Slashdot Mirror


Garlic Farmer Wards Off High-Speed Internet

DocVM writes "A Nova Scotia farmer is opposing the construction of a microwave tower for fear it will eventually mutate his organic garlic crop. Lenny Levine, who has been planting and harvesting garlic by hand on his Annapolis Valley land since the 1970s, is afraid his organic crop could be irradiated if EastLink builds a microwave tower for wireless high-speed internet access a few hundred meters from his farm."

475 comments

  1. Woo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More hyper-paranoid ridiculousness. "Shakes up the molecules" indeed.

    1. Re:Woo by lessthan · · Score: 1

      Except we don't 'know differently' about power lines. There is no link between power lines and cancer.

      --
      Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
    2. Re:Woo by vintagepc · · Score: 1

      This REALLY pisses me off. Eastlink is making a decent effort to provide EVERYONE in rural Nova Scotia with access to broadband internet. We've (myself included) had to live with DIAL-UP, with no other affordable option.

      Just because of one fuckwit, a bunch of people have to go without access to something that has become almost essential in this age. I sincerely hope that eastling either tells this guy "STFU" and builds the tower, or that anyone who has to suffer for it forces this guy to use dial-up 24-7 for a week... on flash heavy websites. See how fast he changes his mind then.

      --
      Evolution - Est. 4500000000 B.C. Don't piss in the gene pool.
    3. Re:Woo by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Except for the fact that there is no evidence. There was one highly questionable meta-study done in Britain and published in the British Journal of Medicine which was pretty much repudiated as bunk.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Woo by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Except that radio frequencies have very low energies by certain basic laws of Physics, and no one has proposed a mechanism by which they could cause any long term damage that doesn't violate these basic laws. These claims tend to amount to saying "If quantum mechanics doesn't work, so the teeny tiny amounts of energy at these wavelengths could all add up to do damage, then these frequencies could be damaging in the same way as ultraviolet or x-rays.". Yes, and your TV wouldn't work, and neither would H-bombs.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    5. Re:Woo by SuperDre · · Score: 0

      ahhh, so it's perfectly safe to put a cat/dog in a microwave oven, as it's only some radiowave's.. cool, I'll remember that next time my cat/dog is wet...

    6. Re:Woo by TheForgotton · · Score: 1

      Just remember to take the collar off first. The little metal bits can wreak havoc with the magnetron.

  2. Idiots by Covalent · · Score: 5, Informative

    His crop is already being irradiated...BY THE SUN. Idiots. Sheesh.

    --
    Great warrior...hrmph! Wars not make one great.
    1. Re:Idiots by Z34107 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Indeed!

      On top of it, the radiation is 60,000 times less than the the allowed limit for organic farms. (Wasn't even aware there was such a thing.)

      Until the farmer loses, that town is stuck on dial-up. Now, that's a travesty.

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    2. Re:Idiots by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Funny

      His crop is already being irradiated...BY THE SUN. Idiots. Sheesh.

      Yeah, and that radiation makes his crops grow to many times their original size! Exactly as 60s sci-fi predicts! So now who's the idiot, huh?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:Idiots by Apollo_11 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just taking the wacky green agenda to its extreme boundary. If anything vegatables and milk should be intentionally irradated as is commonly done in Europe to: A > Reduce food borne illness B > Save enormous amounts of money on chilling food at the grocery store Planet saved and less medical costs, illnesses, don't tell Washington DC they are now expendable !

    4. Re:Idiots by ddusza · · Score: 1, Funny

      I for one welcome our overgrown garlicky overlords.

      --
      Don't fear the penguins
    5. Re:Idiots by ByOhTek · · Score: 0, Troll

      Two things: the irradiation you are talking about is done after harvest, right? (Not that this farmer isn't being silly, the amount of radiation will be mostly harmless, and since the main reproductive and sustenance parts of garlic are under ground, his crop will have some shielding).

      And DC being expendable? Usually you use the term "expendable" for a valuable resource that can be lost permanently for a short term advantage. That statement makes the assumption that we get some kind of value out of the folks in DC...

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    6. Re:Idiots by dissy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and that radiation makes his crops grow to many times their original size! Exactly as 60s sci-fi predicts! So now who's the idiot, huh?

      The farmer featured in this article is, for saying he doesn't want the sun or any lights near his crops.

    7. Re:Idiots by MightyMartian · · Score: 0

      By the sun, by the galaxy, by radioactive decay underground. What a fucking retard.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:Idiots by catbertscousin · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah, but 60's sci-fi never predicted radioactive mutant things would eat Victoria Harbour. We need to study this unexpected change in the preferred tastes of mutated organisms for Canadian over Japanese flavors.

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished. - Avon, Blake's 7
    9. Re:Idiots by joebok · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He didn't say he didn't want any radiation of any kind - he just didn't want any MORE radiation that the tower would surely bring. I don't think that is idiotic.

      Where I question his judgment is looking at the amount of radiation that the tower would introduce - the article says 60,000 x lower than the legal limit for organic food. Seems he is a bit more careful that I am. But I'm not sure that makes him an idiot.

    10. Re:Idiots by infinite9 · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, no, no, you're doing it wrong. "His crops are being irradiated by an unshielded fusion reactor! And he's putting dihydrogen monoxide on his crops!"

      --
      Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
    11. Re:Idiots by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, he's an idiot. Microwaves don't alter DNA, and the amount of all radiation hitting his plants is only going to be increased an infinitesimal amount. He's a fucking moron who knows nothing about various kinds of radiation, their effects on organic matter, but either because he wants to get on the news or because he truly is so fucking stupid, he's likely causing his neighbors to find more expensive means of high speed Internet.

      Quite frankly, if I was his neighbor, I'd sue the moron.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    12. Re:Idiots by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I was going to say someone in town should solve the problem by fertilizing his crops with radiation, and then going in with a geiger counter to show that his garlic is already too radioactive to be "organic" so the tower wouldn't be so bad.

      Then I realized 1: that would probably be somewhat irresponsible and illegal and more importantly 2: Anyone sufficiently motivated would face ordering the radioactive stuff... ON DIALUP.

    13. Re:Idiots by jcr · · Score: 4, Funny

      Tasty, garlicky overlords. I welcome them roasted and spread with a bit of olive oil on a baguette.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    14. Re:Idiots by dissy · · Score: 1

      I was going to say someone in town should solve the problem by fertilizing his crops with radiation, and then going in with a geiger counter to show that his garlic is already too radioactive to be "organic" so the tower wouldn't be so bad.

      Then I realized 1: that would probably be somewhat irresponsible and illegal and more importantly 2: Anyone sufficiently motivated would face ordering the radioactive stuff... ON DIALUP.

      That's way too much effort. Ordering online via dialup?!
      Plus doing the irradiation of his field is a lot of work too ;P

      Just go simple. Burn the field down!
      Then there will be nothing left for him to claim will be harmed by the tower >:D

      Bonus points if you go back to the scene a week later and salt the earth.

      On a serious note, I think this guy should be required to willingly give up all of his radio and TV receivers and any radio transmitters he might have.
      You shouldn't get to ban everyone else from using a multi-century old proven safe technology, while at the same time taking advantage of that technology yourself.

      No more two way radios for farm hands to stay in contact, no more cell phones for emergency calls, no more TV.

      I'd bet money he would not be willing to give up any of that himself.

    15. Re:Idiots by Spazztastic · · Score: 1

      Quite frankly, if I was his neighbor, I'd sue the moron.

      For what?

      --
      Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
    16. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, his crops are exposed to dihyrogen monoxide, a chemical compound found in cancer cells, and used by large oil and nuclear companies.

    17. Re:Idiots by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      For the expense of an alternative form of high speed, based upon the fact that his objections are pure bullshit.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    18. Re:Idiots by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      His crop is already being irradiated...BY THE SUN. Idiots. Sheesh.

      The article is full of the sort of howlers I'd come to expect from the locals while living in the backwaters of Nova Scotia. Where do we start? "Shakes up the molecules" - clearly the phrasing of a person well versed in the concept of ionizing radiation! I'll use wi-fi all day and you can sit next to some cobalt 58 and we'll see what person's molecules get "shaken up" more.

      "Moved to the country to get away from the pollution" - while it could be a valid statement, I more often hear it from either "chemical sensitives" or from hicks who think their little patch of mud is not polluted at all, that the seawater is crystal and the air is pure, that pollution and crime are "city problems", that dumping your old car in the pond isn't polluting because hey, there's no pollution in the country and the muskrats and fish are just dying from a disease.

      And then, there's the gem that the county council backed him up against the wishes of almost everyone in the village stuck on dialup either because they know as little about science as this garlic farmer or because they're "sentimental"? SENTIMENTAL? This is why Sunday shopping in Nova Scotia was a contentious issue for my last years in NS (I moved 2 years ago). This is why they made the "heritage town" designation because Canso (and probably a few other towns) lost too much population to officially be called towns. So now they're still towns, because they used to be and we don't want the townsfolk to become villagefolk and bruise their egos. (Though I admit it's probably mostly so the government don't have to change the signs.) During the whole Pluto debate I jokingly suggested that Pluto be declared a "heritage planet to recognize its proud history and contributions to the solar system". Unsurprisingly, no one got the joke.

      Man, I live in Edmonton now and every so often when I'm waiting at a stoplight or pass my third McDonalds in five minutes I think. "City life." This is followed quickly by "I'm living in a city." and a smile. Sometimes I even giggle. It'll be a cold day in Hell before I go back to the boonies.

    19. Re:Idiots by Spazztastic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For the expense of an alternative form of high speed, based upon the fact that his objections are pure bullshit.

      You'd file a civil suit over this? I don't see how you would win. Maybe the Canadian legal system is different (which is where he lives), but I'm pretty sure it would go nowhere.

      --
      Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
    20. Re:Idiots by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Sine it can in know way change his crop, then yes he is being an idiot.

      In fact, organic gardening is idiotic and dangerous to begin with. So he is all around an idiot.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    21. Re:Idiots by iceOlate · · Score: 0, Troll

      The problem with irradiating produce is that it destroys the nutrients in the produce. It also renders it non-living. Sure, it still looks the same, and that is the point they try to push in order to make this irradiation bs fly. But what is the point of eating fruits and veggies that are dead and devoid of nutrients? It would lead to mass malnutrition and many health problems over time (for those of us who actually do eat healthy and do not suffer from such health issues). Those who are susceptible to food borne illness (many of which actually come from factory farming of animals, not the produce itself), already have compromised immune systems, likely also due to lack of nutrition in the first place.

    22. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There you go calling people names. Perhaps if someone sat down and talked with this farmer they would realize that he is intelligent. The farmer may lack the knowledge to understand what he fears or he may be misinformed. Whatever the case may be calling him names in public is not going to enlighten him, or make you look intelligent. Most people love to learn, it is often the delivery of the education that turns people off.

    23. Re:Idiots by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      His crop is already being irradiated...BY THE SUN. Idiots. Sheesh.

      Yeah, and that radiation makes his crops grow to many times their original size! Exactly as 60s sci-fi predicts! So now who's the idiot, huh?

      Attack of the well-grown tomatoes?

    24. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course the alternative to an unreliable and slow RF link should be a fast and reliable fiber optic link. If it's farm land, the cost for digging a trench shouldn't be much of an issue, especially if local folks dig the trench. They probably have the equipment or can rent it cheaply. (The garlic farmer is still an idiot, but you know the saying: If life hands you a stubborn farmer, lay fiber optic cable...)

    25. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol at dihydrogen monoxide :-p

    26. Re:Idiots by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      Attack of the well-grown tomatoes?

      I'd watch that.

      Just in case of euphemism.

    27. Re:Idiots by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Informative

      If anything vegatables and milk should be intentionally irradated as is commonly done in Europe to:

      ...reduce their vitamin content, add toxic radiolytic products like 2-ACBs, and attempt to compensate for unsafe food handling practice that shouldn't have been allowed in the first place? Not to mention increasing the availability of radioisotopes that are perfect for a "dirty bomb"?

      Yes, there are ignorant folks out there who think that irradiation makes food radioactive, which is plainly wrong. That does not mean that irradiation does not have deleterious effects.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    28. Re:Idiots by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      It's only illegal if you get caught. Also, best not to order it online - get it from a shady hazardous waste disposal guy.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    29. Re:Idiots by jmazzi · · Score: 1

      The sun is organic.

    30. Re:Idiots by Charles+Dodgeson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The article is full of the sort of howlers [...]. Where do we start? "Shakes up the molecules" - clearly the phrasing of a person well versed in the concept of ionizing radiation! I'll use wi-fi all day and you can sit next to some cobalt 58 and we'll see what person's molecules get "shaken up" more.

      We are talking about microwave radiation. Microwave radiation cooks food by "shaking" the molecules (of water). Of course that isn't going to cause genetic mutation. Yes the guy is an idiot, but if you're going to get into name calling, try to get your own facts right.

      --
      Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
    31. Re:Idiots by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      Thanks for including some links, hope you get modded up. I've heard similar about milk especially, that processing is the reason the milk most people drink is essentially liquid fat with undigestable sugars (lactose) and proteins (casein).

    32. Re:Idiots by hrimhari · · Score: 1
      --
      http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
    33. Re:Idiots by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Two things: the irradiation you are talking about is done after harvest, right? (Not that this farmer isn't being silly, the amount of radiation will be mostly harmless, and since the main reproductive and sustenance parts of garlic are under ground, his crop will have some shielding).

      You can't irradiate something with a microwave tower. This guy's a nutter.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    34. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or even you femism!

    35. Re:Idiots by albedoa · · Score: 1

      60,000 times.......less? Come on.

    36. Re:Idiots by CheeseTroll · · Score: 1

      I hear the Italian Mafia can arrange special delivery.

      --
      A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
    37. Re:Idiots by SuperQ · · Score: 1

      Since it can in no way change his crop, then yes he is being an idiot.

      In fact, organic gardening is idiotic and dangerous to begin with. So he is all around an idiot.

      What evidence do you have to support your statement that "organic gardening is idiotic and dangerous"?

    38. Re:Idiots by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      I hear their boats are leaky.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    39. Re:Idiots by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      The sun is organic.

      Yeah, like I am the Atom Boy.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    40. Re:Idiots by NitroWolf · · Score: 1

      Yes he is an idiot. Microwaves != ionizing radiation. People here radiation and freak out.

      Ionizing radiation is what causes mutations. Non-ionizing radiation is basically harmless, except for perhaps heating up water molecules and for communicating over distance. The thing about ionizing radiation that you're likely to encounter in your daily life is that it's very low energy... so once it bounces off a wall or other object, it looses most of it's energy. You get far more ionizing radiation from the sun than you do from just about any other source you're likely to encounter. Microwave towers included.

      So yes, he's an idiot.

    41. Re:Idiots by jeffasselin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Lactose is only undigestible if you lack the protein to do so. Most people of Indo-European descent have this gene, which comes from a mutation that occurred something like 10-15k years ago.

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    42. Re:Idiots by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Please don't mention this inconvenient truth to the warmists. There's going to be a lot of ass covering/"I Didn't Know" face-saving backpedaling in the near future. Or the whole thing will just sorta "go away" to make space for the next manufactured crisis, the lack of fresh water and cute furry animals.

    43. Re:Idiots by ZarathustraDK · · Score: 2, Funny

      What evidence do you have to support your statement that "organic gardening is idiotic and dangerous"?

      Not evidence, proof: "organic" stuff attracts hippies, hippies smoke pot, pot is dealt by drug-dealers, or grown organically on the garlic-farm, exponentially reinforcing the vicious cycle of bong-headedness and drug-war through the positive feedback mechanism as pot attracts both hippies and drug-dealers.

      --
      If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
    44. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Preferably through his land.

    45. Re:Idiots by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The question is, does the irradiation have a less deleterious effect than, say, E.Coli being in your juice?

    46. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Irradiated food may not be as safe as you think.

      I have personally seen a sample of fungus irradiated with enough radiation that supposedly would have killed you or me thousands of times over. All it did to the fungus was to cause part of the sample to mutate, while the entire sample went happily along it's way munching Fungus Chow.

    47. Re:Idiots by alaffin · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't know if you're a troll, ignorant of a basic understanding of the things you're talking about, a green nut job on the order of Mr. Levine in the article or some combination thereof. There are so many things wrong with your above statement that I'm honestly not sure where to begin. For starters, what makes you think that a thing has to be alive to be nutritious? The cow that the steak I ate for supper last night was once alive, but I assure you by the time it appeared on my plate it was very much an ex-cow. Dietary minerals (such as iron, copper, chloride and sodium), part of the essential nutrients subgroup, are not only not alive, they were never, ever alive.

      Many studies of irradiated animal feed have been conducted over the years and no negative impact has been found. As is noted it is widely done in the EU and yet mass malnutrition is not there. Nonsense about nutrients is exactly the same type of nonsense Mr. Levine is pushing - fear mongering driven by ignorance.

    48. Re:Idiots by Jerry+Smith · · Score: 1

      Give up radio and telly? Do they radiate much then?

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
    49. Re:Idiots by lessthan · · Score: 1

      Pfff, United Nuclear's site is nice and simple. Shouldn't be too much of an issue.

      --
      Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
    50. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah, it's the Farmer's Land, not the government's, so in order for anyone to force this guy to put a tower, it would seem to me that they'd have to violate his right against unreasonable siezure of property.

    51. Re:Idiots by dissy · · Score: 1

      Give up radio and telly? Do they radiate much then?

      How else do you think the radio signal gets from the transmitter to the receiver?

    52. Re:Idiots by ukyoCE · · Score: 0

      There are also enzymes for digesting lactose in milk to begin with. But pasteurization destroys those enzymes (as well as a multitude of other enzymes and nutrients).

      Of course there's also bacteria and other scary things in milk that make it go bad fast, which is why we pasteurize it.

    53. Re:Idiots by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      If there is such a limit, then the solution is simple : have an absorbing material close to the antenna that makes a shadow cone for this part of land. Then, take your time to make your case in court and if won, make the farmer pay for the additional work on the cone.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    54. Re:Idiots by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Just taking the wacky green agenda to its extreme boundary. If anything vegatables and milk should be intentionally irradated as is commonly done in Europe to: A > Reduce food borne illness B > Save enormous amounts of money on chilling food at the grocery store Planet saved and less medical costs, illnesses, don't tell Washington DC they are now expendable !

      How nice of you to dictate what others can and can not eat and drink.

      Falcon

    55. Re:Idiots by liquiddark · · Score: 1

      Way to be the kind of person most folks are glad to see leave rural areas.

    56. Re:Idiots by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      You can't irradiate something with a microwave tower. This guy's a nutter.

      But you can alter something by microwaving it. If it were impossible then microwave ovens would not exist. This farmer may or may not be nuts but you are ignorant.

      Falcon

    57. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His crop is already being irradiated...BY THE SUN. Idiots. Sheesh.

      Yeah, and that radiation makes his crops grow to many times their original size! Exactly as 60s sci-fi predicts! So now who's the idiot, huh?

      Attack of the well-grown tomatoes?

      But tomatoes grown in a well would get much less radiation, wouldn't they?

      I'm confused.

    58. Re:Idiots by selven · · Score: 2, Funny

      Clearly the sun is the enemy here. BURN THE SUN!

    59. Re:Idiots by pfleming · · Score: 1

      The problem with irradiating produce is that it destroys the nutrients in the produce. It also renders it non-living.

      You mean like a microwave?

    60. Re:Idiots by skuzzlebutt · · Score: 1

      Close. It's a big happy circle:

      Organic garden attracts hippies. Hippies smoke pot. Pot is a gateway drug, leading to heroin and cocaine, which are manufactured and distributed by terrorists. Increased terrorist activity leads to more convervatives in office, which then creates a groundswell of liberals to counter them every 4 years or so. Liberals, of course, only eat organic garlic.

      And all is well with the world.

      --
      My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
    61. Re:Idiots by eleuthero · · Score: 1

      The technology has also been proven dangerous, why do you think microwave ovens have switches built in to turn the oven off when the door is opened? Would you step in a human scaled one and let someone turn it on?

      There was actually an article on this very idea a few years back in Popular Science. It was about then that I realized exactly how "popular" should be understood in the title of the magazine. It was suggested that the wave of the future was a house built with microwave transmitters to constantly ensure that the inhabitants were toasty warm without the energy waste of heating the entire building. Having a microwave constantly running strikes me as a bit irresponsible, though if someone could demonstrate that it actually was safe, I wouldn't object to other people putting them in their homes. I am probably not scientific enough to go over for a dinner party even if it were to be proven safe, but...

    62. Re:Idiots by layer3switch · · Score: 1

      you also have facts wrong. "shaking" of molecules or also commonly mistakenly expressed as "resonance" doesn't occur in traditional household microwave dielectric heating appliance. but rather microwave "rotates" dipole molecules by altering electric field, hence creating rapid collisions resulting "heat". resonance happens at 10 times (20Ghz) that of traditional microwave (~2.4Ghz). so yeah... try to get your own facts right... :)

      --
      "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
    63. Re:Idiots by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Yes he is an idiot.
      There are standards set for organic farming and this is 60,000x less.
      His is as big of an idiot as someone that tried to stop the people next to him from painting thier barn red because it would destroy the cosmic flow of energy his plants need to keep their auras in harmony.
      Really the answer should be too bad your a nut job get over it.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    64. Re:Idiots by budgenator · · Score: 1

      My DC electronics instructor used to tune dipole microwave antennas built during the war (WW II) with a tuning wand up high on a ladder while his partner watched the meters on the ground; he remarked that even in the winter he never had to wear a coat up on the ladder. The real question is how much microwave energy is your body having to disipate, usually not much, I'd bet the the amount the endangered garlic is dissipating from the tower is about the same as the normal background noise.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    65. Re:Idiots by budgenator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The tower is going on the neighbor's property, and it's the neighbor who'll be receiving the rent payments.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    66. Re:Idiots by vintagepc · · Score: 1

      Err... we have human-sized microwaves... or at least the US army does.
      See here
      What's more, the microwave switches off for its own safety as well- The principle behind it relies on the standing constructive/destructive waves inside the microwave cage to heat the food. If you open the door, no more interference (all waves bounce out) and it just wastes energy, possibly burning out the microwave element as well.

      --
      Evolution - Est. 4500000000 B.C. Don't piss in the gene pool.
    67. Re:Idiots by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Well there are dangers involved with micro-organisms in the composts and manures used to fertilize organic fields; real country-folks usually have well developed immune systems and have no problems but city-slickers especially those with compromised immune systems can get life threatening infections. The probability of these problems occurring are low but not nill.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    68. Re:Idiots by Panaflex · · Score: 1

      I drink raw, unpasteurized milk fairly regularly. It's really a delicious treat. Occasionally I pasteurize my milk, but only if I am giving it away or when someone is sick at home. All foods require safe food handling (cleaning, testing, refrigeration) - milk is no different. All too often people are unsafe with their food and that's what leads to illness.

