Not like corn provides all its nutritional value unless its treated with a relatively strong-ish base anyways... lime is what's mostly used to break up the proteins on the kernel to produce vitamin B12...
Corn can't produce vitamin B12. The components to do so exist, to modern scientific knowledge, in certain bacterial species (I am a nutritional biochemist). B12 is only used by bacteria and animals (no known usage or presence in plants, only bacterial contamination of said plants), and requires cobalt. To my knowledge, corn does not use, absorb or store cobalt under normal conditions.
While the rest of your post may have merit, the final paragraph is not scientifically accurate.
It is true, however, that genetic modification can make a plant toxic to humans, and should be thoroughly tested before use, though we could say the same thing about novel cross-breeds of plants as well.
Sorry, I correct myself. It's B3, not B12. While I am a pedantic bitch, I'm not into nutrition and such, and as such my pedantry levels are limited in such a field.
Thank you for the correction, you get +1, Correcting me points.
If there's a problem with corn itself (I don't avoid corn particularly though I don't usually like it much. Too bland), it has the potential to have a *devastating* effect
Corn products are used as anti-caking agents.
They also fortify almost all alcohol in the US with a corn product.
The question is rather HOW toxic the problems are with corn. If it's not so bad that the minimal levels present in nearly everything is dangerous, then there is little concern... however if it is so toxic that those minimal levels are dangerous, then the regular corn itself would be extremely hazardous, and it would be pretty much impossible for Monsato to cover it up.
Schrodinger's Cat. From the interpretation I was given, although it can be thought of as either/or, the particle exists in either the particle state or wave state (or in between), but it cannot be in both simultaneously. It is only the information an observer has that changes the perceived state.
The math works for either at any time. From the quantum mechanics standpoint, from a practical standpoint it should be treated mathematically as if it were both... your interpretation of why this works however, is entirely up to you.
Patents only last 20 years (closer to 17 in practice) and become increasingly expensive over this period. Any patents from the '80s will now have expired. If the game is from the mid '90s then there may be a problem. Design patents, which would cover the look and feel of a game, only last 14 years, so they wouldn't apply for any game released before 1996. Note also that for a patent to have been licensed for designing a game, it would need to have been filed well before the game was released, so any game before about 1998 is likely to be fair game. The original question stipulated 'an old game', although didn't specify how old, exactly.
Exactly... which is why, even me as a horrible pedantic bitch still needs to talk to a lawyer about this stuff.:)
Particles are not waves, they can be thought of as waves OR as particles, and vice-versa.
If I can think of them as either waves or particles, then they exist in a superposition before I decide where they are both a wave and a particle at the same time.
That's the key: the problem is not the fact that this plant was genetically modified, but rather the specific proteins that it was engineered to produce.
This distinction will be lost on millions of reactionaries.
Sad that this was modded down because, unfortunately, it's true. The call will be "GM food kills", not "research has shown that some proteins that can be grown in highly modified corn caused organ damage in laboratory rats."
Actually, it sounds like the system worked to me.
"Research has shown that a protein in grapes and raisins causes kidney failure in dogs and cats."
or even, "Research has shown that chemical in hemlock can cause death in humans."
Nature is an asshole, everything is either trying to eat you or trying to keep you from eating it...
Imagine the headlines back in the day, "Research finds that eating Tomatoes will not kill you!"
Foods are found unsafe or safe all the time... we just care that we MADE the food unsafe.
If it's going to damage my liver, I'm switching to scotch. I'm sorry, Jack, but I just can't take the chance...
Unfortunately, your scotch and bourbon is likely fortified with a corn product.
The kind of "duh" think that I'm thinking about here is that, if this corn produces these insecticide-like chemicals, one should have to show that it is non-toxic in humans...
One could feasibly find a way to splice in genes that would make the product lethal to humans... so if you're "adding" something to the corn, it should be controlled the same as any other food additive.
Although, people wishing to avoid all GM foods, corn itself has been so selectively bred that it doesn't even resemble its nearest neighbors. It's even moribund if we ever disappear, because its seeds over compete and kill each other off. If you want to talk about crazy amounts of GM, take something that's essentially a grass, and turn it into corn.
Not like corn provides all its nutritional value unless its treated with a relatively strong-ish base anyways... lime is what's mostly used to break up the proteins on the kernel to produce vitamin B12...
My mother's side of my family has a genetic disposition to allergy to corn. Yeah, when she found out she had it, it really limited her ability to just buy whatever.
