Slashdot Mirror

In the study, researchers conducted in-depth analyses of 49 study participants, 16 working within the poultry industry and 33 community residents. Stool samples from the participants were tested for resistance to the antimicrobials ampicillin, ciprofloxacin, ceftriazone, gentamicin and tetracycline. Findings showed that poultry workers had 32 times greater odds of being colonized with gentamicin-resistant E. coli than other members of the community. "One of the major implications of this study is to underscore the importance of the non-hospital environment in the origin of drug resistant infections," said Ellen K. Silbergeld, PhD, senior author of the study.

The second is the 2005 study that I put in my "wall of links":

After first Denmark and then the European Union banned the use of antibiotics for growth promotion, say the authors, the prevalence of resistant bacteria declined in farm animals, retail meat and poultry, and within the human general population. This provides evidence that antibiotic resistant bacteria can move between animals and humans.

These two studies, at least, are claiming the exact opposite of what you've been saying. You're arguing that the people criticizing factory farming have a vested interest in selling FUD, as if the industry doesn't have a vested interest in the status quo and deregulation.
All I have a vested interest in is not getting sick and dying from some stupid super-bacteria created by greedy business practices.
Last but not least, the majority of links I posted were news stories, not the activist links. But it's easier for you to pick on the activist links, which you did, and used that to dismiss the rest of my post as FUD. Not cool.

I'm trying to get the clearest objective picture I can about what's going on the food industry, and it doesn't look pretty. Sorry. I'm sure you have access to information that I don't, and follow these things more closely. I rely on reports by journalists, researchers, government agencies, and activists who also have access to information that I don't, and who also follow these things more closely than I do. Just because I'm not in the field doesn't mean I can't try to find what's going on and form an opinion. I will see if I can find the Journal of Dairy Science report you're talking about.

Anyway, you can accuse me of FUD, but there are real, serious, and ongoing health consequences to food industry practices:
* Mad Cow Disease: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3355625.stm
* E Coli in Spinach: http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/4198816.html
* Salmonella in Eggs: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/business/23eggs.html?_r=1&ref=business

People die when industry cuts corners and regulatory agencies don't do their job.

More of my resources:
* Agricultural Antibiotic Use Contributes To 'Super-Bugs' In Humans - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050705010900.htm
* Denmark's Case for Antibiotic-Free Animals - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/10/eveningnews/main6195054.shtml
* The above article cites Professor Ellen Silbergeld - http://faculty.jhsph.edu/Default.cfm?faculty_id=648
* The true cost of cheap chicken - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-true-cost-of-cheap-chicken-768062.html
* Agriculture Pollution report from Defra (UK government) - http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/landmanage/water/csf/index.htm
* Wikipedia page on Factory Farming - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_farming

Activists (I am listing them separately, to be fair):
* http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/ffarms.asp
* http://www.ciwf.org.uk/
* http://www.farmsanctuary.org/issues/factoryfarming/
* http://www.iowasource.com/health/CAFO_airqu_0805.html
* Food, Inc. (movie)
* Ominvore's Dillemma, Michael Pollan
* Eating Animals, Michael Safran Foer

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041219171930.htm

They already did the study (actually six of them), focusing on older drivers. It is why they are changing the signs: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041219171930.htm

According to this article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041219171930.htm the new signage typeface is apparently based on solid research which shows that drivers can read signs 20% faster.

There's lots of room for all sorts of other factors. These genes account for only 10% of the height difference:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100929132529.htm

This study wasn't designed to look for epigenetic factors. It was basically: line up a lot of people, measure 'em, and give 'em a quick gene scan. (Not a full sequencing, necessarily; it was a meta-study to get the maximum data, and they needed hundreds of thousands.) That genetic scan doesn't tell you anything epigenetic.

The rest is a lot of math. And in the end they accounted for only a small part of the overall variation. 10% is still interesting, but not nearly enough to merit the kind of headlines this gets.

The bird DNA isn't 'making' the virus. In fact, the viruses are not coding for proteins due to numerous mutations that hit that part of the genome over time. Since the DNA is silent, the mutations don't affect anything and there is no selection for an active virus (or active anything).

Apparently some viruses can insert themselves into the germline/genome and reactivate later:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100308151055.htm

The team presented clear evidence that the virus can insert its DNA specifically into telomeres -- structures at the ends of each chromosome that play key roles in both aging and cancer.

