Slashdot Mirror

There is a surplus of soybeans, mostly due to subsidies. It's hard to find numbers but this site, https://farm.ewg.org/progdetai... says $35.6 billion over the last 20 odd years. Seems Brazil also subsidizes their soybeans as well. While small compared to other farmers like dairy, who get 73% of their income from subsidies ($22.2 billion in 2015), it still makes a screwed up market with countries like America needing to dump their produce on other countries, countries that are often more fiscally conservative and don't want to borrow large sums of money to compete in the race to the bottom of who can subsidize more.

What you miss is that USA too subsidize massively the dairy product BUT it is hidden in a lot of bills (commodity, crop insurance, disaster programs, ...) and levels (federal, state, ...). It is a mess to better hide the reality from the citizens, otherwise I think that people will disapprove. You can check it on this website (Don't forget to count what cow eat). What Trump asks is just a one-way ticket! When a country with a population 10 times higher is massively subsidize something, you are forced to protect yourself.

(and let's discuss the logic, Canadian are taxing dairy, then I will tax European cars).

Let's talk about dishonesty.

The "active ingredients" being banned also degrade into end products that can mimic hormones, and/or promote skin cancer ( says the Environmental Working Group: https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/... ).

Better for you (and maybe for coral) are sunscreens with mineral filters like zinc oxide or titanium dioxide.

And nobody needs sunscreen over 50SPF, no matter what the manufacturers say. At 50, you're already protecting yourself from the sun AND the moon ('cuz you have equivalent-hours protection for way more hours than the sun is up).

Why not direct some of your anti-government animus towards companies like Lockheed Martin (a military contractor) that receives almost all of its revenue from the government? Most of the sugar you eat is subsidized by the government through corn subsidies (why do you think it's so cheap?). General Motors would have gone bankrupt if it weren't for government money given after the 2008 crash. And of course the biggest one would be gasoline; fossil fuel companies receive massive direct and indirect government subsidies.

I'll just leave this here. http://www.ewg.org/research/te...

This from their website:
"The federal government funds about 85 percent of our work. The rest is funded internally or by foundations."

So I guess the question is, do you trust the federal government and/or foundations to not be largely controlled by or at least primarily motivated to protect the interests of Monsanto et al?
Given that we grow so much corn that we literally have to find new ways to use it,
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/...
  yet massive federal corn subsidies are still in place,
https://farm.ewg.org/progdetai...
it really does make you wonder.

Exactly! Our microbiomes are the new frontier of health for all sorts of things, obesity being number one for the general western population.

It's only a matter of time, and IP law, that engineered bacteria will be sold as designer probiotics to counter all sorts of maladies. Could we easily create a grassroots organization to distribute colon flora? Sure! But the fat, sterile westerners will say "Ew, gross!", but happily pay for Monsanto Microbiome Enhancement Plus for a premium. (it's a fictional drug to counter the bacterial imbalance created by eating processed, industrialized food.)

Just as the finding of lead in our environment is bad for humans, perhaps so will antibiotics from medicines to soaps, along with polymers such as BPA (commonly found in most thermal paper receipts that people handle on a daily basis), be found to cause harm to our microbiome.

If you count cells in the human body, there are more bacterial cells than human cells; of course the human cells are much larger, but human individuals are complex organisms living with lots of other living "things".

require fewer pesticides

Sadly, no.

http://static.ewg.org/agmag/pd...

And choice when it comes to our sugar, and that Joey Naylor, that is the definition of liberty.

I wish business and government would not collude to deny me the right to choose what I want to buy, e.g., sugar subsidies, tobacco subsidies, ObamaCare subsidies, etc.

Billionaire farmers on welfare

Here is data for those Pink John Deer driving welfare queens in California

And here is more on how California Farmers should have the Fox News assholes in a tizzy if they weren't tools

Billionaire farmers on welfare

Here is data for those Pink John Deer driving welfare queens in California

And here is more on how California Farmers should have the Fox News assholes in a tizzy if they weren't tools

When you tell me something is important to you, I say, "Oh? Show me your budget -- I'll show you what's important to you."

