|
Monsanto could be responsible for a billion deaths and they'd still have saved and improved more lives than they've taken
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:56 |
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Monsanto could be responsible for a billion deaths and they'd still have saved and improved more lives than they've taken Perhaps not a billion deaths, but they were one of the companies to produce Agent Orange (the other was Dow Chemicals). And I doubt that marginally more productive cultivars can offset that. It just means that farmers in countries that overproduce crops get to overproduce more, and so that increases wastage. It doesn't help "feed the world" at all contrarily to their rosy propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Monsanto could be responsible for a billion deaths and they'd still have saved and improved more lives than they've taken They do more to end world hunger every year than oxfam will in its entire existence. Cat Mattress posted:Perhaps not a billion deaths, but they were one of the companies to produce Agent Orange (the other was Dow Chemicals). The dangers associated with exposure to agent orange are more or less entirely fabricated, just like gulf war syndrome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
Lol what
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
It's Mortabis, he's never seen a dumb argument he didn't embrace
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
"Rhodesia did more for african blacks than Nelson Mandela ever did" -Mortabis, probably
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:"Rhodesia did more for african blacks than Nelson Mandela ever did" -Mortabis, probably You're perfectly welcome to criticize me for arguments I have made, but I have never and would never say anything remotely like that. You shouldn't feed it to nursing infants, but the actual evidence for agent orange causing the absurdly wide range of symptoms attributed to it is just not there. e: I don't have time to get into an in-depth discussion of the statistics while I'm at work, but it basically boils down to this: Vietnam veterans are at increased risk of cancer and other maladies but this is not associated with exposure to Agent Orange. Veterans exposed to agent orange have elevated rates of certain very rare diseases, but this is better explained by normal statistical noise. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Oct 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:The dangers associated with exposure to agent orange are more or less entirely fabricated, just like gulf war syndrome. I'm not sure you've ever been more wrong, and that's kind of impressive. I mean...the guys that flew the C-123s used for Agent Orange and the maintainers that refurbed them all the way into the 80s are getting leukemia and prostate cancer at significantly elevated rates. Almost everything attributed to Agent Orange exposure is cancer or skin conditions, so I'm not sure why you think it's used as a catch-all for unrelated symptoms. Godholio fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Oct 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
It's mortabis. Just get on with your life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I'm not sure you've ever been more wrong, and that's kind of impressive. Birth defects is a big one for which there's slim evidence. Aggressive prostate cancer is not common (most prostate cancer is not aggressive) and it doesn't take a huge number of cases for your sample to show a significant increase. If you look for enough diseases in your sample, you will eventually find one at your confidence interval. e: like, it could absolutely be true that the C-123 crews have significantly elevated levels of certain types of cancer and yet with no causal connection between that and Agent Orange. e2: from the abstract of the prostate cancer study (emphasis mine) quote:BACKGROUND: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23670242 Mortabis fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Oct 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
It is actually true though. Agent Orange by itself is not toxic, but rather it is the contaminants from the manufacturing process that contained dioxin which is pretty harmful. The amount of dioxins present were also batch-dependent with varying levels of dioxins. Agent Orange is the most famous, but there were also Agent White, Blue, White and so on. There is plenty of scientific literature on this if one has access to those, and I did some reading in to this in a course in environmental chemistry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Cardiac posted:It is actually true though. Low levels of TCDD exposure are not associated with a statistically significant increase in cancer (emphasis mine): http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/10408444.2011.560141 quote:The authors reviewed the epidemiologic studies on exposure to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and cancer risk, published since the last full-scale review made by the International Agency for Research on Cancer Monographs program in 1997. The update of a cohort of US herbicide producers generated negative results overall; the internal analysis provided evidence of an increased “all-cancer” risk in the highest exposure