|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I'm not sure this particular harmful scientific monster has appeared in this thread, so I present to you, the ADD-causing, cancer-inducing, kid-hating phenomenon: quote:Prenatal exposure to low-frequency electromagnetic fields has been of particular concern because of pooled epidemiologic evidence showing an association with childhood leukemia.9 Studies have not consistently found a causal link between prenatal exposure to electromagnetic fields and birth defects, miscarriage, or childhood leukemia. So this Carpenter guy talking about "confirming" anything is full of poo poo.
|
![]() |
|
![]()
|
# ? Jun 10, 2024 18:22 |
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:These people are idiots and probably don't realize they have likely spent their entire lives within a few miles of at least one transmitter that is millions of times more powerful than any wifi. The only moral radio frequency is my radio frequency!
|
![]() |
|
The article Absurd Alhazred posted also has a very major factual error in it:quote:The International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization officially classifies Wi-Fi radiation as a “possible carcinogen.” Carpenter explains that means Wi-Fi gets a three on a one-to-five scale. “Known is the strongest, then probable, then possible, then not, and finally unclassifiable.” Other IARC possible carcinogens include asbestos, lead, paint, and DDT. Asbestos isn't in the third group (technically called group 2B, but whatever, that's not the point). It's in the first group. The "we know this is in fact carcinogenic for humans" group. (Paint is probably in group 1 as well, at least insofar as "painter, occupational exposure as" is a group 1 exposure circumstance.)
|
![]() |
|
Technogeek posted:The article Absurd Alhazred posted also has a very major factual error in it: Never mind that lead is primarily dangerous because of direct poisoning with cancer a distant secondary possibility, and human toxicity wasn't the problem with DDT at all.
|
![]() |
|
The fear of WiFi couldn't sustain me long, so I think it's time to go back to ![]() ![]() quote:A recent US Department of Agriculture study of the first 15 years of US experience with transgenic crops concluded that the technology had produced only limited and uneven yield improvements over conventional hybrid varieties of maize. The main benefit, when there was one, came in the reduced need for labour, since insect-resistant transgenic maize reduces pesticide applications and herbicide-tolerant varieties reduce manual weeding by allowing the liberal spraying of entire fields with Monsanto's Round-Up weed-killer. quote:The adoption of Bt crops increases yields by mitigating yield losses from insects. However, empirical evidence regarding the effect of HT crops on yields is mixed. Generally, stacked seeds (seeds with more than one GE trait) tend to have higher yields than conventional seeds or than seeds with only one GE trait. GE corn with stacked traits grew from 1 percent of corn acres in 2000 to 71 percent in 2013. Stacked seed varieties also accounted for 67 percent of cotton acres in 2013. Nope, reduction of labor is the only clear advantage. ![]() Another amusing and telling tidbit from the OP: quote:I asked Monsanto officials whether their goal was just to open up yellow maize markets in Mexico to transgenics. It made no sense to me. The seed provider already has the Mexican market for yellow maize seeds; 90 percent of US maize is in GM seeds, and that is the source for Mexico's imports of yellow maize. Monsanto's seed market won't get bigger because some of the seeds get planted in Mexico.
|
![]() |
|
It's been more than a month before I've posted GMO bullshit! Can't have that!![]() quote:GMO Inside has partnered on releasing the film Unacceptable Levels! Your purchase helps us continue our work! http://ykr.be/24b4k9a6x Ed Brown presents, Unacceptable Levels a story of how the chemical revolution brought us to where we are, and where, if we’re not vigilant, it may take us. This film poses challenges to our companies, our government, and our society to do something about a nearly-unseen threat with the inspired knowledge that small changes can generate a massive impact. Buy or rent a copy here: http://ykr.be/24b4k9a6x #food #chemical #contamination A comment posted this other pile of misinformation: ![]()
|
![]() |
|
Noteable foods missing from that list: bananas, cows, goats. Oh? I guess that artificial selection doesn't count as modifying our food to our need.
