I was zoning out in front of the TV last night and happened on a Nova doc about this "lost expedition" trying to find the northwest passage through Canada in the 1840s. Two ships, left in like 1845, nobody found alive (though it was hard to look for them), and the forensic stuff done in this century to track what happened.

Turns out, they got stuck in pack ice off some island 600 miles up into the tundra, and managed to survive (some of them) for SIX YEARS in the tundra with no hunting skills, minimal contact with local natives, and not all that much horse sense. The ice never broke around their ships, and they finally set off on land trying to cross 600 miles to the nearest white town, and of course all died off.

The reason they managed to live six years with no hunting skills: canned food. (And some of them resorted to cannibalism.)

Two of the many reasons they didn't live past six years:
1) the food cans were sealed with lead solder, and they all developed lead poisoning
2) lemon juice loses its ascorbic acid content after enough years in a can, and they all developed scurvy
3) the part where they were wandering around on the ice with no idea how to kill seals or fish effectively. Really, it's shocking they lasted as long as they did.

In other health news:

Not surprisingly, getting a lot of concussions may turn out to contribute to, over the long term, migraines, memory problems, and mood disorders. [link] While I am entertaining myself imagining Betsy as a linebacker (and an elegant linebacker she would be), I should think there would be more evidence to this sort of thing outside of professional football. Aren't there other professions (or for that matter hobbies, ita I am looking at you ) that tend to result in multiple concussions, that they could study for evidence? Like race car drivers or boxers or the guys from Jackass or something. Shouldn't this kind of already be proven?

But a friend of mine just moved out of here...TO CANADA.

Hey, P-C is friends... with a Canadian!

Obviously this plot to bring ice and snow to California is more complex than we thought....

Said "adequate" - which, by definition, means you're getting enough.

Enough for what, though? For thriving good health, or just enough to prevent deficiency-related disease?

I'm not shilling for indiscriminate use of massive doses of every vitamin on the shelf. But I think that, for some people (I'd even say "many," though I expect that to be challenged), the fact that their intake is adequate to prevent deficiency-related disease does not equal an intake that supports thriving good health/energy/etc.

On edit: Cindy, would you please remove the COMM post? It was (a) not very funny and (b) caused pain to Tep, whom I love.

Nah, that's not necessary. Seriously. (It *is* a funny exchange; I just didn't like my screed getting derailed b/c of semantics.)

But a friend of mine just moved out of here...TO CANADA. Don't you think he would have cancelled me out?

That's just crazy talk, P-C. You're talking crazy. Get out of the road! ::beep beep::

Salmon and trout are the same beastie, just that at some point in time a trout decided to explore deeper waters and stayed out there. We now call them salmon. Salmon still have to come back to fresh water to breed, though.

Huh. File that under "You learn something new everyday".

Also, lisah, insent.

Sail is like the stealth-billytea, bringing all these cool little facts to the discussion, whenever it turns the right way.

eta...

Teppy, thanks, but I already deleted it, sweetie. It doesn't matter.

Okay, then. I was feeling horrible that I pained you! Is an X-screed like an X-post?

FWIW, I do think that the "adequate for what?" question is incredibly important and complex and interesting; I'm also quite deeply convinced that outside of deficiencies (which are quite rare anymore) it comes from an overall pattern of eating (and, hell, living) rather than any supplement. That may be a point where we won't agree, but I do value the discussion enough to not want to snark it away like I did before.

or for that matter hobbies, ita I am looking at you

If by hobbies you mean washing my face or going to the kitchen, I totally hear you. If you're using a more traditional sense of the word, I got nothing for you. Never concussed myself doing any of my hobbies.

Race car drivers concuss themselves a lot? Is there that much crashing? Don't watch, wouldn't know.

I'd pick hockey as a good place to look--Colin, who's a big time ice hockey fan, gave me the same concussion spiel, not as my doctor, but as my neurologist--based on observed injuries and news reports from the sport. I was almost impressed, but then he got smug and I had to snub him.

So I'm reading the NY Times article on Difficult People and the booming consulting business around them. And they rattle off some types:

Several authors think it is useful to characterize infuriating people into types and prescribe ways to deal with them, as Robert M. Bramson did in 1981 in “Coping With Difficult People,” one of the first popular books on the topic. Its overarching lesson is to find a way to communicate with these people because they are not going away. Dr. Bramson lists seven difficult behavior types: Hostile-Aggressives, Complainers, Silent and Unresponsives, Super-Agreeables, Know-It-All Experts, Negativists and Indecisives.

I know I have Negativist and Know-It-All tendencies and try to be conscious about them. I didn't realize "Super-Agreeable" was a difficult type, but now that I think about it, my weasley ex-boss was in that category.