Water pH / quality in Sierra Nevada streams / springs / lak

[rlown]

i was kind of serious.. lock the thread. Dumb is dumb. waste no effort; he's on a path and he's not gonna change. If he survives, we'll all talk.

[maverick]

Rlown wrote:
lock the thread. Dumb is dumb. waste no effort; he's on a path and he's not gonna change.

We are not about censorship here on HST, all of us can make a decision to listen to what
a member has to say, or you can just choose to ignore it. He is not violating HST rules or
protocol.
Just because his ideas are way outside of the norm, doesn't mean we should belittle or
condemn what his beliefs are, otherwise what would this have to say about HST community.

[oldranger]

As I read col the only nutrition one needs is water with the right chemical background? Need for calories is a myth? The only reason people die of malnutrition is bad water?

Why have people been consuming food since Adam and Eve?

So if some young whippersnapper or old demented person reads this thread and decides to follow this regimen and suffers serious consequences this forum bears no responsibility?

For once I agree with Russ. This thread is stupid! Also dangerous to people with soft minds!

Mike

[maverick]

OR wrote:
So if some young whippersnapper or old demented person reads this thread and decides to follow this regimen and suffers serious consequences this forum bears no responsibility?

For once I agree with Russ. This thread is stupid! Also dangerous to people with soft minds!

Nope, same as folks giving out info on routes to others who are totally under qualified
to do such routes, should HST bear the responsibility for such advice if the member get
injured, no.
Recently a respected member gave a person who obviously had not idea what a class 2/3
climb is about, the advice to climb Cathedral Peak, which has a class 4 block at the summit.
When first reading this I made the mistake reading Cathedral Pass, but was bugged by it
and when coming back to re-read it, Balzaccom had already address this.
Which is more dangerous, the OP, which is not giving advice, and flies in the face of
everything most everyone here believes, or a member giving a difficult route to newbie
which could cause injury or his death, should HST be responsible this, not.
This is an open forum, people joining are responsible for what they do with the
information they take from here, we are not selling anything here.
Under HST rules which say "Posting of any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous,
hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may be offensive
or violate any applicable laws will not be tolerated." None of these have been
violated by the OP.

[RoguePhotonic]

That's the problem with our nanny state society which thinks that we should all be protected from ourselves. I'm a strong supporter of personal rights and choices. We take risks and should be prepared to accept the consequences of our actions and not whine and sue because someone did not stop you from being an idiot.

I think Sierra activities give more then enough breathing room for a persons own common sense to come into play. If this fails then it's natural selection IMO. To explain I mean that if you tell someone to take a route they do not have the skill to do they should know long before they get hurt that this is way outside their comfort and skill zone. It's not like the ground just drops out from underneath you and if it actually does it's no ones fault.

[tim]

Many on this board had similarly harsh words for Rogue last year when he asked for advice on his plan to spend 100 days in the Sierra, including "you are going to die". Yes CoL's plan is even more "unusual" but it seems to me he isn't the person who needs to be more considerate in what he is posting. If Rogue hadn't been so stubborn he might well have given up on this forum, but I don't think I'm the only person who thinks his input and trip reports are extremely valuable.

[rlown]

the difference is Rogue planned out his food. Rogue's was not a foolish plan, other than what to do with all the weather last year. He still had resupply and food. I've no problem with people who state a plan and execute with proper contingency based on what we all know it's like up there. If you're just gonna suck water for 2 weeks.. well, I guess that's open to interpretation. You'll faint out in 20 miles if that far..

[raphus]

Would you please post a link to a video explaining your position with respect to UV light ?
I will for sure comment it !

... as the UV rays that enter our system can purify our blood (which is 80% water) better. It's called UV transmittance. UV light kills viruses / bacteria INSIDE our body...
[...]
Besides, much "science" has been corrupted by commercial interests. Like all the anti-UV advertising [...] the anti-UV hyperbole

I particularly liked that one :

...
The presence of iron and other trace metals in our body is what causes sunburn (and red blood). It has to do with (electromagnetic) properties of these metals in our body reflecting the UV rays...

The ppm concentration of iron (which by the way is in the form of ions in our body) would reflect UV light... That's a really good one for a scientist (even a corrupted one).
You may have a business degree but I bet you did not attend your physics classes.

But I told you I was a scientist, so I am always eager to learn more, so please explain or post a link to one of the "40+ documentaries" you have seen.
Thank you

[RoguePhotonic]

I think I missed some stuff in this thread. I can certainly say going for two weeks with no food while hiking is crazy at best. I have suffered greatly in the mountains from eating too few calories and not having any energy. Going without any food will leave you in a world of hurt in a hurry.

Last year when people warned me and I wouldn't listen I knew what the dangers are and accepted the consequences if I got hurt or died. I had consciousness of the issue. I think that is a big difference between people.

[AlmostThere]

Frankly, I don't think anyone's in danger of following his example.

All I have to do is think about the cataract surgery I had, the skin cancer removed from my back, the paint jobs on various cars I've had to had redone, the ruination of seat covers in those cars, plus the furniture on the patio dying a disintegrative death, plus the wreckage of various tents, plus the ongoing sunburn I get, and then there's the time my friend nearly went blind in high elevation granite and had to make herself some cardboard slot redneck "sunglasses" - and know that anyone who thinks UV works the way he says it does is in for a real wake up call.

We use UV to sterilize little single celled organisms so they can't reproduce in our gut - it doesn't kill 'em, it nukes their genetic material. We use UV to sterilize equipment. We don't expect it to do anything healing because it doesn't.

Fifteen minutes of sunshine a day helps your body generate its own vitamin D. More than that without protection and I am in pain... ignoring that pain and I'll be racking up medical bills AGAIN.

As for "nanny state" comments - everything is a reaction to some perceived need in society. When people stop ignoring the fact that what they are attempting to do entails risk and adequately address that risk, there'll be less "nannies". I suppose we should let the ignorant pay the ultimate price for being uninformed?