|
Solkanar512 posted:Or the ever depressing D&D version where "goons just worship science like it's a religion". I suspect it's not just goons who do that, but many people in the past decades who have grown disillusioned. You know, believing really really hard in science hasn't magically produced solutions to whatever their pet probems are yet so now it's time to believe really really hard in Jesus, horoscopes, or Ron Paul 2016 again.
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2013 06:32
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 06:32 |
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Agreed, I'm not seeing much difference between this and the rightward alliance of pro-business/religious/libertarian types. Radiation is scary  I read it on naturalnews.com or wherever so it must be true And there goes any willingness to listen to what not-scientifically-illiterate people have to say.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2013 11:57
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Educated environmentalists who know maths generally support urbanism, as the alternative is more destructive to nature. Fixed that for you.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2013 12:53
|
|
|
ANIME AKBAR posted:This was a few pages back but I think it needs to be said that the article lists deaths per tera-kilowatt-hour, not terawatt hour (dumb). So your comparison is off by a factor of 1,000, but even so your point still stands IMO. (didn't see anyone else catch this). http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3051197 Peer reviewed study of how many unnecessary deaths would have happened if we'd built fossil fuel plants in place of existing nuclear power ones. Tl;dr: 1.8 million give or take. To paraphrase Churchill: nuclear power is the worst well-scalable power source except for all the other ones.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 10:50
|
|
|
Hypha posted:Agricultural chemicals can be nasty, especially some of the stuff you can use doing research. I know I've been exposed to carcinogens out in the field but I knew the risks of what I was working with and I mitigated the risk as much as I could. Is this the case of a trained person being accidentally exposed or are they having workers entering freshly sprayed fields who don't know what they are working with? Is this the sign of negligence on the part of the pesticide operators? It is hard to say what exactly is going on but my first thought is a safety issue rather than evil Monsanto; workers who do not like wearing gloves and the full coveralls in the heat over some kind of company hush policy. Yeah. This would be yet another case of "Monsanto are being assholes/irresponsible/generally evil, to a similar extent as every other big agribusiness nobody complains about"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2013 10:20
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:I cannot emphasize how much everything is a carcinogen. California has nicely demonstrated this by mandating that all carcinogens be labeled, including those that apparently abound in grocery stores. It all depends on the dose.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2013 15:53
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Yea if your standard is just 'could it possibly in some universe cause cancer' everything's deadly, it's all about dose and poo poo. So yea I'm sure every field worker hired is 'exposed to carcinogens' in the same way that every time I wake up and go outside to get the paper I'm 'exposed to carcinogens', that doesn't mean the New York Times is trying to murder me though. The car exhaust, however, is 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Or more simply, show why using more energy (that we can't eat) to produce energy (that we can eat) matters at all. This isn't a power plant - you expect energetic loss in the process of converting energy from less useful to more useful forms. Actually you also expect losses in converting less useful energy into electricity, because that's how thermodynamics work 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2014 09:32
|
|
|
In that case, hook up non-coal/gas electricity to electrodes in a water tank and fill up the hydrogen tractor. Problem solved.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Look, let's face facts here. Most of the environmental movement consists of privileged Whole Foods shoppers that always seem to forget that the third world exists. However living in a densely populated environment offends my natural sensitivities and it must be bad for nature because
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Science 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Sorry, I was speaking from a US perspective. We have no political parties fighting against GMOs or anything like that, but we don't see them because private companies are intent at avoiding any and all liability from the kinds of situations these tools would be best used in (cleaning up polluted sites) so we get half-assed or non-existent cleanups of environmental disasters. It's almost like there's a case for government initiated cleanups here.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:The idea that people are eating too meat and maybe we should cut back meat consumption to their historic levels was not met positively by many goons a few pages back in the thread. Reducing meat consumption would be helpful and reduce environmental impacts. However, starving subsaharan countries can only benefit so much from Brazilian soy beans.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2014 13:10
|
|
|
