Stick a fork in Monsanto...

Page 2 of 3  


You STILL have not established that a study in 1993 is wrong, or superceded by information from a better study. What's wrong with a study from 1993?

That's your claim, and not relevant to this issue.

How the F do you know what I recognized? I recognized that you are using 1993 as if it somehow implies the study is flawed. That's just wrong, so I had no reason to look any more than I did.

Please try to stay on subject.

Really, answering a question is cherry picking? How does that work?

Yes, unreasoning fear.

If you think the EPA only considers cost of remediation you are completely wrong. If the amount of mercury in Tuna was thought to be causing harm, Tuna would be banned.
The EPA does give some cautions:
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/advisories.htm
Fish Consumption Advice
To enjoy the benefits of eating fish while minimizing exposure to mercury, you should:
eat mainly types of fish low in mercury, and limit your consumption of types of fish with typically higher levels of mercury.
Fish are important in a healthy diet. They are a lean, low-calorie source of protein. However, some fish may contain methylmercury or other harmful chemicals at sufficiently high levels to be a concern.

And you appear to be, and the best you come up with is 1993. What's the problem with a study from 1993? Do you have a subsequent study that gives a different result? You haven't posted it, so all I can conclude is that your mind is already made up and you'll try any tactic to try to confirm your beliefs.
If 1993 is the best you can come up with then I was fine assuming that since the article was full of references it wasn't somebody pulling information out of the air.

Like I said, unreasoning fear.

Still not making the slightest bit of sense. The thread is about GMOs. Someone else made comments about Roundup. I looked it up, trimmed the post down to only the part I was replying to and replied with a credible source.
Cherry picking? Not in the least.

Tuna is a fish, not a nut.
I don't eat any kind of fish, I don't like the taste of fish.

Yeah, citing information is a common tactic of a hot head.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| You STILL have not established that a study in 1993 | is wrong, or superceded by information from a better study. | What's wrong with a study from 1993? | And you still haven't even looked at the document you're referencing as evidence! It's not a study. It's a 22 year old EPA fact sheet -- the official EPA position on glyphosate. Don't you think a fact sheet on one of the most popular agricultural toxins should maybe be updated more often than 22+ years?
| > It was a similar case to what you did in the | > other thread, where you referenced a study | > claiming 80% of people think DNA should be | > banned from foods. It turned out that the study | > was a sham defense of GMOs perpetrated by | > a college in farm country. | | That's your claim, and not relevant to this issue. |
Yes, it's my claim. You could check it out for yourself if you take the trouble to read the study you're referencing. Comically, it also happens to be the claim of the man writing the blog that you linked to in the first place:
http://tumblr.benlillie.com/post/108569325062/do-80-of-americans-not-know-theres-dna-in-food
(de-obfuscated link)
He linked to the sham study that you never read. You also clearly didn't read the blog post you linked. Not really. Part of his point is that people were spreading around a misleading number about the DNA question. You came across the blog post and proceeded to do exactly what he was talking about: You saw fuel for the snide dig about public stupidity and ran with it. The real kicker here is that you continue to represent yourself as someone who appreciates and understands science. You're free to have your opinion about GMOs and organic food, but if you're going to pretend it's somehow scientific then you shouldn't be surprised when someone challenges you on it.
| > You not only hadn't | > looked at the actual study. You also didn't | > recognize it when I responded. | | How the F do you know what I recognized?
You said so yourself:
"You appear to have me confused with someone else."
| I recognized that you are using 1993 as if | it somehow implies the study is flawed.
You're mixing up the EPA fact sheet with the sham U of OK study that you originally referenced. Perhaps it would help if you re-read the two threads. You're conflating a number of things. Then you might want to actually read the documents you're offering as evidence.
Essentially you've just thrown in two unexamined monkey wrenches, apparently because concern about GMOs and organic food bugs you. First you made fun of the general public for alleged scientific illiteracy, equating "chemophobia" with stupidity. Now, in this thread, you've thrown in a quote saying glyphosate is safe. In neither case did you even look at, much less consider, the alleged evidence for your statements.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, I quoted Wikipedia, which makes a pretty strong statement that glyphosate is safe to use. I searched in the first place because I had read before that the chemical is considered safe and a poster asked:

