I'm not sure that explains it all. My girlfriend and I both hate our phone conversations but love our in-person conversations, and we certainly know each other. There's something about communicating with a device that ruins a lot of the non-verbal stuff we take for granted.
They don't go into detail about how the Roundup is exposed. In previous studies, they use adjuvants to help with delivery, which can increase toxicity. But they say nothing in this paper. They also don't control dietary intake. What if GM corn is tastier and they're eating more? Or less?
Furthermore, they observe the same health effects in the roundup group, the GM corn group, and the GM+R (both) group, AND these effects are not dose-dependent. Combine this with the small sample size, and the fact they're using a tumor-prone rat breed, you have a paper that's going to be crucified by peer review.
As of today, there is no citation for this paper by Food and Chemical Toxicity which means... I don't know. But it hasn't been published yet. Was this leaked during peer review process?
This stinks and everyone should withhold judgement.
Using online polls limits the scope of the findings, it doesn't invalidate them, nor is it "bad science". It also doesn't mean this one study is the end-all authority on the matter. It's good information that can be collected into a larger view of things.
The risk of false positive isn't that meaningful unless they plan to convict solely on DNA evidence, which they never do. There has to be other factors, like they knew the victim, or live close by, or someone saw someone that looked like them, etc.
Again, I repeat this argument. If information is good and should not be censored, then you would be okay with a law requiring companies to say whether or not any black people touched the food? Some people might want that information, and who are you to deny it.
And before you go on with some bullshit about there's no reason that would matter, there's equally no reason why a food being a GM crop would matter. Furthermore, even if it somehow mattered, the consumer can't possibly know how, or to what extent. It's like a 4 year old reason a cereal box label. Almost no one understands genetics, biochemistry, or even what a molecule is in a non-scifi capacity. It's information that can't possibly be used to help people.
GM foods are not more or less likely to be "drowned" in anything, except for the few types that produce their own pesticides, in which case they would be drowned in less.
Also, there has never been a case of an end-user (someone who buys produce in the store and eating it) getting sick or dying from pesticides. None. ZERO. They are not even capable of giving you an upset stomach or acne at the levels you are exposed to as an end user.
The "truth" about a food includes whether genetically-modified organisms were involved in producing it.
You're right. And whether or not brown people have touched my food is also part of that "truth". After all, you can't prove there's no such thing as "nigger cooties". And the customer has the right to know if any minority has been involved in the production of their food. It's just information right?
It's information that the average consumer can't possibly know what to do with. They (and almost everyone who will read this page) has absolutely no understanding of plant biology or nutrition. They will only see it as some kind of health warning, even if there's no reason why that might be the case. It's ridiculous fear-mongering and you all need to stop pretending that this is a concern about health rather than a concern about a specific business that produces some GM foods. It's the same thing the environmental extremists do - disguise anti-corporatism as environmental responsibility.
No one is claiming your license plate is private. It's the tracking and storing of data that's a concern.
Similarly, no one is claiming the heat escaping your house is private, but you still need a warrant to use an infrared camera to "see" inside someone's house. Even though the camera works by seeing what *leaves* the house.
Aspartame does not have "issues", I realize it's one of the more popular conspiracy chemicals that morons discuss to try and sound smart and/or informed.
Really? And what are the Republicans in China and India doing? How about Europe? It's *Global* Warming, and unless you don't use energy derived from burning fossil fuels, you're just as responsible. And I don't see a slow down or reverse of the trend without a massive change in technology over a very short time.
Someone did make this claim, it was the documentary "Gasland" (2005), but it was later discovered that the house shown in the movie was built on a natural gas deposit, and fracking was not involved.
Flaming tap water is not from fracking, it's from wells being dug into natural gas pockets. The biggest problem with even discussing fracking is the people who will just outright lie to shock people.
The ingredients in fracking fluid are known. The formula is not. Just like in a twinkie, the ingredients are listed, but the formula is not. There's no mystery as to what's in fracking fluid, and a quick google search will get you the info you need.