      --
      I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
    69. Re:Idiots by gilgongo · · Score: 1

      That does not mean that irradiation does not have deleterious effects.

      Although I assume that if there were any observable *consequences* of those effects on the population, you would have provided evidence for that.

      --
      "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
    70. Re:Idiots by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      The question is, does the irradiation have a less deleterious effect than, say, E.Coli being in your juice?

      No, the question is is food crops grown with care and the processing of food done in hygienic conditions. That E Coli? The apples were not washed well enough, or were allowed to be contaminated afterwards. I garden and I always wash what I pick, with clean hands. Some things I'll also soak in a solution of water, castile soap, fruit and vegetable wash, and or hydrogen peroxide. I've shared some with a neighbor and even after washing the produce myself I tell them to wash what I gave them before they use it.

      Falcon

    71. Re:Idiots by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      Not only that, the crop seems to have already mutated- his garlic repels vampires AND logic!

    72. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it "shakes up" any di-pole molecules

    73. Re:Idiots by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Of course there's also bacteria and other scary things in milk that make it go bad fast, which is why we pasteurize it.

      What's truly scary is that some will deny others the ability to make their own decisions. Plenty of people like raw or unpasteurized milk yet some places made it illegal. If anyone is harmed it is the user yet they aren't allowed to decide what risks they will take.

      Falcon

    74. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Food irradiation is something I remember hearing about when I was fairly young (circa mid-80s), and I'd almost totally forgotten about it until I saw a repeat of an early Red Dwarf where Rimmer and Lister are doing a stockcheck and mention "irradiated haggis".

    75. Re:Idiots by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      In fact, organic gardening is idiotic and dangerous to begin with.

      Why is, and prove that, organic gardening is idiotic. I bet this is nothing more than FUD.

      Falcon

    76. Re:Idiots by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      alter != irradiate. Microwaves heat things and that's about all. I'm tired of morons freaking out over 60W microwave towers because it might possibly raise their garlic .01C and other morons who can't tell irradiate apart from alter.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    77. Re:Idiots by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      "If it were a perfect world, everything would be perfect." It is impossible to clean everything perfectly, every time, all the time, with soap and water. Especially on an industrial scale. That is why irradiation exists. Or perhaps you would like to volunteer to wash veggies for the companies? Or perhaps pay many times what you're paying now, due to the cost of such washings?

    78. Re:Idiots by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Well there are dangers involved with micro-organisms in the composts and manures used to fertilize organic fields; real country-folks usually have well developed immune systems and have no problems but city-slickers especially those with compromised immune systems can get life threatening infections.

      Since so called conventional farming causes the same thing I don't consider that a valid argument. I doubt the breakout was localized to rural communities when Taco Bell had contaminated food.

    79. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, there are so many people who lack this enzyme that scientists are debating dropping the term "Lactose Intolerance" and adopting "Lactose Tolerance" for people who CAN digest lactose.

    80. Re:Idiots by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Until the farmer loses, that town is stuck on dial-up. Now, that's a travesty"

      The townspeople have the option to do what ever, within legal limits, they wish in order to convince the farmer of the error of his ways.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    81. Re:Idiots by supernova_hq · · Score: 2, Funny

      Through a cable...?

    82. Re:Idiots by compro01 · · Score: 1

      But fibre optic cables are flooded with terahertz band radiation! What if it leaks out!?

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    83. Re:Idiots by DogAlmity · · Score: 1

      Too hot right now, we'll have to wait until night.

    84. Re:Idiots by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      Edmonton has its share of loons, too.

      Oh, absolutely. It's more about loons per capita, though.;)

    85. Re:Idiots by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      Way to be the kind of person most folks are glad to see leave rural areas.

      Thank you. I am as they made me, nothing more.

    86. Re:Idiots by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      Attack of the well-grown tomatoes?

      But tomatoes grown in a well would get much less radiation, wouldn't they?

      I'm confused.

      Only if the well was well-lined in lead, and then, well, your tomatoes won't grow well in the well.

    87. Re:Idiots by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      It is impossible to clean everything perfectly, every time, all the time, with soap and water. Especially on an industrial scale.

      As I've said before, that's part of the problem. I don't wash just what I grow in my garden, I also wash produce I buy in stores. There is such a thing as personal responsibility. Now if you want to pay others for that go ahead but don't mandate others to follow you.

      Related to this is labeling GMOs and GE food. Businesses have fought any and all requirement to label food as having GE content. I buy organic food and milk, and the label on the milk I buy says "Milk from cows not treated with rBST. No significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rBST treated and non-threated cows." If GE food is so good why are those who sell GE food fighting labeling of GE food and not boosting it's so good instead of requiring labels on organics saying there's no difference? Perhaps because if labels said a product had GMOs sells would drop? Fact is is they are scared.

      Falcon

    88. Re:Idiots by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      alter != irradiate. Microwaves heat things and that's about all. I'm tired of morons freaking out over 60W microwave towers because it might possibly raise their garlic .01C and other morons who can't tell irradiate apart from alter.

      And I'm tired of morons saying there's nothing wrong with microwaves, especially when some science studies say they cause damage.

      Falcon

    89. Re:Idiots by Kymermosst · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The technology has also been proven dangerous, why do you think microwave ovens have switches built in to turn the oven off when the door is opened? Would you step in a human scaled one and let someone turn it on?

      Two words: power density.

      An average consumer microwave oven has at least 600W of microwave power confined inside a tiny box. If you open the door, you are likely standing in front of it which would give you a fair amount of microwave exposure.

      The microwave transmitter referred to in the TFA is likely to only transmit at up to a few watts using a directional antenna in the open air, and you are not likely to ever be standing right in front of it.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    90. Re:Idiots by Charles+Dodgeson · · Score: 1

      you also have facts wrong. "shaking" of molecules or also commonly mistakenly expressed as "resonance" doesn't occur in traditional household microwave dielectric heating appliance. but rather microwave "rotates" dipole molecules by altering electric field, hence creating rapid collisions resulting "heat". resonance happens at 10 times (20Ghz) that of traditional microwave (~2.4Ghz). so yeah... try to get your own facts right... :)

      Thank you for the elaboration of some of the mechanism by which microwaves shake water.

      I had thought of putting in a note that "shaking" isn't the best word for describing how microwaves heat water. I had mistakenly thought that given the context, I would be cut a little bit of slack there. I was just trying to point out that the idiot's talk of "shaking" wasn't as far from the mark as what the post I was replying to suggested. None the less, I acknowledge that just as the rag that wipes the pot that calls the kettle black is the last to come clean, I should have been more precise and explicit.

      --
      Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
    91. Re:Idiots by falconwolf · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Microwave radiation cooks food by "shaking" the molecules (of water). Of course that isn't going to cause genetic mutation. Yes the guy is an idiot, but if you're going to get into name calling, try to get your own facts right.

      microwaves alter dna science study or studies.

      Falcon

    92. Re:Idiots by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Who cares? Microwaves don't irradiate things, that's the point. I've got a big ball of fusion that is a whole lot more dangerous and you haven't made a peep about that.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    93. Re:Idiots by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      the crop seems to have already mutated- his garlic repels vampires AND logic!

      And perhaps microwaves has mutated other's logic.

      Falcon

    94. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "here", "loosing", "idiot".

      Pot, kettle, black?

    95. Re:Idiots by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      The technology has also been proven dangerous, why do you think microwave ovens have switches built in to turn the oven off when the door is opened? Would you step in a human scaled one and let someone turn it on?

      Two words: power density.

      Thanks for your explanation. However since the GP said microwaves have been proven safe I wanted to point out they have also been proven dangerous and lethal.

      Perhaps I should have pointed out weapons system that use microwaves such as the Active Denial System which using microwaves to cause pain in protesters.

      Falcon

    96. Re:Idiots by Donkey_Hotey · · Score: 1

      According to TFA, it is not *on* his land, but near it....

      --
      (There is supposed to be a Sarcmark® here, but my $1.99 check hasn't cleared, yet...)
    97. Re:Idiots by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Nuclear power is an amazing technology that would solve many of the world's power problems, yet all kinds of people fight against it. This entire article is about the knee-jerk idiocy that happens when anyone sees the word "nuclear". They're fighting it because the morons of the world will think that irradiation makes the food dangerous.

    98. Re:Idiots by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      He's in Canada. Is there such a right there?

    99. Re:Idiots by liquiddark · · Score: 1

      Being an asshole is not a born skill, whatever you might tell yourself.

    100. Re:Idiots by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      What's truly scary is that some will deny others the ability to make their own decisions. Plenty of people like raw or unpasteurized milk yet some places made it illegal. If anyone is harmed it is the user yet they aren't allowed to decide what risks they will take.

      It's that tricky rights-of-the-children vs. rights-of-the-parents thing. It's also a product that deserves some QA on the user's part. I think it's pretty clear that more children will get sick from drinking raw milk than pasteurized milk, given that quality control has to vary among dairies.

      I'm glad the raw milk economy is alive, my favorite creamery depends on it, but I'd also not give it to my kids unless I was really sure about the conditions it came from. Local isn't sufficient - I've gotten some milk from our local dairy on (rare) occasion that tasted of cow shit.

      Also, education is far more effective than regulation. If it were only adults creating risk for themselves, I'm all for it. Moms who are feeding their very young kids raw milk instead of breast feeding just aren't on my list of 'OK parents'.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    101. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sweet, I'm a mutant.

    102. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

      #8

    103. Re:Idiots by bandmassa · · Score: 1

      He'll get his time in the sun, he may even win. Science, in the general community, anyway, is dead :-(

      --
      "I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
    104. Re:Idiots by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Nuclear power is an amazing technology that would solve many of the world's power problems

      In a free market Wall Street would not finance nuclear power, the Nuclear Power Industry is "Hooked on Subsidies". Notice what that article even says of other nations "How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors." In Finland Olkiluoto 3, being built by the French government owned Areva and Siemens so there is no lack of experience, is 3 year behind schedule and "about $2.4bn dollars (1.7bn euros) over budget."

      "In Flamanville, France, a clone of the Finnish reactor now under construction is also behind schedule and overbudget."

      "In the United States, Florida and Georgia have changed state laws to raise electricity rates so that consumers will foot some of the bill for new nuclear plants in advance, before construction even begins."

      In a free market you don't pay for what you don't use, and it would give you choices as to who supplies you. I'd rather pay a little extra for electricity from a solar or wind farm than I would to be forced to pay for nuclear power.

      Oh and solar as well as wind can provide a lot of energy, in the US and Canada, with geothermal serving as a baseload.

      They're fighting it because the morons of the world will think that irradiation makes the food dangerous.

      Some people are quite rationally concerned because there have been no long term studies on the effects of microwaves on plants, or people, yet studies have shown microwaves can alter DNA.

      Falcon

    105. Re:Idiots by bendodge · · Score: 1

      Curiosity question: how do we know that it was a mutation, and not just a normal gene that some people groups lost a while ago?

      --
      The government can't save you.
    106. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solar and Wind take up way too much landmass. You could get away with it in desert regions but your still disturbing desert eco systems. I'm for nuclear but even nuclear has it's problems. It's not like their is an unlimited source of uranium on earth (even with breeding reactors).

    107. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give up radio and telly? Do they radiate much then?

      How else do you think the radio signal gets from the transmitter to the receiver?

      NOT by the telly or radio radiating anything.

    108. Re:Idiots by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      It's that tricky rights-of-the-children vs. rights-of-the-parents thing. I think it's pretty clear that more children will get sick from drinking raw milk than pasteurized milk, given that quality control has to vary among dairies.

      First, I disagree, but actually it's more than just that. At least for infants. For infants add in mother's milk and formula. As for raw milk, I firmly believe hygiene and how the milk is handled plays a big roll. In a free market when one farmer doesn't exercise care in the handling of milk word will get out the farmer sells bad milk, especially with law suits thrown in.

      I'm glad the raw milk economy is alive, my favorite creamery depends on it, but I'd also not give it to my kids unless I was really sure about the conditions it came from. Local isn't sufficient - I've gotten some milk from our local dairy on (rare) occasion that tasted of cow shit.

      In part I agree. At least with a local farmer you should be able to see how operations are conducted and if you don't like them you could use another one. I don't have children myself, though I wanted 2 of my own and wanted to adopt 2, but I'm a firm believer in mother's milk and would rather use it as much as I could. Perhaps mix it and raw cows milk as well.

      Oh, as for buying locally, I came across something on this earlier tonight: "Buying Local Isn't Always Better For The Environment". ScienceDaily also had this: Organic Or Local Fruits and Vegetables?" And those aren't the only ones like them I've read. I support buying locally but not when it takes more resources.

      Also, education is far more effective than regulation.

      I agree most of the tyme, but not all the tyme. Actually I believe that sometimes regulations are created to reduce or artificially keep low competition. Make staying within regulations expensive then you raise the bar on starting a business in the field being regulated. Some supporters of raw milk believe that's why laws and regulations were passed requiring milk to be pasteurized. Small dairy operators may not be able to afford to pasteurize milk, so they either stop dairy farming or they sell raw milk to someone who buys milk from a bunch of other dairy farms as well and can afford to pasteurize the milk.

      Moms who are feeding their very young kids raw milk instead of breast feeding just aren't on my list of 'OK parents'.

      Here I fully agree.

      Falcon

    109. Re:Idiots by Eivind · · Score: 2, Informative

      But everything is lethal in the right dosis, so that's an absurd statement.

      Drinking water is generally considered safe, despite the fact that a few gallons drunk quickly may very well kill you (and people do die from drinking too much water on occasion)

    110. Re:Idiots by SteelWing · · Score: 1
      [sarcasm] Break out the tin foil hats everyone. Those Wi-Fi rays will melt your brain! [/sarcasm] Seriously this "Wi-Fi is bad for everything" b/s needs to stop. We've got more pressing matters like how other idiots want their government to tell their kids what they can and can't play on their consoles/computers. There is no proof that Wi-Fi actually does anything to you. God, this is as bad as the old microwave oven emits radiation myth.

      The technology has also been proven dangerous, why do you think microwave ovens have switches built in to turn the oven off when the door is opened? Would you step in a human scaled one and let someone turn it on?

      What proof? Show me this proof of which you speak. Not to mention go watch mythbusters. They covered microwaves. Microwaves are safe. They use electromagnetic radiation this form of radiation is harmless the type you and the garlic farmer are thinking of is Ionizing radiation. Oh about that switch? Thats a child safety feature you idiot. You don't want your kid opening the door while its on and emitting heat do you?

    111. Re:Idiots by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      Your faith in the getting "the word out" assumes that people have plenty of time and energy to analyze and decide for themselves. It also ignores the real-life consequences that involve people, especially kids, suffering before the word "gets out".

      It also ignores the numerous new entities that will try to enter the market with substandard milk. Yes, even they will be pushed out by word of mouth, but not until they cause irreparable damage.

    112. Re:Idiots by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      Don't mistake "running over budget" for being cost ineffective. The reactor you're referring to in France is a 3rd generation reactor, the first of its kind. Subsequent reactors built on the same technology will naturally cost less and not be underbudgeted.

      Since I don't want to wait for the post time limit to come up... In a previous post you mentioned people should have more "personable responsibility" when it comes to food choices. That is a truly crass and elitist statement, and one of the reasons libertarians are such a fringe group. Not everyone wants to or cares about such intensive analyzations. We all have a very limited amount of free time in or day (many people feeling like they don't have enough as it is), and most people seem to value convenience over whatever it is you believe in.

    113. Re:Idiots by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Microwave radiation cooks food by "shaking" the molecules (of water). Of course that isn't going to cause genetic mutation.

      But it could potentially alter how well the garlic grows, how bitter it is, how fertile the seeds are, and so on

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    114. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that town is stuck on dial-up.

      Not sure exactly where he's at, as the valley is quite large, but I live in it and I have high speed (wired) internet.
      My inlaws live further out into the boonies, and even they have it.
      Who needs wireless anyway?

    115. Re:Idiots by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      In the mornings(3am) when we used to arrive at the milking shed there was never any milk. So we would stick our coffee under 701.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    116. Re:Idiots by ommerson · · Score: 1

      To be pedantic, microwave radiation in telecommunication applications has not been proven to be safe, but on the other hand there is little credible evidence to suggest that it is unsafe.

    117. Re:Idiots by Charles+Dodgeson · · Score: 1

      But [microwave induced "shaking" of molecules] could potentially alter how well the garlic grows, how bitter it is, how fertile the seeds are, and so on

      Certainly if you put a growing garlic plant in a microwave oven and hit it full blast it would effect how it grows. But the microwaves we are talking about are so weak as to be truly negligible. If you read the article, you will find that the power is several orders of magnitude less than what would prevent the crops from getting an "organic" label. And even that cut-off is meaningless.

      It's pretty clear what is going on with this particular farmer. He is one of the many people who see modern technology as a dangerous tampering with nature and the natural order. He was grasping at straws with his talk of "shaking molecules" and "genetic mutation". What we need to consider in these cases is not the specific claims that people like this make about science. Those will invariably be nonsense. We need to consider what underlies his panic.

      Of course what underlies his panic is also irrational, but we need to remember that a lot of people share that (although to a lesser extent). Somehow, I don't know how, we need to address those fears.

      --
      Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
    118. Re:Idiots by martas · · Score: 1

      holy crap man, don't do that, I'm hungry already...

    119. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, that farmer is offered a free giant microwave. He can now produce cooked garlic. Why is he complaining?

      Oh, but the power is too low, it would take centuries to cook those garlic with this thing. Too bad!!!

    120. Re:Idiots by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      As for raw milk, I firmly believe hygiene and how the milk is handled plays a big roll. In a free market when one farmer doesn't exercise care in the handling of milk word will get out the farmer sells bad milk, especially with law suits thrown in.

      Right, but it's not as simple as 'this farmer is clean', 'this farmer is not'. When I stopped by the local dairy to grab a choco-milk and it was apparent the brown color was not just from chocolate, this was a mistake that happened. No dairy of any size can run on the power of just one man, and even if that were true he's allowed to get sick or go on vacation once in a while. There are many people, most of them not highly paid, who come and go in dairy operations. Sometimes, even the best of people make a mistake (those robotic dairies may be the exception, but they're still very rare). I'm just not willing to get sick over those mistakes.

      So, I see pasteurization as a kind of insurance policy on milk, and I'm willing to pay a bit more for the insurance. Granted, I don't have milk allergies to contend with, so that's not in my calculations. But for my kids, the odds of them getting sick is directly proportional to the error rate at the dairy. I can't know or control that error rate, so the insurance makes sense for me. Those robotic dairies do know the error rate - the milk quality is directly measured with lasers and whatnot at the milking station, and dumped if the curves aren't right at the source. That kind of technology could improve the quality to a point where the error rates can't be distinguished from random noise. But, I agree, it's also an impedement to market competition for small dairies (but the amoratized cost ought to be cheaper than human labor).

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    121. Re:Idiots by inviolet · · Score: 1

      You can't irradiate something with a microwave tower. This guy's a nutter.

      He might be perfectly rational -- and perfectly aware that his customers are nutters. All it would take is for a competing organic farm to say "Oh yeah, that other brand, their stuff is exposed to MICROWAVE RADIATION OMG!", and boom, he's out of business.

      You've got to keep in mind the sort of people (his customers) who will pay double for 'organic' foods.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    122. Re:Idiots by operator_error · · Score: 1

      That site is freakin' awesome! Previously, I had looked everywhere for a Death Ray Tube without success. That was until today.

      http://www.unitednuclear.com/deathray.htm

      "Phone orders now accepted!
      Over 300,000 Satisfied Customers! "

    123. Re:Idiots by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      He's a damn farmer! You expect him to know about "various kinds of radiation?"

      Let's be realistic here.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    124. Re:Idiots by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      It also ignores the numerous new entities that will try to enter the market with substandard milk. Yes, even they will be pushed out by word of mouth, but not until they cause irreparable damage.

      Have you ever heard of courts and civil lawsuits?

      Have you heard of government approved drugs that have had to be withdrawn?

      Do you know the government is the biggest polluter in the US? And that it passes laws allowing it to get away with polluting?

      Government is the biggest threat to liberty yet you want government to have power to regulate what people do.

      Falcon

    125. Re:Idiots by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      The reactor you're referring to in France is a 3rd generation reactor, the first of its kind.

      It is not the first of it's kind. It is a clone of the reactor in Finland.

      Subsequent reactors built on the same technology will naturally cost less and not be underbudgeted.

      Except it is a subsequent reactor and is still over budget and overdue.

      In a previous post you mentioned people should have more "personable responsibility" when it comes to food choices. That is a truly crass and elitist statement,

      No, those who want a nanny state are crass and elitist. Only the nanny state has the wisdom to decide what people can and can not do. Now tell me how many capitalists, free market advocates, and businesses have massacred more than 10 million people, massacred or repressed more than 10 million others, or killed tens of millions more people?

      And don't say the US hasn't had it's hands on anything like that. Ask the Cherokee about the Trail of Tears President Andrew Jackson forced the Cherokee to march on, in which thousands died, breaking a treaty despite the USSC ruling he was breaking the law. Ask the Sioux how many treaties the US broke with them. Ask them what happened in the Black Hills and at Wounded Knee. Ask the American Indian women who were forcibly sterilized up through the 1970s by the government. Ask the East Timorese about President Ford and Henry Kissinger's support of Indonesia's invasion of the sovereign nation of East Timor and the subsequent massacre of 200,000 East Timorese, on third of the population. Ask about Ford and Kissinger's support for the overthrow of the democratically elected in Chile by General Pinochet after which tens of thousands simply disappeared with thousands more bodies found.

      Falcon

    126. Re:Idiots by DoninIN · · Score: 1

      In no small part because a Coal fired plant can spew a tremendous amount of general gunk into the air for "free" if they paid the "true cost" of the pollution they generate, perhaps the equation would be different? True cost is hard to define so of course you can define your terms so that nuclear is cheaper, or still more expensive, of course if you count C02 into the equation.. It's even more fuzzy... But my point remains..

    127. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Seems he is a bit more careful that I am. But I'm not sure that makes him an idiot."

                Yes he is.

  3. He should be so lucky by Verteiron · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Scientists and corporations around the world would buy his crop at many times market value, in order to both prove and disprove that the mutations were a result of the tower. What a disappointment it will be for him when the tower is built and his crop turns out just fine.

    --
    End of lesson. You may press the button.
    1. Re:He should be so lucky by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      except for people like thi, it won't be ok. He will perceive it's a problem and any normal crop behavior that is negative in nature will get blamed on the towers waves.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:He should be so lucky by Moraelin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Reminds me of http://german-bash.org/101161.