|
![]() |
|
SniHjen posted:Noteable foods missing from that list: bananas, cows, goats. Unless I missed a news item about trees genetically engineered to grow boobs, cows and goats are (implicitly, at least) on that list. Sidenote: I need to apply for a boob tree patent before the Devil Monsanto steals my seed
|
![]() |
|
not to dredge up the slapfight from a few pages ago, but i was kinda struck by how hard booty shorts was pushing for "fruits and veggies". Aren't fruits not actually that healthy? I mean i know they are fibrous but it was my understanding that most fruits are just balls of sugar. Also are potatos considered vegetables or are they more along the staple-crop style of things?
|
![]() |
|
A big flaming stink posted:not to dredge up the slapfight from a few pages ago, but i was kinda struck by how hard booty shorts was pushing for "fruits and veggies". Aren't fruits not actually that healthy? I mean i know they are fibrous but it was my understanding that most fruits are just balls of sugar. what do you think we should do about obesity? Let me know if you think the way the food system works currently is a-ok. I'm not advocating any kind or manner of diet, just that we have to start doing something about obese people in the planet by simply doing things like removing insane subsidies on meat products. white sauce fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Jul 2, 2014 |
![]() |
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:what do you think we should do about obesity? Let me know if you think the way the food system works currently is a-ok. reduce the burden on the working poor and improve access to education to those in poverty. improve public transportation in under served areas. raise the minimum wage. maybe subsidize some grocery stores in food deserts. this is assuming you are referring to obesity in america. worldwide is outside my knowledge
|
![]() |
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:what do you think we should do about obesity? Let me know if you think the way the food system works currently is a-ok. I'm not advocating any kind or manner of diet, just that we have to start doing something about obese people in the planet by simply doing things like removing insane subsidies on meat products. And the link to GMOs again is?
|
![]() |
Solkanar512 posted:And the link to GMOs again is? In your head, imagined as usual.
|
|
![]() |
|
down with slavery posted:In your head, imagined as usual. I'm not making that claim shithead, I'm asking why a completely different topic is being discussed in this thread. Did you notice the question mark?
|
![]() |
|
Solkanar512 posted:And the link to GMOs again is? People eat more food when it is cheap and plentiful, therefore ban GMOs.
|
![]() |
|
A big flaming stink posted:not to dredge up the slapfight from a few pages ago, but i was kinda struck by how hard booty shorts was pushing for "fruits and veggies". Aren't fruits not actually that healthy? I mean i know they are fibrous but it was my understanding that most fruits are just balls of sugar. Consumption of fruit is very healthy in it's natural form. Yes it is sugar, but it's sugar alongside fiber, some protein and essential vitamins. Take the sugar out of the fruit and its good contents and superconcentrate it like HFCS, then yes "fructose" is "bad." People can live entirely on raw fruit, although it is difficult given our industrial agriculture system and many people living in areas where nutritious fruit doesn't grow naturally. Did you hear fruit was unhealthy from some paleo-low carb source by any chance?
|
![]() |
|
I've found that the only health statement you should believe without further research is "soda is bad".
|
![]() |
|
peter banana posted:Consumption of fruit is very healthy in it's natural form. Yes it is sugar, but it's sugar alongside fiber, some protein and essential vitamins. Take the sugar out of the fruit and its good contents and superconcentrate it like HFCS, then yes "fructose" is "bad." People can live entirely on raw fruit, although it is difficult given our industrial agriculture system and many people living in areas where nutritious fruit doesn't grow naturally. Paleo doesn't have any problems with fruit. Low carb diets do.
|
![]() |
|
peter banana posted:Consumption of fruit is very healthy in it's natural form. Yes it is sugar, but it's sugar alongside fiber, some protein and essential vitamins. Take the sugar out of the fruit and its good contents and superconcentrate it like HFCS, then yes "fructose" is "bad." No it's not "very healthy" in that form, it's simply a normal food. Also no, fructose does not become bad, and HFCS is absolutely not superconcentrated.
