entail complex cognitive skill any more than does riding a bicycle -- but contest flying in primarily cognitive, the flying skill a given,.
>
> 2: Late effects of alcohol. I found only 2 studies asking how long the impairment lasts after drinking.
> This is important because alcohol is metabolized to aldehyde (think:formaldehyde). Alcohol has a half-life of about 2 hours; aldehyde has a half-live of about 6 hours.
> Both studies brought subjects' blood alcohol levels to 0.10mg% (the legal limit in many places), then retested their performance repeatedly over time. In both studies, impaired performance was still significant at the end of the observation period: 24 hours in one and 48 hours in the other.
>
> My take from this is that if you get drunk, you are still impaired on Day 3, and we have *no* data showing when you may actually return to normal.
>
> I am sure that many competitors have done their own experiments, and would explain why elite athletes often defer alcohol to the end of the season or campaign.
>
> With activities that produce anxiety, alcohol may improve performance by decreasing anxiety. But there are safer drugs for that (none of which are recommended by aviation medical experts).
>
> On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 2:39:11 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> >
> > It actually was a serious question :) - I just watched Free Solo - a guy focused on a extremely technical sport. Doesn't drink.
> >
> > I also have been around several people with Olympic medals - it varies but most only drink at the very end of the competition season - for the reasons of better rest/recovery, focus and no desire to relax.
> >
> > I have seen a few Kawa interviews and heard him say "If I see a competitor go for a beer, I know I can beat them" - I believe he thought it was more physiological.

I live in an area with a very nice Yacht Club - has 2 huge Bars and porch to drink on over looking Jamaica Bay, in a Extremely Irish community - the only thing missing are boats. Belle Harbor Yacht Club! no one ever get sea sick.

WH

[Papa3[_2_]]

There is a study I saw years ago regarding performance of fighter pilots both drunk and hungover. IIRC this was done in Sweden at some point in the 80s. Couldn't find it with a quick google search, but this one did come up: "Using a repeated measures counterbalanced design, the authors had 10 Navy P3-C Orion pilots fly two carefully designed simulated flights under control (no hangover) and hangover conditions. For the control condition, pilots drank no alcohol within 48 hours before the simulated flight. For the hangover condition, they flew 14 hours after drinking enough ethanol mixed with diet soft drinks to attain a blood alcohol concentration of 100 mg/dl. Pilot performance was worse in the hangover condition on virtually all measures but significantly worse on three of six variance measures and one of six performance measures. The results indicate that caution should be exercised when piloting an aircraft 14 hours or less after ingesting similar quantities of alcohol."

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 08:32:48 -0800, Papa3 wrote:

> There is a study I saw years ago regarding performance of fighter pilots
> both drunk and hungover. IIRC this was done in Sweden at some point in
> the 80s. Couldn't find it with a quick google search, but this one did
> come up: "Using a repeated measures counterbalanced design, the authors
> had 10 Navy P3-C Orion pilots fly two carefully designed simulated
> flights under control (no hangover) and hangover conditions. For the
> control condition, pilots drank no alcohol within 48 hours before the
> simulated flight. For the hangover condition, they flew 14 hours after
> drinking enough ethanol mixed with diet soft drinks to attain a blood
> alcohol concentration of 100 mg/dl. Pilot performance was worse in the
> hangover condition on virtually all measures but significantly worse on
> three of six variance measures and one of six performance measures. The
> results indicate that caution should be exercised when piloting an
> aircraft 14 hours or less after ingesting similar quantities of
> alcohol.

Interesting, especially with the "8hrs bottle to throttle" quoted earlier.

FWIW, as one of those flying from a club with a well-stocked bar
(patronised after hangar packing is complete and everything put away),
I've always heard the safe post-alcohol no-fly time quoted as

"Twelve hours bottle to throttle"


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 2/20/2019 9:07 AM, wrote:
> Thanks....
<Snip...>
>
> Your comment on R.A.S. - point taken - I am OK with a tad of Humor....
> often a good thing :) LOL - but I do think it is a interesting subject -

Does anyone else remember the "study" of the laid-back DJ on "WKRP in
Cincinnati" involving alcohol/reflexes-over-time? Woo hoo!!!

Bob - your reflexes may vary - W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[Dan Marotta]

Sex, drugs, rock and roll, and then let's go fly! :-D

Seriously, a lot of this trends towards excessive drinking, not a beer
after flying.Â* And most of us are not world class contest fliers.Â*
Anyone who wants to abstain from alcohol has my blessing. Anyone who
wants to take a single end of day beer from me can go pound sand (or
something more colorful).

On 2/20/2019 7:14 AM, danlj wrote:
> Well, ask a serious question on r.a.s., and see whether you get any serious answers.... We could start keeping score.
>
> Seriously, when researching material in 2018 for my SSA talk, "29 Ways to Make Yourself Stupid," I discovered two interesting factoids:
>
> 1: Most studies of alcohol-related performance study things like, Can he still walk and chew gum after 12 beers?
> But I found one study of the effect on alcohol on *complex cognitive performance.* This study found that a single ounce of alcohol produced a measurable loss.
> Frankly, most flying does not entail complex cognitive skill any more than does riding a bicycle -- but contest flying in primarily cognitive, the flying skill a given,.
>
> 2: Late effects of alcohol. I found only 2 studies asking how long the impairment lasts after drinking.
> This is important because alcohol is metabolized to aldehyde (think:formaldehyde). Alcohol has a half-life of about 2 hours; aldehyde has a half-live of about 6 hours.
> Both studies brought subjects' blood alcohol levels to 0.10mg% (the legal limit in many places), then retested their performance repeatedly over time. In both studies, impaired performance was still significant at the end of the observation period: 24 hours in one and 48 hours in the other.
>
> My take from this is that if you get drunk, you are still impaired on Day 3, and we have *no* data showing when you may actually return to normal.
>
> I am sure that many competitors have done their own experiments, and would explain why elite athletes often defer alcohol to the end of the season or campaign.
>
> With activities that produce anxiety, alcohol may improve performance by decreasing anxiety. But there are safer drugs for that (none of which are recommended by aviation medical experts).
>
> On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 2:39:11 PM UTC-6, wrote:
>> It actually was a serious question :) - I just watched Free Solo - a guy focused on a extremely technical sport. Doesn't drink.
>>
>> I also have been around several people with Olympic medals - it varies but most only drink at the very end of the competition season - for the reasons of better rest/recovery, focus and no desire to relax.
>>
>> I have seen a few Kawa interviews and heard him say "If I see a competitor go for a beer, I know I can beat them" - I believe he thought it was more physiological.

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

Suddenly, Gary Ittner's generosity in sharing his special brews with pilots at the nationals over the years makes a lot more sense. Has anyone actually witnessed P7 having one himself? :)

Chip Bearden

[[email protected]]

50+ years ago I was flying almost every day in a private pilot course at the University of Illinois. At my best I could chirp - chirp every landing in the Champion 7FC "Tri-Champ". After 4 beers the night before I could no longer do so though other performance measures seemed ok. I continued the study for 3, 2, 1 beers. Same result. I then resolved not to fly any aircraft for at least 24 hours after drinking any alcohol. Over the years this has seriously cut into my drinking.
Paul Paulikas

[Richard Pfiffner[_2_]]

On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 2:34:05 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> Suddenly, Gary Ittner's generosity in sharing his special brews with pilots at the nationals over the years makes a lot more sense. Has anyone actually witnessed P7 having one himself? :)
>
> Chip Bearden

Yes he makes good beer.

Richard

[[email protected]]

I am surprised that this subject is even being debated. We have hundreds, if not thousands of years of analyses of consuming alcohol and resulting performance. It isn't a mystery- you don't do well on even simple tasks when drunk. ("Touch your nose. Now stand on one foot. Now put your hands behind your back and let's go downtown.")

A beer or two or three with friends after flying is a longstanding tradition in the aviation and soaring world. (I consider beer to be a reward and celebration with friends after a joyful day swooshing around the sky. We refer to it as 'Aircrew Debriefing Fluid.')

I know I don't fly well the day after drinking too much and so I don't fly with a hangover. If we get into a weather pattern at Moriarty that promises several days of great conditions, I limit my consumption to a level that is commensurate with the time necessary to metabolize the alcohol consumed prior to engaging in aviation related tasks. If I fail to limit the consumption, I just don't fly the next day and kick myself for screwing up.

Judgment is a personal choice, and I certainly respect the attitude of Sebastian Kawa, for obvious reasons. He is simply the best in the world. But I also appreciate the many competition pilots who can kick back and socialize with friends after a long, challenging contest flight. Perhaps they have a beer or two, a couple of glasses of wine, some laughter and camaraderie. It is always a personal choice.

Will you do better in a soaring contest if you completely abstain from consuming alcohol? Maybe, but you can also learn a lot about your competition by hanging out with them after flying.

