Environmentalism

[NoCalMike 0]

Arguing that something is okay because Clinton did it is NOT a rational argument.

If this wasn't a problem back in 1999 --- which it wasn't, considering that these stories didn't EXIST back then --- it's illogical that the IDENTICAL levels of mercury would be causing problems now.

Just because we don't know about a problem doesn't mean that the problem does not exist.

No, it shows that environmentalism is not a science, but a religious cult. They praised Clinton's environmental policies, but when Bush KEPT them, he was trying to poison the water.

-=Mike

I don't get the point that you are trying to make, I think we all can agree that there are far to many whacko-enviornmentalist-hippie folks, but are you telling me you can't honestly differentiate those people from commond day folks that are genuinely concerned about the conditions of the local ecosystems?

 

Who "PRAISED" Clinton's enviornmental policies? I am sure it wouldn't take much digging at all to find many criticisms of Bill Clinton's enviornmental record. Just because someone feels Bush's policies and attitudes are worse, doesn't mean they were in love with Clinton's policies.

[Guest MikeSC]

Arguing that something is okay because Clinton did it is NOT a rational argument.

If this wasn't a problem back in 1999 --- which it wasn't, considering that these stories didn't EXIST back then --- it's illogical that the IDENTICAL levels of mercury would be causing problems now.

Just because we don't know about a problem doesn't mean that the problem does not exist.

No, it shows that environmentalism is not a science, but a religious cult. They praised Clinton's environmental policies, but when Bush KEPT them, he was trying to poison the water.

-=Mike

Who "PRAISED" Clinton's enviornmental policies?

Good luck finding an environmental group who ever criticized it.

I am sure it wouldn't take much digging at all to find many criticisms of Bill Clinton's enviornmental record.  Just because someone feels Bush's policies and attitudes are worse, doesn't mean they were in love with Clinton's policies.

When the mercury level was identical for YEARS and there were NO reported problems --- it defies even the most cursory of logic to assume that SUDDENLY, it's become lethal.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Arguing that something is okay because Clinton did it is NOT a rational argument.

If this wasn't a problem back in 1999 --- which it wasn't, considering that these stories didn't EXIST back then --- it's illogical that the IDENTICAL levels of mercury would be causing problems now.

Just because we don't know about a problem doesn't mean that the problem does not exist.

No, it shows that environmentalism is not a science, but a religious cult. They praised Clinton's environmental policies, but when Bush KEPT them, he was trying to poison the water.

-=Mike

Who "PRAISED" Clinton's enviornmental policies?

Good luck finding an environmental group who ever criticized it.

Ralph Nader and the Green Party during the 2000 election.

[NoCalMike 0]

When the mercury level was identical for YEARS and there were NO reported problems --- it defies even the most cursory of logic to assume that SUDDENLY, it's become lethal.

            -=Mike

http://ojas.okstate.edu/OJAS/03/daniels.htm

 

http://epw.senate.gov/105th/lev_10-1.htm

 

http://www.mass.gov/dep/files/mercury/hgexsum.htm

 

http://www.epa.gov/region01/soe/mercury.html

 

These are four reports I just found in the span of two minutes reporting on mercury levels before 2000. If you are arguing that the TV didn't report on it "before Bush took office" then that is a different debate, but to act like people weren't stressing the issue before 2000, is complete bullshit.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Arguing that something is okay because Clinton did it is NOT a rational argument.

If this wasn't a problem back in 1999 --- which it wasn't, considering that these stories didn't EXIST back then --- it's illogical that the IDENTICAL levels of mercury would be causing problems now.

Just because we don't know about a problem doesn't mean that the problem does not exist.

No, it shows that environmentalism is not a science, but a religious cult. They praised Clinton's environmental policies, but when Bush KEPT them, he was trying to poison the water.

-=Mike

Who "PRAISED" Clinton's enviornmental policies?

Good luck finding an environmental group who ever criticized it.

I am sure it wouldn't take much digging at all to find many criticisms of Bill Clinton's enviornmental record.  Just because someone feels Bush's policies and attitudes are worse, doesn't mean they were in love with Clinton's policies.

When the mercury level was identical for YEARS and there were NO reported problems --- it defies even the most cursory of logic to assume that SUDDENLY, it's become lethal.

-=Mike

Perhaps they didn't know THEN what they know NOW??? Testing over time can show new results that differ from ones in the past. Christ, can anybody who is NOT a conservative take a step without it being some conspiracy to crush Bush?