|
![]() |
|
How dare I argue with experts! Under a friend's Facebook post (I'm Anderer; Phil Anderer):![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() |
Tight Booty Shorts posted:what do you think we should do about obesity? Let me know if you think the way the food system works currently is a-ok. I'm not advocating any kind or manner of diet, just that we have to start doing something about obese people in the planet by simply doing things like removing insane subsidies on meat products. You are focusing on the wrong aspect of the rise in obesity. Obesity is mostly a problem of the poor because cheap and easy food generally is a big rush of quickly-released carbohydrate calories that are mostly converted into fat. The diets of the middle class and above are generally much more balanced and contain more slowly-processed calorie sources, allowing for a much more balanced equilibrium of energy usage and energy production - to put it simply, anyway. Meat subsidies are not insane at all, since fresh meat is certainly healthier than the sugar-laden stuff on the shelves. Averting poverty produces less obesity because healthier foods are within the reach of more people. Eventually meat production as we know it will be unsustainable, at least at global population peak, barring the sorts of technological advances that have averted all of the other projected Malthusian crises, but that has little bearing on obesity right now. I don't mean to be offensive but I'm not sure you realize how much you do not know about this subject based on your posts so far. Your enthusiasm for solving food problems in the world is great and more effort on that front is going to be necessary in the future, but you should be guided by a solid understanding of metabolism, on both the cell and organism levels, as well as the economics and sociology required to analyze why the diet of a particular population is deficient in whatever manner. It usually boils down to logistics and poverty. Combating scientific ignorance is in the title of the thread for a reason, we should try not to be part of the problem.
|
|
![]() |
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:How dare I argue with experts! Under a friend's Facebook post (I'm Anderer; Phil Anderer): You have a lot more patience than me. I would have also gone the "compare with Kosher" route, though I think that after a while you should have just limited your posts to a demand that someone explain the difference; if you say too much stuff it makes it too easy for people to pick and choose what they want to respond to and ignore everything else.
|
![]() |
|
Jazerus posted:You are focusing on the wrong aspect of the rise in obesity. Obesity is mostly a problem of the poor because cheap and easy food generally is a big rush of quickly-released carbohydrate calories that are mostly converted into fat. The diets of the middle class and above are generally much more balanced and contain more slowly-processed calorie sources, allowing for a much more balanced equilibrium of energy usage and energy production - to put it simply, anyway. Meat subsidies are not insane at all, since fresh meat is certainly healthier than the sugar-laden stuff on the shelves. Averting poverty produces less obesity because healthier foods are within the reach of more people. Yes, poverty is the main reason why people can't afford a good diet or even know what a good diet should be. I don't like this patronizing tone you have with me. The reason why I mentioned meat subsidies was because we are consuming too much of it at too high an environmental cost. I think meat production is already unsustainable, btw.
|
![]() |
|
Ytlaya posted:You have a lot more patience than me. I would have also gone the "compare with Kosher" route, though I think that after a while you should have just limited your posts to a demand that someone explain the difference; if you say too much stuff it makes it too easy for people to pick and choose what they want to respond to and ignore everything else. I seriously need to fight my urge to ramble and just open myself to attack like this, you're absolutely right. I think I'll stick to "what would be a sufficient testing regime; why is the current regime deficient" and "why is GMO free different from Kosher", depending on which of the two arguments is pursued. ETA: Speaking of rambling, a very long argument in defense of Monsanto, linked from another discussion: The New Yorker posted:Why the Climate Corporation Sold Itself to Monsanto Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 07:03 on Jul 4, 2014 |
![]() |
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:How dare I argue with experts! Under a friend's Facebook post (I'm Anderer; Phil Anderer): IT KEEPS HAPPENING (Will Power is now Curt N. Call, the rest are new) ![]() I'm thinking I'll respond by stressing the comparison to Kosher foods and demanding that if there is evidence for issues with a GMO product, it can be taken off the market, like trans-fats.
|
![]() |
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I'm thinking I'll respond by stressing the comparison to Kosher foods and demanding that if there is evidence for issues with a GMO product, it can be taken off the market, like trans-fats. Keep asking for evidence and make him back up the claim that transgenic seeds can't co-exist with organic seeds. Maybe point out that mutagenic strains can legally be grown in organic fields and organic companies happily market food that was created with RADIATION as organic with no reference to how they were created. You could also point out that you could probably produce toxic crop strains through selective breeding if you were so inclined so therefore...? But sure, let's have labelling - the "GMO", "Mutagenic" and "Artificial design" labels should cover pretty much all the crops on market today.