Meanwhile, between 1995 and 2012, America spent $84.4 billion on corn subsidies.

Third, how long would such a subsidy last? If algae oil sold for $40 a barrel, how many years and how many dollars would the government spend?

Given past track records, just about forever.

Especially if any part of it slips into the Department of Agriculture.
Their subsidies never die.

3. I'd also like the see the footprints of more foods. There's probably a 10x, if not 100x, difference between the highest and lowest foods, and as you say, we don't all eat just asparagus.

Scroll down about four panels: http://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/at-a-glance-brochure/

Because a study of those chemicals was recently completed, and guess what? She was right and they're really harmful to humans. California is now overhauling their rules on use of the stuff...

Also, in a proper free market, producers would have to pay for the externalities. Use of common resources - e.g. aquifers - must be paid for properly.

Farmers get susidized water from the Federal Government.
Here's one proposal on how to limit those subsidies to the smaller farms that actually need it,
instead of feeding Big Agribusiness' bottom line: http://www.ewg.org/release/feingold-bill-would-limit-subsidies-rich-corporate-farms

Right, but things like this make me doubt the 'scientific consensus':

It's important to understand the denominator when looking at these kinds of lists. You have 100 people with a PHD that doubt the consensus. Over 34,000 science doctorates are turned out each year. The Intelligent Design people put out these kinds of lists as well. They are meaningless when you consider the denominator.

One series of these e-mails called out the journal Climate Research, which had the audacity to publish a paper surveying scientific literature that didn't support Mann's claim that the last 50 years are the warmest in the past millennium... Editors resigned.

There is a very good reason that they resigned. It became clear that the journal was the victim of 'pal review' - http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=427 . Basically Pat Michaels was submitting papers directly to his CATO institute colleague and free market sympathiser Chris De Fraitas which were then rubber stamped. These papers were easily shown to be bunk and made the journal a laughing stock. The chief editor resigned saying that certain Climate Research editors were systematically publishing methodologically flawed papers.

That article I linked gives an explanation as to how 1) water vapor is far more effective a 'greenhouse gas' than carbon dioxide

This is not unknown to scientists, and is specifically why scientists are worried about Carbon. Added carbon will heat the atmosphere. A warmer atmosphere will hold additional water vapour. Additional water vapour will warm the atmosphere... etc. This is what is known as a feedback. Currently there is about 4% more water vapour in the atmosphere due to atmospheric warming.

and 2) carbon dioxide levels rise after the globe warms up, not before. The argument sounds credible to me.

This is only half true. Carbon levels will rise when the globe warms, but of course it can also rise for other reasons such as the burning of fossil fuels. BTW, a hotter world will release more carbon into the atmosphere which will warm the world... looks like another feedback.

Did you read the Super Freakonomics chapter about global warming? It says that just 20 years ago people were complaining that we were entering a cooling period and we had to do something to warm the globe up.

We have a survey of the literature from over 20 over years ago called the IPCC FAR. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_08.pdf . The conclusion was: "Global mean temperatures have increased by 0.3 - 0.6 C over the last 100 years. The magnitude of this warming is broadly consistent with the theoretical predictions of climate models." Looks like the Freakonomics guys are out to lunch.

Hint: There's a reason people are starting to call it "climate change" now instead of "global warming".

To a scientist these mean different things. They use Climate Change when they are referring to changes in climates, and global warming to refer to the warming of the globe. Politically though it was Republican strategist Frank Luntz who suggested using Climate Change rather than Global Warming because it sounded less scary: http://www.ewg.org/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf

Because stuff like the ClimateGate emails makes it seem like a lot of those 'experts' care more about being right

Science is fiercely competitive. Of course they care about being right. It's a meritocracy.