 

Of course there are wackos that ties themselves to trees, but does that make Earth Day commie propaganda? No, it means there are civic minded people on the side of the road cleaning up a mess! If somebody has a theory or has produced some results that say the world is a mess of course we scrutinize. But political bias aside there are people who are trying to help out. Which is fine by me cult or not.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

double post

[Guest MikeSC]

When the mercury level was identical for YEARS and there were NO reported problems --- it defies even the most cursory of logic to assume that SUDDENLY, it's become lethal.

            -=Mike

http://ojas.okstate.edu/OJAS/03/daniels.htm

In conclusion, a statistical difference was found to exist between mercury concentrations of both water and soil samples and their respective acceptable EPA standards. However, this increased level of mercury does not necessarily correspond to an increased health risk. If the algal level in the water is not increased as well, then the health risk is not increased because not all of the elemental mercury is converted into its toxic form of methylmercury.

Next.

http://epw.senate.gov/105th/lev_10-1.htm

It is important to distinguish, therefore, between data, or observed and measured occurrences of mercury in the environment, and model results, which are computer outputs from the models used. As one example, we have surprisingly few data points on how much mercury deposits from the atmosphere to the surface, where people live, but there are many model results that portray what those numbers might look like. When these model results are compared to the sparse data, the model results tend to be rather uncertain, by a factor of two or more, either over- or underpredicting the observations. The conclusions drawn from these estimates concerning management of mercury should, therefore, be tempered by the uncertainties in the estimates on which the conclusions are based.

AND

Results from these studies are still being analyzed. The initial findings from the Seychelles study indicate that no significant mercury effect was found over a wide range of pre-natal exposures to children. The Farces study has reported finding evidence of a neurological effect at the highest mercury levels. However, the biological significance of these findings remains unclear. Further analyses and refinements are expected in the results of these studies over the next two or three years.

 

Two independent analyses of the Seychelles results have suggested that the current EPA Reference Dose may be too severe by a factor of 3 to 5; that is, consumers can be exposed to mercury levels 3 to 5 times as great as the EPA level without harmful effect to children. This implies in turn a wider availability of fish from U.S. waters that can be considered safe for consumption.

Yup, pretty damning stuff there.

 

Next?

http://www.mass.gov/dep/files/mercury/hgexsum.htm

      The current mercury situation is really a good news/bad news story. The good news is that individual consumers, government, environmental groups and industry have all taken major strides to reduce mercury pollution. In Massachusetts, mercury emissions from municipal solid waste combustors ¾ the state’s largest source ¾ are predicted to fall by 85 percent or more over the next few years due to decreased use of mercury in batteries and fluorescent lamps, increased recycling of products containing mercury and new more stringent pollution control requirements on the facilities themselves.

 

      AlthoughThe bad news is that releases of mercury over the past 100 years or more have led to contamination of fish in many waterbodies in Massachusetts as well as other states, making these native freshwater fish unsafe for certain people to eat. And while many steps already have been and are being taken many steps already have been and are being taken to solve this problem, patience and perseverance will be required since improvements in the levels of mercury in the environment are unlikely to be evident right away.

 

      In particular, concentrations of mercury in freshwater fish will take years, if not decades, to begin dropping significantly. Mercury is remarkably persistent once it is released into the biosphere. It can recirculate within the ecosystem for many years, meaning that even significant reductions in mercury emissions from industrial and institutional sources may not result in immediately discernible improvement everywhere. Because mercury is transported by the winds for long distances, national and international efforts are needed to reduce global mercury levels.

Let me guess, you thought I wouldn't read this, right?

http://www.epa.gov/region01/soe/mercury.html

No actual notes. Just rampant speculation.

These are four reports I just found in the span of two minutes reporting on mercury levels before 2000.  If you are arguing that the TV didn't report on it "before Bush took office" then that is a different debate, but to act like people weren't stressing the issue before 2000, is complete bullshit. 

And I already showed the flaws in 3 of the 4 studies you posted.

Perhaps they didn't know THEN what they know NOW???

Yes, they had MASSIVE advances in mercury knowledge over the last few years. Of course. Suuure.

 

Don't worry, though --- like the rest of environmentalism's crises, this will likely end up being the usual BS.

Of course there are wackos that ties themselves to trees, but does that make Earth Day commie propaganda?

Considering how utterly filthy Earth Day celebrations tend to be, the believers don't practice their faith well.

No, it means there are civic minded people on the side of the road cleaning up a mess!

No, it's utter BS. Complete and utter BS.

 

And for people trying to "clean up the mess", they trash their get-togethers in a way that makes a Phish concert look clean.

If somebody has a theory or has produced some results that say the world is a mess of course we scrutinize. But political bias aside there are people who are trying to help out. Which is fine by me cult or not.

