Jump to content
Want to remove all ads? ×

NY Jets Training Camp Report 08/14

JetNation

By JetNation
in NY Jets Forum

Recommended Posts

JetNation

JetNation

Posted
Posted

The Jets held training camp practice this morning in Cortland.  Here’s a recap of what happened:

Ex-Jets and Dolphins quarterback Chad Pennington was invited to practice by General Manager Mike Tannenbaum.  Pennington had worked with Mark Sanchez in the offseason helping him learn coordinator Tony Sparano’s offense since Pennington played under Sparano with the Dolphins.

QB Mark Sanchez had an effective 7-on-7 session with rookie WR Jordan White contributing with a nice catch against Revis.

Stats for Sanchez and Tebow from today’s practice:

Slight cause for concern as WR Stephen Hill needed attention from the trainers, the Jets can’t lose any more receivers to injury.

Linebacker Ricky Sapp continues to work with the rehabilitation group.  He needs to get healthy and on the field to ensure a roster spot.  The “walking wounded” wider receivers Homes, Schilens and Kerley are also with the rehab group. There is hope that Kerley can be back soon as he participates in portions of practice.  Defensive linemen Sione Po’uha continues to miss practice with a cut forehead and back issues.

While the wide receivers have had injury problems cornerback Antonio Cromartie has been practicing at receiver and caught a touchdown.

Cornerback Isaiah Trufant is fighting to be the Jets #5 corner, helps his cause with an interception, while safety Antonio Allen continues to have a nice camp sacking QB Greg McElroy.

Kicker competition a draw as both Brown and Folk were perfect:

Today (August 14th) is a current and former Jets Birthday:

  • QB – Tim Tebow
  • WR – Wayne Chrebet (Former)

Happy Birthday from JetNation!

di
di

LopQaKkWHjg

View the full article
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BroadwayJoe12

BroadwayJoe12

Posted
Posted

See, it's this type of ground-breaking insight that makes me think you might not even have to bother with med school. I think you're ready as of now.

Rule number one of public speaking... know your audience. I think I've mastered that quite well here.

By the by, little tidbit I learned today from one of my molecular cell biology professors: 99.99 percent of carcinogenic substances you accrue in your body is 100% natural. Thus, the .01% that you get from pesticide residue is clinically irrelevant. So there's a big **** you to all those pseudo-scientist organic-food hippy zealots. But, try explaining that to them and we go back to my ground-breaking type dialogue as you pointed out earlier lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bitonti

bitonti

Posted
Posted

By the by, little tidbit I learned today from one of my molecular cell biology professors: 99.99 percent of carcinogenic substances you accrue in your body is 100% natural. Thus, the .01% that you get from pesticide residue is clinically irrelevant. So there's a big **** you to all those pseudo-scientist organic-food hippy zealots.

This statement assumes alot.

First your biology professor assumes that the effect of natural carcinogen and chemical carcinogen is the same. Secondly it assumes that the body can deal with these things equally. Finally there is no accounting for carcinogen quantity or strength. For example if Rats eat 1000x the recommended dose of Nutrisweet they get cancer. But carry a dime size chunk of plutonium in your pocket and see what happens. Vietnam Vets sprayed each other with agent orange but according to your professor any cancer they got could just as easily been due to natural effects. I guess the good people at Chernobyl got their cancers from the sun or the dirt. Right?

I don't pretend to know everything about cancer but long story short your professor sounds like he's employed by DuPont or Dow. Any good scientist should know what they know and know what they don't know, to make a statement like pesticides are safe because of a theoretical statistic ... well it's bad science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
#27TheDominator

#27TheDominator

Posted
Posted

Monsanto FTW!

What's this got to do with Pouha's back? I heard forehead and wasn't worried. Figured they were just letting him heal so he could rest and the scab wouldn't keep getting ripped open on his forehead like Jon Ritchie. This back sh*t sounds more extremely limiting to use the medical terminology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RutgersJetFan

RutgersJetFan

Posted
Posted

Rule number one of public speaking... know your audience. I think I've mastered that quite well here.