      Short and translated version: the Telekom had built a cell phone mast in a village, and a lot of villagers started to complain about sleep problems and whatnot because of it. The comment of the Telekom was, "how bad must it get, when we actually turn it on" :p

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  4. Mutating Radiation by adisakp · · Score: 1

    Because we don't get any naturally from the Sun, Cosmic rays, or spontaneous decay of elements naturally occuring on earth.

  5. I, for one,... by Condor80 · · Score: 1

    ...would definitely buy garlic from this guy.

    1. Re:I, for one,... by PriceIke · · Score: 1

      Don't try to buy it on his Web site.

      --
      It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
  6. Money... that's what its all about! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He pissed off that the tower site wasn't built on his land so he could collect rent money.

  7. Where's the proof? by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

    "'I think over a period of time it will change the DNA of the garlic because it shakes up the molecules,' he said Tuesday."

    He THINKS? I'd like to KNOW, and know WHY.

    --
    "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    1. Re:Where's the proof? by xSauronx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      oh they dont need to know how and why. when my aunt was diagnosed with breast cancer she decided to look into radical natural diet and exercise changes to try and avoid chemo and a mastectomy. growth halted in the tumors for well over a year, she lost weight, felt better than ever before.

      good for her. she also got rid of her microwave oven. while she wont come right out and say it to most of the family, she believe the radiation can mutate food in the microwave and cause her body harm. wow.

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    2. Re:Where's the proof? by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's not possible. Only ionizing radiation can alter DNA.

      Microwaves are not ionizing radiation. Not even remotely close, they're on the complete opposite side of the visible portion of the spectrum in fact.

      From visible, you go to IR and then to RF (including microwaves)
      To get to the wavelengths capable of altering DNA, you need to go the other way, through violet to UV (DNA damage), X-rays (more DNA damage!) and gamma (lots of DNA damage).

      There's only one way I can describe this guy - fucking ignorant dumbass. The most likely thing to do DNA damage to his crops is the very sunlight his crops depend on to grow.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    3. Re:Where's the proof? by WEqR0lDRR6I · · Score: 1

      Could intense, penetrating(AKA not from this cell phone towers at his distance :b) non-ionizing radiation hypothetically interfere with mitosis and cause mutations that way?

    4. Re:Where's the proof? by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Yes, by depositing so much energy in something that it heats up enough to cause damage. This is how a microwave oven works.

    5. Re:Where's the proof? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Also these type of microwave towers are very directional - so very little radiation would be directed anywhere but the intended direction.

    6. Re:Where's the proof? by Quothz · · Score: 1

      It's not possible. Only ionizing radiation can alter DNA.

      That's not strictly true. If you get DNA hot enough it can denature, but the most likely effect is that it'll simply stop working. It's barely, theoretically, possible to bombard DNA with non-ionizing radiation, cool it again careful-like, and end up with a mutation. But of course that ain't gonna happen because of a nearby microwave tower. For that matter, it ain't gonna happen even if you try to do it, unless you try an awful lot and get very lucky.

      If this guy thinks it's a reasonable concern, I'm surprised he hasn't sold his garlic farm and spent all the cash on used lottery tickets.

    7. Re:Where's the proof? by hansamurai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Getting rid of the microwave, while not stopping the cancerous growth, may very well have served as a placebo for helping with her overall health. Sometimes results are more important than the method, and if she thinks this is helping her, more power to her.

    8. Re:Where's the proof? by TopherC · · Score: 1

      But you forget that DNA are delicate critters, and like all life they need water to survive! Microwaves heat water which would burn some of the DNA causing them to mutate with anger!

      Don't forget, too, that lots of viruses travel around the interweb! You don't want those viruses to get into garlic, do you? Even though they are computer viruses, they could mutate (from all the radiation) into a pandemic that wipes out all humans shorter than 5-foot seven. That's a lot of people, so we should never take such a stupid risk.

      And don't bother telling me that microwaves cannot affect DNA. They can! Obviously, DNA are small, and so are microwaves or they wouldn't be called "micro". Gamma rays are much less harmful since they are rays and not waves and don't cause such disastrous shaking of the DNA. They are also much bigger since "gamma" is like "mega" which is MUCH bigger than "micro".

      But seriously, I wonder since folks like this are completely impervious to logic, might they be convinced if they hear the mad ravings of someone even crazier than themselves?

    9. Re:Where's the proof? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, she can do what she wants with her microwave as it ONLY AFFECTS HER. If, on the other hand, she tried to ban microwaves in all houses on her block, she'd be a dipshit like this farmer.

    10. Re:Where's the proof? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      She got lucky or she is going to die a pretty bad death from that choice.
      Really an all natural diet will not stop cancer. Cancer is all natural like most other illnesses.
      The microwave didn't cause it but being overweight may have made it more likely.
      A mastectomy and chemo just isn't that bad. I say that because a good friends mother made the same wrong choice and died a pretty bad death and I had to comfort my friend through it.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    11. Re:Where's the proof? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not even a placebo. If, previously, she was using a microwave to heat lots of ready-prepared food then removing it may be a direct cause of her diet improving, leading to better health.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    12. Re:Where's the proof? by Ocker3 · · Score: 1

      a faint possibility could also be that she had an old and/or malfunctioning microwave, which was spitting out radiation when it shouldn't. Physical damage (from dropping, or insect infestations) can lead to microwaves leaking radiation. I'd say an average electrician has some kind of meter that can test for that.

    13. Re:Where's the proof? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      "'I think over a period of time it will change the DNA of the garlic because it shakes up the molecules,' he said Tuesday."

      He THINKS? I'd like to KNOW, and know WHY.

      microwaves alter dna science study or studies.

      Falcon

    14. Re:Where's the proof? by syousef · · Score: 1

      Getting rid of the microwave, while not stopping the cancerous growth, may very well have served as a placebo for helping with her overall health. Sometimes results are more important than the method, and if she thinks this is helping her, more power to her.

      Yes lets be dillusional and avoid proven treatments then justify such nonsense based on 3rd hand annedotal evidence. Meanwhile for every patient that is 'magically cured' through the miracle of 'radical healthy living' there are tens of thousands that DIE trying such stupid nonsense.

      One person winning lotto does not make it a sensible thing to play lotto. One person 'cured' by doing radical alernative treatment doesn't mean others should do it.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    15. Re:Where's the proof? by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      Not really specified whether the tower uses an omni or directional antennas or not. Likely the limit of the tower's directionality is a sector antenna pointed at town. Guessing it doesn't do electronically steered phased array.

      To achieve any significant field strength at this guy's field would require far higher transmitter power than is typical for such a comm system (typical is a maximum of 30-50 watts) and a huge directional antenna pointed right at his plants.

      The heating from such an RF field would still be far less than from sunlight, not counting sunlight's UV component too.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    16. Re:Where's the proof? by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      You heat anything too much and it will get damaged.

      Microwaves CAN cause tissue damage - by heating.

      The key is:
      1) At low powers it's about as dangerous as touching a warm object, i.e. not at all
      2) Unlike ionizing radiation, damage is not cumulative. Damage only occurs when you heat something beyond the temperature at which damage occurs.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  8. So, who grows INorganic garlic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ain't nothing healthier than all-natural.

    Such as getting eaten by a shark. Or stung to death by bees. Or hit by lightning.

    1. Re:So, who grows INorganic garlic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, who grows INorganic garlic?

      Um, anyone who uses pesticides?

    2. Re:So, who grows INorganic garlic? by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      Ain't nothing healthier than all-natural.

      I don't trust that organic stuff. So I make sure all the carbon in my garlic has been replaced by silicon. Makes it nice and crunchy, too.

    3. Re:So, who grows INorganic garlic? by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Hell, let's keep it in the domain of things you can eat... nightshade and mushrooms are both as natural as you can get.

    4. Re:So, who grows INorganic garlic? by Omestes · · Score: 1

      I love the commercials telling me not to buy products with "chemicals" in them, or claiming that their product is completely free from "chemicals". Instead of buying shampoo I buy vacuum cylinders, to avoid the terror and health effects of putting "chemicals" on my hair.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
  9. Wrong kind of radiation by fishnuts · · Score: 5, Informative

    He should stick to farming and leave the radio vs radiation science up to the smart people.

    Someone go point him to the definitions of "Microwave Radiation" and "Ionizing Radiation"

    1. Re:Wrong kind of radiation by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      He should stick to farming and leave the radio vs radiation science up to the smart people.

      Really, at this point I think one could argue he should also leave the farming up to the farmers.

    2. Re:Wrong kind of radiation by mellestad · · Score: 1

      Leave it to experts maybe...the slur that farmers are stupid is uncalled for.

    3. Re:Wrong kind of radiation by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      He should stick to farming and leave the radio vs radiation science up to the smart people.

      Someone go point him to the definitions of "Microwave Radiation" and "Ionizing Radiation"

      Perhaps you can point out to the US Military microwaves aren't dangerous.

      Falcon

  10. No rationality required? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "I think over a period of time it will change the DNA of the garlic because it shakes up the molecules."

    I wonder why he's concerned about the garlic DNA, but not his own? In other news, I objected to a wind farm cos I was worried about the flying saucers crashing into it...

    1. Re:No rationality required? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Funny

      In other news, I objected to a wind farm cos I was worried about the flying saucers crashing into it...

      Oh geeze, not this FUD again... Look, yes, flying saucer crashes were a problem with some older, ill-conceived wind farms. But with a little planning, and modern designs, this is essentially a non-issue for the wind farms of today. The most important thing is not to put cattle, sheep, or drunken hillbillies underneath the windfarms so the aliens aren't attracted to them. Next is the design itself. The old scaffolding ones didn't look like anything important to the aliens. The new single-pole ones were designed to look like an alien arm raised up. And a raised arm with all three digits spinning in a circle is a very rude gesture and it's traditional to ignore the offender. So the problem solves itself.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:No rationality required? by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      That's hilarious. Unless he's operating his farm at absolute zero, the molecules are shaking like mad all the time already.

    3. Re:No rationality required? by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      In other news, I objected to a wind farm cos I was worried about the flying saucers crashing into it...

      Oh geeze, not this FUD again... Look, yes, flying saucer crashes were a problem with some older, ill-conceived wind farms. But with a little planning, and modern designs, this is essentially a non-issue for the wind farms of today. The most important thing is not to put cattle, sheep, or drunken hillbillies underneath the windfarms so the aliens aren't attracted to them. Next is the design itself. The old scaffolding ones didn't look like anything important to the aliens. The new single-pole ones were designed to look like an alien arm raised up. And a raised arm with all three digits spinning in a circle is a very rude gesture and it's traditional to ignore the offender. So the problem solves itself.

      Yeah - but none of these new modern designs have undergone peer reviewed studies of their effect on Don Quixote copycats. Until that happens, I don't think that anyone can be reasonably assured of their safety.

      --

      -Turkey

    4. Re:No rationality required? by meerling · · Score: 1

      Over a period of time the DNA of the garlic (and all living reproducing organisms) will change, it's called evolution, and microwaves have never been sited as a major (or minor) concern in this issue, as far as I'm aware. Hmm, nice run on sentence if I do say so myself. :)

    5. Re:No rationality required? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and it's traditional to ignore the offender.

      Ignore??? What planet are you from? That's when they come in with ray-guns ablazing. (Why they'd want to blaze a former US President is a different story altogether...)

    6. Re:No rationality required? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Ignore??? What planet are you from? That's when they come in with ray-guns ablazing.

      No, no, that's the response to a completely different gesture... Wait... You didn't design your windmill to rotate counter-clockwise, did you?

      Oh my god. You fool, you've doomed us all!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    7. Re:No rationality required? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely you meant " a blazin' "

    8. Re:No rationality required? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I think over a period of time it will change the DNA of the garlic because it shakes up the molecules."

      I wonder why he's concerned about the garlic DNA, but not his own? In other news, I objected to a wind farm cos I was worried about the flying saucers crashing into it...

      Because in his life time he will only see a couple of his offsprings. Where as the garlics will go on passing mutated genes to hundred's of generations during the farmers life time.

      Anyone around who cares about his DNA ? Man...just pass them on and forget about it , they will take care of themselves.

  11. Scientific ignorance by ErikTheRed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Scientific ignorance from the organic produce industry? Really? That's just so shocking.

    --

    Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
    1. Re:Scientific ignorance by timholman · · Score: 1

      Scientific ignorance from the organic produce industry? Really? That's just so shocking.

      Personally I prefer the inorganic produce - you know, the stuff that's that's made from rocks and minerals.

      Crunchy and filling, but a bit hard on the teeth.

    2. Re:Scientific ignorance by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You've hit on one of my pet peeves man. Hell, DIAMONDS are oraganic, and so is pencil lead. They way these people use the term incorrectly drives me nuts.

      Seriously.

      I have a steering wheel attached to my belt now because of it.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    3. Re:Scientific ignorance by The+Mysterious+Dr.+X · · Score: 1

      They way these people use the term incorrectly drives me nuts.

      Seriously.

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/organic He's using definition 3a. You're using 3b.

    4. Re:Scientific ignorance by NoYob · · Score: 0

      Scientific ignorance from the organic produce industry? Really? That's just so shocking.

      Yeah, I know. But sometimes the taste is so much better than the "inorganic" food. I don't know what it is but organic fruit actually tastes like it should. Do a blind taste comparison between organic strawberries and the regular kind, or cantaloupe, or blueberries, or .... Apples! Organic apples taste like apples did when I was a kid. The crap that is passed for Red Delicious in the regular grocery stores have no taste - but they're bigger and last longer!.

      --
      It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
    5. Re:Scientific ignorance by oyenstikker · · Score: 4, Funny

      A conversation I had at an organic food shop:

      Me: Do you have any pure mint extract?
      Employee: Yeah man, we've got some right over here.
      Me: This is the cosmetics aisle. It says "Not for human consumption." right on the bottle.
      Employee: Oh. But its organic man, its okay.
      Me: So are rhubarb leaves.
      Employee: Oh. Man. I dunno man.

      --
      The masses are the crack whores of religion.
    6. Re:Scientific ignorance by jdgeorge · · Score: 1

      You've hit on one of my pet peeves man. Hell, DIAMONDS are oraganic, and so is pencil lead. They way these people use the term incorrectly drives me nuts.

      Strictly speaking, there are very significant variations of what "organic" means, even among various scientific contexts. For example, "organic" generally means something significantly different in the context of biology than in the context of chemistry.

      So, while on one hand I agree that it feel as if the "organic" food label misleadingly seems to imply that other food is somehow "inorganic", on the other hand I realize that from the USDA's perspective, "organic" certification reflects the adherence to a fairly well defined set of food production, handling, and processing practices.

    7. Re:Scientific ignorance by The+Mysterious+Dr.+X · · Score: 1

      I agree. My older sister thought she might be lactose intolerant, but when she switched to organic milk, she was fine. I don't know if the absence of artificial growth hormones or antibiotic residues could make such a difference, but there's anecdotal evidence for you.

    8. Re:Scientific ignorance by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      It's true. The "organic" thing is DEFINITELY a fad, it's hyped, and there are plenty of frauds and misinformed people.

      The same goes for drugs though. Just because it can be a fad and it's hyped and there are stupid people saying stupid things about it doesn't mean the entire idea is stupid.

      There have been plenty of conclusive studies about pesticides and the like, as well. And organic food definitely does taste different... way different. Even organic milk tastes different from "normal" milk. And, as far as anecdotal evidence goes, my wife has stated multiple times that with some (non-organic) cheeses, she feels like she never has eaten enough and just wants to keep eating it (read: it's not "satisfying"). With organic, or raw milk, etc., cheese, it tastes better and it's satisfying. I taste a strange almost metallic taste in, for example, normal Costco monterey jack cheese that I don't taste in raw-milk cheese...

      There's plenty of support, even scientific, for many organic-related issues. Unfortunately, the fad/trendy/hype people give it a very bad name. As do the ridiculously over priced stores that cater to it.

    9. Re:Scientific ignorance by Kamokazi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's mostly due to the large volume farming, not the nature of the chemicals/additives applied. Depending on price I will do the same thing, buy organic because it tastes better. But at home the gardens get a liberal coating of very non-organic insecticides (mixed with stuff from my father's stash of things you can't buy anymore :-) and plant food of varying types (Mostly miracle grow, but also things like copper sulfate for melons, etc.). And the home garden stuff tastes the best of all.

      --
      As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
    10. Re:Scientific ignorance by pdabbadabba · · Score: 1

      Can't words have multiple definitions?

      Lets see, we have the chemical definition of "organic," on which a diamond is, of course, not organic (because it has to have C and H). We have the usage of "arising organically" which is supposed to mean something like "coming together in a way that resembles natural processes". And then we have what is apparently your favored definition, something like "arising on earth without human intervention" (or something, I'm not totally sure what). And then we have the food-industry word, which is really a legal word defined by the USDA to denote certain standards of food production.

      So, which of these definitions would you like to call "correct" and which are "incorrect"?

    11. Re:Scientific ignorance by the_humeister · · Score: 4, Funny

      You've hit on one of my pet peeves man. Hell, DIAMONDS are oraganic, and so is pencil lead. They way these people use the term incorrectly drives me nuts.

      Seriously.

      I have a steering wheel attached to my belt now because of it.

      Right on! And the people who use "pencil lead" instead of "graphite." I mean, lead was never used in pencils. It's just that those idiots who discovered graphite thought it really was lead. The audacity...

    12. Re:Scientific ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Hmmm. The last 'blind taste test' I saw involving the taste of organic vs non-organic food about 80% of the people chose the non-organic foods over the organic.

      Everything about organic food is horse shit... It's been turned into a religion.

    13. Re:Scientific ignorance by rgviza · · Score: 1

      By definition 3b, DDT, PCBs and hundreds of other toxic chemicals are organic.

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
    14. Re:Scientific ignorance by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And you've scientifically proven that this is due to organic farming as opposed to, say, the freshness of the fruits in question?

      Also, when you say stuff like "like they did when I was a kid!" you're just marking yourself as nostalgia-obsessed, as far as I'm concerned. Nostalgia kills rational thought.

    15. Re:Scientific ignorance by The+Mysterious+Dr.+X · · Score: 1

      It's true. And pretty much anything else you find in an organic chemistry textbook. That doesn't mean they're USDA Certified Organic, though.

    16. Re:Scientific ignorance by Emetophobe · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's all in your head. You want organic food to taste better, so it does. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsuT3mndOKE (watch from 0:20 to 1:30 and then fast forward to 3:40).

    17. Re:Scientific ignorance by ParanoiaBOTS · · Score: 1

      Scientific ignorance from the organic produce industry? Really? That's just so shocking.

      Not that I disagree with your sentiment here, but why is it always scientists just assuming they are right without doing actual studies?

      I mean, yes scientifically what we know says this *shouldn't* have any effect on the crop. But how many articles do you see in a month in the format "scientists discover/observe phenomenon X that was previously thought impossible"

      You would think that by now we would stop saying "that's impossible" and start saying "that's improbable"

    18. Re:Scientific ignorance by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Rhubarb leaves aren't THAT poisonous... you have to eat quite a few for the oxalates to build up. They learned they were poisonous because during WWI they were recommended as a substitute for other vegetables that the war made unavailable. A better example would be potato fruits.

    19. Re:Scientific ignorance by NoYob · · Score: 1

      And you've scientifically proven that this is due to organic farming as opposed to, say, the freshness of the fruits in question?

      Yes. I always buy stuff that's in season.

      Also, when you say stuff like "like they did when I was a kid!" you're just marking yourself as nostalgia-obsessed, as far as I'm concerned. Nostalgia kills rational thought.

      No. I'm above that and I actually go home and taste the apples I grew up with and they taste the same. Actually, my local super market does have "non-organic" McIntosh Apples that just as good as the Whole Foods - they're actually more expensive.

      But, my original post was a generalization about fruit and only fruit in the grocery stores. I'm well aware of those studies.

      The other thing is many of the fruits in the regular supermarkets are fruits that have been cross bred with others. For example, many of the McIntosh apples in the super markets really aren't fully McIntoshes: they're bred with other apple strains to make them bigger and maybe last a little longer. Unfortunately, as a result, taste is also sacrificed.

      A perfect example: there's brand down here that's shipped from New York. Compared with some of the California ones and their taste, well, it actually has an Apple taste.

      God. I guess I have to write essays to explain myself here on Slashdot!

      --
      It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
    20. Re:Scientific ignorance by NoYob · · Score: 1
      And who financed those "studies"?

      Think about it.

      --
      It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
    21. Re:Scientific ignorance by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      It's actually Bullshit! Er... the blind taste test you saw was probably on the Organic Foods episode in the show Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, that is ;)

    22. Re:Scientific ignorance by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Considering there's so many vocal organic food fans who have zero rational justification for their beliefs, you can't be surprised that you'd have to explain yourself when you sound like them. Especially with the "stuff tasted better when I was a kid" crap you added in there.

      I'm now convinced that you have a valid point. But your original posting sounded too much like the organic nutcases, and not enough like a person with independent thought.

      Anyway, sorry.

    23. Re:Scientific ignorance by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Of course, whenever a study makes a finding opposite to your beliefs, it must have been funded by (pinky in mouth) EVIIIL corporations.

      On the other hand, when studies affirm your beliefs, they were obviously funded by Jesus Christ himself, and are holy, uncorrupted, beings.

    24. Re:Scientific ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other thing is many of the fruits in the regular supermarkets are fruits that have been cross bred with others. For example, many of the McIntosh apples in the super markets really aren't fully McIntoshes: they're bred with other apple strains to make them bigger and maybe last a little longer. Unfortunately, as a result, taste is also sacrificed.

      Apples are not bred on a per tree basis, they are grafted. This is cheaper, easier, and produces greater quality. This is one of the most basic of pomological facts. You have just demonstrated your ignorance of the subject in a big way. You are correct in saying that the varieties used are not the best due to the fact that shelf life is more important than flavor in commercial agriculture (a Cox's Pippin won't mean much if it is a pile of mush when it arrives). However, you are now comparing two different crops, not organic and sane growing methods. It's like comparing samples of red and blue cars and determining that reds are faster, without bothering to question wether or not the fact that all the reds are Lamborghinis and all the blues are Yugos has an effect, so you conclude that painting your car red makes it faster. Your observations may be true, but your conclusion, that amounts to little more than a classic fallacy (appeal to nature), doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

    25. Re:Scientific ignorance by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know. But sometimes the taste is so much better than the "inorganic" food. I don't know what it is but organic fruit actually tastes like it should. Do a blind taste comparison between organic strawberries and the regular kind,

      You know, I never thought of eating inorganic strawberries before, but you are right, organic strawberries taste much better (and they don't hurt my teeth as much). Those inorganic strawberries are hard!!
      Sarcasm aside, the reason that you find "organic" produce tastier than other produce is because you are comparing locally grown "organic" produce to produce shipped from a distance. Sometime find someone who grows their own fruits and vegetables and compare them to the "organic" ones, you will find no difference (or possibly the non- "organic" locally grown may actually be tastier than the factory grown "organic" stuff).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    26. Re:Scientific ignorance by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Nostalgia kills rational thought

      We're talking about TASTE here, which, last I checked, was largely a subjective measure that varies greatly from individual to individual. I also agree with him, somehow they managed to kill tomatoes, sweet corn, and apples. Tomatoes are not supposed to be sickeningly sweat, sweet corn isn't suppose to taste like candy, neither should apples. Modern produce is also less nutritious than it used to be.