Finally, the team showed that the chromosomally integrated HHV-6 (CIHHV-6) genomes can be reactivated to an infectious form.

More details here:
http://schaechter.asmblog.org/schaechter/2010/08/when-the-end-is-the-story.html

The PR from University of Utah http://www.unews.utah.edu/p/?r=092010-1 lots more details than any of the NEWS sites have published also check out http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100922121943.htm

Go fuck yourself.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060111082100.htm

The difference is, with HFCS the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound.

This article explains it a little better. The rail launcher's job is just to get a scramjet vehicle off the ground by hurling it into the air at 600 mph. Then the scramjets take over and accelerate it to Mach 10. Then at 60,000 ft a second stage lifts the payload into orbit using rocket engines. They're just trying to eliminate the humongous first stage that currently comprises most of a typical rocket's weight.

A collection of hospitals in eight cities around the globe has successfully demonstrated that the use of a simple surgical checklist during major operations can lower the incidence of deaths and complications by more than one third.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090114172304.htm

Homophonic and homonymic (in translation) errors mostly happen with people who don't know how to spell that specific word in the first place.
And if you DO know how to spell it... well... spellchecker is just a safety net.
Cause you can still make beginner's-level errors by accident regardless of your ability to spell.
E.g. I've just made an "its-it's" error in my previous post. Noticed it as I clicked [Submit].

As for fraudulent "special offers" - that is not a math problem. It is simply a fraud.
People just don't expect to be tricked as most of those "special offers" actually ARE bargains of some sort or the other.

Don't worry. Humanity is not rapidly becoming ignorant.
You are simply bumping into the statistical averages more often as there are now more people than ever before.
And most of them are now living closer to each other than ever before.
Plus, the Internet has made the world a far smaller place.
No wonder you bump into more ignorant people.

Pointing to one specific school that has low test scores doesn't prove much about all alternatives being worse.

Numbers can help, but they can also mislead. If I say this school has high college acceptance scores, but this school has kids who are kind to each other, which school is "better"? Which school would you send your kids to? We lived for a time in a "top ten" school district (Chappaqua, thankfully before we had a kid, and at first before the Clinton's moved in and it went downhill faster), and the Realtor said, I don't know why he did unless it was to be nice, that we could tell the school district was in the top ten because the teen suicide rate was so high... It's a more general issue now, perhaps.
"Teen Suicide Rate: Highest Increase In 15 Years"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070907221530.htm
And for every kid who does complete a suicide, you can be sure there are many, many others who are in deep distress. So, if you want an important quantitative statistic on modern schooling (and the system it is embedded in), that is one that is easily accessible (even if, like any statistic, it may have its issues, since sometimes things are covered up etc.).

Also:
http://www.edutopia.org/loss-prevention
"Suicide rates among youth have increased threefold in the past half-century, and suicide is the third leading cause of death among young people ages 10-24."

There they question whether schools should get involved in labelling at risk kids or offering prevention programs, but they don't ask whether school contributes to the problem, or whether a better wholistic education process would give kids deeper roots to help keep them from toppling over in life's storms.

And probably most schools approaches miss key points about improving health (vitamin D and whole foods), as well as the real psychological and spiritual side of all that:
"Dark Nights of the Soul: A Guide to Finding Your Way Through Life's Ordeals" by Thomas Moore
http://books.google.com/books?id=RKZreNYKNHQC
"Surviving America's Depression Epidemic: How to Find Morale, Energy, and Community in a World Gone Crazy" by Bruce Levine
http://books.google.com/books?id=bCuC2H-6k_8C

The first book is mostly about adults, but the second was written by a psychologist who has treated a lot of adolescent patients and has a lot to say about schooling in that context.
http://books.google.com/books?id=bCuC2H-6k_8C&q=school

Beyond those sorts of statistics, which you may rightfully question as to whether they are school's fault, the evidence Gatto cites includes that the USA had (ignoring the genocide against the natives, black slavery, women not voting, etc.) a very vibrant and literate democracy one hundred and fifty years ago, one that inspired the world, back before schooling, back in the time when private family business (usually farm) ownership was widespread and people had a lot more sense of control over many aspects of their lives (ignoring small town privacy problems, racism, sexism, lack of physical mobility, disease, famine, and bad weather, which granted, we have improved on in dealing with in many ways). Again though, correlation does not prove causality. But it can be suggestive...

