AsianAtHeart

It seems most posting here do not understand what is actually going on in this country with teacher salaries. The government mandates a 15,000 baht minimum wage for teachers; BUT this is side-stepped in the schools in many ways. The directors of the schools are corrupt. They pocket the difference. For example, in the town where I am now, teachers receive no more than 10,000 baht (most get 9,000). They are made to sign an agreement when they are hired to this effect. None of the teachers would be able to get a job at a different school for higher pay because all the schools in town do the same thing. And if they were to lose their teaching job, they would have no financial support at all--so they acquiesce to "the system." But "the system" goes beyond this. If a teacher is responsible for any "infraction," that teacher can find his or her pay cut by an unfair amount. For example, miss a day of work because you had to take your child to the hospital (or for any other reason, regardless), lose two days' pay for that month. If you were on duty at the gate when the cement truck rolled up to pour the new slab at the school, and didn't prevent the truck from driving over, and breaking, the PVC water pipe--lose 200-500 baht. The pay gets docked for this and for that, until, for many teachers, the pay is actually nearer to half of what the government standard has set forth. And no one dares to complain, for it would cost him or her his or her job. It's just the way it is. At least Thailand is not so bad off as in neighboring Laos. In Laos, a teacher may have to PAY one or two years' worth of salary just to get the job--or, at minimum, work one to several years for free before getting paid. As a couple others have pointed out, it's one thing to live within your means, but it's another thing to be receiving an honest, living wage.

The GFCI breaker has nothing to do with power fluctuations. It has everything to do with checking that the same amount of power outgoing on the hot wire is returning through the neutral line and/or to the panel. If outgoing power does not match returning power--there's a leak somewhere, right? That might mean someone is getting shocked and the electricity, instead of returning to the electric panel, was grounded out; hence the "ground-fault" in its name.

What? No mention of hemp rope? That's the safest and most reasonable use of the plant. Although, the mentions of garments and "automobile and aircraft parts" do sound interesting.

If he is capable of performing like that on a motorbike, he must be a skilled rider. Unless he was speeding, intoxicated or under the influence of drugs, or otherwise endangering others, there should be little cause for concern.

Doesn't this sound more like a promotion?

Cannabis affects the mind, reducing memory capacity and impairing judgment and logic. Some of these effects are permanent. Do as you will with giving people the option to choose for themselves, but let's hope no one tries to misrepresent as healthful the smoking of marijuana. The drug's "bad image" is well deserved.

Has "this year's rainy season" just begun?

Checking for leaks is the wrong solution. The real solution is to require the installation of proper GFCI (ground-fault circuit interrupter) breakers at EVERY public facility. These breakers essentially cut power to the circuit if any leakage is detected, and they operate all the time. A high-quality GFCI breaker will cut the power in under 40 milliseconds if as little as 5 milliamps of variance (leakage) in the voltage potential is detected. Some electrical safety measures were discussed here a couple of years ago in THIS THREAD.

This should serve as a stark reminder for all those johns who have massaged their conscience by saying it's consensual. How do you know? I pity the poor woman's family upon learning the truth. It's too bad she was unable to find a better way out. Surely there must be a way to lessen the chances of this sort of trafficking ending up this way again. Will any lessons be learned, or only apologies given?

That's terrible. Was he so poor and underpaid that he was pushed to the edge to retrieve his lunch? Too young to die.

Trees can die if their roots aren't properly aerated, such as during prolonged flooding. I'm not sure if that is the issue here, though, or not. Without a soil analysis, it would be difficult to know if there might be a mineral issue, but if the problem persists beyond the rainy season, you might look into getting the soil tested and/or researching soil amendments, particularly trace minerals like boron and copper--both of which will have an impact on algae and fungi in the soil as well. If you're trying to go fully organic, there are such things as rock powders that can be used. I like to put some large rocks in the (oversized) hole when I plant my trees to provide them some minerals. But I see no harm in adding specific minerals as indicated by a proper soil analysis. It costs something--depends on how much it's worth to you.

