HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Yep, both gmo's and microwave ovens are harmless. It's just a coincidence that American cancer rates are going through the roof. In fact, it's absolutely nothing that has caused the spike. At least, that's what stupid fucking science has told us thus far. Just stack your pharmaceuticals and radiate parts of your body until they fall off and shut your crazy mouth already.
None of these address what is for me the most troubling aspects of GMO crops, which are ecological and economic.
I guess for some reason you assume the only objections to GMO crops are that they are bad for you, that's just not the case.
I'm not saying that any given GMO crop is automatically bad, but the larger picture of their development and implementation has some seriously troubling aspects which you seem determined to ignore.
There is no data in the scientific literature supporting direct or indirect damage to bees caused by currently approved GM crops engineered to make Bt proteins. For example, in 2008 a meta-analysis[150] of 25 independent studies assessing effects of Bt Cry proteins on honeybee survival (mortality) showed that Bt proteins used in commercialized GE crops to control lepidopteran and coleopteran pests do not negatively impact the survival of honeybee larvae or adults. Additionally, larvae consume only a small percent of their protein from pollen, and there is also a lack of geographic correlation between GM crop locations and regions where CCD occurs.[151]
I'm trying man. I really am. Do you have a link to any actual scientific studies that back up this bee claim? Google results are nothing but psuedoscientific crankery. Give me the good shit.
None of these address what is for me the most troubling aspects of GMO crops, which are ecological and economic.
I guess for some reason you assume the only objections to GMO crops are that they are bad for you, that's just not the case.
I'm not saying that any given GMO crop is automatically bad, but the larger picture of their development and implementation has some seriously troubling aspects which you seem determined to ignore.
No, the only scaremongering I've heard about GMOs is that they are bad for you or will give you cancer or whatever. I've never heard of the ecological and economic dangers. So tell me about it. I'm not determined to ignore anything. You have my full attention.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
The worst one to me is how Monsanto's gmo strains cross-pollinate any adjacent organic crops against the will of the organic farmers and then Monsanto is able to claim AND gain ownership of those organic crops as they start to take on the characteristics of the gmo strains. Total fuckery, but just keep on feeding your family with it.
It seems levelheaded because it confirms what I already believe! Yay!
I don't expect anybody to go through and read any of these links that I only skimmed and then linked to. And when you post a bunch of links that contradicts the article linked here I will only barely skim that too. Because I'm lazy I will always go with what the scientific majority says.
Could they be wrong? Of course! But the only way to disprove science is with more science, until the scientific majority finally becomes convinced that they were wrong, and which time I would once again, lazily just agree with whatever the consensus amongst actual scientists is.
I just don't have the time. I'm busy. I let the scientists do the science-ing and accept whatever the consensus is. Because until it can be proven that there is a better method than the scientific method for learning about nature, the universe, and how it all works, I'm going to stick with science. If you can find an alternative method that makes planes fly and puts men on the moon and splits atoms and cures diseases then I'm all ears. Until then I would say the scientific method has a pretty good track record, so I'll stick with that one, thanks.
uh, I just typed a whole bunch of shit only to delete it... just one small, condensed point: This genetic engineering will lead to a point where anybody who wants to compete with their produce on the world market will have to use this shit. Monsanto will earn money from every producer cause they have the "copyright" to these plants. They will literally make billions on the backs of the poorest countries of this world and help making sure these countries stay where they are: at the bottom.
And yeah, I also totally agree with Harv's last post.
The worst one to me is how Monsanto's gmo strains cross-pollinate any adjacent organic crops against the will of the organic farmers and then Monsanto is able to claim AND gain ownership of those organic crops as they start to take on the characteristics of the gmo strains. Total fuckery, but just keep on feeding your family with it.
You would have to be a nutso, batshit crazy, conspiracy theorist to believe this.
Or you could just read the business section of the newspaper and see that it is true.
