Don't bee excessively reductionist. Yes, the people controlling the government will give themselves more power. But as that power will be inherited by their successors in office, it's reasonable to also attribute that gain in power to the government.
N.B.: When I speak of the people controlling the government, I'm not just speaking of the people at the top. I'm also talking about every bureaucrat that deals with the public either directly or indirectly. And I'm talking about supervisors controlling those they oversee. In each case power has a tendency to flow towards the entity current more powerful, as any decisions that would favor such a change tend to be approved, and those that would reduce it tend to be rejected. Think of it as a problem in Systems Analysis of a dynamic system.
Space colonies can be guaranteed to go for rigid control of the populace. The habitat is too vulnerable to damage. They will probably also be technocratic meritocracies with strong conditioning throughout the early years, and harsh punishments for those whose adolescent rebellion takes forms deemed dangerous.
Earth is a much nicer place to live.
N.B.: I'm talking about the physical and environmental regulation. It's quite plausible that virtual reality will provide a grant of freedom in other areas.
That is not a definition that a classical Athenian would accept.
I don't know why you consider that to be the definition of a democracy. There have been democracies where when the leader was removed from power he was ceremonially killed. Others where the same thing happened in a less formal way.
Some democracies have lasted a very long time, but we don't know quite how long, because the tribes that had it were pre-literate.
Republics scale more easily than democracies, but tend to have a shorter period of life. They generally transform into oligarcies, and often then into dictatorships, under one name or another. These often become hereditary, leading to monarchies.
If you want to say that some particular form of government is appropriate to todays world with populations in the billions and rapid communications, all I can say is that there are NO historical precedents. This is not like any situation that any government has previously dealt with in human history. The only (relatively neutral) guideline I have to offer is that governments with larger populations tend to have a shorter lifetime.
I believe what he said was that the copyright law, not the GPL, required the attribution. I know it used to be a lot more specific than that, but copyright law changed a decade or so ago, and I don't know the current state.
Originally, you were required to include (some form of...I'd need to look up the precise form): This post copyright (c) by Hi There, 2012, Erewhon, Utah (with the name and location being valid names and places) That phrase would be legally required to be preserved. I have no idea what the law says now that copyright is automatic, but that it requires attribution is quite plausible.
If you can make a chicken be vetarian without cutting off it's beak, I'm quite aurprised. Chickens usually prefer insects even to corn. And if you don't use oyster shells, you'd better have another VERY good source of calcium.
That said, I just can't feel very sympathetic towards chickens. I know I ought to, because factory chickens are raised in truely horrible conditions, but having seen what chickens will do to each other, well... they aren't quite as bad as people, but only because they're stupider and don't have hands. And they are kind ONLY to their very young children and to their social superiors. (Roosters are protective, but I'd call it possessive rather than kind.)
Cattle, OTOH, are caring animals. They aren't quite as intelligent as a dog (most dogs and most cattle, I'll grant exceptions exist), but they are nearly as caring, and not quite as viscious. (A bull may chase you off, but that will usually be all he's after...unless you've really irritated him, which, admittedly, people often do.) N.B.:: I'm talking about an ideal case. If a bull has been repeatedly irritated or injured by people, he is likely to become quite viscious towards ALL people, not just those who have previously injured him.
Please note that bulls feel possessive towards the cows in their herd. And people aren't in the habit of respecting this feeling, so bulls tend to be much more aggressive than they would otherwise be. Also sexual deprivation will cause ANY male mammal (and probably most chordate males..but some fish have some habits that make this dubious) to be more aggressive.
WARNING: I'm no expert in this area. This is just a non-expert opinion. I may have spent a couple of years on a dairy farm (non-commercial), but we had no bulls in residence.
Soy, yes. But IIRC even a couple of thousand years ago people weren't eating soy. Maybe it's closer to three or four thousand years ago. But there's a story about the discovery of soy that would seem to place it fairly recently. (After Buddhism came to China.)