Although, since she stopped consuming HFCS, she started losing weight.
Often this is difficult. A lot of games made in the '80s, for example, were made by individuals who are not easy to trace or by small companies that have since ceased to exist. The copyright may have been transferred a dozen times through bankruptcies or asset sales and the current owner may not even be aware that they own it. They may transfer it again after the game is released and the new owner may notice that they can make some money by suing...
As noted above, the original authors may have had a patent license to produce their game, which they are unable to grant to you...
There's a lot more liability here than just the original rights holders... that's why everyone who knows enough about law says, "talk to a lawyer."
b) ignore the legal consequences and only deal with them if you get sued.
It takes being a bit cheeky, but you can also
c) contact the author/publisher of the old game and get (in writing) that they have no problems whatsoever with you releasing the clone.
If you're dealing with a company like Atari (who? yes, they still exist!) or anything Disney, you are probably out of luck. If you're dealing with a Scott Adams (of Pirate's adventure fame) type of person, there's probably no problem at all. As you say the game is rather obscure, so chances are they will have no problem with you releasing a remake, and they won't sue. Perhaps they can even benefit from your efforts, if you're willing to link to the original game!
Contacting the author/publisher of the old game (more accurately, the rights holder to the game) is covered under "pay for a lawyer".
If you go to the rights holder and work out anything in writing, it's entirely possible, that it's not even valid, or doesn't cover you appropriately, or whatever.
Or, alternatively, it's covered by option b... go to them, talk to them, get something in writing that may or may not be worth a damn, and when it goes big and they want a bigger slice, they sue you for breach of contract over some nitpick issue that you didn't think was a big deal.
If you want to know your legal liability ask a lawyer, do NOT just go off asking the potentially opposing partner to a suit for permission... you don't know what to correctly get, and you don't know what it's worth.
Example 1: you get consent from the trademark holder to have a name similar to the original, but then the person who got the patent rights comes after you for violating a patent that was incorporated into the game.
Example 2: you go to the original rights holder, and they say it's all cool, and then when you release the game, a third-party sues you for patent infringement, because the original rights holder never had the ability to grant you license to use a patent that they licensed.... as stated, the law is a complex rat's nest, and there's a reason why people have to go to school to learn it, and most states prevent people from practicing law outside of very narrow guidelines.
Its a little scary but I dated a lady for a while who thought the government was using here for non lethal weapons testing, by hitting her with EM waves.
Pity... Good looking with a very nice body... Such a waste...
I was dating a guy once who was absolutely paranoid that I was cheating on him... then he actually caught me in bed with the other guy... OOPS!:)
In other news, the Prime Minister released a press release today, explaining that recent government scandals were the result of "problems with the WiFi" which caused "mass delusions among Parliamentarians" which "made them do it." Mr. Brown promises that henceforth that the Parliamentary floor, retreats and other events will be WiFi-free in order to combat corruption. No word on Browning Street.
Huh? Who is this "parliament"? I would think it were another bureaucratic organization under the president, but there's no handy acronym for it.. so I'm totally lost.
There are entire buildings belonging to the Govt that are treated this way. It's been done for a long time as a way to prevent evesdropping on EM broadcasts from microphones & speakers.
It's called "Tempest" and not just microphones and speakers... you can figure out even what the person's screen is showing.
The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff, does it not?
In a civil suit the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The Plaintiff typically has to make a number of claims initially just to even start a suit. Of course, the first level of proof is just prima facie evidence, which really can be nearly anything... then the Defendant has the burden of proof for showing that the presented evidence is false.
The existence of his allergies or lack thereof is irrelevant. The case should be dismissed because it is not his neighbor's resonsibility to go beyond FCC regulations in limiting radio emissions from his property. Turning off his cell phone will also do nothing about the cell towers in the area.
The guy with the allergies can take steps to block or at least seriously attenuate signals comming into his house. It may not be cheap, but since when is dealing with medical problems cheap.
He can also move to a rural area where such emissions are less in order to avoid them.
This is perhaps the best explanation that I've read. The neighbor has absolutely no duty of care to go beyond the FCC regulations...
And in the case of EM, he could simply cover his walls with anti-EM wallpaper.
Is the cost reasonable though? One could argue that the person with the peanut allergy could put in a HIPA air filter system and wear a biological suit outside of her house... such things are unreasonable though for not only being annoying (bio suit) but as well, for being expensive (HIPA air filter).