And is perhaps unaware that many of the top positions in the EPA, FDA on other regulatory bodies are or have been held by former (and future) execs from Monsanto, Dupont etc.
OK.....Maybe scientists are not being honest about GMO crops because there are billions of dollars to be made, but they are definitely telling the truth about Man-Made Global Warming.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Rockadelic said:
OK.....Maybe scientists are not being honest about GMO crops because there are billions of dollars to be made, but they are definitely telling the truth about Man-Made Global Warming.
And thus, there must be man on every planet in our solar system.
OK.....Maybe scientists are not being honest about GMO crops because there are billions of dollars to be made, but they are definitely telling the truth about Man-Made Global Warming.
OK.....Maybe scientists are not being honest about GMO crops because there are billions of dollars to be made, but they are definitely telling the truth about Man-Made Global Warming.
I thought you finally conceded man made global warming.
No one here says that scientists are lying.
The scientists are saying that GMOs have not been shown to be harmful to human health. Which is true.
OK.....Maybe scientists are not being honest about GMO crops because there are billions of dollars to be made, but they are definitely telling the truth about Man-Made Global Warming.
smh
As someone who has worked in the science field for 30 years I can assure you that in 2014 science is bought and paid for just like politicians.
The great majority of scientists are paid and/or funded by corporations and government agencies.
And none of these sponsors are going to pay for science that contradicts their agenda.
And that agenda always involves lining someone's pockets with cash.
And when a majority of scientists all agree, it becomes fact, because we leave it up to the scientists to do all that complicated science stuff.
And when a scientist speaks out against a well sponsored agenda they are ostracized, de-funded or fired.
Scientists still have to produce results that can be verified.
Even at Monsanto and big Pharm, scientists some times end up with results that mean that products never get to market.
Hey, whatever keeps peoples' principles and barbs on a sliding scale.
HarveyCanal said:
Grow some good genetics without toxic herbicides and pesticides sprayed all over it, only to be packed down as bricks...and Texas would go back to buying from Mexico instead of from California.
While big oil might still hire some scientists to fuel climate change denial, they don't pay any attention to them.
Instead they listen to real climate scientists who are doing independent research.
As someone who has worked in the science field for 30 years I can assure you that in 2014 science is bought and paid for just like politicians.
The great majority of scientists are paid and/or funded by corporations and government agencies.
And none of these sponsors are going to pay for science that contradicts their agenda.
And that agenda always involves lining someone's pockets with cash.
And when a majority of scientists all agree, it becomes fact, because we leave it up to the scientists to do all that complicated science stuff.
And when a scientist speaks out against a well sponsored agenda they are ostracized, de-funded or fired.
As someone living in Canada under the current regime, I know all about govt' suppression of good science and paying off scientists for specific results.
I agree with everything you wrote.
But, if you don't believe current climate change issues are linked to human activity, then...not sure what else to say.
As someone who has worked in the science field for 30 years I can assure you that in 2014 science is bought and paid for just like politicians.
The great majority of scientists are paid and/or funded by corporations and government agencies.
And none of these sponsors are going to pay for science that contradicts their agenda.
And that agenda always involves lining someone's pockets with cash.
And when a majority of scientists all agree, it becomes fact, because we leave it up to the scientists to do all that complicated science stuff.
And when a scientist speaks out against a well sponsored agenda they are ostracized, de-funded or fired.
As someone living in Canada under the current regime, I know all about govt' suppression of good science and paying off scientists for specific results.
I agree with everything you wrote.
But, if you don't believe current climate change issues are linked to human activity, then...not sure what else to say.
Climate change can not be denied, after all, it's been going as long as this planet has existed.
Have humans contributed to this climate change in some way since they appeared on the planet?....no doubt.
I do believe however that those human contributions and the proposed "solutions" have been greatly exaggerated.
At best this was done to get people's attention and at worst it was done to line people's pockets with cash.