How about this: establish scientific evidence that fraking is safe BEFORE granting them an immunity from the clean air and water act. And by "safe" I don't mean the way Gulf oil drilling was, followed by "I am sorry we accidentally an ocean-sized ecosystem".

Your point about shooting for a weak goal rather than an impossible goal is also valid, but I think there are some problems with your premises.

Maintaining separation of church and state? Obama not doing so great -- rather than end the Bush system of funneling public money to myth mongers, Obama perpetuates it. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ObamaAnnouncesWhiteHouseOfficeofFaith-basedandNeighborhoodPartnerships

Environmental protection? Obama has kinda sucked, even granting BP special dispensation from various environmental regs just prior to the Deepwater Horizon explosion. Things like not requiring disaster plans and such. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/may2010/gulf-m06.shtml

As for fracking -- has Obama actually done anything to prevent it? No -- instead, he's set up a panel of industry shills which has been roundly criticized by scientists but concluded fracking is safe. http://static.ewg.org/reports/2011/fracking/Scientists_CHU_Letter_SIGNED.pdf

That leaves public education, social service programs, and trickle-down. It's lunch time though and I'm hungry so I'm going to quit googling.

My point is that by voting for Obama, based on the premise that he will do some small good things may not be warranted. Obama is good at saying stuff and making promises, but when it gets down to policies, he's just another republican. Seems to me the better choice, if you are a liberal, is to not vote for a GOP candidate like Obama because you aren't likely to get even the small gains you want and all the while, the neocon agenda will just be further cemented into the new normal.

This ^

Only a damned fool is going to buy stuff made in China. And, only a double damned fool is going to buy food products from China. FFS, did no one's parents teach them about QUALITY?!?!?! WTF are they teaching in home economics today?

Ohhhh - let's say that you want some bottled water to take on a camping trip or something. Where can you learn whether one brand or another is better than the others? How 'bout a google search. Oh, wow, look what I found!

http://www.ewg.org/reports/BottledWater/Bottled-Water-Quality-Investigation

Based on that one report alone, I'd probably be better off allowing the kids to drink from the streams where we camp. Crap, I can just boil the water, and have safer water than I can buy!

Do you think anyone looks at reports like that though? Not only "NO!", but "HELL NO!" People are chumps. They buy that bottled water because some MARKEDROIDS told them to buy it!

Americans are just chumps - no research, no comparison, nothing. Whatever is advertised on television is good enough for them. At the market, whichever brand is cheapest and/or comes in the prettiest package is good enough. DUHHHH.

Hey - if you won't shop intelligently for yourself, or your children, maybe you'll at least treat your dog right.

http://www.dogfoodscoop.com/dog-food-comparison.html

Notice that some of the best known, and most expensive, brands of dog food are less nutritious than a shit sandwich. Some of the unknown and cheaper brands are actually pretty good. The cheapest brands are what you would expect - worthless. Give Fido something decent to eat, alright?

Nobody on the Right ever seems to suggest eliminating the Department of Agriculture, which operates various welfare programs for farmers. 3/4 of farm subsidies go to the top 10% of farms.There are still tobacco subsidies and cotton subsidies, and those aren't even foods.

Texas, Ron Paul's state, is #1 nationally in farm subsidies.

Nobody on the Right ever seems to suggest eliminating the Department of Agriculture, which operates various welfare programs for farmers. 3/4 of farm subsidies go to the top 10% of farms.There are still tobacco subsidies and cotton subsidies, and those aren't even foods.

Texas, Ron Paul's state, is #1 nationally in farm subsidies.

Nobody on the Right ever seems to suggest eliminating the Department of Agriculture, which operates various welfare programs for farmers. 3/4 of farm subsidies go to the top 10% of farms.There are still tobacco subsidies and cotton subsidies, and those aren't even foods.

Texas, Ron Paul's state, is #1 nationally in farm subsidies.