Remember that being Number One in your particular field shouldn't come by being a judgmental, critical outsider. We do this because it is fun. I don't see too many trophies sponsored by breweries, although I wish I had been around for the Smirnoff Sailplane Derby

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 9:05:07 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> I know Sebastian Kawa and a few others never touch alcohol. Some racing pilots stay away around competitions. Others have a beer waiting on ice when they land.
>
> Is it just a high performance athlete focusing thing - or is there more to it. I did a search and couldn't fined any discussions.
>
>
> WH

I can tell you for sure that completely abstaining from alcohol for the last 20 some years has really screwed up my dancing. So there are pro's and con's.
GB

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 10:05:08 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> I am surprised that this subject is even being debated. We have hundreds, if not thousands of years of analyses of consuming alcohol and resulting performance. It isn't a mystery- you don't do well on even simple tasks when drunk. ("Touch your nose. Now stand on one foot. Now put your hands behind your back and let's go downtown.")
>
> A beer or two or three with friends after flying is a longstanding tradition in the aviation and soaring world. (I consider beer to be a reward and celebration with friends after a joyful day swooshing around the sky. We refer to it as 'Aircrew Debriefing Fluid.')
>
> I know I don't fly well the day after drinking too much and so I don't fly with a hangover. If we get into a weather pattern at Moriarty that promises several days of great conditions, I limit my consumption to a level that is commensurate with the time necessary to metabolize the alcohol consumed prior to engaging in aviation related tasks. If I fail to limit the consumption, I just don't fly the next day and kick myself for screwing up.
>
> Judgment is a personal choice, and I certainly respect the attitude of Sebastian Kawa, for obvious reasons. He is simply the best in the world. But I also appreciate the many competition pilots who can kick back and socialize with friends after a long, challenging contest flight. Perhaps they have a beer or two, a couple of glasses of wine, some laughter and camaraderie. It is always a personal choice.
>
> Will you do better in a soaring contest if you completely abstain from consuming alcohol? Maybe, but you can also learn a lot about your competition by hanging out with them after flying.
>
> Remember that being Number One in your particular field shouldn't come by being a judgmental, critical outsider. We do this because it is fun. I don't see too many trophies sponsored by breweries, although I wish I had been around for the Smirnoff Sailplane Derby

The topic wasn't meant to be a "Debate" :) - I know RAS loves debates :)

Since I started it - it was meant to help "me" come up with a bit better "personal" decisions/check lists. sort of like:

I want to do 1000k - make sure i have 8 hours of sleep the 4 nights before - don't drink - call off the task if work is over stress limits........

Before a Contest - don't drink 4 days before or during the contest - sleep in a proper bed - get to sleep before 10 pm - eat only my own cooking.

you get the idea..... RAS has many experience pilots - it can be a place to get diverse opinion and something real data - also a little humor thrown in :)

Every body reacts to different stress with uniqueness. It in nice to hear how others approach an issue...... it's not a debate, just because you ask a question :)

WH

[Dan Marotta]

On 2/21/2019 6:50 AM, wrote:
> <Many snips>
> The topic wasn't meant to be a "Debate" :) - I know RAS loves debates :)
>
> Since I started it - it was meant to help "me" come up with a bit better "personal" decisions/check lists. sort of like:
>
> I want to do 1000k - make sure i have 8 hours of sleep the 4 nights before - don't drink - call off the task if work is over stress limits........
>
> Before a Contest - don't drink 4 days before or during the contest - sleep in a proper bed - get to sleep before 10 pm - eat only my own cooking.
>
> you get the idea..... RAS has many experience pilots - it can be a place to get diverse opinion and something real data - also a little humor thrown in :)
>
> Every body reacts to different stress with uniqueness. It in nice to hear how others approach an issue...... it's not a debate, just because you ask a question :)
>
> WH
If the weather was more commensurate with flying, we'd be flying (and
having a post flight debriefing fluid) rather than debating the relative
merits of barley.
--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 11:00:26 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:


There is NO DEBATE about that :) LOL - my son works for a brewery, so the plan was NEVER to give up Beer - it is a basic food group.

Spring is getting closer every day!

WH

[[email protected]]

A long time ago, George Moffat referred me to "Learned Optimism" by Martin Seligman. His thesis is that if you think you're stronger, faster, better, healthier, etc , then there's a pretty good chance you will be. It goes beyond the usual advice to think positive but that's the summary. So if certain pilots think they fly better because they abstain...or because a beer helps them relax after a flight, then they might.

Chip Bearden

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 9:14:32 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> A long time ago, George Moffat referred me to "Learned Optimism" by Martin Seligman. His thesis is that if you think you're stronger, faster, better, healthier, etc , then there's a pretty good chance you will be. It goes beyond the usual advice to think positive but that's the summary. So if certain pilots think they fly better because they abstain...or because a beer helps them relax after a flight, then they might.
>
> Chip Bearden

I am positive beer makes me a better pilot.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 5:32:51 AM UTC+13, Papa3 wrote:
> snip

> For the hangover condition, they flew 14 hours after drinking enough ethanol mixed with diet soft drinks to attain a blood alcohol concentration of 100 mg/dl.

A questionable study, if in fact the ethanol was "mixed with diet soft drinks" that contained aspartame (a confounding variable). Aspartame, according to retired food scientist Dr Woodrow Monte (a former neighbor of mine in the South Island), is the most dangerous food additive on the market today. It changes the ratio of amino acids in the blood, blocking or lowering the levels of serotonin, tyrosine, dopamine, norepinephrine, and adrenaline. Even though it is touted as natural, it has a synthetic methyl group on one of the amino acids that rapidly breaks down to methanol (wood alcohol). According to Dr Monte, methyl alcohol is metabolized differently in the human body compared to other animals, and is far more toxic in humans, which is why studies have trouble nailing down the hazards related to aspartame, because most rely on animal, not human studies. Methyl alcohol, after it is taken up by the body as a "Trojan horse" into susceptible tissues such as the brain, converts rapidly into formaldehyde, causing serious damage to proteins and DNA.

Fresh fruits and veggies contain minute amounts of methanol, but there's a natural mechanism that makes it harmless. Pectin firmly binds to methanol, allowing it to simply pass through your body and be excreted, because the human body does not have the enzymes to break that bond. If you or anyone you know drinks diet sodas (or uses NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, Equal-Measure), then have him or her look at Woody's website -- WhileScienceSleeps dot com. Or get a copy of his book, as I did -- While Science Sleeps, a Sweetener Kills.

And, for the record (being as I am P7 SCUM), Gary quaffs more of his own brew on both contest days and rest days than does any other competitor. Perhaps there's a *secret ingredient* in Papa 7 Brewery kegs that confers a competitive advantage.

[[email protected]]

Yes Gary does make great beer! Thanks Gary. I spent several years flying with the late "OF" in Phoenix and as both of us enjoyed a good "party" after flying we had more than a few discussions about the matter. And his take was that he tried it both ways and found that it made no difference in his personnel experience. He usually got into trouble for his antics while flying not drinking :)

CH

[Mike the Strike]

Alcohol may not improve your soaring but does help you deal with some of the insufferable contest pilots!

Mike

[[email protected]]

lol, yes Mike it jas helped :)

[Nick Kennedy[_3_]]

After reading this thread
I don't think I'm going to drink anymore.
But I don't think I'll drink any less either.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Nick Kennedy wrote on 2/24/2019 6:42 PM:
> After reading this thread
> I don't think I'm going to drink anymore.
> But I don't think I'll drink any less either.
>
My conclusion I should drink less and encourage my fellow contestants to drink
more. If that doesn't work, I'll go back to pushing dead bees up their pitot tubes.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

[2G]

On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 3:34:30 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 5:32:51 AM UTC+13, Papa3 wrote:
> > snip
>
> > For the hangover condition, they flew 14 hours after drinking enough ethanol mixed with diet soft drinks to attain a blood alcohol concentration of 100 mg/dl.
>
> A questionable study, if in fact the ethanol was "mixed with diet soft drinks" that contained aspartame (a confounding variable). Aspartame, according to retired food scientist Dr Woodrow Monte (a former neighbor of mine in the South Island), is the most dangerous food additive on the market today. It changes the ratio of amino acids in the blood, blocking or lowering the levels of serotonin, tyrosine, dopamine, norepinephrine, and adrenaline.. Even though it is touted as natural, it has a synthetic methyl group on one of the amino acids that rapidly breaks down to methanol (wood alcohol). According to Dr Monte, methyl alcohol is metabolized differently in the human body compared to other animals, and is far more toxic in humans, which is why studies have trouble nailing down the hazards related to aspartame, because most rely on animal, not human studies. Methyl alcohol, after it is taken up by the body as a "Trojan horse" into susceptible tissues such as the brain, converts rapidly into formaldehyde, causing serious damage to proteins and DNA.
>
> Fresh fruits and veggies contain minute amounts of methanol, but there's a natural mechanism that makes it harmless. Pectin firmly binds to methanol, allowing it to simply pass through your body and be excreted, because the human body does not have the enzymes to break that bond. If you or anyone you know drinks diet sodas (or uses NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, Equal-Measure), then have him or her look at Woody's website -- WhileScienceSleeps dot com. Or get a copy of his book, as I did -- While Science Sleeps, a Sweetener Kills.
>
> And, for the record (being as I am P7 SCUM), Gary quaffs more of his own brew on both contest days and rest days than does any other competitor. Perhaps there's a *secret ingredient* in Papa 7 Brewery kegs that confers a competitive advantage.