Still, I will admit that traditional stories can be wrong. But IIRC raw soy can't be eaten until it's been processed (nothing extreme, soaking in water and throwing away the dissolved effluent a couple of times). (I notice, though, that rats don't have any problem with unprocessed soy beans, so perhaps this is more a matter of taste than a requirement.)
A carnivore diet is not necessarily deficient in vitamin C, but you might need to avoid cooking the meat...and you might need to eat parts of the GI tract. (Does it make it not a carnivore diet if you eat the guts of something that eats plants?)
N.B.: When eating sardines, I eat the guts. If they were raw, I'd probably still eat the guts, but I'm not sure. Perhaps raw sardines would have bones that I couldn't eat.
The grinding teeth far predated this change. If anything they may have decreased in size, but that would be because of cooking and other pre-processing rather than a change in diet.
P.S.: I haven't checked the dates against when the teeth decreased in size, but the grinding teeth date back to before we split off from the gorillas. And probably considerably before that, depending on exactly which features you are looking at.
Corn fet cows are an abomination. Cows are meant to eat grass. Corn stalks are ok. But corn kernels in large amounts are not good for them either as individuals, or as menu items.
No. The ancestral species ate both meat and plants. Meat was generally preferred, because it was more dense in calories, was more complete in proteins, etc., but both were eaten by everyone. (N.B.: A lot of the "meat" was insects.)
Because the ancestral species was adapted to this diet, things that could be relied upon to be present ceased to be maintained by evolution. Thus we lost, e.g., the ability to make our own vitamin C, and certain amino acids that we depended upon, but which we could rely upon being in the diet.
Fast forwards, and this mutation happens, which regains (probably by a different path, but I haven't checked) the ability to manufacture certain amino acids. This meant that we were no longer dependent on finding them in our diet. Which meant that those without that requirement could move into areas where the foods containing those amino acids weren't available. It doesn't mean they had to move, but it means they could do so and survive. (It also doesn't say anything about dietary preference. I'd wager they continued to prefer meat.)
You can tell about when any particular mutation occurred by using neutral drift, i.e., a large number of mutations don't have any genetic meaning (well, an *extremely* SMALL meaning). And these happen at a nearly constant rate. So by counting the frequencies of the variant forms of the meaningful genes, you can tell about how long ago that meaningful gene changed. Naturally, this is more significant for longer chunks, as you get about one bit per three codes. (That's not quite right, but I'd need to look up the precise figure.)
Do note, however, that this is only an estimate. Mutation of this nature is a random process, so you can't get a precise answer.
Interesting. I believe that there are also some plant sources of B12. I'm not sure, however, that I believe the advertisements I used to read saying that orange juice was a good source of B12.
I haven't investigated it closely, because it isn't important to me, but I believe that kale, and perhaps mustard greens, are decent sources of B12...if properly prepared. (The B vitamins are water soluble, so if you boil it or steam it, you need to drink the liquid.)
Still, I've always thought that a proper amino acid balance was the real problem with a vegan diet. Not that you can't do it, but it's tricky.
After watching a bankruptcy case proceeding (via Groklaw), I really doubt that local judges are more corrupt.
The only justice provided in that entire case was that SCO backers got stripped of their assets. But it wasn't done in any just way, and the indications are that they would have been stripped equally if they had been the injured party. (Of course, proving an invalid hypothetical is a real trick.)
That is (I hope) less true as more people experience their own embarassing mistake. Yes, people will still snicker at the mistake, but they also know that an occasional fat-finger (or thought) will slip by. Even given the preview button. So unless such errors are frequent, they shouldn't distract unduly from the point you were making.
In admission that I have the same problem, I'm not going to preview this post...and acknowledge that it's a gamble.
There's a problem here. What you say is true if ownership remains vested in the contributors, but often, and for many different reasons, some quite reasonable, the project wants to own the copyright to any code that it accepts. In that situation, management of the project can, at any time, decide to close the project. When that happens then the only answer is to fork the project.
