The Very Many Questions-Not-Worth-Their-Own-Thread Thread XXXII

[The_J]

I don't know much about laxatives but the common 'stoppers' are actually opiate based and they will make you drowsy.

...um... is the most common one not just activated carbon?


No clue about laxatives, but good luck with this .

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Does anybody know the nuances and details of "stoppers/goers"? i.e. medication for your stomach when you have diarrhea and/or related issues.

My Nepal packing list calls for both stoppers and goers. So I have bought what I think is a "stopper" - immodium tablets.

So my friend (who is looking for the same stuff) told me that a goer he knows is ex-lax (the brand). But each one we found was drowsy, i.e. stuff you take right before you go to sleep. But that doesn't make sense to me. Why crap your pants when you are asleep? Isn't it better to take an ex-lax type thing during the day, something that isn't drowsy? So that you don't end up crapping your pants? We couldn't find one like that, so maybe they don't exist though? We don't want to buy drowsy stuff cause of the whole thing we have against crappy pajamas but also because we'll be hiking each day, so we want to be as awake as possible.

Prune juice. Seriously, it works. Or raisin bran. Prune juice is more reliable, though, and it's got the added benefit of Vitamin C.

Of course you can't carry a lot of extra liquid with you (the only size I've found commercially here is 1.36L), but I know hospitals get it in smaller single-serving sizes. Not sure if it's sold in tetra boxes (the 200mL size) but it's worth looking into. Or maybe it's available in concentrate and you just add water? ).

Anyway, that's my best advice.

 

[PhroX]

If you want a good "stopper", I'd recommend the old "biscuits, brown" from British Army rations. Had them when I was in the Cadets - they'd block you up for the best part of a week. Dunno about using them when you have the runs, but if you want to avoid having to take a dump while away from civilisation, they do a good job.

 

[Cutlass]

How long is bottled water good for, as in storing it before the bottles start going bad?

 

[Synobun]

How long is bottled water good for, as in storing it before the bottles start going bad?

If the seals on the bottle are intact then it's mostly indefinite until the bottles themselves start to degrade.

That can take a really long time. Assuming reasonable storage conditions, the water should be safe to drink for your entire lifetime.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

How long is bottled water good for, as in storing it before the bottles start going bad?

If the seals on the bottle are intact then it's mostly indefinite until the bottles themselves start to degrade.

That can take a really long time. Assuming reasonable storage conditions, the water should be safe to drink for your entire lifetime.

This is incorrect.

Check the bottles. It's hard to see, but they should have an expiry date on them.

Any bottled water I have that's past the expiry date is still useful for emergency washing, since the plumbing in this building is old and we have frequent water shut-offs for maintenance. I keep that separate from the water that's still suitable for drinking.


The independent seniors who live in the same facility as my dad does are required to have an emergency supply of bottled water on hand at all times, and they're required to be replaced regularly. So no, the water isn't good for your entire lifetime.

 

[Synobun]

It's really not incorrect. Bottled water expiration dates aren't for safety, they are for taste quality. Feel free to fact check.

You won't enjoy drinking the water after it's sat in a sealed bottle for twenty years but it won't hurt you and it won't kill you unless the plastic bottle itself has been compromised.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It's really not incorrect. Bottled water expiration dates aren't for safety, they are for taste quality. Feel free to fact check.

You won't enjoy drinking the water after it's sat in a sealed bottle for twenty years but it won't hurt you and it won't kill you unless the plastic bottle itself has been compromised.

Okay, whatever. *shrug*

 

[Samez]

It is a matter of bottle quality and storage conditions like light and temperature- the cheaper the plastic bottles the faster they degenerate and emit stuff like plasticizers into the water. The water won't be undrinkable - but it also won't be very healthy if it increases it's BPA/BPB and phthalate concentrations. I personally would not drink plastic bottled water which had contact to sunlight and is older than half a year (including shelf time) - for bottles stored in the dark my personal limit would be about a year.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

If someone leaves a country because of an environmental reason such as a famine are they a refugee?

 

[Synobun]

If someone leaves a country because of an environmental reason such as a famine are they a refugee?

Yes.

Being labelled a refugee is fairly easy. If you flee from a region due to any imminent danger, there's good cause for being classified as a refugee. The environment will likely grow to be one of the largest contributors to refugee migration in the future.

The ease of being labelled a refugee also applies domestically. When I moved from Ontario to British Columbia three and a half years ago, I was considered a domestic refugee. That is in Canada, though, and I'm not sure if other countries would use the same verbiage.

