You do have to be careful about cancer statistics. The way cancer death is counted is for only 5 years. So the way it was described to me was this: If you created a test that could detect cancer 5 years earlier that we currently do, then you would have a 100% survival rate for the cancer. Even though you did not treat the cancer, you just detected it earlier and the die at the exact same point the would have even if you never detected that they had it. So don't trust the cancer statistics, they don't relate to real people and real cancers.
Incidence is down along with the death rate, and that is despite continuing improvements in detection.
Oh, yes. It was a "misunderstanding" alright. The other times they did this it wasn't an issue, and they didn't "understand" that they wouldn't get away with it this time.
What other times they did what? Did you RTFA?
Still waiting for you to enumerate all the ways in which Monsanto is so obviously unethical that it would be absurd to suggest otherwise.
They didn't do it because they got caught in the middle of doing it.
What are you talking about? Caught doing what? Do you even RTFA?
An academic involved in writing research funded by Monsanto, John Acquavella, a former Monsanto employee, appeared to express discomfort with the process, writing in a 2015 email to a Monsanto executive, "I can’t be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication." He also said of the way the company was trying to present the authorship: "We call that ghost writing and it is unethical."
A Monsanto official said the comments were the result of "a complete misunderstanding" that had been "worked out," while Mr. Acquavella said in an email on Tuesday that "there was no ghostwriting" and that his comments had been related to an early draft and a question over authorship that was resolved.
Or maybe you should consider looking at the source material:
I thought we discussed previously that it was decided by our management that we would not be able to use you or Larry as Panelists/authors because of your prior employment at Monsanto - was that not your understanding? I'm really sorry if there is any confusion on that
I suggest that you read the article you linked to. That you are holding up a mythical bogeyman was in fact established in the court case the article is about (OSGATA v. Monsanto).
I believe Slashdot had an example today of their unethical behavior. You should check it out!I
Looks pretty ordinary to me, as well as cherry-picked. It looks like Henry I. Miller may have done something unethical by not disclosing a conflict of interest, or possibly shared authorship. John Acquavella told Monsanto that it would be unethical to do something, and Monsanto and Acquavella both say that they didn't in fact end up doing it. Is it unethical to propose something, have it characterized as unethical, and then choose not to do it?
Saying "Monsanto isn't evil" can only being up a debate about the definition of evil. However, saying they are not unethical would be absurd.
Absurd, how? Can you enumerate a few of Monsanto's unethical acts? AFAICT, despite the popular theory that they are horrible, they're actually a pretty ordinary company as ethics go. Most of the beliefs people seem to have (e.g. that they sue farmers over accidental cross-pollination) are myths.
while still having the actual cancer rate decline in the same period of time.
You didn't say that?
You apparently didn't get the point. I didn't say the fact that cancer is declining is evidence that Monsanto is somehow saving people. I'm asking for evidence that they're killing them. The presumption here is that Roundup is causing fatal cancers, and since Roundup use is way up since the advent of RR crops, we should expect a dramatic signal in cancer rates if that is the case. So where are the victims? In fact, most people believe there has been an increase in the cancer rate (many think it is skyrocketing), so stories about evil Roundup kick in their confirmation bias. They have to be pointed at the actual statistics to learn that no, the overall cancer rate is actually declining—this is so profound a correction to their worldview it occasionally causes them to think about what else they may have got wrong.
Despite extensive study, no one is able to identify any increase in individual cancer rates attributable to use of Roundup; the most anyone can say is that non-Hodgkin's lymphoma might be correlated.
Do i really have to explain this to you, or are you just being disingenuous?
That depends on how you define positive. Some may not see biodiversity going down as positive.
By protecting yield, intensification methods such as GMOs improve biodiversity by reducing the amount of land area required for agriculture, which leaves more land to the wild.
Some may not see glyphosate resistant weeds as positive.
Weeds adapt to every form of control. Pull them by hand and they break off at the stem and regrow. Roundup is one tool among many.
And some may not see family farms closing down or being transformed to agricultural factories as positive.
Family farms comprised 99% of U.S. farms in 2016, which is up from 97% in 2012.
The parent claimed Monsanto was KILLING AMERICAN CITIZENS. I merely wonder where the piles of dead people are. I suspect it is news to the AC that cancer in the U.S. has been declining steadily for a long time.
What is our FUCKING RESPONSE when a corporation willfully TRIES TO KILL AMERICAN CITIZENS FOR PROFIT?