      To me it isn't even nostalgia, I just can't stand overly sweet, or tasteless food. If they made tomatoes MORE acidic (as opposed to sugary) than they used to be, I probably would like them even more.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    27. Re:Scientific ignorance by Lifthrasir · · Score: 1
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pencil#History

      The archetypal pencil may have been the stylus, which was a thin metal stick, often made from lead and used for scratching in papyrus, a form of early paper. They were used extensively by the ancient Egyptians and Romans. The word pencil comes from the Latin word pencillus which means "little tail".

      --
      No beer, no TV make Lifthrasir something something
    28. Re:Scientific ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my mother has, in her antiques hutch, actual sticks of lead used in an actual classroom by her actual mother or grand mother. whether or not it was used in a 'pencil' i'm not sure, but we call it 'pencil lead' because real lead was at one time used.

    29. Re:Scientific ignorance by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Scientific ignorance from the organic produce industry? Really? That's just so shocking.

      What's even more shocking is the scientific ignorance displayed on slashdot.

      Falcon

    30. Re:Scientific ignorance by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      By definition 3b, DDT, PCBs and hundreds of other toxic chemicals are organic.

      But not by definitions 3a(1) and (2). And those are the definitions used by organic farmers, gardeners, and the organic foods industry.

      Falcon

    31. Re:Scientific ignorance by internic · · Score: 1

      Not that I disagree with your sentiment here, but why is it always scientists just assuming they are right without doing actual studies?

      I mean, yes scientifically what we know says this *shouldn't* have any effect on the crop. But how many articles do you see in a month in the format "scientists discover/observe phenomenon X that was previously thought impossible"

      You would think that by now we would stop saying "that's impossible" and start saying "that's improbable"

      In fact, if we're being really strict all we can ever say in science is that something is improbable, even if we've tested the exact same thing before; any experiment has statistical uncertainties, so you can only ever use an experiment to rule out something with a certain probability. Thus, if we're speaking scientifically then "impossible" must always be taken to mean "highly improbable". There really isn't a distinction.

      Even ignoring that issue, in most cases a hypothetical situation won't be exactly like one you've tested, so you could always discover that there's some unknown effect that makes the differences important. So, if we adopted the standard you're talking about, we could essentially never say anything is "impossible". To put it another way, we say something is impossible if it conflicts with the rules we've derived from past observations. It's possible that new observations will require us to change the rules, but the burden of proof is on the person claiming such a thing is possible.

      --
      "You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
    32. Re:Scientific ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No he isn't. He didn't use the word "organic", he used the word "oraganic."

      Which interestingly enough, brings up my pet peeve! People who can't spell worth a shit!

    33. Re:Scientific ignorance by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Sarcasm aside, the reason that you find "organic" produce tastier than other produce is because you are comparing locally grown "organic" produce to produce shipped from a distance.

      Not necessarily, I can walk 5 minutes to one of my coops, and my state shares a border with Canada, where I can buy bananas. Bananas grow nowhere near here as far as I know. We frequently have organic produce from Mexico, Chile, and other South American nations as well as the Caribbean.

      Sometime find someone who grows their own fruits and vegetables and compare them to the "organic" ones, you will find no difference (or possibly the non- "organic" locally grown may actually be tastier than the factory grown "organic" stuff).

      To really taste the difference compare Slow Food to today's conventionally cooked food. While some may not taste a difference others taste a big difference.

      Falcon

    34. Re:Scientific ignorance by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I'm now convinced that you have a valid point. But your original posting sounded too much like the organic nutcases, and not enough like a person with independent thought.

      What organic nutcases? Different people get in organics for different reasons. Heck even Walmart now sells organic food. Though she didn't sell only organic food a friend started her own business selling what was called ecologically friendly products, the Eco-Store. People asked her if she wasn't concerned that large stores like Walmart may start selling the same things and she answered she wanted large businesses to sell them. To her the point was not to make money but to help and protect the environment. Well she got her wish, while her store is closed Walmart and Home Depot now sell CFLs. I see it says the store served the community until 2002 but 7 years later a webpage is still there, if only a single page.

      Falcon

    35. Re:Scientific ignorance by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Of course, whenever a study makes a finding opposite to your beliefs, it must have been funded by (pinky in mouth) EVIIIL corporations.

      On the other hand, when studies affirm your beliefs, they were obviously funded by Jesus Christ himself, and are holy, uncorrupted, beings.

      Aren't those on the other side ignoring studies that say organic is better doing the same?

      Falcon

    36. Re:Scientific ignorance by vaporland · · Score: 1

      hard to describe one farmer as representative of "the industry"...

      --
      Ask Me About... The 80's!
    37. Re:Scientific ignorance by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      Polished diamonds, such as you find in jewellery do have C and H. The carbon makes up the body of the diamond, and the unlinked edges of the carbon molecules are capped with hydrogen atoms. So when you touch a diamond, you are actually touching hydrogen. To get rid of the hydrogen, you must heat the diamond to over 1000 C.

    38. Re:Scientific ignorance by pdabbadabba · · Score: 1

      Fair enough; I'm not a chemist. But I think you see my point...

    39. Re:Scientific ignorance by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      If you look into how organic food is grown, you'll soon realize that organic farms are no less "factory farms" than conventional ones. In addition, they use more land and more water for less yield. In addition, the organic fertilizers they use are just as damaging to the environment as conventional fertilizers.

      Organic farms don't address *any* of the environmental concerns, they don't address *any* of the water-usage concerns, they don't address *any* of the animal rights concerns, they don't address *any* of the sustainability concerns, and they're significantly less efficient than conventional farming.

      They get away with it, because they write cute blurbs on the labels, and because organic nutcases never bother to do the research to figure out what the organic label actually *means* in a practical sense. All they're doing is paying more for less-efficiently-grown foods, because it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy.

    40. Re:Scientific ignorance by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Whoosh... I hope.

      Oh, and I also just finally got the "drives me nuts"... "steering wheel attached to my belt" connection.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    41. Re:Scientific ignorance by TheEmpyrean · · Score: 1

      Perhaps so, but do you even realize just how much FREE advertising this guy got. Now, all the healthnics will stop reading after they essentially see 'Farmer stands up to the Man" or "Organic... Farmer... Battles... Radiation" and buy more of his product. So, either he's really really stupid, or really really smart.

    42. Re:Scientific ignorance by Protoslo · · Score: 1

      I like to drink organic milk (at $4/half gallon!) much more than "regular milk," but I don't delude myself into believing that it has something to do with the "organic" farming. The taste differences in raw milk, normal milk, and organic milk can be accounted for by pasteurization alone: whether there is no pasteurization, "super-pasteurization" or "ultra-pasteurization" (organic milk). The organic milk is actually the *most* processed kind of milk. I find that ultra-pasteurized 1% milk tastes as good as regular 3.5%, that regular 1% is gross, and regular skim tastes like polluted water. I wish there was "regular" ultra-pasteurized so that I could enjoy such milk at lower cost, though...

    43. Re:Scientific ignorance by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      If you look into how organic food is grown, you'll soon realize that organic farms are no less "factory farms" than conventional ones.

      That depends on the scale or size of the farm. There's an organic farm in my area that had to put up a fight to prevent an oil pipeline from being built right through the farm. One, though not the only one, reason they fought against the pipeline was because they didn't want heavy machinery to compact the soil and make it hard. Conventional farms would just till the ground to break it up but they didn't even want to do that.

      In addition, the organic fertilizers they use are just as damaging to the environment as conventional fertilizers.

      Where is your evidence? I'll provide my own now, look at the natural world. Animals eat other animals and plants. What they eliminate, piss and shit, is food for other plants and animals. The same when they die. Wildlife in the world has lasted millions of years without humans and can continue to. According to you the world should be a toxic waste dump, but the only ones that exist were created by humans.

      The rest of this is FUD.

      Falcon

      Oh, and my question, "What organic nutcases?" was never answered. Because most of those in organics are not nutcases. The only one I see is you.

  12. The Dangers of Wi-Fi by moj0e · · Score: 5, Funny

    I totally agree with the farmer! From my research, it even has dangerous effects
    on humans!

    Here are some of the symptoms that it causes:

    1. Carpal tunnel
    2. Distaste for light
    3. A tendency to shout out: "First Post"
    4. Loss/Gain of gold pieces
    5. Disturbing images of cats
    6. Lots of accidents that subsequently end up online.
    7. Bad writing.

    Can anyone think of other symptoms?

    1. Re:The Dangers of Wi-Fi by Serenissima · · Score: 5, Funny

      8. Sarcastic lists! :D

      --
      Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. But light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
    2. Re:The Dangers of Wi-Fi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      9. The inability to express emotions without involving a colon character.

    3. Re:The Dangers of Wi-Fi by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Funny

      9) ???
      10) Profit!!!!

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:The Dangers of Wi-Fi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      9. Profit?

    5. Re:The Dangers of Wi-Fi by idontgno · · Score: 1

      9. ???
      10. PROFIT!

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    6. Re:The Dangers of Wi-Fi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      9. Diseases of the grammar.

    7. Re:The Dangers of Wi-Fi by BoredAtWorkWhatElse · · Score: 1

      Pffft that's easy to do =P

    8. Re:The Dangers of Wi-Fi by Locklin · · Score: 1

      Just don't tell him about the dangers of 450 THz electromagnetic radiation. Many electronic device in a house, especially incandescent lights, emit significant amounts of it. There's plenty of evidence that "districts" of various cities blanketed with that radiation are havens for sexual deviance and prostitution. The effects of 450 THz radiation on the brain are currently unknown, but people abuse it as an aphrodisiac and to make their partner appear more attractive.

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
    9. Re:The Dangers of Wi-Fi by altek · · Score: 1

      8. Increased consumption of Kleenex and lotion

      --
      THE MAGIC WORDS ARE SQUEAMISH OSSIFRAGE
    10. Re:The Dangers of Wi-Fi by ZarathustraDK · · Score: 1

      9. The inability to express emotions without involving a colon character.

      Mr. Hanky?

      --
      If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
    11. Re:The Dangers of Wi-Fi by rattaroaz · · Score: 1

      11. Hulk level strength.

    12. Re:The Dangers of Wi-Fi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      methinks rickrolling should be on that list somewhere

    13. Re:The Dangers of Wi-Fi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      11) Spinal tap references

    14. Re:The Dangers of Wi-Fi by moj0e · · Score: 0

      Hey, just wanted to let you know... awesome addition :)

    15. Re:The Dangers of Wi-Fi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aluminum hats
      congregating in the desert heat (area 51)
      silly ear fashion (I can't tell the difference between a crazy person and people who walk around talking on their phone)

  13. My guess is... by guyminuslife · · Score: 2, Funny

    He probably decided to farm garlic to ward off the vampires. Can't say I blame him.

    --
    I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    1. Re:My guess is... by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't irradiated garlic be even more effective in warding off vampires? In fact it could mutate into a form of garlic that seeks out and attacks vampires on its own...

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    2. Re:My guess is... by catbertscousin · · Score: 5, Funny

      But if they put a wi-fi tower next to him, the vampires are going to congregate there to check their MySpace pages and the next thing you know they'll develop an immunity to garlic. This dangerous cycle must be stopped!

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished. - Avon, Blake's 7
    3. Re:My guess is... by Jubetas · · Score: 1

      Well that all depends on what type of vampires we're talking about here. Are we talking Marvel-style, where any sort of UV radiation will hurt them, or are we talking WoD-style, where it's a mystical quality of the sun that inflicts damage on them. Now, if it's the first one, he should be able to simply defend his mutant garlic farm with a series of UV lights placed at overlapping intervals. If it's the second one, I'd recommend he find a local Etherite or Virtual Adept cabal to set up some equivalent device, only instead of UV lights, you'd have to use a Correspondence effect (probably disciple level at least, more likely adept) to co-locate the sun's rays to the tower, so as to ward off vampires again.

      Of course, with the increased radiation from the wi-fi tower AND the solar rays, this will probably cause the garlic to rapidly evolve into some advanced life form heretofore unseen.

      I, for one, welcome our new mutant garlic overlords.

    4. Re:My guess is... by jayme0227 · · Score: 1

      Nah. Only garlic works against vampires in this fashion, not bulbs that are exceedingly similar to garlic.

      --
      But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
    5. Re:My guess is... by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      So I guess my investment in a company working on GE garlic to enhace its vampire-repelling properties was money wasted then...

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    6. Re:My guess is... by Aragorn+DeLunar · · Score: 1

      You missed one significant detail: Vampires don't hang out on MySpace; they use 4chan.

      --
      Cynicism, like dogmatism, can be an excuse for intellectual laziness. - Susan Shirk
  14. Directional Antenna by xOneca · · Score: 1
    Aren't microwave antennas unidirectional and pointed to the horizon? I'm sure the signal won't reach the floor.

    That guy is complaining with the incorrect argument... He doesn't want an antenna near and that's all.

    1. Re:Directional Antenna by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they're trying to provide wireless internet access, then no, they're not really "unidirectional", and definitely not aimed straight to the horizon (that would be long-range point-to-point links, which might also be involved for backhaul).

      Probably sector antennas, or possibly omnis, but definitely with some sort of low-angle radiation pattern; people on the ground nearby will have a damn hard time getting internet access if it "won't reach the floor".

      And I love the way he says "I view it with dread, fear and panic." He's not rational concerned over some threat he's heard (mis)information about, he's panicked, and proud of it.

  15. Mutant Garlic... by Trip6 · · Score: 1

    ...is a great name for a rock band. With respect to Dave Barry.

    --
    I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
    1. Re:Mutant Garlic... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Is there a band named "With Respect to Dave Barry"?

      Nothing obvious on Google.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Mutant Garlic... by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Teenage Mutant Garlic Ninja Turtles?

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  16. On behalf of myself and other Nova Scotians by mikeabbott420 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Please regard this man as a non-representative sample.

    --
    This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
    1. Re:On behalf of myself and other Nova Scotians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, as someone with a good many friends amoung the hippies of the Valley & the North Mountain, I can tell you that the garlic farmer is all too representative of the folks there. Sigh.

      But, other than being totally paranoid about modern technology, they're really quite nice people.

    2. Re:On behalf of myself and other Nova Scotians by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      But if he moved to California, he'd fit right in.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:On behalf of myself and other Nova Scotians by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      Please regard this man as a non-representative sample.

      They can regard him as that, but it isn't true. I'm sorry, but if he were a non-representative sample, I would still be living in Nova Scotia.

    4. Re:On behalf of myself and other Nova Scotians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but he's from the Valley. He's probably the product of South Mountain...

      Thinking about it, he may be on to something. I live just down the street from Eastlink HQ here in Halifax. I'm going to buy a sack of garlic on my way home from work, place it in the doorway of their office building and observe the results.

    5. Re:On behalf of myself and other Nova Scotians by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Please regard this man as a non-representative sample. Does that mean he is much dimmer than the average Nova Scotian, or much brighter than the average Nova Scotian? Let me say this in his defense: at least he's not a Newfie!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    6. Re:On behalf of myself and other Nova Scotians by gmarsh · · Score: 1

      This guy is the "valley farmer" stereotype.

      They live in their own world, and they like it that way. When big companies come in and start doing big company thing like, oh, installing internet... that's the big company trampling all over the little guy! So they oppose the whole thing out of principle, not because of things like "valid reasoning."

      Hell, I once had a woman in the valley tell me my car was poisoning her because it had a hole in its exhaust. They're like that.

    7. Re:On behalf of myself and other Nova Scotians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hardly. The hippie luddite contingent is actually a vanishingly small proportion of California.

    8. Re:On behalf of myself and other Nova Scotians by spungo · · Score: 1

      Hey -- I lives in the Valley, and I resemble that remark! Just 'cos we ain't got yer sophistimacated, civilized Halifax ways, don't mean we isn't got smarts and stuff. Look at me -- I was smarted enuff not to marry my sister -- I knewed it would be bad fer da youngins -- I married me brother instead!

  17. Side note by Demonantis · · Score: 1

    I remember reading somewhere on BBC that a recent study found that there is no nutritional difference between organic and normal grown plants. I have no idea then how they would prove or disprove that the cell tower is a danger to or has effected the crop.

    1. Re:Side note by Demonantis · · Score: 4, Informative

      Found it. Thought some people might be interested

      Organic Food

    2. Re:Side note by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's because "non-organic" food is *drumroll* completely organic. Oh my god. Seriously, it kills me that these assholes get away with calling their food "organic" (implying other food is not organic) and there are actually regulations on what you can call "organic" (even though it is all, in fact, organic).

      I wouldn't mind if they called it pesticide free, or un-modified, or naturally grown (with a description of what exactly they mean by that), etc. But "organic"? WTF? Even the most unnatural, mutated, inedible freak of a plant is organic, because it is made of friggin carbon. That's the definition of organic. There are even organic rocks. Fucking GASOLINE is organic! Diamonds and graphite pencil lead are organic. For heaven's sake, this really pisses me off when I get thinking about it too much.

      And people wonder why Americans are getting dumber and dumber, well shit like this certainly doesn't help the problem.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    3. Re:Side note by SlashDotDotDot · · Score: 1

      That's because "non-organic" food is *drumroll* completely organic. Oh my god. Seriously, it kills me that these assholes get away with calling their food "organic" (implying other food is not organic) and there are actually regulations on what you can call "organic" (even though it is all, in fact, organic).

      Newsflash: The same word can have more than one meaning and it can adopt new meanings over time. The intended meaning is usually clear from the context. Meaning arises from consensus among a broad population of speakers. Complaints about how others use language almost always fail to influence behavior.

      What you are really saying is: "I am smart because I know the particular definition of a word used by chemists. I am also insecure. I will berate those I perceive to be less intelligent than me and hope that others adore me for being brilliant."

      To be fair, I'm doing exactly the same thing...

      --
      /...
    4. Re:Side note by Entropius · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This isn't an American problem exclusively. Related to this is the scare about "zomg genetically modified organisms!", which is much worse in Europe.

      I helped gather data for a study, incidentally, comparing GM and ordinary cotton. The GM cotton had a gene expressing the BT toxin in it, a protein that fucks up caterpillars who eat it rather royally but is harmless to pretty much everything else. The farmers were told to not do anything special with their fields, to use pesticides as normal, etc. (This meant more use of pesticide on the non-GM cotton, obviously.)

      Then I wander through the fields and sample the insect population by species. The conventional cotton was something of a wasteland -- here's a lonely little spider, looking for dinner; there are a few ants; here are a shitload of aphids, which are resistant to insecticide.

      The GM cotton had a whole pile of bugs, all running around happily eating each other.

      GM crops can be *better* for the environment. After all, the BT gene is just a way of putting a pesticide only harmful to a narrow range of insects *into* the crop, so only pests that actually eat it will die. This is a whole lot more targeted than crop-dusting the field with something that'll kill anything that moves with more than four legs. Monsanto's abuse of the patent system is another matter altogether, of course.

    5. Re:Side note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is not with GM crops as a whole. It is largely with GM crops from the likes of Monsanto which have been specifically created to be resistant to a particular pesticide: the concern is that if the crops cross-breed with other plants or escape into the wild, we could have an alien species problem with some very difficult to kill plants. Yes, most of these plants have been engineered to be infertile, but of course mutations happen.

    6. Re:Side note by The+Mysterious+Dr.+X · · Score: 1

      As I posted above, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/organic. Definitions 3a vs. 3b. Round Two. Fight!

    7. Re:Side note by hitnrunrambler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To be fair, I'm doing exactly the same thing...

      Except he's claiming that complexity of word definitions create ignorance...
      and you're pointing out that only the ignorant are confused by complexity in word definitions.

    8. Re:Side note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And people wonder why Americans are getting dumber and dumber, well shit like this certainly doesn't help the problem.

      I know what you're saying, but there is some backwards truth to it. The cellphone towers are partly to blame for American kids and adults being so dumb. Think about it.

    9. Re:Side note by barkingcorndog · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt that the cell tower has effected the crop, simply because the crop already existed. I think the farmer's efforts in planting may have effected the crop.

      --
      "I know together we'll make the possible totally impossible" - Homme
    10. Re:Side note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, on land that had been rendered toxic by years of pesticide usage, GMO crops flourished? What a surprise. I can see how you'd be unbiased in your postings too seeing as how you are/were employed by the company sponsoring the study, Monsanto?

    11. Re:Side note by Entropius · · Score: 1

      mmm, troll.

      I was actually employed by a major university doing studies on pest control and farming practices.

      And you clearly have no idea what you're talking about if you think that BT crops grow better on land that's been previously sprayed.

      And you clearly didn't read the original post if you thought this had to do anything with the "flourishing" of the plants. In this study the conventional and transgenic crops were planted side-by-side in the same field, and both seemed to "flourish" about the same; the issue is the health of the insect ecosystem, where the transgenic crops were crawling with (harmless) critters because they didn't need harsh insecticide treatments to protect them from pests. The only way you'd know which field you were in was to look down and count bugs.

      I don't like Monsanto either; that's a completely separate issue.

    12. Re:Side note by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I remember reading somewhere on BBC that a recent study found that there is no nutritional difference between organic and normal grown plants.

      There are studies that conclude that and there are others that conclude organic food is more nutritious. The same with crop yields, some conclude the so called conventional which may or may not be conventional (depending on the definition used) produces more food whereas others conclude organics produce more food. Some conclude organics can feed the world whereas other conclude the opposite. I wonder what meta studies would conclude.

      Falcon

    13. Re:Side note by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Even the most unnatural, mutated, inedible freak of a plant is organic, because it is made of friggin carbon. That's the definition of organic.

      Others have probably already answered this but I'll reply anyway. There's more than one definition of organic. Even the US Department of Agriculture has it's own.

      Falcon

    14. Re:Side note by t_ban · · Score: 1

      GM crops can be *better* for the environment. After all, the BT gene is just a way of putting a pesticide only harmful to a narrow range of insects *into* the crop, so only pests that actually eat it will die. This is a whole lot more targeted than crop-dusting the field with something that'll kill anything that moves with more than four legs. Monsanto's abuse of the patent system is another matter altogether, of course.

      Modern species are products of (m/b)illions of years of evolution. Their present genetic compositions are a results of a very long history of innumerable evolutionary changes that make them suitable as endemic organisms in their native ecosystems.