Yet another aspartame hoax:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130505024751/http://www.acsh.org/opinion/acsh-debunks-internet-health-hoax-2/

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/aspartame-causes-cancer-was-classic-fake-news-180961880/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/aspartame-sweet-poison/

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

2G wrote on 2/24/2019 7:53 PM:
> On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 3:34:30 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 5:32:51 AM UTC+13, Papa3 wrote:
>>> snip
>>
>>> For the hangover condition, they flew 14 hours after drinking enough ethanol mixed with diet soft drinks to attain a blood alcohol concentration of 100 mg/dl.
>>
>> A questionable study, if in fact the ethanol was "mixed with diet soft drinks" that contained aspartame (a confounding variable). Aspartame, according to retired food scientist Dr Woodrow Monte (a former neighbor of mine in the South Island), is the most dangerous food additive on the market today. It changes the ratio of amino acids in the blood, blocking or lowering the levels of serotonin, tyrosine, dopamine, norepinephrine, and adrenaline.. Even though it is touted as natural, it has a synthetic methyl group on one of the amino acids that rapidly breaks down to methanol (wood alcohol). According to Dr Monte, methyl alcohol is metabolized differently in the human body compared to other animals, and is far more toxic in humans, which is why studies have trouble nailing down the hazards related to aspartame, because most rely on animal, not human studies. Methyl alcohol, after it is taken up by the body as a "Trojan horse" into susceptible tissues such as the brain, converts rapidly into formaldehyde, causing serious damage to proteins and DNA.
>>
>> Fresh fruits and veggies contain minute amounts of methanol, but there's a natural mechanism that makes it harmless. Pectin firmly binds to methanol, allowing it to simply pass through your body and be excreted, because the human body does not have the enzymes to break that bond. If you or anyone you know drinks diet sodas (or uses NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, Equal-Measure), then have him or her look at Woody's website -- WhileScienceSleeps dot com. Or get a copy of his book, as I did -- While Science Sleeps, a Sweetener Kills.
>>
>> And, for the record (being as I am P7 SCUM), Gary quaffs more of his own brew on both contest days and rest days than does any other competitor. Perhaps there's a *secret ingredient* in Papa 7 Brewery kegs that confers a competitive advantage.
>
> Yet another aspartame hoax:
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20130505024751/http://www.acsh.org/opinion/acsh-debunks-internet-health-hoax-2/
>
> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/aspartame-causes-cancer-was-classic-fake-news-180961880/
>
> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/aspartame-sweet-poison/

There are scientific studies showing more than two diet drinks a day are linked to
some health issues, including strokes. This new article by Consumer Reports covers
some them:

https://www.consumerreports.org/sugar-sweeteners/artificially-sweetened-drinks-linked-to-stroke/?EXTKEY=NF92NCF4&utm_source=acxiom&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20190223_nsltr_food




--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

[[email protected]]

On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 4:53:42 PM UTC+13, 2G wrote:
> On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 3:34:30 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 5:32:51 AM UTC+13, Papa3 wrote:
> > > snip
> >
> > > For the hangover condition, they flew 14 hours after drinking enough ethanol mixed with diet soft drinks to attain a blood alcohol concentration of 100 mg/dl.
> >
> > A questionable study, if in fact the ethanol was "mixed with diet soft drinks" that contained aspartame (a confounding variable). Aspartame, according to retired food scientist Dr Woodrow Monte (a former neighbor of mine in the South Island), is the most dangerous food additive on the market today. It changes the ratio of amino acids in the blood, blocking or lowering the levels of serotonin, tyrosine, dopamine, norepinephrine, and adrenaline. Even though it is touted as natural, it has a synthetic methyl group on one of the amino acids that rapidly breaks down to methanol (wood alcohol). According to Dr Monte, methyl alcohol is metabolized differently in the human body compared to other animals, and is far more toxic in humans, which is why studies have trouble nailing down the hazards related to aspartame, because most rely on animal, not human studies. Methyl alcohol, after it is taken up by the body as a "Trojan horse" into susceptible tissues such as the brain, converts rapidly into formaldehyde, causing serious damage to proteins and DNA.
> >
> > Fresh fruits and veggies contain minute amounts of methanol, but there's a natural mechanism that makes it harmless. Pectin firmly binds to methanol, allowing it to simply pass through your body and be excreted, because the human body does not have the enzymes to break that bond. If you or anyone you know drinks diet sodas (or uses NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, Equal-Measure), then have him or her look at Woody's website -- WhileScienceSleeps dot com. Or get a copy of his book, as I did -- While Science Sleeps, a Sweetener Kills.
> >
>
> Yet another aspartame hoax:
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20130505024751/http://www.acsh.org/opinion/acsh-debunks-internet-health-hoax-2/
>
> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/aspartame-causes-cancer-was-classic-fake-news-180961880/
>
> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/aspartame-sweet-poison/

Reply to 2G:

You're joking, right? You cite Snopes as a reputable fact-checker? LOL. And you cite the ACSH (American Council on Science and Health)? What do you know about the ACSH? Who started it and who funds it, eh? It has been funded from the get-go by big agri-business and trade groups such as Kellogg, General Mills, PepsiCo, and the American Beverage Association, among others. That's open source. The entire concept of ACSH was commissioned by Pfizer in response to the 1958 Food Additive Amendment, which restricted the use of cancer-causing chemicals in food. Propaganda is very effective in protecting corporations' profits.

The ACSH has been active in downplaying the risks from DDT, dioxin, asbestos, and other polluting chemicals. Shortly after ACSH's founding, it abandoned even the appearance of independent funding. In a 1997 interview, the ACSH's founder explained that she might as well take industry money without restrictions, as ACSH was already being touted as a "paid liar for industry". It's a good-paying gig, if you can get it.

During its first 15 years of operation, ACSH published the names of its institutional funders, but it has stopped doing this, making it harder to identify where all of its money comes from. As consumer advocate Ralph Nader wrote: "ACSH is a consumer front organization for its business backers. It has seized the language and style of the existing consumer organizations, but its real purpose, you might say, is to glove the hand that feeds it."

Those big pharma, agri and chemical companies are getting good bang for their propagandistic buck when people like you cite them as a definitive source to convince consumers to ignore independent scientists' findings and warnings and instead treat them as a "hoax". A dude named Gilbert Ross was acting prez and exec director of ACSH as of 2015. His medical license was revoked for professional misconduct in 1995 after it was revealed that he had been involved in a scheme that defrauded the New York State Medicaid system of $8 million. He was sentenced to 46 months in federal prison and didn't regain his med license until 2004. But, hey, that's good enough for the corporations that fund ACSH. He's their kinda guy! And you can imagine just how much money is being made by the sale of aspartame. Those profit margins are huge and well worth protecting, right?

If you read Dr Woodrow Monte's book _While Science Sleeps, a Sweetener Kills_, you'll see to what lengths these corporations will go to silence or even incapacitate independent scientists (who have nothing to gain from their whistle-blowing, but everything to lose, including their lives). Read. The. Book. Dr Monte is the worldwide expert on aspartame, and it has cost him plenty to take on the powerful corporations and try to warn the public. I admire his courage. He's published his findings on his website and has given plenty of interviews (YouTube), too, so it's free to the public. And then come back to RAS and set me straight, 2G.

