Wearing latex gloves & headgears paannipuri vendors frm Mumbai & Thane serve their customers

  • Thread starter Thread starter socrates
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 84
  • Views Views 20,039
More ranting & ravings. For those still interested in this thread see
Article Window

'Kasargod, which has many endosulfan victims, is the worst hit due to spraying of the pesticide. Many in the district suffer health disorders – neurological problems, physical deformity, vision problems and miscarriage. Kerala Chief Minister V S Achuthanandan has been seeking a nation-wide ban on the pesticide. '

After this be ready for more statistics, 'intelligent' arguments & blah blah :rofl: :rofl:
Its so strange that for a person who preaches so hard & and passionately does not seem to practice what he preaches & accuses other of getting personal, this has happened so often in this thread it clearly indicates something. :yawn:

& BTW most of us will look at the join date & the post count (we have seen here how that comes) BUT will definitely give weightage to the content of posts & to some extent the 'liked'.

Some will never stop in trying to demand respect :yawn:

:yawn: :yawn: :yawn: Even IPL now looks interesting :yawn:
 
Finally we get the 'proof' that was asked for and it still does not answer the question !!

More ranting & ravings. For those still interested in this thread see
Article Window

'Kasargod, which has many endosulfan victims, is the worst hit due to spraying of the pesticide. Many in the district suffer health disorders – neurological problems, physical deformity, vision problems and miscarriage. Kerala Chief Minister V S Achuthanandan has been seeking a nation-wide ban on the pesticide. '
And why were these ppl getting sick, because the pesticide was 'on' the cashews rather than 'in' the cashews which was my point right from the beginning. They weren't washed properly or in a manner that sufficiently removed the pesticide. Plants do not absorb pesticide because they don't need it to grow. Its to protect them from pests.

Your job is to show it is 'in' the food, get it ?

Keep trying, cos you ain't defended your position as yet.
 
@kreacher10 leave it yar....or blr_p will ignore u too :rofl: and pretty soon he will need to ignore everyone lol



Study: Pesticides, toxins can absorb directly into crops through soil

I think everyone else has started ignoring this thread, a sure indication that it's degenerated into a meaningless monologue. i had expected a hot reply to your above post but no, there have been only modification of old posts, perhaps to bring some sense into them.
Good one & the comments in that link make v interesting reading for anyone still coming to this thread :thumbup (2):
 
Not 50%, its 100% that you will get one bad guy if you eat out a hundred times. And thats a minimum.

If you eat out 50 times, then your chances are 50% of getting one bad guy.

If you eat out 10 times your chances are 10%.

If you eat out 0 times then your chances are ZERO.

Which figure are you comfortable with ?
You're wrong with your calculation again.
I did not say it is 50%. I said it is better than 50%.
Your calculation is much too simplistic. It implies that a person eating 101 times has 101% chance of getting Mr Lota. That is absurd. Look at it intuitively. If I eat once, I have a 100/10000 = .01 or 1% chance. The second time, it is 100/9999 = a little higher than 1%. Now the fact remains that the first time I have a 99% chance of not getting Mr. Lota. The second time that chance reduces very slightly. At the hundredth attempt, if I still did not get Mr Lota the first 99 times, there are still a 100 lotawallahs out there but there are 9801 non lotawallahs. So I still have a significant no-zero chance of not getting a lotawallah.
I short, one cannot just sum the 100 attempts of 1% chance and say it is 100 %.

Look, panni puri is too damn good to miss out on. You can make it a home but how close do you come to the taste you get on the street. If you can beat it then that would be best. How long's it take to make btw ? There has to be some sort of USP for these guys on the street to make their living.

You take your pick, I'll take mine.
 
Gosh!! I received messages just because liking his post.
 

Study: Pesticides, toxins can absorb directly into crops through soil
This one is about grass. The abstract of the referenced paper is here, too bad it isn't free access so cannot read the concluding comments.

How about cereals, vegetables & fruits. You know stuff that you actually eat that grows everywhere amongst so called pollution. There should be tons of 'evidence'. Got any links for those ?

If these plants absorb toxins are they going to produce anything worth selling ? They'll probably get stunted and not produce much, therefore chances of you getting any food from these plants is minimal.

From the prisonplanet article
The ryegrass test was just one of many that Yanzheng Gao and his colleagues plan to conduct on pollutants, soil, and plants, but it highlights the important reality of how soil composition plays a crucial role in plant health. If ryegrass so easily absorbs chemical toxins found in soil, then it is safe to assume that conventional food crops doused in chemical pesticides are most likely doing the exact same thing — and millions of people are consuming food made from these crops every single day!
No, it is not safe to assume anything other than ryegrass was found to absorb pollutants of a specific type.

Take the earlier cashew report, unless there is a study showing similar absorption in the cashews then it isn't safe nor logical to 'assume' that was the case.