Fracking absolutely needs to follow guidelines for safety. Which they do. So do oil wells, but we still get oil spills. What we should be asking is this: What is the danger of (a) environmental exposure, (b) occupational exposure, and (c) worst case scenario of a "leak" or "failure". Then, we should compare that to other energy methods, such as oil and coal.
So far, oil and coal, which we all already deal, are deadlier and more environmentally dangerous than fracking. But no one seems to care, because they've been around too long to be something you can scare grandma with.
I would also argue that the worst thing you can do to the planet, environmentally, is have children.
Be careful of studies that link things with minor changes from the control group, even ones with large populations. 20% lower than an already low risk is pretty much nothing. Just as an example, smokers have a 2000% higher risk of lung cancer than non-smokers. Whites have a 400% higher chance of melanoma than blacks.
The only time you can take small changes seriously is when there are multiple sources and a proposed mechanism that is consistent with our previous understanding. "May help kill damaged cells" might be 100% correct, but it's not a mechanism, it's just the hypothesized result.
These kinds of studies are interesting but don't make too much out of them.
So, just for argument's sake... when I was 14 I video-taped myself masturbating on camera. 12 years later, tools came out that let me convert the video to an MPG. 12 years after THAT, is today. I'm an adult, who may or may not possess images of a sexual nature involving a minor (me). Tell me who is harmed if I decide to share them.
Putting nutrition info on the cup work when you can change what you put in the cup. The soda machine at 7-11 has 5 kinds of soda, a couple kinds of diet soda, but also iced tea, Hi-C, etc.
A diet big gulp has no calories, but I'm sure that will be banned too.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure that explains it all. My girlfriend and I both hate our phone conversations but love our in-person conversations, and we certainly know each other. There's something about communicating with a device that ruins a lot of the non-verbal stuff we take for granted.
Why would a self driving car ever drive off a cliff?
I don't know, maybe life wasn't what it expected it to be?
The paper
They don't go into detail about how the Roundup is exposed. In previous studies, they use adjuvants to help with delivery, which can increase toxicity. But they say nothing in this paper. They also don't control dietary intake. What if GM corn is tastier and they're eating more? Or less?
Furthermore, they observe the same health effects in the roundup group, the GM corn group, and the GM+R (both) group, AND these effects are not dose-dependent. Combine this with the small sample size, and the fact they're using a tumor-prone rat breed, you have a paper that's going to be crucified by peer review.
As of today, there is no citation for this paper by Food and Chemical Toxicity which means... I don't know. But it hasn't been published yet. Was this leaked during peer review process? This stinks and everyone should withhold judgement.
http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf
Then we better ban sunlight.
Calling Mr. Burns!
Using online polls limits the scope of the findings, it doesn't invalidate them, nor is it "bad science". It also doesn't mean this one study is the end-all authority on the matter. It's good information that can be collected into a larger view of things.
The risk of false positive isn't that meaningful unless they plan to convict solely on DNA evidence, which they never do. There has to be other factors, like they knew the victim, or live close by, or someone saw someone that looked like them, etc.
>Did you ever consider that maybe the genetic markers they are looking for only occur on the Y chromosomes? They don't.
It taught me that an 11-year-old can figure out how to operate a proprietary security system in 4 minutes.
Well, the incidence of autism in the general population is about 1%. The incidence of autism in Jenny's house is 100%. You could be on to something.
We can drop all of the arguments about GMO here.
What you want amounts to censorship
Again, I repeat this argument. If information is good and should not be censored, then you would be okay with a law requiring companies to say whether or not any black people touched the food? Some people might want that information, and who are you to deny it.
And before you go on with some bullshit about there's no reason that would matter, there's equally no reason why a food being a GM crop would matter. Furthermore, even if it somehow mattered, the consumer can't possibly know how, or to what extent. It's like a 4 year old reason a cereal box label. Almost no one understands genetics, biochemistry, or even what a molecule is in a non-scifi capacity. It's information that can't possibly be used to help people.