[[email protected]]

On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 1:09:52 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 4:53:42 PM UTC+13, 2G wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 3:34:30 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 5:32:51 AM UTC+13, Papa3 wrote:
> > > > snip
> > >
> > > > For the hangover condition, they flew 14 hours after drinking enough ethanol mixed with diet soft drinks to attain a blood alcohol concentration of 100 mg/dl.
> > >
> > > A questionable study, if in fact the ethanol was "mixed with diet soft drinks" that contained aspartame (a confounding variable). Aspartame, according to retired food scientist Dr Woodrow Monte (a former neighbor of mine in the South Island), is the most dangerous food additive on the market today. It changes the ratio of amino acids in the blood, blocking or lowering the levels of serotonin, tyrosine, dopamine, norepinephrine, and adrenaline. Even though it is touted as natural, it has a synthetic methyl group on one of the amino acids that rapidly breaks down to methanol (wood alcohol). According to Dr Monte, methyl alcohol is metabolized differently in the human body compared to other animals, and is far more toxic in humans, which is why studies have trouble nailing down the hazards related to aspartame, because most rely on animal, not human studies. Methyl alcohol, after it is taken up by the body as a "Trojan horse" into susceptible tissues such as the brain, converts rapidly into formaldehyde, causing serious damage to proteins and DNA.
> > >
> > > Fresh fruits and veggies contain minute amounts of methanol, but there's a natural mechanism that makes it harmless. Pectin firmly binds to methanol, allowing it to simply pass through your body and be excreted, because the human body does not have the enzymes to break that bond. If you or anyone you know drinks diet sodas (or uses NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, Equal-Measure), then have him or her look at Woody's website -- WhileScienceSleeps dot com. Or get a copy of his book, as I did -- While Science Sleeps, a Sweetener Kills.
> > >
> >
> > Yet another aspartame hoax:
> >
> > https://web.archive.org/web/20130505024751/http://www.acsh.org/opinion/acsh-debunks-internet-health-hoax-2/
> >
> > https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/aspartame-causes-cancer-was-classic-fake-news-180961880/
> >
> > https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/aspartame-sweet-poison/
>
> Reply to 2G:
>
> You're joking, right? You cite Snopes as a reputable fact-checker? LOL.. And you cite the ACSH (American Council on Science and Health)? What do you know about the ACSH? Who started it and who funds it, eh? It has been funded from the get-go by big agri-business and trade groups such as Kellogg, General Mills, PepsiCo, and the American Beverage Association, among others. That's open source. The entire concept of ACSH was commissioned by Pfizer in response to the 1958 Food Additive Amendment, which restricted the use of cancer-causing chemicals in food. Propaganda is very effective in protecting corporations' profits.
>
> The ACSH has been active in downplaying the risks from DDT, dioxin, asbestos, and other polluting chemicals. Shortly after ACSH's founding, it abandoned even the appearance of independent funding. In a 1997 interview, the ACSH's founder explained that she might as well take industry money without restrictions, as ACSH was already being touted as a "paid liar for industry". It's a good-paying gig, if you can get it.
>
> During its first 15 years of operation, ACSH published the names of its institutional funders, but it has stopped doing this, making it harder to identify where all of its money comes from. As consumer advocate Ralph Nader wrote: "ACSH is a consumer front organization for its business backers. It has seized the language and style of the existing consumer organizations, but its real purpose, you might say, is to glove the hand that feeds it."
>
> Those big pharma, agri and chemical companies are getting good bang for their propagandistic buck when people like you cite them as a definitive source to convince consumers to ignore independent scientists' findings and warnings and instead treat them as a "hoax". A dude named Gilbert Ross was acting prez and exec director of ACSH as of 2015. His medical license was revoked for professional misconduct in 1995 after it was revealed that he had been involved in a scheme that defrauded the New York State Medicaid system of $8 million. He was sentenced to 46 months in federal prison and didn't regain his med license until 2004. But, hey, that's good enough for the corporations that fund ACSH. He's their kinda guy! And you can imagine just how much money is being made by the sale of aspartame. Those profit margins are huge and well worth protecting, right?
>
> If you read Dr Woodrow Monte's book _While Science Sleeps, a Sweetener Kills_, you'll see to what lengths these corporations will go to silence or even incapacitate independent scientists (who have nothing to gain from their whistle-blowing, but everything to lose, including their lives). Read. The. Book. Dr Monte is the worldwide expert on aspartame, and it has cost him plenty to take on the powerful corporations and try to warn the public.. I admire his courage. He's published his findings on his website and has given plenty of interviews (YouTube), too, so it's free to the public. And then come back to RAS and set me straight, 2G.

The only good science is bro science. Harvard medical school has over a hundred year history of taking money to cook results in favor of industry. Sugar industry a 100 years ago, recent one was relevant to this topic. a researcher soliciting money from the alcohol industry to downplay the effects of chronic drinking. Go look up the math on those one drink a day s=is good for you studies and see just how big that one drink should be.
You can't believe science from universities, trade associations are worse.

[Dan Marotta]

Dump the diet sodas.Â* Drink Jolt - Twice the sugar, Caffiene - the real
thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolt_Cola

You'll be buzzing out on course, probably ****ing a lot, too!

On 2/24/2019 9:24 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> 2G wrote on 2/24/2019 7:53 PM:
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 3:34:30 PM UTC-8,
>> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 5:32:51 AM UTC+13, Papa3 wrote:
>>>> snip
>>>
>>>> For the hangover condition, they flew 14 hours after drinking
>>>> enough ethanol mixed with diet soft drinks to attain a blood
>>>> alcohol concentration of 100 mg/dl.
>>>
>>> A questionable study, if in fact the ethanol was "mixed with diet
>>> soft drinks" that contained aspartame (a confounding variable).Â*
>>> Aspartame, according to retired food scientist Dr Woodrow Monte (a
>>> former neighbor of mine in the South Island), is the most dangerous
>>> food additive on the market today.Â* It changes the ratio of amino
>>> acids in the blood, blocking or lowering the levels of serotonin,
>>> tyrosine, dopamine, norepinephrine, and adrenaline..Â* Even though it
>>> is touted as natural, it has a synthetic methyl group on one of the
>>> amino acids that rapidly breaks down to methanol (wood alcohol).
>>> According to Dr Monte, methyl alcohol is metabolized differently in
>>> the human body compared to other animals, and is far more toxic in
>>> humans, which is why studies have trouble nailing down the hazards
>>> related to aspartame, because most rely on animal, not human
>>> studies.Â* Methyl alcohol, after it is taken up by the body as a
>>> "Trojan horse" into susceptible tissues such as the brain, converts
>>> rapidly into formaldehyde, causing serious damage to proteins and DNA.
>>>
>>> Fresh fruits and veggies contain minute amounts of methanol, but
>>> there's a natural mechanism that makes it harmless. Pectin firmly
>>> binds to methanol, allowing it to simply pass through your body and
>>> be excreted, because the human body does not have the enzymes to
>>> break that bond.Â* If you or anyone you know drinks diet sodas (or
>>> uses NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, Equal-Measure), then have him or
>>> her look at Woody's website -- WhileScienceSleeps dot com.Â* Or get a
>>> copy of his book, as I did -- While Science Sleeps, a Sweetener Kills.
>>>
>>> And, for the record (being as I am P7 SCUM), Gary quaffs more of his
>>> own brew on both contest days and rest days than does any other
>>> competitor.Â* Perhaps there's a *secret ingredient* in Papa 7 Brewery
>>> kegs that confers a competitive advantage.
>>
>> Yet another aspartame hoax:
>>
>> https://web.archive.org/web/20130505024751/http://www.acsh.org/opinion/acsh-debunks-internet-health-hoax-2/
>>
>>
>> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/aspartame-causes-cancer-was-classic-fake-news-180961880/
>>
>>
>> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/aspartame-sweet-poison/
>
> There are scientific studies showing more than two diet drinks a day
> are linked to some health issues, including strokes. This new article
> by Consumer Reports covers some them:
>
> https://www.consumerreports.org/sugar-sweeteners/artificially-sweetened-drinks-linked-to-stroke/?EXTKEY=NF92NCF4&utm_source=acxiom&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20190223_nsltr_food
>
>
>
>
>

--
Dan, 5J

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

Jolt......mmmmmmm.......I remember when we could find it in NJ easily. Never had much affect on me, but I liked it better than 2nd choice Pepsi followed by others.....

Back to original question, if you are fairly hydrated, a beer, "maybe" 2 may be fine at the end of a flight, same for wine.
Dehydrated,or more volumne, likely to degrade next contest day. If nothing else, likely to mess with sleep.