NeilPerry posted:I've got another question here, one of the reasons that some animal rights activists seem to argue for GMO's is that the less ridiculous the restrictions are on GMO testing, the less animals are tested on to gauge health effects. I'm wondering now what kind of tests are done on animals and on what kind of scale, and also if the argument holds up. Could anyone shed some light on this? You take lab rats (or other animals), feed them the GMO, and see if their health is affected negatively. Afterwards, since animals aren't reused because their physiology may have been affected by previous experiments, you kill your lab rats (usually by nitrogen or cervical dislocation). e: Ironed Idol posted:Ok, I'll just say monsanto isn't evil and kills things and causes cancer. Congratulations, you have discovered freedom of speech. It's too bad nothing of what you said make sense. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 09:05 on Mar 22, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2014 08:47
|
|
|
NeilPerry posted:My dad has been getting on the fluoride is evil bandwagon. At first he even started buying only bottled water. I had to explain to him Belgium doesn't add fluoride to its water supply. Precious bodily fluids. Tight Booty Shorts posted:Is it bad to admit when you don't know something? To answer your question, it seems like both fruits and grain will be impacted by CC. However, it's healthy to have a diet rich in vegetables and fruits, and I think healthy diets are a good thing. Yes, it's healthy. However, "Eats sufficient calories, could use some more fibre and trace nutrients" is a substantial improvement over "loving starving". Also, bread which includes sourdough and whole grains or seeds is healthier and tastier and generally superior to toast in every way  Also, have some required viewing for this thread. tl;dr: barring half a dozen failed states and war torn hellholes, family planning is working. The world reproductive rate is approaching replacement rate. As children grow up and old people die off, the older age groups will get filled up and world population overall can be expected to stabilise around 10-11 billion people (the filling up happens because the world population pyramid is still a bit bottom heavy).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2014 10:18
|
|
|
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 " is barely concealed disdain on my part, unless I'm in the mood to have a hour-long session of explaining stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Also- lol'ing at the fact that you think corporations profiting off climate change is a good thing. You are mistaking "this is a solvable problem" for "it's good that climate change is a profitable business opportunity" e: also there's people working on making C4-rice. To illustrate the difference in productivity: C3 photosynthesis lets you grow the tiny lovely grass on your lawn, C4 photosynthesis gives you maize and sugarcane. By the way, biodiversity on farms is a really weird concept. Lots of land sparing to keep ecosystems intact and balls to the wall super intensive agriculture in designated "this can go to poo poo" areas is where it's at. Preferably while keeping the spillover from the latter to the former minimal, like the Dutch are doing. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Not any more than organic claptrap. This. Imagine rich industrial country upper middle class guilt trips (organic farming) informing policy in places where primary ecosystems still exist. Please save biodiversity by putting hedgerows between your fields on recently-cleared rainforest  e: On that note, have a fun, free (I think) paper. Eating chicken instead of red meat for one additional day per week saves more CO2 emissions than eating 100% ~locally produced food~ ever could. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Educating the public about food choices and health. Limiting or removing corporation's ability to advertise unhealthy foods. quote:Empowering poor communities by teaching them ecological agriculture methods that are self sufficient and can allow people that are socio-economically disadvantaged to grow and sell their own produce and food. quote:Less intensive farming. Less outside inputs in farms worldwide. More small scale environmentally friendly farming. More environmental regulations. Making farms be small scale and environmentally friendly (for the plot of land they're physically occupying) means they usually need to be larger to produce the same amount of food. That is a terrible, terrible idea and should not be encouraged for any large scale operation. As long as a long term viable source of outside inputs is available, use it as much as possible to reduce land use and keep farms out of the natural environment. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Taaaaaaarb! posted:Cross-post from the Politoons thread: Can I buy the potted superweed in the local flower shop? If not, all that effort was for nought.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Essentially, if you see Seralini as an author on a paper, it's not worth reading. Pretty much the only useful thing he said in the paper is the rather obvious statement that long term studies are good.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Speaking of "combating scientific ignorance", FRINGE also isn't a fan of fluoridating water. As you can see, lots of links, lots of misrepresentation and so on. Same poo poo, different topic. Water flouridation  , God loving damnit. FRINGE, gently caress off before you sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids with your bullshit.Mrit posted:The liberal bias(one that I agree with) on these forums has a side effect of when crazy left-wing stuff is brought up, people are ignored or probated. Crazy right-wingers are banned. Crazy pseudo-lefty science haters aren't better than the Tea Party, wannabe modern day luddites are as much of a burden on society as FYGM republicans who want to eat the poor.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
NFX posted:My favorite part of the Seralini study is the (non-significant) correlation between glyphosate intake and lifespan in male rats. Male rats that were fed round-up lived longer. I bet you can make that significant if you try enough different statistical tests 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 08:19