Safer phone lists..
http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone

Research..
http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/fullreport

And there is more available from their site.

Safer phone lists..
http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone

Research..
http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/fullreport

And there is more available from their site.

Proof you are correct can be seen with bottled water for drinking. Almost anyone in the USA can easily avail themselves of free tap water to drink, this is comparable to Android which is more or less widely available at no obvious cost. Yet there is a huge market for bottled water. I may buy fifty to a hundred cases at a clip, but then I appreciate the quality and convience of Zepherhills Spring Water (charateristics of Apple products) compared to common urban tap water.

I use tap water to flush the toilet but I would never use Zepherhills Spring Water for such a common task.
Both surces of water have their place in life, the free one easily dumped into the sewer and the beter quality costly one which is safer and better tasting which I carry everywhere.

I like the tap water analogy. It's especially cool, as it can be extended even further without breaking down.

I agree. Especially the part where tap water/Android is well suited for the toilet.

Most bottled water is no different in quality from tap water, Source, even though people believe that they're getting 'higher quality' water.

In short, people buy Apple for the same reason that they buy bottled water: The illusion of quality.

And some bottled water is much better than tap water. The illusion of quality indeed. Only the illusion is that Android is a quality product. The only real quality of it is that it's more open. A lot like tap water that you can easily use to flush your toilet with.

Proof you are correct can be seen with bottled water for drinking. Almost anyone in the USA can easily avail themselves of free tap water to drink, this is comparable to Android which is more or less widely available at no obvious cost. Yet there is a huge market for bottled water. I may buy fifty to a hundred cases at a clip, but then I appreciate the quality and convience of Zepherhills Spring Water (charateristics of Apple products) compared to common urban tap water.

I use tap water to flush the toilet but I would never use Zepherhills Spring Water for such a common task.
Both surces of water have their place in life, the free one easily dumped into the sewer and the beter quality costly one which is safer and better tasting which I carry everywhere.

I like the tap water analogy. It's especially cool, as it can be extended even further without breaking down.

Most bottled water is no different in quality from tap water, Source, even though people believe that they're getting 'higher quality' water.

In short, people buy Apple for the same reason that they buy bottled water: The illusion of quality.

Does he have a citation for ANY of that?

I, too, can spew a bunch of "OH MY GOD ALL RIGHT WING LUNATICS ARE, UM, LUNATICS!!!" but it isn't constructive. Here, I'll prove it to you.

You didn't read this far. Your eyes glazed over, your mind shut down.

Translation: "You don't believe what I do, so you're obviously a drooling moron. Look at me, I am perfect and amazing and enlightened. All I need to fix the world's problems is a few more insults and I'm golden!"

Gosh, I bet FatLittleMonkey wants to have a dialog with me now, right?

He does correct himself that Frank Luntz remarks on the term Climate Change (PDF of papers from Luntz Research - see the 12th page), but I'm not sure if he invented the term itself.

crop insurance is not quite the same as direct subsidies

That's not all the subsidies beets get. "Sugar Beet Subsidies in the United States totaled $242 million from 1995-2009." Sugar Beet subsidies by state. It lists two programs. Sugar Beet Disaster Program, insurance I bet, and Sugar Beet Diversion Program which I don't know what it is. Oh it looks like it's a payment-in-kind program where farmers are paid to destroy sugar beets. Subsidies for growing beets and subsidies for not growing beets. While not nearly as much as corn sugar beets do get subsidies.

Falcon

crop insurance is not quite the same as direct subsidies

That's not all the subsidies beets get. "Sugar Beet Subsidies in the United States totaled $242 million from 1995-2009." Sugar Beet subsidies by state. It lists two programs. Sugar Beet Disaster Program, insurance I bet, and Sugar Beet Diversion Program which I don't know what it is. Oh it looks like it's a payment-in-kind program where farmers are paid to destroy sugar beets. Subsidies for growing beets and subsidies for not growing beets. While not nearly as much as corn sugar beets do get subsidies.

