+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Tips and Deals (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke (/showthread.php?tid=36206)
Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke - Jp! - 07-08-2007
It always amazes me how many commercials ONLY run on 'cable' TV (non OTA).
Today I caught the tail-end of this commercial, while at someone's house that has cable tv. I won't view cable tv again for another couple months probably.
Problem is, I did NOT see the first part, until just now looking it up on the web.
The first part is vital. Until just NOW, I've been spreading the word of this commercial's odd claim.
http://adgabber.com/video/video/show?id=546804:Video:14093
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke - BigGuynRusty - 07-08-2007
[quote Jp!]It always amazes me how many commercials ONLY run on 'cable' TV (non OTA).
Today I caught the tail-end of this commercial, while at someone's house that has cable tv. I won't view cable tv again for another couple months probably.
Problem is, I did NOT see the first part, until just now looking it up on the web.
The first part is vital. Until just NOW, I've been spreading the word of this commercial's odd claim.
http://adgabber.com/video/video/show?id=546804:Video:14093
"The Truth" commercials are the worst chunks of garbage on the planet.
Run ad infinitum in California, where tons of our tax dollars go into making them and running them.
Why should I pay for a national spot for regional ads?
BGnR
Do you always go off half-cocked?
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke - Seacrest - 07-08-2007
You hadn't noticed the slight upwards inflection at the end?
Or maybe since the ad originates in Cali, you just assumed that people here making declarative sentences always sound like they're asking a question?
That is so annoying when we do that?
Seriously, it really is?
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke - MacMagus - 07-08-2007
> Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke
I've read that there's some truth to that.
Breast milk from women who smoke supposedly contains many of the toxins from their cigarettes, potentially causing behavioral problems, vomiting, diarrhea, and arrhythmias.
They did mean breast milk, right?
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke - RgrF - 07-08-2007
[quote MacMagus]> Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke
I've read that there's some truth to that.
Breast milk from women who smoke supposedly contains many of the toxins from their cigarettes, potentially causing behavioral problems, vomiting, diarrhea, and arrhythmias.
They did mean breast milk, right?
I thought it was about goats milk, goats that smoke are just so fuc.ed.............
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke - Baby Tats - 07-08-2007
[quote BigGuynRusty]
"The Truth" commercials are the worst chunks of garbage on the planet.
Run ad infinitum in California, where tons of our tax dollars go into making them and running them.
Why should I pay for a national spot for regional ads?
BGnR
Do you always go off half-cocked?
"The Truth" ads are not funded by tax dollars. They are produced by the American Legacy Foundation which is funded by the tobacco industry as part of the master settlement. Ultimately, smokers are paying for the ads.
Do you always go off half-cocked?
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke - incognegro - 07-08-2007
i prefer tiger milk, but the mother tiger must be addicted to crack cocaine.
talk about an energy drink!
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke - Grateful11 - 07-08-2007
My wife and her dad ran a dairy until a few years back. Their cows didn't get growth hormones,
steroids or any of that crap. If a cow got sick and required antibiotics those cows were kept
back until last in the milking order and their milk was dumped for I believe 7 days after the
antibiotic treatment stopped. Every tank of milk that was picked up was tested for a
multitude of things, at the farmers expense. If anything like an antibiotic or bacteria count
was too high the farmer that allowed that milk to get into the tanker truck had to pay for the
entire tanker load of milk, at that time that amounted to $6-8K.
Speaking of milk, a newspaper article:
Got milk? Drive 128 miles for it?
http://www.charlotte.com/breaking_news/story/186729.html
BTW: Baby Tats ;-)
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke - yeoman - 07-08-2007
Homogenized milk is BAD http://www.consumerhealthdigest.com/healthcontent/True-Culprits-of-High-Cholesterol-Homogenized-Milk-and-Tap-Water.htm
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke - Grateful11 - 07-08-2007
Unhomogenized milk will seperate, cream to the top and basically skim milk to the bottom, you
have to shake it up before you drink it. I can't imagine very many people going back to that
these days cholesterol or not.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question147.htm