 

[warpus]

If they have enough money to stay in a hotel then maybe no. But otherwise probably?

 

[Cutlass]

We would usually use the term 'domestic migrant', unless there was something that made it impossible, or at least a serious hazard, to remain where you were. Such as a natural disaster.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

Yes.

Being labelled a refugee is fairly easy. If you flee from a region due to any imminent danger, there's good cause for being classified as a refugee. The environment will likely grow to be one of the largest contributors to refugee migration in the future.

I was told that if anyone leaves a country because of an environmental reason then they're not a refugee because they're leaving voluntarily. A refugee is someone who is forced to leave because of war or conflict.

 

[Cutlass]

I was told that if anyone leaves a country because of an environmental reason then they're not a refugee because they're leaving voluntarily. A refugee is someone who is forced to leave because of war or conflict.

Everything else you've been told has been wrong. So why not just accept that what those people are wrong without needing to ask?

 

[Chukchi Husky]

Everything else you've been told has been wrong. So why not just accept that what those people are wrong without needing to ask?

They're always proving that I'm wrong about everything and that they're far smarter than I am.

 

[Cutlass]

They're always proving that I'm wrong about everything and that they're far smarter than I am.

And you've always come here and found out they were lying to you. Those people around you may be able to tell you things in convincing ways. But they are some combinations stupid as dirt and lying pieces of crap. And you should treat everything they say accordingly.

 

[Snerk]

I'd go one step further, assume the opposite of what they say is the truth and come here for confirmation if in doubt.

 

[Synobun]

I was told that if anyone leaves a country because of an environmental reason then they're not a refugee because they're leaving voluntarily. A refugee is someone who is forced to leave because of war or conflict.

Does the individual have a VISA for residency or the process of immigration in the country they went to?

If not, and they're there legally, they're a refugee. Even illegally they would probably be considered a refugee. The question of 'forced' is a complicated one to answer and is ultimately a dog whistle. Even if you share a border with only one country, there will always be a question of why you decided to cross the border where you did and when you did. Barring an immediate disaster that universally affects everyone in a given area, motive and incentive comes into play heavily.

Someone leaving their country due to famine likely has a lot of options available on where to go and how to do it. This is, at the end of the day, meaningless because the end result is the same: they are leaving because they cannot stay. If they were to remain where they were, they would likely die. This leads to fleeing, likely to another nation entirely, and that leads to being a refugee. If your livelihood is being stripped away by something outside of your immediate control and you have to go somewhere unknown and without resources, you are a refugee.

The only incentive I can see towards denying refugee status due to the environment is if the person also denies climate change while simultaneously living a privileged life (they can leave if there's a environmental issue and be fine, why can't people in Bangladesh?).

 

[Chukchi Husky]

I'd go one step further, assume the opposite of what they say is the truth and come here for confirmation if in doubt.

They make it sound like having doubt is a bad thing. One of them has said that they have a complete lack of confidence while I have a problem with being overconfident.

Does the individual have a VISA for residency or the process of immigration in the country they went to?

If not, and they're there legally, they're a refugee. Even illegally they would probably be considered a refugee. The question of 'forced' is a complicated one to answer and is ultimately a dog whistle. Even if you share a border with only one country, there will always be a question of why you decided to cross the border where you did and when you did. Barring an immediate disaster that universally affects everyone in a given area, motive and incentive comes into play heavily.

Someone leaving their country due to famine likely has a lot of options available on where to go and how to do it. This is, at the end of the day, meaningless because the end result is the same: they are leaving because they cannot stay. If they were to remain where they were, they would likely die. This leads to fleeing, likely to another nation entirely, and that leads to being a refugee. If your livelihood is being stripped away by something outside of your immediate control and you have to go somewhere unknown and without resources, you are a refugee.

The only incentive I can see towards denying refugee status due to the environment is if the person also denies climate change while simultaneously living a privileged life (they can leave if there's a environmental issue and be fine, why can't people in Bangladesh?).

I don't know anything about travelling to other countries to ask them those sort of questions. It was said by someone who could imagine visiting other countries but cannot understand why anyone would want to leave their home country.

They have said that famines are only a temporary problem so anyone leaving a country because of a famine shouldn't be considered a refugee. They also don't believe in climate change but they have said that the destruction of the environment is a good thing because "it represents mankind's ultimate conquest over nature", bringing up a quote by I think it was Terry Pratchett about how anyone wanting a return to nature will soon lose that idea if they ever attempt it.