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is wrong, or superceded by information from a better study.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:
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.
| 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| is wrong, or superceded by information from a better study.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:
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.
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
| > 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
Which has nothing to do with the implications
of GMOs. But at least now I see where your view is
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
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. :)
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 9:36:51 AM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
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?:
"attended Maharishi University of Management in Fairfield, Iowa in the 1980
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...
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
Gotta go now to start removing a couple of inches of global warming off
my drive way.
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
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.
Just the facts.
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.
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
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
| 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
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
"It is uncertain, however, whether the world's two major ice sheets-Greenland and Antarctica-have been growing or diminishing"
Just the facts....
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.