Someone below posted something about EM-blocking paint, but it's about $400 for 5 liters. That's pretty obviously an unreasonable cost, when the barrier to his neighbor is just shutting the devices off.
WiFi sensitivity should easily count for paranormal
I suspect that Randi would call it "abnormal" rather than "paranormal", after all, WiFi scientifically exists, and there are various mechanisms for detecting electromagnetic fields throughout nature.
I believe that if one were able to prove their paranormal activities in controlled conditions that it would simply be "abnormal" in the first place. If the guy has Wi-Fi sensitivity and can detect it without the use of a device, I believe that would qualify as paranormal... and hell, if such a person does exist, I think they deserve $1M just for being able to prove it in laboratory conditions.
If he really had "electromagnetic allergies" he could've painted his whole house (walls, floors, ceilings, everything) with this stuff and been fine. He's just an attention seeker, a possible nutbag, and like I said, a moron.
At about $404 for five liters, that's an unreasonable cost. He's just trying to get an injunction having the neighbor turn it off until the case can be heard. At that point, he could potentially get the neighbor to foot the costs for the paint.
b) If he can't demonstrate his ability to detect electromagnetic fields under reasonable experimental conditions significantly more than chance, he owes the plaintiff the same amount he's seeking.
Why the amount he's seeking?
Wouldn't it be more fair to compensate the defendant for court fees (if any), lawyer salary, lost income/time and compensate the defendant for undue emotional distress? That is, make repairs exactly for the damage or losses you have caused, no more and no less?
Or should there be a disincentive towards filing suits? We all hate litigious bastards, especially the well-funded kind, but disincentives towards filing suits also impacts the little man.
I'm not saying I know the answer. I'm just suggesting that we should consider all the options (or at least a handful).
"An idea is a dangerous thing to have if it's your only idea." (I can't remember who said it, but I think David Allen quoted that person in Getting Things Done.)
If a judge dismisses your case because it's frivolous, he will typically do two things, dismiss the case with prejudice (meaning the plaintiff/petitioner cannot ever bring the same facts into court again) and require the plaintiff/petitioner to pay reasonable legal fees incurred by the defendant.
The problem is that a lot of cases that people think are frivolous are based upon a lot of facts, where they do create a question of law.
Even if we were to assume that these "electromagnetic allergies" did exist, no one is forcing that man to live there. As an example, I'm allergic to dogs, but I'm not suing my neighbor for owning one. It's my choice to live where I do and it's not my prerogative to tell him that he can't own a dog.
The law provides that it is unreasonable for someone to create a nuisance to another person that impinges upon their ability to enjoy their property.
You could sue your neighbor complaining about the allergies, but you likely wouldn't because it's not worth the legal effort. However, let's take a different example, your neighbor is now a manufacturing plant that came in after you bought your property, and has begun polluting the air. Guess what? They're not allowed to unreasonably pollute, and if it causes health effects upon you or your family, or even your guests, then it's their fault for causing those damages.
Pollution laws are built upon the same legal principles and standards as noise pollution, and allergy aggravation. As a prime example, suppose a person Alice is living in a house, and her neighbor Bob decides to plant peanuts, and make homemade peanut butter. Everything is fine, until some of the peanut dust floats into Alice's home and causes a severe anaphylactic shock response in Alice, who then has to be rushed to the hospital, where she recovers. She is now unable to return to her home, until the peanut dust has been removed, and the neighbor stops growing the peanuts.
Guess what? The law stands with Alice. She could sue Bob, and receive an injunction forcing him to stop growing peanuts, and potentially receive compensation for the damages caused (medical bills, hotel stays, etc.) This is of course all contingent upon Alice being able to take reasonable precautions to mitigate those damages. Namely, is there any way that she could reasonably prevent the nuisance without imposing on Bob. In this example? No.
In your case, you can put up a fence, and take drugs to prevent allergic reactions.
Slashdot Mirror
Not like corn provides all its nutritional value unless its treated with a relatively strong-ish base anyways... lime is what's mostly used to break up the proteins on the kernel to produce vitamin B12...
Corn can't produce vitamin B12. The components to do so exist, to modern scientific knowledge, in certain bacterial species (I am a nutritional biochemist). B12 is only used by bacteria and animals (no known usage or presence in plants, only bacterial contamination of said plants), and requires cobalt. To my knowledge, corn does not use, absorb or store cobalt under normal conditions.
While the rest of your post may have merit, the final paragraph is not scientifically accurate.
