Frugal Living: Jul 19, 2007

Thursday, July 19, 2007

25 new messages in 11 topics - digest

misc.consumers.frugal-living
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Woman is content living in 84-sq. ft. tiny dream home.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/911886124117ed11?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 17 2007 7:28 am
From: Donna

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:5g1vbbF3crdtjU1
@mid.individual.net:

> Nope. No privacy for starters.

Depends on where you build.

Bottom line is it may not be right for you, but it's right for someone.

--
~Donna
http://www.frugalsewing.com

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 17 2007 9:04 am
From: TwoAllBeefPatties

On Jul 15, 11:07 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

> More adventure in any of those than that.

I know, no room for a bloomin' onion.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: dimmer switches: power savers?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/e4c4948008d4c7c6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 17 2007 7:28 am
From: "Chloe"

"<RJ>" <baranick@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:hkjp93lj1mbt64ktu4ihcoh4c0gnie02k1@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:30:10 -0700, New Leaf <nootka@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 16, 4:10 pm, val189 <gwehr...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> Or do they merely lessen the light output?
>>
>>Val, I think your idea of scheduling bulb cleaning is one of the most
>>effective ways to save on electricity for lighting. A clean 60W gives
>>as much light as a dusty 100W, especially if it's in an enclosed light
>>fixture that you've also cleaned.
>>
>>Viv
>
> And a new 17W Compact flourescant
> gives as much light as a 100W Incandescant bulb
>
> Prices are down ( especially at WalMart.
> Time to start switching over to CFL's

They're coming out with more varieties, too. I was pleased to find CFLs
recently at Home Depot that put out the equivalent of 15 watts and have an
adapter that fits either lamp base or regular. I have several little lamps
sitting around in dark corners of rooms, a bathroom with no windows, etc.
where I like to keep a lamp on all the time in the daytime. Now the cost
will be so minimal I can do it without guilt <g>.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 17 2007 11:06 am
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)

In <hkjp93lj1mbt64ktu4ihcoh4c0gnie02k1@4ax.com>, baranick@localnet.com wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:30:10 -0700, New Leaf <nootka@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 16, 4:10 pm, val189 <gwehr...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> Or do they merely lessen the light output?
>>
>>Val, I think your idea of scheduling bulb cleaning is one of the most
>>effective ways to save on electricity for lighting. A clean 60W gives
>>as much light as a dusty 100W, especially if it's in an enclosed light
>>fixture that you've also cleaned.
>>
>>Viv
>
>And a new 17W Compact flourescant
>gives as much light as a 100W Incandescant bulb

I find that it takes 25-26 watts of compact fluorescent to match the
1670-1750 lumens that a decent 100W incandescent produces.

An 18-20 watt CFL I find produces about as much light as a good 75W or a
lousy 100W incandescent (1100-1200 lumens).

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: job thoughts please, no flames needed
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/ecccc001d313b246?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 17 2007 6:03 am
From: bearclaw@cruller.invalid

In article <BaRmi.19407$Rw1.5270@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
"Tockk" <tock1@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> <inatunnel@gmail.com> wrote
> > - if the net is $36,000, what are the estimated gross that includes US
> > IRS income earnings
> > - what possible jobs are available, possibly several, to achieve the
> > net listed above
>
> 9 months in barber school should get you a job paying $50k/year, that should
> pay your taxes & etc. -- depending, of course, what kind of barber shop you
> work in. A franchised operation will pay the worst, an independant shop
> will pay the most. Some towns pay more than others, it all depends.