|
![]() |
|
Anosmoman posted:Keep asking for evidence and make him back up the claim that transgenic seeds can't co-exist with organic seeds. Maybe point out that mutagenic strains can legally be grown in organic fields and organic companies happily market food that was created with RADIATION as organic with no reference to how they were created. You could also point out that you could probably produce toxic crop strains through selective breeding if you were so inclined so therefore...? But you don't understand, he linked to a book. So now I would have to have second-hand arguments with another source that this idiot will repeatedly misrepresent. It's a losing direction to go.
|
![]() |
|
So, re: labelling. What if I want to spend democratically and just know if GMO's are in my food because they have adverse effects on third world farmers (where much of our industrial agriculture food comes from) or because it often leads to, although is not entirely conflated with monoculture? If I wanted to avoid tacitly supporting these problematic effects which are often conflated, though not necessarily a consequence of GMO's don't I have a right to have that information and make that choice?
|
![]() |
|
peter banana posted:So, re: labelling. What if I want to spend democratically and just know if GMO's are in my food because they have adverse effects on third world farmers (where much of our industrial agriculture food comes from) or because it often leads to, although is not entirely conflated with monoculture? If I wanted to avoid tacitly supporting these problematic effects which are often conflated, though not necessarily a consequence of GMO's don't I have a right to have that information and make that choice? If we are to label for things not related to nutrition we could wind up with a lot of labels. I want to know the country a product was produced in, under what production and safety standards, environmental regulations, labor regulations, which entities the company works with and support, their stance on various political issues and so on. Is it reasonable for the government to spend resources providing this information for me?
|
![]() |
|
peter banana posted:So, re: labelling. What if I want to spend democratically and just know if GMO's are in my food because they have adverse effects on third world farmers (where much of our industrial agriculture food comes from) or because it often leads to, although is not entirely conflated with monoculture? If I wanted to avoid tacitly supporting these problematic effects which are often conflated, though not necessarily a consequence of GMO's don't I have a right to have that information and make that choice? If your concern is exploitation by global agribusiness, then you have to avoid a lot more than GMOs, and obviously not all (or even most) GMOs have adverse effects on third-world farmers. It's a totally ineffective proxy, nothing more than a feel-good, head-in-the-sand way to pretend you're making an ethical choice. Eliminating GMOs from the western marketplace won't slow the corporatization of agriculture, but it will certainly stunt the development of new GMOs.
|
![]() |
|
Slanderer posted:I'm met with a torrent of canned grievances (which mostly fall under the heading of "common myths", ie. "terminator seeds!!!" or "Monsanto destroys poor innocent country farmers!!!"). In the end, it seems impossible to change anyone's mind about the subject. Let me share something with you. Back during the housing crisis, I worked for a large wall street firm doing internal investigations of synthetic bond products. Because of this work, I was interested in the housing crash, so I made a hobby of touring failing development properties. The houses all looked a little strange. I couldn't put my finger on it at first, then, because of my finance background, I realized. The layouts were odd but intentionally designed that way; the rooms were put together so as to maximize overall square footage. "Mock" features would be attached - on one house, instead of a balcony, they just bolted a gridiron fence below the window that vaguely looked like a balcony. This wasn't carelessness, though; these were rigorously designed, mass-produced houses. But still, the homes resembled something that an alien might construct, attempting to copy the form of a house but not its substance. Then I realized that the houses had been very carefully designed not as structures for people to live in, but to maximize square footage, for the purpose of qualifying for the highest possible loan amount with the least amount of construction input. These weren't homes - they were financial instruments. These were not made for people. I remember back when I was a child, strawberries were red on the inside. They spoiled quickly but they were very delicious. Tomatoes, soft, delicate, vulnerable, but also flavorful. Now strawberries are white on the inside and flavorless to me. Tomatoes? I could throw one at a wall. I live near a place where they grow them, and they are so firm and hard when harvested that they fall off of trucks at every intersection and