It is true, however, that genetic modification can make a plant toxic to humans, and should be thoroughly tested before use, though we could say the same thing about novel cross-breeds of plants as well.
Sorry, I correct myself. It's B3, not B12. While I am a pedantic bitch, I'm not into nutrition and such, and as such my pedantry levels are limited in such a field.
Thank you for the correction, you get +1, Correcting me points.
If there's a problem with corn itself (I don't avoid corn particularly though I don't usually like it much. Too bland), it has the potential to have a *devastating* effect
Corn products are used as anti-caking agents.
They also fortify almost all alcohol in the US with a corn product.
The question is rather HOW toxic the problems are with corn. If it's not so bad that the minimal levels present in nearly everything is dangerous, then there is little concern... however if it is so toxic that those minimal levels are dangerous, then the regular corn itself would be extremely hazardous, and it would be pretty much impossible for Monsato to cover it up.
Earth is a production system with no backups.
If this is true, then God is the shittiest sysadmin ever!
"Company of the year" has everything to do with business model, and not the quality of the product offered.
And yet Forbes likes to talk about "social responsibility".
http://www.google.com/search?q=forbes+social+responsibility
Of course... it's part of their successful business model... to mention it... not necessarily to practice it.
Schrodinger's Cat. From the interpretation I was given, although it can be thought of as either/or, the particle exists in either the particle state or wave state (or in between), but it cannot be in both simultaneously. It is only the information an observer has that changes the perceived state.
The math works for either at any time. From the quantum mechanics standpoint, from a practical standpoint it should be treated mathematically as if it were both... your interpretation of why this works however, is entirely up to you.
If you want a real trip, check out Phonons. :)
I'm really glad to see your sane and reasonable postings. Please keep it up.
If you are an example of horrible pedantic bitches, then the world needs millions more just like you.
Of course, I'm biased... I've been happily married (32 years) to a wonderful lady who also describes herself as a pedantic bitch.
Stonewolf
Actually, I think most people would go crazy over our constant nitpicking... I know my boyfriend gets bothered by it. :)
Patents only last 20 years (closer to 17 in practice) and become increasingly expensive over this period. Any patents from the '80s will now have expired. If the game is from the mid '90s then there may be a problem. Design patents, which would cover the look and feel of a game, only last 14 years, so they wouldn't apply for any game released before 1996. Note also that for a patent to have been licensed for designing a game, it would need to have been filed well before the game was released, so any game before about 1998 is likely to be fair game. The original question stipulated 'an old game', although didn't specify how old, exactly.
Exactly... which is why, even me as a horrible pedantic bitch still needs to talk to a lawyer about this stuff. :)
Particles are not waves, they can be thought of as waves OR as particles, and vice-versa.
If I can think of them as either waves or particles, then they exist in a superposition before I decide where they are both a wave and a particle at the same time.
That's the key: the problem is not the fact that this plant was genetically modified, but rather the specific proteins that it was engineered to produce.
This distinction will be lost on millions of reactionaries.
Sad that this was modded down because, unfortunately, it's true. The call will be "GM food kills", not "research has shown that some proteins that can be grown in highly modified corn caused organ damage in laboratory rats."
Actually, it sounds like the system worked to me.
"Research has shown that a protein in grapes and raisins causes kidney failure in dogs and cats."
or even, "Research has shown that chemical in hemlock can cause death in humans."
Nature is an asshole, everything is either trying to eat you or trying to keep you from eating it...
Imagine the headlines back in the day, "Research finds that eating Tomatoes will not kill you!"
Foods are found unsafe or safe all the time... we just care that we MADE the food unsafe.
If it's going to damage my liver, I'm switching to scotch. I'm sorry, Jack, but I just can't take the chance...
Unfortunately, your scotch and bourbon is likely fortified with a corn product.
The kind of "duh" think that I'm thinking about here is that, if this corn produces these insecticide-like chemicals, one should have to show that it is non-toxic in humans...
One could feasibly find a way to splice in genes that would make the product lethal to humans... so if you're "adding" something to the corn, it should be controlled the same as any other food additive.
Although, people wishing to avoid all GM foods, corn itself has been so selectively bred that it doesn't even resemble its nearest neighbors. It's even moribund if we ever disappear, because its seeds over compete and kill each other off. If you want to talk about crazy amounts of GM, take something that's essentially a grass, and turn it into corn.
