|
withak posted:Like fibromyalgia except crazier and on the internet. http://www.intidyn.com/Newsroom/article-0009.html
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 05:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:59 |
|
|
Puddums posted:Well, your link didn't work but I'm sure it was legitimate. Not sure what Norton_l is but interested to know. norton_l is a poster who earlier in the thread pointed out that there is no difference in rBST levels in milk from cows treated and not treated with the hormone. I accidentally added a comma at the end of the link, which is why it didn't work for you. Here is the link with the comma removed: http://www.agbioforum.org/v3n23/v3n23a14-collier.htm The link claims that what you just said is not true. rBST cannot be detected in pasteurized cow's milk, and is present in the same ~1 part per billion concentration in unpasteurized milk from cows both treated and not treated with the hormone. 1 ppb is really dilute--for reference, I happen to know that the maximum rated safe exposure level for arsine gas, which is an incredibly poisonous gas used in semiconductor manufacturing but originally was researched by the US for use in chemical warfare and abandoned because it was too dangerous to transport to the battlefield, is 5-50 ppb concentration in air over an 8 hour time span. This stuff is literally poison gas, but regulatory bodies claim that 1 ppb arsine in air is not that bad. The link also addresses your concerns regarding antibiotics. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Jul 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:norton_l is a poster who earlier in the thread pointed out that there is no difference in rBST levels in milk from cows treated and not treated with the hormone. I accidentally added a comma at the end of the link, which is why it didn't work for you. Here is the link with the comma removed: http://www.agbioforum.org/v3n23/v3n23a14-collier.htm Oh shoot, I didn't even notice that little comma, haha. That was a good history lesson, thank you for sharing that article. I am getting conflicting research results, as I suspected. Like I said before, you can always find a study or two (or three, or four) that supports either side of the argument. Here's a great publication put out by my country on why they chose to ban rBST milk and how they came to their decision. http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/361/agri/rep/repintermar99part1-e.htm It's all terrible confusing. Here's another publication by Parliament that has some conflicting information from the first one. All within the same government body. http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/modules/prb98-1-rbST/impactonhealth.htm But the be all end all is the phrasing that they are reiterating "generally accepted information." Which to me sounds like there is certainly a lot of inconclusiveness surrounding this topic. Perhaps there just hasn't been enough time between then and now to establish concrete facts and findings. Not only, but that publication also claims that it is generally accepted that there is no difference between the milk of treated vs. untreated cows, which is not at all what I have been learning. "The district court held that the compos ition claims were inherently misleading because “they imply a compositional difference between those products that are produced with rb[ST] and those that are not,” in contravention of the FDA’s finding that there is no measurable compositional difference between the two. This conclusion is belied by the record, however, which shows that, contrary to the district court’s assertion, a compositional difference does exis t between milk from untreated cows and conventional milk (“conventional milk,” as used throughout this opinion, refers to milk from cows treated with rbST). As detaile d by the amici parties seeking to strike down the Rule, the use of rbST in milk production has been shown to elevate the levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), a naturally-occurring hormone that in high levels is linked to several types of cancers, among ot her things. The amici also point to certain Nos. 09-3515/3526 Int’l Dairy Foods rear end’n et al. v. Boggs Page 10 studies indicating that rbST use induces an unnatural period of milk production during a cow’s “negative energy phase.” According to these studies, milk produced during this stage is considered to be low quality due to its increased fat content and its decreased level of proteins. The amici further note that milk from treated cows contains higher somatic cell counts, which makes the milk turn sour more quickly and is another indicator of poor milk quality. This evidence precludes us from agreeing with the district court’s conclusion that there is no compositional difference between the two types of milk" http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0322p-06.pdf I figured I might as well copy paste that because there is a lot of legalese to read through in this document, but its also really kind of interesting too and I hope you will have a look at it. I'm sure you can find just as much information to support your argument as I can mine. At the end of the day I just think this comes down to a matter of informed opinion, I do see the up side of using the synthetic hormone as it has shown to benefit the livelihood of dairy farmers, and possibly brought down the cost of milk to consumers. But at what cost to consumers? That's what concerns me. I just see consumers being taken advantage of in many other instances and I suppose that fact make me a little more prone to side with them and have concern for the well being of them in the hands of corps-for-profit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
