dickie, sorry for the delay, i know how prompt you like me to be.

your 3 links fail to prove any definate statement that milk is anything other than beneficial with regard to osteoporosis. The first on ovarian cancer "supports a hypothesis" for the cohort studies[3] but not the case-control studies[18].

You present an argument by Karen Dawn, a self professed "spokesperson for the animal protection movement"- what would you expect her to say?

As to Dr Kradjian, I have to laugh, either he is the basis for "cows' milk is for calves" and the "why not rat milk?" or he's further perpetuating vegan propaganda. (probably because rats bite, are small, and were hard to hand milk). How about the "pus" factor? he does realise thats in human milk too?
I couldn't agree more with the importance of breast milk, and wouldn't recommend cows milk in it's place either.
Lactose is a problem for those who are intolerant- I think you'll find they avoid milk anyway, and obviously that doesn't make it bad for the majority of caucasians who aren't intolerant. It does make the increasing demand for dairy products in china a little incongruous.

Why would I be, or want to be, privy to anything about Brookdale? If the newspaper article I read at the time was misleading I'll get over it. It said the sludge was destined for clas 4 landfill but didn't say what level the human waste required. I did assume it would have been less than industrial waste. Didn't the toxic waste plant close years ago?

"You present an argument by Karen Dawn, a self professed "spokesperson for the animal protection movement"- what would you expect her to say?"


Rojo

You were a dairy farmer, therefore what can we expect you to say? Do you believe the authors in the links provided have evil intentions?

All informed people are free to choose whether to consume intensively farmed milk or not and hopefully remain free to express an opinion - particularly when they are concerned about any dietary health implications.

Therefore I advise that I object to consuming antibiotics which are used in animals for human consumption. Antibiotics are used extensively in subtherapeutic doses to promote growth by increasing weight gain and improving feed utilisation.

In Australia, more antibiotics are used on a tonnage basis in animals than in humans.

One such antibiotic is the glycopeptide avoparcin. In Australia, it is registered for use as a growth promoter in chickens, pigs, calves, beef and dairy cattle. It is also approved for prophylaxis of necrotic enteritis (caused by Clostridium perfringens) in broiler chickens.

There has been little consideration for or consultation with consumers who are force-fed these drugs through the food chain.

There is now a very real danger that this abuse of antibiotics is producing antibiotic resistant bacteria that can cause disease in humans and animals. These diseases will be increasingly difficult to treat because of the antibiotic resistance.

The Brookdale Hazardous Waste plant closed during 2004. However, the operations are now conducted at Total Waste Management in Kalgoorlie just 500 metres from a restaurant (with an evaporative A/C) and a fuel depot.

Toxic emissions and odours were so foul that over 400 Kalgoorlie citizens went on a protest march to no avail.

However, the company finally used yet another chemical to mask the odours emitting from the evaporation ponds. This was sufficient to gag the citizens.

Masking odours (the canary in the coal mine) does not mitigate the odourless and invisible gaseous emissions of hazardous chemicals which can be unwittingly inhaled by communities in close proximity to the plant.

Could this be the fate of some of our used up, intensively farmed dairy cows?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1_BOAF7qvk

um dickie, hello. You said you didn't get your info from peta, viva and the like, but really you do if you use someone like Ms Dawn as a basis for your ideas.
"Their African-American brothers and sisters, who ingest on average more than 1,000mg of calcium a day, are nine times more likely to experience hip fractures."

Hang on, aren't 90% of "blacks" lactose intolerant according to Dr Kradjian, why would we then assume that the 1000mg is from milk? And what about the life expectancy of the Bantu?

I'm sure osteoporosis is uncommon in china, but not because they don't drink milk.

Do I think the authors have evil intentions? No dickie I don't think they have, I believe they truly are "doing it for the animals" , the end justifying the means. They see things differently to the majority, but happen to think they have exclusive access to "enlightenment". What I don't like is people lying to further their cause, outright or otherwise. If the cause is so "right" why doesn't the truth stand on it's own feet.
Why not simply leave it at "we don't like the exploitation of dairy cows", provide factual evidence and have people make up their own minds as to whether that is a sufficient reason to give up milk.

