I may be too stupid to untangle your rantings, but at least I'm smart enough to understand the words in the link.
You know the link was established, because you cherry-picked a quote out of a sentence that told you that.
And no, "That proof isn't strong enough to convince me" does not magically turn into a "burden of proof." It said there was evidence, "from real-world exposures that actually occurred." That part of the evidence is "limited," because it is unethical to intentionally harm people by giving them toxins. So you're limited to smaller amounts of evidence than you would have for genotoxicity, which can be studied in a lab. And that part of the evidence was "strong," which is why when you add them together, the evidence clearly shows a link.
My god man, you're being too stupid here to also be calling other people names over it. You either didn't understand the link, or you're lying about what it says. Neither is impressive.
The problem is, the mice don't have Alzheimer's, they just have similar symptoms for some other reason.
Strobe lights and clicking doesn't generally cause cognitive improvement, so there isn't any reason to think it is a general effect that would apply to anything other than "mice with a certain type of genetic brain damage."
It is probably just causing dysfunction in the part of the brain that they damaged to cause the plaque buildup.
Calorie intake has an effect on health. Fats have about 100 calories per tablespoon.
I didn't say, or imply, that "low fat" diets are healthy. I said that a person should apply a limit to their fat intake. And that is true; if you eat fatty desserts without limit, that is very unhealthy.
And generally, 25% calories from fat results in better health, including heart health, than diets with 15% calories from fat, or diets with 50% calories from fat. And fats taste good; people who only get 15% calories from fat are likely on a restricted diet. It is easier to eat too many fats than not enough. So "limit" is a good verb here. Not "avoid," merely "limit."
Perhaps your English came from Denmark too! lol
Your statement at the end of what has been demonstrated scientifically is accurate, but the stuff at the start is just where you didn't understand my words.
"Often it is so" does not imply "therefore there is no impact of mandating that it be so."
So my response is merely, "So what?" You need a lot more words, arranged into a point, in order to have actually succeeded at making a relevant point.
So what if there are often extra parts laying around? If they're not selling them, we have no idea if they made enough to supply the market for 7 years. And, we know that we don't know that! So we know they can't say that they have enough; how would they know in advance of any sales?
Yeah, maybe it was shitty product. OK. That happens. That's my point; now they can't even discontinue it, they have to keep making the damn parts! Making 1 shitty product in the history of your company, guarantees your company goes bankrupt?!
If you need boatloads of replacement parts, it might mean it is a shitty product; or that the competition built a similar product but your website is easier to find to order the parts from. There isn't any guarantee that the parts actually are replacement parts, especially if you're required to sell them!
And for similar reasons, just because your product is reliable doesn't mean you don't have to make a lot of replacement parts, if it is mandated that you make and sell them. Especially in this context, where we're talking about selling them to individuals and you can't force people to an authorized service center to make sure it is really even a "replacement."
It is a nice idea, it just doesn't map to a sane policy proposal. Banning soldered-in battery packs seems like a more reasonable idea, but they'll just switch to glue, and ultimately they do have to be fastened into place in some applications. So it is very hard to achieve a good rule.
You thought the FDA was the Holy Annointer of Science? LMFAO!
Saying words doesn't stop it from being true that when the silicone leaks out of the sack, it causes a wide variety of health problems. Science actually doesn't even matter here, because we public health data, which is a lot more relevant to the issue than abstract science. Experience tends to have more value than theory.
Silicone is toxic. Yes, people implant it anyways. It gives a firmer implant than saline solution, which is known to be safer.
Waving your hands and shouting "science" won't make the world into a padded safe room, sorry.
That doesn't really line up with the physical mechanism of the known detection system, so I'm skeptical that it isn't just subconscious sensitivity to travel.
a) They don't typically complain about 50Hz mains, and there's no way a mains wire is emitting a magnetic field strong enough to sense (unless they're wrapping it around their heads)
Just stop talking. The signal is strong enough to measure just by connecting a human to an oscilloscope.