are perfectly undamaged by the fall. It is more efficient, more profitable, more scalable, to create a shittier tasting but more durable tomato. Not a more flavorful tomato, not a tomato optimized for people, but a tomato optimized for a system, a a tomato that can be more effectively incorporated into a vast distribution mechanism and thus more efficiently converted into dollars by a centralized business interest. These are not tomatoes made for eating. You might say the tomato and strawberry have been taken from us, hijacked by this system, just like the houses that aren't meant to be lived in. You see chain stores adopting not just the same business model, but the exact same architectural features. Cookie cutter jobbies. They are often uncomfortable in subtle ways that are difficult to notice because they're simultaneously crafted to look inviting; this is because they're often made using methods of hostile or defensive architecture. These buildings tend to cluster together, until a chain commercial district looks the same in Dallas as it might in Chico or East Orange. It feels like a kind of colonization by alien forces. Houses that aren't for living in. Tomatoes that aren't for eating. Buildings that aren't for people. People see this, and they know something is wrong. There's no way to really articulate just what is going on, maybe because what's wrong is something that is everywhere, something so fundamental to our way of life that it eludes articulation. It is as difficult to grasp as the light by which we can see the objects in a room. But it's there. We're being taken over, somehow. Our food, our environment, everything is being repurposed. And it's adapting to suit the needs of a thing that isn't human. To some extent, this is such a new thing that we haven't really developed the cultural tools to articulate it or fight it. To some extent, what we're witnessing can be adequately described using the terminology of anti-capitalism, marxism, etc. But these tools of public discourse have been stripped out of our culture. The words have been taken away, but the terrible forces they describe are still active. So we struggle to understand or name or quantify this thing that is going wrong, without the words to do it. This kind of tension usually manifests in the form of conspiracy theories, which are really just a way to try to understand and rationalize and articulate angst about these forces that we're currently incapable of understanding. That's the whole anti-monsanto thing, I think. These people aren't crazy. What is the saying? They have no mouth yet they must scream. Who wouldn't behave in a bizarre way under such circumstances? Martin Random fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Jul 4, 2014 |
![]() |
|
Martin Random posted:Who wouldn't behave in a bizarre way under such circumstances?
|
![]() |
|
Yeah, I think you missed my point. If it were just about having tasty tomatoes, these folks would be growing tasty tomatoes themselves or buying heirloom varieties. But they'renot doing that. They're holding protest, spreading paranoid conspiracy stories about cancer, chemtrails, world trade organization conspiracies, and other crazy poo poo. And somehow they are not open to rational discussion about it. That should be your big hint. Ever had a girlfriend or boyfriend who got all pissy about something in an unreasonable way, but they were really angry about something completely different which somehow, because of the dynamics of the relationship or social decorum eluded direct discussion? These people aren't simply angry about not getting a tomato that tastes how they want it to taste. There's something more. Yeah, great, you can grow hothouse tomatoes. PROTEST MOVEMENT SOLVED.
|
![]() |
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Anyone who made sure to eat fruits and vegetables when they are in season, and aimed for ones that were grown nearby, when possible, instead of blaming this on GMO's or the horrors of industrial agriculture. My salad has tomatoes that were grown nearby, and this is Upstate New York. They taste delicious By the way, it's funny that you go for tomatoes and strawberries, both of which have no GMO variants on the market. And tomatoes can be grown anywhere and quickly, so it's easy to move to more flavorful ones, assuming the popular variants aren't and there's sudden consumer demand for that. That's not really his point. People are pissed about the commoditization of food, and can't figure out exactly what the problem is. GMOs became a symbol of this, of a creeping "progress" they don't really want. The problem isn't actually GMOs themselves, but they've become a convenient scapegoat for all agriculture related problems. Consumers don't generally connect that the real problem is people wanting fresh tomatoes in January without paying anything extra. Flavorless fruits and vegetables are the grocers' response to the demand for fresh, cheap food out of season - but people tend to just see it as technology run amok. It's rather like how plastics were blamed for all the world's problems a generation ago.