Probably don't have time to address all of this again, as it seems even one point, to thoroughly address it, can take time. Ignoring the more supernatural items which you do not accept, let's look at some items that might interest you. First, regarding the theory of evolution being supposedly more solid than the "theory" of Creation. May I ask you some questions? How long do scientists say it took to form the Grand Canyon, and do you agree with them? How long did it take to form the canyons on Mount St. Helens after its eruption in 1980? How long do scientists say it took to form the layers of petrified wood, such as are seen in Yellowstone National Park in Montana? How long did it take to form the layers of trees in Spirit Lake on Mount St. Helens? Keep in mind as you answer these questions that if we turn away our eyes from seeing the facts because we have a pet theory to uphold, we are not true scientists. Now another question: Is it true that evolution theory has no explanation for animal instincts? If it is not encoded in an animal's DNA, how can a bird who never saw its parents build a nest, successfully build one? (We have weaver birds here and their nests are awesome.) Yet another question: Are you aware of the actual mathematical odds of the random-chance mutation (evolution all the way from abiogenesis) development of the human genome? And how much do you know of the Higg's boson (aka "the God particle")? Well, enough with the questions. Let me answer a little more regarding your questions. While I am not questioning the literal chronology here, it should be noted that the items mentioned as being created during Creation Week were prophetic of the future. They were symbols--many of them explained in other passages of the Bible, such as in the Psalms, Isaiah, Matthew, and Revelation. Here's a short list: Day 1: Light -- light represents truth: consider "That sheds light on the matter!" Day 2: Waters and firmament -- waters represent nations and peoples; waters in firmament, called "heaven", represent people who are heavenly minded/righteous Day 3: Dry ground -- represents a place with relative lack of people (no water = no people) Day 3: grass, herbs, trees -- grass represents people; trees represent leaders among the people Day 4: Sun, moon, stars -- sun, "the bright and morning star," represents Christ; moon, which reflects light (truth) represents the prophets who speak for Christ, stars represent saints and angels Day 5: Fish, fowl -- Fish, who simply follow the crowd, represent the ignorant masses; fowl represent the demons/foul spirits Day 6: Land animals -- animals ("beasts") represent nations, governments, kingdoms Day 6: Humans -- the crowning act of creation If you're interested, I could provide Bible texts to support each of these symbolic interpretations, e.g. Rev. 22:16 for the morning star being Jesus, Isaiah 40:7 for the grass representing people, etc. The main thing to understand is that God's Word is no ordinary book. While a surface reading may be helpful, the layers of meaning go well beyond the surface, and the best treasures are worth digging for. Was the earth created before the sun? The Genesis account does not actually specify this. The word "sun" is not found in the whole chapter. What it says is that God created two great lights, a greater light and a lesser light. I neither presume to say this was not the sun and moon, nor do I limit it to these. I wasn't there. What I do know is that these symbols were highly significant prophetically. 2 Peter 3, with special emphasis on the first ten verses, indicate that the creation week prophesied of Noah's flood. It tells us in verse 8 that each day must represent a millennium of time. Many people have misunderstood the Bible and have tried to say it took God 1000 years for each day of creation. That is not so. But each day of creation represented and predicted the major events of each millennium to follow. It usually takes me at least an hour to expound the entire prophecy to someone who has not before heard it--with Bibles in hand. So I won't trouble you here with those details...but feel free to let me know if you're interested in more. God loves us enough to let us have free choice. Having a choice in things means we must be allowed to make mistakes. Have you seen a parent who never allows his or her child to make a mistake? What kind of life does that child have? And if the child touches the hot stove, was the parent unloving to have allowed it? If the child tries to walk, but falls, was the parent unloving to have encouraged it? God's love is not to be put on trial on account of our own mistakes. We must take responsibility for our own misdeeds. If you were to put a gun to a young woman's head and say "love me or I'll shoot," would she say she loved you? Probably. But would she really? Of course not. And God knows this. He doesn't want to coerce our love. Either we will love him voluntarily, of our own free will, or He would rather that we be left free to choose our own way. He will never force our will--not even if we were to ask Him to do so. If you question God, it is because He has given you that privilege to do so. He may not be happy with your choice, but this is simply because He knows that your choice is based on ignorance of His love and the happiness that you are missing out on by having made that choice. He loves you deeply, and does not want to see you come to any harm or unhappiness. Yet He knows that you could never be happy if you were not able to choose your own course. God has not caused any of the problems we see on earth. The problems have come as we have departed from His wise counsel and sought our own selfish ways.

That's why we call them "theories" instead of "facts." No human living now on earth was there back in those ancient times to be able to recount the details for us. The best we have are assumptions. You are free, of course, to determine which set of assumptions seems most logical to you. I have based my assumptions on the best ancient records we have--the Bible--and have, insofar as possible, matched its details up with the evidences we see today.

