So you have an anecdote. Yawn. Compare that to all the times that people have actually (not nearly) died because of unexpected or unlabeled allergens in their non-GMO foods.
Of course the GMOs are distinguishable in some respects, but the company selling one already needs to prove that those differences are essentially irrelevant to humans or any animals we plan to feed with the GMO. A GMO banana is a banana, so "Stephen Holstein" wants them to prove something that is true by definition.
Current evidence suggests that glyphosate is closer to saccharin than dioxin. For example, a meeting of the WHO on pesticide residues "concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to be genotoxic at anticipated dietary exposures", and that while good on-topic studies in rats were not available, "glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet".
If Wikipedia is wrong about any of those being grouped by IARC alongside glyphosate as "probable carcinogens", you can go fix it. If you're just going to complain about someone pointing to Wikipedia, without any evidence that Wikipedia is wrong, you're going to look pretty foolish.
I don't know, but the summary mis-characterizes what Okin wrote ("[dog and cat] feces would be equivalent to the total garbage produced by 6.63 million Americans, or approximately the population of Massachusetts"), which is in turn wrong. According to the Massachusetts government, household waste was about 3.5 million tons in 2006 (about 2.98 pounds per capita, versus 4.4 pounds per capita in the EPA numbers for 2013).
However, that household waste number is a pretty small fraction of the total solid garbage that gets generated. MA's 2006 numbers show 3.49 MT of household waste, 5.66 MT of business waste, and 4.65 MT of construction and demolition debris. The household waste number is only 25(-ish)% of the total.
On top of that, the 4.4 pounds per capita per day number is before recycling, composting, and incineration for energy generation are considered, which combined account for almost half (47%) of the total mass that was generated (according to the EPA report that Okin cited).
History also shows us that anti-GMO activists also always lie. There's some kind of perpetual energy scheme we can create from this situation, I'm sure of it...
Independent of that, in the US it would be a gross breach of ethics (and maybe the law? I'm not sure) for any lawyer to try to communicate directly with a party once they have been informed that that party has retained counsel, in large part to prevent exactly this kind of illegal bullying. Do Canadian lawyers not have any similar ethics rule?
Not in the US. A sentence would be a possible outcome of a criminal case, where the Supreme Court has been very clear. That's why we have Miranda declarations ("You have the right to remain silent", etc.). Testimony gets excluded quickly if it's found to be procured in violation of tha right.
In a civil case like this one, the finder of fact (jury if you use one, otherwise the trial judge) may make what is called an "adverse inference" if one party asserts his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. He can't be compelled to testify, but the court can assume the facts are not helpful to that party.
In the US, that is the point where your lawyer would interrupt and tell them he'll happily see them in court, because there's no way that any competent judge would hold him in contempt of court.
Ah, the classic No True Scrum argument. If Scrum is not working for you, it's because you are not doing Scrum right! And you even combine it with the Right Scrum Team argument. If your team needs management, Scrum isn't for you. Your team must be coherent, driven, and self-directed for Scrum to work. (Never mind that every other process in the world will also work with such a team.)
The NEJM article was the Kellerman study for which a debunking was linked earlier. The sample size in that study was ridiculously too small to accurately control for the number of variables they did. Improperly modeled correlations and omitted confounders would swamp the effect size they claimed to find, at least as to the risk of personal gun ownership.
RFC 821 and 2821 both specify that while the host name in an email address must be case-insensitive, the "local" part (before the @ sign) must be treated case-sensitively by other systems. The receiving system may treat it case-insensitively, but anyone sending mail to that address must preserve the case of the local part as originally given.
Slashdot Mirror
So you have an anecdote and a flawed argument. Double yawn. You've made a case for labeling allergens, not GMOs.
So you have an anecdote. Yawn. Compare that to all the times that people have actually (not nearly) died because of unexpected or unlabeled allergens in their non-GMO foods.
Of course the GMOs are distinguishable in some respects, but the company selling one already needs to prove that those differences are essentially irrelevant to humans or any animals we plan to feed with the GMO. A GMO banana is a banana, so "Stephen Holstein" wants them to prove something that is true by definition.
In both of those formulations, as in basically all others, water is an inert ingredient, not an active one.
