July 19

We have many lists of American colleges, sorted in different ways. Do we have a list of colleges that ban the teaching of evolution? These would, I suppose, be mainly colleges affiliated with some religious denomination. I'm motivated to ask this by the recent issues at

All colleges accredited by

TRACS are required to be "undergirded by a belief in biblical inerrancy, biblical authority and the historicity of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, including special creation" (from their official policy document). I've not been able to download the equivalent document from CCCU, the organization with which Bethel College is affiliated (that is, the document exists on their website, but my attempts to download it have failed). Perhaps someone else could see if that document makes any statement on the issue? Tevildo (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

The "exists" link worked for me, but didn't contain any policy details. It is just a graphical summary of the relationships among religions that fall under the CCCU umbrella. Dragons flight (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway. It may be in one of the other documents on this page, none of which I can download. Tevildo (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My mother is of the opinion that eating the skin of roasted chicken causes high cholestorol. I don't suffer from it, mother doesn't eat it, and my father doesn't suffer from it, but my brother does. That's because he eats lots of fatty fried foods, and I believe has nothing to do with eating chicken skin. Who is right? 82.35.216.24 (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's complicated because there is

triglycerides). Also, it's not clear that eating cholesterol contributes to your own cholesterol level much. However, note that the skin is also likely to contain most of the sodium, if salt was sprinkled on it, so removing the skin could eliminate most of that, and since most people in developed nations get way too much sodium, this is a good thing. Restaurants are a particularly bad offender here, as they serve over-salted foods so you will get thirsty and order more expensive drinks. The sodium is often difficult to remove from the food, but if it's on the chicken skin it's easier. StuRat (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I call shenanigans. CDC Salt Guidelines Too Low for Good Health, Study Suggests. μηδείς (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As your source says "The

sodium sensitive hypertension (which runs in my family) and Sodium#Biological role

.

But, even if we take the word of your study and only try to keep sodium down to 4945 mg per day, there are still lots of restaurant items that exceed that. Take a look at Famous Dave's Sampler Appetizer Platter (boneless wings) here: [1], with 8900-9270 mg of sodium. Yes, you might share that, but then again, this isn't likely to be a person's only source of sodium for the day. For example, you might follow it up with their Ultimate BBQ Burger with 5340 mg of sodium or their Feast for One with 6480 mg.

Now, since this Q is about chicken skin, consider that Famous Dave's whole BBQ chicken has 8930 mg of sodium. I can eat half a chicken at a sitting, and an entire chicken in a day (at 1770 calories, that's not excessive). Removing the skin would be a good way to keep the sodium level down, at least to the level recommended in your study.

Another way to look at it is the ratio of sodium to calories. If we go with the CDC guidelines, that's about 1 mg of sodium per calorie (technically, per kilocalorie). If we use your study, that's about 2 mg per cal. But 8930/1770 is 5 mg of sodium per calorie, which is way too high. Removing the skin may bring it down closer to the proper ratio. StuRat (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sodium sensitive hypertension is a specific medical condition. One shouldn't be declaring all Americans need to lower their salt intake without authority or references. Indeed I routinely test low on sodium, which is flagged on my bloodwork. Shenanigans! μηδείς (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should defer to scientific studies, yet common sense also enters here. Once, salt was so valued that the word Salary derived from it. Camel caravan crossed north Africa to distribute salt. There is and old saying (song) that only Mad Dogs and Englishmen went out in the midday sun – because they (the englishmen not the dogs – who were mad) had access to more salt than food provided. However, now modern-day food processors simply use modern-day-cheap-salt as a flavor enhancer. Far way above and beyond what the modern Homo sapiens metabolism were evolved to cope with. You may well be right in stating that: One shouldn't be declaring all Americans need to lower their salt intake. Yet, as north america is resident to some 300 millions souls. Which equates to something like 92% of Americans should lower their salt intake – because they don't live off their own land any more. American Gothic was already a fading memory when it was painted. Mankind survived for eons on natural, local diets -without added salt. Please don't plead that modern day gobbled gook says modern day consumption of salt is good! Bloods low on sodium can indicate kidney disease, cirrhosis and other conditions. So keep it real and don't confuse readers-OK!.--Aspro (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I provided plenty of other sources, too, concerning sodium recommendations for the general population, making yours a

straw man argument. In case you don't have enough links, here's another: Health effects of salt. Note that Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (the only ones listed), put the upper limit around 2300 mg, too. StuRat (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay, but I am really not arguing this guys. I probably cook 6/7th of what I eat from scratch; milk, alcohol, and the occasional bacon,

Nathan's hot dogs and baked and black beans are all I get that's really "processed". μηδείς (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

92.40.249.89 (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers are on page 9 of this document - to summarize, 11

F4 Phantoms, and 3 Lightnings. It's not further divided into purpose, I'm afraid. Tevildo (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

See also those designated as Trainer aircraft in List of active United Kingdom military aircraft. Nanonic (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As they are not considered "active" they dont appear on the page, a few publications like "Military Aircraft Markings" (http://www.militaryaircraftmarkings.co.uk/) list them and a look at http://www.demobbed.org.uk/ will give you a lot of information. None of these sources tell you what they are used for but most uses are fairly obvious, if you have any specific requests for info then let us know here. MilborneOne (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]