So I don't know that the original code wasn't under a GPL license. For that matter, I don't even know that the code has been closed. (I've seen things that indicate that most of the code is the same as in prior version, and just the UI has changed.) But the GPL license wouldn't apply to the hardware, though it could apply to the plans of the hardware. (Did it?) Because when there is sole ownership of a copyright, the owner of the copyright can make new releases of modified versions under any license that he chooses. (Actually, he can do that for even copyright works released under the GPL. Say a license that allows the recipient to make changes and sell them without releasing the code. Or, of course, he can do that himself.)
N.B.: The forked project is essentially secure against being closed, as now the project does not own the copyright. But it also doesn't have standing to sue for copyright violations OF THE INHERITED PART OF THE CODE.
That assertion depends a lot on the license. Which I don't know. I'm presuming that what they're doing is legal.
But another question is where are they going to find customers? AFAIK these printers are primarily interesting to the very community that they are alienating. And they aren't yet providing any needed function. So there's *NO* captive market.
That's why I prefer the AGPL3 license. The spongers don't bother me. The theives (those who close code that was written by others) do.
N.B.: This is a personal preference. If you prefer the BSD-style license, it's perfectly valid. (And there ARE circumstances where I find it preferable. I was just listing my general preference.) But I notice that projects with a GPL style license tend to attract more contributors than those with the BSD style license. And that licenses that allow the code to be closed will frequently result in the code being closed. (I'll grant that license violations are common, but they are also, at least in principle, addressable.)
I'll admit I haven't use MSWord for over a decade, but back around 1996-8 I wrote something over 200 pages in MSWord, and it handled it without problems. It's true that I prefer OpenOffice/LibreOffice over any word processor I've used since MSWord 6.2a on the Mac (6.2 *was* prone to choking on large documents), but MSWord98 (or whatever it was called) wasn't that bad a word processor.
I suspect that you had a virus. (This is a suspicion rooted in ignorance, and a deep distrust of MSWindows. I considered Red Hat Linux 6.0 to be an improvement on the current MSWindows...it just lacked some applications that I needed. This problem was remedied over a decade ago.)
P.S.: I don't think that Apple's OSX 10.2 was better than Gnome2, much less better than KDE 3.x. But don't ask me about Gnome3 or KDE4.
I would guess that rather than use a real GPS they used a triangulation system based on cell-phone towers. GPS in urban environments can be quite iffy.
Well, unless you're going to check each bar separately, I don't think that would work. And you'd need a table of specs expected for each kind of bar, as I'm relatively sure that an 8 oz. bar wouldn't be the same as a 6 oz. one, and they might well vary between models as well as between sizes.
(Yes, I know we're talking Britain, so it will be metric sizes, but I don't even have a clue as to what the metric sizes of candy bar are.)
Perhaps it could scavenge cell phone radiation to charge a capacitor? After all, it would only need to work sporadically.
(OTOH, while I've read about charging capacitors by scavenging rf radiation, I've no idea how practical it really is, or how much power the GPS requires...particularly as if it's cheap and small enough to embed in a candy bar wrapper, it's not a model I've ever encountered. But it certainly shouldn't be broadcasting continuously)
As far as I know, it's not against the law to tell you that "This food has not been artificially genetically modified". Some products essentially *do* tell you that. Most processed food doesn't tell you that, because it would be a lie. It generally contains either corn or oil that comes from a mixture of sources such that it's provenance is not clear.
There *are* studies that report them to be equally nutritious. I may be dubious about the studies, but they do exist, and it's not unreasonable to trust them. I.e., I know of no systematic bias that they have been revealed to have.
Please not that this does not mean that I *do* trust the studies. I don't. But I am aware that my not trusting them derived from my "priors", and those with different priors could reasonably make other decisions. Nobody has the time or interest to investigate all contexts of all important events in their lives, so they make estimates of probability, and act from there. I *do* feel that too many people find security in pretending that their estimates reflect an actual certainty, rather than a working hypothesis. But it does enable one to come to decisions more quickly, and thus has it's advantages.