Still, in general, I'd agree with you, as would someone like John Holt, that people learn best from some mix of guidance and exploration, so one can make a case that people should not just flounder. I'm happy to agree on that, and to the extent free schools deserve some criticism, I've heard people say that self-motivated introverted-leaning children often get more out of them academically (while feeling left out socially), whereas ex

Nah. Sahara was a green savannah only a few thousand years ago. It was when it became a desert the spread out pockets of civilization had to move together in the Nile valley we got the Egyptian civilization.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091111115843.htm

Which "speech center(s)"? There's two main regions, neither of which can do the job alone.

Both.... From another article: "Each of two grids with 16 microECoGs spaced 1 millimeter (about one-25th of an inch) apart, was placed over one of two speech areas of the brain: First, the facial motor cortex, which controls movements of the mouth, lips, tongue and face -- basically the muscles involved in speaking. Second, Wernicke's area, a little understood part of the human brain tied to language comprehension and understanding."

"One unexpected finding: When the patient repeated words, the facial motor cortex was most active and Wernicke's area was less active. Yet Wernicke's area "lit up" when the patient was thanked by researchers after repeating words. It shows Wernicke's area is more involved in high-level understanding of language, while the facial motor cortex controls facial muscles that help produce sounds, Greger says."

As to the scary part, just wait till they get to the next step: 11x11 grids and not just 4x4

Source for this info: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100907071249.htm

I'm no expert on the matter, but I am hopeful for the tech like most geeks. From what I understand from reading articles about other work in the field and watching documentaries about it, 30% is common in the lab and even 50% or 60% is expected from some of the current work, but breakdown is rapid. The breakdown, in most cases, is caused by being exposed to sunlight and creating electricity from the exposure. Sometimes the efficiencies are down to 5% to 15% in a matter of hours or days.

Highly efficient silicon cells have been prototyped and tested up to around 40% as well. A combination solar heat engine and fuel cell of a sort has been shown on paper to work at up to 60%, but has yet to be tested even as a prototype from what I've been able to find. Some multi-junction semiconductor photovoltaics made from a small number of different alloys to widen the wavelength range are said to have the theoretical capability of 60% or even 70% over the whole solar spectrum, but the data is not yet from actual cells -- not even prototypes (it's being extrapolated from work with LEDs).

A rapid breakdown of a solar cell from exposure to solar energy is obviously bad. The main benefit as I understand it to this particular work over other developments using novel materials is that they've figured out a possible way how to deal with that problem. It works for them so far in the prototype, and hopefully it works in production systems.

The article even says they're hoping to get close to total efficiency (within the ranges of wavelengths it can use) of energy conversion with additional development. Even if they can get us a consistent range of 60-80% of a decently wide range of wavelengths my mind boggles at the applications.

Warm, wet, and squishy doesn't seem to be a limiting factor on quantum mechanical behavior anymore: Untangling the Quantum Entanglement Behind Photosynthesis.

Err, in the suggested articles on TFA there is this link Theoretical Physicists Develop Test For String Theory From Jan. 25, 2007.

Did they just call bullshit on themselves?

It almost certainly won't work against the flu. The big problem with RNA interference therapies like this is that viral genomes mutate rapidly. Otherwise we would have had AIDS cured the day after RNAi was published in 1998.

Ahem...

Turns out getting the government to approve drugs takes time.

Scary thing is that most every traffic jam currently is caused by that kind of cluelessness. Some asshole cutting someone else off, or turning without adequate warning, and generally not giving two shits about everyone else on the road, and it starts magnifying it's way back until you're stopped: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071219103102.htm

Was supposed to point to California

Does this mean life could arise twice, in similar form? Yes, and in fact there's evidence for parallel evolution:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100225214757.htm

I just read your link, and nothing in it suggests paralell evolution. How did you come to that conclusion? It speaks of rapid evolution when saltwater fish are trapped in freshwater lakes, they are comparing the DNA of two closely related species that come from a common anscestor.

Nobody in any of the fields related to biology (paleontology, for example) think that life evolved twice. There is no indication that it did, let alone proof. TFA is interesting, TFS is garbage.

Life creates itself to fit a niche, through a trial-and-error process called natural selection.