Falcon

"In Texas, 72% of farms do not receive government subsidies." Nationally, it's 62%.

Cities don't get that food for free. Farmers SELL it to them. And farms are already massively subsidized, to the tune of tens of billions of dollars a year, a quarter of a TRILLION dollars over the last 15 years, in fact. HINT: It ain't farmers who are covering the cash needed to pay for those subsidies.

The world is a complex place. If your threshold for "OMG they want to control us" is someone warning you that something is probably unhealthy, you'll have conspiracy theories from cradle to grave.

Not that I mind conspiracy theories (they may be good fun and sometimes make an enjoyable movie - when/if taken with lots of beer and over-salted popcorn), but I think I should have included a hint of sarcasm in my prev post.

Other than that?... Hmmm. Oh, yes... Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. To elaborate:
- if the "acceptable safe levels/limits" of dioxin are legislated to be 1200 lower than what one is exposed now ...
- ... and if one, no matter what, actually have little chances to reduce the level of exposure
- ... then the definition of the legislated "safe limit" is just plain stupid (well... at least pointless).

In support for my premises above, here is the relevant quote:

EPA’s “reanalysis” noted that these low-level exposures are all but unavoidable because dioxins are widespread in the environment, break down very slowly, build up in the food chain and accumulate in the tissues of animals, especially in fat. As a consequence, exposures begin in the womb when dioxins cross the placenta, and newborn infants begin to ingest them from the very first days of life.

"Nine animal studies conducted between 1973 and 2008 show that dioxin is harmful at levels even lower than in the human studies on which EPA based its proposal. Those human studies, conducted in 2008, explored the toxic legacy of a 1976 chemical plant explosion in Seveso, Italy, which exposed thousands of people to dioxin in unprecedented intensity and left large quantities of the chemical in the soil." source: http://www.ewg.org/dioxin/home

This is the same group that claims that adult humans have a life time exposure of 1200 times the EPA level. That is that the average person in the US is exposed to levels of dioxin three orders of magnitude greater than the amount supposedly required to cause observable harm in studies, which in turn, if true, is likely to be significant in itself (due to low population sample). My take is that these conflicting claims made by the Environmental Working Group are probably all bullshit. It's probably an attempt to generate a legal basis for suing the socks off of businesses that used or generated even trace amounts of dioxin. There's a lot of money in such things and the asbestos lawyers are still looking for new veins of wealth to mine.

here's the EWR's press release http://www.ewg.org/dioxin/press

Environmental Working Group's dioxin timeline, complete with citations http://www.ewg.org/dioxin/timeline

I'm a vegan, politcally I'm a progressive (let the flaming begin), and even I was disgusted with the "article" linked in TFS. Piss poor choice dudes, as you easily could have linked to the EWR's press release and allowed the discussion to go from there. But instead we start with a shit "article" from an alarmist site, which stokes an immediate onslaught of comments that outright dismiss even a _possibility_ that dioxin is harmful to humans.

In my 12 years of hanging around here, I sure do miss the days when we'd have a discussion based on the SCIENCE of whether or not dioxin is worthy of our concern

here's the EWR's press release http://www.ewg.org/dioxin/press

Environmental Working Group's dioxin timeline, complete with citations http://www.ewg.org/dioxin/timeline

I'm a vegan, politcally I'm a progressive (let the flaming begin), and even I was disgusted with the "article" linked in TFS. Piss poor choice dudes, as you easily could have linked to the EWR's press release and allowed the discussion to go from there. But instead we start with a shit "article" from an alarmist site, which stokes an immediate onslaught of comments that outright dismiss even a _possibility_ that dioxin is harmful to humans.

In my 12 years of hanging around here, I sure do miss the days when we'd have a discussion based on the SCIENCE of whether or not dioxin is worthy of our concern

That is why it is called CLIMATE CHANGE

not global warming......dumby

No, its called that because

“’Climate change’ is less frightening than ’global warming.’ ... While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge” (p. 142).