GM foods are not more or less likely to be "drowned" in anything, except for the few types that produce their own pesticides, in which case they would be drowned in less.
Also, there has never been a case of an end-user (someone who buys produce in the store and eating it) getting sick or dying from pesticides. None. ZERO. They are not even capable of giving you an upset stomach or acne at the levels you are exposed to as an end user.
The "truth" about a food includes whether genetically-modified organisms were involved in producing it.
You're right. And whether or not brown people have touched my food is also part of that "truth". After all, you can't prove there's no such thing as "nigger cooties". And the customer has the right to know if any minority has been involved in the production of their food. It's just information right?
It's information that the average consumer can't possibly know what to do with. They (and almost everyone who will read this page) has absolutely no understanding of plant biology or nutrition. They will only see it as some kind of health warning, even if there's no reason why that might be the case. It's ridiculous fear-mongering and you all need to stop pretending that this is a concern about health rather than a concern about a specific business that produces some GM foods. It's the same thing the environmental extremists do - disguise anti-corporatism as environmental responsibility.
No one is claiming your license plate is private. It's the tracking and storing of data that's a concern.
Similarly, no one is claiming the heat escaping your house is private, but you still need a warrant to use an infrared camera to "see" inside someone's house. Even though the camera works by seeing what *leaves* the house.
Aspartame does not have "issues", I realize it's one of the more popular conspiracy chemicals that morons discuss to try and sound smart and/or informed.
Really? And what are the Republicans in China and India doing? How about Europe? It's *Global* Warming, and unless you don't use energy derived from burning fossil fuels, you're just as responsible. And I don't see a slow down or reverse of the trend without a massive change in technology over a very short time.
Someone did make this claim, it was the documentary "Gasland" (2005), but it was later discovered that the house shown in the movie was built on a natural gas deposit, and fracking was not involved.
Flaming tap water is not from fracking, it's from wells being dug into natural gas pockets. The biggest problem with even discussing fracking is the people who will just outright lie to shock people.
The ingredients in fracking fluid are known. The formula is not. Just like in a twinkie, the ingredients are listed, but the formula is not. There's no mystery as to what's in fracking fluid, and a quick google search will get you the info you need.
Fracking absolutely needs to follow guidelines for safety. Which they do. So do oil wells, but we still get oil spills. What we should be asking is this: What is the danger of (a) environmental exposure, (b) occupational exposure, and (c) worst case scenario of a "leak" or "failure". Then, we should compare that to other energy methods, such as oil and coal.
So far, oil and coal, which we all already deal, are deadlier and more environmentally dangerous than fracking. But no one seems to care, because they've been around too long to be something you can scare grandma with.
I would also argue that the worst thing you can do to the planet, environmentally, is have children.
Be careful of studies that link things with minor changes from the control group, even ones with large populations. 20% lower than an already low risk is pretty much nothing. Just as an example, smokers have a 2000% higher risk of lung cancer than non-smokers. Whites have a 400% higher chance of melanoma than blacks.
The only time you can take small changes seriously is when there are multiple sources and a proposed mechanism that is consistent with our previous understanding. "May help kill damaged cells" might be 100% correct, but it's not a mechanism, it's just the hypothesized result.
These kinds of studies are interesting but don't make too much out of them.
So, just for argument's sake... when I was 14 I video-taped myself masturbating on camera. 12 years later, tools came out that let me convert the video to an MPG. 12 years after THAT, is today. I'm an adult, who may or may not possess images of a sexual nature involving a minor (me). Tell me who is harmed if I decide to share them.
I saw it, and like many documentaries, it contained almost no facts, and was entirely filled with appeal to emotion.
Putting nutrition info on the cup work when you can change what you put in the cup. The soda machine at 7-11 has 5 kinds of soda, a couple kinds of diet soda, but also iced tea, Hi-C, etc.
A diet big gulp has no calories, but I'm sure that will be banned too.
Nah, it's just that we've already downloaded everything we want.
Also, my VCR which has been around for 20 years can already fast forward over commercials. Somehow that's okay but this isn't?