Puddums posted:Oh shoot, I didn't even notice that little comma, haha. That was a good history lesson, thank you for sharing that article. I am getting conflicting research results, as I suspected. Like I said before, you can always find a study or two (or three, or four) that supports either side of the argument. I am not seeing any major conflicting research results. The link that I provided failed to mention the concern over the IGF-1 protein, which according to your links, actually is present in measurable amounts in pasteurized milk and is more abundant in milk from cows treated with rbST than non-treated cow's milk. Your links don't really state how much more abundant the IGF-1 protein is in milk from rbST treated cows than milk from non-treated cows however. Your links also state that the IGF-1 concentration in milk from cows treated with rbST is negligible (0.02%) compared to the natural levels of IGF-1 in the human body.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I am not seeing any major conflicting research results. The link that I provided failed to mention the concern over the IGF-1 protein, which according to your links, actually is present in measurable amounts in pasteurized milk and is more abundant in milk from cows treated with rbST than non-treated cow's milk. Your links don't really state how much more abundant the IGF-1 protein is in milk from rbST treated cows than milk from non-treated cows however. Your links also state that the IGF-1 concentration in milk from cows treated with rbST is negligible (0.02%) compared to the natural levels of IGF-1 in the human body. There are definitely conflicting research results, not sure how major you are looking for, though. It's commonly known that hormone imbalances can have very serious effects. That being said, I really can't expand because there is no standardized way to "measure hormones" so I'm really not sure how * ppm would translate into the generally accepted levels for each hormone into the body. One of the findings said that IGF-1 can be up to 5 times higher than in that of untreated cows. But now we're getting into an areas which I know nothing about to this extent. I'm glad this product is banned in my country. Here's a thing about how hormones are measures if you're interested. I like how much this conversation has gotten me to look into things, thank you  http://oxfordmedicine.com/view/10.1093/med/9780199235292.001.1/med-9780199235292-chapter-0107 Measuring hormones has always been a challenge as most circulate at extremely low concentrations, typically in the pico- (10–12) or nanomolar (10–9) range, and often in a milieu of closely related and potentially interfering compounds making great demands on method sensitivity and specificity. The most common procedures currently used are immuno- and immunometric assays but gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GCMS) and high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) also have a place. Liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) is rapidly gaining acceptance for a limited number of hormone measurements. Puddums fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Jul 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
Puddums posted:There are definitely conflicting research results, not sure how major you are looking for, though. It's commonly known that hormone imbalances can have very serious effects. That being said, I really can't expand because there is no standardized way to "measure hormones" so I'm really not sure how * ppm would translate into the generally accepted levels for each hormone into the body. This line of argument is starting to be a little disingenuous. You cannot claim "there's studies for every viewpoint" as if that somehow makes the truth irrelevant (and by extension discredits science as a valid way to find truth).
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
Puddums posted:There are definitely conflicting research results, not sure how major you are looking for, though. It's commonly known that hormone imbalances can have very serious effects. That being said, I really can't expand because there is no standardized way to "measure hormones" so I'm really not sure how * ppm would translate into the generally accepted levels for each hormone into the body. On one hand you claim that measurements of hormone levels are imprecise in order to discredit the claim in your link that the IGF-1 levels in milk are 10^4 more dilute than levels in human blood (one might question if the normal fluctuations in the hormone levels drown out the addition of the hormone from the milk!), but on the other hand you believe in the measurements enough to agree with the conclusion that the levels are 5x higher in the treated cow's (milk? Or blood?) than the untreated cows.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 07:04
|
|
|