Not like corn provides all its nutritional value unless its treated with a relatively strong-ish base anyways... lime is what's mostly used to break up the proteins on the kernel to produce vitamin B12...
Corn is in every-fucken-thing. You cant avoid it.
My mother's side of my family has a genetic disposition to allergy to corn. Yeah, when she found out she had it, it really limited her ability to just buy whatever.
Although, since she stopped consuming HFCS, she started losing weight.
what's most disturbing about this is forbes magazine just named monsanto company of the year.
"Company of the year" has everything to do with business model, and not the quality of the product offered.
Often this is difficult. A lot of games made in the '80s, for example, were made by individuals who are not easy to trace or by small companies that have since ceased to exist. The copyright may have been transferred a dozen times through bankruptcies or asset sales and the current owner may not even be aware that they own it. They may transfer it again after the game is released and the new owner may notice that they can make some money by suing...
As noted above, the original authors may have had a patent license to produce their game, which they are unable to grant to you...
There's a lot more liability here than just the original rights holders... that's why everyone who knows enough about law says, "talk to a lawyer."
It takes being a bit cheeky, but you can also
c) contact the author/publisher of the old game and get (in writing) that they have no problems whatsoever with you releasing the clone.
If you're dealing with a company like Atari (who? yes, they still exist!) or anything Disney, you are probably out of luck. If you're dealing with a Scott Adams (of Pirate's adventure fame) type of person, there's probably no problem at all. As you say the game is rather obscure, so chances are they will have no problem with you releasing a remake, and they won't sue. Perhaps they can even benefit from your efforts, if you're willing to link to the original game!
Contacting the author/publisher of the old game (more accurately, the rights holder to the game) is covered under "pay for a lawyer".
If you go to the rights holder and work out anything in writing, it's entirely possible, that it's not even valid, or doesn't cover you appropriately, or whatever.
Or, alternatively, it's covered by option b... go to them, talk to them, get something in writing that may or may not be worth a damn, and when it goes big and they want a bigger slice, they sue you for breach of contract over some nitpick issue that you didn't think was a big deal.
If you want to know your legal liability ask a lawyer, do NOT just go off asking the potentially opposing partner to a suit for permission... you don't know what to correctly get, and you don't know what it's worth.
Example 1: you get consent from the trademark holder to have a name similar to the original, but then the person who got the patent rights comes after you for violating a patent that was incorporated into the game.
Example 2: you go to the original rights holder, and they say it's all cool, and then when you release the game, a third-party sues you for patent infringement, because the original rights holder never had the ability to grant you license to use a patent that they licensed. ... as stated, the law is a complex rat's nest, and there's a reason why people have to go to school to learn it, and most states prevent people from practicing law outside of very narrow guidelines.
You use the "nu" when dealing with particles. For waves it is f. In electronics it is practically always f.
But since all particles are waves, which should one use?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia
Its a little scary but I dated a lady for a while who thought the government was using here for non lethal weapons testing, by hitting her with EM waves.
Pity... Good looking with a very nice body... Such a waste...
I was dating a guy once who was absolutely paranoid that I was cheating on him... then he actually caught me in bed with the other guy... OOPS! :)
In other news, the Prime Minister released a press release today, explaining that recent government scandals were the result of "problems with the WiFi" which caused "mass delusions among Parliamentarians" which "made them do it." Mr. Brown promises that henceforth that the Parliamentary floor, retreats and other events will be WiFi-free in order to combat corruption. No word on Browning Street.
Huh? Who is this "parliament"? I would think it were another bureaucratic organization under the president, but there's no handy acronym for it.. so I'm totally lost.
There are entire buildings belonging to the Govt that are treated this way. It's been done for a long time as a way to prevent evesdropping on EM broadcasts from microphones & speakers.
It's called "Tempest" and not just microphones and speakers... you can figure out even what the person's screen is showing.
The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff, does it not?
In a civil suit the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The Plaintiff typically has to make a number of claims initially just to even start a suit. Of course, the first level of proof is just prima facie evidence, which really can be nearly anything... then the Defendant has the burden of proof for showing that the presented evidence is false.
The existence of his allergies or lack thereof is irrelevant. The case should be dismissed because it is not his neighbor's resonsibility to go beyond FCC regulations in limiting radio emissions from his property. Turning off his cell phone will also do nothing about the cell towers in the area.
The guy with the allergies can take steps to block or at least seriously attenuate signals comming into his house. It may not be cheap, but since when is dealing with medical problems cheap.