The "scholars" have gotten this wrong. This is to be expected when they are skeptics and have a clear COI in making their assessment. A few pertinent facts that will help us arrive at more concrete truth. 1. Carbon-14 levels, a certain quantity of which serves as the basis for all carbon dating, have actually been recorded to have changed, such as in 1945 with the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While scientists assume the level to be "constant" for purposes of their dating, it is known that the level is not actually a constant. The problem is, there is no known way of determining how much or how consistently the levels might have changed in the past. The carbon-14 levels in preserved fossils might help us know something of their age if the C-14 levels had remained constant, but how would one know when those levels are not constant? The best we can do is follow tree rings, and, again, make assumptions as to their seasonal growth. Here, again, there are doubts, because in years with an extra period of rain (e.g. a La Niña year like this year), trees can put on more than one ring a year. So there is nothing solid upon which to base a time-measurement standard. Nothing. 2. Carbon-14 is created in the upper atmosphere in the presence of solar/cosmic radiation. As that radiation is somewhat constant, scientists have proposed a base level for C-14 to be used in the dating system. However, there are periods of increased solar activity--solar storms, etc., in which these levels might have varied considerably. 3. The LOWER the C-14 levels actually were in the past, the OLDER the fossils will appear by our modern C-14 dating system. That is a matter of simple math, as the dating is based on the rate of decay of C-14 (to nitrogen). Now, consider the massive impact of the Flood on our atmosphere and on the creation and/or penetration of C-14. The Hebrew word for "atmosphere" ("heaven") indicates something solid, or firm--hence the KJV translation as "firmament." There is clearly a separation made of waters both above and below this "firmament" on day 2 of creation week, and the waters above are held there by the firmament. However, no rain is known until the time of the Flood. (The earth was watered by an intricate system of underground aquifers, a natural underground sprinkler system, which watered the earth at night. A tiny glimpse of how this might have worked can be grasped by observing the geysers at Yellowstone National Park. But the Flood destroyed most of this.) At the time of the Flood, the Bible indicates that waters came both from below the earth's crust and from above the firmament (called "heaven"). Water that descended to the earth from above the firmament is what so greatly enlarged our oceans--and it never returned to its former layer above the "firmament." Scientists have been able to sample the air bubbles caught in preserved pitch, and it is known that the oxygen levels were nearer to 36% of the air, as opposed to 21% that we see nowadays (going from memory, so plus or minus a twinkle). So we know there have been some radical changes in the proportioning of the gases in our atmosphere over time. This is one of the key reasons why mankind was so quickly reduced in stature and longevity following the Flood. Accounting for the protective layer of water in our atmosphere prior to the Flood, it is easy to see that C-14 levels would have been much lower. This is why things appear so much older now, based on our modern C-14 dating, than they could possibly have been according to the Biblical record. It is not the Bible which errs, but the assumption of base C-14 levels which is off and which skews the results.