Count Chocula posted:This still makes more sense then the "GMOs are bad because nature is good" argument. The Earth is the creator of decay and death. I'd rather food engineered as closely by people as possible rather than trusting to random evolutionary chance. Monsanto may be 'evil' (though I think that cedes ground to the Luddites) but its still done more net good than people trying to stop its crops (who tend to also try and stop vaccines and fluoride). Is this post for real? Like holy poo poo that seems like something someone making a straw man would say, like holy crap is saying you don't trust evolution kind of goddamn surreal. Personally I find myself neutral about GMOs, I think they have a great potential, and theres no reason that they can't be implemented along with other farming traditions, crop rotation etc,etc. The problem becomes if we're going to continue forcing monoculture everywhere, not just the Third World though it is particularly damaging there. Christ this isn't an all or nothing concept, yeah Anti-Vax and Fluoride people are crazy and annoying, but the sociopaths that run the global market I'm gonna say are worse than a bunch of misguided hippies, which why aren't we beyond using that as a pejorative yet? I got a friend who just doesn't understand that the level of fluoride in drinking water is nowhere close to what a dangerous level is, me and a few others are constantly arguing with him about it, he even posted something on Facebook one day about fluoride negatively effecting regions of China, and upon digging past the post from whatever anti-flouride site it was showed that the levels they were talking about were naturally occurring. This was a few months back so I don't really have anything left from that night. Hell I don't think nuclear power is the panacea, wonder solution to the worlds power problems on its own, which many of its most ardent supporters seem to think it is. Also Im gonna leave this here. [url] http://www.themodernword.com/pynchon/pynchon_essays_luddite.html[url/]
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 08:41
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Is this post for real? Like holy poo poo that seems like something someone making a straw man would say, like holy crap is saying you don't trust evolution kind of goddamn surreal. I don't trust evolution, or to put it better natural selection. Artificial selection has done humanity much better. We don't want our grain crops expending energy competing against each other for sunlight when that energy could be better used to grow more seed. quote:Personally I find myself neutral about GMOs, I think they have a great potential, and theres no reason that they can't be implemented along with other farming traditions, crop rotation etc,etc. The problem becomes if we're going to continue forcing monoculture everywhere, not just the Third World though it is particularly damaging there. Christ this isn't an all or nothing concept, yeah Anti-Vax and Fluoride people are crazy and annoying, but the sociopaths that run the global market I'm gonna say are worse than a bunch of misguided hippies, which why aren't we beyond using that as a pejorative yet? Monoculture? Again crop rotation has been a conventional farming best practice for the last 40 years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 10:35
|
|
|
karthun posted:I don't trust evolution, or to put it better natural selection. Artificial selection has done humanity much better. We don't want our grain crops expending energy competing against each other for sunlight when that energy could be better used to grow more seed. This is a really strange post. Grain crops already actively compete with each other, it just doesn't matter cause of yield compensation,canopy closure and the ability of the farmer to nutritionally compensate. From a disease perspective, modern farming definitely can be defined as a monoculture on a rotation by rotation basis but environmental effects are more nuanced. Also, not all crop rotations are inherently good for the environment but sometimes you gotta take advantage of the economic situation. Plants don't give two shits about us but natural and artificial selection go hand in hand. Many genetic characteristics relied upon were not actively selected for and some of them have turned up to be insanely profitable, such as with the Clearfield system. I understand where you probably were going but could you clean it up a bit? Most people really don't understand agriculture and it is easy for concepts to mislead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 11:25
|
|
|
Hypha posted:This is a really strange post. Grain crops already actively compete with each other, it just doesn't matter cause of yield compensation,canopy closure and the ability of the farmer to nutritionally compensate. From a disease perspective, modern farming definitely can be defined as a monoculture on a rotation by rotation basis but environmental effects are more nuanced. Also, not all crop rotations are inherently good for the environment but sometimes you gotta take advantage of the economic situation. Grain crops actively compete against each other, but natural selection that leads to the most fit wheat is not necessary going to be the most desirable for cultivation. Secondly if it is on a rotation by rotation basis it isn't a monoculture. Also considering the requirement of refuge for GMO crops one really has to stretch the concept of a monoculture to make it fit. It isn't the 70's anymore where you plant the same corn over and over again. You will be running multiple cultivars per field and changing your cultivars every year. quote:Plants don't give two shits about us but natural and artificial selection go hand in hand. Many genetic characteristics relied upon were not actively selected for and some of them have turned up to be insanely profitable, such as with the Clearfield system. Wheat ALS pesticide resistance wasn't naturally selected. New genes were created by human intervention and we eventually came up with genes that worked. Weeds that have pesticide resistance, now that is natural selection.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 12:28
