Saving 🚺 and 🧒 first? THIS IS BULLSHIT and DISCRIMINATION! Why should they get priority?

Like we said multiple times, it doesn't matter if 🍼👨‍🦳👧👨‍🎓🧑‍⚕️, every person (and animal) should get the same respect, no matter which job, language, age, finance situation, etc.

TITANIC IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF PEOPLE DISCRIMINATION

Obviously every type of dead is tragic but (don't act like if you are now the mother of such kids for example, but as external observers):

- why should be a 👶 death more tragic of a 🧍‍♂️🧍‍♀️, at the end a) "the baby lived few months" b) "you can redo a baby without issue in the future, once the trauma is away" c) related to a, again, it's a baby, that without a proper family he can't grow alone ... d) their brains are still years away to understand what is happening ... e) ...

- same for example about 👨‍🦳 vs 👩‍👦‍👦, since a) "they lived their life" b) they will be dead in future c) "you could even consider that they increase the cost of health care" d) ...

Obviously we don't want to say they are useless without values. The impact of such trauma should be considered too, which is different from person to person ... like the fact that women, kid or elderly maybe have less strength, etc. BUT this should not be used as excuse to save them.

In the general population of children, potentially traumatic events are fairly common and do not often result in PTS symptoms, except after multiple traumas or a history of anxiety.

By investigating a new and much larger sample of maritime disasters than has previously been done, we show that women have a substantially lower survival rate than men.

We also find that crew members have a higher survival rate than passengers and that only 7 out of 16 captains went down with their ship. Children appear to have the lowest survival rate.

Moreover, we find that the gender gap in survival rates has decreased since WWI. This supports previous findings that higher status of women in society improves their relative survival rates in disasters.

Our answer to the bullshit written by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics in their paper "Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets" available here

Now we just considered this green part about Protein intake in a plant based / vegan diet / nutrition.

https://t.iss.one/VeganNutritionTelegram/33
https://t.iss.one/VeganNutritionTelegram/34
https://t.iss.one/VeganNutritionTelegram/36
https://t.iss.one/VeganNutritionTelegram/37
https://t.iss.one/VeganNutritionTelegram/38
https://t.iss.one/VeganNutritionTelegram/39

just added now too:
https://t.iss.one/VeganNutritionTelegram/55
https://t.iss.one/VeganNutritionTelegram/54
https://t.iss.one/VeganNutritionTelegram/53
https://t.iss.one/VeganNutritionTelegram/52
https://t.iss.one/VeganNutritionTelegram/51
https://t.iss.one/VeganNutritionTelegram/50
https://t.iss.one/VeganNutritionTelegram/47

new updates
https://t.iss.one/VeganNutritionTelegram/75
https://t.iss.one/VeganNutritionTelegram/72
https://t.iss.one/VeganNutritionTelegram/67
https://t.iss.one/VeganNutritionTelegram/64
https://t.iss.one/VeganNutritionTelegram/63
https://t.iss.one/VeganNutritionTelegram/62
https://t.iss.one/VeganNutritionTelegram/56

A SHAME FOR 🇷🇺 RUSSIA!
A country contributing to 💥 of our 🌍

WWF International statement on “undesirable” characterisation in Russia
https://perma.cc/K526-VWQB

Greenpeace: Environmental protection is ‘undesirable’ in Russia https://perma.cc/2LAU-7QK2

Perhaps more than any other Arctic country, Russia has much to gain from climate trends in the Arctic https://perma.cc/97ZY-4ZUC

Russia is a very poor performer (“F”) under the VACI, on par with Brazil and Iran. The country has a high animal slaughter rate, large consumption of animal products and inadequate legislative protection of farmed animals https://perma.cc/44UC-DWQ9

Roughly 20,000 reindeer have been poached in Russia since August 2016 https://perma.cc/23CG-N5ZV

30 Greenpeace activists charged with piracy in Russia https://perma.cc/8Y6N-BGRT

Arctic 30 jailed in Russia argue their case in European Court https://perma.cc/U2CD-C4W9

Us vs Them: Sadism and Animal Abuse in Russian Army https://perma.cc/4DUV-85CK

Russia’s forest sector has become deeply criminalized. https://perma.cc/27MJ-4RRR https://perma.cc/7CJT-CCYR

The Government of Russia is urged to formally recognise animals as sentient in legislation, given the scientific evidence which has proven that all vertebrates, cephalopods and decapod crustaceans are sentient. Furthermore, the Government of Russia is strongly encouraged to expand the scope of application of Federal Law No. 498-ФЗ to all animals. The Government of Russia is urged to ban the confinement of farm animals – for instance, in sow stalls and farrowing crates for pigs, and in cages for egg-laying hens – and the Government is urged to mandate the humane slaughter of all farm animals, with stunning prior to slaughter. The Government of Russia is furthermore urged to ban fur farming, which is inherently cruel, causing pain and distress to animals. The Government of Russia is urged to outlaw forms of entertainment which cause animal suffering, such as the use of captive marine mammals in shows for the public. https://perma.cc/S49G-

Figure 3 shows the CO2 emissions of the 17 countries and their CAGR for the period 1990 and 2016. The countries that accounted for the highest growth in CO2 emissions between 1990 and 2016 are China with 6.17%, India with 5.5%, Saudi Arabia with 5%, Iran with 4.8%, Brazil with 4%, and Turkey with 3.7%. The countries that have managed to rein in their emissions growth are UK with −1.16%, Italy with −1.1%, France with −0.88%, the USA with 0.33%, Japan with 0.41%, and Canada with 0.9%.

Delaying carbon dioxide removal in the European Union puts climate targets at risk. Under an indicative target of −50 Gt of net CO2 by 2100, delayed CDR would cost an extra of 0.12−0.19 trillion EUR per year of inaction. Moreover, postponing CDR beyond mid-century would substantially reduce the removal potential to almost half (−35.60 Gt CO2) due to the underused biomass and land resources and the maximum technology diffusion speed.

For example, reaching carbon neutrality by 2100 by deploying BECCS and DACCS from 2020 would cost 22.8 trillion EUR2015 (in the range 18.6–26.6, uncertainty analysis in the Supplementary Tables 43–50), and 24.1 when starting in 2075 (18.2–29.5), while it would become infeasible when starting after 2080.