[2G]

On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 10:09:52 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 4:53:42 PM UTC+13, 2G wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 3:34:30 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 5:32:51 AM UTC+13, Papa3 wrote:
> > > > snip
> > >
> > > > For the hangover condition, they flew 14 hours after drinking enough ethanol mixed with diet soft drinks to attain a blood alcohol concentration of 100 mg/dl.
> > >
> > > A questionable study, if in fact the ethanol was "mixed with diet soft drinks" that contained aspartame (a confounding variable). Aspartame, according to retired food scientist Dr Woodrow Monte (a former neighbor of mine in the South Island), is the most dangerous food additive on the market today. It changes the ratio of amino acids in the blood, blocking or lowering the levels of serotonin, tyrosine, dopamine, norepinephrine, and adrenaline. Even though it is touted as natural, it has a synthetic methyl group on one of the amino acids that rapidly breaks down to methanol (wood alcohol). According to Dr Monte, methyl alcohol is metabolized differently in the human body compared to other animals, and is far more toxic in humans, which is why studies have trouble nailing down the hazards related to aspartame, because most rely on animal, not human studies. Methyl alcohol, after it is taken up by the body as a "Trojan horse" into susceptible tissues such as the brain, converts rapidly into formaldehyde, causing serious damage to proteins and DNA.
> > >
> > > Fresh fruits and veggies contain minute amounts of methanol, but there's a natural mechanism that makes it harmless. Pectin firmly binds to methanol, allowing it to simply pass through your body and be excreted, because the human body does not have the enzymes to break that bond. If you or anyone you know drinks diet sodas (or uses NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, Equal-Measure), then have him or her look at Woody's website -- WhileScienceSleeps dot com. Or get a copy of his book, as I did -- While Science Sleeps, a Sweetener Kills.
> > >
> >
> > Yet another aspartame hoax:
> >
> > https://web.archive.org/web/20130505024751/http://www.acsh.org/opinion/acsh-debunks-internet-health-hoax-2/
> >
> > https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/aspartame-causes-cancer-was-classic-fake-news-180961880/
> >
> > https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/aspartame-sweet-poison/
>
> Reply to 2G:
>
> You're joking, right? You cite Snopes as a reputable fact-checker? LOL.. And you cite the ACSH (American Council on Science and Health)? What do you know about the ACSH? Who started it and who funds it, eh? It has been funded from the get-go by big agri-business and trade groups such as Kellogg, General Mills, PepsiCo, and the American Beverage Association, among others. That's open source. The entire concept of ACSH was commissioned by Pfizer in response to the 1958 Food Additive Amendment, which restricted the use of cancer-causing chemicals in food. Propaganda is very effective in protecting corporations' profits.
>
> The ACSH has been active in downplaying the risks from DDT, dioxin, asbestos, and other polluting chemicals. Shortly after ACSH's founding, it abandoned even the appearance of independent funding. In a 1997 interview, the ACSH's founder explained that she might as well take industry money without restrictions, as ACSH was already being touted as a "paid liar for industry". It's a good-paying gig, if you can get it.
>
> During its first 15 years of operation, ACSH published the names of its institutional funders, but it has stopped doing this, making it harder to identify where all of its money comes from. As consumer advocate Ralph Nader wrote: "ACSH is a consumer front organization for its business backers. It has seized the language and style of the existing consumer organizations, but its real purpose, you might say, is to glove the hand that feeds it."
>
> Those big pharma, agri and chemical companies are getting good bang for their propagandistic buck when people like you cite them as a definitive source to convince consumers to ignore independent scientists' findings and warnings and instead treat them as a "hoax". A dude named Gilbert Ross was acting prez and exec director of ACSH as of 2015. His medical license was revoked for professional misconduct in 1995 after it was revealed that he had been involved in a scheme that defrauded the New York State Medicaid system of $8 million. He was sentenced to 46 months in federal prison and didn't regain his med license until 2004. But, hey, that's good enough for the corporations that fund ACSH. He's their kinda guy! And you can imagine just how much money is being made by the sale of aspartame. Those profit margins are huge and well worth protecting, right?
>
> If you read Dr Woodrow Monte's book _While Science Sleeps, a Sweetener Kills_, you'll see to what lengths these corporations will go to silence or even incapacitate independent scientists (who have nothing to gain from their whistle-blowing, but everything to lose, including their lives). Read. The. Book. Dr Monte is the worldwide expert on aspartame, and it has cost him plenty to take on the powerful corporations and try to warn the public.. I admire his courage. He's published his findings on his website and has given plenty of interviews (YouTube), too, so it's free to the public. And then come back to RAS and set me straight, 2G.

LOL! You don't accept the opinion of the FDA, but you DO accept that of a QUACK! Snopes merely published a response to these aspartame hoaxes by David Hattan, Acting Director of the Division of Health Effects Evaluation in the United States Food & Drug Administration (USFDA) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. You obviously didn't read it.

[2G]

On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 10:09:52 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 4:53:42 PM UTC+13, 2G wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 3:34:30 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 5:32:51 AM UTC+13, Papa3 wrote:
> > > > snip
> > >
> > > > For the hangover condition, they flew 14 hours after drinking enough ethanol mixed with diet soft drinks to attain a blood alcohol concentration of 100 mg/dl.
> > >
> > > A questionable study, if in fact the ethanol was "mixed with diet soft drinks" that contained aspartame (a confounding variable). Aspartame, according to retired food scientist Dr Woodrow Monte (a former neighbor of mine in the South Island), is the most dangerous food additive on the market today. It changes the ratio of amino acids in the blood, blocking or lowering the levels of serotonin, tyrosine, dopamine, norepinephrine, and adrenaline. Even though it is touted as natural, it has a synthetic methyl group on one of the amino acids that rapidly breaks down to methanol (wood alcohol). According to Dr Monte, methyl alcohol is metabolized differently in the human body compared to other animals, and is far more toxic in humans, which is why studies have trouble nailing down the hazards related to aspartame, because most rely on animal, not human studies. Methyl alcohol, after it is taken up by the body as a "Trojan horse" into susceptible tissues such as the brain, converts rapidly into formaldehyde, causing serious damage to proteins and DNA.
> > >
> > > Fresh fruits and veggies contain minute amounts of methanol, but there's a natural mechanism that makes it harmless. Pectin firmly binds to methanol, allowing it to simply pass through your body and be excreted, because the human body does not have the enzymes to break that bond. If you or anyone you know drinks diet sodas (or uses NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, Equal-Measure), then have him or her look at Woody's website -- WhileScienceSleeps dot com. Or get a copy of his book, as I did -- While Science Sleeps, a Sweetener Kills.
> > >
> >
> > Yet another aspartame hoax:
> >
> > https://web.archive.org/web/20130505024751/http://www.acsh.org/opinion/acsh-debunks-internet-health-hoax-2/
> >
> > https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/aspartame-causes-cancer-was-classic-fake-news-180961880/
> >
> > https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/aspartame-sweet-poison/
>
> Reply to 2G:
>
> You're joking, right? You cite Snopes as a reputable fact-checker? LOL.. And you cite the ACSH (American Council on Science and Health)? What do you know about the ACSH? Who started it and who funds it, eh? It has been funded from the get-go by big agri-business and trade groups such as Kellogg, General Mills, PepsiCo, and the American Beverage Association, among others. That's open source. The entire concept of ACSH was commissioned by Pfizer in response to the 1958 Food Additive Amendment, which restricted the use of cancer-causing chemicals in food. Propaganda is very effective in protecting corporations' profits.
>
> The ACSH has been active in downplaying the risks from DDT, dioxin, asbestos, and other polluting chemicals. Shortly after ACSH's founding, it abandoned even the appearance of independent funding. In a 1997 interview, the ACSH's founder explained that she might as well take industry money without restrictions, as ACSH was already being touted as a "paid liar for industry". It's a good-paying gig, if you can get it.
>
> During its first 15 years of operation, ACSH published the names of its institutional funders, but it has stopped doing this, making it harder to identify where all of its money comes from. As consumer advocate Ralph Nader wrote: "ACSH is a consumer front organization for its business backers. It has seized the language and style of the existing consumer organizations, but its real purpose, you might say, is to glove the hand that feeds it."
>
> Those big pharma, agri and chemical companies are getting good bang for their propagandistic buck when people like you cite them as a definitive source to convince consumers to ignore independent scientists' findings and warnings and instead treat them as a "hoax". A dude named Gilbert Ross was acting prez and exec director of ACSH as of 2015. His medical license was revoked for professional misconduct in 1995 after it was revealed that he had been involved in a scheme that defrauded the New York State Medicaid system of $8 million. He was sentenced to 46 months in federal prison and didn't regain his med license until 2004. But, hey, that's good enough for the corporations that fund ACSH. He's their kinda guy! And you can imagine just how much money is being made by the sale of aspartame. Those profit margins are huge and well worth protecting, right?
>
> If you read Dr Woodrow Monte's book _While Science Sleeps, a Sweetener Kills_, you'll see to what lengths these corporations will go to silence or even incapacitate independent scientists (who have nothing to gain from their whistle-blowing, but everything to lose, including their lives). Read. The. Book. Dr Monte is the worldwide expert on aspartame, and it has cost him plenty to take on the powerful corporations and try to warn the public.. I admire his courage. He's published his findings on his website and has given plenty of interviews (YouTube), too, so it's free to the public. And then come back to RAS and set me straight, 2G.

And concerning your indictment of the ACSH, this is from their website (https://web.archive.org/web/20130503150200/http://www.acsh.org/about/where-did-acsh-come-from/), which disputes EVERYTHING you claim:

Where Did ACSH Come From?
ACSH’s founder, Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, described ACSH’s origins, mission, and detractors in this essay written on the occasion of ACSH’s twenty-fifth anniversary in 2003:

A 25th Anniversary Commentary
from Dr. Elizabeth Whelan
President, Co-Founder
American Council on Science and Health:

After I received my doctorate from the Harvard School of Public Health in 1971, I began writing on health issues for consumer magazines — Harper’s Bazaar, Glamour, and others — and found it fascinating that these magazines focused so heavily on purely hypothetical health risks and totally ignored real health hazards, like smoking. (Indeed, the editors I worked with regularly spiked my articles highlighting smoking as a risk, saying they would anger advertisers. I protested about this constantly.)