Tock, do you really think that anyone can learn to be a barber? Doesn't
it require some kind of predilection or talent? I have always thought of
it as a kind of artistry, like music.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Great Shopping Ideas
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/1174ff6d000565f1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 17 2007 7:40 am
From: Starry

Starry wrote:
> Looking for engagement rings??
>

If you are gullible enough to buy from a spammer posting from Pakistan,
have I got a deal for you.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Interested in earning extra money online?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/782f87ee6c1a706c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 17 2007 7:44 am
From: blogfart5

blogafter5 wrote:

> If you are interested in losing some bucks online and are gullible enough to belive a spammer from Singapore, then you won'y mind the free spyware my blog will implant onto ypur computer.
>
> Thank you for reading this post.
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Breast-Feeding: Private Act or Public Right?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/d9ae679497789a49?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 17 2007 7:46 am
From: jdoe

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:46:45 -0400, "Wilson" <wilson@universal.com>
wrote:

>http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Health/story?id=3378982&page=1
>
>
>
>Breast-Feeding: Private Act or Public Right?
>
>

while you might have a right to do something, having that right
doesn't make it right.
there is a proper time and place for everything and a women whipping
out a boob to give the kid a feeding in a very public place is rarely
the right thing to do.
People need a refresher course on discretion

== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 17 2007 8:04 am
From: bearclaw@cruller.invalid

In article <pelp93lvvldm82l1kkrjkhbtimeniqs96b@4ax.com>,
jdoe <jdoe@aol.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:46:45 -0400, "Wilson" <wilson@universal.com>
> wrote:
>
> >http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Health/story?id=3378982&page=1
> >
> >
> >
> >Breast-Feeding: Private Act or Public Right?
> >
> >
>
> while you might have a right to do something, having that right
> doesn't make it right.

Does make it legal though, which is definitely the right and correct
status for the issue.

> there is a proper time and place for everything and a women whipping
> out a boob to give the kid a feeding in a very public place is rarely
> the right thing to do.

If an infant is hungry the right thing to do it to feed it. There is no
question that breast feeding offers medically-tangible,
solidly-documented nutritional benefits to the child available by no
other means. Besides, there is no way (or need, IMHO) for the parent to
know if she is offending anyone. It is hardly an foregone assumption,
just as its reverse-- assuming that nobody is offended.

> People need a refresher course on discretion

Having recently undergone such an education, I can't really argue with
that.

== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 17 2007 8:39 am
From: "Bill M"

"jdoe" <jdoe@aol.com> wrote in message
news:pelp93lvvldm82l1kkrjkhbtimeniqs96b@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:46:45 -0400, "Wilson" <wilson@universal.com>
> wrote:
>
> >http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Health/story?id=3378982&page=1
> >
> >
> >
> >Breast-Feeding: Private Act or Public Right?
> >
> >
>
> while you might have a right to do something, having that right
> doesn't make it right.
> there is a proper time and place for everything and a women whipping
> out a boob to give the kid a feeding in a very public place is rarely
> the right thing to do.
> People need a refresher course on discretion

And you need to get your head out of your bigoted ass. Women should not need
to go
into hiding in order to feed their baby. Feeding a baby is a totally normal
task that
should not bother you or anyone else.

== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 17 2007 8:59 am
From: Vic Smith

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:39:16 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>
>"jdoe" <jdoe@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:pelp93lvvldm82l1kkrjkhbtimeniqs96b@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:46:45 -0400, "Wilson" <wilson@universal.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Health/story?id=3378982&page=1
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Breast-Feeding: Private Act or Public Right?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> while you might have a right to do something, having that right
>> doesn't make it right.
>> there is a proper time and place for everything and a women whipping
>> out a boob to give the kid a feeding in a very public place is rarely
>> the right thing to do.
>> People need a refresher course on discretion
>
>And you need to get your head out of your bigoted ass. Women should not need
>to go
>into hiding in order to feed their baby. Feeding a baby is a totally normal
>task that
>should not bother you or anyone else.
>
Sex perverts think that breast feeding is a come-on by the woman.
Had a cracker neighbor who practically drooled all over himself
when he dropped by once while my wife was feeding one of my kids.
That's probably why this guy is bothered. Sad.

--Vic

== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 17 2007 9:23 am
From: MarkA

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:46:45 -0400, Wilson wrote:

>
> Another woman said she found it disgusting and immoral to breast-feed in
> public.
>

Feeding your infant is immoral? Must be a Republican.

