Stick a fork in Monsanto...

Page 3 of 3  
On 2/15/2015 8:27 AM, Mayayana wrote:

We might be related. I was just going to write that about you!
- . Christopher A. Young learn more about Jesus . www.lds.org . .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/15/2015 7:27 AM, Mayayana wrote:

It's not difficult at all. She's writing on topics completely unrelated to her area of expertise. To put it in layman's terms, it's as if a physical therapist was claiming to be an electrician. Doesn't matter how good a physical therapist she is, it *doesn't* mean she's qualified on anything to do with electricity.
Here's an excerpt from a Science Blogs post dismissing her crankery:
...So what we have here is a computer scientist interested in artificial intelligence who thinks she can switch her expertise to medicine, biology, and epidemiology. Let’s just put it this way. An undergraduate degree in biophysics in 1968 does not qualify one to do this sort of research, and, as I discussed in her foray into autism and vaccine epidemiology, it really does show. Badly...The bottom line is that the crank magnetism is strong in Dr. Seneff. She’s antivaccine and anti-GMO. She is full of Dunning-Kruger, thinking that she can transfer her computer science and artificial intelligence knowledge to knowledge of epidemiology, biochemistry, and medicine. She can’t. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/12/31/oh-no-gmos-are-going-to-make-everyone-autistic/
As Orac and his commenters point out in the article above, using Stephanie's correlationusation claim (which is laughably bad science), you can even link the rise in autism to the increased consumption of organic foods and the use of disposable diapers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| It's not difficult at all. She's writing on topics completely | unrelated to her area of expertise.
Yes. She's reviewing studies and making her own commentary. I reserve judgement, but it does seem questionable. On the other hand, if someone is trained in scientific methods I don't see any reason they can't wander into other fields. The issue is more one of personal territory than expertise. There's the question of how biologists will save face if a computer scientist finds holes in their research. (Interestingly, there's a similar case with another computer scientist: Bill Gates, whose expertise is computers, law and making money, now markets himself as an uber-genius who knows best about everything from medicine to education, while an adoring and uncritical press repeatedly gives his pronouncements coverage, with nary a question as to his qualifications. It's an odd thing that we tend to associate great wealth, which is rarely amassed honestly, with great intelligence.)
More importantly, Seneff's work is being used here simply as an excuse to dismiss GMOs: Seneff may be a quack, therefore doubts about GMOs are quackery. That's classic ostrich logic.
The only goal is to find any old excuse to keep one's head in the sand. If it appears generally scientific then all the better. It's not as though Stormin Mormon was presenting a critique of Seneff. It never crossed his mind to think about the topic at all. (Which was why I suggested such a novel idea. :)
If you'll recall, the original issue was about the possible problems with GMOs. The patent problem is a big one that gets ignored completely. That alone, to my mind, is reason enough to avoid them. The other obvious problem is health concerns. It's not that GMOs per se are toxic. That's a red herring way of defining the issue that's used by the GMO proponents. They prefer to frame the issue as one of toxicity in hopes that specific GMOs can be "proved" safe and the question thereby settled in one fell swoop.
In the case of Roundup Ready seeds the problem should be obvious. The whole point of that GMO is to allow increased use of herbicide. So with Roundup Ready, specifically, there are two big issues combining to make Monsanto grain a threat to the food supply as well as to farmers. Their patent and the increased toxins.
In the case of apples that don't turn brown, the GMO will only allow for apples left sitting out for hours. In the case of tomatoes that are deep, ketchup red despite being incapable of proper ripening, the GMO is a dishonest marketing trick. Why defend such things?
In the course of this Rush Limbaugh sing-a-long masquerading as a discussion, as so often happens, the issues have taken a back seat to thoughtless side-taking. But if we even just look at the safety of Monsanto's RR, setting aside the patent issue, is there a reason for concern? Common sense says that we don't want to use more chemicals unnecessarily. If I have a choice between organic corn, normal corn, or RR corn, I know starting out that RR corn is almost certain to have more Roundup residue, so why would I eat it? (And that's not even getting into the question of whether the glyphosate research can be trusted. There are billions of dollars at stake, so trusting the research is questionable.)
There have also been questions about the additives used in Roundup: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/
Amazing that it's taken 40 years for anyone to even think to look at Roundup itself, and not just glyphosate, don't you think? (It's probably not an accident that the people who finally did think to look are not Americans. A lot of American research is funded by the US gov't. If scientists want to get funding it's probably wise not to apply for money to do research that might threaten American corporate interests.)
Do you really think it's reactive and irrational to avoid excess chemical toxins in our food? Perhaps many would also dismiss Scientific American as a mouthpiece of their favorite bogeyman, "them libs". Unfortunately, as far as I know, while Rush Limbaugh is undoubtedly qualified to assess herbicide toxicity, I'm not aware of any Roundup studies that he's done. So we'll just have to settle for scientists. :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 9:14:18 AM UTC-5, Mayayana wrote:

I'm an electrical engineer. Would you like to hear my opinion about God particles and dark matter if I wander into theoretical physics? I can cite you many cases where even Nobel prize winners made asses of themselves and became totally discredite by wandering into other fields.
The issue is more one of

There you go again, with yet another outrageous smear, which isn't true. As to what Bill Gates is doing these days, I'd say the broad charitable issues he's involved with, eg helping with AIDS in Africa, don't require specific scientific knowledge. If anything, his experience successfully running a huge worldwide organization, brings direct relevant experience to much of what he's involved with now. There is a difference in helping fund AIDS treatment, advocating systems that work, etc and proclaiming to know what goes on at the molecular level with the AIDS virus.

Well, if an elephant shows up in the room, people tend to talk about the elephant. On the other hand, we have only the elephant to talk about, because that's all that has been brought here.
The only goal is to find any old excuse to keep one's

There we go again. You talk about Stormin not listening, but what about you. I told you that having patent protection on new varieties is *not* unique to whether GMO was used. The Haas avocado that's in your local supermarket was pattented in the 1930s. Rutgers and other universtities have been protecting their new varieties for decades. If they couldn't and any yahoo could start growing, selling them, there would be no incentive to invest the millions that it takes to do the development. Yet, here you are, pretending this issue is unique to GMO. You're really making libs look bad.
The other obvious problem is health

Another outrageous lie. Even you acknowledged that the anti-GMO crowd is worried about GMO safety in and of itself. The countries that banned them, did so over alleged health concerns about the GMO itself. Now you want to pretend that it's the people who think GMO is safe that are claiming this?

Their patent just sticks in your craw because you're a hippie lib and refuse to learn. See the avocado example.

Because I like most people prefer apples that don't turn brown and tomatoes that have good color, taste good, etc.

Wow, when did Rush show up? Is Obama here too?
as so often happens, the issues have taken a

Obviously, because I've demolished that patent BS days ago, yet here you are bringing it up again.
But if we even just look

I think the farmers can figure that out. Seems to me that it would be pretty dumb to pay more for Monsanto seed and the glyphosate if it didn't produce positive results.
If I have a

No one said you had to eat it. The problem is you think we should ban it so no one can have it. There is a difference.
(And that's not even getting into

On that basis let's chuck just about all research on everything.

What they looked at was the inert ingredient, ie the surfactant, that's added not only to Roundup, but many other herbicides, insecticides too. I guess since it just makes the product stick better, it wasn't high on anyone's list.
(It's probably not an accident that the

Sure, in the USA there has been plenty of research on glyphosate, but they specifically didn't fund any research on the inert ingredient because of some conspiracy?

Rush? Rush is in the house? If we listen to the extremist environmentalists, no level of virtually anything is tolerable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

    No they wont. Only the ones that can afford expensive therapy will be called autistic. The rest will be labelled "bored".     []'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.