Comment Archives: stories: Life + Outdoors: Field Notes

Re: “Startin' Statins?

My personal experience with statin side effects, I would advise don't go there. "Muscle aches" was nearly disabling pain, and there was a mental fog that is not talked about. My pain cleared within 7 days of stopping, but nerve issues and brain fog took a lot longer to lift.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Cindy Rawlings on 08/30/2015 at 9:20 PM

Re: “Startin' Statins?

Thanks Ben, yes, I saw this 2008 article some time ago, but was trying to tie my column in with the very recent recommendations. Much appreciated, anyway.

Posted by barryevans on 08/30/2015 at 12:44 PM

Re: “Startin' Statins?


Before taking statins please read:

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Ben Waters on 08/29/2015 at 10:41 AM

Re: “The Kelsey Trail

Hi Barry,

I just found your article on the Kelsey Trail. Thanks for the great highlights. I used to live on the Klamath River up Bear Peak Rd near Clear Creek. I proposed reconstructing the trail to the Forest Service but they said that the Clear Creek section was pretty much demolished by logging roads. We (Clear Creek Legal Defense Fund) fought the road construction and logging upper Clear Creek and won administrative appeal with support of Sierra Club legal defense fund. By keeping upper Clear Creek preserved it was thereby able to be included in Siskiyou National Widerness area. I left there in 1981 but have always treasured that area. Someday I hope to see the entire Kelsey Trail reconstructed so more people can enjoy that wild area.
Best regards,
Scott Schroeder

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Scott Schroeder on 08/27/2015 at 7:46 PM

Re: “Alice in Photography Wonderland

Sorry, Frederick Scott ARCHER

Posted by barryevans on 08/13/2015 at 5:41 PM

Re: “Alice in Photography Wonderland

A kind reader corrected my erroneous claim re wikipedia and Frederick Scott Arthur--not just a page, but an entire category in wikimedia!…

I am duly humbled!

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by barryevans on 08/13/2015 at 11:11 AM

Re: “Cool Contrails

Chemtrails are nonsense. Even if you believed that there was a world wide conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of people and many different governments, some of whom are at war with each other, keeping such a secret you still have to answer some tough questions.

What are they spraying and why and why keep it a secret ? What could they possibly spray at 40,000 feet high that would affect us on the ground ?

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by John Fullerton on 07/08/2015 at 1:28 PM

Re: “Cool Contrails

-40°C is exactly the same as -40°F

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Steve Walsh on 07/07/2015 at 11:24 PM

Re: “Cool Contrails

Former FBI Chief Admits Chemtrails Are Real - And Then He Is Poisoned And Dies

4 likes, 7 dislikes
Posted by Cuch on 07/05/2015 at 12:13 PM

Re: “Cool Contrails

All your article tells me, barry, is that you've spent a lot more time staring at digital screens than you have paying attention to the evolution of the sky right over your head for the past 40 years. I spent my life flanked by the Oakland and San Francisco airports. If you don't "believe" in chemtrails at this point, there's probably no chance you ever will. There's no fear or poison or aliens in my limited comprehension of phenomenon. Those are your projections. There is a very real conspiracy going on that involves high altitude planes conditioning the air in some way for reasons I can only guess have to do with the very-rapidly changing climate. "Chemtrails" are very real. Google on, brainiac!

16 likes, 13 dislikes
Posted by ok, now your just trolling. on 07/02/2015 at 7:30 PM

Re: “Theory of Anything

Actually, the quote was from an interview of Lenny by Amanda Geftner of New Scientist about his book and I was in Peter Woit's forum the day that she showed up there to ask for input for her upcoming interview with Lenny. In fact it was *I* who prompted the question and response from him...

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with anything that I said... other than the "undeniable (fact) that the universe appears to be designed".

String theory has virtually nothing to do with the point beyond the fact that it is necessary for the selection principle to be valid.

Posted by Rick Ryals on 05/31/2015 at 10:27 PM

Re: “Theory of Anything

Thanks for your comments, Rick.
I suspect you didn't actually read Susskind's book from which you quoted (The Cosmic Landscape) because it's the weirdest defense of string theory ever written. (Check out… for instance.) String theory is dead (as is an anthropic string theory landscape): no evidence, no predictions, no falsifiability.
(BTW, Leonard Susskind is a delightful man, who talks MUCH better than he writes!) (and who was ONE of the fathers of string theory)

Posted by barryevans on 05/31/2015 at 5:31 PM

Re: “Theory of Anything

barryevans says:
"A fine-tuned universe without apparent cause is an accidental universe: "We're here because we're here because we're here," as the song goes."