Chemicals rarely have only one effect. This is a real problem when dealing with complex systems, and there are few systems more complex than organic life.
It's also true that chemicals react with other chemicals that are present to become either more toxic or less toxic (will less toxic being the more uncommon reaction). So testing one chemical in isolation to determine the safe dose doesn't tell you enough to be confident of what the safe dose is in the actual environment. Yet that's usually all that's tested. (Think of the complexity of trying to test all combinations of chemicals, and you'll get a part of the reason why.)
So what this guy is doing appears to be setting up a situation where a sensitive effect can be observed. Part of that involved using a particularly susceptible strain of rat. He may have taken other measures. But perhaps he wasn't careful with his statistical analysis. OTOH, his setup produced a grossly larger than expectable effect. So either something is wrong with his setup, or something is really wrong with the normal procedures. And not being an expert in the field I couldn't guess what is going on. FWIW, from reported comments, it sounds like even experts in the field aren't certain what's going on. (FWIW, statistical fishing expeditions aren't unusual, but the resutls that they produce aren't trustworthy. They do, however, serve as useful indicaitons of where to conduct additional research.)
E.g. (about statistical fishing expeditions): If you observe an honestly run roulette wheel for an hour, and do a statistical analyisis of the results, you will find patterns in the numbers produced. These patters are the result of a "statistical fishing expedition". Say more of the numbers tend to be near to the left of the "0" than is expected. This is a prediction, but not a trustworthy prediction. If, however, after making the prediction repeated observations produce the same prediction, then your "statistical fishing expedition" has retrieved valuable information.
So perhaps this study was a statistical fishing expedition, as is claimed. That means that it needs to be validated repeatedly. It doesn't mean that it's wrong, but it means that it's of less significance than if it had been predicted before the study was done.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't bee excessively reductionist. Yes, the people controlling the government will give themselves more power. But as that power will be inherited by their successors in office, it's reasonable to also attribute that gain in power to the government.
N.B.: When I speak of the people controlling the government, I'm not just speaking of the people at the top. I'm also talking about every bureaucrat that deals with the public either directly or indirectly. And I'm talking about supervisors controlling those they oversee. In each case power has a tendency to flow towards the entity current more powerful, as any decisions that would favor such a change tend to be approved, and those that would reduce it tend to be rejected. Think of it as a problem in Systems Analysis of a dynamic system.
Space colonies can be guaranteed to go for rigid control of the populace. The habitat is too vulnerable to damage. They will probably also be technocratic meritocracies with strong conditioning throughout the early years, and harsh punishments for those whose adolescent rebellion takes forms deemed dangerous.
Earth is a much nicer place to live.
N.B.: I'm talking about the physical and environmental regulation. It's quite plausible that virtual reality will provide a grant of freedom in other areas.
That is not a definition that a classical Athenian would accept.
I don't know why you consider that to be the definition of a democracy. There have been democracies where when the leader was removed from power he was ceremonially killed. Others where the same thing happened in a less formal way.
Some democracies have lasted a very long time, but we don't know quite how long, because the tribes that had it were pre-literate.
Republics scale more easily than democracies, but tend to have a shorter period of life. They generally transform into oligarcies, and often then into dictatorships, under one name or another. These often become hereditary, leading to monarchies.
If you want to say that some particular form of government is appropriate to todays world with populations in the billions and rapid communications, all I can say is that there are NO historical precedents. This is not like any situation that any government has previously dealt with in human history. The only (relatively neutral) guideline I have to offer is that governments with larger populations tend to have a shorter lifetime.
Now if you want my ideas for wild experiments...
I believe what he said was that the copyright law, not the GPL, required the attribution. I know it used to be a lot more specific than that, but copyright law changed a decade or so ago, and I don't know the current state.