category, with a statistically significant exposure-response association in some of the many analyses performed. The update of a similar Dutch cohort did not confirm the previously observed association with TCDD exposure. The updated surveillance of the Seveso population provided evidence of increased all-cancer mortality 15–20 years after exposure among those living in the most contaminated area but might also reflect random variation, as overall excesses in the most recent follow-up were not observed. Corresponding data on cancer incidence offer little support to the mortality results. Updated results from cohort studies of Vietnam veterans potentially exposed to TCDD did not consistently suggest an increased risk of cancer. Results of additional, smaller studies of other occupational groups potentially exposed to TCDD, and of community-based case-control studies, did not provide consistent evidence of an increased cancer risk. In conclusion, recent epidemiological evidence falls far short of conclusively demonstrating a causal link between TCDD exposure and cancer risk in humans. The emphasis on results for overall cancer risk—rather than risk for specific neoplasms—is not justified on epidemiologic grounds and is not a reason for ignoring the weaknesses of the available evidence. Some authors contend that it is not a human carcinogen at all (again emphasis mine): http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027323000300103X quote:2,3,7,8-tetrachlordibenzo-p-doxin (TCDD) would not have been designated as a Group 1 carcinogen by IARC had there not been a change in the criteria used for inclusion in this category. Furthermore, there is no precedent for indicating, as did IARC, that a single chemical acts as a pluripotential carcinogen by modestly increasing human risk for all cancer while not increasing the risk for any single cancer at least moderately. IARC moved TCDD to Group 1 based on mechanistic considerations focusing on the Ah receptor. However, while occupancy of the Ah receptor by TCDD may be necessary for its toxicity, it is not sufficient for toxicity or for potential carcinogenicity. Animal evidence relating TCDD exposure to cancer is much stronger than that for humans. However, the large inter-species variation in the relevant dose–response slopes severely limits generalizations from animals to humans. The epidemiologic studies of occupational exposures, pesticide applicators, and community exposures following industrial accidents, notably Seveso, have generated overall relative risks of all cancer of about 1.0. Only case-control studies of soft-tissue sarcoma and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, all by the same investigator, reported elevated risk from TCDD exposure. However, these results have not been replicated. The representation that a chemical compound (TCDD) would be a late-stage carcinogen for all types of cancer has no precedent and lacks biological foundation. Virtually all late-stage or promoting carcinogens (e.g., hepatitis-C virus, asbestos, and estrogens) cause a very limited number of forms of cancer. The exposure–response meta-analysis of TCDD and cancer developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is seriously compromised by its failure to adequately fit the data. The studies used by the USEPA also likely underestimate TCDD body burdens and may be confounded by smoking and other occupational exposures. Furthermore, the use of a linear dose–response model by the USEPA is scientifically unjustified since the underlying model of TCDD as a human carcinogen is based primarily on its supposed receptor-mediated, non-genotoxic (or promotional) mode of action. There are few examples of an agent being suspected as a human carcinogen for decades and then eventually moving into the category of “known” human carcinogens. In contrast, there are hundreds of compounds that remain for decades on lists of “suspected” human carcinogens despite the lack of confirming evidence. The long-term accumulation of negative, weak, and inconsistent findings suggests that TCDD eventually will be recognized as not carcinogenic for humans. On the topic of soft tissue sarcomas, which aren't elevated IIRC in the agent orange exposed population, there is some (IMO weak) evidence that low doses of TCDD reduce the risk: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2475943/ VVVV calling me the village idiot of a forum I don't even post in is an interesting way of arguing the merits of four different peer-reviewed journal articles. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Oct 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Mortabis is the village idiot of GIP . If you're going to engage him at least be funny about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
edit: wrong thread.
Thwomp fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Oct 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:One of the C-130 guys I knew lovingly referred to the T56 as "Mr. Fusion", because the approved and alternate fuels list read like a Jeopardy category for "Combustible Liquids." The Pegasus on the older Harriers could be run on diesel in an emergency (presumably 'about to be over-run by motor rifle division'), didn't do much for the engine life though (again not likely an issue if it had come down to scrounging for fuel in farmyards).
