36 replies to this topic

[BFB]

Little Fish, on 15 March 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

why aren't animals getting fatter?

Actually they are.

I can't find the paper for free, but its called: Canaries in the coal mine: a cross-species analysis of the plurality of obesity epidemics

20.000 animals in 8 different environments are getting fatter. The chance of it not being the same cause is 1/10.000.000.

Found it.

http://rspb.royalsoc...0.full.pdf html

Edited by BFB, 15 March 2012 - 03:59 PM.

[questionmark]

Little Fish, on 15 March 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

the study was not presented, so all we have is a journalists spin on it.

the study doesn't carry plausibility for these reasons:
why aren't animals getting fatter?
your lungs contain hundreds of times higher concentration of co2 than air, increasing the concentration of co2 in the air by a fraction would interfere with that? doesn't gas diffuse from higher to lower concentration.

quantities matter, does it use realsitic quantites ? if it uses 50,000ppm co2, then the conclusion people will inevitably draw (that higher atmospheric co2 is increasing obesity) would be false.

Who said they are not?

Pigs, for example, have up to 10% more body fat than they used to have at the beginning of the 20th century(comparing the same race kept under the same conditions). In fact there are extensive breeding programs in place to get the problem under control.

Just because you don't see it does not mean it does not happen. On the other side, the fattening of the general populace may only be caused fractionally by carbon dioxide. Most of it is unhealthy diets (and strangely, strangely, there where a lot of carbonated drinks are consumed people tend to be fatter. May also be worth a study... but I already see Coca Cola and Pepsico getting their "scientists" in position).

[Little Fish]

8,000 ppm co2
sample size - 6

http://www.nature.co...nutd20122a.html

bull<cough>

[JayMark]

Little Fish, on 15 March 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

the study was not presented, so all we have is a journalists spin on it.

the study doesn't carry plausibility for these reasons:
why aren't animals getting fatter?
your lungs contain hundreds of times higher concentration of co2 than air, increasing the concentration of co2 in the air by a fraction would interfere with that? doesn't gas diffuse from higher to lower concentration.

quantities matter, does it use realsitic quantites ? if it uses 50,000ppm co2, then the conclusion people will inevitably draw (that higher atmospheric co2 is increasing obesity) would be false.

There is a lot of informations about this phenomenon affecting humans and animals over the web. If you google it, I'm pretty sure you'll find all the anwsers you are looking for.

[bouncer]

BFB, on 15 March 2012 - 01:13 PM, said:

How can you be fat(not talking about Kwashiorkor, which makes you look fat) if you are starving?

hhmm, it was a little sarcasm....thats all!

[Little Fish]

JayMark, on 15 March 2012 - 05:23 PM, said:

There is a lot of informations about this phenomenon affecting humans and animals over the web. If you google it, I'm pretty sure you'll find all the anwsers you are looking for.

i'm sure the carbonazis are lapping it up.

[bouncer]

The pity is, there's not a lot any of us can do about this is there?  And Im racking my brains but Im fairly sure I read an article which claimed that the Earth used to have MUCH much more co2 and this was a reason, allegedly, dinosaurs and ancient animals grew so big..

But cant verify that bit Im afraid!!

No doubt I'll be corrected here  

[Little Fish]

paper's author is on advisory committees for processed food industry.
http://www.kraftfood...ry_council.aspx

Edited by Little Fish, 15 March 2012 - 05:55 PM.

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 15 March 2012 - 05:17 PM, said:

8,000 ppm co2
sample size - 6

http://www.nature.co...nutd20122a.html

bull<cough>

Why are we getting hyper over this?  Some critters putting on a few extra pounds will probably not make much difference ecologically.  Also, a sample size of six is not what I would call definitive.

BTW:  What's the LD50 for CO2?  8000 ppm is getting up there.
Doug

[questionmark]

bouncer, on 15 March 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:

The pity is, there's not a lot any of us can do about this is there?  And Im racking my brains but Im fairly sure I read an article which claimed that the Earth used to have MUCH much more co2 and this was a reason, allegedly, dinosaurs and ancient animals grew so big..