So, my reply covered points A & B pretty well I think.
You think there is something wrong with me quoting that section and not reading the 5 documents the article referenced? I didn't follow any of the 3 links in that article either. I'm SOOO guilty.
I offered up the article since I believe it was peer reviewed and represents a consensus.
I didn't even look at the edit history, which I'm sure has been quite active, you'd probably find all kinds of support for your position, whatever it is, in the edit history.
I read the article, and I have some knowledge of how Wikipedia works, and figured the article answered the questions posed.
I disagree that what I did is somehow wrong.
So, now I reviewed all the links. I was going to post about each one, I typed it all in, but I think I'm going to spare everyone...
So, one can drink a significant amount of Roundup and not get real sick. It's not something to spray in the air to keep cool, but spot application on weeds in my yard doesn't sound like a risk.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| > The key issue there would seem to be: | > | > A - Is glyposate at the levels found in foods consumed by people | > a poison? Bleach is a "poison", yet it's added to municipal | > water systems. So is flouride, which is also added to many | > water systems. | > | > B - What amount of glyphosate is left when the crop is consumed? | > And is that level harmful? Crops are sprayed with a variety of | > chemicals prior to harvest, eg insecticides. If that is OK, then | > what is so unique about glyphosate on GMO crops? | | So, my reply covered points A & B pretty well I think. |
Except that glyphosate wasn't the issue being discussed. GMOs was. You picked a post from someone who doesn't understand -- and doesn't want to understand -- the threat of GMOs. But I think we've pretty much wrung that one dry, anyway. Your "scientific" opinion is that all GMOs are healthy to eat so long as you don't think about it and keep jogging. So... bon appetit.
| So, one can drink a significant amount of Roundup and | not get real sick. It's not something to spray in the air to keep | cool, but spot application on weeds in my yard doesn't sound like a | risk.
Which has nothing to do with the implications of GMOs. But at least now I see where your view is coming from.
You're spraying toxic chemicals on your own land because you don't feel like bending down to pull weeds? And what are you not risking? Lowering your property values? It sounds to me like you never considered risk in the first place. Nor did you want to, because then you might have to sacrifice some convenience and do yard work.
Presumably you saw TV ads, wherein triumphant homeowners defeated hordes of evil, cartoon weed demons with only a spray bottle, then proceeded to the backyard, superhero style, for a relaxing barbecue, without fear that their loved ones might be attacked by man-eating dandelions or crabgrass monsters. If ads like that work, even on scientific experts like yourself who know what DNA is, then who needs Monsanto lobbying and sham studies? They convinced you to buy and use their toxic chemicals, which you don't need, at your own house, and all it took was cartoon TV ads. I can only hope for your sake that Monsanto doesn't decide to remarket Roundup as a mouthwash or jock itch cure. :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 8:09:42 AM UTC-5, Mayayana wrote:

Say what? Did someone hijack your PC and post this:
"Which is what I did, as I explained. I went to EPA and downloaded their PDF info file on glyphosate -- the one that *you* referenced in your posted quote. It's dated 1993. "
There you are, discussing glyphosate.
But

It's not just his scientific opinion. It's the opinion of most of the scientific community. You haven't provided us with a single study that says GMO is harmful.

It does address glyphosate though, which *you* were discussing. Good grief.

Now the loony birds are really starting to sing. I'd like to see you pull weeds on a large area. Not everyone has just a 5ft x 5 area to deal with, you know.
Presumably you saw TV ads, wherein triumphant

More loon hyperbole. Stop, just stop already. He presented you with what looks like a balanced article at wiki on glyphosate. It has no hysteria and overall the risks from glyphosate appear very low.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Still playing the idiot I see.
I pull plenty of weeds but when it comes to the poison ivy in the pachysandra, I'm going to paint the leaves with Roundup. When it comes to killing the sprouts coming out of a cut down tree stump, I'm still going with Roundup.