By the by, little tidbit I learned today from one of my molecular cell biology professors: 99.99 percent of carcinogenic substances you accrue in your body is 100% natural. Thus, the .01% that you get from pesticide residue is clinically irrelevant. So there's a big **** you to all those pseudo-scientist organic-food hippy zealots. But, try explaining that to them and we go back to my ground-breaking type dialogue as you pointed out earlier lol.

science.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thor99

Thor99

Posted
Posted

This statement assumes alot.

First your biology professor assumes that the effect of natural carcinogen and chemical carcinogen is the same. Secondly it assumes that the body can deal with these things equally. Finally there is no accounting for carcinogen quantity or strength. For example if Rats eat 1000x the recommended dose of Nutrisweet they get cancer. But carry a dime size chunk of plutonium in your pocket and see what happens. Vietnam Vets sprayed each other with agent orange but according to your professor any cancer they got could just as easily been due to natural effects. I guess the good people at Chernobyl got their cancers from the sun or the dirt. Right?

I don't pretend to know everything about cancer but long story short your professor sounds like he's employed by DuPont or Dow. Any good scientist should know what they know and know what they don't know, to make a statement like pesticides are safe because of a theoretical statistic ... well it's bad science.

Go look up how many people got cancer from DDT.

Now go look up how many people have died of malaria since its global ban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BroadwayJoe12

BroadwayJoe12

Posted
Posted

This statement assumes alot.

First your biology professor assumes that the effect of natural carcinogen and chemical carcinogen is the same. Secondly it assumes that the body can deal with these things equally. Finally there is no accounting for carcinogen quantity or strength. For example if Rats eat 1000x the recommended dose of Nutrisweet they get cancer. But carry a dime size chunk of plutonium in your pocket and see what happens. Vietnam Vets sprayed each other with agent orange but according to your professor any cancer they got could just as easily been due to natural effects. I guess the good people at Chernobyl got their cancers from the sun or the dirt. Right?

I don't pretend to know everything about cancer but long story short your professor sounds like he's employed by DuPont or Dow. Any good scientist should know what they know and know what they don't know, to make a statement like pesticides are safe because of a theoretical statistic ... well it's bad science.

It wasn't my Professor's study, so his mentioning it during our mutation lecture has zero insight into whether he moonlights for big chem corp.

The study that he was mentioning was performed decades ago by Dr. Ames, famed Nobel Laureate; and before anyone even mentions it, he was studying organic produce as a means to prove that Pesticides were harmful, not the other way around. Anyways, what he found was that all organic produce produces toxins, which is obvious, as a living thing it needs to have a natural defense to ward off insects and predators etc. What he found was that the rate at which these toxins are carcinogenic are equal to the rate at which agricultural pesticides are shown to be. I wasn't looking to start an argument, I was sitting in class and felt like dicking around. But in closing, i guess to perpetuate said argument, isn't in fairly telling how those farmers whom physically apply the pesticides to their crops, eat said crops and live on the farm with said pesticides have a statistically lower rate of cancer than the average population? Obviously this is a very large blanket statement as genetic and other environmental factors come into play, but bare in mind that the vast majority of carcinogens you encounter in your life is taken in by your diet. Like 70% or so.

Edit: Must have glossed over that part. Comparing Agent Orange from Vietnam to the pesticides used today is like comparing an atom-bomb to a rock: yes both are pesticides, but that's just about where their similarities stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BroadwayJoe12

BroadwayJoe12

Posted
Posted

Monsanto FTW!

What's this got to do with Pouha's back? I heard forehead and wasn't worried. Figured they were just letting him heal so he could rest and the scab wouldn't keep getting ripped open on his forehead like Jon Ritchie. This back sh*t sounds more extremely limiting to use the medical terminology.

It has everything to do with his back! I was bored in lecture, that's about it.

I can't remember correctly, but hasn't he battled a low back injury before??

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jetsouth

Jetsouth

Posted
Posted

Rule number one of public speaking... know your audience. I think I've mastered that quite well here.

By the by, little tidbit I learned today from one of my molecular cell biology professors: 99.99 percent of carcinogenic substances you accrue in your body is 100% natural. Thus, the .01% that you get from pesticide residue is clinically irrelevant. So there's a big **** you to all those pseudo-scientist organic-food hippy zealots. But, try explaining that to them and we go back to my ground-breaking type dialogue as you pointed out earlier lol.