The former is not how true science works and the latter is a fact.
And let's face it, what kind of inhumane person would NOT want to save the planet for the children.
And even if it is exaggerated, these actions can't hurt, so why not do them even if we have been lied to...it's for our own good.
And when the next inevitable Ice Age is upon us do what Al Gore would do, invest in ice skates.
Even at Monsanto and big Pharm, scientists some times end up with results that mean that products never get to market.
Yep....know what those are called.....business decisions.
Exactly.
Their work is still trial and error, not trial and success.
The trick is to fail as quickly as possible.
I said this before, but I will say it again.
Double blind laboratory studies are great.
But once a product gets to market it begins a large scale, multi year, experiment.
Many products that appeared safe in the lab are proven unsafe in the real world.
That is why we have trial lawyers.
And none of these sponsors are going to pay for science that contradicts their agenda.
None of them? Not one?
So, everyone is corrupt, huh? Every scientist that participates, too?
Wow. That's amazing.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
cove said:
But, if you don't believe current climate change issues are linked to human activity, then...not sure what else to say.
Can you say why the same degree of climate change is happening on all the other planets in our solar system?
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Frank said:
Ahem...
HarveyCanal said:
Hey, whatever keeps peoples' principles and barbs on a sliding scale.
HarveyCanal said:
Grow some good genetics without toxic herbicides and pesticides sprayed all over it, only to be packed down as bricks...and Texas would go back to buying from Mexico instead of from California.
Not sure the sliding scale here. I prefer organic food and organic weed.
Comments
None of these address what is for me the most troubling aspects of GMO crops, which are ecological and economic.
I guess for some reason you assume the only objections to GMO crops are that they are bad for you, that's just not the case.
I'm not saying that any given GMO crop is automatically bad, but the larger picture of their development and implementation has some seriously troubling aspects which you seem determined to ignore.
There is no data in the scientific literature supporting direct or indirect damage to bees caused by currently approved GM crops engineered to make Bt proteins. For example, in 2008 a meta-analysis[150] of 25 independent studies assessing effects of Bt Cry proteins on honeybee survival (mortality) showed that Bt proteins used in commercialized GE crops to control lepidopteran and coleopteran pests do not negatively impact the survival of honeybee larvae or adults. Additionally, larvae consume only a small percent of their protein from pollen, and there is also a lack of geographic correlation between GM crop locations and regions where CCD occurs.[151]
But of course that's wikipedia, so the sources must be checked. The first source isn't online so I can't check that. The second source is from here:
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.arplant.043008.092013?journalCode=arplant
But the abstract doesn't mention bees.
So....
I clicked on the first link that came up on google that says GMOs are dangerous to bees:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/death-of-the-bees-genetically-modified-crops-and-the-decline-of-bee-colonies-in-north-america/25950
This is a ridiculous article. So I looked at the about section and this website describes itself as "major news source on the New World Order" and "focus has essentially been to center on the ÔÇ£unspoken truthÔÇØ. So it is a conspiracy theory site.
Next link says GMO plants don't harm bees
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/5-things-that-probably-arent-killing-honeybees-and-1-thing-that
OK that's fine but I want to hear from something that actually has real evidence.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_29307.cfm
This says that GMO is bad for bees but doesn't cite any actual scientific studies that studied the effects of GMOs on bees.
I'm trying man. I really am. Do you have a link to any actual scientific studies that back up this bee claim? Google results are nothing but psuedoscientific crankery. Give me the good shit.
No, the only scaremongering I've heard about GMOs is that they are bad for you or will give you cancer or whatever. I've never heard of the ecological and economic dangers. So tell me about it. I'm not determined to ignore anything. You have my full attention.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/04/30/the-politics-of-bees-turns-science-on-its-head-europe-bans-neonics-while-local-beekeepers-scientists-say-action-is-precipitous/
It seems levelheaded because it confirms what I already believe! Yay!
