Really?

Try:

jcapitalresearch.us7.list-manage.com/[...]

Relevant discussion of the video and pollution.

file:///D:/AnnStevenson%20Yang/2015_04_07_J%20Weekly%20Under%20the%20Dome.pdf

Alien is right. The discussion of nutrition and diet viz health ranges all over the map. There is a lot of conflicting stuff being sold as science and a lot of science being ignored. Man is an omnivore and can eat pretty much anything which helped the specie survive and thrive.

Moderation and balance, I think, are the key words.

A1234: Your assumption as to how much or little I have "researched" this issue is a conclusion you have come to without any basis, knowledge, nor inquiry. You have called me ignorant several times based on nothing.

I am interested in health and diet, my health and diet in particular, due to severe health problems. For 20 years I have lived with the knowledge that I have a severely damaged heart and that the medicos have told me for 19 of those years they could not explain why.

It took several doctors at the US Veterans Heath Service eleven months to conclude my heart was damaged due to exposure to Agent Orange. Over the last 20 years, I have read literately thousands of articles on exercise, diet, cardiovascular disease, TCM, herbs and food supplements. In 1996, the prognosis for my life expectancy was five years.

What you call "research" I call reading a lot of stuff on the internet. I have labeled information garnered from the internet as "gKnowledge." Generally, folks like you have a belief or feeling about some topic, go to Google and subjectively collect factoids than support their feelings. That is neither research nor scientific.

I have little experience with feed lots other than the awful stench and abundance of huge flies when in close proximity to them. I am quite sure that grass fed range raised beef poses little environmental damage. But that is just my opinion.

How scientific is one video discussing a study? I rather like Neil Tyson's characterization as science being thinking, questioning, challenging, testing hypotheses and investigation. Dispensing with a topic such as consumption of meat vs health with a vague reference to a body of evidence fits neither being fact or science.

Evidence that merely eating meat poses a health risk simply does not exist. I would think a diet of 100% meat would likely be less healthy. I say "think" because in some societies people get along fine with nearly 100% carnivorous diets.

Clearly, the issue of diet is one with little or no scientific consensus. To insist there is a consensus is to slip into some sort of religious or ideology or feelings based argument.