      Tinkering with genes with the kind of the very incomplete knowledge we have of them, is a dangerous game when played in vivo. For one thing, they often result in the creation of unforeseen transposons, which can wreak havoc and destroy the delicate balance of an ecosystem.

      You seem to think highly of the BT gene. Please get acquainted with some of its disastrous effects.

      --
      First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win. -Gandhi
    15. Re:Side note by Entropius · · Score: 1

      The things described in that article have nothing to do with the effects of the BT gene itself; they're the result of the abuse of intellectual property laws by Monsanto, which I completely condemn. They're some of the scummiest people around, and I saw that in my time working as a lab tech. But that doesn't make the invention harmful. Do we all have to stop using ReiserFS now that its inventor is a murderer?

      You're absolutely right that by tinkering with the genome of plants, we're playing a game that evolution hasn't intended. But I claim that fiddling around with a few genes is FAR less harmful to the delicate balance of ecosystems than a) what we've already done, and b) the alternative to the BT gene.

      In the case of cotton, we've taken a rather boring shrub from South America, brought it to a vastly different climate, grown it in large monoculture fields, altered its growing season so it's an annual rather than a perennial, and then bred it (altering its genome!) for maximum lint output and any number of other things.

      Compared to this monkeying-about with Nature, the BT gene is small potatoes.

      Whether this sort of intensive monoculture farming is a good idea or not isn't the issue -- it's that the disruption to the "endemic organism in its native ecosystem" has already been done.

      Then, given that you're going to do this sort of farming, you need pest control. If the choice is between 1) the use of the BT gene, 2) repeated applications of broad-spectrum insecticide (which, according to current economics, it is), 2) is far less harmful.

      Sure, transgenics involve monkeying about with the balance of Nature. But they're a whole lot better than blasting all insect life on acres upon acres of fields into oblivion.

    16. Re:Side note by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      The word "organic" as applied to farming and farm produce has a clearly defined and widely understood meaning, and your objection is pure pedantry.

      In other news, when I feel in a happy, frivolous mood I don't generally go around saying how gay I feel.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    17. Re:Side note by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Regardless of the taste or nutritional content, all I know is that I prefer my food without pesticides. Just call me old-fashioned.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    18. Re:Side note by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      GM crops can be *better* for the environment. After all, the BT gene is just a way of putting a pesticide only harmful to a narrow range of insects *into* the crop, so only pests that actually eat it will die. This is a whole lot more targeted than crop-dusting the field with something that'll kill anything that moves with more than four legs. Monsanto's abuse of the patent system is another matter altogether, of course.

      Your argument assumes that the only options are GM crops, or crops drowned in pesticides. Advocates of organic farming would argue that there is a third option.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    19. Re:Side note by Entropius · · Score: 1

      That's certainly true -- I'm not so fond of modern intensive farming as a general concept. (Although you can certainly do organic farming practices with GM crops too, and as an environmentally- and health-conscious consumer I'd have no problem with that).

      By "better than the environment" I mean "better than the status quo", i.e. "better than the stuff that people buy instead of the GMO's they're afraid of" -- which, for most genophobes, is conventionally-farmed.

    20. Re:Side note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a few months you'll be able to troll your neighbours in your gay apparel. Fa la la la la, la la la la.

  18. Correction by xfedaykinx · · Score: 1

    "A Nova Scotia farmer is opposing the construction of a microwave tower for lots of publicity and fears it will eventually mutate his organic garlic crop."

    Fixed that for you.

    1. Re:Correction by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      Oh nice, I hadn't even considered how much local plus national coverage he's getting for this.

  19. it's non-ionizing radiation by OrangeTide · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you're looking for something that will mutate cells, then try the UV rays from the Sun. Perhaps he should grow mushrooms if he is so paranoid about exposing vegetables to radiation?

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:it's non-ionizing radiation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like he may already have grown some mushrooms, if you know what I mean.

    2. Re:it's non-ionizing radiation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if he is so paranoid about exposing vegetables to radiation

      Then why is he walking outside when the sun is up? :D

    3. Re:it's non-ionizing radiation by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      well protecting yourself and protecting your vegetables is two different issues. he could be a skydiver in his spare time or otherwise lives dangerously, but doesn't subject vegetables to the same dangerous situations?

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    4. Re:it's non-ionizing radiation by samurphy21 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't work around here. Our local granite is CHOCK FULL of uranium. The background radiation in Lunenburg county (just up the road from the Annapolis Valley) is pretty high.

      http://apps1.gdr.nrcan.gc.ca/mirage/tmp/mirage4ab358f8ee909.jpg

  20. Marcio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A fried garlic is not too bad. That line can be used with the farmer.

  21. This happens all the time by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    This kind of stuff happens all of the time. Anyone remember "Attack of the killer tomatos", "them", "Godzilla", ...
    Everyone should know of this great menace before we are attacked by giant mutant killer zombie garlic. We don't want to be replaced by a more intelligent invasive species like this!

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  22. Meanwhile a farmer in Gilroy California by grapeape · · Score: 4, Funny

    Somewhere in Gilroy a Garlic farmer is dialing Sprint to beg for a tower so he can make monster garlic.

    1. Re:Meanwhile a farmer in Gilroy California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yeah. So we drive up to Tower 346A and sure enough, the signal was wavering. Checked in the shack; everything's good. Then we noticed bundles on the tower..."

      "Bundles?"

      "Yeah. Like big burlap sacks. Turns out - the damn locals were hanging garlic up there. Again."

  23. 1 word by markringen · · Score: 1

    1 word to sum up this fruit-loop: nutjob.

    1. Re:1 word by markringen · · Score: 1

      slashdot should buy him a tinfoil hat...

  24. Smelly... by jeffshoaf · · Score: 1

    Well, that just stinks!

    --
    Putting the "anal" back into "analyst"...
  25. Yum by tweekie · · Score: 1

    Mmmm elephant garlic. It's free radiaton, and radiation (like butter) makes everything taste better. He should shut his mouth.

  26. My name is EmagGeek for a reason... by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    There is no threat to his garlic from the microwave tower, unless perhaps the construction personnel find his garlic patch a convenient place to relieve themselves during the erection of the tower.

    1. Re:My name is EmagGeek for a reason... by natehoy · · Score: 1

      Two words: "Organic Fertilizer"

      'nuff said.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  27. Oh no by lymond01 · · Score: 5, Funny

    There are times when I wonder what the world might have been like if we hadn't pushed high speed microwave-based internet access in Nova Scotia. It's not like there weren't other solutions -- satellite, possibly. Cabling if they could have found someone to foot the bill. But there was a rush to make it happen, as usual with big business looking for their next tax haven. Who would have thought the entire world would pay for that bit of greed? Who would have thought we'd never dare look at the sun again.

    The end can't be too far away. There aren't many of us left, down here in the caves. All the moss has been eaten. The water may last awhile longer, but without food....No one who's left the caves to search for food, no matter how desperate or self-assured, has ever come back. Perhaps our greatest fear, moreso than even starvation, is that the Garlics will be able to trace one of those people back to our hideout. We've taken precautions, of course, by choosing a tunnel system with a downdraft. At least that way, we can smell them coming.

    1. Re:Oh no by natehoy · · Score: 2

      I, for one, welcome our new Garlic Overlords.

      (sorry, obligatory slashdot meme reference)
        (sorry sorry, obligatory acknowledgment of use of obligatory slashdot meme reference)
          (infinite loop encountered, terminating...

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    2. Re:Oh no by lordharsha · · Score: 2

      Bravo! It's not often that I see posts this clever. (!sarcasm)

      --
      I am, and that is sufficient.
    3. Re:Oh no by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Is that monologue from Terminator?

      Great joke, but it's nagging at me, I swear I know what it's from but I can't place it.

    4. Re:Oh no by mrsurb · · Score: 1

      Did you just solve the halting problem?

    5. Re:Oh no by lymond01 · · Score: 1

      Generic, I think. I just wrote it but it sounds like any other Hollywood scifi monologue. :-)

    6. Re:Oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I smiled.

  28. Speaking of idiots... by Moraelin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    His crop is already being irradiated...BY THE SUN. Idiots. Sheesh.

    You know, I wish people using that argument (or variants thereof) actually knew what they're talking about. No offense.

    The Earth's atmosphere and ionosphere are only really transparent to a very narrow band of frequencies. As you go up in the UV range or lower into IR, actually less and less of it gets to ground level.

    And let's put it this way: If enough microwave radiation from the Sun got to the Earth to be comparable to a cell phone tower, you couldn't actually use a cell phone. Because the white noise from the sun would not only give the tower a crap signal-to-noise ratio, but would be hundreds of decibels stronger than the milliwatts emitted by the phone itself or received by it in some places.

    So no, it's not. Not in the same frequencies and/or not as much.

    Yes, the "OMG, the crops will mutate" scare is incredibly stupid anyway. But countering it with the equally bogus "OMG, the sun already does the same", doesn't really debunk it.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Speaking of idiots... by Hawke666 · · Score: 1

      Yes it does. From the article: "...is afraid his organic crop could be irradiated..." That's not the same as "is afraid microwave radiation will be increased above acceptable levels". The statement suggests that he is worried about radiation in general (not this specific kind of radiation). And obviously most of the radiation from the sun which actually gets to the plants is beneficial. So he's an idiot for being afraid of "radiation"

    2. Re:Speaking of idiots... by Sandbags · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, actually, the microwave internet system is a Line-of-sight point to point beam, so the amount getting to his crops in the ground is actually a number approaching zero. The microwave in his KITCHEN probaly puts more energy into his field than that tower would, not to mention the dozens of sattelites beaming down microwave radiation as well.

      Also, if the atmosphere was THAT good at shielding that radiation, then why would Microwave solar orbital power even be a consideration? If the atmosphere only blocks 30% of visible light, but far more microwave was blocked, then how would that system be a net gain?

      Of course, Microwave radiation is not ionizing radiation anyway, so the argument is completely moot... Mutation from microwave exposure would require rediculous doses of concentrated radiation, far, far more than it would take to cook the garlic outright.

      --
      There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
    3. Re:Speaking of idiots... by Rary · · Score: 3, Interesting

      From the article: "...is afraid his organic crop could be irradiated..." That's not the same as "is afraid microwave radiation will be increased above acceptable levels". The statement suggests that he is worried about radiation in general (not this specific kind of radiation).

      The statement you quoted was made by the writer of the article, not by the farmer. The only direct quotes from him are: "I think over a period of time it will change the DNA of the garlic because it shakes up the molecules" and "I view it with dread, fear and panic. I don't want to grow food under those conditions", neither of which indicate he's afraid of radiation in general.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    4. Re:Speaking of idiots... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I wish people who counter that arguemnt would loom up the definition iof iraidiated.

      1.
      a. To expose to radiation.
      b. To treat with radiation: irradiate farm produce so as to destroy bacteria.
      2. To shed light on; illuminate.
      3. To manifest in a manner suggesting the emission of light; radiate: irradiate goodness.
      v.intr. Archaic
      1. To send forth rays; radiate.
      2. To become radiant.

      And becasue you probably don't know what radiation means:
      1. The act or process of radiating: the radiation of heat and light from a fire.
      2. Physics
      a. Emission and propagation and emission of energy in the form of rays or waves.
      b. Energy radiated or transmitted as rays, waves, in the form of particles.
      c. A stream of particles or electromagnetic waves emitted by the atoms and molecules of a radioactive substance as a result of nuclear decay.
      3.
      a. The act of exposing or the condition of being exposed to such energy.
      b. The application of such energy, as in medical treatment.
      4. Anatomy Radial arrangement of parts, as of a group of nerve fibers connecting different areas of the brain.
      5.
      a. The spread of a group of organisms into new habitats.
      b. Adaptive radiation.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Speaking of idiots... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      The microwave in his KITCHEN probaly puts more energy into his field than that tower would, not to mention the dozens of sattelites beaming down microwave radiation as well.

      More scientific illiteracy of the variety the grandparent was complaining about. (And as usual, on Slashdot it rates a "+5 Informative".)
       
      If the microwave in his kitchen did that - he would be significantly effected by standing next to it each time he nuked a midnight snack. (Remember radiation level drops off as per the Inverse square law, not to mention the shielding effect of the walls of his house.) The same goes for satellites - if they put that much power down, then your cell phone would be useless because of the high background noise. (You have noticed they use dishes to concentrate the signals, no?)
       
       

      Also, if the atmosphere was THAT good at shielding that radiation, then why would Microwave solar orbital power even be a consideration? If the atmosphere only blocks 30% of visible light, but far more microwave was blocked, then how would that system be a net gain?

      Because those orbital power stations use a frequency that is attenuated less by the atmosphere. (And the problem isn't really the atmosphere per se, but dust and moisture.)

    6. Re:Speaking of idiots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have never heard of the Solar Wind---so go stay AWAKE in some of those astrophysics classes! The original statement not only debunks the premise about "radiated garlic" but got YOU to make an ass of yourself. Hint: The solar wind delivers an approximate dose of ten Rad (Big R, not little r,absorbed dose ) per day, at low earth orbit, and can give you up to three ten thousandths of that at average ground level. Per day. Then you might want to consider, when the fat old sun gets spots upon it, the ionosphere and Van Allen belts go on holiday-or at least a roadtrip, to different areas--then you have-

      "Terrestrial" ionizing radiation which can be over a three thousand times THAT (look it up!), and in case you wish to toss out the stupidity about "the crop is underground", again? We haven't accounted for the very nasty cosmic radiation with can drill in up to ten feet into solid rock, never mind the difference between rock and soil, where the crop is.

    7. Re:Speaking of idiots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually if I read your question right, the feasibility of space borne microwave power propagation relies on constantly tweaking and focusing the beam to minimize dispersion.
      This is probably exactly why microwave power stations will NEVER be allowed to orbit earth, because the disruption caused by the radiation would outweigh the benefit power.

    8. Re:Speaking of idiots... by symes · · Score: 1

      ...not to mention the dozens of satellites beaming down microwave radiation as well

      Locally produced tinfoil hats now available here for all you garlic farmers in Nova Scotia

    9. Re:Speaking of idiots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But countering it with the equally bogus "OMG, the sun already does the same", doesn't really debunk it.

      Actually it does. You can verify it easily. Lay down next to a microwave tower in the shade for 8 hours. Then go lay down in the sun for 8 hours. I promise you that you will find the sun a lot more damaging than the microwave tower. Test concluded. That guy is a moron and you lack a decent scientific education.

    10. Re:Speaking of idiots... by guyfawkes-11-5 · · Score: 1
    11. Re:Speaking of idiots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the article: "...is afraid his organic crop could be irradiated..." That's not the same as "is afraid microwave radiation will be increased above acceptable levels". The statement suggests that he is worried about radiation in general (not this specific kind of radiation).

      The statement you quoted was made by the writer of the article, not by the farmer. The only direct quotes from him are: "I think over a period of time it will change the DNA of the garlic because it shakes up the molecules" and "I view it with dread, fear and panic. I don't want to grow food under those conditions", neither of which indicate he's afraid of radiation in general.

      Well he'd better stop walking nearby, since I'm pretty sure the vibrations from his feet hitting the ground tend to shake up the molecules as well.

    12. Re:Speaking of idiots... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Well, actually, the microwave internet system is a Line-of-sight point to point beam, so the amount getting to his crops in the ground is actually a number approaching zero.

      TFA doesn't say if it's line-of-sight but if so and it does not cross his property I agree his stance may be stupid.

      The microwave in his KITCHEN probaly puts more energy into his field than that tower would

      He may not have a microwave oven, I don't. And even if I did have one I wouldn't use it.

      Of course, Microwave radiation is not ionizing radiation anyway, so the argument is completely moot... Mutation from microwave exposure would require rediculous doses of concentrated radiation, far, far more than it would take to cook the garlic outright.

      Google Scholaring microwaves alter dna science study or studies I found studies that concluded microwaves can alter DNA however I didn't see how much energy was needed.

      Falcon

    13. Re:Speaking of idiots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So he is afraid of the DNA molecules in his plants shaking?
      In that case I think scientist would be interested in knowing how he grows plants at 0 K.

    14. Re:Speaking of idiots... by a1ok · · Score: 1

      Also, if the atmosphere was THAT good at shielding that radiation, then why would Microwave solar orbital power even be a consideration?

      :)

    15. Re:Speaking of idiots... by Sandbags · · Score: 1

      I did not intend to argue his kitchen microwave could cause DNA shift in his garlic, only that his Microwave put mor low power, non-ionizing, radiation into the soil than the P2P microwave beam on the tower.....

      And who's to say the sun does not also emit the same microwave band (since it emits nearly ALL bands, being a yellow star).

      --
      There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
    16. Re:Speaking of idiots... by Sandbags · · Score: 1

      To put it into perspective, the non-lethal microwave "pain" guns developed by the military run at approx 100,000 watts. A microwave communications signal that can reach 22.5 THOUSAND miles into space requires about 100 watts. Our point 2 point microwave system connecting our building to one about 2 miles from here runs on 7w. The above noted pain gun still, at more than 10,000 times the energy, does not cause DNA damage, it's still only exciting water molocules to create basic heat and pain sensation in nerves responding to it. After long exposure it can cause burns. (quite similar actually to standing near 1000x 100w light bulbs, that's a lot of heat!

      A typical microwasve is non-directional, and in the range of 650-1800w. Directional microwaves, like those from a microwave anteana or sattelite, carry for thousands of miles (far less in atmosphere). Radial energy however, follows the law of cubes, and is reduced in intencity not by an order of magnitude, but by CUBE ROOT at each doubling of distance. A mere 3 feet from a microwave oven, the energy is less than 1w/cm.

      --
      There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
    17. Re:Speaking of idiots... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      the non-lethal microwave "pain" guns developed by the military run at approx 100,000 watts.

      Non-lethal? So if you're tied up or chained in front of one and can't get away while it's turned on you won't die?

      The above noted pain gun still, at more than 10,000 times the energy, does not cause DNA damage, it's still only exciting water molocules to create basic heat and pain sensation in nerves responding to it.

      And boiling water does not damage DNA? Then why do experts say to place baby bottles in boiling water before feeding babies? What this does is sterilize the bottles thus it damages all the DNA. A webpage from UF says "Microwave oven can sterilize sponges, scrub pads". It says "The results were unambiguous: Two minutes of microwaving on full power mode killed or inactivated more than 99 percent of all the living pathogens in the sponges and pads, although the Bacillus cereus spores required four minutes for total inactivation."

      You don't think the DNA is being damaged?

      Falcon

    18. Re:Speaking of idiots... by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Err, someone remind him that DNA is not static, it changes from generation to generation, its known as evolution, and its what gave us garlic in the first place...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    19. Re:Speaking of idiots... by Sandbags · · Score: 1

      1) the weapon is a short burst weapon, and no, it can't kill you, it only causes discomfort while you;re in the beam, and it causes no cell disruption or actual biurns, only burning SENSATION.

      2) boiling breaks cells, but no, it does not contain the energy to mutate DNA bonds. Further, the pain gun does NOT boil your cells...

      3) boiling sterilizes by breaking/lysing cells in bacteria. It breaks down the protiens and fats and the cells disolve (or burst due to cellular pressure), but that does not denature the conponents of those cells.

      You misunderstand the difference between DNA and LIFE. Microwave radiation is NOT SUFFICIENT to disrupt the covalent bonds in DNA strands. It;s frequency is not in the range to cause such. Micrwaves cause vibration in WATER (and practically only water) molocules, this vibration causes heat discharge. closed microwaves are effective at low wattage only because the energy comes from multiple directions, crossing in the middle and amplifying the resonance. P2P microwave beams do not do this, nor does solar radiation, or other external sources of microwave.

      With enough energy, you CAN end LIFE with microwave. However, though most bacteria can be killed in a microwave, some INSECTS can't be! Bleach kills life too, but ALSO does not disrupt DNA...

      --
      There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
    20. Re:Speaking of idiots... by TwistedGreen · · Score: 1

      Microwave radiation is non-ionizing, which means it cannot cause the type of genetic damage required to cause mutations in DNA. His "dead, fear, and panic" mean that he doesn't understand these most basic facts about electromagnetic radiation. If he's not afraid of radiation in general, he still has little clue what it is.

  29. To be fair... by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

    This guy was against using chemical pesticides back in the 70's when everyone else was using them. I'm originally from the area this guy is from and a lot of farmers went the chemical route because they were told there was nothing wrong with pesticides. This guy stuck to his guns and is one of the few farmers now that doesn't have chemical soil contamination from decades of spraying crops...

    On the other hand, he's pretty freaking nuts. Almost as crazy as another farmer in the area that was neglecting his cattle and claimed a national defense helicopter contaminated his land causing him to loose his organic farming status.

    1. Re:To be fair... by natehoy · · Score: 1

      In other words, he's against the introduction of something he sees as a threat. 20 years from now, if it turns out that WiFi signals are detrimental to the growth of plants, will he still be freaking nuts?

      The guy was a rebel years ago, and was proven right against the best the current science had to offer. Maybe he's wrong again, but how long have we been irradiating crops with sustained 2.4GHz frequency, day in and day out, year in and year out? How many rigorous studies have been done on the long-term effects of gigahertz band exposure?

      There's a very good chance he's wrong, sure. But, seen from the perspective of the 70's, there was a very good chance he was wrong then, too. Except, 30 years later, turns out he wasn't.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    2. Re:To be fair... by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      You sir (or madam) are correct; however I hope he's just doing this for publicity. If not there are going to be a lot of People on Earth glowing in the dark in 30 years. There's nothing wrong with voicing an opinion, I still feel for the people living in the area who have no choice but to use dial-up.

      I was visiting an aunt in the area and went to look something up for her on her PC. After I told her my plan to Google it she told me I couldn't because it was 1) at a peek time so almost nothing goes through and 2) she was waiting for a call can you can't connect to the internet and use the phone at the same time. I personally feel the progress is more important then what will be happening to this guys garlic in 30 years.

      That being said if you were from Nova Scotia you'd know we're very anti-progress here, there's a good chance he'll win his case and East link will just find somewhere else to put their tower.

    3. Re:To be fair... by natehoy · · Score: 1

      I'm from just to your south (Maine).

      I don't honestly see WiFi as any more of a threat than cell signal, but I also think that the more frequencies we flood, the more likely it is we're going to find some good reason to regret it in a few decades.

      Which is not to say it's at all certain, or that the risks aren't worth the benefits.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    4. Re:To be fair... by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      a lot of farmers went the chemical route because they were told there was nothing wrong with pesticides.

      Exactly.. I am a bit dismayed at fellow slashdotters' insistence that obviously there is no risk at all that a strong nearby source of microwave radiation could affect crops. The long term impact of radiation on plant DNA, and that of consuming irradiated foods on human health, is yet but dimly understood even by scientists in the field.