Actually, it is correct to assume that "99.99% of of carcinogenic substances you accrue in your body is 100% natural." or to ascertain that..not sure if he is quoting an actual result of research or just making the assumption, because nothing can be retained in our bodies for any length of time that doesn't fall into the *natural* category .. however, to further extrapolate that the remaining percent is irrelevant is not correct, in my opinion..

Besides, the actual mechanism involved in cancerous mutation of cells isn't directly always linked to carcinogens anyway..

Not trying to be argumentative, my sister never smoked, etc, died of CA... had a very close friend who did two tours in Vietnam (the VA tried to absolve him of any exposure to agent orange..at first) and died of liver CA many many years later..and I think it was because of exposure to the substance. The VA and associated agencies have determined that only certain specific kinds of cancer (CA) are due, in fact, to agent orange.

I have a hard time with any of their bullsh*t as I have caught them lying about several things..I am a vet also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TnT

TnT

Posted
Posted

Shottenheimer's pre-snap motion causes cancer. It's a fact. Just thought it was relevent to today's discussion.

Tomorrow: 30 versus 40 front defense an the effects of prolonged vitamin C deficiency.

Lmfao!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GREENBEAN

GREENBEAN

Posted
Posted

It wasn't my Professor's study, so his mentioning it during our mutation lecture has zero insight into whether he moonlights for big chem corp.

The study that he was mentioning was performed decades ago by Dr. Ames, famed Nobel Laureate; and before anyone even mentions it, he was studying organic produce as a means to prove that Pesticides were harmful, not the other way around. Anyways, what he found was that all organic produce produces toxins, which is obvious, as a living thing it needs to have a natural defense to ward off insects and predators etc. What he found was that the rate at which these toxins are carcinogenic are equal to the rate at which agricultural pesticides are shown to be. I wasn't looking to start an argument, I was sitting in class and felt like dicking around. But in closing, i guess to perpetuate said argument, isn't in fairly telling how those farmers whom physically apply the pesticides to their crops, eat said crops and live on the farm with said pesticides have a statistically lower rate of cancer than the average population? Obviously this is a very large blanket statement as genetic and other environmental factors come into play, but bare in mind that the vast majority of carcinogens you encounter in your life is taken in by your diet. Like 70% or so.

Edit: Must have glossed over that part. Comparing Agent Orange from Vietnam to the pesticides used today is like comparing an atom-bomb to a rock: yes both are pesticides, but that's just about where their similarities stop.

So there's a big **** you to all those pseudo-scientist organic-food hippy zealots. But, try explaining that to them and we go back to my ground-breaking type dialogue as you pointed out earlier lol.

If you're trying not to get into an argument, this sentence isn't a good way to do it..... just sayin.

Plus it's a nifty little secret that the schools of the medical field (as well as the FDA which is supposed to regulate them) have been largely funded by pharm and chemical companies over the past 50 years or so. That doesn't really make for an equal and non biased amount of information to be distributed to the doctors of tomorrow. The best way to get someone to do what they want them to is to have them believe it's the right thing to do. How can they get you to do terrible things of you actually know they are terrible ?

Chemicals good! Pills good! Trees and vegetables bad! Vitamin C bad!

It's just plain silly out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BornJetsFan1983

BornJetsFan1983

Posted
Posted

This statement assumes alot.

First your biology professor assumes that the effect of natural carcinogen and chemical carcinogen is the same. Secondly it assumes that the body can deal with these things equally. Finally there is no accounting for carcinogen quantity or strength. For example if Rats eat 1000x the recommended dose of Nutrisweet they get cancer. But carry a dime size chunk of plutonium in your pocket and see what happens. Vietnam Vets sprayed each other with agent orange but according to your professor any cancer they got could just as easily been due to natural effects. I guess the good people at Chernobyl got their cancers from the sun or the dirt. Right?