On April 3, 1973, I accepted a freelance writing assignment from the pharmaceutical company Pfizer: they wanted a background paper on something called “the Delaney Clause� — which I had never heard of.

I was soon to learn that the Delaney Clause was part of the 1958 Food Additive Amendment, and it banned any food additive that caused cancer in laboratory animals. That brief, isolated, assignment prompted me (on my own time, at my own expense) to write a book on the history of food scares: Panic in the Pantry.

Origins

When the manuscript was drafted, I asked Dr. Fredrick Stare, founder of the Harvard Nutrition Department, to write a preface. He liked the manuscript so much that he became involved as a co-author. The book argued that our food supply was safe and that banning chemicals “at the drop of a rat� had no scientific basis. When it was published in 1976 it shocked many, particularly those in the media, as the prevailing popular wisdom was that organic, “chemical-free� food was superior. And no one else had then prominently challenged that misconception.

Panic in the Pantry, which was listed by The Wall Street Journal editorial page as one of the best books of 1976, was the first consumer-oriented book to challenge the popular wisdom that “chemicals� were inherently dangerous and that natural was better. Dr. Stare and I later wrote books that elaborated on that same theme, including The l00% Natural, Purely Organic, Cholesterol-Free, Megavitamin, Low-Carbohydrate Nutrition Hoax. I later took on the issue of chemicals in the general environment with books like Toxic Terror.

At the same time, I wrote and published books dealing with real health threats, including A Smoking Gun? How the Tobacco Industry Gets Away with Murder.

[[email protected]]

The ACSH is legit. Legit sellers of science fiction. Plenty of BS on the other side but that doesn't make these clowns honest.
https://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/
A series of emails about the American Council on Science and Health released via lawsuits against Monsanto reveal that Monsanto paid ACSH on an ongoing basis to help defend its embattled products. Monsanto executives described ACSH’s materials promoting and defending agrichemical products as “EXTREMELY USEFUL� [sic] and noted that ACSH was working with Monsanto to discredit the World Health Organization’s cancer panel report about the cancer risk of glyphosate (read more about Monsanto PR strategy to discredit IARC here).

The emails show that ACSH staff wrote to Monsanto requesting “Monsanto’s continued, and much needed, support in 2015.� Some Monsanto staffers were uncomfortable working with ACSH but decided to pay them anyway, according to the emails. Monsanto’s senior science lead Daniel Goldstein wrote to colleagues: “I can assure you I am not all starry eyed about ACSH- they have PLENTY of warts- but: You WILL NOT GET A BETTER VALUE FOR YOUR DOLLAR than ACSH.�

[[email protected]]

On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 11:15:05 PM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
> On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 10:09:52 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> > On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 4:53:42 PM UTC+13, 2G wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 3:34:30 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 5:32:51 AM UTC+13, Papa3 wrote:
> > > > > snip
> > > >
> > > > > For the hangover condition, they flew 14 hours after drinking enough ethanol mixed with diet soft drinks to attain a blood alcohol concentration of 100 mg/dl.
> > > >
> > > > A questionable study, if in fact the ethanol was "mixed with diet soft drinks" that contained aspartame (a confounding variable). Aspartame, according to retired food scientist Dr Woodrow Monte (a former neighbor of mine in the South Island), is the most dangerous food additive on the market today. It changes the ratio of amino acids in the blood, blocking or lowering the levels of serotonin, tyrosine, dopamine, norepinephrine, and adrenaline. Even though it is touted as natural, it has a synthetic methyl group on one of the amino acids that rapidly breaks down to methanol (wood alcohol). According to Dr Monte, methyl alcohol is metabolized differently in the human body compared to other animals, and is far more toxic in humans, which is why studies have trouble nailing down the hazards related to aspartame, because most rely on animal, not human studies. Methyl alcohol, after it is taken up by the body as a "Trojan horse" into susceptible tissues such as the brain, converts rapidly into formaldehyde, causing serious damage to proteins and DNA.
> > > >
> > > > Fresh fruits and veggies contain minute amounts of methanol, but there's a natural mechanism that makes it harmless. Pectin firmly binds to methanol, allowing it to simply pass through your body and be excreted, because the human body does not have the enzymes to break that bond. If you or anyone you know drinks diet sodas (or uses NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, Equal-Measure), then have him or her look at Woody's website -- WhileScienceSleeps dot com. Or get a copy of his book, as I did -- While Science Sleeps, a Sweetener Kills.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yet another aspartame hoax:
> > >
> > > https://web.archive.org/web/20130505024751/http://www.acsh.org/opinion/acsh-debunks-internet-health-hoax-2/
> > >
> > > https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/aspartame-causes-cancer-was-classic-fake-news-180961880/
> > >
> > > https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/aspartame-sweet-poison/
> >
> > Reply to 2G:
> >
> > You're joking, right? You cite Snopes as a reputable fact-checker? LOL. And you cite the ACSH (American Council on Science and Health)? What do you know about the ACSH? Who started it and who funds it, eh? It has been funded from the get-go by big agri-business and trade groups such as Kellogg, General Mills, PepsiCo, and the American Beverage Association, among others. That's open source. The entire concept of ACSH was commissioned by Pfizer in response to the 1958 Food Additive Amendment, which restricted the use of cancer-causing chemicals in food. Propaganda is very effective in protecting corporations' profits.
> >
> > The ACSH has been active in downplaying the risks from DDT, dioxin, asbestos, and other polluting chemicals. Shortly after ACSH's founding, it abandoned even the appearance of independent funding. In a 1997 interview, the ACSH's founder explained that she might as well take industry money without restrictions, as ACSH was already being touted as a "paid liar for industry". It's a good-paying gig, if you can get it.
> >
> > During its first 15 years of operation, ACSH published the names of its institutional funders, but it has stopped doing this, making it harder to identify where all of its money comes from. As consumer advocate Ralph Nader wrote: "ACSH is a consumer front organization for its business backers. It has seized the language and style of the existing consumer organizations, but its real purpose, you might say, is to glove the hand that feeds it.."
> >
> > Those big pharma, agri and chemical companies are getting good bang for their propagandistic buck when people like you cite them as a definitive source to convince consumers to ignore independent scientists' findings and warnings and instead treat them as a "hoax". A dude named Gilbert Ross was acting prez and exec director of ACSH as of 2015. His medical license was revoked for professional misconduct in 1995 after it was revealed that he had been involved in a scheme that defrauded the New York State Medicaid system of $8 million. He was sentenced to 46 months in federal prison and didn't regain his med license until 2004. But, hey, that's good enough for the corporations that fund ACSH. He's their kinda guy! And you can imagine just how much money is being made by the sale of aspartame. Those profit margins are huge and well worth protecting, right?
> >
> > If you read Dr Woodrow Monte's book _While Science Sleeps, a Sweetener Kills_, you'll see to what lengths these corporations will go to silence or even incapacitate independent scientists (who have nothing to gain from their whistle-blowing, but everything to lose, including their lives). Read. The. Book. Dr Monte is the worldwide expert on aspartame, and it has cost him plenty to take on the powerful corporations and try to warn the public. I admire his courage. He's published his findings on his website and has given plenty of interviews (YouTube), too, so it's free to the public. And then come back to RAS and set me straight, 2G.
>
> And concerning your indictment of the ACSH, this is from their website (https://web.archive.org/web/20130503150200/http://www.acsh.org/about/where-did-acsh-come-from/), which disputes EVERYTHING you claim:
>
> Where Did ACSH Come From?
> ACSH’s founder, Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, described ACSH’s origins, mission, and detractors in this essay written on the occasion of ACSH’s twenty-fifth anniversary in 2003:
>
> A 25th Anniversary Commentary
> from Dr. Elizabeth Whelan
> President, Co-Founder
> American Council on Science and Health:
>
> After I received my doctorate from the Harvard School of Public Health in 1971, I began writing on health issues for consumer magazines — Harper’s Bazaar, Glamour, and others — and found it fascinating that these magazines focused so heavily on purely hypothetical health risks and totally ignored real health hazards, like smoking. (Indeed, the editors I worked with regularly spiked my articles highlighting smoking as a risk, saying they would anger advertisers. I protested about this constantly..)
>
> On April 3, 1973, I accepted a freelance writing assignment from the pharmaceutical company Pfizer: they wanted a background paper on something called “the Delaney Clause� — which I had never heard of.
>
> I was soon to learn that the Delaney Clause was part of the 1958 Food Additive Amendment, and it banned any food additive that caused cancer in laboratory animals. That brief, isolated, assignment prompted me (on my own time, at my own expense) to write a book on the history of food scares: Panic in the Pantry.
>
> Origins
>
> When the manuscript was drafted, I asked Dr. Fredrick Stare, founder of the Harvard Nutrition Department, to write a preface. He liked the manuscript so much that he became involved as a co-author. The book argued that our food supply was safe and that banning chemicals “at the drop of a rat� had no scientific basis. When it was published in 1976 it shocked many, particularly those in the media, as the prevailing popular wisdom was that organic, “chemical-free� food was superior. And no one else had then prominently challenged that misconception.
>
> Panic in the Pantry, which was listed by The Wall Street Journal editorial page as one of the best books of 1976, was the first consumer-oriented book to challenge the popular wisdom that “chemicals� were inherently dangerous and that natural was better. Dr. Stare and I later wrote books that elaborated on that same theme, including The l00% Natural, Purely Organic, Cholesterol-Free, Megavitamin, Low-Carbohydrate Nutrition Hoax. I later took on the issue of chemicals in the general environment with books like Toxic Terror.
>
> At the same time, I wrote and published books dealing with real health threats, including A Smoking Gun? How the Tobacco Industry Gets Away with Murder.
>
> At some point around 1978, Dr. Stare and I asked the question: why are there not more scientists speaking out to counter misinformation about the relationship between chemicals, nutrition, the environment, and health? Twenty-five years ago, we wrote to fifty scientists — including Nobel Laureate Norman Borlaug, who was among ACSH’s founding directors — asking them to join an effort to bring the message of sound science to consumers, via the media. And the blueprint of ACSH came into being.
>
> With the legal and financial assistance of two attorneys — my father and my husband — ACSH’s non-profit, tax-exempt status was secured. And with assistance from former Secretary of the Treasury William Simon, ACSH was introduced to the Scaife Foundation and John M. Olin Foundation, which provided ACSH with its first financial support.
>
> Critics
>
> ACSH adversaries have over the years referred to ACSH as a creation of “the petrochemical industry.� In fact, though, ACSH did not accept funding — even general operating funding — from any corporation or trade association for the first two years of operation. I initially ran things that way because, when we wrote Panic in the Pantry (Atheneum, 1976), I was regularly called a “shill� for the food industry. Barbara Walters, for example, canceled a TV appearance by me, calling me a “paid liar for industry� — even though I had no support whatsoever from the food industry or any other industry in writing and promoting the book.
>
> So I convinced the original Board of Directors that ACSH should only accept funding from private foundations. For two years we tried that, but the media still regularly implied that ACSH had industry support. When we released a report saying that New Jersey’s so-called “cancer alley� was not a real case of industrial chemicals raising cancer rates, the Star-Ledger called ACSH a surrogate for the petrochemical industry. The ACSH Board of Directors concluded that what critics objected to was not ACSH’s funding but ACSH’s views — and that in avoiding corporate donations we were limiting ACSH’s fundraising potential to no avail. So the Board voted to henceforth accept funding from corporations as long as no strings were attached. This remains the fundraising policy today, with about 40% of ACSH funding coming from private foundations, about 40% from corporations, and the rest of the sale of ACSH publications..[1]
>
> Sometimes, if reporters complain about our corporate funding, I remind them that they are funded by corporations and advertisers as well. Phil Donahue was stunned into silence when I pointed that out on his show, and Ed Bradley once threw down his microphone and stormed out of an interview with me.. The important thing, though, is not the source of your funding but the accuracy of the points you make, and ACSH’s scientific advisors and use of peer review keep us honest.
>
> Growth
>
> Since 1978, ACSH has grown from fifty scientists to nearly 400. In the past quarter century, on a budget that has never exceeded $l.5 million (compared to our adversaries in the so-called consumer advocacy/environmental movement, with budgets of $20 million or more annually), ACSH has entered public debates on issues ranging from food safety to cigarette smoking, environmental chemicals to bioterrorism. Enter terms like “cancer epidemic,� “cranberry scare,� “lead and health,� “junk food tax,� “cigarette warning label,� and many more into the Internet search engine Google and you will find that ACSH comes up #l each time.
>
> As ACSH begins its second quarter of a century, its missions remain the same: a) promote sound science in regulation, in public policy, and in the court room; and b) assist consumers, via the media, in distinguishing real health threats from purely hypothetical ones.
>
> 1. As of today, ACSH’s funding continues to come from individuals across the country, as well as private family foundations and corporations — although the percentages fluctuate from year to year.