But there *is* an "apparent" although willfully ignored cause, as famous theoretical physicist, ("the father of string theory") Leonard Suskind says... "The appearance of design is undeniable".

Actually, a scientist would interpret this as... 'The appearance for a logically meaningful law of nature that requires life... is undeniable...'

And I say that it is willfully ignored because the direct observation implicates a true cosmological principle that defines the structuring of the universe from first physics principles rather than chance and selection effects so this implication takes theoretical precedence over all others because...

1) Your asserted 'incidental universe' is not what is indicated by the observation so the assumption requires that you produce a cosmological principle that explains the structure of the universe from first principles that also explain why the observed "bio-orientation" is just a consequence of the physics rather than the reason for it.

2) The unobservable multiverse assumption requires a complete and tested theory of quantum gravity to justify the assumption.

IF YOU KNOW HOW TO FOLLOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD... then the "anthropic principle" is "most apparently"... a bio-oriented cosmological principle.

But scientists are far to dogmatic to actually recognize and research their strongest lead...

and they wonder why they have no ToE... *eyeroll*

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Rick Ryals on 05/31/2015 at 9:57 AM

Re: “Theory of Anything

I confused my "C"s. Alan Guth developed inflationary theory at Cornell (and later at Stanford), not Caltech. (Thanks, Katie!)

Posted by barryevans on 05/29/2015 at 6:44 PM

Re: “The Great Bike Helmet Debate

Good read. Statistics don't take into account 99.9999999+% of all bicycle rides, which begin and end without incident. The minute you start proposing or supporting mandatory helmet laws, check your own head. Bicycles should always be free jump-n-go fun and transportation for the masses.

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by No more stupid laws, please. on 05/19/2015 at 7:30 PM

Re: “Dodgy Diets

...also, an obese person attempting to run even 100 yards is going to burn far more calories than an average person running an average mile. An obese person attempting to run only 100 yards a day could easily knock off ten pounds after the first week alone, diet be damned. Exercise is relative to pushing one's personal limits.

Posted by Fun for Run on 05/11/2015 at 12:39 PM

Re: “Dodgy Diets

Hmm...well, barry, it's true that a genuinely obese person might not be able to run per se, but relative to that, I'd consider an obese person doing as best they can to actually run, to be actually running, even if for brief moments at a time. Repeat, rest, repeat. It's exhausting, full body exercise at its best. The way you argue it is pretty stubborn, that for initial weightloss running is not so good. A person's gotta take the first step, just like with dieting. For initial weightloss, dieting isn't great either. You could go a few days without eating and only emaciate, but over time....etc.

Posted by Fun for Run on 05/11/2015 at 12:32 PM

Re: “Dodgy Diets

@runforfun--well, yeah, sort of: you have to run 35 miles to lose a pound (very roughly--100 calories/running mile, 3500 calories/lb. weight). The problem is that few obese people are up to running one mile, let alone 35 miles.
OTOH, I do believe fast walking/jogging/running is the best for maintaining a decent weight, not so much for losing in the first place.

Posted by barryevans on 05/10/2015 at 12:28 PM

Re: “Dodgy Diets

hmmm...didn't barry post a playfully sarcastic comment on another editorial recently about dieting (media maven, maybe?) in which he said something like "if you eat more calories than you burn, you gain weight, dummy!", saying that the diet guru being referenced must have "rewritten the laws of physics" to have made some sort of suggestion regarding consumption vs. weight loss results. Well, barry makes that same flawed logic himself in this column when he says "you can't run the pounds off..." etc. Silly! You're just not running enough! Running...not walking or jogging, but real, hands down, the most complete and effective weight loss exercise. If you're not losing weight from running, you're simply not running enough!

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Run for Fun on 05/04/2015 at 12:30 PM

Re: “Dodgy Diets

Since 2008, We have helped thousands of members lose
over 1,000,000 Pounds!

Delicious Soup Recipes Deliver Weight Loss Freedom

Dear friend,
What If Losing Weight Was Easy...?
What if losing weight wasn't about starving yourself? Or telling yourself "No?" Or pushing yourself to the brink of passing out just to burn a few hundred calories?
What if you could eat just like normal, everyday, except for one meal? For just one meal a day you substitute a fat burning, delicious and satisfying soup recipe?
And what if it allowed you shed pounds week after week? Without starvation dieting or exercise?
Would you try that approach?
Hi welcome to

0 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Autumn Gigi on 05/04/2015 at 12:06 PM

© 2015 The North Coast Journal Weekly

Website powered by Foundation