      I, for one, give this farmer credit for his conservative instincts. He wants to practice traditional farming, and avoid exposing his crops (and therefore his customers) to the often unknown side effects of modern industrial techniques and pollution. In this case, we can think of the radiation given off by the antenna as a sort of pollution -- a man-made addition to the natural atmosphere surrounding the antenna. While there appears to be no conclusive proof that this sort of pollution is harmful, I don't slight the guy for wanting on principle to keep all pollution away from his fields.

    5. Re:To be fair... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      1) at a peek time so almost nothing goes through

      What?! On dialup you have a single dedicated connection to your ISP. There shouldn't be any "peak" congestion unless the ISP is grossly underserved vs. the number of subscribers. That's seriously hard for me to believe, since each subscriber can only pull something like 7 kB/sec.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    6. Re:To be fair... by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that was the "Peak Times" line was some BS feed to her by Aliant to get her off their backs. I don't know enough about how dial-up works so I couldn't contest the claim, and I never actually used her connection so I couldn't even confirm what kind of connection speed she was getting. Last time I saw her she was quite excited because she was suppose to be getting a high speed connection. I don't know how/if this garlic farmer case will effect that, but if things are as bad as she claims I feel sorry for her.

    7. Re:To be fair... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      if things are as bad as she claims I feel sorry for her.

      Yeah, I remember those days. 28-29 hours to download a movie was pretty bad (especially since it tied up the phone line).

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    8. Re:To be fair... by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      You're most likely correct. I admit I've taken the "he's being silly" train of thought like most others. It's easy for us to poke fun at this sort of thing, but seriously he could be right.

      On a lighter note, I wonder if radiation is the reason teenagers to day are so messed up. Maybe all the cell phone use is what's screwing up their brains. I wonder where I could get a grant to do the research.

    9. Re:To be fair... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Then I suggest he start growing his plants in a salt mine, because right now, the sun is basking his garlic plants in orders of a magnitude more radiation all over the spectrum than a microwave transmitter. I don't commend ignorant fear mongers, and I have no idea why you are. Last time I checked, the laws of physics still reigned supreme, and microwaves will not cause genetic damage to his plants. The sun, however, does.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:To be fair... by Rick17JJ · · Score: 1

      Dial-up was all that I could get until about 2 or 3 years ago. I had two telephone lines so that I could access the Internet on one line and still receive calls on the other telephone line.

      With my Internet provider, I did not notice any difference between peak times and how it performed at other times. So what you aunt described must have been a peculiarity of her local Internet provider.

      The telephone lines in my neighborhood were only good for 26.4k. So even though I had a 56k modem, I could only connect at 26.4k. I almost never succeeded in connecting at 28.8k either, but if I was unlucky, I sometimes was only able to connect at 24k. DSL only became available in my neighborhood about 2 or 3 years ago.

      We are sometimes a little slow to get the latest technology here. For instance, we still have several analog TV channels coming from the translator where I live here up in the mountains in Arizona (and only one digital channel). The digital transition for television has not yet occurred here. There are other places in the country where that is also still true.

      When I was on dial-up, I blocked advertisements as much as possible, so that the graphics would not use up unnecessary bandwidth. Tabbed browsing was also very helpful, because while still looking at one page, I could have another page loading in another tab. When going to get a cup of coffee, I would also always have it loading the next page while I was gone. It also helped when web pages would load text before the advertisements and other graphics. When web pages that did that, I could start reading while the pictures were still loading. I actually got by OK on dial-up, but I am happy now that I have 1.5M/800k DSL instead (for only slightly more money).

      When reinstalling Windows 2000 from scratch on dial-up, about 5 years ago, it took many hours to download all of the security patches. Despite already having a firewall and anti-virus software installed, my un-patched vulnerabilities seemed to be under relentless attack for many hours while downloading the security updates from Microsoft. Every several minutes, a pop-up would appear which suggested my computer was already infected with spyware and that Microsoft supposedly wanted me go to some obscure URL to purchase some little know anti-virus product which would supposedly fix that. It was only many hours later, after the security updates had been applied, and the computer rebooted, that the constant barrage of pop-ups stopped. If I had been on a high speed Internet connection, that probably would not have happened.

    11. Re:To be fair... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Almost as crazy as another farmer in the area that was neglecting his cattle and claimed a national defense helicopter contaminated his land causing him to loose his organic farming status.

      To be fair, that articles doesn't say whether the farmer did lose organic certification. Now I'm not condoning what he did, I personally hate the abuse, misuse, and neglect of animals, but I wanted to point out that something was missing.

      Falcon

    12. Re:To be fair... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I wonder if radiation is the reason teenagers to day are so messed up. Maybe all the cell phone use is what's screwing up their brains. I wonder where I could get a grant to do the research.

      No, I don't think so. I doubt cellphones are screwing up teenagers brains, but would like to see studies. Since at least the 1990s prescriptions for teenagers with and without AHDH, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, have gone up.

      To balance that Huffington Post article, a study by Mayo Clinic researchers found that treatment with prescription stimulants is associated with improved long-term academic success of children with ADHD."

      Last time I checked, the laws of physics still reigned supreme, and microwaves will not cause genetic damage to his plants.

      You'd better tell all the scientists you know better than they do. They have studies that conclude that microwaves do affect DNA. Then again there are disagreement even between those who research the subject, and with it being like that saying there is no affect is not scientifically accurate.

      Falcon

    13. Re:To be fair... by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      I come home of an evening open my /. email then open the stories I am interested in in tabs. I then take the dog for a walk and have a cup of coffee and sometimes afterwards all of the pages have loaded(i also block images). I am on wireless 'broadband' and have gone over my monthly 10GB limit (at a cheap $129.95pm) so my traffic is SLOWED. I wish I could get dialup when this happens.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    14. Re:To be fair... by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      I know it's old news now, but "Since before the seizure, Elliott has maintained that a Department of National Defence helicopter contaminated his property leading to a de-classification of his organic herd and a subsequent loss of income which hampered his ability to properly nourish the animals."

      You're right that although he claims he lost his classification he doesn't provide any proof and no one to backup his story was mentioned.

  30. You think that's bad? by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    So, who grows INorganic garlic?

    If you think "organic garlic" sounds stupid, I humbly submit the following anecdote which actually topped it for me: so I buy a tube of calcium tablets, and on the tube it says "Made from natural minerals!" Made me wonder if anyone synthetises their calcium in a nuclear reactor or something.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:You think that's bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think "organic garlic" sounds stupid, I humbly submit the following anecdote which actually topped it for me: so I buy a tube of calcium tablets, and on the tube it says "Made from natural minerals!"

      I still prefer my calcium made from supernatural minerals...

  31. whoops by XanC · · Score: 1

    Trigger finger modded this offtopic; posting to cancel.

  32. It's time by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

    Ok, Lenny, the nice white ambulance is here to take you to Happy Town.

    --
    Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
  33. Let me read between the lines by a-zarkon! · · Score: 1

    Levine has convinced Kings County Council that his unique business is at risk if the tower goes ahead as planned.

    Anyone care to bet that the reality is that, "Levine has convinced Kings County Council that he will be a huge pain in their collective necks if the tower goes ahead as planned." Sounds like everyone already knows that the carrier is going to appeal and the county will not oppose the appeal. Can't say as I fault their approach.

  34. RF power does not cause mutations!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RF is non-ionizing and does not cause mutations. Period. The most that RF can do is deposit energy (ie., heat) biological tissue. This is how microwave ovens work. (Microwaves are also RF). With the garlic bulbs being underground, it is unlikely that the RF would penetrate through the ground. In any case, the emiited power is way too low to heat anything except, perhaps, if you put your head next to the transmitter.

    Our company routinely test workplaces for RF exposures. Our clients have included ambulance services and major airlines, where multiple RF devices are routinely in use.

    To change topic, the last two days I was over 600 metres deep in the world's largest uranium mine, where the uranium ore averages over 30% purity (and peaks at 80%). Uranium is economical to mine at purities over just 1%. The radiation dose that I received was so low that I was not even required to wear a dosimeter. Our company provides dosimetry services for the mine, and I have final approval authority for the monthly reports on each miner.

    I think the whole garlic thing is utter nonsense. ... certified Radiation Safety Officer, PhD (physics), Member of IEEE International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (TC-95)

    1. Re:RF power does not cause mutations!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not too concerned about garlic. But are you sure that microwave radiation from cell phones does not affect protein folding? Just a few misfolded prions in the head may not be a serious problem the next decade or so...

    2. Re:RF power does not cause mutations!!!!! by ProfessionalCookie · · Score: 1

      The radiation dose that I received was so low that I was not even required to wear a dosimeter.

      Clever.

  35. Good for Him! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I support the man's efforts to free his garlic fields of microwaves and you should too!

    Although one thing he might consider is placing organite "tower busters" near the microwave towers. These devices seem to reduce the harmful effects the microwave towers have on humans and the sky.

    To the sensors I say "Fuck You! for making slashdot a non-free speech zone".

    - -Joe
    I would have signed this with PGP, but Slashdot gives me the "Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there."

  36. technically... by mick1983 · · Score: 1

    It is actually possible for microwaves to cause DNA damage. Because DNA is marginally thermally stable, intense heat produced by high intensity microwave radiation could reasonably cause DNA damage. Then again, the flame from a candle could also cause some DNA damage, so we better outlaw those too.

  37. Cellphone by frozentier · · Score: 1

    Is he also one of the enlightened who do not use a cell phone because they cause cancer?

  38. Way to go. by Sojourner1337 · · Score: 1

    Way to be crazy farmer, put our little corner of Canada on the map as a laughing stock. MICROWAVES? THAT MUST BE BAD! IT HAS THE SAME NAME BUT IS NOT REALLY THE SAME THING AS A KITCHEN APPLIANCE! Wait until he finds out there is cell phone service in the area which has been giving him brain cancer. Unless it turns out he is right, the tower is built and the crops mutate. Then I for one welcome our stupid overused catchphrase overlords.

    1. Re:Way to go. by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1

      Jeepers, just sell the peckerwood several large rolls of window screen wire and hang it up over his garlic. Basically put the garden inside a faraday cage. Stuff would still get light and water. Problem solved!

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
  39. Re:Moron by confused+one · · Score: 1

    Please hide under your desks. :\

    Likely the desk has some measurable activity as well. And the floor under the desk.

  40. Effects of microwave towers... by paulsnx2 · · Score: 1

    Regardless of what people THINK the effect of microwave towers can or cannot have, the real need is to study such questions. Of course, we can't study every stupid thing that someone might think (such as a person I know that feels that the radiation from Toll Booth RFID tags are giving her headaches), Microwave towers 1) use a significant amount of power, and 2) potentially impact large numbers of people.

    I was one of the first to laugh at a cell phone/brain cancer link. Yet a recent study demonstrates a statistically significant rise in risk (though the actual impact of a 90% increase in risk for a very rare brain cancer may not really be a risk that one should necessarily worry about).

    The point is, at some level, there is some evidence that microwave radiation in the ranges used by cell phones (roughly 380 mhz to 2 mhz) may have some effect on organisms.

    Now, assuming that the fellow reseeds his crop each year (garlic is an annual, after all), one wonders why he is all that worried in any event.

    1. Re:Effects of microwave towers... by hitnrunrambler · · Score: 1

      The point is, at some level, there is some evidence that microwave radiation in the ranges used by cell phones (roughly 380 mhz to 2 mhz) may have some effect on organisms.

      Now, assuming that the fellow reseeds his crop each year (garlic is an annual, after all), one wonders why he is all that worried in any event.

      .
      I would guess it's because he is using "open source farming" instead of GM (sterile) hybrids his seeds for next year are a portion of this year's crop.
      .
      I know that I should be used to the culture here, but honestly I'm surprised that there is such blank scorn being handed out here. The above poster is one of the few moderate thinkers who simply acknowledges that we don't have evidence of a risk in this situation BUT we do have reason to suspect interaction.
      With that in mind we should approach this from the same perspective of protective skepticism* that most of us have regarding our networks or systems. "You want to install something? Prove to me it's NOT harmful."
      .
      A sufficient degree of involvement in programming or system administration creates our own voodoo beliefs, particularly if we suspect that something "may interact"; and while certain items of belief may eventually be proven false on the whole we save ourselves a lot of trouble by following those superstitions until we have evidence to work with.
      .
      (To clarify my terms:)
      "protective skepticism" = { "Prove to me it's safe" or "prove to me I should" }
      as a contrast to "progressive skepticism" = {"Prove to me it's harmful" or "Prove to me I shouldn't"}

    2. Re:Effects of microwave towers... by paulsnx2 · · Score: 1

      I would guess it's because he is using "open source farming" instead of GM (sterile) hybrids his seeds for next year are a portion of this year's crop.

      Even so, there is a preciously small chance of mutating (via microwave radiation from a cell tower) the germ cells of an annual plant such that an altered, viable seed results. Or perhaps to put it more clearly, this happens all the time for a host of factors such that microwave radiation from a cell tower is going to be down in the noise as a cause of mutation.

      Furthermore, most farmers I know buy seed each year, even if the crop isn't "GM (sterile)". (Just because a crop is GM doesn't mean it is sterile, BTW. The sterile nature of some GM crops is just a "feature" which requires farmers to buy seed stock for each crop, as I understand it.)

      I think we should study the effects of Microwave towers. To date, we have no evidence that the towers are harmful, based on a number of studies. I do not think we have laid this issue to rest, since what frequencies we use, and how we transmit them is still a matter of rapid change.

      In this case, the fellow's objections shouldn't carry too much weight. That is because, as a reasonable matter of policy, we haven't anything to support his fears other than the fact that he does indeed have fears of radiation. But we should study the issue, because, while we have no reason to think he is right to be fearful, we don't have enough information to say categorically that he wrong.

      Policy ought to be based on the best information we have, yet we should work to make sure we have better information in the future just in case the best information we have might possibly have missed a significant risk.

       

    3. Re:Effects of microwave towers... by hitnrunrambler · · Score: 1

      I would guess it's because he is using "open source farming" instead of GM (sterile) hybrids his seeds for next year are a portion of this year's crop.

      Even so, there is a preciously small chance of mutating (via microwave radiation from a cell tower) the germ cells of an annual plant such that an altered, viable seed results. Or perhaps to put it more clearly, this happens all the time for a host of factors such that microwave radiation from a cell tower is going to be down in the noise as a cause of mutation.

      Furthermore, most farmers I know buy seed each year, even if the crop isn't "GM (sterile)". (Just because a crop is GM doesn't mean it is sterile, BTW. The sterile nature of some GM crops is just a "feature" which requires farmers to buy seed stock for each crop, as I understand it.)

      I think we should study the effects of Microwave towers. To date, we have no evidence that the towers are harmful, based on a number of studies. I do not think we have laid this issue to rest, since what frequencies we use, and how we transmit them is still a matter of rapid change.

      In this case, the fellow's objections shouldn't carry too much weight. That is because, as a reasonable matter of policy, we haven't anything to support his fears other than the fact that he does indeed have fears of radiation. But we should study the issue, because, while we have no reason to think he is right to be fearful, we don't have enough information to say categorically that he wrong.

      Policy ought to be based on the best information we have, yet we should work to make sure we have better information in the future just in case the best information we have might possibly have missed a significant risk.

      Nice response. I'm not exactly advocating that we treat this guy's claims as fact, I'm just very surprised that more people can't assess it as a question/issue that we should seek clarity on rather than crying "he's a witch burn him". (Yeah I know I'm being surprised by irrational prejudices from Americans/Slashdotters... and I fell dumb about that.)
      .
      .
      p.s. Yes, GM doesn't necessarily mean sterile... but hybrid usually does. Both forms of sterility can be avoided but there is driving interest for seed companies to direct R&D along plant lines that already have sterility as a feature. In any case I mentioned it as a reminder that he is probably considering this from a multi-generational aspect rather than an annual one.

    4. Re:Effects of microwave towers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you seriously imagine that the health effects of microwaves have not been studied, in depth, at length, ad nauseum, over the last 60 or 70 years? Incidently the heating effects of microwaves have been used medically for the treatment of muscular problems and for causterising wounds, so there have certainly been many studies done.

      The power levels used in ordinary point to point microwave links are not in fact very high. The ones I worked with 40 years ago (and I am very healthy thank you) did not exceed 5 Watts. Many of the modern small systems are much less. Part of the idea is that you are working in a band where there is little interference, so you don't need a lot of power. Combine that with the ability to focus the power in the direction you want to send it (due to the short wavelength), and you can work very effectively with very low powers. Care is needed when working on the systems since even 2-3 watts from the end of an open waveguide can cause eye damage if you look into the guide. But this is from the direct heating effect and is well documented. Poking a hot soldering iron into your eye will hurt too.

      I am a close friend with a medical doctor involved with occupational health, and part of his job is to look at reports and studies about possible cell phone and microwave radiation hazards. So far none of the studies have come up with anything better than the noise level in terms of correlation between cell phone use and cancers. Eg some studies will show a correlation, some will show a negative correlation. I think the most likely ways to be harmed through using a cell phone are:

      1. You have an accident while driving and using the phone. This has been proven to be as hazardous as driving while drunk.

      2. You are beaten up as a result of talking loudly into the phone in a confined space.

      3. The battery explodes.

    5. Re:Effects of microwave towers... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Now, assuming that the fellow reseeds his crop each year (garlic is an annual, after all), one wonders why he is all that worried in any event.

      Actually garlic is a perennial, it's just grown as an annual. I have some growing in my garden now and when I pick them I'll keep some of the cloves to plant next year, that's how I started the ones I planted this year. I took a bulb of garlic, broke off the cloves then planted them. Now if I leave some of the garlic in the ground they can grow back next year as well.

      Falcon

  41. radio IS radiation...electromagnetic. by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    He should stick to farming and leave the radio vs radiation science up to the smart people.

    Which you're not one of, given that "radio" is electromagnetic radiation.

  42. "Radiation"... by Entropius · · Score: 4, Informative

    The scientific and engineering community doesn't mean the same thing by this word that you mean -- namely, that shit that makes your ass glow green, or whatever.

    I propose that people not be allowed to rant and rave about this stuff until they:

    --Learn the basics of the electromagnetic spectrum and the sources and engineering uses of radiation at each point along it.
    --Learn the basics of nuclear radiation, and understand its effects and where it comes from
    --Leave a Geiger counter near a nuclear power station and take one on a plane across the country at 40,000 feet, and compare the counts

    I teach physics labs to premeds at the university. They come in and I'm munching peanuts off of a pretty bright orange tray, and offer them some; some of them accept.

    A little later I'm showing them how to use a Geiger counter, and show them radiation from a few sources we have in the room -- lookie, radioactive rocks! Lookie there, a bit of caesium! Oh, wait ... where'd these radioactive peanuts come from?

    The students freaked out. (For those who don't know, the bright orange glaze on old Fiestaware was made from uranium oxide. It's safe, unless maybe you eat the plate, in which case you have a .01% risk of cancer and a 10% risk of a perforated bowel.)

    1. Re:"Radiation"... by taustin · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the difference is between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. And most people can't grasp there is a difference, much less what it is, even when you explain it to them. Hell, you and I put out radiation. The guy's television puts out more EM radiation than a cell phone. So, probably, does his refrigerator. And, for that matter, whatever equipment he uses to plant and harvest his crop.

      We need to figure out how to run cars on stupidity, because it really is an infinite resource. Oh, wait, I live (and drive) in southern California, where, judging by the traffic on the freeway every day, we *have*.

    2. Re:"Radiation"... by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the difference is between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. And most people can't grasp there is a difference, much less what it is, even when you explain it to them. [. . .] We need to figure out how to run cars on stupidity, because it really is an infinite resource.

      The ironic part is that with all of that bluster, you are speaking from ignorance yourself. Even when I explain how non-ionizing EM radiation can indeed affect cells, people still just can't seem to grasp what I'm talking about. When I offer graphs and references, etc., and they begin to see that they have been trumpeting ignorance, they often get pissy and refuse to read any of the references, (as if hiding from information will make it go away so that they don't have to be wrong. As if the Ego's sense of self-importance actually matters.)

      Do some research before calling others stupid, please. Look up, "Cyclotron resonance" --wherein various ions in conjunction with the Earth's magnetic field, (at 60 Hz, for instance, it happens to be the lithium ion), are excited and move on a vector resulting on much more frequent penetration of cell walls, in particular, the blood/brain barrier in the human nervous system, than would happen normally in nature. The result is that if any lithium is present in the subject, that the medicinal effect is many times greater when in proximity to a 60 Hz electrical signal. How many people are on lithium drugs these days?

      That's just one example.

      Another aspect is that nerve cells in humans respond in a variety of peculiar ways to stimulation from 10 Hz to 500 Hz EM wave forms, (in the non-ionizing power range). This is very low, well below the microwave frequencies used by modern communication equipment. However, and this is the vital point, it has been established that much higher frequencies modulated down to low frequencies carry the same effects as those native low frequencies. That should be of interest to everybody because that's exactly how information is moved through high-frequency equipment. And all of it in the non-ionizing range.

      The "It doesn't burn so it can't hurt me" meme, as far as I've been able to determine, originated with US Air Force and then later on, Motorola public relations efforts to quell fears about radar and cell phone equipment. In the USAF, a number of law suits had been filed by radar operators who had contracted cancers. They reported that in the arctic environments, they would stand in front of the radar emitters to warm themselves and that this had harmed them. The findings were inconclusive, but among the studies which Motorola ran with in their media efforts were the assumptions that heating was the only way damage could occur, allowing public perception to fill in the blanks despite the fact that the complexity of the human nervous system and the interplay of EM energy in cell tissue was far, far more complex a subject than could be reduced to a simple black & white, "does it or does it not burn?" question. The sad/funny part is that those who fall for that binary question think they are being scientific when really they are being chumped by a very simple cognitive trap designed for very simple thinkers. Most people who think they are skeptics and scientists don't really understand and certainly don't live by the principals they most admire.

      There is a lot of information available on the subject of EM radiation and how it affects the human nervous system. I would recommend Robert O. Becker's book, "Cross Currents" as an excellent beginner source on the subject. Look it up on Amazon. Oddly enough, many of the people I talk to on this subject choose to invent all manner of silly/pathetic excuses to avoid performing actual research in lieu being told what is real by pop culture, ("I don't have time to read" and "Yes, his credentials ARE impressive, but after shipping, the book comes to more than the $5 you said it was, so I'm not going to read it.")

      Now THAT's stupid!

      -FL

    3. Re:"Radiation"... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I am aware of the radar operators practices and the lawsuit.

      I see a group of men get cancer, then lawyers, then expert witnesses.

      After hearing all the evidence the judge and jury find for the Air Force.

      Follow up studies put the cancer rate for radar operators at the same as all electronic techs of the same era.

      The studies saw the effect of the chemicals they (all electronic techs) used to clean and solder (small cancer risks) but no additional cancer from the EMF exposure.

