Interesting start, and I hope they receive more funding, but I can’t see how a two year (max participant length of 4yrs) period is near long enough to confirm that these changes are solely due to age and not some other, personal factors or generational factor.

For those interested in the actual study (non-paywalled) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7301912/

For sure, but that applies to literally everything - decarbonization of the energy grid/moving away from gas is a huge factor for literally every aspect of life, particularly farming and red meat. The energy involved in creating meat is significantly higher than any other foods, which is why I disagreed with your point. We have an alternative for meat, but there isnt one for concrete. Using it as a comparison is a poor argument.

Arguing that conditionally essential amino acids are not found elsewhere is a misleading argument. In addition to the fact that all of those three can be created by your body, Taurine is found in lentils, a staple of many vegan diets, seaweed can contain creatine, and carnitine can be found in trace amounts in most foods. None of them are as dense as meat, for sure, but there are numerous sources, plus supplements.

To reduce the environmental impact of food, which applies to all food and not just meat, we need to accept the idea of not having excess of everything. We don’t need 5 different cuts of meat from 3 different brands. We don’t need 5 different kinds of apples. We don’t need a whole shopping isle filled with… Goodness knows how many different kinds of cereal.

Definitely agree with this, but its probably just as hard a sell, and much less feasible to do on an individual level.

I mean the difference is that concrete has a function and is largely irreplaceable. The argument most vegans make is that animals are not functionally needed in order to fulfill the “food” requirement of living. Concrete is, by large, used for houses and structures which provide shelter, and there are no viable alternatives.

Civil engineer with a number of courses in building science (aka this).

Can’t tell for sure without seeing what kind of insulation it is, but there are a few factors.

First, as other people have mentioned, having temperature gradients cause moisture issues. Typically, in modern construction in cold weather climates like Canada, we install a single waterproof layer. Cold weather, this goes inside of the insulation (between the insulation and the drywall), and in hot weather places, it’ll be installed outside the insulation.

My understanding of the houses this is being done in, there is no vapour barrier, meaning damp+ moisture can accumulate.

Second, new houses in NA have a “minimum air exchange”, which is a specific amount of air that needs to move through the house within a given time frame, typically air changes per hour (ACH rating). This is usually accomplished by means of a central heating/ductwork units, and bedrooms are generally somewhere around 4-8, meaning all the air in the bedroom should be refreshed 4 to 8 times per hour. My understanding of many of these houses is that there is not central air system. Before the insulation, it is likely that small gaps or holes in the walls/exterior siding were sufficient to allow enough air to move through, however that air slows down when there is insulation sprayed into the cavities. Any slowdown will exacerbate moisture problems, as still air is bad. More air exchanges also would allow the house to dry out more, as evaporation would help.

Those are the general situations that would likely be a problem.

In this case, from reading the article, it seems like she has a hole in her roof, which is either new or was not caught by the installers. ANY source of water ingress would cause mold problems. The issue here is that previously, it is likely that the water trickled down the inside of the cladding (likely brick), and out at the base of the wall. Once you add insulation to that cavity, it’ll hold water and cause mold problems. Seems like a shitty spot to be in.