|
|
|
karthun posted:Grain crops actively compete against each other, but natural selection that leads to the most fit wheat is not necessary going to be the most desirable for cultivation. Secondly if it is on a rotation by rotation basis it isn't a monoculture. Also considering the requirement of refuge for GMO crops one really has to stretch the concept of a monoculture to make it fit. It isn't the 70's anymore where you plant the same corn over and over again. You will be running multiple cultivars per field and changing your cultivars every year. I confess, I was wrong regarding the origins of the Clearfield system. Please note, I was considering the original crop that the system was developed from, mainly corn as I understand it. I thought it was a more serendipitous discovery in the field, compared to an in vitro cell culture selection. This does not mean they underwent mutagenesis, as the lines were generated from A188 and B73 hybrid backcrosses before the selection process. This is still artificial selection but there was no intervention that involved the creation of new genes. The process initially was very much forward genetics, not reverse. Initially, we only had the phenotype to work with. I will give you that ALS resistance was a poor choice as an example for naturally selected traits critical to agriculture. It did allow for a wonderful follow-up on farmers by-passing GMO's if need be and how attitudes wouldn't change but alas was not as I thought. Allow me to make that up with instead UG 99 resistance, which I am certain can only be garnered from land races and allies. Also, you don't understand what I mean by a disease perspective. Foliar diseases such as stripe rust do not require multiple seasons of the same crop to exert disease pressure. Secondary infection can occur easily within one growing season and cause significant losses. A field still has only one crop sown within it in one season, usually with the same resistances, and cultivar differences can be not significant depending on how completely current resistances have been by-passed. It is not a monoculture over time but per rotation, it is a monoculture. When I think of polyculture, I think of peas and oats being grown together at the same time (which I am told works really well), not sequentially in the rotation. Even so, there are still lots of farmers who cheat their rotations to maximize short-term profits. I have heard north western farmers in Canada tell me they only grow two things, snow and canola. Best practice is not always followed if you can get $17 dollars per bushel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
Jetsetlemming posted:Fibromyalgia is real. Doctors for the longest time thought it was psychosomatic, and so that threw off finding a cause, but recently a study of nerve functionality in Fibromyalgia patients found that they had increased sensitivity, the point of painful stimulation, for temperature changes in their hands. "We don't know what's wrong with you therefore your suffering isn't real" should be it's own special category of scientific ignorance. I have fibromyalgia and my suffering is very real. But I guess it's easier to poo poo on people than admit ignorance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
Moritastic posted:"We don't know what's wrong with you therefore your suffering isn't real" should be it's own special category of scientific ignorance. I have fibromyalgia and my suffering is very real. But I guess it's easier to poo poo on people than admit ignorance. Psychosomatic conditions are no less "real". We know that MSG sensitivity is not actually a thing, because people who claim they have it aren't affected in blinded trials and don't have problems eating natural glutamate sources. But people who are MSG sensitive really do suffer, in the same way that you are; there's just no physical cause behind it. The lack of evidence that there was a physical cause of fibromyalgia wasn't some kind of scientific malpractice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:Psychosomatic conditions are no less "real". We know that MSG sensitivity is not actually a thing, because people who claim they have it aren't affected in blinded trials and don't have problems eating natural glutamate sources. But people who are MSG sensitive really do suffer, in the same way that you are; there's just no physical cause behind it. The lack of evidence that there was a physical cause of fibromyalgia wasn't some kind of scientific malpractice. I agree that psychosomatic conditions are no less real. But it absolutely is an issue that the lack of evidence or ignorance is used against the person with the suffering. It's not their fault the evidence doesn't exist. Like I said, the suffering is real (whether FM or a psychosomatic condition or PTSD or whatever), but it's treated as if it isn't and then the blame is placed on the person. Are you saying there aren't very real problems with how many people are treated who suffer from a variety of conditions because of "lack of evidence" or "it's all in their head."
