As a Cajun, it amuses me to read the comments. We'll boil up some crawfish, break them in half, eat the meat, suck the head, chuck it, do it again.
Amen - https://imgur.com/Neh25YR !
I left out a few instructions, good catch!
We Should Be Eating More Canned Fish?
61–63 of 63 posts
Re: We Should Be Eating More Canned Fish?
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
I recently discovered this and cannot get enough of it. I'm trying to find a good place to purchase it (at a reasonable price) in the USA though. Damn tasty!
I'm not sure what brands except King Oscar that sells abroad, but looks like they sell in Walmart atleast [1] [1] https://www.kingoscar.com/where-to-buy/
The one I've been eating is Stabbur-Makrell by Stabburet. It's Norwegian, and delicious!
Re: We Should Be Eating More Canned Fish?
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
>CO2 is what we breathe out and it’s what plants breathe in. Regardless of the effects of CO2, that's quite possibly the most inaccurate and unscientific argument I've ever heard on this subject. Humans breathing has never caused an excessive amount of CO2, so drawing any relation of our byproducts to the effects of CO2 generated from manufacturing, energy and transportation industries is absurd. "human excrements ha…
The word pollution was mentioned. You may say concentration of CO2 contributes to warming, but it’s not pollution. Pollution: “the introduction of harmful substances or products into the environment.”
No, you're attempting change the subject to argue semantics instead of addressing my response to your claim that "CO2 is what we breathe out and it’s what plants breathe in" has any significance in the overall CO2 volume produced. Do you acknowledge that humans exhaling produces a fraction of the CO2 generated by manufacturing, energy and travel industries? If not, why? Here's the link to the study from my previous comment. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101102131108.h...
To humor you, I'll also show why your attempt at a second argument to be incorrect, regarding what constitutes pollution
>Pollution: “the introduction of harmful substances or products into the environment.”
I'll just assume you have a misunderstanding what pollution is rather than you purposely omitting details. Pollution can be literally anything introduced that changes the environment: "Pollution can take the form of chemical substances or energy, such as noise, heat or light"[1]. Were you aware of light pollution[2] and noise pollution[3]? We've already established that there is an imbalance of CO2 voume created by many large industries. If noise and light can have polluting affects, why can't CO2?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution