« American Cancer Society Organizes Third Forum in Brazil to Address Breast Cancer Control | Main | Africa Tobacco Control Consortium launches new Web site »

17 December 2010


Tiffany and co outlet

http://www.itiffanyandcooutlet.co.uk / Tiffany UK
http://www.itiffanyandcooutlet.co.uk / Tiffany and co outlet
http://www.michaelkorsoutlet0o.com / Michael Kors Outlet
http://www.michaelkorsoutlet0o.com / Michael Kors Handbags Outlet
http://www.michaelkorsoutlet0o.com / Michael Kors sale


I know how we all need food with protein cahrtrydbaoes, and more protein in itbut i am looking to see if the whole world was in a crisis what foods would i need to go and run to walmart and pick to be able to survive on?Meats:Caned foods:Fruits:Sugars:Extras:stuff like that what is the best food i could live off of for months maybe even years if i have enough of it? Thank you =]


Nothing bad is happening. It's the law of ecocomins that things have to be different, up and down. There has to be high prices and low prices high net worth people and vis versa. Anyone and everyone who is seeking success is getting it.. all global economies are booming, stock exchanges are high.. properties are high. If you know how to make money, then you don't need sources.. all one need is to apply brains.It's a simple law survival of the fittest . Make sure that you fall in the suggested category' of fittest.


Thinking about the current food crsiis in Somalia, and other crises around the world, while aid organizations are saying how they're having trouble helping them because of rising food prices, it makes you wonder why these prices are rising in the first place, and ultimately, WHY food needs to be paid for in the 21st century?Think about it, if nobody paid for their food, there would be no hungry people left in the world. It would also mean that working people can have much lower salaries without it affecting their ability to survive because food is free! But what about the farmers and those that provide food, how can they survive? Well they have free food too! They will only get paid to work, but not for the food itself.For example if a farmer spends 10,000 euros to produce food that he sells for 15,000, this means his work is worth 5000 euros. Out of that he will spend 1000 euros on his own food, that means the actual profit he enjoys is 4000 euros/season.By working, he is able to feed 1000 people. So if those 1000 people pay him 4 euros each per season, they would all be fed for 4 euros per season.So why can't people around the world just pay a special food tax that goes directly into compensating food producers for their work, and all parties to have free food and more importantly for needy people around the world to be able to survive.This would automatically decrease the global cost of living, salaries would be less but at least nobody would have to worry about survival.What flaws are there in this idea and ultimately, why can't food be free?


I know I'm going to get totally resotad for this, but I honestly believe that people who are extremely concerned about the environment should not have children. It is inevitable that each and every one of us has an impact on the environment, and I really believe it's irresponsible to lecture others on their consumption of energy and goods if you're hauling 3 or 4 kids around. Each of those kids is going to have a home some day, cars, kids of their own, etc.As to what can be done, we use those curly fluorescent blubs to conserve, and we burn wood for most of the heat in our home. We're looking into converting all of our horse stuff (electric fencing, water heaters) to solar, and when we build a house, I would like some solar panels on the roof. Walking or biking instead of driving would help, too. I really admire the hell out of the people who live in Alaska and ride their bikes to work (or school) all year long. That is certainly a commitment to your beliefs!! It always amazes me how many people who live on a public transportation route refuse to take advantage of it. I would LOVE to take the bus to work - but the closest bus stop to my house IS at work.


I mostly agree with this post, execpt for this assertion from the article you quote: The global-warming debate’s great un-mentionable is this: we lack the technology to get from here to there. Just because Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to cut emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 doesn’t mean it can happen. 2050 is 43 years away; and, in technological terms, 43 years is a hell of a long time, especially these days. Given the increasing push in efficiency technologies, clean energy, nuclear (fission and fusion) research, electric/hydrogen cars, mass transit development, etc; the thought that in such a time frame it's possible to cut emissions by such an extreme amount is hardly far-fetched. If Schwarzenegger had set the goal at 2025, though, he'd be out of his mind.My biggest beef with the environmental movement these days is that they're never able to acknowledge the dramatic wins that they've had in the last several decades. Since the founding of the EPA and the environmental legislation of the 1970 s, the US has made marked improvements in the quality of our air and water; not to mention the most successful international environmental initiative ever, the CFC ban, which has dropped CFC production to less than 1% of 1990 levels and allowed the Ozone layer to begin healing (atmospheric scientists estimate that the ozone hole should heal completely by the 2060 s, provided there is no reversal in the policy). And, amazingly enough, in the same time period since the 1970 s, we've gone through a massive economic expansion. Economic progress doesn't necessarily require pollution, if it's accompanied by efficiency and innovation. Too bad so much of the environmental movement seems more interested in selling doom, gloom, and asceticism than a high-tech ecotopia.


Thanks Prof. Now I remember why I have alyaws thought we were between ice ages. I knew there was some reason that made me a global warming skeptic. These videos brought it all back. Of all the things I've lost I miss my mind the most. Catara


its the more common ccnear that MEN and women have. the events are to raise money for a cure for people like my mom and mother n law that had it thank you very much

ZetaClear Review

The availability of modern cancer treatments varies widely from country to country. In order to inform the debate on to how to prioritise healthcare, it is essential to have as accurate as possible a knowledge base of the current distribution of resources and their uptake by the medical profession and patients.


wow thats great, American cancer society writes in magzine about cancer diesese thats good, keep it up, i think this is the best work to do this and there main aim is globel health.

The comments to this entry are closed.