--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)

== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 17 2007 9:32 am
From: Christopher A.Lee

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:23:21 -0400, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:46:45 -0400, Wilson wrote:
>
>>
>> Another woman said she found it disgusting and immoral to breast-feed in
>> public.
>>
>
>Feeding your infant is immoral? Must be a Republican.

There was a sketch on Not The Nine O'Clock News with a woman walking
into the house with a breast hanging out, her husband giving her a
funny look, and saying "bloody hell, I left the baby on the bus".

== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 17 2007 9:42 am
From: "Robibnikoff"

"MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.07.17.16.23.21.558553@nowhere.com...
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:46:45 -0400, Wilson wrote:
>
>>
>> Another woman said she found it disgusting and immoral to breast-feed in
>> public.
>>
>
> Feeding your infant is immoral? Must be a Republican.

Would I do it in public? Probably not. Still, I couldn't care less if
anyone else choose to do so.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557

== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 17 2007 9:41 am
From: "Denis Loubet"

"Wilson" <wilson@universal.com> wrote in message
news:469c4a36$0$23425$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Health/story?id=3378982&page=1
>
>
>
> Breast-Feeding: Private Act or Public Right?
>
>
> It is an act millions of new moms do everyday. But when it comes to
> breast-feeding, some argue there is a time and a place for it.

Ask Vitters.

--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet

== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 17 2007 10:55 am
From: Anthony Matonak

Vic Smith wrote:
...
> Sex perverts think that breast feeding is a come-on by the woman.

To be fair, sex perverts can think anything is erotic.
That is because they are perverts and not because of
anything their victims may have done.

Anthony

==============================================================================
TOPIC: TracFone 240 min. for $50
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/8fbe6b5c2a6cd7b9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 17 2007 8:36 am
From: Brontide

On Jul 16, 11:18 pm, Joe <frugal_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Some say you can do even better using TMobile prepaid. If the phone
> lasts about 3.5 years, the monthly minimum is about the same, but you
> have to buy a $100 (gold) card to start.

Assuming tmo to-go covers your area and you have exceptionally low
usage it's a great deal. Over 11 years it works out to like $1.60/
month for 11 minutes.

Page plus seems like the best kept secret in pre-pay these days
though... even if it is their own fault since their website sucks.
Assuming you are in an area covered by Verizon "InPulse" ( like the
NE ) it's a phenomenal deal.

-Eric

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Confused About Mobile Phone Plans
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/77c9e041d54a37c2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 17 2007 8:40 am
From: Brontide

On Jul 17, 2:07 am, Five By Five <5...@5x5.com> wrote:
> My wife and daughter however are overseas, about 11,000 miles (17,000 km)
> away. I want to be able to dial from my mobile to either a mobile or
> landline to the target country.

What about VoIP... do they have reliable internet access?

Buy a VoIP box and register it locally and then ship it to them. Then
they can call you or you can call them and it's a "local" call.

-Eric

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 17 2007 8:56 am
From: Five By Five <5x5@5x5.com>

Brontide <ericew@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1184686821.624941.239190@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com:

> On Jul 17, 2:07 am, Five By Five <5...@5x5.com> wrote:
>> My wife and daughter however are overseas, about 11,000 miles (17,000
>> km) away. I want to be able to dial from my mobile to either a
>> mobile or landline to the target country.
>
> What about VoIP... do they have reliable internet access?
>
> Buy a VoIP box and register it locally and then ship it to them. Then
> they can call you or you can call them and it's a "local" call.

Isn't that basically a low rez webcam with microphone attached to the PC?
Like Yahoo/Microsoft/Google/ICQ chat or Skype?

How are these technologies distinct?