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Every thread, same making GBS threads, no contributions. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 09:44
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:That referendum was shameful, a mark against the city that will take us years to overcome (if ever). But US cancers are still on a downswing, which doesn't support GMOs being horrible, so this observation is irrelevant for ~reasons~.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 10:31
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Just you. fringe's posting quality has declined below that of a Markov chain bot at this point. Seriously, provide actual arguments instead of being a contrarian dickhead.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 12:25
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:blowfish's posting quality has never exceeded the quality of a Markov chain bot. Why don't you go back to checking peoples' post histories (it's not like you haven't already spent the  ) without resorting to selective quoting. Oh wait, that's above the level of discourse you're capable of.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 12:57
|
|
|
Taaaaaaarb! posted:Hey FRINGE, I have some questions for ya: how do GMOs cause cancer? What mechanism causes this? I can't seem to find one in Seralini's retracted, refuted and otherwise debunked paper. Bonus points for not using the words "energy," "contamination" or "chemicals" in your explanation Who ever needed a causal link in a study? Bad scientists sure don't!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:A proper study can show benefits or harm from a substance without having to know all the underlying mechanisms. After all, the main thing that you are looking for in side effects is something that you didn't predict or know about in advance. The relevant point here is that no proper study out of the thousands performed has ever shown harm from GMO corn or GMO anything, not that the hypothetical pathway isn't understood. Depends. If there's got lots of correlational studies showing the same result (say, GMOs don't actually kill you), that's ok. If you're
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:The incidence of tumors in the rats were not higher than the normal incidence of tumors for those rats. In the 'control' group, totally unsuspiciously, they reported zero tumors at a time point where you'd generally expect a significant percentage of the rats to have tumors, which points to fabricated results. I can totally believe Seralini didn't find tumors in those rats. If you really believe in one of the possible outcomes, confirmation bias can become amazingly strong.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:True. And his measure was 'palpable' which just absolutely lends itself to confirmation bias.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:If it's not specified, go ahead and assume it's not blinded. Well, yeah, but let's be generous.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 13:41
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:
 And people wonder why anti-GMO idiots aren't considered worth taking seriously...
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
It is fitting that a conspiracy theorist would try to play (and fail) 11-dimensional chess.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I honestly think the "but GMOs will eliminate biodiversity" thing is the weirdest and wrongest complaint. It can be disproved by looking at their seed catalogs. Since GMOs are ~unnatural~, no amount of different GMO strains will ever be considered biodiverse by people making that argument.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
SniHjen posted:Sounds like these people havn't heard of bananas. So is conventional breeding, which is good because
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2014 12:20
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:https://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/11/29/166156242/cornstalks-everywhere-but-nothing-else-not-even-a-bee Germany has essentially no GMOs. Germany has endless cornfields which are biologically dead and exist solely to provide area for dumping slurry and to feed biogas power plants. Do you think this is because of GMOs, you loving moron?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:What does this have to do with GMOs? You know that giant fields of a single crop have existed long before GMOs did, right? It has a lot to do with GMOs if you think the term GMO means "any kind of agriculture I don't like".
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Maybe, you loving moron. I (and presumably many other posters) hate you precisely because people like you end up helping various assholes to literally endanger the survival of every living thing on the planet with stupid knee-jerk outrage.Have you ever heard of a thing called land sharing vs. land sparing? Has it ever occurred to you that since even ~*~organic~*~ farms are biologically poo poo compared to any primary or even secondary ecosystem sparing lots of land and loving up the rest with intensive farming is less bad than covering everything with still pretty poo poo organic farms? By the way, do you happen to know that eating one less day's worth of beef and dairy per week saves more CO2 emissions than buying from ~local farmers~ ever can? e: Tight Booty Shorts posted:Exactly. How do you afford plane tickets if you don't make any profit? suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 09:41 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 09:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 06:32 |
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Heh. Electric/synthetic gas/hydrogen tractors. Chemical reactions and charging powered by the mighty atom (or solar thermal if you really really want to spend money). Vertical farming is also pretty cool.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 10:16
|
|