I don't pretend to know everything about cancer but long story short your professor sounds like he's employed by DuPont or Dow. Any good scientist should know what they know and know what they don't know, to make a statement like pesticides are safe because of a theoretical statistic ... well it's bad science.

commie

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BornJetsFan1983

BornJetsFan1983

Posted
Posted

So there's a big **** you to all those pseudo-scientist organic-food hippy zealots. But, try explaining that to them and we go back to my ground-breaking type dialogue as you pointed out earlier lol.

If you're trying not to get into an argument, this sentence isn't a good way to do it..... just sayin.

Plus it's a nifty little secret that the schools of the medical field (as well as the FDA which is supposed to regulate them) have been largely funded by pharm and chemical companies over the past 50 years or so. That doesn't really make for an equal and non biased amount of information to be distributed to the doctors of tomorrow. The best way to get someone to do what they want them to is to have them believe it's the right thing to do. How can they get you to do terrible things of you actually know they are terrible ?

Chemicals good! Pills good! Trees and vegetables bad! Vitamin C bad!

It's just plain silly out there.

you too pinko

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BroadwayJoe12

BroadwayJoe12

Posted
Posted

So there's a big **** you to all those pseudo-scientist organic-food hippy zealots. But, try explaining that to them and we go back to my ground-breaking type dialogue as you pointed out earlier lol.

If you're trying not to get into an argument, this sentence isn't a good way to do it..... just sayin.

Plus it's a nifty little secret that the schools of the medical field (as well as the FDA which is supposed to regulate them) have been largely funded by pharm and chemical companies over the past 50 years or so. That doesn't really make for an equal and non biased amount of information to be distributed to the doctors of tomorrow. The best way to get someone to do what they want them to is to have them believe it's the right thing to do. How can they get you to do terrible things of you actually know they are terrible ?

Chemicals good! Pills good! Trees and vegetables bad! Vitamin C bad!

It's just plain silly out there.

Haha true, but then again I'm not one to get all pissy and start an actual debate on the internet, so I was just busting balls. As for big pharm organizing and creating our academic syllabus is pretty laughable, seeing as how almost every professor I've ever had goes out of their way to bash the pharm companies and FDA.

Just fun information: i worked for a doc, who's brother in law was one of the head attorneys for the FDA in the early 90s. You wanna hear stories about corruption in politics, I MEAN WOW. Being a congressman or senator during the 90s was pretty a pretty sweet deal.

I'd comment but have no idea what that means.

Commie pinko was the colloquial term used to describe those sympathetic to the communist part. ie. Not full blown red communist. I can't tell you how many times I've heard that phrase used from my WWII vet great-uncle; usually in reference to any foreign car or jane fonda. Christ, I swear the guy spits every time she comes on tv.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maxman

Maxman

Posted
Posted

So there's a big fuck you to all those pseudo-scientist organic-food hippy zealots. But, try explaining that to them and we go back to my ground-breaking type dialogue as you pointed out earlier lol.

If you're trying not to get into an argument, this sentence isn't a good way to do it..... just sayin.

Plus it's a nifty little secret that the schools of the medical field (as well as the FDA which is supposed to regulate them) have been largely funded by pharm and chemical companies over the past 50 years or so. That doesn't really make for an equal and non biased amount of information to be distributed to the doctors of tomorrow. The best way to get someone to do what they want them to is to have them believe it's the right thing to do. How can they get you to do terrible things of you actually know they are terrible ?

Chemicals good! Pills good! Trees and vegetables bad! Vitamin C bad!

It's just plain silly out there.

I have no idea what you guys are talking about, I didn't read this thread. But please refrain from cursing. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jetfire

Jetfire

Posted
Posted

It wasn't my Professor's study, so his mentioning it during our mutation lecture has zero insight into whether he moonlights for big chem corp.

The study that he was mentioning was performed decades ago by Dr. Ames, famed Nobel Laureate; and before anyone even mentions it, he was studying organic produce as a means to prove that Pesticides were harmful, not the other way around. Anyways, what he found was that all organic produce produces toxins, which is obvious, as a living thing it needs to have a natural defense to ward off insects and predators etc. What he found was that the rate at which these toxins are carcinogenic are equal to the rate at which agricultural pesticides are shown to be. I wasn't looking to start an argument, I was sitting in class and felt like dicking around. But in closing, i guess to perpetuate said argument, isn't in fairly telling how those farmers whom physically apply the pesticides to their crops, eat said crops and live on the farm with said pesticides have a statistically lower rate of cancer than the average population? Obviously this is a very large blanket statement as genetic and other environmental factors come into play, but bare in mind that the vast majority of carcinogens you encounter in your life is taken in by your diet. Like 70% or so.