Originally, you were required to include (some form of...I'd need to look up the precise form):
This post copyright (c) by Hi There, 2012, Erewhon, Utah
(with the name and location being valid names and places)
That phrase would be legally required to be preserved. I have no idea what the law says now that copyright is automatic, but that it requires attribution is quite plausible.
Personally I prefer grass fed beef.
If you can make a chicken be vetarian without cutting off it's beak, I'm quite aurprised. Chickens usually prefer insects even to corn. And if you don't use oyster shells, you'd better have another VERY good source of calcium.
That said, I just can't feel very sympathetic towards chickens. I know I ought to, because factory chickens are raised in truely horrible conditions, but having seen what chickens will do to each other, well... they aren't quite as bad as people, but only because they're stupider and don't have hands. And they are kind ONLY to their very young children and to their social superiors. (Roosters are protective, but I'd call it possessive rather than kind.)
Cattle, OTOH, are caring animals. They aren't quite as intelligent as a dog (most dogs and most cattle, I'll grant exceptions exist), but they are nearly as caring, and not quite as viscious. (A bull may chase you off, but that will usually be all he's after...unless you've really irritated him, which, admittedly, people often do.)
N.B.:: I'm talking about an ideal case. If a bull has been repeatedly irritated or injured by people, he is likely to become quite viscious towards ALL people, not just those who have previously injured him.
Please note that bulls feel possessive towards the cows in their herd. And people aren't in the habit of respecting this feeling, so bulls tend to be much more aggressive than they would otherwise be. Also sexual deprivation will cause ANY male mammal (and probably most chordate males..but some fish have some habits that make this dubious) to be more aggressive.
WARNING: I'm no expert in this area. This is just a non-expert opinion. I may have spent a couple of years on a dairy farm (non-commercial), but we had no bulls in residence.
Soy, yes. But IIRC even a couple of thousand years ago people weren't eating soy. Maybe it's closer to three or four thousand years ago. But there's a story about the discovery of soy that would seem to place it fairly recently. (After Buddhism came to China.)
Still, I will admit that traditional stories can be wrong. But IIRC raw soy can't be eaten until it's been processed (nothing extreme, soaking in water and throwing away the dissolved effluent a couple of times). (I notice, though, that rats don't have any problem with unprocessed soy beans, so perhaps this is more a matter of taste than a requirement.)
A carnivore diet is not necessarily deficient in vitamin C, but you might need to avoid cooking the meat...and you might need to eat parts of the GI tract. (Does it make it not a carnivore diet if you eat the guts of something that eats plants?)
N.B.: When eating sardines, I eat the guts. If they were raw, I'd probably still eat the guts, but I'm not sure. Perhaps raw sardines would have bones that I couldn't eat.
The grinding teeth far predated this change. If anything they may have decreased in size, but that would be because of cooking and other pre-processing rather than a change in diet.
P.S.: I haven't checked the dates against when the teeth decreased in size, but the grinding teeth date back to before we split off from the gorillas. And probably considerably before that, depending on exactly which features you are looking at.
Corn fet cows are an abomination. Cows are meant to eat grass. Corn stalks are ok. But corn kernels in large amounts are not good for them either as individuals, or as menu items.
No. The ancestral species ate both meat and plants. Meat was generally preferred, because it was more dense in calories, was more complete in proteins, etc., but both were eaten by everyone. (N.B.: A lot of the "meat" was insects.)
Because the ancestral species was adapted to this diet, things that could be relied upon to be present ceased to be maintained by evolution. Thus we lost, e.g., the ability to make our own vitamin C, and certain amino acids that we depended upon, but which we could rely upon being in the diet.
Fast forwards, and this mutation happens, which regains (probably by a different path, but I haven't checked) the ability to manufacture certain amino acids. This meant that we were no longer dependent on finding them in our diet. Which meant that those without that requirement could move into areas where the foods containing those amino acids weren't available. It doesn't mean they had to move, but it means they could do so and survive. (It also doesn't say anything about dietary preference. I'd wager they continued to prefer meat.)