Being 'scientific' means being a sceptic until the evidence is there 😉

---------- Post added at 06:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:18 AM ----------

You're wrong with your calculation again.
I did not say it is 50%. I said it is better than 50%.
After how many tries ?

Your calculation is much too simplistic. It implies that a person eating 101 times has 101% chance of getting Mr Lota. That is absurd.
Why ? Take a hundred matches, mark one of them. Put 'em in a bag.

What are your chances of pulling the marked one in a blind test ?

If you have a hundred tries then you will defnitely pull the match isn't it. Therefore your chances are 100% of getting it at the end. But if you have only 50 tries then your chances are 50%.

Look at it intuitively. If I eat once, I have a 100/10000 = .01 or 1% chance. The second time, it is 100/9999 = a little higher than 1%. Now the fact remains that the first time I have a 99% chance of not getting Mr. Lota. The second time that chance reduces very slightly. At the hundredth attempt, if I still did not get Mr Lota the first 99 times, there are still a 100 lotawallahs out there but there are 9801 non lotawallahs. So I still have a significant no-zero chance of not getting a lotawallah.
I short, one cannot just sum the 100 attempts of 1% chance and say it is 100 %.
I did not follow your calc here.

You take your pick, I'll take mine.
The bigger point that i tried to bring up which kreacher failed to appreciate is you can't be sure of the water they use. I'm not worried about lota wallah, that to me is a negligble risk. This is why the article did not impress me.

The water that gets used by these roadside sellers is dodgy and chances of getting a guy with that waer are much higher than lota wallah.

I've always been told it would be safer from an indoor establishment. note the word safer, not safest which would be you making them yourself. Still waiting for you to tell me how long that takes. I've never tried to do this at home.

This does not mean the indoor place is always 100% safe but its prolly an order of magnitude safer than a roadside guy. Playing the odds here.
 
After how many tries ?
After a 100 tries.

Why ? Take a hundred matches, mark one of them. Put 'em in a bag.

What are your chances of pulling the marked one in a blind test ?

If you have a hundred tries then you will defnitely pull the match isn't it. Therefore your chances are 100% of getting it at the end. But if you have only 50 tries then your chances are 50%.
Absolutely right. If it is one in a hundred, the first time, your chances are 1%. On the 100th one it is 100%.
But that is not your original proposition. In your original proposition there are 10000 sellers of which there are a 100 lotawallahs. That is a slightly different condition after attempt #1.

I did not follow your calc here.
As I mentioned earlier, I am not capable of doing the accurate probability calculation anymore.
However, what I was pointing out is that it is too simplistic to add up the 1% probabilities of each of the 100 attempts and arrive at 100%. If you take your extrapolation further, it seems that the probability extends beyond 100% when your attempts go over 100 and that is an absurd condition.
To simplify, I mentioned that the chances of you not getting the lotawallah are 99% to begin with and reduce gradually to 9801/9901 for the 100th attempt. What I am attempting to show is that there is still a significant non-zero chance of not getting the lotawallah even after 100 attempts in this case. That is why 100% is wrong. In theory, you will reach 100% only when you get your stuff from the 9901th vendor because that is when there will be nobody other than a lotawallah left.
I leave it to someone better qualified to do the actual math.
The bigger point that i tried to bring up which kreacher failed to appreciate is you can't be sure of the water they use. I'm not worried about lota wallah, that to me is a negligble risk. This is why the article did not impress me.

The water that gets used by these roadside sellers is dodgy and chances of getting a guy with that waer are much higher than lota wallah.

I've always been told it would be safer from an indoor establishment. note the word safer, not safest which would be you making them yourself. Still waiting for you to tell me how long that takes. I've never tried to do this at home.

This does not mean the indoor place is always 100% safe but its prolly an order of magnitude safer than a roadside guy. Playing the odds here.
Sure that is true. But for instance, one indoor place near my house has always advertised that he uses Bisleri water from the day he set up shop.
I can't speak for others but I for one find it beyond yucky to go and have paani puri which may possibly contain the vendors urine, even if Morarji Desai would return and tell me it is good for my health. Having said that, I don't think the late Mr. MD advocated having someone else's urine.
Regarding time taken, I can't enlighten you as that department is best handled by the better half. There are some preparatory tasks that happen out of my sight. The final assembly is just as quick as you see it with the vendor.
Anyway, for general information, a couple of companies like Haldirams have ready packets of Bhelpuri with the chutney also provided. Pretty decent IMHO.
 

Similar threads

Nzxt_Extreme
Mach1 Broadband Review - 100 Mbps Unlimted - Thane(w)
2
Replies
24
Views
30,148
Raoul
Sushubh
TAG Heuer Connected
Replies
3
Views
1,365
Sushubh
Nishant
The horror called @Motorolasupport
2 3
Replies
30
Views
38,460
LordSpymaster
fairusagepfft
Orange Infocom: Review
Replies
3
Views
9,919
x720
Top