1. Does this mean life could arise twice, in similar form? Yes, and in fact there's evidence for parallel evolution:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100225214757.htm

2. Does this mean that life on other planets arises identically or near-identically to our own, or that the origin of life on earth comes from elsewhere? Possibly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

Basically, life adapting to similar conditions in different areas would have a similar "blueprint" although possibly different DNA reflecting a different route to that end.

Sorry, but you most likely have not looked at the data. Just one example:
    "Vitamin D Deficiency Is Widespread And On The Increase"
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090630143523.htm
"A new report issued by the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and published in the scientific journal Osteoporosis International1, shows that populations across the globe are suffering from the impact of low levels of vitamin D. The problem is widespread and on the increase, with potentially severe repercussions for overall health and fracture rates."

Now, ask yourself, why did you make that reply without looking around a little more?

35 years is about 300k core-hours, a standard measure of computing resources. This is a big pile of computer time, but is not unreasonable.

So how much does this cost?

A typical supercomputer, Ranger, cost $59 million to build and operate for four years. It's got about 60k cores, so $59 million delivers 240k core-years; they used 35 core-years to do this computation. Doing the division, you get $9000 of computer time -- not all that bad. Plugging in the cost numbers for another production supercomputer, Kraken, gives a slightly lower cost.

If an electrical connection can control an arm, how much longer until you can control a whole body?

I think we're likely to be able to repair spinal cord damage long before we learn how to patch around it with electronics. We're getting closer every day.

How has nobody commented on the transparent-aluminum-like properties of this so-called "glass"?

If you really wanted to polish your geek cred, you'd know that transparent aluminum exists, not just on Star Trek. Read the 2009 Science Daily article. But when I saw this, I thought of the Harrison Ford version of the movie, "Sabrina." As a CEO, in one scene he demonstrates a tough new material to some Japanese investors by taking a crowbar to the front of a large flat panel television.

Cloaking uses metamaterials which have a negative refractive index- these bend light rays around the object being cloaked. Very recently, physicists and engineers realised that a similar principle can be applied to pressure waves caused by earthquakes. With the right design, the shockwaves might be bent around a building, rendering it "invisible" to an earthquake.

This was previously thought impossible due to mistakes in some engineering research articles.
Link here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090720105125.htm

More techncial articles can be found by googling "elastic cloaking".

isn't it odd that many traditional, ancient rituals suggest that girls and boys reach "adulthood" at 12 and 13 respectively, ages at which today almost all children have passed puberty

(1) "today" (emphasis mine), and (2) entered puberty, not "passed" it (they're still growing).
That said, I am not familiar with "many" rituals, so I can only comment on some. In the Jewish tradition 13/12 is the age at which a person is considered responsible for their actions, whether it coincided with puberty at that time is speculation.

This suggests that the data used in that (and other studies that show similar things) is either anomalous over that time period or subject to bad methodology

If several independent studies reach the same conclusions, which is inconsistent with "ancient rituals" there is a possibility of all the studies being flawed but a much more likely explanation is a misrepresentation of the rituals.

Now, if you have better sources, by all means post them. Otherwise, here is what I was able to find on the subject:

There is an interesting page with information at the Museum of Menstruation and Women's Health (amazing...) but you have to be careful when reading and interpreting it as they conflate published research and "student papers" (not to mention the "how not to make a web site" theme). The information suggests that the onset of puberty in the 19th and early 20th centuries was definitely later than it is today.

A Medscape article states that "... the age of menarche has been declining from the early 1800s until the 1950s" and gives a long list of citations to support it.

There's an interesting article that purports to explain the discrepancy with the "ancient rituals" though. It states: "Disease and poor nutrition became more common as humans settled, causing puberty to be delayed. Modern hygiene, nutrition and medicine have allowed the age of menarche to fall to its original range.". I am not necessarily agreeing with this premise but it is one way of addressing the issue.

As I said above, if you disagree, feel free to refute.

the suggestion the other poster makes is that until recently medicine did a poor job of identifying puberty

In girls, menarche is commonly viewed as the "central event" of puberty. As a parent of a teenage girl I can tell you that it is pretty hard to misidentify.

I'm weary and I just ain't got the time, and I'm wasted and I can't find my way home.

To hell with medical pot, when is it going to be legal for all adults? It's one of the safest psychoactive drugs there is. There is no lethal dose, there is no physical addiction (as opposed to coffee, alcohol, or tobacco), and actually prevents cancer. If you smoke cigarettes, you really should be smoking pot as well.

