On Sep 2, 4:19=A0pm, Billy wrote more stupid crap.
Ok,billy, it=92s the fourth sophist plug in as many weeks now. But let=92s get the usual ad hominem out of the way first ok? You have proved yet again your still a lying asshole. You never killfiled me as you so often like to boast your false bravado. Everyone here knows your ego could not stand not knowing when you get caught in your web of lies. Plus you never read your own BS! Your old propaganda tricks you learned in your draft dodging days are needing a make over there slick! BTW billy, you wouldn't know a Gunner from a Gunny, asshole. Pretend all you want that you were on a noble anti everything mission to enlighten and save us from ourselves, but we all know you=92re just suffering from phthalate syndrome and a chicken shit wannabe as well. Now days your just some old tired ass diabetic with a bad heart and a drug addled brain swapping tall tales w/ Walter Mitty in Life=92s waiting room. Doom and Gloom, billy that=92s all ya got; doom and gloom. Funny how you still want to tell folks how to save a world you've never seen except in NatGeo and now days, on the Internet. Luckily there are better men than you in this world to keep ignorance at bay. I do have to say that 7 points would put you within grasp of the =93average=94 group of Caliphonies. So I can see that would be important to you to have an excuse for your ignorance.
Ok, so now we have that out of the way. You seem to be using the same lame rhetorical propaganda crap to cover your tracks as you always do. Let=92s turn your little trick around. Why don=92t you tell us what the optimum level of organophosphate since you pretended to have read the studies? Hummmmm? Ask the songbirds they use it. Betting you have also. Personally I=92m betting you just picked up another BS subterfuge article off the ECONUT wire service that you never read. You have too many NG fights going to keep your lies straight billy and yet you still try to bring your political BS into gardening. How much does your PAC pay you?
As I have proven so many times now you never were one for reading much past the title of the eco propaganda rags but instead lauding some book writer for the pseudo science used to sell his version of doom and gloom. Never reading anything that challenges your stupid think.
Don't know for certain but I believe most women in the "present study were Spanish speaking, were born in Mexico, lived in farmworker households, did not complete high school, and had a family income below the U.S. poverty threshold (table 1), 44% of mothers performed agricultural work during their pregnancy." I wonder what the socio- economic conditions of the 7 YO kids were as they grew up? Don't think the IQ tests were all conducted in Spanish but admitted the results were adjusted for bias, whatever that really means? So the study =93may suggest=94 all those 329 or 298 or 297 ( pick your test in the Berkley study) migrant kids have lower IQs than their peers(?) because of =93chemicals=94 and we can extrapolate this =93data=94 to be indicative of all kids in farming households across America having lower IQs than their peers =85 WTH, let=92s just say the world?
(BTW, Any bets kids in Oakland would test positive in some degree for THC contamination this weekend, hummmmmm? For sure Mendocino and Humboldt, huh. Pick your toxins well old boy new science allows us to detect things we never could before, nor do we know what this all means. I believe even you were squawking recently about an Eco group headlining finding 232 =93chemicals=94 in newborns which I believe you attempted to allude to as evil pesticides. But alas, we split hairs)
Using your cherry picked data, we can assume all the kids in the American Bread Basket , where they use so much more pesticide than you Califonies, to test on par with your kids in Salinas, adjusted for bias of course? Regardless, let=92s put IQ in some sort of perspective shall we? First by country:
formatting link
now by state:
formatting link
. Granted these are only 2004-2006 data but still a good snapshot to put the Berkley study in perspective. BTW, you did catch the part on post natal in her paper didn=92t ya? That part kinda got glossed over. You and the songbirds should be OK with your using OP.
Yet, how bias is using =93adjusted bias=94 in IQ tests, especially on a group of kids living in migrant camps, flying under the radar, moving with the seasons, isolated, doing big peoples chores instead of playing, having stick toys instead of gameboys. IQ tests certainly do not factor all the socio-economic conditions to prove your latest doom and gloom ploy. Not a very strong dissertation in my opinion. But hey, you grasp all those straws you need and defend your BS beliefs all you want, It is billy BS after all and you=92ve certainly proven your at least 7 points within the norm in CA.
No, billy boy, your little group of backyardigans singing =94We are the World=94 isn=92t going to feed the world and certainly it isn=92t going to save it from a lying sophist like billy et. al.
Keep picking those cherries you old fart.
( same old tired ass schizophrenic political propaganda snipped)