Woof, there's so many points you've made and asked about, I may not get to them all here in one post, but I'll catch some of them. I don't think it has so much to do with openness of mind as it has to do with humanness of nature. It is my impression that even of those with an open mind it might still be said that "a man convinced against his will, will be of the same opinion still." Perhaps this trait should be characterized as closed-mindedness, but I don't see it, whatever you wish to call it, as anything unusual. All of us are guilty of resisting change, including new ideas that don't seem to fit what we have always understood and believed. For me, for example, I have refused to use smartphones. I am intelligent enough to learn them, but just don't wish to take the time for it--not enough interest, and I'm happy with the laptop. Am I closed-minded? Perhaps. You are technically correct, because science can neither prove the non-existence of something, nor can the existence of God be empirically tested and proven within a laboratory. The existence of God is not something subject to operational science. But to make the statement as general as you have is to fail to account for what "science" has been expressly doing for over a century now. Remember the Scopes "monkey" trial? That was the point in time where Creation "theory" was displaced by the theory of "naturalistic evolution" in the educational system. The problem with this is simple: If they are both considered "theories," why should one trump the other? Why should public schools teach only evolution, and not be allowed to mention Creation? If you say it is because teaching creation entails teaching religion, then I say that "science" has become a religion of its own, and its faith is based on naturalistic evolution--which is an atheistic theory, as I'm sure you would admit. No atheist believes in God's Creation; but virtually all atheists accept evolution as "fact." Neither "theory" is something that can be "proven" by science. Whichever theory of origins one chooses to believe, it is a faith choice. And "faith" is the epitome of religion. Therefore, "science," as many see it today, has become religious, and yet gets partial treatment--an unfair advantage over competing theories. I know you claim to be an atheist, but I will tell you something. Only God knows the future--yet through His prophets He reveals the future to us. And here is what is coming: God can do miracles, and often does; but only when it serves His purpose, and never simply on demand. People asking for proof of God's existence are unlikely to see a miracle in response, particularly if their attitude is defiant, and they are not truly seeking to know God. Since most people recognize that God can do miracles, God's enemy, Satan, who was once a holy angel in heaven before he sinned, will work miracles to counterfeit God's Spirit. Satan is going to try to deceive the whole world, and those who do not already know God well will fall prey to the deception. My great-grandmother was a spiritualist / witch. She worked miracles to heal people. But you know what? Erelong they would be sick again and come back for another "treatment"--and, of course, my grandmother earned money for it. During her time as a witch, her husband would be sometimes in the house alone and would hear tramping up and down the stairway. Sometimes the tables would float around the room in the air. These were not miracles of God--they were satanic manifestations. Satan has the power to make someone sick, then take away the sickness that he gave them--including making lame people walk, etc. While I was in Laos just a few years ago, I personally witnessed a lame person brought into a gathering of people, and a loud and boisterous prayer made on her behalf. After the prayer, she got up and walked, and rejoiced, thinking that God had healed her. Three days later, she was dead. I'm being totally serious. Do I think it was God who was in charge with her healing? No. God does not work in that manner, in that spirit. But as we near the end of this world, the end of the sin experiment, miracles will become more common--on BOTH sides. God will work miracles through His people; and Satan will do likewise. Everyone will see this soon enough, as I believe we are nearing that time now. One thing that is coming is that Satan will try to force people to be religious. God has given us all freedom of choice. If you want to be an atheist, God respects your choice, and will allow you to have your way, even though He is infinitely hurt by it. God loves us each very much. His only thought is for our happiness, and He gives us each the freedom to seek that happiness for ourselves. But Satan will soon influence the governments of this world to usurp moral authority over the citizenry and try to force people to be religious--which is not God's way. Among other things, America will lead the way, perhaps under the direct influence of the Pope, in establishing a law mandating Sunday worship. Other countries will then follow America's lead. This is coming. When it comes, please remember that I have told you beforehand. I am not a prophet--this knowledge has come from God, not me. So when it happens, please count this as direct evidence of God's existence. I have studied very carefully the chronology of our ancestors as recorded in the Bible. Due to rounding of years and some imprecision in the records, the exact year is not ascertainable. However, I believe I can come to within about 40-50 years of accuracy. According to my calculations, Adam was created about 5,975 years ago...again, plus or minus a few years (mostly minus). The Bible says he lived to be 930 years old. Adam had eaten from the Tree of Life which God had placed in the Garden of Eden to perpetuate human life. Those who continue to eat from that tree will have eternal life. But when Adam and Eve were sent away from the garden, they faced an eventual death, being deprived of that Tree. The Bible does not say why or how the Tree of Life perpetuates our lives, but, as a biologist, I believe it may have a compound, a protein or enzyme of some sort, which is able to extend the telomeres of our chromosomes. When the DNA strands are copied, the full strand cannot be copied and yet keep the chromosome correctly aligned and linked together without leaving a short part at the end of the chromosome zipped. The zipped part is not copied, only the portion that was unzipped can be copied. This means each mitotic cycle shortens the telomeres by one link in the chain. After many cell divisions (mitoses), the telomeres run out, and loss of genetic information begins. This soon causes apoptosis (cell death), because every gene is important and the cell cannot survive long with a damaged genetic code. When enough of your cells die, you also die. It is my belief, therefore, that the fruit of the Tree of Life prevents cellular death by extending the telomeres. Regarding the apparent lack of giants in the fossil record, I believe that scientists have deliberately concealed the facts on this because these anomalies run counter to their theory of origins which they are trying to cause everyone to believe. If scientists have been saying that humans have evolved into larger more developed forms, it would be quite embarrassing to scientists collectively to have giant skeletons on display. I have heard a rumor, for which I have no actual evidence, that there are skeletons of giants in the basement of the Smithsonian Institute. But most of the giants would have been destroyed, as they existed before the Flood. The Flood buried so much organic matter, including people, animals, trees, and plants, that we will not soon run out of fossil fuels. No skeletons could be found in the crude oil reserves, so the only chance to find one would be in the petrified rock strata or in the coal beds. The Bible is all given by inspiration of God, and there is nothing in the Bible that is untrue, but there are parts of it that are symbolic or prophetic, and not literal. That said, there are some considerable difficulties with translation from the original languages as well, which may obscure the original meaning. For example, if I say to you "Duck!" (having no other context), you might be hard-pressed to determine if I were referencing a waterfowl or commanding you to lower your head. The word can have more than one meaning. The same is true of Hebrew and Greek. One interesting example of this is found in Psalm 34. There is a verse that says even the young lions can come to want, and suffer hunger. But the Hebrew word for "lions" could also mean "rich men." Now, were lions a symbol of the wealthy? Perhaps. Should we take it literally? And if so, which one, lions or millionaires, should be the intended "literal" meaning? In some places, the metaphor or symbolism should be blatantly obvious, such as when the "trees" are said to "clap their hands," or when animals spoken of in the prophecies are said to speak. We have to be careful about being too dogmatic. The best policy is to allow the Bible to explain itself, by comparing other passages on the same topic with the verse in question. As the Bible explains, the prophecies are not subject to private interpretation. We must allow God to help us understand the Bible in its true context, and some common sense is necessary. I don't believe any of the Bible is "fiction," although I would call parts of it "prophetic symbolism" or "allegory" or "parable." The word "fiction" implies something that is not true, but an allegory or parable can be quite true, even though its symbols are only for illustration. Regarding physical sizes, my ancestors were bodyguards to the king of Armenia because they were over seven feet tall. I'm not that tall, nor has anyone for the past several generations in my family ever been that tall. This was several hundred years ago, predating the modern medical advances to which you seem to be alluding. Wow...this truly became an epistle--sorry. I hope it was interesting enough that you did more than merely skim it. ????