I don't expect anybody to go through and read any of these links that I only skimmed and then linked to. And when you post a bunch of links that contradicts the article linked here I will only barely skim that too. Because I'm lazy I will always go with what the scientific majority says.
Could they be wrong? Of course! But the only way to disprove science is with more science, until the scientific majority finally becomes convinced that they were wrong, and which time I would once again, lazily just agree with whatever the consensus amongst actual scientists is.
I just don't have the time. I'm busy. I let the scientists do the science-ing and accept whatever the consensus is. Because until it can be proven that there is a better method than the scientific method for learning about nature, the universe, and how it all works, I'm going to stick with science. If you can find an alternative method that makes planes fly and puts men on the moon and splits atoms and cures diseases then I'm all ears. Until then I would say the scientific method has a pretty good track record, so I'll stick with that one, thanks.
And yeah, I also totally agree with Harv's last post.
You would have to be a nutso, batshit crazy, conspiracy theorist to believe this.
Or you could just read the business section of the newspaper and see that it is true.
I never once talked about the harms to human health. Yet that is all you are talking about.
It is easy to see that you have strong held beliefs on the issue. That is a good thing.
But your beliefs are preventing you from seeing the facts.
Here's plenty of science on the harmful ecological effects of GMOs:
http://environmentalcommons.org/gmo-impacts.html
Here's some more:
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/
Well, nevermind then. I'm convinced.
And thus, there must be man on every planet in our solar system.
smh
I thought you finally conceded man made global warming.
No one here says that scientists are lying.
The scientists are saying that GMOs have not been shown to be harmful to human health. Which is true.
As someone who has worked in the science field for 30 years I can assure you that in 2014 science is bought and paid for just like politicians.
The great majority of scientists are paid and/or funded by corporations and government agencies.
And none of these sponsors are going to pay for science that contradicts their agenda.
And that agenda always involves lining someone's pockets with cash.
And when a majority of scientists all agree, it becomes fact, because we leave it up to the scientists to do all that complicated science stuff.
And when a scientist speaks out against a well sponsored agenda they are ostracized, de-funded or fired.
Even at Monsanto and big Pharm, scientists some times end up with results that mean that products never get to market.
Instead they listen to real climate scientists who are doing independent research.
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/02/windfall_mckenzie_funk_describes_the_business_of_climate_change.html
As someone living in Canada under the current regime, I know all about govt' suppression of good science and paying off scientists for specific results.
I agree with everything you wrote.
But, if you don't believe current climate change issues are linked to human activity, then...not sure what else to say.
Yep....know what those are called.....business decisions.
Climate change can not be denied, after all, it's been going as long as this planet has existed.
Have humans contributed to this climate change in some way since they appeared on the planet?....no doubt.
I do believe however that those human contributions and the proposed "solutions" have been greatly exaggerated.
At best this was done to get people's attention and at worst it was done to line people's pockets with cash.
The former is not how true science works and the latter is a fact.
And let's face it, what kind of inhumane person would NOT want to save the planet for the children.
And even if it is exaggerated, these actions can't hurt, so why not do them even if we have been lied to...it's for our own good.
And when the next inevitable Ice Age is upon us do what Al Gore would do, invest in ice skates.
Exactly.
Their work is still trial and error, not trial and success.
The trick is to fail as quickly as possible.
I said this before, but I will say it again.
Double blind laboratory studies are great.
But once a product gets to market it begins a large scale, multi year, experiment.
Many products that appeared safe in the lab are proven unsafe in the real world.
That is why we have trial lawyers.
And that's.... OK,,..... because i'm good enough and i'm smart enough and doggonit people like me
And you base this on what, exactly?
None of them? Not one?
So, everyone is corrupt, huh? Every scientist that participates, too?
Wow. That's amazing.
Can you say why the same degree of climate change is happening on all the other planets in our solar system?
Not sure the sliding scale here. I prefer organic food and organic weed.