What's really amazing is how they're able to KILL AMERICAN CITIZENS with a horrible carcinogen whose use has increased thousands of percent in the last two decades, while still having the actual cancer rate decline in the same period of time. Dastardly!
Using statistical models for analysis, rates for new cancer of any site cases have been falling on average 1.1% each year over the last 10 years. Death rates have been falling on average 1.5% each year over 2005-2014.
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) has once again named Monsanto as one of its “Best Places to Work for LGBT Equality.” This is the ninth year Monsanto has been honored by the civil rights organization. The distinction comes with the agriculture company earning a perfect score of 100 percent on the HRC’s annual Corporate Equality Index (CEI).
You make claims you cannot POSSIBLY prove, as though you alone are privy to the truth.
I had buddies who were doused with Agent Orange in Viet Nam, and every single one of them died of related cancers.
I'd like to see you disprove that. But even more I'd like to see YOU stricken with terminal cancer. I hope it comes for you soon.
That's nice.
Agent Orange didn't harm people because of the herbicides, which, as black3d has explained, have nothing to do with glyphosate. It was the TCDD dioxin, which was a contaminant resulting from the manufacturing process. The government was in fact warned about this, and they chose to spray it anyway.
The result is that cyclists sometimes effectively take up far more space than a car.
Setting aside the dubious claims there, cyclists aren't even on the road much of the time, and increasingly are using dedicated lane space when they are.
Passenger cars and unladen light pickups do no noticeable damage to the pavement.
Perhaps you live in an area where potholes aren't a real thing. Where i live, once weather has made inroads, passenger cars accelerate road damage rapidly, even on side streets untrafficked by heavy vehicles.
What you are overlooking is that the vast majority of cyclists own cars also. This means they're paying those registration fees right along with you. As for the gas taxes, the amount of gas tax not paid because of cycling is very small, because most cycling trips are short. For trips that require significant gas, most cyclists get in those cars they own.
Meanwhile, when they're not in their cars, cyclists are using up far less space on the road, and causing no damage to the road surface.
Too bad. I have one and i rather like it. It has limitations but for the price it is a nice device. Pros: very good battery life, peppy, nice display, some hardware buttons, can sideload apps, comes with a year of Prime (or extension), integrates well with Fire TV Stick. Cons: Amazon app store is missing many useful apps and lags versions, limited Google integration, could really use a back button (the back gesture ends up doing something else about 25% of the time).
Mind you, i got it for only $159 unlocked, and that includes a year of Prime, so effectively $60 for an unlocked smartphone with a decent processor and display is pretty sweet. For $60, it's a fantastic device, really.
The definition for "organic" that I was always familiar with was that something was simply grown without pesticides and "artificial" fertilizer, but I guess if there's no soil, one is forced add minerals (and vitamins? Do plants need vitamins??) somehow.
That is a common misconception. In fact, organic agriculture uses pesticides; it just has a more limited set of pesticides to work with because "synthetic" pesticides are excluded, except when they aren't because they're too practical, cf copper sulfate.
Trains are incredibly efficient, and so are the massive container ships: the square-cube law means you're moving more stuff and less vehicle. Local produce carried in the back of a pickup truck can burn as much fuel in 50 miles as a thousand miles in a freighter. There are similar economies of scale on the inputs: dragging fertilizer to a thousand local farms will be less efficient than one tanker full of it.
Indeed, and moreover, a lot of foods simply can't be grown locally for much of the year without deploying supplemental lighting and heating, which eat up lots of energy.
There's a reason oranges are grown in California and shipped to New York, rather than creating vast local enclosed greenhouses upstate and heating them year-round: it's way, way cheaper.
This sort of thing makes sense for produce that don't have a long shelf-life and don't require a lot of space to grow, so that an environment can be maintained for them at reasonable cost.
Slashdot Mirror
You do have to be careful about cancer statistics. The way cancer death is counted is for only 5 years. So the way it was described to me was this: If you created a test that could detect cancer 5 years earlier that we currently do, then you would have a 100% survival rate for the cancer. Even though you did not treat the cancer, you just detected it earlier and the die at the exact same point the would have even if you never detected that they had it. So don't trust the cancer statistics, they don't relate to real people and real cancers.
Incidence is down along with the death rate, and that is despite continuing improvements in detection.
Ah, yes. The classic Argumentum Googlei.
I thought not.
Oh, yes. It was a "misunderstanding" alright. The other times they did this it wasn't an issue, and they didn't "understand" that they wouldn't get away with it this time.