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
Glutamate is an important excitatory neurotransmitter with many functions throughout the body, introducing large amounts of it in high concentration to the body could have very easily explainable effects. Granted, its present in non-MSG form in a lot of other foods like cheese soy sauce etc, but its not like a biologically inert substance or something. It turns into sodium and glutamate ions when you ingest it, possibly more readily and in a different way than how its present in foods naturally. Add to that a large influx of additional sodium both in the form of MSG and the probably large amount of NaCl already present in the foods its being added to, affecting electrolyte balance etc, and you have a recipe for mild discomfort or headaches or whatever those people suffer from.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
Mr. Self Destruct posted:Glutamate is an important excitatory neurotransmitter with many functions throughout the body, introducing large amounts of it in high concentration to the body could have very easily explainable effects. Granted, its present in non-MSG form in a lot of other foods like cheese soy sauce etc, but its not like a biologically inert substance or something. It turns into sodium and glutamate ions when you ingest it, possibly more readily and in a different way than how its present in foods naturally. Add to that a large influx of additional sodium both in the form of MSG and the probably large amount of NaCl already present in the foods its being added to, affecting electrolyte balance etc, and you have a recipe for mild discomfort or headaches or whatever those people suffer from. Glutamate is a basic amino acid, so it's found in basically everything. It's present in most foods in exactly the same free form as MSG dissolved in water. Consuming MSG doesn't create any effect in experimental trials, which probably means MSG sensitivity is not due to MSG but something associated with MSG, like the cheap greasy food that MSG is usually added to, amplified by psychosomatic effects. And honestly there's probably a racial angle here, too. Foreign Chinese food made by untrustworthy foreigners is not nutritious or good for you, and any feelings you have after eating it are cause for suspicion, but good old processed American food with exactly the same stuff in it is perfectly fine and if you feel sick afterwards it's obviously because you ate too much. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Jul 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
karthun posted:I don't trust evolution, or to put it better natural selection. Artificial selection has done humanity much better. We don't want our grain crops expending energy competing against each other for sunlight when that energy could be better used to grow more seed. Or we could let the plants select among themselves based on local conditions. Long-term stability in a crop is far more important than boosting production per acre for a few years. Thinking that yield productivity is the only metric that matters, soil nutrient depletion and water requirements be damned, is the quickest way to gently caress our agricultural lands long-term aside from just using them as dumping grounds for waste.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 08:46
|
|
|
TheFuglyStik posted:Or we could let the plants select among themselves based on local conditions. Long-term stability in a crop is far more important than boosting production per acre for a few years. Thinking that yield productivity is the only metric that matters, soil nutrient depletion and water requirements be damned, is the quickest way to gently caress our agricultural lands long-term aside from just using them as dumping grounds for waste. And how does this apply to GMO crops and not conventional crops?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 12:43
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:And how does this apply to GMO crops and not conventional crops? It applies to both equally. If we're selecting seed normally to increase yield at the expense of all else it's a problem long-term. The same principal can come into play with GMOs if we have the same priorities, just a different method for selecting genes in the crop.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
TheFuglyStik posted:It applies to both equally. If we're selecting seed normally to increase yield at the expense of all else it's a problem long-term. The same principal can come into play with GMOs if we have the same priorities, just a different method for selecting genes in the crop. Except natural selection doesn't care about soil depletion or water requirements either. What happens is that those plants will undergo boom/bust cycles or just a boom until displaced by something else or until they completely exhaust the area and die off permanently. If they're good at moving around and can outcompete existing competitors, they'll end up spreading to some other area that's not so depleted until they reach the limits of their mobility and have wrecked the whole area, then go extinct (unless they have enough room that the areas they've already wrecked can rebuild to a habitable state and can be recolonized again). Though "wreck" is a human-level judgment, since all that's really happened is a change in the environment and nature doesn't give a poo poo and is undergoing constant change. Over a long enough period of time, the various organisms in the area will probably reach some sort of equilibrium either through a mutual deadlock of evenly matched competition and predation or else by massive die-offs and replacement by other organisms. But whether that equilibrium ends up being an actually desirable state for people is entirely unpredictable but probably rather unlikely. Usually, of course, especially if it's a domesticated plant, there's already so many much, much better competitors in the environment that they'll just be crowded out and die first. Giant edible seeds and tender parts that aren't tiny or filled with unpalatable toxins and/or giant sugary fruits are all huge, vulnerable energy sinks that represent massive competitive disadvantages compared to wild plants, which spend a lot more of their energy budget on killing or otherwise out-competing their neighbors and defending against predators instead of growing bloated, easily harvested blobs of food energy. The "purpose" of a wild organism is to survive and reproduce, not be useful to people, and even then I put purpose in quotes because nothing has any purpose at all without a human viewpoint to assign it one - things that are good at existing tend to exist and that is all. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Jul 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
A lot more goes into breeding a variety than just yield. Increased yields is incredibly valued but not every new variety has to exceed the previous one; provided it provides something else and can at least match the check lines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 06:51