Keep the concrete cool and moist from the very beginning, but after the concrete has set (about 8 hours after pouring), flood it with water for as long as possible--at least one week. Curing under water can strengthen concrete by something like 50% for three days, 60% for a week, and nearly 80% in four weeks (going off the top of my head--these figures will be online somewhere). In other words, immersing the slab in water will give strength to it (and decrease cracking) that will make up for some lack in depth. Many people are too rushed to take the time for this step, but it can make a huge difference to the durability of the concrete. It will also help the concrete to become more water resistant, i.e. less permeable to water. This can be either an advantage or a disadvantage, depending on one's perspective, but I consider it more of an advantage with a slab because less water penetration should help to prevent soil cavitation (hollows) below the slab. Concrete should have as little water as possible when mixed for maximum strength, and adding the water too soon would weaken it. But once the concrete has hardened, while still "green", it can be completely submersed in water which will help it to remain cool, uniform in temperature (reduces cracking potential), and improves the curing process.

There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of common varieties of grass. The average lawn may have at least a score--but your photos appear to have a more consistent showing. Your grass looks quite lovely! If you learn the answer, I'd be interested in it, too. Meanwhile, if you don't find an answer, you could always allow a patch of it to grow tall and produce seed--then use that to reseed your bare patches. You could also just take a few plugs of grass and place them in the bare spots--they'll grow out from there. Of course, that takes a little time and may not look as nice in the interim.

I don't believe the trumpets had much to do, physically, with the toppling of the walls. They played a big part, however, in showing the faith of the children of Israel--faith which God afterward rewarded. God acted in their behalf, in answer to their faith. I like this account of the story:

First, there were certainly what we would call "giants." However, it is my understanding that Adam and Eve, the first two humans, were giants. I believe Adam was perhaps 14 feet tall, strong and well-proportioned, and that Eve was a little shorter, perhaps around 12 feet tall. The Bible gives us some evidence toward this conclusion, but leaves the rest to inductive imagination. In other words, I believe all humans have descended from giants, and have, over time, grown smaller as our health and nutrition has progressively declined and the world we live in has become less hospitable. That said, it makes sense that some giants, as families, persisted longer than others. Among these, the Bible speaks of the "Anakim." It was this tribe of giants that the Israelites saw in Canaan, discouraging them during their journey from Egypt. This is also the tribe from which Goliath, whom David killed, had descended. Regarding the construction of large structures, e.g. the pyramids, there are many theories. We do not know exactly how they were made. Could the stones have been rolled up long sand-bridge ramps that were later removed? Could they have been floated in in some manner? We do not know. One possibility in my mind, one which is not considered by most, is that they had vastly superior hardwoods to work with in their day. Those trees are all gone now. With a very strong hardwood beam, one could construct a form of a crane called a derrick. It is actually much more capable than one might think, provided that the mast and boom are sufficiently strong. For example: http://nauticalclass.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/IMG_3532-1-969x1024.jpg The main thing is that, along with stature and strength, man's intelligence and memory have also declined, and we no longer have the capabilities that our ancestors had. We have developed computers and collective knowledge as a partial cure for our disastrous losses in intelligence, but if one looks back on the accomplishments of our predecessors who had no computers to assist them, one can stand amazed. Consider people like Leonardo da Vinci, Archimedes, and so on...which are rather recent examples, actually. We just don't have the records going all the way back to know about their genius. Assuming they were much more intelligent than men living today, they may have known of methods that we have not even considered. The word "nephilim" in Hebrew, which is translated as "giants" in the KJV Bible, has a meaning that goes beyond stature--though it is later connected with the Anakim. It might actually be translated as something like "titans" or "renowned" or "elites" or "nobility". These may well have been "giants" of intellect, not stature merely. And intellect can often accomplish more than physical strength.

You've asked a hard question. Much depends on how much voltage, how many amperes, etc. are being released into the water, and what the grounding capacity is of the soil/substrate under the water. Clay does not conduct well, and most of the soil strata around these parts will be clay. If there are grounding rods at the poles, it should help to increase the ground absorption of the electricity--but there probably aren't any. Steel pipes, concrete (especially reinforced concrete), or other metallic surfaces exposed to the water near the poles could also help to ground out the electricity flow. However, one thing is very important to understand. Assuming that one is standing on firm, dry ground, upon which there is a very high-voltage wire making ground contact (e.g. 600,000 volts or more), that electricity will be invisibly "pooling" out, almost as if it were a cascade of water that was gradually absorbed into the ground. Because a water-containing human body will more easily conduct electricity than the dry ground over which it is flowing, and because electricity will take the path of least resistance, any differential created by distance from the electric source may cause electrocution. In order to "flee" the scene, one must shuffle, not walk, away from the source. Taking a full step would create a considerable voltage potential between point A (foot nearest the wire) and point B (foot furthest away) as the voltage is dissipating over distance. This potential could be fatal. A friend of mine who works on live, high-voltage lines, told the story of some colleagues who, while operating from a boom truck, had neglected to lower it before moving the truck--the boom then coming into contact with the lines, electrifying the whole truck with very high voltage. (I don't remember the details, but perhaps one of the lines had actually broken, falling onto the truck.) They tried to escape, jumping out from the truck as far as they could to then shuffle along the ground. One unfortunate fellow proceeded to trip, and fell headlong to the ground--immediately being electrocuted when his head contacted the ground further away from where his feet were. He didn't survive, unfortunately. Obviously, this scenario would not be directly applicable to a flood situation, but it illustrates some important principles to consider with respect to electricity. Points of contact must be thought of. If you must touch a live wire, do it with one hand only and do not use both hands to do so, as this would mean the electricity will follow a path through your body that passes through the heart--from one arm to the other.

Unfortunately, your first link would not open in my browser--but the temperatures are fairly standard and available on many websites. The important point, perhaps, is that the alcohol made by yeast will be ethyl alcohol (ethanol), and not isopropyl, the latter having a higher boiling point. The second link is awesome, and confirms much of what I was saying. I had not seen that one, and had estimated the temperatures reached over time (I'm quite good at estimating). I noted that the author of that article had started checking internal temperatures on the buns (smaller than a loaf of bread, and will reach the high temperature sooner) at 15 minutes, finding that the center bun was about 171 degrees Fahrenheit. This aligns well with my estimate for a loaf of bread taking at least five to eight minutes longer to reach that point. As an aside, here, smaller breads, like buns, should be safer. I had seen that third link before. It gives some "standard" information--the sort that is commonly believed. I note that the "expert" of that site is not said to have any special qualification, e.g. being a doctor, dietician, researcher, or even a biologist. I'm sure they would want to post that information to give him more credibility if he had any of those qualifications. I'm certified to teach biology and come from a family of doctors. My grandfather is one of my sources, and he will be 99 years old later this year. He still drives, and lives alone. He taught in a well-known medical school for many years, and has traveled the world lecturing on matters of diet and public health. He was in both Europe and Australia giving lectures the year before the covid crisis shut down traveling options. For reasons of privacy here, I will be unable to provide his name.