      Bearing in mind that some of these guys actually warmed themselves with EMF and there has yet to be a statistically significant correlation to cancer risk I'd say you own citation is against you.

      EMF remains safe in my book until someone comes up with some fucking data.

      The fact is that we have been using populations as tests regarding the assumed safety of EMF and no one can even find significant correlation to illness. They are looking real hard as it's a potential gold mine for the ambulance chasers.

      Call it a day and just admit EMFs are safe at current levels. Even for those living under power lines.

      Find one study of the radar operators that show a statistically significant aberrant rate of any thing or STFU.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:"Radiation"... by taustin · · Score: 1

      Speaking of aguring from ignorance. Or at least illiteracy. I didn't say non-ionizing radiation was harmless. I said it was different from ionizing radiation. Which it is. And I also said, which you completely ignored, that this guy has household appliacnes that put out more of it than his precious garlic will be exposed to from a cell tower, or whatever the hell it is he's opposed to.

      Fact is, anybody who lives in a modern, technological society is constantly exposed to EM radiation across all the spectra, all the time, every day. And has been for decades. The more you pretend that has not been pointed out, the more I will laugh at your claims.

    5. Re:"Radiation"... by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      Speaking of aguring from ignorance. Or at least illiteracy. I didn't say non-ionizing radiation was harmless. I said it was different from ionizing radiation. Which it is.

      Very good then. I stand corrected. And I assume then that you also recognize that non-ionizing radiation presents a legitimate concern? Though, it seems odd that you should bring up the difference at all if you believe such a thing. Are you absolutely certain you're not now just splitting hairs because you are too enslaved by your ego to be able to admit error?

      And I also said, which you completely ignored, that this guy has household appliacnes that put out more of it than his precious garlic will be exposed to from a cell tower, or whatever the hell it is he's opposed to.

      I read that, thought it was an erroneous comment, and then moved on. But you bring it up once more, so I've read it again. Several times. --Now that I've looked at it, it seems rather silly or at the very least full of assumptions. Are you suggesting that this farmer's washing machine and television, (I doubt somehow that he has a wifi setup given his alarm over microwave towers), are projecting stronger signals from his house and onto his garlic fields than a microwave transmission tower would do? If so, it really depends on what is meant by "A few hundred meters" (as described in the article), and how much power would be used to drive the tower, --both valid points to be considered. When I last ran the numbers for a cell tower of moderate strength in my neighborhood, I think 900 meters worked out to be the distance where cell tissue no longer would react to signal. (Human and animal cell tissue anyway. I don't know about garlic and other plant life). In any case, it's been a few years and the details are a bit faded now.

      Fact is, anybody who lives in a modern, technological society is constantly exposed to EM radiation across all the spectra, all the time, every day. And has been for decades. The more you pretend that has not been pointed out, the more I will laugh at your claims.

      I've never pretended that we are not bombarded by EM constantly, so I'm not entirely clear what you are getting at here. Are you suggesting that no ill effects have been observed? That would be a false statement.

      Here's the skinny: specific frequencies of the right power at the right range can affect how your brain functions. However, because it's your brain, it's hard to tell when you are affected. When you feel sleepy and dazed and forgetful, is that just how you would naturally be under any circumstances, or would you feel differently if the artificial EM environment was switched off? From the subjective perspective, it's very hard to tell. This is why we have science. The book I mentioned earlier is filled with a wide selection of studies all illustrating the ways in which living tissue is indeed affected.

      -FL

  43. No, it doesn't by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    Actually, no, it doesn't. If you RTFA, the "is afraid his organic crop could be irradiated" is really a piece of text by the journalist, not an actual quote from the guy. The relevant quote from him is in quotation marks: ""I think over a period of time it will change the DNA of the garlic because it shakes up the molecules," It's pretty clearly about micro-wave radiation, not, say, about ionizing radiation.

    And a quick googling for differently reported versions of the same story, shows that at least some mention microwave radiation explicitly about his complaint. E.g., http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/09/16/Garlic-farmer-High-speed-Internet-stinks/UPI-79211253122064/

    While he _probably_ is uneducated on the matter, enlarging the scope of his complaint yourself and then answering to that is nevertheless a strawman fallacy. If you want to call him an idiot, call him an idiot for the stupid things he actually said (like that a little shaking up mollecules can damage DNA), not about some strawman interpretation of what you guess he might have meant.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:No, it doesn't by geekoid · · Score: 1

      haha, the actually quote makes him look even stupider.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:No, it doesn't by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      And a quick googling for differently reported versions of the same story, shows that at least some mention microwave radiation explicitly about his complaint. E.g.,
      http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/09/16/Garlic-farmer-High-speed-Internet-stinks/UPI-79211253122064/

      That article still doesn't credit the farmer with saying microwaves willm damage his crop. It uses the same quote as the one slashdot links to.

      If you want to call him an idiot, call him an idiot for the stupid things he actually said (like that a little shaking up mollecules can damage DNA)

      Seeing if I could find something using Google's Scholar search to search for microwaves alter dna science study or studies I found studies that concluded microwaves can alter DNA.

      Falcon

    3. Re:No, it doesn't by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Of all the papers you quoted in an earlier post and all of what I have seen from a quick search, there is one paper that shows a slight increase in DNA single strand breaks post exposure to microwaves with more than 1W/kg. It does not seem to have been reproduced by now. There are a couple of papers that find no DNA damage, no chromatin alteration, no induction of DNA repair systems, but a change in gene expression patterns, which might very well be attributed to thermal effects due to the high intensity used. In summary, nothing that would overly concern me.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    4. Re:No, it doesn't by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I found studies that concluded microwaves can alter DNA.

      I looked through the studies in the link, and found zero that indicated that double-helix DNA suffers any alteration under microwave radiation.

    5. Re:No, it doesn't by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I looked through the studies in the link, and found zero that indicated that double-helix DNA suffers any alteration under microwave radiation.

      And can you point out where I said microwaves damage double-helix DNA? Or is this at attempt to divert attention away from or discredit what I posted?

      Falcon

    6. Re:No, it doesn't by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So, you are admitting that a healthy cell that isn't in the process of dividing will suffer no genetic damage from microwave radiation. That is all I was looking for.

    7. Re:No, it doesn't by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      So, you are admitting that a healthy cell that isn't in the process of dividing will suffer no genetic damage from microwave radiation.

      So you can't point to where I said microwaves damage double-helix DNA and spreading more FUD by casting doubt on what I said?

      Falcon

  44. Danger: Witch-repellent properties may be affected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The chemistry of Garlic is an incomplete science [1], and independent research shows that effects of microwave radiation can be devastating [2].

    Many of garlic unique properties may be affected if the microwave towers are placed near the growing fields. Even more may be affected if these towers are switched on. Definitely, more research is needed: what if garlic exposed to the unsightly view of microwave towers loses its witch-repellent properties? Act now!

    1. http://www.gourmetgarlicgardens.com/chemstry.htm
    2. http://www.layscience.net/node/53

  45. Navy Pave Paws system by Franklin+Brauner · · Score: 1

    My understanding is that government guidelines that define a "safe" waveform are produced by averaging the width & height of said waveform. Some systems, like Doppler radar or the Navy's Pave Paws system have been cited as possible causes of Ewings Sarcoma. The high & narrow spike waveforms produced by these systems meet government defined safety averages for permissible exposure limits, but only at a defined distance from the array. Litigation has been successful in removing the Pave Paws system from communities -- despite the Navy insisting that their system is "safe" (as long as you keep a safe distance from the array). What surprises me are the snarky comments made here that completely dismiss the possibility of harmful exposure -- or at least dismiss the possibility that this guy is simply doesn't want a large microwave producing device right next to him and his family, and is smartly using the organic excuse as a legal reason to keep it off his farm.

  46. Why politicians are idiots by Braedley · · Score: 1

    The Chronicle Herald has another article on this. In it one of the county councilors (or similar) says that the tower can be avoided by 2 kms of cable, something I find highly unlikely for a number of reasons. This ignores the point of the tower, which is to provide ubiquitous and cheap high bandwidth (I'm talking at least 10Mbps) internet to 99% of the population of Nova Scotia. Around a third of the population lives in the capital area, which along with other urban areas in the province has easy access to high-speed internet. However, nearly half of the provincial population is rural or very rural or extremely rural (like half an hour down a dirt road from just a corner store rural). Now some of these areas have access to digital cable and therefore cable internet (hell, some can even pull a decent DSL connection), and therefore, the towers are not needed. In Victoria Harbour, however, which is 30 km (straight line) from the closest town that could be reasonably classified as urban, is not one of those locations. The cost for Eastlink to ensure that the cable to every house (if it exists in the first place) is capable of carrying the higher bandwidth required for internet would be prohibitive to begin with, not to even mention replacing old and stringing new cable. The tower makes much more economic sense, as the costs associated are stringing one cable (which may already be in place) and erecting the damn thing. This also ignores the fact that many other such towers have been erected in primarily agricultural areas of the province with no ill effect. Some of you may have already eaten blueberries grown not 50 meters from one such tower. Okay, maybe not, but the point still stands. This one farmer doesn't understand the science, let alone the economic benefits to the area, behind the tower. I really hope Industry Canada overrules Kings County Council.

  47. The sun is stronger than human microwaves by mangu · · Score: 1

    If enough microwave radiation from the Sun got to the Earth to be comparable to a cell phone tower, you couldn't actually use a cell phone. Because the white noise from the sun would not only give the tower a crap signal-to-noise ratio, but would be hundreds of decibels stronger than the milliwatts emitted by the phone itself or received by it in some places.

    Satellite microwave communications is subject to sun interference. Communications through a satellite are impossible when the sun, satellite, and earth station are in a straight line.

    1. Re:The sun is stronger than human microwaves by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      I don't believe we're talking about an orbital farm.

    2. Re:The sun is stronger than human microwaves by ImNotAtWork · · Score: 1

      I don't believe we're talking about an orbital farm.

      Right! This farm is the center of the universe figuratively and literally.

      Mods be gently on me being a smart ass. I couldn't help myself -- it was done out of humor not spite.

      --
      open source sub sim. I might start coding again for this. http://dangerdeep.sourceforge.net/contribute/
  48. Quick! Get this man a deflector shield! by moxsam · · Score: 1

    And make sure that EastLink won't find out its phase modulation frequency!

    1. Re:Quick! Get this man a deflector shield! by Rick17JJ · · Score: 1

      It would probably be possible to use an antenna design which radiates less in his direction. Another option might be to locate the antenna in a place where there is a small hill between his farm and the antenna. That way only a small number of his closest neighbors would be stuck on dial-up.

      By the way, dial-up was all that I was able to get, up until about 2 years ago. As if that was not bad enough, the local telephone lines were not good enough for either 56K, 32K or 28.8K dial-up. The local telephone lines were only good enough for 26.4K dial-up. Security updates for Windows or Linux sometimes took all night. Then finally DSL arrived and I now have a 1.5Mb/800K DSL connection. What is surprising, is that I live in a small city in the U.S., not in a rural area, and could not get high-speed Internet until about 2 years ago.

  49. Re:Moron by Rick17JJ · · Score: 1

    Back in the 1970s, one of the Motorola plants in the Phoenix area installed a small microwave antenna on their roof for transmitting computer data to another location. Shortly afterwards, one of the neighbors stopped by to complain that radiation from the antenna was making him feel ill. They told him that they had not yet started using the antenna yet, but to let them know how it is affecting his health next month after they turn the antenna on.

  50. Organic garlic? by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    Well, if that's the only problem why doesn't he just plant some non-organic garlic instead?

  51. Perhaps a concocted reason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe he just doesn't want a huge, ugly monstrosity sitting right near his home.

  52. Halifax Resident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an educated, intelligent individual living in Halifax, Nova Scotia i apologize on behalf of my province for the ignorant light this casts on my fellow citizens and ask the people of the internet to forgive the foolish notions of a farmer and be assured that this has no real chance of stopping this towers construction.

  53. Wrong by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Sure you can. You just build the microwave tower out of uranium instead of steel.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  54. Stupidity or Ignorance? How about Jackass by kenp2002 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No one is exempt from stupidity and certainly not ignorance. No man can know all things let he be a God among men.

    I've met the brightest that Harvard graduated and they thought you could get the swine flu from eating pork.

    I work with a Yale man that couldn't replace his air filter in his car.

    I've worked with two former NASA engineers and a Ballistic Warhead designer from UDLP that couldn't install an electrical outlet in thier home.

    Ignorance is relative people. How many of you know when to harvest garlic? When you put down your fertilizer? How many days do you let alfalfa dry between cutting and baling? Know how to shoe a horse? How about stitch a wound? At what rate should you run the reverse rehometer to prevent scaling on a polymer test?

    There is a difference between stupidity and ignorance. You can mock stupidity till you are blue in the face; just make damn sure you know the difference between the two or all you will accomplish is proving how big of a jackass you are.

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
    1. Re:Stupidity or Ignorance? How about Jackass by Raptoer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem here being that most of those people would ask someone with more experience in the field. If I was trying to grow garlic I would probably get a book on garlic growing.

      This guy just jumped the gun and went straight to "zomg radiation"

    2. Re:Stupidity or Ignorance? How about Jackass by rcolbert · · Score: 0

      Agreed, and yet the line between willful ignorance and stupidity is not so clear. For instance, an organic farmer should recognize that the yield of organic farming is so poor that if the entire world's farming system converted overnight to organic, we could at maximum produce enough food to feed around 4 billion people. Organic farmers should know that their products don't in fact taste any better than non-organic products, and certainly don't have any perceptible health benefits.

      Therefore they should stop their deceptive, hippie advertising that sucks in suburban housewives who have nothing better to do than chit-chat about yesterday's Oprah while standing in line at Draeger's with their tiny little linen satchels before heading out to their supercharged Range Rover that they parked far to close to the store manager's lilly-white Prius.

      And oh yes, we've had organic farming before. Those days were called the dark ages for a reason. The benefit of organic food is substantiated by little to no scientific fact.

      The irony is that this farmer believes that his own vocational aptitude for distributing animal excrement on the dirt somehow qualifies him to discuss radiation in a meaningful way. You are correct that ignorance and stupid are different things. In this case, the farmer is too stupid to be aware of his ignorance of the scientific facts and principles with regard to radiation.

      I sat at my keyboard and made electrons move around a little bit today. The organic farmer deceived the public and put lives and health at risk. I may be snarky from time to time, but who's the bigger jackass?

    3. Re:Stupidity or Ignorance? How about Jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems reasonable that you could get swine flu from pork even if it's not an usual way for flu to be transmitted (assuming the pig had swine flu of course and the meat were improperly handled). It's probably very, very unlikely though.

    4. Re:Stupidity or Ignorance? How about Jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The organic farmer deceived the public and put lives and health at risk. I may be snarky from time to time, but who's the bigger jackass?

      yeah... still you

  55. And on behalf of newfies now... by gmarsh · · Score: 1

    "How does a newfie get his wife pregnant?" ...
    "how? ...
    "And you thought WE were stupid?"

    1. Re:And on behalf of newfies now... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      'Cums in her shoes and lets the flies do the work?'

      The joke would localize better if I knew the name of a local flying bug.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  56. easy and profitable solution by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

    Switch crops and grow tomacco! It's a win-win for everybody. Can't we all just get along?

  57. "Wacky Green Agenda?" by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    Just taking the wacky green agenda to its extreme boundary.

    You shouldn't tarnish the entire environmental movement with the beliefs of somehow with a sadly poor of a science education as this guy anymore than you can tarnish the entire tax resistance movement with the beliefs of the birther loonies.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    1. Re:"Wacky Green Agenda?" by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Can I do it for all the miss guided anti nuclear statments?
      What about all the nutters that protest space probes that use RTG?
      The nutters that throw paint people with fur coats? "I don't own one and think they are stupid, expensive, and frankly immoral but that is assault.".
      The people that want to ban all flights over national parks because they don't want to see a jet's contrail?

      Their are people that do care about the environment and are not nutcases. I think I am one of them but I have yet to see any of them that identify themselves as a member of the "Green Movement". They all seem to be members of let's not trash the planet movement.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  58. TechnologyGarlic Farmer Wards Off High-Speed Inter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suspect there is a feeling of âloss of controlâ(TM) that the farmer is experiencing as the world changes around him. Iâ(TM)ll bet whatâ(TM)s happening is there is a visible point source of change he can see, the microwave tower. It wouldnâ(TM)t matter if it was people laying a fiber optic cable with âlasers shooting out of itâ(TM) or a nuclear power plant or as is the case, a microwave tower. Heâ(TM)s objecting to the world changing and impinging on his personal territory. The world is changing and forcing him to acknowledge it. The microwave issue is simply a trigger primed by a media preying on ignorance

  59. I hear the Italian Mafia by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    can arrange special delivery.

    Ump, did you read that article in, I think it was, "Time" magazine or "Newsweek" about the Mafia selling farmers fertilizer that was really hazardous waste in Italy?

    Falcon

    1. Re:I hear the Italian Mafia by eleuthero · · Score: 1

      USA Today online also had a piece (read it on my iphone) on it and every paper from al jazeera to the guardian have it on their pages today (google "italian mafia waste")

    2. Re:I hear the Italian Mafia by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      USA Today online also had a piece (read it on my iphone) on it and every paper from al jazeera to the guardian have it on their pages today (google "italian mafia waste")

      I read the printed article years ago and when I googled for it I didn't find it online.

      Not that that was the first or last tyme.

      Falcon

  60. Trying to Control Land He Doesn't Own by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    This farmer is trying to control the use of land he doesn't own. Put up a Faraday Fence if he's that worried, but he can't be allowed to dictate land usage on what isn't even his property.

    But given how Socialist they are over there, someone might even fall for it.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Trying to Control Land He Doesn't Own by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there a corollary to Godwin's law for when "socialism" is mentioned?

  61. Ugly Tower Will Irradiate the View by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ugly tower will irradiate the view and also destroy the garlic by first destroying the honest-to-goodness farmer.

  62. A cable isn't really that expensive by xiando · · Score: 1

    Has anyone at the (evil) EastLink corporation actually considered dragging cables to the nice folks in Victoria Harbour? Bulk fiber cable is not that expensive and does provide higher transfer rates at lower latencies.

    1. Re:A cable isn't really that expensive by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Fiber is cheap. Rights of way are amazingly expensive, sometimes even if you happen to have eminent domain powers.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  63. irradiated food by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Many studies of irradiated animal feed have been conducted over the years and no negative impact has been found.

    Not one study has shown negative impacts of irradiating food?

    Falcon

    1. Re:irradiated food by iceOlate · · Score: 0

      Thanks for posting that link Falcon. I guess I should have posted one as well, like this one from the Center For Food Safety.

      So don't be calling me a troll allafin, without doing a bit of research yourself. I very much doubt that you are someone who has studied health and nutrition on a regular basis for the majority of your life. As far as food being living, well, you probably wouldn't understand the benefit of that either. Quite simply, living, raw foods tend to boost energy levels considerably more than cooked or dead foods, and contain more vitamins. Like that cow that you ate, if it was fresh and raw, would provide more energy and nutrients than dead and cooked. This is even more true of vegetation. Minerals tend to remain viable, regardless; thus I was referring more to vitamin and phytochemical content rather than minerals.

      I do not agree with Mr. Levine's concerns, as far as what is mentioned in the article. However, directly irradiating foods through the methods used is most definitely harmful to the food.

    2. Re:irradiated food by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are the resaon I got food poisoning this year. Please go and fuck yourself.

  64. Gandolph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a physicist and I just wrote a blog about cell phone and microwave radiation. Please check it out:

    http://www.peterdolph.com/2009/08/will-microwave-radiation-give-you_19.html

  65. Re:Moron by Thuktun · · Score: 1

    In other news... everything is radioactive.

    Yes, not just naturally-occurring radioisotopes, but everything that has a temperature above absolute zero radiates EM radiation of a higher frequency than microwaves in the form of thermal (blackbody) radiation. That's not normally termed "radioactive", but the garlic farmer is just as confused.

  66. microwaves by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Err... we have human-sized microwaves... or at least the US army does.
    See here

    Yea I heard about those years ago. The way they work against protesters is as the wiki article says by pain. It inflicts pain which makes those exposed to want to flee. Continuous exposure certainly can cause health problems if not death though. In other words they are dangerous and lethal. Imagine what would happen to a baby who was taken to a protest then when these are deployed against the protesters the baby gets left behind, perhaps by a parent wanting to get away from the cause of pain, to be roasted.

    Falcon

    1. Re:microwaves by vintagepc · · Score: 1

      Turns out when they demoed them on some people, it was misadjusted, and a few of the "protesters" got actual burns... blisters, peeling etc.

      That, and I've heard stories about the RADAR dishes on military ships- It's said they can cook a turkey at 20 paces. (or a beancounter through 2 floors, if you're the BOFH).

      --
      Evolution - Est. 4500000000 B.C. Don't piss in the gene pool.
  67. Not evidence, proof: by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    "organic" stuff attracts hippies, hippies smoke pot, pot is dealt by drug-dealers, or grown organically on the garlic-farm, exponentially reinforcing the vicious cycle of bong-headedness and drug-war through the positive feedback mechanism as pot attracts both hippies and drug-dealers.

    That is not proof! Organic also attracts big business, but according to you that's proof. Walmart sells organics so it must be evil.

    The United States is evil too. After all it allowed slavery, it massacred the native population, and it performed medical experiments on unsuspecting citizens infecting them with syphilis. It was also the only nation to use nuclear weapons. Evil, pure evil.

    Falcon

  68. No, he's an idiot. Microwaves don't alter DNA by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Microwaves don't alter DNA? You'd better tell a number of scientists and other researchers you know more than they do.

    Quite frankly, if I was his neighbor, I'd sue the moron.

    So if I lived next to you would it be alright if I opened a toxic waste dump next to you? Or would I have to sue you?

    Falcon

    1. Re:No, he's an idiot. Microwaves don't alter DNA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you seriously expect that you could link to random journal abstracts that don't support your point and get away with it?