What other times they did what? Did you RTFA?
Still waiting for you to enumerate all the ways in which Monsanto is so obviously unethical that it would be absurd to suggest otherwise.
They didn't do it because they got caught in the middle of doing it.
What are you talking about? Caught doing what? Do you even RTFA?
An academic involved in writing research funded by Monsanto, John Acquavella, a former Monsanto employee, appeared to express discomfort with the process, writing in a 2015 email to a Monsanto executive, "I can’t be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication." He also said of the way the company was trying to present the authorship: "We call that ghost writing and it is unethical."
A Monsanto official said the comments were the result of "a complete misunderstanding" that had been "worked out," while Mr. Acquavella said in an email on Tuesday that "there was no ghostwriting" and that his comments had been related to an early draft and a question over authorship that was resolved.
Or maybe you should consider looking at the source material:
http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/...
[From William Heydens/Monsanto]: John,
I thought we discussed previously that it was decided by our management that we would not be able to use you or Larry as Panelists/authors because of your prior employment at Monsanto - was that not your understanding? I'm really sorry if there is any confusion on that
GMO contaminated crops are bad because organic farmers are sued for patent infringement
This has never happened.
I suggest that you read the article you linked to. That you are holding up a mythical bogeyman was in fact established in the court case the article is about (OSGATA v. Monsanto).
I believe Slashdot had an example today of their unethical behavior. You should check it out!I
Looks pretty ordinary to me, as well as cherry-picked. It looks like Henry I. Miller may have done something unethical by not disclosing a conflict of interest, or possibly shared authorship. John Acquavella told Monsanto that it would be unethical to do something, and Monsanto and Acquavella both say that they didn't in fact end up doing it. Is it unethical to propose something, have it characterized as unethical, and then choose not to do it?
Did you RTFA?
Saying "Monsanto isn't evil" can only being up a debate about the definition of evil. However, saying they are not unethical would be absurd.
Absurd, how? Can you enumerate a few of Monsanto's unethical acts? AFAICT, despite the popular theory that they are horrible, they're actually a pretty ordinary company as ethics go. Most of the beliefs people seem to have (e.g. that they sue farmers over accidental cross-pollination) are myths.
Family farms comprised 99% of U.S. farms in 2016, which is up from 97% in 2012.
Count acreage or stop.
Why? The claim was that family farms are being shut down or being turned into factories.
Nonetheless, family farms accounted for 88% of farmland in 2012, and 94% in 2016.
while still having the actual cancer rate decline in the same period of time.
You didn't say that?
You apparently didn't get the point. I didn't say the fact that cancer is declining is evidence that Monsanto is somehow saving people. I'm asking for evidence that they're killing them. The presumption here is that Roundup is causing fatal cancers, and since Roundup use is way up since the advent of RR crops, we should expect a dramatic signal in cancer rates if that is the case. So where are the victims? In fact, most people believe there has been an increase in the cancer rate (many think it is skyrocketing), so stories about evil Roundup kick in their confirmation bias. They have to be pointed at the actual statistics to learn that no, the overall cancer rate is actually declining—this is so profound a correction to their worldview it occasionally causes them to think about what else they may have got wrong.
Despite extensive study, no one is able to identify any increase in individual cancer rates attributable to use of Roundup; the most anyone can say is that non-Hodgkin's lymphoma might be correlated.
Do i really have to explain this to you, or are you just being disingenuous?
That depends on how you define positive.
Some may not see biodiversity going down as positive.
By protecting yield, intensification methods such as GMOs improve biodiversity by reducing the amount of land area required for agriculture, which leaves more land to the wild.
Some may not see glyphosate resistant weeds as positive.
Weeds adapt to every form of control. Pull them by hand and they break off at the stem and regrow. Roundup is one tool among many.
And some may not see family farms closing down or being transformed to agricultural factories as positive.
Family farms comprised 99% of U.S. farms in 2016, which is up from 97% in 2012.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/publi...
You did claim that.
No, i really didn't.
The parent claimed Monsanto was KILLING AMERICAN CITIZENS. I merely wonder where the piles of dead people are. I suspect it is news to the AC that cancer in the U.S. has been declining steadily for a long time.
"while still having the actual cancer rate decline in the same period of time. " You didn't prove that's related whatsoever.
Not only did i not prove that's related, i didn't even claim it.
You fail statistics.
Not really, but you fail basic reading comprehension.