And you haven't measured the human sensitivity, so you don't know that part. Don't just lie and say you know, when it involves a small number of cells in the brain that human physiologists haven't measured the sensitivity of yet. Duh.
Hasn't it been proven completely imaginary every time it has come up?
Will you please stop saying stupid things like that? Please? For the rest of your life?
You can't prove a negative. Ever.
Tomorrow when you wake up, you still won't be able to prove negatives.
Next year, you won't be able to prove negatives.
The year after that, you won't be able to prove negatives.
Anything you read in your life that claimed to prove negatives was lying to you. And yet, here you are, implying you've made that same stupid mistake multiple times, that you believed multiple times that a negative had been proven.
Please try to be slightly less stupid, this is over the top!
Well, if a person genuinely believed the idiots claiming it is "proven safe," why would they need to worry?
That's really the problem; the lack of honesty about the risks, especially from the manufacturer.
Personally, when I hear somebody say something is "proven safe" I actually hear them say, "I dunnu grok the sciency, can I haz cheeseburder?" So handling concentrated chemicals always still seems stupid to me.
Yes there is chlorine in my drinking water. Yes, I drink it. No, I don't think that means it is safe to dump bleach on my skin! LOL "Humaans!"
For what it's worth, most studies on Roundup were concerned with the level of exposure that consumers encounter.
I totally agree; most of the studies are on consumers who used the product according to the label, and so we already know from those studies that if you wear gloves while you use it, then you get limited skin exposure.
According to the studies, you'd have to accidentally spill some on your skin at least twice in a year to have any cancer risk. Well, or I guess, use it twice without wearing safety equipment, but consumers wouldn't actually do that, would they? Certainly not manly men doing yard work, they'd always wear gloves!/s LOL
Not sure how you get "yes it was proven" from that. I'm not surprised though; it's well in keeping with your beliefs on many other subjects.
He understands that it says that because he can read. That's where you differ; you see words, but instead of reading them, you listen to the voices.
Here is the excerpt you attempted to quote that talks about "limited evidence." Notice how you botched the conclusions?
In March 2015, IARC classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A).
This was based on “limited” evidence of cancer in humans (from real-world exposures that actually occurred) and “sufficient” evidence of cancer in experimental animals (from studies of “pure” glyphosate).
IARC also concluded that there was “strong” evidence for genotoxicity, both for “pure” glyphosate and for glyphosate formulations.
And yet, the silicone is toxic, and the liner that is supposed to be in contact with the body is made of something else. So there is no contextual truth in your statement, just a misleading irrelevancy.
And the bags leaking the silicone does cause all sorts of health problems. Duh.
When chess Grandmaster Lev Alburt was growing up in the Soviet Union, they had lots of propaganda warning the people that Americans were preparing to invade to bring democracy.
The children, dutifully believing the propaganda, made maps showing the location of the local military barracks, and other landmarks, and kept them hidden to give to the Americans when they landed.
But they never came. So eventually he defected.
Much of Russia probably agrees with you. But don't ask them; opinions are dangerous for them.
It might turn out to not actually be faster, but merely be cheaper for the telecoms to operate. Don't just assume, 5 is bigger than 4 so the new tech must be faster.
Slashdot Mirror
I may be too stupid to untangle your rantings, but at least I'm smart enough to understand the words in the link.
You know the link was established, because you cherry-picked a quote out of a sentence that told you that.
And no, "That proof isn't strong enough to convince me" does not magically turn into a "burden of proof." It said there was evidence, "from real-world exposures that actually occurred." That part of the evidence is "limited," because it is unethical to intentionally harm people by giving them toxins. So you're limited to smaller amounts of evidence than you would have for genotoxicity, which can be studied in a lab. And that part of the evidence was "strong," which is why when you add them together, the evidence clearly shows a link.
My god man, you're being too stupid here to also be calling other people names over it. You either didn't understand the link, or you're lying about what it says. Neither is impressive.
The problem is, the mice don't have Alzheimer's, they just have similar symptoms for some other reason.