The laws against it cause all the problems it purports to solve, just as alcohol prohibition did. Teenagers shouldn't smoke pot, but unlike beer, it's easier for a teen to obtain than it is for an adult. Like alcohol prohibition, it allows adulterants to be added whether on purpose or accident; you cannot regulate an illegal substance. Its prohibition finances violent gangs. Marijuana doesn't "lead to harder drugs", but its prohibition does, since the people who sell heroin and cocaine also sell marijuana. Rather than wasting tax dollars jailing dopers, it could be taxed itself.

There is no reason whatever for this plant to be against the law. The only people who the pot laws help are those who grow, import, and sell it. Anyone who is for pot being against the law is being duped or bribed by the drug cartels.

I'm weary and I just ain't got the time, and I'm wasted and I can't find my way home.

To hell with medical pot, when is it going to be legal for all adults? It's one of the safest psychoactive drugs there is. There is no lethal dose, there is no physical addiction (as opposed to coffee, alcohol, or tobacco), and actually prevents cancer. If you smoke cigarettes, you really should be smoking pot as well.

The laws against it cause all the problems it purports to solve, just as alcohol prohibition did. Teenagers shouldn't smoke pot, but unlike beer, it's easier for a teen to obtain than it is for an adult. Like alcohol prohibition, it allows adulterants to be added whether on purpose or accident; you cannot regulate an illegal substance. Its prohibition finances violent gangs. Marijuana doesn't "lead to harder drugs", but its prohibition does, since the people who sell heroin and cocaine also sell marijuana. Rather than wasting tax dollars jailing dopers, it could be taxed itself.

There is no reason whatever for this plant to be against the law. The only people who the pot laws help are those who grow, import, and sell it. Anyone who is for pot being against the law is being duped or bribed by the drug cartels.

Marijuana does not even impair your ability to drive a car

From the linked article:

While smoking marijuana does impair driving ability, it does not share alcohol's effect on judgment

I'd definitely be behind a dont bong and drive campaign as reaction times are slowed down more then when using alcohol.

Can I get a what what? Save your FUD for an occasion for which it is warranted, like never.

I'd also like the US to stop pushing drug laws on other nations. I'd like a "happy" pizza in Cambodia.

You mean you'd like to see other nations stop taking bribes from the USA in exchange for criminalizing drugs? It takes two to tango. Those countries are whores.

What are you talking about? I have known more people waste their lives on religion than marijuana. Marijuana does not even impair your ability to drive a car, it is certainly leagues better than Alcohol in that regard.

will this do?
or this?

The whole "get out and play" thing is backwards according to this study:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100707212127.htm

Its results would indicate that simply feeding children less will make them less fat regardless of activity level. The lower weight makes them more active. This is consistent with how I finally got the weight of and kept it off (calorie counting while sitting in front of a monitor all day), and its really quite intuitive.

May I be the first to say.... Thermodynamics *works* bitches!

We comprise about 1% by weight of bacteria. Given the small size of bacteria cells, we have 10 times the bacterial cells to "human" cells. Here's where you can start reading.
And then there's mitochondria, which look a lot more like foreign microbes within our own cells than just a structure built by our cell, complete with their own DNA.
It is correct that much of those bacteria live in your gut, but apparently skin has its fair share, too. Nonetheless, those gut bacteria are also vital to the proper function of your body.

I didn't RTFA because I read about it elsewhere. From that one:

The research is published in the journal Aquatic Toxicology. The study found that the shrimps' behaviour changes when they are exposed to the same levels of fluoxetine found in the waste water that flows to rivers and estuaries as a result of the drugs humans excrete in sewage.

Yes, this is also an implication, but it's a strong one. We can accurately detect the amounts of chemicals contained in wastewater, and we know that it has a measurable effect on shrimp. The effect may not be as drastic in the wild where there are thousands of other variables in play, but the lack of a study in the wild doesn't undermine the findings very much. Additionally, antidepressant use is on the increase, so whatever effect is present currently will probably do the same.

What are the effects of the numerous and various chemicals humans dump into the ocean? (My wild guess is that this antidepressant issue is the least of our worries.)