|
![]() |
|
Martin Random posted:Yeah, I think you missed my point. If it were just about having tasty tomatoes, these folks would be growing tasty tomatoes themselves or buying heirloom varieties. But they'renot doing that. They're holding protest, spreading paranoid conspiracy stories about cancer, chemtrails, world trade organization conspiracies, and other crazy poo poo. Sorry for being trite. That discussion left a bad taste in my mouth, and probably mixes in sentiments from the I/P thread. So... I guess I exemplify the problem of which you speak. ![]() Deteriorata posted:That's not really his point. People are pissed about the commoditization of food, and can't figure out exactly what the problem is. GMOs became a symbol of this, of a creeping "progress" they don't really want. The problem isn't GMOs, but they've become a convenient scapegoat. Then how am I to respond to reach out to these people? Is that even possible?
|
![]() |
|
Martin Random posted:To some extent, this is such a new thing that we haven't really developed the cultural tools to articulate it or fight it. To some extent, what we're witnessing can be adequately described using the terminology of anti-capitalism, marxism, etc. But these tools of public discourse have been stripped out of our culture. The words have been taken away, but the terrible forces they describe are still active. So we struggle to understand or name or quantify this thing that is going wrong, without the words to do it. This kind of tension usually manifests in the form of conspiracy theories, which are really just a way to try to understand and rationalize and articulate angst about these forces that we're currently incapable of understanding. Well, no, a lot of these people are probably crazy. Many, many more aren't, though. Your aunt reposting some inaccurate, compression artifact filled infographic about the dangers of pasteurized milk is probably not crazy, and you may very well be able to assuage her fears. But your weird uncle who has gone all in and is blames every single ill in his life on Monstanto, the United Nations, or the Black Man Obama probably is. I think this may be one of those topics that hasn't so much created insanity by itself, but instead drawn out the insane hiding in plain sight (or at the very least those prone to delusional thinking). In order to get to the point where you believe that Monsanto killed the bees in order to build a market for GMO SuperBees, you need to have gone so far into these arguments that your entire worldview has been replaced by a set of hilarious falsehoods. These people can't be argued with at that point, because if they were to believe that Monsanto really isn't trying to sterilize the population then that would call into question their belief that Monsanto's mercenary army was trying to seize control of the Iowa state senate which would call into question their belief that the World Bank was trying to establish a marketplace for stolen white women (and so on).
|
![]() |
|
peter banana posted:So, re: labelling. What if I want to spend democratically and just know if GMO's are in my food because they have adverse effects on third world farmers (where much of our industrial agriculture food comes from) or because it often leads to, although is not entirely conflated with monoculture? If I wanted to avoid tacitly supporting these problematic effects which are often conflated, though not necessarily a consequence of GMO's don't I have a right to have that information and make that choice? GMOs don't have adverse effects on third world farmers that "organic" and "conventional" seeds don't also have; furthermore GMOs do not encourage monoculture any more than "organic" and "conventional" seeds do. Anyway if you explicitly don't want GMO then the USDA ORGANIC label guarantees it's not GMO, so there's your information! This is probably where you'll whine "but there's less of it and it costs more" well that's what you get for not wanting to eat normal food.
|
![]() |
|
Deteriorata posted:Consumers don't generally connect that the real problem is people wanting fresh tomatoes in January without paying anything extra. Flavorless fruits and vegetables are the grocers' response to the demand for fresh, cheap food out of season - but people tend to just see it as technology run amok. Which is why the reflexive response to "waah GMOs Monsanto ![]()
|
![]() |
|
Nintendo Kid posted:GMOs don't have adverse effects on third world farmers that "organic" and "conventional" seeds don't also have; furthermore GMOs do not encourage monoculture any more than "organic" and "conventional" seeds do. um, wow. Thanks for the info. Glad I was buying certified organic stuff already. Without whining.
|
![]() |
|
![]()
|
# ? Jun 10, 2024 18:22 |
|
peter banana posted:um, wow. Thanks for the info. Glad I was buying certified organic stuff already. Without whining. Certified by whom? I wonder about those organizations. How much oversight do they really have?
|
![]() |