It's a local newspaper, so the site doesn't have any logins listed.
Edit: Also, an account doesn't get you access to old articles. The account costs nothing, access to individual archived articles does.
Posts: 1547 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do those scales that are supposed to tell you your body fat percentage work? I don't see how they would work...
As I understand it, they work by shooting an electrical current (a very faint one, relax) through your body and measuring the return time. As body fat will affect the time, they certainly could work. Whether they do, and how accurate they are, I really have no idea.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
First of all, calling in the inaccuracy of statistics is a cheap shot: Americans are by and large overweight. Who cares what the number is, it's a big problem. And given the rate of what used to be called "adult onset diabetes" in children, it's more than just an incovenience.
quote: Beverages – biggest & best: 7-Eleven was the first retailer to introduce self-serve fountain drinks. When the 32-ounce Big Gulp was introduced in 1980, it was the biggest cup on the market. In 1988, 7-Eleven introduced the giant 64-ounce Double Gulp®, the biggest soft drink on the market.
Thus brags 7-11. That's over 1 cup of sugar in one drink.
Now I don't begrudge anyone a large soda if that's what they want. You want to buy a 2 liter bottle and drink the whole thing, that's ok by me, but marketing a drink that big as if it's reasonable to consume that much is just not acceptable.
As to food, Burger King now markets a triple whopper that has 1230 calories by itself. 740 calories from fat. You want soda and fries with that? King sized, no less. That's 2220 calories in one meal, and 1040 calories from fat.
This kind of escalation has nothing to do with offering the customer what they want, it has to do with manipulating the customer into thinking they want more.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because, I've never heard them say there were x number of deaths due to Getting-Run-Off The-Road-By-A-Drunk-Idiot or x number of deaths due to Dodging-A-Deer-And-Hitting-The-Soft-Shoulder-Of-The-Road-Instead-And-Flipping-Their-Car-Because-They-Were-Driving-75 Mph-At-Night-On-A-Road-Notorious-For-Being-Loaded-With-Large-Ruminantes.
quote:
According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2004, 16,694 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes - an average of one almost every half-hour. These deaths constituted approximately 39 percent of the 42,636 total traffic fatalities.
quote:WASHINGTON - Cars and motorcycles crash into deer more than 4,000 times a day, and it's taking an increasingly deadly toll - on people.
Last year a record 210 motorists were killed in collisions with animals, mostly deer. That was 40 more than the previous year and more than twice the number in 1993, according to a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Funny, I hear these statistics all the time.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
But you are right to sound a warning about the amount of sugar in pop, and the risks of diabetes, and the fat content of triple whoppers, etc. These are things folks need to consider.
But I don't think it is a cheap shot to require someone to prove their statistics. Especially when they want me to change my behavior based on those statistics.
My whole life everyone has always require that I tell the truth. I don't see why I can't require that of others.
Posts: 631 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question wasn't how many people get hit by deer, it's how many flip their cars over and die in their efforts to not get hit by deer.
Posts: 1547 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, when someone hits a deer the cause of the wreak is obvious. What I'm talking about are cases where the cause is unknown. I'm asking if they have a category that says, "cause unknown."
Posts: 631 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I get it. Swerving to avoid a deer might look like falling asleep at the wheel in the absence of other evidence. Reminds me of a lawyer joke:
"What's the difference between a dead skunk lying in the middle of the road, and a dead lawyer lying in the middle of the road?"
"There are skid marks in front of the skunk."
I'm sure there is a "cause unknown" category. But I'd bet it's a pretty small number, by virtue of the fact that when someone dies there's going to be an investigation. They look for those skid marks.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I don't think it is a cheap shot to require someone to prove their statistics. Especially when they want me to change my behavior based on those statistics.
Two things:
First, they're not asking you to change your behavior, they're asking restaurants to change their behavior.
Second, the fact that most Americans are overweight isn't in dispute. Demanding verification of a statistic that is supported by common knowledge (even if the statistic is off by a few percentage points) is a cheap shot. It's also called a red herring.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