      1. This is the only one that supports you point. However, the results weren't reproducible: "The present study was done to confirm the reported observation that low-intensity acute exposure to 2450 MHz radiation causes DNA single-strand breaks (Lai and Singh, Bioelectromagnetics 16, 207-210, 1995). ... Furthermore, we did not confirm the observation that DNA damage is produced in cells of the rat cerebral cortex or the hippocampus after a 2-h exposure to 2450 MHz CW microwaves or at 4 h after the exposure." DNA Damage in Rat Brain Cells after In Vivo Exposure to 2450 MHz Electromagnetic Radiation and Various Methods of Euthanasia
      2. "Radiation-induced conductivity measurements on hydrated DNA provide evidence for highly mobile charge carriers within the B-DNA superstructure. The lack of anisotropy in the conductivity for aligned fibre samples and the second-order nature of the decay argue against one-dimensional conduction via a 'pi-way' type mechanism involving electron transport confined to the base-pair core." -- it's not clear what that has to do with microwaves or DNA damage.
      3. "The data shows that GSM MWs at 915 MHz did not induce PFGE-detectable DNA double stranded breaks or changes in chromatin conformation, but affected expression of genes in rat brain cells." Emphasis added. I.e., DNA was not altered, but there were changes in the amount of proteins made (or whatever the DNA was coding)
      4. This says that microwave radiation had no effect on how quickly damaged DNA was repaired. Note that the DNA was damaged in the first place via UV radiation, not by microwaves--ionizing radiation that's long been known to damage DNA.
      5. Again, this doesn't show any DNA changes, but does show some changes in production of some proteins. However, "No detectable differences were noted in the postexposure cell viability, plating efficiency, or proliferation rate. Also, there were no detectable differences in cell viability or plating efficiency between controls and cultures irradiated for 2 h when the temperature was simultaneously increased to above normal physiological limits (39 to 45 degree C)."
      6. "Prognostic significance of oestrogen receptor beta in breast cancer"--nice completely irrelevant article there.
      7. "Results:No statistically significant difference in the apoptosis rate was observed between sham and 24 h MW-exposed cells ..." "Furthermore, for CW-exposure, apoptosis rates were comparable between sham-, CW-, 37 degree C- and 39 degree C-exposed cells."

      So no, microwaves have not been shown to alter DNA.

  69. Missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm actually from the area mentioned in the article and the summary is way off base. The fellow isn't worried so much that the waves from the tower will cause his garlic to mutate. His concern is that he's an organic garlic farmer. With the tower next to his patch he may be forced by law to remove the title "organic" from his product. This would cause a sharp drop in sales. If he gets confirmation that he can keep the "organic" label, there really isn't any further need to protest the signal tower.

    He's not stupid or panicking about radiation, he's worried about maintaining his business.

  70. A good rebuttal is here: by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    http://scienceblogs.com/builtonfacts/2009/09/wifi_and_radiation.php

    And a number of rebuttals to microwaves not causing DNA alterations or damage is here: microwaves alter dna science study or studies.

    Falcon

    1. Re:A good rebuttal is here: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to actually read the results you get back, rather than assuming everything returned by a Google search is relevant to what you're arguing. Hint: almost none of those say that microwaves alter or damage DNA. For the one or two that do, other researchers were unable to confirm their results.

  71. Microwave vampires by mjwx · · Score: 1

    Does this make my best defence is useless against the next generation of Microwave Vampires?

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  72. Shakes up the molecules" by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    How do microwave ovens work if they don't "shake up the molecules"?

    I'll use wi-fi all day and you can sit next to some cobalt 58 and we'll see what person's molecules get "shaken up" more.

    And will you sit there when you have a directed-energy weapon aimed at you and turned on? The Active Denial System is a weapon that directs, get this, microwaves to cause pain. So if they are so safe why not stay there? Why did the military spend so much on them?

    Man, I live in Edmonton now and every so often when I'm waiting at a stoplight or pass my third McDonalds in five minutes I think. "City life." This is followed quickly by "I'm living in a city." and a smile. Sometimes I even giggle. It'll be a cold day in Hell before I go back to the boonies.

    And can you survive on your own there? On your own, growing your own food and such, not buying what you need? Now it may not bother you but personally while I left the boonies physically I won't leave it mentally. I leave in a large city and metro area, downtown Minneapolis is 15 minutes bike ride, yet I still garden. I love to cook and can what I grow, though unfortunately my garden didn't produce much. Talking with others, they've had or seen the same think. This summer there hasn't been much rain and while places like Portland, OR, set record highs it has been cool in the Twin Cities.

    Falcon

  73. shaking by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    microwave "rotates" dipole molecules by altering electric field, hence creating rapid collisions resulting "heat".

    Couldn't those collisions be considered "shaking"? While the microwave oven doesn't shake the whole thing, like some shake beer and soda to get it to spray, don't the individual molecules become excited so they rapidly move just like shaking does?

    Falcon

    1. Re:shaking by layer3switch · · Score: 1

      remember that fluid does not have much space between to move and shake about like gas does. also beer and soda do not spray because molecules are excited. it sprays out because of gas pressure and gas molecules attached to liquid is very weak. therefore small difference in pressure cause the bond to break easily. due to the surface tension of liquid, the bubbles wrapping around gas inside as gas rises up, builds up rapidly, resulting in "spray". but for water in microwave, imagine tightly packed asymmetric dipole molecules rotating in dipolar bond or imagine tightly packed gears rotating causing friction and heat. here is simple test you can do. ice cube and cold water. lets say, we have 100ml of cold water and same amount in ice. place two separate cups, one with water and one with ice into microwave oven. set timer to 3 minutes and watch the water boils before ice melt. in theory, if resonance is the factor, ice should melt faster since it requires less heat to melt than to boil. if dipole rotation causing collision and friction is the factor, dipole water should heat up faster than ice, because solid molecules are rigid, stuck together and can't rotate freely. hence water boils before ice melts.

      --
      "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
    2. Re:shaking by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that. I now have something to chew on, think about, for a while.

      Falcon

  74. Sucker! by shaitand · · Score: 1

    He's done the right thing not only in fighting this attack on his organic farm but also in letting all of those who previously consumed his tasty organic produce know about.

    Boy am I glad I dodged that bullet. I almost bought some of that radioactive sludge he's peddling.

  75. Who cares? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Microwaves don't irradiate things, that's the point.

    Microwaves do cause damage and can even be lethal, and that is the point. To ignore that is to ignore science. And I care about that even if you don't.

    Falcon

    1. Re:Who cares? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Microwaves do cause damage and can even be lethal, and that is the point. To ignore that is to ignore science. And I care about that even if you don't.

      Microwaves ovens work by vibrating molecules with unbalanced charges (causing heat), and there are specific frequency ranges that are good at that. Then there's also power levels, directionality, and the inverse square law to consider.

      Water is pretty ideal for this work. The garlic farmer can easily test this with an accurate thermometer. Heck, the citizens of the town should pitch in and have a real lab guy do the testing, for best accuracy.

      I have a 70mW 2.4GHz 802.11 radio in my house and don't worry about it. I'd definitely not stick my head in my 1100W kitchen microwave oven.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:Who cares? by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      I'd definitely not stick my head in my 1100W kitchen microwave oven.

      It might stop all those annoying /. groupies harassing you for sexual favours all the time though.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    3. Re:Who cares? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You sound like a nutter. Water is lethal. People OD on water all the time. But that doesn't mean that in small doses it is still bad for you (in fact it's necessary). Putting your cat in the microwave oven will be lethal. That doesn't mean that putting them near a source of low-level microwave radiation will harm them at all. And no study has ever found that microwave radiation causes mutations in double-helix DNA. If you feel that's an incorrect statement, point to an actual study, rather than links to google searches that don't show what you claim they show.

    4. Re:Who cares? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      It might stop all those annoying /. groupies harassing you for sexual favours all the time though.

      Baby, I'm not from Havana!

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:Who cares? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Microwaves ovens work by vibrating molecules with unbalanced charges (causing heat), and there are specific frequency ranges that are good at that. Then there's also power levels, directionality, and the inverse square law to consider.

      Microwave ovens may work like that but that does not mean microwaves do not alter, mutate, or otherwise damage DNA. Science studies have concluded microwaves don't and microwaves do alter DNA. Even the expert don't agree so to say microwaves do not affect DNA is to ignore science.

      Falcon

    6. Re:Who cares? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      And no study has ever found that microwave radiation causes mutations in double-helix DNA.

      Can you point out where I did say microwaves cause mutations in double-helix DNA? Or did you just make that up to spread fud? Remember to be sure to include a link where I even used "double-helix DNA", that is other than this very post. I doubt you can find one.

      Falcon

    7. Re:Who cares? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      It's a good thing I didn't say that then. The top study there lists a wattage but not a distance. EM is inverse-square, so that's critically important. Most preservatives are DNA mutagens too - just gotta balance the cancer risk vs. the salmonella risk (ce'st la vie, right?).

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    8. Re:Who cares? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Most preservatives are DNA mutagens too - just gotta balance the cancer risk vs. the salmonella risk (ce'st la vie, right?).

      As long as it's the individuals who decide what risks they're willing to take (J'ne oblege moi Francious, darn I don't recall my French).

      Falcon

    9. Re:Who cares? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Or did you just make that up to spread fud?

      Spread fud? Do you even know what that means? At most you could be accusing me of reducing valid "fud" as nothing I've said casts fear, uncertainty, or doubt on radiation. In fact, I was reducing it. I never stated what you did or did not say. I was stating a fact about the information you posted. It's obviously true, since you aren't debating it, but instead whining "no fair for posting the truth I didn't want to share" or whatever it is with the ludicrous claim that I'm the one spreading FUD. Oh, and note, as it is an acronym, it should be in all caps. But then, it's obvious that accuracy in what you say or how you say it was never a goal of yours.

  76. It's not possible. Only ionizing radiation can by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    alter DNA.

    microwaves alter dna science study or studies.

    There's only one way I can describe this guy - fucking ignorant dumbass

    Now who's an ignorant dumpass?

    Falcon

  77. A conversation I had at an organic food shop: by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Me: Do you have any pure mint extract?

    Employee: Yeah man, we've got some right over here.

    Me: This is the cosmetics aisle. It says "Not for human consumption." right on the bottle.
    Employee: Oh. But its organic man, its okay.

    I had something like that happen to me. After trying Anbesol or Orajel and other pain relievers from Walgreens for a painful tooth I went down to my coop to get clove oil, I've never found anything as good over-the-counter to relieve painful teeth (except hydrogen peroxide which kills infections but takes a while to work), and all they had was labeled "for external use only". I was so disparate I got it anyway. I've used it for years, and even had labels say it can be used for that, and they are used in cooking so I wondered what could make it unsafe if it's pure clove oil.

    Falcon

    1. Re:A conversation I had at an organic food shop: by ekhben · · Score: 1

      Probably the toxic nature of the clove oil makes it unsafe :-) It's the stuff most generally recommended for euthanising fish (I have a small bottle of it in case of infection in my bettas, having watched a few die slowly and painfully in the past).

      Topical application, even in the mouth, is pretty safe; toxic levels are typically well in excess of the amount you can buy in one hit, but you should most definitely be careful to use only as much as needed. And I probably don't need to tell you it tastes awful, if you've been using it for any length of time :-)

    2. Re:A conversation I had at an organic food shop: by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Probably the toxic nature of the clove oil makes it unsafe :-)

      But I had a bottle that was labeled as being good for toothaches.

      And I probably don't need to tell you it tastes awful

      Actually I love the taste of clove. I love cooking with it, using it for toothaches, and I even used smoke clove cigarettes. Ah, now that I thought that I'm wishing I could light up one now. I also love the smell of camphor and eucalyptus though others say they smell too much like medicine.

      Falcon

    3. Re:A conversation I had at an organic food shop: by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      A few teaspoonfuls of salt would probably kill your bettas, too, but that doesn't stop you from putting it in your food.

      Clove oil...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  78. No, all he said was... by ryzvonusef · · Score: 1

    "Get off my lawn!"

    --
    I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
  79. What on earth are you talking about? by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    Find one study of the radar operators that show a statistically significant aberrant rate of any thing or STFU.

    I think you have seriously mis-interpreted my comments. Please re-read them and try again. Or perhaps ask questions before leaping to conclusions. --Cuz you just blasted the stuffing out of a straw man three farms away. (And I don't think there was even any garlic growing over there!)

    Here's a clue: While cancer growth rates can certainly be sped up or slowed down depending what you expose cancer cells to EMR-wise, I consider cancer entirely incidental and insignificant given the larger issue. --And I was certainly not attempting to suggest legitimacy in the released USAF studies, (not that those can be taken at face value in any event). I simply brought them up because I felt that they played a part in the origination of the, "If it don't burn it ain't bad," meme.

    What you should be asking is this, "If EMR doesn't cause cancer, then what about it might be bad enough that I would bother posting at all?"

    -FL

  80. Re:Moron by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Seriously, the biggest risk to his crop is from localized heating effect. It won't mutate, it'll just dry out.

    It won't cause mutations?

    Falcon

  81. He could always put Orgonite around his fields... by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

    One of the Wilhelm Reich spinoffs, a bit of metal shavings, a chunk of quartz crystal, and bond the whole mess together with resin epoxy. Supposedly blocks all RF radiation.

    Of course, that doesn't explain why all my wireless equipment and cel phone still work perfectly around the chunk I found, which someone ditched next to a local cel tower.

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  82. GM crops by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Just because a crop is GM doesn't mean it is sterile, BTW.

    Only if GM crops were sterile. Because they aren't superweeds are being created. These superweeds have the same resistance to herbicides as the crops that interbred with wild relatives.

    Falcon

  83. Suck an egg, garlic farmerr. by samurphy21 · · Score: 1

    As someone who lives in the Annapolis Valley and has many friends stuck without high speed due to slow adoption of the wireless high speed that was supposed to be in place last year, let me just say:

    FUCK THIS GUY! FUCK HIM RIGHT IN THE EAR!

  84. Bleh by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    It's an astonishing lack of reportorial (?) rigor that the article doesn't even address the likely reality: that Mr Levine either is angling for a better payment for the cell tower (the article doesn't SPECIFICALLY say that the tower is or isn't on his property, it just says "near his farm"), angling to prevent some neighbor he dislikes from getting $$ for the tower (most likely, IMO, if you consider the Nova Scotians I know...), or equally likely, the provincial government 'grandfathered' out the land for this tower, and the fact that THEY are getting the $$ for it and/or the simple government 'taking' annoys him.

    The "OMG the radiation is going to mutate my crops" sounds to me like a convenient wrapper, but unlikely to be the real reason he's blocking it.

    --
    -Styopa
  85. You can actually fight this in Canada, wow ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    South of the border in the US, farmers have been driven away from their land by leaky transformers; however the regulatory agencies are managed by the same management as the utility companies, so it all amounts to a monolithic Empire.

    This is but one of the reasons why an increasing amount of us in Vermont are opting for secession: http://vtcommons.org

  86. His garlic is already mutating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just read the book you linked to a few pages further and you'll see why that isn't necessarily a problem. Even if it is, you could be selective in what you irradiate. And the whole dirty bomb scenario is silly; as has been calculated many many times a dirty bomb wouldn't kill anyone besides those happened to be close the (conventional) explosion, just like an ordinary bomb. The radioactive material would disperse and dilute too quickly to do much harm.
    And to get back on topic: his garlic is already mutating! Granted I don't know the specific mutation rate for garlic, but for humans it's about 100/generation. Even if the transcription in garlic where somehow 10x as precise, which I doubt, every single plant he grows has 10 mutations compared to the previous generation. Just a few million years and the plants will be demanding high-speed internet.

  87. The Irony by OwMyBrain · · Score: 1

    I once learned the trick that putting garlic cloves in the microwave for a few seconds makes the skin come off easier.

  88. This garlic story is an Onion story... by avtchillsboro · · Score: 1

    Right?

  89. But everything is lethal in the right dosis, by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    so that's an absurd statement.

    By the same token, at the right dosage virtually everything is safe so saying something is safe is an absurd statement as well. Florine? Some can help prevent cavities, but it can also cause Flourosis, of which there are two types. Dental Fluorosis blackens teeth and Skeletal Fluorosis makes bones brittle. Lithium is toxic yet in low doses it's used as a mood stabilizer in psychiatry.

    Falcon

    1. Re:But everything is lethal in the right dosis, by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Yes. Exactly !

      So we can't just say X is dangerous. Or X is safe, and then generalize to ANY use of X.

      In this case, "Standing 50cm from a source of 1000W microwaves is dangerous, therefore garlic grown 100m from a 1W microwave-source will be damaged" is comparing two situations where the power-output is a factor of 1000 smaller, whereas the distance is 200 times larger. And intensity goes with the square of the distance.

      So you're comparing X to 40.000.000 X, aproximately, and that's just nonsense.

    2. Re:But everything is lethal in the right dosis, by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Yes. Exactly !

      You should have left it there.

      Falcon

  90. rsaw milk by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    I'm just not willing to get sick over those mistakes.

    Then buy pasteurized milk. A free market allows that. But for those who prefer raw milk some governments blocked and made illegal their ability to buy raw milk.

    All I ask is that people be allowed to make their own decision as to what risks they are willing to take, without government interference, and what risks they are not willing to take.

    Falcon

    1. Re:rsaw milk by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      All I ask is that people be allowed to make their own decision as to what risks they are willing to take, without government interference, and what risks they are not willing to take.

      Yeah, and for consenting adults, this is a no-brainer. The philosophical question is the degree of protection of children that the State is warranted in exercising. Generally, the line is drawn at severe/permanent harm, but it's a very smudged grey line.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:rsaw milk by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      he philosophical question is the degree of protection of children that the State is warranted in exercising.

      What government though? France? Iran? The Vatican? Not every government has the same ideas of what protecting the children means. In Saudi Arabia, they'd rather let girls burn to death when their school catches fire than allow them to flee the burning building without proper clothing.

      Falcon

    3. Re:rsaw milk by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Ideally, it's something decided by the citizens of the local community, with accountability for actions. Saudi Arabia doesn't even pretend to care about personal liberty, they're a theocracy.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:rsaw milk by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Ideally, it's something decided by the citizens of the local community, with accountability for actions. Saudi Arabia doesn't even pretend to care about personal liberty, they're a theocracy.

      Saudi Arabia is still a state and you said "the degree of protection of children that the State is warranted in exercising." A state does not preclude a theocracy.

      Falcon

    5. Re:rsaw milk by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Saudi Arabia is still a state [onelook.com] and you said "the degree of protection of children that the State is warranted in exercising." A state does not preclude a theocracy.

      That's completely true, and completely unrelated to the object of the definite article in my sentence. :)

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    6. Re:rsaw milk by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Saudi Arabia is still a state [onelook.com] and you said "the degree of protection of children that the State is warranted in exercising." A state does not preclude a theocracy.

      That's completely true, and completely unrelated to the object of the definite article in my sentence. :)

      It is very pertinent unless you meant something other than government for "State". You may of meant society, but even society shouldn't be dictating how people will live as long as they are not harming another person, and if I drink raw milk I am not harming anyone except potentially myself.

      As for children if the state wants to tell me how to raise my own children when I disagree with it it can remove them from my cold dead fingers. Otherwise I can demand children not be taught religion which kills many more people than raw milk.

      Falcon

  91. I never stated what you did or did not say. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Perhaps I should have included more, here it is: "And no study has ever found that microwave radiation causes mutations in double-helix DNA. If you feel that's an incorrect statement, point to an actual study, rather than links to google searches that don't show what you claim they show." Notice where you say I need to point to a actual study not a Google search. I included the Google search because it would of been easy for you to produce another study saying there was no effect. It should be pretty obvious from reading the links that there is even disagreement in the science community of whether microwaves damage DNA. Also if I had included just a link to a show you could every well have posted a study saying there was none. By posting the Google search I tried to preclude you from saying I was cherry picking.

    And my use of fud, your FUD, it was meant as your spread of fear, uncertainty, and doubt about my inclusion of links to studies that show microwaves do cause damage to DNA. No where did I say it causes damage to double-helix DNA, simply DNA, and DNA does not spend all of it's tyme as double-helix DNA. From what I recall of biology DNA actually spends little tyme, for mitosis or cell division, in that form. Using wiki I found this: "In living organisms, DNA does not usually exist as a single molecule, but instead as a pair of molecules that are held tightly together.[7][8] These two long strands entwine like vines, in the shape of a double helix."

    Oh, and note, as it is an acronym, it should be in all caps. But then, it's obvious that accuracy in what you say or how you say it was never a goal of yours.

    Spreading more FUD by casting doubt on what I say again?

    Falcon

  92. power sources by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    In no small part because a Coal fired plant can spew a tremendous amount of general gunk into the air for "free" if they paid the "true cost" of the pollution they generate, perhaps the equation would be different?

    I agree, and that's without including the subsidies coal gets. However in a market where businesses have to carry their own weight and don't pass external costs to others geothermal, solar, wind and other power sources would be more competitive. According to this, "Cost Comparison for Nuclear vs. Coal", nuclear compares favorably with coal. The $/Mw-hr cost for coal is 29.1 vs nuclear's 30.0. But as Benjamin Sovacool says they are both Faustian bargains. He says "By far the cheapest, cleanest, and quickest strategy to meet America's growing demand for electricity is energy efficiency and demand-side management."

    It's even more fuzzy... But my point remains..

    As does my point, nuclear power is expensive and more isn't needed.

    Falcon

    1. Re:power sources by DoninIN · · Score: 1

      Good point, good post. I wonder what the timescale to seriously reduce the demand for heating/cooling energy is? I would imagine it takes a whole new generation of buildings to seriously reduce the cost of heating and cooling them. The efficiency of appliances, while significant isn't the answer.

    2. Re:power sources by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I wonder what the timescale to seriously reduce the demand for heating/cooling energy is? I would imagine it takes a whole new generation of buildings to seriously reduce the cost of heating and cooling them.

      Buildings don't need to be rebuilt just remodeled. Now depending on the building that may cost as much as take as long but not every building will be that way. Currently I rent an apartment, however my sister owns the building and when I qualify for a mortgage she'll sell it to me for the balance of the mortgage, if I stay here. The building has central heating, using a boiler and bulky radiators, and no air conditioning. My plan is to save my money then gut out the shell of the building and rebuild the interior. When I do I'll increase the R value of the insulation, install radiant floor heating in which heating will be programmable and done in zones. The bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, livingroom, and such will each have it's own zone so that only the zones being used are heated. Now I'm not sure whether the heating system itself will be electrical, geothermal, gas, or another. I'll hire an expert to evaluate and determine which would be better, but I'm leaning towards geothermal. For cooling, other than ceiling fans I'm not sure what I'll do.

      The efficiency of appliances, while significant isn't the answer.

      Agreed, heating (including water heating) and cooling and therefore insulation can cut down energy used more than new appliances. Not that other things won't help but the payback period would be longer.

      Falcon

  93. Active Denial System by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    1) the weapon is a short burst weapon, and no, it can't kill you, it only causes discomfort while you;re in the beam, and it causes no cell disruption or actual biurns, only burning SENSATION.

    From a military pdf, "With respect to concerns about skin damage, in most instances there is no after-effect. On occasion, some skin reddening and irritation has been observed. The 11,000 exposures produced only eight second-degree burns, six of which consisted of pea-size blisters that healed without medical attention. The other two required medical care; both individuals recovered fully without complications." However it does not say how long exposure was. I bet if you're trapped inside the beam and unable to get away you will be burned.

    You misunderstand the difference between DNA and LIFE

    BS! And I end there.

    Falcon