Thanks.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 17 2007 9:43 am
From: timeOday

Five By Five wrote:
> Brontide <ericew@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1184686821.624941.239190@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>>On Jul 17, 2:07 am, Five By Five <5...@5x5.com> wrote:
>>
>>>My wife and daughter however are overseas, about 11,000 miles (17,000
>>>km) away. I want to be able to dial from my mobile to either a
>>>mobile or landline to the target country.
>>
>>What about VoIP... do they have reliable internet access?
>>
>>Buy a VoIP box and register it locally and then ship it to them. Then
>>they can call you or you can call them and it's a "local" call.
>
>
> Isn't that basically a low rez webcam with microphone attached to the PC?
> Like Yahoo/Microsoft/Google/ICQ chat or Skype?
>
> How are these technologies distinct?
>
> Thanks.

Depends on which you use.

When I traveled to Taiwan, I took my Vonage box with me. I plugged it
into the hotel ethernet port, plugged the hotel phone into the Vonage
box, and was then able to use the phone both sending and receiving calls
with no extra charges exactly as if I were sitting at home in New Mexico
- except that everybody at home was asleep when I was awake. I'm on the
$15/mo plan, which is actually about $22/mo with taxes and fees. But
what you really pay for with Vonage is being able to dial to non-VOIP
users, which you don't really need if you're just calling your wife.

There are also "pure" VOIP solutions like Skype. I haven't used them
but I think maybe you can buy a special phone that's more normal instead
of sitting at your PC.

If you don't want to rely on a company like Vonage or Skype and just
want direct VOIP with regular telephones, you could buy SIP adapters for
both you and your wife (again,assuming you both have broadband). That
takes a little knowhow, but you can figure it out if you do some digging
on the Web. Actually I think that could be a very good solution since
you're mainly calling one person and can ensure they have an IP address.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 17 2007 10:05 am
From: Larry

Five By Five <5x5@5x5.com> wrote in news:Xns996FEB50DB30F5x55x5@
207.115.33.102:

> NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.166.145.199
>

I see from your Comcrap exposed IP you are in Sacremento if the reverse
DNS lookup is correct, right?

About any cellphone company that provides a usable signal has free long
distance in Sacremento to the 200 mile radius, no problem.

Overseas, is a problem on all of them. Greed sets in and they want some
god-awful LD rates to call Europe or anyplace else. But, I'm using the
solution.

Free is always nice. If the wifey has a laptop and broadband thousands
of miles away, you can talk to her for free 24/7 by simply downloading
Skype from www.skype.com and installing it on both computers. Make up
two accounts so she can have hers and you can have yours. You don't need
to buy Skype Out or In to talk to her Skype-to-Skype, which is always
free. Plug in your webcam and you can have live video with her, also
free. Put the whole family on Skype and you can conference all of them
anyplace on the planet that has broadband internet...all for free.

To call landlines from Skype, the US price is $30/YEAR, no time limits.
It's the cheapest landline telephone on the planet! To call from
landlines/cellphones INTO your Skype and have your own numbers (you can
have up to 10 incoming lines in LOTS of places/countries, not just home)
the price this year is $60/number. I have Skype phone numbers in SC and
London, UK, for my English friends. In the USA, you can get Skype In
numbers in thousands of places across the country. I have a friend with
5 numbers...Boston, NYC, Atlanta, San Francisco and Seattle. Call any
one of them, his Skype phone rings. We both use Netgear SPH101 wifi
Skype phones at home on our wifi LANs. When away from home, Skype
forwards any calls from any numbers or Skype-to-Skype to my cellphone on
Skype Out. Skype Out is on unlimited service if it connects to ANY wifi
in the USA or Canada including AK and HI. Anyplace my laptop or Netgear
Skype phone find a hotspot...I can make and get calls from Skype out or
in or Skype-to-Skype....no extra charges or other cellphone gimmicks.