Strobe lights and clicking doesn't generally cause cognitive improvement, so there isn't any reason to think it is a general effect that would apply to anything other than "mice with a certain type of genetic brain damage."
It is probably just causing dysfunction in the part of the brain that they damaged to cause the plaque buildup.
It is smart, because if they let you take it home you'd lose it.
If they didn't have somebody to help them get to appointments, they wouldn't be visiting the doctor in the first place.
And for the manufacturer it is great; if it has to be used at a clinic, that's great for the clinic! And guess who buys it? The clinic.
Calorie intake has an effect on health. Fats have about 100 calories per tablespoon.
I didn't say, or imply, that "low fat" diets are healthy. I said that a person should apply a limit to their fat intake. And that is true; if you eat fatty desserts without limit, that is very unhealthy.
And generally, 25% calories from fat results in better health, including heart health, than diets with 15% calories from fat, or diets with 50% calories from fat. And fats taste good; people who only get 15% calories from fat are likely on a restricted diet. It is easier to eat too many fats than not enough. So "limit" is a good verb here. Not "avoid," merely "limit."
Perhaps your English came from Denmark too! lol
Your statement at the end of what has been demonstrated scientifically is accurate, but the stuff at the start is just where you didn't understand my words.
Sorry Ivan, just explain what you want to explain; nobody is going to click a youtube link on a site like this. You have to use words.
"Often it is so" does not imply "therefore there is no impact of mandating that it be so."
So my response is merely, "So what?" You need a lot more words, arranged into a point, in order to have actually succeeded at making a relevant point.
So what if there are often extra parts laying around? If they're not selling them, we have no idea if they made enough to supply the market for 7 years. And, we know that we don't know that! So we know they can't say that they have enough; how would they know in advance of any sales?
Yeah, maybe it was shitty product. OK. That happens. That's my point; now they can't even discontinue it, they have to keep making the damn parts! Making 1 shitty product in the history of your company, guarantees your company goes bankrupt?!
If you need boatloads of replacement parts, it might mean it is a shitty product; or that the competition built a similar product but your website is easier to find to order the parts from. There isn't any guarantee that the parts actually are replacement parts, especially if you're required to sell them!
And for similar reasons, just because your product is reliable doesn't mean you don't have to make a lot of replacement parts, if it is mandated that you make and sell them. Especially in this context, where we're talking about selling them to individuals and you can't force people to an authorized service center to make sure it is really even a "replacement."
It is a nice idea, it just doesn't map to a sane policy proposal. Banning soldered-in battery packs seems like a more reasonable idea, but they'll just switch to glue, and ultimately they do have to be fastened into place in some applications. So it is very hard to achieve a good rule.
If the evidence is limited, that doesn't imply that a contrary result was stated in the study.
This is too basic to argue. You're not actually this stupid. You're arguing for "some other reason."
Wait, what?
You thought the FDA was the Holy Annointer of Science? LMFAO!
Saying words doesn't stop it from being true that when the silicone leaks out of the sack, it causes a wide variety of health problems. Science actually doesn't even matter here, because we public health data, which is a lot more relevant to the issue than abstract science. Experience tends to have more value than theory.
Silicone is toxic. Yes, people implant it anyways. It gives a firmer implant than saline solution, which is known to be safer.
Waving your hands and shouting "science" won't make the world into a padded safe room, sorry.
That doesn't really line up with the physical mechanism of the known detection system, so I'm skeptical that it isn't just subconscious sensitivity to travel.
Dude! You were like, totally coupled to the magnetic field. You're lucky you didn't get a solar virus.
a) They don't typically complain about 50Hz mains, and there's no way a mains wire is emitting a magnetic field strong enough to sense (unless they're wrapping it around their heads)
Just stop talking. The signal is strong enough to measure just by connecting a human to an oscilloscope.
And you haven't measured the human sensitivity, so you don't know that part. Don't just lie and say you know, when it involves a small number of cells in the brain that human physiologists haven't measured the sensitivity of yet. Duh.