Luntz Memo on the Environment (2002) "The phrase "global warming" appeared frequently in President Bush's speeches in 2001, but decreased to almost nothing during 2002, when the memo was produced."

The Environmental Working Group cites 2,509 deaths from mesothelioma per year. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration cites, in 2008 alone, 34,107 fatal crashes, which sent 26,689 people to their own funeral.

According to the California Office of Traffic Safety there were 3,995 fatalities from car crashes in 2008 alone. More people die in car accidents in one year in California than nationally from mesothelioma.

Do these pesky politicians actually think they're doing good with laws like these? How do people like Sen. Gloria Romero prioritize risk and public safety?

Already done.

As the anonymous person points out... your link starts with a note that they are over 90% the same ethnic group. And most view themselves as the same race.

First, where does the wiki article say most Chinese view themselves as the same ethnic group? Next, as for the majority of Chinese being Han, that's true for all of modern day China, however in some regions ethnic minorities are the majority. To offset this the authorities encourage, and even force, Han Chinese to emigrate to these regions. As Niccolò Machiavelli wrote in "The Prince" an effective way to take over an invaded area, and China did invade independent areas, is by relocating native inhabitants to that area. So for instance the Chinese government encouraged Han Chinese to move to Tibet after the 1949-1950 Chinese invasion of Tibet and continues to do so. Heck the British did that in Ireland, encouraged Protestant British to move to Ireland. Unionism in Ireland. Even the US did that, encouraged settlers to "go west" giving them the land they homesteaded on. This of course didn't sit well with American Indians.

You run into it all over the place... one example being here:
http://cobb.typepad.com/cobb/2005/01/is_that_what_yo_1.html [typepad.com]
"When I pressed him on why he thought that way he finally revealed that because of the racial superiority of the Chinese people, there can never be true equality between a Chinese and non-Chinese and since any deep relationship would require that...there can be no true relationship."

Think about that, you just said the same as I did, it's found everywhere and not just by Chinese. Even the link you hints as much, "And I thought back to the 80s when everybody was sure that the Japanese were going to buy all the real estate in America up, including the Statue of Liberty. Yet somehow when it came to moving around the cities they were consuming, they would still somehow figure out not to go to the ghettoes or buy anything there, thereby leaving blackfolks just as poor in an overheated market." Today there are any number of groups in the US who if not have a superiority/inferiority complex. The "Southern Poverty Law Center counted 932 active hate groups in the United States in 2009." Like U2 sang, "you've got someone to blame?"

Oh, btw, some economists think it will turn out the same for the Chinese as it did for the Japanese. While many Americans and Europeans are afraid the Chinese will take over the world economically, like some did in the 1980s about the Japanese, there are economists who dispute this. Chinese was able to take over a lot of manufacturing because their wages were low however those wages are rising and as they do manufacturers will be looking for other places to go to. Free trade, er as there is no free trade freer trade, benefits a lot of people. Of course China needs to allow it's currency the yuan to float on exchanges. However the US needs to stop giving US agribusinesses billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. Much like the nuclear industry the agriculture industry is hooked on subsidies. Archer Daniels Midland or ADM which is a $500 billion a year multinational corporation, and Cargill the largest privately owned company are examples of corporate welfare queens, receiving billions of taxpayer dollars a year.

Falcon

Many of their phone-specific pages cite the manufacturer as the only data source. This includes a phone I'm playing with at the moment, which happens to have one of the worst SAR ratings on the ewg.org list. (Worse than the Blackberry.) I followed their link, and it brought me to a user manual, which did in fact show the same values shown on the list.

Call me paranoid, but that didn't really satisfy me. For one thing, I don't trust user manuals all that much when it comes to fine details that might have changed since they were written. For another, this phone supports several different radio frequencies, including Wi-Fi and several different GSM bands, yet the manual and ewg.org fail to reflect this with multiple SAR values. So, I looked up the FCC ID for my phone and followed it to the FCC's radiation report on that model. What I found was much more informative.