From the Oxford Dictiornary:
thread drift
Digression from the topic of a thread or forum. See alsooff-topic. ...

RAS is both informative and entertaining! LOL

WH

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

An add on spellcheck and grammar check is a nice thing.....

Thread drift....who woulda thunk this on RAS......
LOL.......hi Bill......how is your wife doing? One broken back to another.....

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 4:53:07 PM UTC+13, 2G wrote:

> LOL! You don't accept the opinion of the FDA, but you DO accept that of a QUACK! Snopes merely published a response to these aspartame hoaxes by David Hattan, Acting Director of the Division of Health Effects Evaluation in the United States Food & Drug Administration (USFDA) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. You obviously didn't read it.
_____

For those concerned about thread drift, go ahead and scroll on by. It's easy! I do it all the time ...

You can't be that naive, 2G. The FDA has long been referred to as the "Fraud and Death Administration". Its head is a political appointee. The FDA serves the bottom lines of Big Food and Big Pharma, and the "revolving door" spins from the FDA to industry and back again at an alarming pace. Simply google FDA and "revolving door" to get quite an eyeful.

For 16 years G.D. Searle, now part of Monsanto, tried to get approval for aspartame, but it had been denied by FDA scientists. Why? Because three independent scientists found that aspartame came with a high danger of inducing brain tumours. "The FDA's own toxicologist, Dr Adrian Gross, told Congress that without a shadow of a doubt, aspartame can cause brain tumours and brain cancer."

Donald Rumsfeld, the CEO of Searle at the time, managed to use his transitional federal government position to place a crony in charge of the FDA -- Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr. Rumsfeld's man helped push aspartame through while hiding the results of certain tests before 1970, where monkeys either died or had grand mal seizures. No FDA Commissioner in the previous 16 years had allowed aspartame on the market. Dr Monte goes into the whole sordid story in his book, as do other scientists and journalists online. Rumsfeld reportedly received a $12 million bonus from Monsanto (which absorbed Searle) for his "efforts".

Soon after that successful dirty deed, Rumsfeld's useful crony Hayes went to work for Burson-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and G.D. Searle. The revolving door keeps on spinning.

Are you going to smear neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock as a quack, too? In his book _Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills_, he details the relationship between aspartame and macular degeneration, diabetic blindness, and glaucoma.

And good luck in blithely dismissing the medical text _Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic_ by Dr H. J. Roberts. Another quack in your estimation? These docs weren't rewarded with millions for their "efforts". On the contrary, taking on Big Pharma is time-consuming, costly, and dangerous.

Gotta love the FDA. Our tax dollars at work, serving corporate interests and not the public the FDA purports to protect.

So, have at it, 2G. Guzzle that aspartame. You might just be the lucky one, inured to the damage it does to the rest of us mere mortals. Interestingly, in a story for your "karma's a bitch" file, an employee working for the Searle family reported that, despite being warned by others of the dangers of aspartame, Bill Searle and his brother Fred continued to drink Diet Coke. (Bill was the driving force behind the approval for aspartame.) "Perhaps they were trying to justify themselves," the employee opined. Both died of brain cancer, but the employee reported that it was "hushed up".

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 12:09:14 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 4:53:07 PM UTC+13, 2G wrote:


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

9B

[Bob Youngblood]

On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 9:05:07 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> I know Sebastian Kawa and a few others never touch alcohol. Some racing pilots stay away around competitions. Others have a beer waiting on ice when they land.
>
> Is it just a high performance athlete focusing thing - or is there more to it. I did a search and couldn't fined any discussions.
>
>
> WH

Did any of you guys ever read the book, Dead Doctors Don't Lie ???

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Andy Blackburn wrote on 2/26/2019 12:33 PM:
> On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 12:09:14 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 4:53:07 PM UTC+13, 2G wrote:
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse_control_disorder

I thought ICD was "Internet Conspiracy Disorder".


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

[2G]

On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 8:34:57 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> The ACSH is legit. Legit sellers of science fiction. Plenty of BS on the other side but that doesn't make these clowns honest.
> https://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/
> A series of emails about the American Council on Science and Health released via lawsuits against Monsanto reveal that Monsanto paid ACSH on an ongoing basis to help defend its embattled products. Monsanto executives described ACSH’s materials promoting and defending agrichemical products as “EXTREMELY USEFUL� [sic] and noted that ACSH was working with Monsanto to discredit the World Health Organization’s cancer panel report about the cancer risk of glyphosate (read more about Monsanto PR strategy to discredit IARC here).
>
> The emails show that ACSH staff wrote to Monsanto requesting “Monsanto’s continued, and much needed, support in 2015.� Some Monsanto staffers were uncomfortable working with ACSH but decided to pay them anyway, according to the emails. Monsanto’s senior science lead Daniel Goldstein wrote to colleagues: “I can assure you I am not all starry eyed about ACSH- they have PLENTY of warts- but: You WILL NOT GET A BETTER VALUE FOR YOUR DOLLAR than ACSH.�

Oh PUHLEEEESSSSSSSEEEEEEE!