Skype Out charges up from your credit card either on the interface on
your computer or via the webpage $10 at a time. That's over 7 hours of
LD to Europe or Asia or Australia at 1.9c/min. What a bargain! But not
as cheap as Mobivox....read on....(c;

If you insist on calling her from your cellphone, either to her Skype or
cellphone or landline, you can very cheaply bypass the greedy cellphone
bastards and make up two Mobivox accounts to match your Skype accounts.
Go to www.mobivox.com and simply sign up. Charge up Mobivox for $10 with
your credit card. Find the closest Mobivox access port, a telephone
number you will call from your cellphones here and there to MAKE calls.
With free LD, you'll only burn up airtime during primetime, no charge if
you have unlimited nights/weekends and make calls during free time. I
live in Charleston, SC, and the closes Mobivox port for me is in
Charlotte. Works fantastic. Most civilized countries cost you
$US0.019/min FROM YOUR CELLPHONE or any phone, even pay phones. When you
setup your Mobivox account, use your cellphone as the access number so
Mobivox automatically identifies your caller ID and never requires
username/password access...automating access. Mobivox uses a very
intelligent voice interface you simply talk to. If you feel better, it
also accepts phone tones. Mobivox accesses your Skype contact list from
the Skype server. You store all your Skype contacts and telephone
numbers on your Skype on your computer. Skype stores all your contact
info on the SERVER, not the program, so up to 10 Skype computers/phones
on your account will have access always to the same contact list which
downloads at bootup. Mobivox reads your contact list when you call it.
It will read you who is on Skype and invite you to call them by simply
saying their Skype name. You can also tell Mobivox to "Call (country
code-number)" and it will dial it for you at 1.9c/min, unless you're
calling her cell with a shared charging system where you have to pay some
of her phone charges. The LD rates on Skype and Mobivox are on their
respective websites. Calling Bahrain cellphones costs me 25c/min.

Don't believe the telecom bullshit that says Skype is awful quality,
echos like mad, drops calls, all the bad stuff. It just doesn't happen.
Talking from South Carolina to Perth, Australia, with full colo(u)r video
is just like calling next door on a landline...but with video. You
CANNOT make Skype calls on low bandwidth dialup. It takes about 110Kbps
for voice, lots more with colo(u)r video. You're not using Skype calling
Mobivox from your cellphone, by the way.

So, to call her cell, you add her phone number to your Skype contact list
in Outer Slobovia. Give it a simple name, like "Karen". You autodial
your Mobivox access number, airtime starts on your cell. "Call Karen"
you tell it. Mobivox sees you have $12.42 in your pre-charged-with-your-
credit-card Mobivox account and calls her using Mobivox's long distance
service. Karen's cellphone rings seconds later and you've beat the
bastards out of $2.49/minute to call her.

Much better......(c;

Set up a schedule to call her when you are both "at home" on both ends,
on Skype-to-Skype, not phones. Talk for hours. Set up both Skypes to
autoanswer the calls with the video camera on and you can even watch your
house from someplace else if you like. (Don't do this if you have a
local girlfriend, obviously!...(c;)

Larry
--
While in Mexico, I didn't have to press 1 for Spanish.
While in Iran, I didn't have to press 1 for Farsi, either.
While in Florida, I had to press 2 for English.
It just isn't fair.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 62 uses of vinegar
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/a124d83df8879131?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 17 2007 9:40 am
From: Steve

http://odyb.net/food-cooking/62-little-known-uses-of-vinegar

Good breeding consists of concealing how much we think of ourselves and how little we think of the other person.

...Mark Twain

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A/C working properly? Cost -> lower temp?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/6c37471a9403c0a2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 17 2007 10:05 am
From:

"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:469a1c40$0$3092$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Sure wish you'd stop spamming the list with your endless plonk
> notices. Just do it, and don't tell us all about it. These news
> groups can be read all over the world by people with computers.
> Do you REALLY think that the entire world needs to be notified
> that a particular poster won't appear on one computer, in one
> house in one state in one country? I don't....