What is our FUCKING RESPONSE when a corporation willfully TRIES TO KILL AMERICAN CITIZENS FOR PROFIT?
What's really amazing is how they're able to KILL AMERICAN CITIZENS with a horrible carcinogen whose use has increased thousands of percent in the last two decades, while still having the actual cancer rate decline in the same period of time. Dastardly!
https://seer.cancer.gov/statfa...
Using statistical models for analysis, rates for new cancer of any site cases have been falling on average 1.1% each year over the last 10 years. Death rates have been falling on average 1.5% each year over 2005-2014.
And I still say Monsanto is evil, because they've proved it over and over again.
Yeah, sooo evil. Must be why they keep getting this award. [eye-roll]
https://finance.yahoo.com/news...
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) has once again named Monsanto as one of its “Best Places to Work for LGBT Equality.” This is the ninth year Monsanto has been honored by the civil rights organization. The distinction comes with the agriculture company earning a perfect score of 100 percent on the HRC’s annual Corporate Equality Index (CEI).
Except nobody has ever died from glyphosate. .
You make claims you cannot POSSIBLY prove, as though you alone are privy to the truth.
I had buddies who were doused with Agent Orange in Viet Nam, and every single one of them died of related cancers.
I'd like to see you disprove that. But even more I'd like to see YOU stricken with terminal cancer. I hope it comes for you soon.
That's nice.
Agent Orange didn't harm people because of the herbicides, which, as black3d has explained, have nothing to do with glyphosate. It was the TCDD dioxin, which was a contaminant resulting from the manufacturing process. The government was in fact warned about this, and they chose to spray it anyway.
Setting aside the dubious claims there, cyclists aren't even on the road much of the time, and increasingly are using dedicated lane space when they are.
Perhaps you live in an area where potholes aren't a real thing. Where i live, once weather has made inroads, passenger cars accelerate road damage rapidly, even on side streets untrafficked by heavy vehicles.
What you are overlooking is that the vast majority of cyclists own cars also. This means they're paying those registration fees right along with you. As for the gas taxes, the amount of gas tax not paid because of cycling is very small, because most cycling trips are short. For trips that require significant gas, most cyclists get in those cars they own.
Meanwhile, when they're not in their cars, cyclists are using up far less space on the road, and causing no damage to the road surface.
Clearly, the blackmailers need to move to the "Other Other Operation"...
This, for the Piranha Brothers, was the turning point.
Too bad. I have one and i rather like it. It has limitations but for the price it is a nice device. Pros: very good battery life, peppy, nice display, some hardware buttons, can sideload apps, comes with a year of Prime (or extension), integrates well with Fire TV Stick. Cons: Amazon app store is missing many useful apps and lags versions, limited Google integration, could really use a back button (the back gesture ends up doing something else about 25% of the time).
Mind you, i got it for only $159 unlocked, and that includes a year of Prime, so effectively $60 for an unlocked smartphone with a decent processor and display is pretty sweet. For $60, it's a fantastic device, really.
Won't you be shocked when you look up what "organic farming" means. It has a legal definition and everything.
Yeah, one that includes use of pesticides.
The definition for "organic" that I was always familiar with was that something was simply grown without pesticides and "artificial" fertilizer, but I guess if there's no soil, one is forced add minerals (and vitamins? Do plants need vitamins??) somehow.
That is a common misconception. In fact, organic agriculture uses pesticides; it just has a more limited set of pesticides to work with because "synthetic" pesticides are excluded, except when they aren't because they're too practical, cf copper sulfate.
Trains are incredibly efficient, and so are the massive container ships: the square-cube law means you're moving more stuff and less vehicle. Local produce carried in the back of a pickup truck can burn as much fuel in 50 miles as a thousand miles in a freighter. There are similar economies of scale on the inputs: dragging fertilizer to a thousand local farms will be less efficient than one tanker full of it.
Indeed, and moreover, a lot of foods simply can't be grown locally for much of the year without deploying supplemental lighting and heating, which eat up lots of energy.
There's a reason oranges are grown in California and shipped to New York, rather than creating vast local enclosed greenhouses upstate and heating them year-round: it's way, way cheaper.
This sort of thing makes sense for produce that don't have a long shelf-life and don't require a lot of space to grow, so that an environment can be maintained for them at reasonable cost.
Why don't split keyboards simply duplicate the border columns on both sides? This is the main reason i haven't bothered to buy one.
in those Lincoln commercials.