|
|
|
So this apparently just happened. http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/26/golden_rice_attack_in_philippines_anti_gmo_activists_lie_about_protest_and.html Really makes me lose respect for Greenpeace that they would agitate against Golden Rice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:So this apparently just happened. It's exactly because of poo poo like this that I cannot take large parts of the environmentalism movement seriously. Why are so many anti-science?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:It's exactly because of poo poo like this that I cannot take large parts of the environmentalism movement seriously. Why are so many anti-science? Misplaced anger. There's a huge current in the movement that is against development. The problem is, they get mad at the folks who create new ideas rather than the developers themselves. Tack a blind rage against anything that's not greenwashed successfully, and you've got exactly what happened in the Philippines. As an environmentalist myself, it's the biggest irritant to me coming from others I meet. No movement is immune from logical fallacies and tilting at windmills. Folks on this forum presented an argument that changed my mind on GMOs, and that's really the only way to combat that kind of resistance to science. Some will listen, and others will never budge from opinions in the face of contrary evidence. It has blowhards, slacktivists, and firebrands who don't necessarily know what they're talking about, just like any other movement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:So this apparently just happened. You never should have had respect for Greenpeace if you have any respect for science. At no point in their history have they been motivated by reason, it's all just another blind ideology that just happens to bumble its way into appearing intelligent more often than not. Unfortunately, it's probably not as sexy to donate to the environmental group that stays silent on such terrors as GMOs and nuclear energy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
TheFuglyStik posted:Misplaced anger. There's a huge current in the movement that is against development. The problem is, they get mad at the folks who create new ideas rather than the developers themselves. Tack a blind rage against anything that's not greenwashed successfully, and you've got exactly what happened in the Philippines. As an environmentalist myself, it's the biggest irritant to me coming from others I meet. No movement is immune from logical fallacies and tilting at windmills. What do you mean by "a movement against development"? Development of what in particular?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 05:21
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:What do you mean by "a movement against development"? Development of what in particular? New crops, I would assume. If a new breed of plant was created in a lab, there's a lot of people who will assume that it'll give you some kind of cyberpunk mystery cancer if you eat it. GMOs are Inherently Evil, as far as they're concerned.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 07:58
|
|
|
Jeedy Jay posted:New crops, I would assume. If a new breed of plant was created in a lab, there's a lot of people who will assume that it'll give you some kind of cyberpunk mystery cancer if you eat it. GMOs are Inherently Evil, as far as they're concerned. I have extreme difficulty looking at at the techniques involved in genetic manipulation, such as Agrobacterium based methods, and seeing what harm they can cause "blank". The genes you insert are a case-by-case basis but making something purple should not make it toxic unless the purple you use is itself inherently harmful. If the traits are benign in nature, how are they now incredibly dangerous just because they got a constitutive promoter? Maybe the big thing is that Agrobacterium induce tumors and somehow these galls are equivalent to cancer tumors?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 08:11
|
|
|
Hypha posted:Maybe the big thing is that Agrobacterium induce tumors and somehow these galls are equivalent to cancer tumors? Yeah, I doubt that the thought process behind the GMO fear is that fancy. Besides, the Agrobacterium gene vectors have had those tumour inducing genes removed anyways.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 08:49
|
|
|
Greenpeace had a purpose once upon a time but their historical brand of environmentalism is now entirely mainstream (since the science panned out and people have realized that making GBS threads where you eat is a bad idea). So they've started to radicalize a bit because they want to maintain their radical roots instead of doing something smart, like switching to attacking climate change deniers or some similar cause that needs aggressive activism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Greenpeace had a purpose once upon a time but their historical brand of environmentalism is now entirely mainstream (since the science panned out and people have realized that making GBS threads where you eat is a bad idea). So they've started to radicalize a bit because they want to maintain their radical roots instead of doing something smart, like switching to attacking climate change deniers or some similar cause that needs aggressive activism. Like trying to infiltrate a Formula 1 race? Yeah, that happened this weekend, it was kind of silly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Like trying to infiltrate a Formula 1 race? Yeah, that happened this weekend, it was kind of silly. Silly indeed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
TheFuglyStik posted:It applies to both equally. If we're selecting seed normally to increase yield at the expense of all else it's a problem long-term. The same principal can come into play with GMOs if we have the same priorities, just a different method for selecting genes in the crop. You know we've been selectively breeding basic staples like wheat and cows for thousands of years?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 05:50
|
|
|
Rudager posted:You know we've been selectively breeding basic staples like wheat and cows for thousands of years? Yes. I can't find a reason to consider selective breeding bad unless we're using it to produce crops/animals that can't survive less than ideal conditions. See turkeys that can't physically reproduce on their own. There's a lot to be said for resilience in our food supply. Solkanar512 posted:What do you mean by "a movement against development"? Development of what in particular? Not just development in new crops, but further development of natural resources and land that isn't focused on protecting the environment. I'm all for the idea of opposing such things if there's good reason for opposition like with Keystone XL, but only when it's not taken to extremes such as the BANANA principle (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything).