They already have to prove that it's basically biologically indistinguishable from standard bananas before they can sell it.
His fundamental point is accurate. If Monsanto and Round-Up are giving cancer to so many people, why haven't we noticed?
Current evidence suggests that glyphosate is closer to saccharin than dioxin. For example, a meeting of the WHO on pesticide residues "concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to be genotoxic at anticipated dietary exposures", and that while good on-topic studies in rats were not available, "glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet".
If Wikipedia is wrong about any of those being grouped by IARC alongside glyphosate as "probable carcinogens", you can go fix it. If you're just going to complain about someone pointing to Wikipedia, without any evidence that Wikipedia is wrong, you're going to look pretty foolish.
Which study on their factory workers is that? And why should we believe it?
In short: There is No True Organic, so its defenders shouldn't be expected to explain why organic would be good for anybody.
Riiiight.
I don't know, but the summary mis-characterizes what Okin wrote ("[dog and cat] feces would be equivalent to the total garbage produced by 6.63 million Americans, or approximately the population of Massachusetts"), which is in turn wrong. According to the Massachusetts government, household waste was about 3.5 million tons in 2006 (about 2.98 pounds per capita, versus 4.4 pounds per capita in the EPA numbers for 2013).
However, that household waste number is a pretty small fraction of the total solid garbage that gets generated. MA's 2006 numbers show 3.49 MT of household waste, 5.66 MT of business waste, and 4.65 MT of construction and demolition debris. The household waste number is only 25(-ish)% of the total.
On top of that, the 4.4 pounds per capita per day number is before recycling, composting, and incineration for energy generation are considered, which combined account for almost half (47%) of the total mass that was generated (according to the EPA report that Okin cited).
History also shows us that anti-GMO activists also always lie. There's some kind of perpetual energy scheme we can create from this situation, I'm sure of it...
So GMOs cause peanut, soy, etc. allergies?
No wonder people used to be less freaked out about them.
GMO is not sufficient to cause crop monoculture.
Independent of that, in the US it would be a gross breach of ethics (and maybe the law? I'm not sure) for any lawyer to try to communicate directly with a party once they have been informed that that party has retained counsel, in large part to prevent exactly this kind of illegal bullying. Do Canadian lawyers not have any similar ethics rule?
Not in the US. A sentence would be a possible outcome of a criminal case, where the Supreme Court has been very clear. That's why we have Miranda declarations ("You have the right to remain silent", etc.). Testimony gets excluded quickly if it's found to be procured in violation of tha right.
In a civil case like this one, the finder of fact (jury if you use one, otherwise the trial judge) may make what is called an "adverse inference" if one party asserts his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. He can't be compelled to testify, but the court can assume the facts are not helpful to that party.
In the US, that is the point where your lawyer would interrupt and tell them he'll happily see them in court, because there's no way that any competent judge would hold him in contempt of court.
Why is it so different in Canada?
His point was that even someone with very pedestrian standards for picture quality could recognize that Cnet's review was not worth a lick.
Ah, the classic No True Scrum argument. If Scrum is not working for you, it's because you are not doing Scrum right! And you even combine it with the Right Scrum Team argument. If your team needs management, Scrum isn't for you. Your team must be coherent, driven, and self-directed for Scrum to work. (Never mind that every other process in the world will also work with such a team.)
American programmers are lazy, impatient, and hubristic. That's why they're good programmers.
The NEJM article was the Kellerman study for which a debunking was linked earlier. The sample size in that study was ridiculously too small to accurately control for the number of variables they did. Improperly modeled correlations and omitted confounders would swamp the effect size they claimed to find, at least as to the risk of personal gun ownership.
I assure you that will not be a problem in Australia.
I have a modest proposal: stop designing safety critical radar systems that operate smack in the middle of an unlicensed band.
Here is the world smallest viola, playing a requiem for people who don't know how to spell "voila".
RFC 821 and 2821 both specify that while the host name in an email address must be case-insensitive, the "local" part (before the @ sign) must be treated case-sensitively by other systems. The receiving system may treat it case-insensitively, but anyone sending mail to that address must preserve the case of the local part as originally given.