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Finally an end to loving corn chat. Air power because missiles of probably Cold War vintage: USS Antonio Targeted by Anti-Ship missiles http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/5622/uss-san-antonio-was-targeted-during-anti-ship-missile-barrage-last-week-off-yemen USS Mason thrice now: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/5591/uss-mason-attacked-for-a-third-time-while-us-pushes-saudi-arabia-on-ceasefire USS Ponce too but two links is enough  Its some surrogate government who wants to test how well they can find and try to hit our ships
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:Finally an end to loving corn chat. They just want to see the laser on the Ponce fired in anger. Grover sold his house so he could bribe Russia to make it happen, or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Effective-Disorder posted:They just want to see the laser on the Ponce fired in anger. Grover sold his house so he could bribe Russia to make it happen, or something like that. This actually isn't a bad answer. I'd want to know if a speed of light CIWS actually works because it really could be a game changer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:This actually isn't a bad answer. I'd want to know if a speed of light CIWS actually works because it really could be a game changer. I can't decide whether the advantages of trying out that system in combat would override the danger of potentially letting enemies get their hands on definite info on about how well it works. Then again I'm a loving civilian armchair strategist so I know loving nothing of these matters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Wouldn't pilots and aircrew get cancer at a higher rate anyway? Reducing the amount of atmosphere and magnetosphere between you and the sun tends to expose you to more ionizing radiation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
Preechr posted:Wouldn't pilots and aircrew get cancer at a higher rate anyway? Reducing the amount of atmosphere and magnetosphere between you and the sun tends to expose you to more ionizing radiation. I don't think so? It's possible but I'm doubtful. Regardless all studies worth anything control for that by e.g. comparing aircrew on spraying missions to aircrew on non-spraying missions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
So has anyone figured out if the Aegis/missiles/CIWS actually worked, or did all the incoming missiles just gently caress themselves?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 01:44
|
|
General Battuta posted:So has anyone figured out if the Aegis/missiles/CIWS actually worked, or did all the incoming missiles just gently caress themselves? There was at least 1 report quoted itt that mentioned an intercept from the Ponce.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
That Works posted:There was at least 1 report quoted itt that mentioned an intercept from the Ponce. From the Mason, but yeah.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:So has anyone figured out if the Aegis/missiles/CIWS actually worked, or did all the incoming missiles just gently caress themselves? TCD posted:http://www.stripes.com/news/aegis-defense-system-helped-stop-missile-attack-on-uss-mason-1.433974
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 01:58
|
|
Mr. Showtime posted:From the Mason, but yeah. Oh whoops
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
Preechr posted:Wouldn't pilots and aircrew get cancer at a higher rate anyway? Reducing the amount of atmosphere and magnetosphere between you and the sun tends to expose you to more ionizing radiation. Aircrews are exposed to more radiation, for sure. Airline pilots receive 2 to 4 times the annual dose of radiation compared to people on the ground. This raises the rate of fatal cancer from about .01% to .02-.04% My uncle was a PBR commander in Vietnam and had a whole bunch of cancers. He always insisted it was because agent orange that ended up concentrated into the rivers as runoff but the VA disagreed. He felt that he could trace a decline in his health to his tours, but I note he was also wounded in combat, so it's complicated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:So has anyone figured out if the Aegis/missiles/CIWS actually worked, or did all the incoming missiles just gently caress themselves? I'd take it all with a massive grain of salt anyway. If the Navy was able to just shoot up decoys and jam the missile radar and they all strike the sea at no risk to the ship...I doubt they're going to put that in a press release.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:I don't think so? It's possible but I'm doubtful. If the LNT model is correct, then yes, flight crew absolutely experience a higher rate of cancer because they're exposed to more radiation. That's precisely what the model says. (Yes, the model can be wrong.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
France announced their new frigate to replace the Lafayette class. http://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...al-frigate.html http://www.defensenews.com/articles/france-unveils-new-fti-frigate-ship-is-designed-for-the-french-navy-and-for-export
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
TCD posted:France announced their new frigate to replace the Lafayette class. @
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
Yeah each ship comes with it's own email, Twitter, Instagram, etc...
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:I can't decide whether the advantages of trying out that system in combat would override the danger of potentially letting enemies get their hands on definite info on about how well it works. It's not like a radar where you're blasting trons/waveforms all over the place to be captured and studied. By definition, all anyone will know is if the inbound is destroyed and maybe where...if they have the right sensors pointed at the right spot at the right time they might see a heat bloom. But I don't think they're going to learn much besides "Yup. Looks like it got shot by a laser."
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
TCD posted:France announced their new frigate to replace the Lafayette class. I'm the journalist that gets a picture of the model, and then puts the headline over it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I'm the journalist that gets a picture of the model, and then puts the headline over it. If you want better pictures of it, unencumbered by headlines, look here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
Godholio posted:It's not like a radar where you're blasting trons/waveforms all over the place to be captured and studied. By definition, all anyone will know is if the inbound is destroyed and maybe where...if they have the right sensors pointed at the right spot at the right time they might see a heat bloom. But I don't think they're going to learn much besides "Yup. Looks like it got shot by a laser." That can tell you engagement ranges, engagement speeds, and a possible time to kill if you have your sensors going. I mean it tells you more than you probably know already.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
That should be pretty easy to guess at from known physical constraints. The power and wavelength of the laser are public information, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Richard Bong posted:That can tell you engagement ranges, engagement speeds, and a possible time to kill if you have your sensors going. It's a loving laser.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:If you want better pictures of it, unencumbered by headlines, look here. Holy gently caress that thing is hideous
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:56 |
|
|
Mortabis posted:That should be pretty easy to guess at from known physical constraints. The power and wavelength of the laser are public information, right? There are relevant factors that are not public (beam quality, jitter, etc). But in general, it's a 30 kW laser, not exactly the Death Star. The stated use case is more like poking holes in rubber small boats.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 17:49
|
|