Edit: Must have glossed over that part. Comparing Agent Orange from Vietnam to the pesticides used today is like comparing an atom-bomb to a rock: yes both are pesticides, but that's just about where their similarities stop.

One of the active ingredients used in agent orange is still used today on a daily basis and is very toxic

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jetfire

Jetfire

Posted
Posted

Actually, it is correct to assume that "99.99% of of carcinogenic substances you accrue in your body is 100% natural." or to ascertain that..not sure if he is quoting an actual result of research or just making the assumption, because nothing can be retained in our bodies for any length of time that doesn't fall into the *natural* category .. however, to further extrapolate that the remaining percent is irrelevant is not correct, in my opinion..

Besides, the actual mechanism involved in cancerous mutation of cells isn't directly always linked to carcinogens anyway..

Not trying to be argumentative, my sister never smoked, etc, died of CA... had a very close friend who did two tours in Vietnam (the VA tried to absolve him of any exposure to agent orange..at first) and died of liver CA many many years later..and I think it was because of exposure to the substance. The VA and associated agencies have determined that only certain specific kinds of cancer (CA) are due, in fact, to agent orange.

I have a hard time with any of their bullsh*t as I have caught them lying about several things..I am a vet also.

It most def was from the exposure to the chemical. my father was exposed to agent orange and died from liver CA as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jetsfan80

Jetsfan80

Posted
Posted

So I really enjoyed reading the back and forth on this organic food/carcinogens/FDA topic, and would like to hear more. But in the interests of keeping this thread football-related, I say we shift discussion to this thread I created in the lounge, here:

Now, back on topic......

Cro = the next Troy Brown X 1000. Only opposite. Discuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maxman

Maxman

Posted
Posted

Seriously - I got lost as well...

Tomorrow's the last day in Cortland then they return home!!!!!!!

Camp seems so easy when you are only reading about it on the internet. It will be good to see them in NJ next week though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GREENBEAN

GREENBEAN

Posted
Posted

I was expecting...but Rex can curse what the ... :)

lol

Hey man, Believe me I had all sorts of defenses and replies that came up in my head. :D I thought it best to just let it sleep.

Can I still write things like sh*t? lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Integrity28

Integrity28

Posted
Posted

So there's a big **** you to all those pseudo-scientist organic-food hippy zealots. But, try explaining that to them and we go back to my ground-breaking type dialogue as you pointed out earlier lol.

If you're trying not to get into an argument, this sentence isn't a good way to do it..... just sayin.

Plus it's a nifty little secret that the schools of the medical field (as well as the FDA which is supposed to regulate them) have been largely funded by pharm and chemical companies over the past 50 years or so. That doesn't really make for an equal and non biased amount of information to be distributed to the doctors of tomorrow. The best way to get someone to do what they want them to is to have them believe it's the right thing to do. How can they get you to do terrible things of you actually know they are terrible ?

Chemicals good! Pills good! Trees and vegetables bad! Vitamin C bad!

It's just plain silly out there.

I think what you are saying is that all of the marketing that has brought us the 4-basic food groups and food pyramids and the recommended healthy diets since the 40's and 50's, all of which advocate excessive amounts of dairy and animal-based proteins, make no distinction between whole grains and processed sh*t, and recommend minimal amounts of whole fruits and veggies is all a lie perpetuated by the FDA which is funded by the organizations that stand to gain from Americans 1.) buying their product, and 2.) being fat, sick and dependent upon medication. That sound about right?

If so. Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

Content Partnership

Yes Network

Site Sponsor

MILE-Social - NJ Social Media & SEO company

Site Sponsor

MetLife Stadium Tailgate

NY Jets Podcast

NY Jets Podcast

DMCA Page

  • -- DMCA Page
    • ×
    ×
    • Create New...