xylophone, I'm not sure when you joined this discussion, but two weeks ago I addressed the "eternal hell" myth in the post quoted below which I assume you have not read. I believe it will interest you. For a little background to all posting in this thread, I am a scholar of the Bible--though not a clergyman. I have studied the Bible extensively, including in its original Hebrew and Greek languages. This does not mean I know all of the Bible, for one can never stop learning and there is always more to learn; but I would be happy to answer any Bible questions you may have, and if I don't know the answer, I'm not afraid to admit my ignorance, either. May God guide.

If you're addressing the trend in belief, you are 100% correct. But if you address the trend in evidence, you must be unaware of some of the best that has come to light in recent years. Regardless of the evidences one might find in the realms of physics, biology, geology, chemistry, and so on, it is highly improbable for these to persuade anyone. The biggest proof of God's existence is to witness His love in action in the lives of His true followers. The biggest problem this presents is that there are so very, very few true followers of God in our world these days. Many there be who say they are God's children but who have taken His name in vain. Those who are privileged to know someone close to them who demonstrates God's genuine love are fortunate.

It is true that the yeast will be killed in the outer crust if baked very long at 200 degrees Celsius; however, the inner bread may still have some active yeast for about a day after it is pulled from the oven. Many people don't realize this. If your stomach acid is sufficiently strong, there may be no ill effects; but older people and those with weaker stomachs or immune systems, or who may be taking antibiotics (as bacteria will resist the yeast growth), may develop candidiasis. There's a lot of misunderstanding on this issue because of its complexity. Yeast is said to die at a temperature of around 140+ degrees Fahrenheit; but this is after it has remained at that temperature for at least 5-8 minutes. Yeast raises bread because it consumes sugars and releases both carbon-dioxide and alcohol as byproducts, the CO2 being what bubbles up in the bread. The alcohol boils around 171+ degrees Fahrenheit, but will evaporate, at a slower rate, even at room temperature. Whenever anything evaporates, it carries heat away from the source/substrate from which it has evaporated, cooling it. Since water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit (100 Celsius), before the water can reach its boiling point, all the alcohol must have evaporated first. But while either one of these is still evaporating, heat is being carried away from the surface of the bread. The internal temperatures of the bread do not reach those at the surface. And bread may only be baked for 30 minutes. If it takes 20-25 minutes for the bread, at its core, to reach the boiling point temperature of the alcohol, where it would stabilize until the alcohol was all gone, let's say for around 2-5 minutes more, and then an additional five+ minutes for the water to mostly evaporate at its boiling point (there's still some moisture left in a good loaf of bread when finished), it's not hard to see that the internal temperature may not reach the required temperature and duration to kill absolutely all of the yeast. Interestingly, in Europe, people buy crusty loaves of bread, and often scoop out and throw away the internal, doughy, bread. In America, children tend to cut away the crust and eat only the internal portion. Maybe the Europeans have an edge with respect to candida, but the Americans would be better off in terms of the B-vitamins. Ha! Candida is more uncommon among young people. The risk will increase as you age and your stomach acid weakens, as well as your immune system. Even then, not everyone will acquire candida simply from eating fresh bread--just like not every smoker will die of lung cancer. It is simply a risk, and one that is easy to avoid by waiting a day to eat the bread.

My first thought, upon seeing the straight roadway in the photo, was that it involved unsafe passing. Reading the article, it was a matter of passing a motorcycle with a sidecar. In this case, the truck driver is technically at fault for passing where it was unsafe to do so, but that motorcyclist with the sidecar would not have even been legal on the road in some countries for the express reason that it cannot keep up with traffic and is only a hazard. When will people learn to reason from cause to effect? I feel sorry for those in the pickup. It looks like, due to the ongoing construction work, they had no way to safely avoid the accident.