It seems obvious to me that most of the older homes still standing today are the ones that were well-built to begin with (and then well-maintained.) Those that were built with shoddy workmanship in the first place have fallen down. So its not like we're comparing apples to apples when we compare the average new home to older houses that have stood the test of time. The "average" house of 150 years ago has probably crumpled into dust by now! I suspect that a truly well-built house today will stand the test of time just as well or better than the well-built houses from 100 to 200 years ago. We simply no longer have the "old growth timber" available to build homes the same way they were built in the past. We also no longer have people with the know-how to create some of the fine hand-made finish work that was common in the past. Those few who retain those skills can command such prices that most of us simply can't afford them. However, we do have a plethora of wonderful products that were not available to builders of the past. House-wrap, open-web trusses, i-beam trusses, high efficiency windows, fiberglass doors, 30 year shingles, insulation, better paints, fibercement sidings, etc. Where these new products are used as they are designed and intended to be used, a house built today should last as long or longer than one built 150 years ago. The problem is, too many builders don't really know how to use these new products and don't care enough to learn. (You have to wonder how any builder still NOT know how to use Tyvek or how to properly flash a window. I mean, it is not rocket science. It takes about 10 minutes to figure out. But go around and look at a random sampling of houses in progress and I'll lay odds that nearly half will either have the housewrap incorrectly installed or windows improperly flashed or both!) If the homes built by these lazy good-for-nothing builders last 25 years, the homeowner will be darned lucky.

I just found this site looking for why my legs and feet hurt when I stand and walk. I just turned 65 but have been in this pain (they say fibromyalgia) after several car accidents - I use to drive for a living - worked on machines and computers. I also moved into a house that needed a lot of repair. But it seems like the pain just keeps getting worse - I have been tested and tested and they say all the blood test - they all come back normal! I keep trying every supplement that people suggest or what I can find on the internet. I have been dealing with this well over 15 yrs and in the last 4 it is so bad I cannot walk my dogs even. It is so not fair for them. I have started to try CBD - some days it works well - They had me on so many opiods and muscle relaxers it was ridiculous and I wont take anymore. To be able to be me again would be such a blessing!

Stands to reason--let's face it---right now---(and likely for the next couple of years)----a house investment is a loser (declining value). BUT---these things run in cycles----around 2010 things will start looking up. Of course, this assumes the Feds retain the favorable tax treatment of mortgage interest (continue it's deductability) IF the next administration goes for a flat tax---nat'l sales tax--or whatever--that eliminates all deductions--then ALL bets are OFF. Personally--I'm taking advantage of the situation and planning to pour $100K plus into my joint (mainly kitchen)---there's some hungry GC's out there---I can tell by the looks on my bidder's faces.

So, do you guys agree with that author that the research done was BOGUS that said lung cancer was not linked to smoking -- or do you NOT agree with him, and think that the research was right and that smoking is not linked to cancer? You do realize I posted a situation that was in reverse of what you would have thought, right? -and that in fact, almost everyone would agree with, right? So, you are in fact going off a on a guy you most probably agree with. Do you even know you are doing that? Maybe that pancake you're looking at is actually a waffle - better take a closer look - LOL I was using that author's thoughts about the smoking/cancer research as an example of how Bogus research can be. Those lung cancer/cigarette research studies are pretty well known 'bought' research studies that have been discussed by thousands of people -some more crazy than others. I've posted another link about possible skewed research for more or less the same reasons -- because the study was 'bought' or paid for by a cigarette company --- maybe you can go off on that author too especially if you agree with him ;-) Time to flip that pancake... Anyway, I have something to comment about from susan's link: "Women who remembered their parents smoking around them were 26 percent more likely to have had difficulty becoming pregnant and women exposed to any secondhand smoke were 39 percent more likely to have had a miscarriage, Peppone's team reported". Women who remembered their parents smoking around them... are also probably 15-20 years older than those that don't. (More 42 year olds had parents that smoked than 20 somethings). So, maybe it's age that is contributing to fertility and miscarriage issues, and not smoking. You would think that their sample would be using women of the same age. But, for some reason, I doubt it... I bet the women with 'issues' are also significantly older. Did they factor that in? Bottom line, research studies are generally paid for by someone and certain results are expected. Questions can be asked in ways and information can be left off to come to almost any conclusion a researcher wants to come to. It's not certain that the findings are necessarily wrong; but they are often not the smoking gun that so many suggestible readers and viewers want them to be. It's important to remember that these studies are not facts, they are findings... often tainted... Here is a link that might be useful: Conflict of Interest