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 11:22
|
|
|
TheFuglyStik posted:taken to extremes such as the BANANA principle (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything). This explains Bellingham, WA in a nutshell. In the weekly paper (Cascadia Weekly I believe?) a plurality if not a majority of the letters to the editor constantly complain about any sort of new residential development while decrying rising housing costs. I didn't realize there was a clever name for that, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:So this apparently just happened. Greenpeace is like a semi-retarded kid that means well but most of the time ends up screwing up. It's very hard (when I consider myself an environmentalist) to see the organisations supposedly on our side doing dumb things like this. A large number of scientists agree that nuclear power is the way to go to effectively lower carbon emissions, yet greenpeace activists look no further than 'omfg radioactive poo poo is bad'. The F1 race 'infiltration' was even more silly. Yes, out of all the things that need to be done about pollution/the environment, a few cars going around on a circuit CLEARLY is worse than, say, a single average cargo ship or the plane that likely flew her to that destination in the first place. Regarding the OP: it's very hard to make progress with someone who has no scientific background. The most common case is people confusing causation and correlation. You cannot explain the difference unless that person has basic statistics background. Same with 'significance' in any kind of scientific study. I think it's a tragedy that kids can now go through high school without studying most of the science fields under the pretext that 'it's too hard'. I think it's much more important for people to get into the adult world with some understanding of how it works rather than just enough knowledge to get a job. In addition there's growing distrust in the scientific community, partially caused by my previous point. How can we combat scientific ignorance when those very scientists are not trusted? TLDR, we need to both educate children better and do our best to explain the basics to those that are interested enough. I also think it's crucial that most research is turned into a press release that ACCURATELY sums up the result (I've seen my share of ridiculous reporting) so that the public at large is more aware of it. Barnsy fucked around with this message at 03:41 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
Two friends both posted this on Facebook yesterday saying "wow, looks great!" http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/wave-goodbye-to-global-warming-gm-and-pesticides-29525621.html I now have two fewer friends.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 03:50
|
|
|
When a company associates 'science' and then uses the word 'micracle' I cry a little inside. Anyone with any science background whatsoever instantly knows this is a crock of poo poo. Reminds me of that supposed bomb sniffer that the US somehow got duped into purchasing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:59 |
|
|
Barnsy posted:I think it's a tragedy that kids can now go through high school without studying most of the science fields under the pretext that 'it's too hard'. I think it's much more important for people to get into the adult world with some understanding of how it works rather than just enough knowledge to get a job. This is what keeps getting me. So e rear end in a top hat will spout their uninformed opinion, demand prof that they're wrong, then refuse to believe the NAS or the WHO because Dr. Sears and a random blog say differently. There are times I just want to shout, "ok poo poo for brains, get back to me when you spend years slaving away in a laboratory and then tell me all about your gut feelings about how GMOs ate at the root of obesity" or whatever bullshit is bring spouted. Or the ever depressing D&D version where "goons just worship science like it's a religion".
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 05:08
|
|