You insult me, I'm going to return the favor.
Jerk.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
http://www.anh-usa.org/half-of-all-children-will-be-autistic-by-2025-warns-senior-research-scientist-at-mit/
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 3:47:37 PM UTC-5, Marvel wrote:

Which has exactly what to do with GMO and Monsanto? Good grief. We already have measles breaking out, putting them in the hospital, threatening their lives, because hippie parents don't want to get the kids vaccinated because they think vaccination causes autism. Never mind that the bogus study done a couple decades ago has been thoroughly discredited and that a dozen extensive real studies have shown no linkage.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/14/2015 4:40 PM, trader_4 wrote:

Not going to wade through this but hear it from the horse's mouth:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_AHLDXF5aw&feature=youtu.be

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 9:36:51 AM UTC-5, Frank wrote:

arns-senior-research-scientist-at-mit/

What qualifies this as the horses mouth, as opposed to some other part of the horse? When in the first few minutes, the guy starts talking about Darth Vader in regard to Monsanto, I tend to get a bit suspicious. What qualifications does he have?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_M._Smith
"attended Maharishi University of Management in Fairfield, Iowa in the 1980 s"
That's right, his educational qualification apparently is that he attended the Maharishi Yogi's "university" and note that it does not say he earned any recognized degree. And the "institute" that he is affiliated with, has only one employee, him. Nuff said.
As for the person he's interviewing, again I get suspicious when the host doesn't even attempt to establish the credentials of someone spewing scientific opinions. What are her qualifications?
"Stephanie Seneff is a Senior Research Scientist at the MIT Computer Scienc e and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. She received the B.S. degree in B iophysics in 1968, the M.S. and E.E. degrees in Electrical Engineering in 1 980, and the Ph.D degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1985, all from MIT."
Hardly one that I would trust for opinions on the toxicity of herbicides. The paper he refers to was apparently put up on one of the open web forums, where just about anyone can put up any paper. From what I see, it's not an y recognized, credible peer reviewed journal where scientific studies from real authorities in the field are published.
Just the facts...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/15/2015 10:05 AM, trader_4 wrote:

Yes. I have seen her name before. It is obvious where they are coming from. Comical as when I tell some of the global warming followers that I am a chemist, they discount my opinion, but when folks like these say what they like, they use them as experts.
Just glancing at GMS's I see they have been in use for over 40 years. Probably before some these alarmists were born. Maybe it made them that way ;)
Gotta go now to start removing a couple of inches of global warming off my drive way.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/14/2015 3:47 PM, Marvel wrote:

Is that as accurate as how the polar ice caps are going to melt, and the ocean will be about 400 feet inland from where it was in 1975?
Must be true. BTW, western NY is +4 degrees this morning, with some new snow cover.
- . Christopher A. Young learn more about Jesus . www.lds.org . .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 7:25:26 AM UTC-5, Stormin Mormon wrote:

12 here in NJ, winds 25 gusting to 55 Light snow, probably couple inches actual, hard to tell it's blowing around so much. Going to be -1 tonight
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/15/2015 7:37 AM, trader_4 wrote:

Good day to stay home, and hunker in the bunker. - . Christopher A. Young learn more about Jesus . www.lds.org . .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/15/2015 06:25 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

Are you suggesting the polar ice caps are NOT melting? That would be denying the obvious.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/15/2015 8:03 AM, cjt wrote:

I am suggesting that the polar ice caps are NOT melting.
- . Christopher A. Young learn more about Jesus . www.lds.org . .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 8:03:15 AM UTC-5, cjt wrote:

I think he's suggesting that it's entirely possible they aren't melting. He's not alone:
"It is uncertain, however, whether the world's two major ice sheets-Greenland and Antarctica-have been growing or diminishing"
Where did the above come from? Some junk science, global warming skeptic source? Why no, it's from the USA govt via NASA.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/PolarIce/polar_ice2.php
Just the facts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/15/2015 7:21 AM, trader_4 wrote:

Speaking of facts and NASA:
This is one of the reasons that while both portions of the ice sheet are losing mass, West Antarctica is moving much faster. Recent studies of West Antarctica found that many of the large, fast-moving glaciers there are in an irreversible decline. https://blogs.nasa.gov/icebridge/
NASA Finds Thickest Parts of Arctic Ice Cap Melting Faster GREENBELT, Md. -- A new NASA study revealed that the oldest and thickest Arctic sea ice is disappearing at a faster rate than the younger and thinner ice at the edges of the Arctic Ocean’s floating ice cap. The thicker ice, known as multi-year ice, survives through the cyclical summer melt season, when young ice that has formed over winter just as quickly melts again. The rapid disappearance of older ice makes Arctic sea ice even more vulnerable to further decline in the summer, said Joey Comiso, senior scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., and author of the study, which was recently published in Journal of Climate. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/thick-melt.html
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release 14-148 A new study by researchers at NASA and the University of California, Irvine, finds a rapidly melting section of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appears to be in an irreversible state of decline, with nothing to stop the glaciers in this area from melting into the sea. The study presents multiple lines of evidence, incorporating 40 years of observations that indicate the glaciers in the Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica "have passed the point of no return," according to glaciologist and lead author Eric Rignot, of UC Irvine and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. The new study has been accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/global_ice_viewer
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| Is that as accurate as how the polar ice | caps are going to melt, and the ocean | will be about 400 feet inland from where | it was in 1975? |
You'll never know if you just filter the news for what you want to hear. Why not read it yourself and think for yourself? The author is controversial. She's actually an MIT computer scientist with minor biology background who simply reads studies and assesses them.
It's hard to tell whether her work is valid, partly because it would require a lot of work. I came across a paper she wrote on statins but didn't know what to make of it. There's just too much technical terminology that I don't understand. She seems to be writing something like a commentary to the people in the field. Many of her peers seem to reject her work. Then again, they would. Anyone coming up with new theories who doesn't have a place in the established hierarchy is bound to be shouted down. (For that matter, *anyone* coming up with a new theory, even if they are part of the hierarchy, is likely to be shouted down.)
On the other hand, I found an interview of her on alternet.org. She's not boastful and does not misrepresent herself. She doesn't come across as a quack. (She's not making far out, untestable, New Age claims, like saying that she can send dead people to Heaven by baptizing them "in absentia", or that she got The Ten Commandments "two point oh" from an Italian angel whom she met in her backyard. She's only saying she thinks GMOs are related to rising autism rates. :)
Anyway, how do you know the polar ice caps are *not* going to melt? There are fossil forests under the snow in Antarctica and the midwest is thought to have once been an inland sea. Isn't it possible that there's some truth in the global warming research and that the Earth is warming quickly? Maybe it's not even long term. Maybe humans are not doing it. But you just reject the whole shebang as not in accord with your world view. Ditto with GMOs. Your view is always the one that says there's nothing to be concerned about. You're a habitual naysayer simply because you don't want to have any open questions in your life. If you actually looked into what you talk about and gave it some thought then people might find your statements worth hearing. Instead you just make glib digs, trying to devalue what others say.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 8:23:47 AM UTC-5, Mayayana wrote: .

The actual data, which the big global warming proponents came up with, is that the earth has warmed about 1C in the last century. For the last 15 years, it's been going sideways. That would seem to put to rest the idea that the earth is currently warming rapidly. Just the fact that the global warming experts, with all their predictive models, that claim we're headed for doom, didn't tell us 15 or 10 or even 5 years ago, that it would be going sideways for a long period, should give everyone reason to question what's going on. Of course, now that it's going sideways for 15 years, instead of rising, now they have all kinds of explanations, excuses, etc for it, *after* the fact.
Maybe it's not even long term. Maybe

One has nothing to do with the other. The overwhelming scientific community agrees that GMOs are not harmful. You've been here for a week now, claiming that GMOs are unsafe to eat, yet I haven't seen one actual study produced that shows that.

He kind of does a good job of it. He says the global ice caps aren't melting. Even NASA says they aren't sure. How's that for a good source? Are they blinded global warming ignoramuses too?
"It is uncertain, however, whether the world's two major ice sheets-Greenland and Antarctica-have been growing or diminishing"
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/PolarIce/polar_ice2.php
Just the facts....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.