And the FDA also can't be trusted? Pedal your conspiracy theories somewhere they'll be appreciated, like alt.gov.underground.

[2G]

On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 12:09:14 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 4:53:07 PM UTC+13, 2G wrote:
>
> > LOL! You don't accept the opinion of the FDA, but you DO accept that of a QUACK! Snopes merely published a response to these aspartame hoaxes by David Hattan, Acting Director of the Division of Health Effects Evaluation in the United States Food & Drug Administration (USFDA) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. You obviously didn't read it.
> _____
>
> For those concerned about thread drift, go ahead and scroll on by. It's easy! I do it all the time ...
>
> You can't be that naive, 2G. The FDA has long been referred to as the "Fraud and Death Administration". Its head is a political appointee. The FDA serves the bottom lines of Big Food and Big Pharma, and the "revolving door" spins from the FDA to industry and back again at an alarming pace. Simply google FDA and "revolving door" to get quite an eyeful.
>
> For 16 years G.D. Searle, now part of Monsanto, tried to get approval for aspartame, but it had been denied by FDA scientists. Why? Because three independent scientists found that aspartame came with a high danger of inducing brain tumours. "The FDA's own toxicologist, Dr Adrian Gross, told Congress that without a shadow of a doubt, aspartame can cause brain tumours and brain cancer."
>
> Donald Rumsfeld, the CEO of Searle at the time, managed to use his transitional federal government position to place a crony in charge of the FDA -- Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr. Rumsfeld's man helped push aspartame through while hiding the results of certain tests before 1970, where monkeys either died or had grand mal seizures. No FDA Commissioner in the previous 16 years had allowed aspartame on the market. Dr Monte goes into the whole sordid story in his book, as do other scientists and journalists online. Rumsfeld reportedly received a $12 million bonus from Monsanto (which absorbed Searle) for his "efforts".
>
> Soon after that successful dirty deed, Rumsfeld's useful crony Hayes went to work for Burson-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and G.D. Searle. The revolving door keeps on spinning.
>
> Are you going to smear neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock as a quack, too? In his book _Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills_, he details the relationship between aspartame and macular degeneration, diabetic blindness, and glaucoma.
>
> And good luck in blithely dismissing the medical text _Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic_ by Dr H. J. Roberts. Another quack in your estimation? These docs weren't rewarded with millions for their "efforts". On the contrary, taking on Big Pharma is time-consuming, costly, and dangerous.
>
> Gotta love the FDA. Our tax dollars at work, serving corporate interests and not the public the FDA purports to protect.
>
> So, have at it, 2G. Guzzle that aspartame. You might just be the lucky one, inured to the damage it does to the rest of us mere mortals. Interestingly, in a story for your "karma's a bitch" file, an employee working for the Searle family reported that, despite being warned by others of the dangers of aspartame, Bill Searle and his brother Fred continued to drink Diet Coke. (Bill was the driving force behind the approval for aspartame.) "Perhaps they were trying to justify themselves," the employee opined. Both died of brain cancer, but the employee reported that it was "hushed up".

Well, I guess that you believe that the FDA CAN'T be trusted - recommend that you swear off all prescription drugs! Are you related to Jim Jones?

[[email protected]]

Who brought the NPC to the party?

[joesimmers[_2_]]

>> Ironic this drinking thread devolves into an outright bar fight.>>


Funny how that works isn't it Jonathan? ha ha!

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 9:26:31 AM UTC+13, 2G wrote:

> Newsflash: You are a Kiwi and clearly ignorant of how things work here:
> snip

Hey! At least I'm not an Aussie! har. (G'day, Bruce.)

I am currently a resident of NZ who has spent the vast majority of my life in your own country, 2G. I know very well how things are done in "America" (as they call it here in Godzone) and how corrupted government agencies often are at the highest levels. It's no different here in NZ. We have the same "revolving door" between our FDA and EPA and industry as does the US, and the same "credibility trap" in both local and national government. I was privy to some private whistleblowers' confessions (very few actually go public, as they have jobs to keep and families to support), as I had been in retirement a volunteer citizen investigative journalist of sorts for a short time, before the extent of the corruption sickened me and the threats were arriving more frequently. I have great admiration for those who can stick with the public exposure of corruption, year after year, and take the inevitable retribution. "No good deed goes unpunished". New Zealand's Nicky Hager is a man among men ...

A real eye-popper is the recent book written by a senior scientist who was at the USEPA for 25 years in the Office of Pesticide Programs -- _Poison Spring: the Secret History of Pollution and the EPA_. (I note that the expose wasn't published until after his retirement.) It explains why and how the chemical and other industries have captured the EPA and turned it from an environmental protection agency into a polluters' protection agency. It gives names, dates, documentary evidence, and how certain political appointees were "wilfully blind" and thus amply rewarded by industry after their stint was over. It details exactly how the agrochemical companies produced and submitted fraudulent research in order to obtain approval from the USEPA for their herbicides. Just like the FDA and its own regulatory capture! Because I was scheduled to make a presentation before a local government hearing, and because the NZEPA relies heavily on the USEPA's decisions, I sent a copy of the book to an acquaintance who had been a Prof of Biochemistry at the uni where I used to teach in NY, as he also did consulting for local government. After he read it, he emailed me the following: "I think my hair turned white overnight". He then swore me to secrecy (he had kids in college to support) before dropping some details (except names) about the corruption he witnessed as part of his own (lucrative) consulting gig. His point was "this alarming degree of corruption is everywhere".

So, 2G, I am far from ignorant re "how things work" at government agencies (that are supposed to be protecting the public) in your neck of the world.

And then, not surprisingly, come the increasingly histrionic insults ...

> You are obviously a full-blown conspiracy nut of the type proven to be completely impervious to logical reasoning, so I am DONE responding to your ramblings and I suggest that everyone else here to the same.

Because you repeat your smears without any evidential support of your claims, I repeat my reply -- the numerous highly-credentialed scientists whose peer-reviewed research and whose warnings I have cited, including FDA's own (very brave) whistleblowing scientists, are "obviously" NOT full-blown conspiracy nuts, 2G. Nor are they "rambling" in their publications. I believe that most people would agree that "logical reasoning" is not exhibited by blithely dismissing the FDA's own senior toxicologist's testimony before Congress: "Without a shadow of a doubt, aspartame can cause brain tumours and brain cancer."

It's been real, 2G. Safe flying to you and your buddies.

[Bob Youngblood]

Can't we all just get along and have a few beers and enjoy what the heck is going on.

[Soartech]

> There are scientific studies showing more than two diet drinks a day are linked to
> some health issues, including strokes.

Very interesting, because I had a friend who sucked down about 6 diet Cokes a day. It made me very nervous to know he was doing that. Then he had a stroke at age 50! (Later died of cancer.) Coincidence?

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Soartech wrote on 3/5/2019 3:47 PM:
>
>> There are scientific studies showing more than two diet drinks a day are linked to
>> some health issues, including strokes.
>
> Very interesting, because I had a friend who sucked down about 6 diet Cokes a day. It made me very nervous to know he was doing that. Then he had a stroke at age 50! (Later died of cancer.) Coincidence?

No way to tell.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

[GliderCZ]

On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 3:47:48 PM UTC-8, Soartech wrote:
> > There are scientific studies showing more than two diet drinks a day are linked to
> > some health issues, including strokes.
>
> Very interesting, because I had a friend who sucked down about 6 diet Cokes a day. It made me very nervous to know he was doing that. Then he had a stroke at age 50! (Later died of cancer.) Coincidence?

Correlation does not equal causation...

[[email protected]]

Correlation does not equal causation...

Yes we need a randomized double blind study to see if we really are more likely to find lift under big puffy clouds. Flying around with all these ideas of where lift is based on 'bro science' is barbaric and dimwitted;)

[GliderCZ]

On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 4:33:15 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> Correlation does not equal causation...
>
> Yes we need a randomized double blind study to see if we really are more likely to find lift under big puffy clouds. Flying around with all these ideas of where lift is based on 'bro science' is barbaric and dimwitted;)

Interesting argument, considering that many of the first thermal soaring folks thought that the clouds sucked them up, rather than their being lifted by rising air emanating from the ground. Thoughtful observation and disciplined research seem to make the greatest advances.

But then again, I've always found that post-flight beer and BS yield great soaring insights.

[[email protected]]

James Thurber's perspective:

"One martini is fine, two are too much, and three are not enough."

-Gary Osoba