Hasn't it been proven completely imaginary every time it has come up?
Will you please stop saying stupid things like that? Please? For the rest of your life?
You can't prove a negative. Ever.
Tomorrow when you wake up, you still won't be able to prove negatives.
Next year, you won't be able to prove negatives.
The year after that, you won't be able to prove negatives.
Anything you read in your life that claimed to prove negatives was lying to you. And yet, here you are, implying you've made that same stupid mistake multiple times, that you believed multiple times that a negative had been proven.
Please try to be slightly less stupid, this is over the top!
On average humans have one tit
You understanding of mammal bodies is substantially lacking.
Well, if a person genuinely believed the idiots claiming it is "proven safe," why would they need to worry?
That's really the problem; the lack of honesty about the risks, especially from the manufacturer.
Personally, when I hear somebody say something is "proven safe" I actually hear them say, "I dunnu grok the sciency, can I haz cheeseburder?" So handling concentrated chemicals always still seems stupid to me.
Yes there is chlorine in my drinking water. Yes, I drink it. No, I don't think that means it is safe to dump bleach on my skin! LOL "Humaans!"
Hey Derpstick, manufacturers of those medicines have legal protection in the US. So no, there will not be a jury deciding that.
For what it's worth, most studies on Roundup were concerned with the level of exposure that consumers encounter.
I totally agree; most of the studies are on consumers who used the product according to the label, and so we already know from those studies that if you wear gloves while you use it, then you get limited skin exposure.
According to the studies, you'd have to accidentally spill some on your skin at least twice in a year to have any cancer risk. Well, or I guess, use it twice without wearing safety equipment, but consumers wouldn't actually do that, would they? Certainly not manly men doing yard work, they'd always wear gloves! /s LOL
You're not proving a negative, you're proving a positive where there are two positive states, and then phrasing the result as a negative.
Yes, you can always rework a sentence to use a negative instead of a positive. Duh.
No, that doesn't mean negatives are provable.
Not sure how you get "yes it was proven" from that. I'm not surprised though; it's well in keeping with your beliefs on many other subjects.
He understands that it says that because he can read. That's where you differ; you see words, but instead of reading them, you listen to the voices.
Here is the excerpt you attempted to quote that talks about "limited evidence." Notice how you botched the conclusions?
In March 2015, IARC classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A).
This was based on “limited” evidence of cancer in humans (from real-world exposures that actually occurred) and “sufficient” evidence of cancer in experimental animals (from studies of “pure” glyphosate).
IARC also concluded that there was “strong” evidence for genotoxicity, both for “pure” glyphosate and for glyphosate formulations.
And yet, the silicone is toxic, and the liner that is supposed to be in contact with the body is made of something else. So there is no contextual truth in your statement, just a misleading irrelevancy.
And the bags leaking the silicone does cause all sorts of health problems. Duh.
Democrats and Independents, who make up over 50% of the country, still know how to read words.
Don't believe everything they tell you on your teevee.
When chess Grandmaster Lev Alburt was growing up in the Soviet Union, they had lots of propaganda warning the people that Americans were preparing to invade to bring democracy.
The children, dutifully believing the propaganda, made maps showing the location of the local military barracks, and other landmarks, and kept them hidden to give to the Americans when they landed.
But they never came. So eventually he defected.
Much of Russia probably agrees with you. But don't ask them; opinions are dangerous for them.
It turns out, it is military intelligence, not political intelligence.
Surely that was not the mistake, but there was a missing semicolon!
If said company only sells stuff that doesn’t adhere to European safety and other standards it can’t sell; it is products in the EU.
Clearly the person was saying that if a company can't sell its products in Europe, the company becomes a product in the EU!
It might turn out to not actually be faster, but merely be cheaper for the telecoms to operate. Don't just assume, 5 is bigger than 4 so the new tech must be faster.
Wait, the Korean War? Are you sure you read up on that one, Ivan?
Do you get full pay for half-ass propaganda you posted drunk, or is it a sliding scale?