I tend to agree--this should be more of a wake-up call than anything else. Still, I've heard a lot about "the fragile marine ecosystem," and a vastly diminished shrimp population, a potential outcome here, could have some significant cascade effects.

like these? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071207150717.htm

Although I like what you wrote, you misunderstood my post:

I stated that initially, the likely yield would be low - it might only be a few kilograms. Although I'd expect growth would be close to or at exponential levels following the first success, the time and quantities involved make 'dumping' as you say very unlikely in our lifetimes. Relative to the mining that occurs on Earth year after year it is likely going to take space-based mining a long, long time to catch up and thereby influence the market to the point of diminishing prices to the point of significantly affecting the market and impeding margins.

Also asteroids contain a smorgasbord of materials much of the time, and in a globalized world conglomerates in mining deal in several metals and/or minerals. It doesn't seem unreasonable for a firm to determine (with some risk due to market fluctuation) what group of metals to harvest from a given asteroid in each mission, respectively.

Even though what you say is strictly true because according to supply and demand every kilogram of material X entering a market alters it, same as quantities of stock on the market alters a company's price...the fact is that for space mining to diminish value of metals below the 'trillions per small asteroid' figure I quoted it would take a lot of mining and time. We probably won't be around to see such a dramatic drop in precious metals rates. Much like the oil market, the market for precious metals is (though to a lesser extent) carefully controlled by suppliers and firms to the optimum point of profit; if that means stockpiling supplies at a given time then that option is commonly taken.

Oh yeah; the University of Toronto science faculty says there's a very good chance that some of our precious metals here on Earth came from comets, meteorites and so on. So in a way we've already begun mining them.

GM crops with increased yield help no matter what the cause is.

Better transportation not GE is needed.

Famine though plant blight is common, and GE is the best way to get rid of it.

Not even, the best way to combat blight is with diversity. When a monoculture is hit by blight or something else the whole crop can be lost. But that's not true when fields are diverse. Take for instance cocoa, ScienceDaily has the article New Cocoa Varieties Needed to Secure World's Chocolate Supply. Scientists at University of Reading are working to "develop new cocoa varieties better suited to likely future climates." Meanwhile Nestle is supplying cocoa farmers with disease resistant cocoa varieties. With 4 main varieties of cocoa people are working to create hybrids.

http://www.africanagricultureblog.com/2010/01/gates-foundation-to-fund-cassava.html

That says nothing about genetic engineering. The 2 tymes "gene" is even mentioned is when it says they are looking for desired genes in resistant varieties of cassava. All that's needed is crossbreeding and hybrids. No fish genes need to be inserted.

But more importantly, there are many areas of the world where the problem isn't caloric, but nutritional. Golden rice is the poster child for this. Lack of vitamin A leads to blindness and death, so adding it to the rice in places where that is the staple diet can save many.

All that's needed for this is to eat crops that have the needed nutrients. For vitamin A, carrots. Carrots are filled with beta carotene which is a precursor to vitamin A. The NIH has more food sources for vitamin A. The percent of RDA is also included. And again as the BBC article GM 'golden rice' boosts vitamin A says "Not everyone believes golden rice is the best answer to Vitamin A deficiency."

For instance I am afraid Monsanto's Roundup Ready crops are creating superweeds [france24.com].

Pesticide use made that problem(if it turns out to be one), not GE. Without GE other pesticides would be used, and pesticide resistant plants would evolve.

That just goes to show how much you know. Pesticides had nothing to do with the creation of superweeds.

Bye

Falcon

It's a little terrifying how much power Monsanto has in the US and really, the world. They have farmers all over the world under their thumb through royalty payments and the patents they hold on certain traits. There are plenty of cases where farmers have legitimately planted NON-GMO soy and corn only to find that pollen from their neighbors farms has drifted into their field and GMO'ed their crops. These farmers now have to supply the burden of evidence to show their innocence if Monsanto chooses to chase them into court over patent infringement. Monsanto has single-handedly, in a single generation of farmers, cut out seed saving. This is the single most important advancement that allowed us as a species to move from casual, opportunistic farmers to the agrarian based society we enjoy today.

I don't begrudge Monsanto for trying something new, but I am concerned with their disregard for the wellbeing of farmers and for their consumers. Over the last twenty years there has been mounting evidence to show that pests are developing resistance to BT Toxin and that many other crops are inadvertently horizontally transferring BT genes. But wait! There's more!