Shut the fuck up idiot!
Do you really think we care what one idiotic moron thinks?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: a point about China's problems
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/c328870180227d9a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 17 2007 10:06 am
From: PaPaPeng

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 06:20:17 -0500, Vic Smith
<thismailautodeleted@comcast.net> wrote:

>It was the pet food poisoning that got it going strong. Had to throw
>some out myself. That and a general feeling that this administration
>is not doing the job in ensuring food safety. The spinach e.coli
>poisonings late last year is still fresh in peoples minds too.

And the advisory from the FDA was to toss out the veggies until the
source had been identified and the problem corrected. Common sense.
No need to call for the heads of the grocery store chiefs, the
agro-industry farmers or the Federal and State food safety officials.

If I recall there were less than a dozen pet deaths though there were
many reports of pets getting sick. The scare came and went amazingly
fast with the next news cycle or maybe it was Paris Hilton.

From WIKI:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melamine
[In 2007 a pet food recall was initiated by Menu Foods and other pet
food manufacturers who had found their products had been contaminated
and caused serious illnesses or deaths in some of the animals that had
eaten them.[23][24][25] On 30 March 2007, the US Food and Drug
Administration reported finding white granular melamine in the pet
food, in samples of white granular wheat gluten imported from a single
source in China, Xuzhou Anying Biologic Technology [26] as well as in
crystalline form in the kidneys and in urine of affected animals.[27]
Further vegetable protein imported from China was later implicated.
See 2007 pet food recalls.

The practice of adding "melamine scrap" to animal feed is reported to
be widespread in China in order to give the appearance of increased
protein content in animal feed.[28] Melamine has also been purposely
added as a binder to fish and livestock feed manufactured in the
United States and traced to suppliers in Ohio and Colorado.[29] The
presence of melamine has not been conclusively linked to the deaths of
animals, as this chemical was previously thought to be non-toxic at
low doses.]

If melamine had been added it must have been done for quite some time
and without any known consequences. "The presence of melamine has not
been conclusively linked to the deaths of animals..." I'd be the
first to agree that non food chemicals should not have any place in
the food chain. Of course processed foods do need chemicals for
preservation, food safety, etc. But no food manufacturer should be
allowed to introduce unapproved and non traditional chemicals into
their products. This is a regulatory and a police matter. There is
no call for accusing a people and a country for being culturally
different and careless of human and pet safety, and of racial
propensity to cheat and cut corners.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 17 2007 10:39 am
From: Vic Smith

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:06:59 GMT, PaPaPeng <PaPaPeng@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 06:20:17 -0500, Vic Smith
><thismailautodeleted@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>It was the pet food poisoning that got it going strong. Had to throw
>>some out myself. That and a general feeling that this administration
>>is not doing the job in ensuring food safety. The spinach e.coli
>>poisonings late last year is still fresh in peoples minds too.
>
>
>And the advisory from the FDA was to toss out the veggies until the
>source had been identified and the problem corrected. Common sense.
>No need to call for the heads of the grocery store chiefs, the
>agro-industry farmers or the Federal and State food safety officials.
>
Yeah, no big deal. Die or suffer kidney damage for having the
temerity to eat a piece of fresh spinach. All in a day's eating.
After all, why go to the regulatory expense of requiring farmers
to keep cow shit off their produce?
Better some people die and get sick, everybody throws away their
spinach, then the guv uses the taxpayers' money saved by not
buying any more spinach to pay off the spinach farmers.
You are maybe the biggest business ass-kisser here now.
Congratulations

> This is a regulatory and a police matter. There is
>no call for accusing a people and a country for being culturally
>different and careless of human and pet safety, and of racial
>propensity to cheat and cut corners.

Where do you get all that? American business is no different
when let off the regulatory leash. As I said before, if you're
looking for racism, look within yourself first. Quit defending
conduct that is indefensible, whether the poisoners are American or
Chinese.
And quit pimping for China. Try to become an advocate for Canada
and its great peoples.
Your fellow Cannucks expect that of you.

--Vic

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en

Frugal Living

Blog Archive

Thursday, July 19, 2007

25 new messages in 11 topics - digest