But cant verify that bit Im afraid!!

No doubt I'll be corrected here  

Not only but yes. The size animals grow to depends on the quality of their nourishment. For example, elephants that survived on Greek islands after the big thawing of the last ice age turned to be midgets. Most probably the Flores man (also known as the Hobbit) also was a evolutionary change due to low calorie intake and a lack of large predators.

Now, if we say indirectly: Larger amounts of carbon dioxide and the warmer temperatures caused by that leads to larger plants, which in turn leads to larger herbivores which in turn leads to larger predators and the whole scenario just keeps on amplifying itself to the point where additional growth is balanced out by the environment.

[JayMark]

bouncer, on 15 March 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:

The pity is, there's not a lot any of us can do about this is there?  And Im racking my brains but Im fairly sure I read an article which claimed that the Earth used to have MUCH much more co2 and this was a reason, allegedly, dinosaurs and ancient animals grew so big..

But cant verify that bit Im afraid!!

No doubt I'll be corrected here  

I'll try to correct what I can bro.

What we can do about it is clearly reduce our CO2 emissions. The main reason beeing more of environmental concern of course. If we don't do it, the issue of CO2 realted "obesity" will be the least of our concern anyways.

About the dinosaurs, it is theorised that since there was at some point more atmospheric CO2, the climate was warmer thus, there were more trees and plants. It could have made herbivorous grow big and then, carnivorous got big of all that meat or grew big simply to be able to defeat big "plant eaters". Just a theory.

Feel free to correct me as well.  

[Simbi Laveau]

questionmark, on 15 March 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:

Who said they are not?

Pigs, for example, have up to 10% more body fat than they used to have at the beginning of the 20th century(comparing the same race kept under the same conditions). In fact there are extensive breeding programs in place to get the problem under control.

Just because you don't see it does not mean it does not happen. On the other side, the fattening of the general populace may only be caused fractionally by carbon dioxide. Most of it is unhealthy diets (and strangely, strangely, there where a lot of carbonated drinks are consumed people tend to be fatter. May also be worth a study... but I already see Coca Cola and Pepsico getting their "scientists" in position).

I am not disputing your point,but we talking pigs on farms,or pigs (or any animal) ,in the wild.
As I would think pigs in captivity are fed crap ,which would make them fatter than they were 40 years ago.
Are say lions on the Serengeti,fatter now than 50 years ago.

Im just trying to ascertain if it's universal,or just domesticated animals.
As it should be both,if it's the CO2.
If it's just animals that are fed by man,including zoo animals,its subject as to whether or not its due to the garbage in what we can buy to feed an animal,anywhere.
Some animal feeds are made by Monsanto and other chemical companies.

[Simbi Laveau]

Little Fish, on 15 March 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

paper's author is on advisory committees for processed food industry.
http://www.kraftfood...ry_council.aspx

SHOCKING !

I just had my last question answered.

[questionmark]

missymoo999, on 15 March 2012 - 07:00 PM, said:

I am not disputing your point,but we talking pigs on farms,or pigs (or any animal) ,in the wild.
As I would think pigs in captivity are fed crap ,which would make them fatter than they were 40 years ago.
Are say lions on the Serengeti,fatter now than 50 years ago.

Im just trying to ascertain if it's universal,or just domesticated animals.
As it should be both,if it's the CO2.
If it's just animals that are fed by man,including zoo animals,its subject as to whether or not its due to the garbage in what we can buy to feed an animal,anywhere.
Some animal feeds are made by Monsanto and other chemical companies.

That would be difficult to establish as there are no records of meat quality in wild animals, while for domesticated animals we have quite accurate records. But then again, the example posted above by Dough should indicate that it is universal.

[JayMark]

Little Fish, on 15 March 2012 - 05:34 PM, said:

i'm sure the carbonazis are lapping it up.

Of course they do. But I don't think the whole CO2 "obesity" is of their concern. I don't think it is important enough to be a threath to those filthy trashes. They will mostly fight ecologists and scientists that have proved the negative impact of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere (global warming, acidification of water etc.).