You can tell about when any particular mutation occurred by using neutral drift, i.e., a large number of mutations don't have any genetic meaning (well, an *extremely* SMALL meaning). And these happen at a nearly constant rate. So by counting the frequencies of the variant forms of the meaningful genes, you can tell about how long ago that meaningful gene changed. Naturally, this is more significant for longer chunks, as you get about one bit per three codes. (That's not quite right, but I'd need to look up the precise figure.)
Do note, however, that this is only an estimate. Mutation of this nature is a random process, so you can't get a precise answer.
Interesting. I believe that there are also some plant sources of B12. I'm not sure, however, that I believe the advertisements I used to read saying that orange juice was a good source of B12.
I haven't investigated it closely, because it isn't important to me, but I believe that kale, and perhaps mustard greens, are decent sources of B12...if properly prepared. (The B vitamins are water soluble, so if you boil it or steam it, you need to drink the liquid.)
Still, I've always thought that a proper amino acid balance was the real problem with a vegan diet. Not that you can't do it, but it's tricky.
After watching a bankruptcy case proceeding (via Groklaw), I really doubt that local judges are more corrupt.
The only justice provided in that entire case was that SCO backers got stripped of their assets. But it wasn't done in any just way, and the indications are that they would have been stripped equally if they had been the injured party. (Of course, proving an invalid hypothetical is a real trick.)
That is (I hope) less true as more people experience their own embarassing mistake. Yes, people will still snicker at the mistake, but they also know that an occasional fat-finger (or thought) will slip by. Even given the preview button. So unless such errors are frequent, they shouldn't distract unduly from the point you were making.
In admission that I have the same problem, I'm not going to preview this post...and acknowledge that it's a gamble.
There's a problem here. What you say is true if ownership remains vested in the contributors, but often, and for many different reasons, some quite reasonable, the project wants to own the copyright to any code that it accepts. In that situation, management of the project can, at any time, decide to close the project. When that happens then the only answer is to fork the project.
So I don't know that the original code wasn't under a GPL license. For that matter, I don't even know that the code has been closed. (I've seen things that indicate that most of the code is the same as in prior version, and just the UI has changed.) But the GPL license wouldn't apply to the hardware, though it could apply to the plans of the hardware. (Did it?) Because when there is sole ownership of a copyright, the owner of the copyright can make new releases of modified versions under any license that he chooses. (Actually, he can do that for even copyright works released under the GPL. Say a license that allows the recipient to make changes and sell them without releasing the code. Or, of course, he can do that himself.)
N.B.: The forked project is essentially secure against being closed, as now the project does not own the copyright. But it also doesn't have standing to sue for copyright violations OF THE INHERITED PART OF THE CODE.
That assertion depends a lot on the license. Which I don't know. I'm presuming that what they're doing is legal.
But another question is where are they going to find customers? AFAIK these printers are primarily interesting to the very community that they are alienating. And they aren't yet providing any needed function. So there's *NO* captive market.
That's why I prefer the AGPL3 license. The spongers don't bother me. The theives (those who close code that was written by others) do.
N.B.: This is a personal preference. If you prefer the BSD-style license, it's perfectly valid. (And there ARE circumstances where I find it preferable. I was just listing my general preference.) But I notice that projects with a GPL style license tend to attract more contributors than those with the BSD style license. And that licenses that allow the code to be closed will frequently result in the code being closed. (I'll grant that license violations are common, but they are also, at least in principle, addressable.)
I'll admit I haven't use MSWord for over a decade, but back around 1996-8 I wrote something over 200 pages in MSWord, and it handled it without problems. It's true that I prefer OpenOffice/LibreOffice over any word processor I've used since MSWord 6.2a on the Mac (6.2 *was* prone to choking on large documents), but MSWord98 (or whatever it was called) wasn't that bad a word processor.