He can also move to a rural area where such emissions are less in order to avoid them.
This is perhaps the best explanation that I've read. The neighbor has absolutely no duty of care to go beyond the FCC regulations...
And in the case of EM, he could simply cover his walls with anti-EM wallpaper.
Is the cost reasonable though? One could argue that the person with the peanut allergy could put in a HIPA air filter system and wear a biological suit outside of her house... such things are unreasonable though for not only being annoying (bio suit) but as well, for being expensive (HIPA air filter).
Someone below posted something about EM-blocking paint, but it's about $400 for 5 liters. That's pretty obviously an unreasonable cost, when the barrier to his neighbor is just shutting the devices off.
WiFi sensitivity should easily count for paranormal
I suspect that Randi would call it "abnormal" rather than "paranormal", after all, WiFi scientifically exists, and there are various mechanisms for detecting electromagnetic fields throughout nature.
I believe that if one were able to prove their paranormal activities in controlled conditions that it would simply be "abnormal" in the first place. If the guy has Wi-Fi sensitivity and can detect it without the use of a device, I believe that would qualify as paranormal... and hell, if such a person does exist, I think they deserve $1M just for being able to prove it in laboratory conditions.
And quite possibly a douchebag.
If he really had "electromagnetic allergies" he could've painted his whole house (walls, floors, ceilings, everything) with this stuff and been fine. He's just an attention seeker, a possible nutbag, and like I said, a moron.
At about $404 for five liters, that's an unreasonable cost. He's just trying to get an injunction having the neighbor turn it off until the case can be heard. At that point, he could potentially get the neighbor to foot the costs for the paint.
I doubt such a thing would happen though...
b) If he can't demonstrate his ability to detect electromagnetic fields under reasonable experimental conditions significantly more than chance, he owes the plaintiff the same amount he's seeking.
Why the amount he's seeking?
Wouldn't it be more fair to compensate the defendant for court fees (if any), lawyer salary, lost income/time and compensate the defendant for undue emotional distress? That is, make repairs exactly for the damage or losses you have caused, no more and no less?
Or should there be a disincentive towards filing suits? We all hate litigious bastards, especially the well-funded kind, but disincentives towards filing suits also impacts the little man.
I'm not saying I know the answer. I'm just suggesting that we should consider all the options (or at least a handful).
"An idea is a dangerous thing to have if it's your only idea." (I can't remember who said it, but I think David Allen quoted that person in Getting Things Done.)
If a judge dismisses your case because it's frivolous, he will typically do two things, dismiss the case with prejudice (meaning the plaintiff/petitioner cannot ever bring the same facts into court again) and require the plaintiff/petitioner to pay reasonable legal fees incurred by the defendant.
The problem is that a lot of cases that people think are frivolous are based upon a lot of facts, where they do create a question of law.
Even if we were to assume that these "electromagnetic allergies" did exist, no one is forcing that man to live there. As an example, I'm allergic to dogs, but I'm not suing my neighbor for owning one. It's my choice to live where I do and it's not my prerogative to tell him that he can't own a dog.
The law provides that it is unreasonable for someone to create a nuisance to another person that impinges upon their ability to enjoy their property.
You could sue your neighbor complaining about the allergies, but you likely wouldn't because it's not worth the legal effort. However, let's take a different example, your neighbor is now a manufacturing plant that came in after you bought your property, and has begun polluting the air. Guess what? They're not allowed to unreasonably pollute, and if it causes health effects upon you or your family, or even your guests, then it's their fault for causing those damages.
Pollution laws are built upon the same legal principles and standards as noise pollution, and allergy aggravation. As a prime example, suppose a person Alice is living in a house, and her neighbor Bob decides to plant peanuts, and make homemade peanut butter. Everything is fine, until some of the peanut dust floats into Alice's home and causes a severe anaphylactic shock response in Alice, who then has to be rushed to the hospital, where she recovers. She is now unable to return to her home, until the peanut dust has been removed, and the neighbor stops growing the peanuts.
Guess what? The law stands with Alice. She could sue Bob, and receive an injunction forcing him to stop growing peanuts, and potentially receive compensation for the damages caused (medical bills, hotel stays, etc.) This is of course all contingent upon Alice being able to take reasonable precautions to mitigate those damages. Namely, is there any way that she could reasonably prevent the nuisance without imposing on Bob. In this example? No.
In your case, you can put up a fence, and take drugs to prevent allergic reactions.