In recent studies researchers have found that BT maize (corn) can cause serious health problems in mammals. A diet heavy in GMO corn caused rats to develop liver and kidney problems. Most of the corn raised in the US carries the BT gene, along with a few other, like the RoundUp Ready. I'm sure you're thinking to your self, "gee, I'm glad I don't eat very much corn!" Oh, but you do. Almost everything that isn't a vegetable or a fruit found in American grocery stores has some form of corn in it. From ascorbic acid, citric acid, corn starch, high fructose corn syrup, food colorings and ink, and even some waxes applied to fruit are all derived from corn.

I'm not a biochemist and I certainly don't have any idea how rat models scale (or don't scale) up to humans, but the study cited above suggests that a diet rich in BT corn (which most of us well-fed americans eat) might be bad for us. Perhaps some diversity and choice in our market would be a good thing. At least some public discussion about this subject, and less media schilling on behalf of giant multi-nationals would definitely be welcome.

Well, we know at least one thing that could cause temperatures to plunge almost overnight. In fact, it would probably kill off a lot of plant life, and drop CO2 levels as well.

At this point, given what I know about our chances of surviving this crap, I see a new ice age as the best chance of survival for 90% of life on the planet. If we heat up the Earth too much, we're quite possibly headed for another Permian Extinction level event. The amount of hydrogen sulfide that has built up in the ocean since then is surely enough to kill most aerobic life on earth.

This is a cool idea. Another approach is to use lichens, although there might not be enough trees or other suitable substrates nearby.

No, *I* didn't "solve" anything, I simply listen to what the actual facts are from a number of different news and science sources instead of getting my "information" from partisan political sources.

Really? I asked ScienceDaily what caused the oil spill in the gulf of mexico but I didn't find your actual facts. I didn't find the answer on Scienceblips. Science Centric didn't answer it either.

Since you're now down to attacking the messenger without being able to actually refute any of the facts or logical arguments I've presented in any of my replies, you're obviously now running on nothing but ideological fumes, so this will be my last post in this thread.

What facts? You didn't provide any scientific facts. So consider this my last post in this thread.

Falcon

I know a way we could save at least 15% of energy usage in the USA right now:

mandate that all appliances (DVD players, TV's, etc) had an actual, PHYSICAL POWER SWITCH rather than being electrical vampires.

There's no reason every fucking device on the planet has to have a goddamn clock, and much less that it needs to eat more than 2 watts 24/7 just to wait for a power-on signal from some lazy fatass who can't stand up and walk 8 feet from the couch to turn it on.

Social Behavior Transformed With One New Gene and Gene Mutation Is Linked to Autism-Like Symptoms in Mice, Researchers Find will give you an idea of the differences.

Social Behavior Transformed With One New Gene and Gene Mutation Is Linked to Autism-Like Symptoms in Mice, Researchers Find will give you an idea of the differences.

I enjoy tobacco and don't mind dying younger. They're not doing anything wrong by supplying what I ask of them. They might be abusing dimlows but that does not mean they're abusing me. What they are doing _is_ right.

This is something I wonder about. I do consider tobacco companies an evil force in some sense. They're useful to governments because of taxes so governments certainly don't want to fight them. Let's see, tobacco isn't something that's probably harmful - it has been well proven scientifically that there's tobacco causes health problems. It is also known that it's not causing some minor problems but causes significant problems like cancer, with a statistically significant reduction in life extensiveness. Plus, it's known that tobacco is, because of nicotine, addictive. It seems like a major part of this is that smoking/tobacco use has been around for a while before modern medicine and before definitive proof of its ill effects. Imagine this - I invent a device that, when used, gives you huge, orgasmic physical pleasure. That would be addictive enough psychologically. Now imagine this device also has slight physically addictive effects and, most importantly, gives you an above-normal dose of gamma radiation, high enough so that a significant amount of device users would eventually succumb to cancer or radiation sickness caused by it. Would I really be allowed to market and sell the device? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't, certainly not unless the government would stand to gain very serious revenue from taxes on that, and even then I'm doubtful.

Sure you would be able to. Its called 'high glucose corn syrup'. You can find it in MANY different food products and it causes serious health issues like unhealthy weight gain (they are 'empty' calories). It also causes Diabetes, a life changing and possible fatal health condition. Its even been linked to possible liver scarring. And the best part about this? Its not heavily taxed like cigarettes.