I suspect that you had a virus. (This is a suspicion rooted in ignorance, and a deep distrust of MSWindows. I considered Red Hat Linux 6.0 to be an improvement on the current MSWindows...it just lacked some applications that I needed. This problem was remedied over a decade ago.)
P.S.: I don't think that Apple's OSX 10.2 was better than Gnome2, much less better than KDE 3.x. But don't ask me about Gnome3 or KDE4.
I would guess that rather than use a real GPS they used a triangulation system based on cell-phone towers. GPS in urban environments can be quite iffy.
Well, unless you're going to check each bar separately, I don't think that would work. And you'd need a table of specs expected for each kind of bar, as I'm relatively sure that an 8 oz. bar wouldn't be the same as a 6 oz. one, and they might well vary between models as well as between sizes.
(Yes, I know we're talking Britain, so it will be metric sizes, but I don't even have a clue as to what the metric sizes of candy bar are.)
Perhaps it could scavenge cell phone radiation to charge a capacitor? After all, it would only need to work sporadically.
(OTOH, while I've read about charging capacitors by scavenging rf radiation, I've no idea how practical it really is, or how much power the GPS requires...particularly as if it's cheap and small enough to embed in a candy bar wrapper, it's not a model I've ever encountered. But it certainly shouldn't be broadcasting continuously)
That's the second huge piece of spam I've seen posted today on /., and before such things were so rare as not to be remembered.
As far as I know, it's not against the law to tell you that "This food has not been artificially genetically modified". Some products essentially *do* tell you that. Most processed food doesn't tell you that, because it would be a lie. It generally contains either corn or oil that comes from a mixture of sources such that it's provenance is not clear.
There *are* studies that report them to be equally nutritious. I may be dubious about the studies, but they do exist, and it's not unreasonable to trust them. I.e., I know of no systematic bias that they have been revealed to have.
Please not that this does not mean that I *do* trust the studies. I don't. But I am aware that my not trusting them derived from my "priors", and those with different priors could reasonably make other decisions. Nobody has the time or interest to investigate all contexts of all important events in their lives, so they make estimates of probability, and act from there. I *do* feel that too many people find security in pretending that their estimates reflect an actual certainty, rather than a working hypothesis. But it does enable one to come to decisions more quickly, and thus has it's advantages.
Chemicals rarely have only one effect. This is a real problem when dealing with complex systems, and there are few systems more complex than organic life.
It's also true that chemicals react with other chemicals that are present to become either more toxic or less toxic (will less toxic being the more uncommon reaction). So testing one chemical in isolation to determine the safe dose doesn't tell you enough to be confident of what the safe dose is in the actual environment. Yet that's usually all that's tested. (Think of the complexity of trying to test all combinations of chemicals, and you'll get a part of the reason why.)
So what this guy is doing appears to be setting up a situation where a sensitive effect can be observed. Part of that involved using a particularly susceptible strain of rat. He may have taken other measures. But perhaps he wasn't careful with his statistical analysis. OTOH, his setup produced a grossly larger than expectable effect. So either something is wrong with his setup, or something is really wrong with the normal procedures. And not being an expert in the field I couldn't guess what is going on. FWIW, from reported comments, it sounds like even experts in the field aren't certain what's going on. (FWIW, statistical fishing expeditions aren't unusual, but the resutls that they produce aren't trustworthy. They do, however, serve as useful indicaitons of where to conduct additional research.)
E.g. (about statistical fishing expeditions): If you observe an honestly run roulette wheel for an hour, and do a statistical analyisis of the results, you will find patterns in the numbers produced. These patters are the result of a "statistical fishing expedition". Say more of the numbers tend to be near to the left of the "0" than is expected. This is a prediction, but not a trustworthy prediction. If, however, after making the prediction repeated observations produce the same prediction, then your "statistical fishing expedition" has retrieved valuable information.
So perhaps this study was a statistical fishing expedition, as is claimed. That means that it needs to be validated repeatedly. It doesn't mean that it's wrong, but it means that it's of less significance than if it had been predicted before the study was done.