As you might expect, the FCC's SAR measurements showed quite a range of values, depending on which radio is in use, which channel is in use, and how the phone is held. According to this data, my particular phone habits and service provider should yield around half the SAR that was reported by ewg.org, comparable to their best-rated models.

This exercise was interesting, and set my mind at ease a little, but I'm still going to use a wired headset whenever possible. Again, call me paranoid if you like. There simply hasn't been enough time for us to observe the long-term effects of having a microwave broadcast antenna plastered to our heads, and I don't trust studies that claim all is well when they're funded by the cell phone industry.

Some of you might find this US Senate hearing interesting:
http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm?method=webcasts.view&id=2a7f2e87-68a0-48a3-b16b-08ac1b98cc42
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/288879-1
http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/cell-phone-health-effects-hearing.htm

And here's the whole list.

The SAR they talk about can only depend on:

1) strength of signal

2) wavelength of signal

3) position of signal

There really are no other variables for an omnidirectional antenna, which a cellphone needs in order to work properly. The wavelength is going to be set by the spectrum of the carrier, the signal strength is limited by the FCC.... so what are you measuring? Basically all that is left is where you hold the antenna, right? Jump over to the actual article at the Environmental Working Group and see if you find them credible or a bit more on the wacko side. A cursory read of the site made them seem somewhere in the middle to me - like environmental wingnuts who are sort of trying to understand all this complicated science stuff, but don't really have a deep understanding of any of it.

Here's the URL with the full list of phones (yes, including the iPhone if you're curious): http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone?allavailable=1

This link would have been even better. You see they have 1.58 W/kg. You have over a dozen phones above 1.5. Somebody always has to be the highest. Actually, the model number they cite is not the worst, although the worst is still a Blackberry.

True, they are several times worst than the best; but is that meaningful? If the standard for poison X in the water is 100 ppm, and your city water has 2 ppm and mine has 20 ppm that's a factor of 10 but it doesn't mean anything if you believe that the standard is safe.

Oh, and I was wondering about the units--W/kg. It appears that they use some kind of test that measures how much a body would absorb per unit mass, which is actually pretty cool.

http://www.ewg.org/cellphone-radiation -- This is the actual report site. Have a look through.

There's a source that supports the position that "denialists" came up with the term "climate change:"

"Luntz advises that, “’Climate change’ is less frightening than ’global warming.’ ... While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge” (p. 142)."

source: http://www.ewg.org/node/8684

Frank Luntz is the Republican pollster and go-to person to craft Republican messaging.

It constantly amazes me that the people who complain about politicizing science, are the ones who are doing it the most.

If they fail to repay the loan, that's about $1.45 per person.

None of these cost a lot per person http://funding-programs.idilogic.aidpage.com/funding-programs/ but have a habit of adding up. Not to mention the good old farmers: http://farm.ewg.org/farm/top_recips.php?fips=00000&progcode=total

If Tesla wants $1.45 right now from me, I'm fairly sure I could afford it.

If Tesla took only the money of people like you who have no problem with it, they wouldn't need a subsidy. They would just need private investors.

And you don't think that GW Bush appointing a former Monsanto lawyer to the Supreme Court had nothing to do with it? Democrats are just as bad at appointing lobbyists for industries to oversee federal organization that they're supposed to be regulating, but look at this chart here. Look at that chart and tell me with a straight face that the Republican party is trying to remove government interference in markets. If you do, you are arguing to me that the same political party that is supposed to stand for unregulated capitalism is also contributing to that regulation necessary by giving out the subsidies that created the environment for Monsanto to poison our beloved rat population (and maybe us too, the article was short on that).

Bullshit, that's complete revisionist history.

http://www.ewg.org/reports/withknowledge/