You are free in my book to bring whatever you like to the table about intensively farmed milk(meat, artichokes, lavender...) and if it's truthful you have nothing to worry about from me. It's the "informed" part that can be a bit troubling.

Your reticence to consuming antibiotics used in animals for human consumption is duly noted. To those who feel the same a large amount of organic animal derived produce is available for purchase in a supermarket near you.

For the rest:
"In Australia and Europe, farmers are banned from using antibiotics used in human medicine on animals. "Food in Australia is safer than it's ever been and of the highest quality," [Prof]Bryden says. "I'm staggered by these popular misconceptions"

http://www.smh.com.au/news/diet/ethical-eating-fads-and-facts/2007/01/17/1168709825145.html?page=fullpage

Rojo

Your propensity to use the ad hominem is becoming tiresome and reveals that your debate is influenced by self-interest and not worthy of response. You know little about lactose intolerance or the symptons.

http://www.sciencewa.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1955&Itemid=587

Furthermore you audaciously claim "What I don't like is people lying to further their cause, outright or otherwise."

Touche Rojo and here's an example where the Chicken Industry advise:

"The Australian Chicken Meat Federation endorses the use of antibiotics in chickens in two important ways:

"• therapeutic agents - used to treat bacterial infection

"• preventative agents - used to prevent disease occurring in healthy animals."

Antibiotics ARE growth promoters and I must ask: "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" Why are antibiotics being force-fed to healthy chickens?

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/2001938.htm

In addition could you provide any peer reviews on Professor Bryden's assertion that "In Australia and Europe, farmers are banned from using antibiotics used in human medicine on animals."

All other scientific journals claim the opposite. Researchers at the University of South Australia reported in the journal:

"The major influences on the amplification and spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria are the therapeutic use of antibiotics in human medicine and their use in livestock for therapy, prophylaxis and growth promotion."

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/s380300.htm

"By 2006, the use of antimicrobial agents for growth promotion was no longer approved in the EU; however, this inappropriate use of antimicrobial agents for food animals continues in North America and Australia." (Science Direct 11/7/07)

The British Society of Animal Science reported:

"There had been controversy both in Europe and the USA about possible carcinogenic risks in beef from cattle implanted with stilbenes. In July 1981 they were banned in the EU with the agreement of all member states. (They are also banned in the US and other major cattle-producing countries.) These substances are still approved for use in the US and other countries, including Australia, Canada and New Zealand."

I suggest you take your vacuous argument to the scientific institutes I have cited.

dickie, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

None of your osteoporosis articles had any scientific (let alone logical) merit and thats my fault for pointing it out? Then you proceed to tell me I don't know much about lactose intolerance . A very poor assumption on your part, but I don't expect any better. Certainly no-one could have anywhere near the "knowledge" you possess, could they now? Even you have no idea how you have come to that conclusion, and so the only reason you say such a thing is to belittle me. You've said similar things to me before, I guess it has something to do with insecurity and self esteem. Try not to do it at my expense.

"Antibiotics ARE growth promoters" actually that is totally incorrect. What antibiotics do is enable growth to happen uninhibited. In the absence of retardent pathogens antibiotics would do nothing to further growth rate. Take a moment and think about it.

"Why are antibiotics being force-fed to healthy chickens? " Isn't the point to keep them healthy? From your link: "It's administered in drinking water" hmmm force fed, typical of your propagandist approach. It doesn't help credibility.

"The major ..... growth promotion."
where does it say in your quote that human medicines are used in animals? Or in any of your quotes? Don't you think "antibiotic-resistant bacteria" can relate to the antibiotics actually used in animals?
I don't understand why you use terms like "vacuous argument" when you only end up strenghtening my points. Even you couldn't find a source saying human medicines are used in Australian animals, but good attempt to muddy the waters nonetheless.

sadly your information is becoming less and less believable, once upon a time it was good, accurate even, what has happened?
Your comprehension is lacking a bit too, I'm sorry to say. Surely you have noticed too? it's been quite apparent on the peta thread, but I didn't want to say.
In all honesty, have a chat to your doctor. my concern is genuine.