No, they're trying to force their dogma on people in similar ways to the Puritans.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

When the mercury level was identical for YEARS and there were NO reported problems --- it defies even the most cursory of logic to assume that SUDDENLY, it's become lethal.

            -=Mike

http://ojas.okstate.edu/OJAS/03/daniels.htm

In conclusion, a statistical difference was found to exist between mercury concentrations of both water and soil samples and their respective acceptable EPA standards. However, this increased level of mercury does not necessarily correspond to an increased health risk. If the algal level in the water is not increased as well, then the health risk is not increased because not all of the elemental mercury is converted into its toxic form of methylmercury.

Next.

http://epw.senate.gov/105th/lev_10-1.htm

It is important to distinguish, therefore, between data, or observed and measured occurrences of mercury in the environment, and model results, which are computer outputs from the models used. As one example, we have surprisingly few data points on how much mercury deposits from the atmosphere to the surface, where people live, but there are many model results that portray what those numbers might look like. When these model results are compared to the sparse data, the model results tend to be rather uncertain, by a factor of two or more, either over- or underpredicting the observations. The conclusions drawn from these estimates concerning management of mercury should, therefore, be tempered by the uncertainties in the estimates on which the conclusions are based.

AND

Results from these studies are still being analyzed. The initial findings from the Seychelles study indicate that no significant mercury effect was found over a wide range of pre-natal exposures to children. The Farces study has reported finding evidence of a neurological effect at the highest mercury levels. However, the biological significance of these findings remains unclear. Further analyses and refinements are expected in the results of these studies over the next two or three years.

 

Two independent analyses of the Seychelles results have suggested that the current EPA Reference Dose may be too severe by a factor of 3 to 5; that is, consumers can be exposed to mercury levels 3 to 5 times as great as the EPA level without harmful effect to children. This implies in turn a wider availability of fish from U.S. waters that can be considered safe for consumption.

Yup, pretty damning stuff there.

 

Next?

http://www.mass.gov/dep/files/mercury/hgexsum.htm

      The current mercury situation is really a good news/bad news story. The good news is that individual consumers, government, environmental groups and industry have all taken major strides to reduce mercury pollution. In Massachusetts, mercury emissions from municipal solid waste combustors ¾ the state’s largest source ¾ are predicted to fall by 85 percent or more over the next few years due to decreased use of mercury in batteries and fluorescent lamps, increased recycling of products containing mercury and new more stringent pollution control requirements on the facilities themselves.

 

      AlthoughThe bad news is that releases of mercury over the past 100 years or more have led to contamination of fish in many waterbodies in Massachusetts as well as other states, making these native freshwater fish unsafe for certain people to eat. And while many steps already have been and are being taken many steps already have been and are being taken to solve this problem, patience and perseverance will be required since improvements in the levels of mercury in the environment are unlikely to be evident right away.

 

      In particular, concentrations of mercury in freshwater fish will take years, if not decades, to begin dropping significantly. Mercury is remarkably persistent once it is released into the biosphere. It can recirculate within the ecosystem for many years, meaning that even significant reductions in mercury emissions from industrial and institutional sources may not result in immediately discernible improvement everywhere. Because mercury is transported by the winds for long distances, national and international efforts are needed to reduce global mercury levels.

Let me guess, you thought I wouldn't read this, right?

http://www.epa.gov/region01/soe/mercury.html

No actual notes. Just rampant speculation.

These are four reports I just found in the span of two minutes reporting on mercury levels before 2000.  If you are arguing that the TV didn't report on it "before Bush took office" then that is a different debate, but to act like people weren't stressing the issue before 2000, is complete bullshit.  

And I already showed the flaws in 3 of the 4 studies you posted.

Perhaps they didn't know THEN what they know NOW???

Yes, they had MASSIVE advances in mercury knowledge over the last few years. Of course. Suuure.

 

Don't worry, though --- like the rest of environmentalism's crises, this will likely end up being the usual BS.

Of course there are wackos that ties themselves to trees, but does that make Earth Day commie propaganda?

Considering how utterly filthy Earth Day celebrations tend to be, the believers don't practice their faith well.

No, it means there are civic minded people on the side of the road cleaning up a mess!

No, it's utter BS. Complete and utter BS.

 

And for people trying to "clean up the mess", they trash their get-togethers in a way that makes a Phish concert look clean.

If somebody has a theory or has produced some results that say the world is a mess of course we scrutinize. But political bias aside there are people who are trying to help out. Which is fine by me cult or not.

No, they're trying to force their dogma on people in similar ways to the Puritans.

-=Mike

Umm, you didn't find any "flaws" in the articles actually. You said the issues were not being discussed before Bush came into office, I claimed differently, and posted articles that pre-date the Bush administration. What the articles, say, prove, or don't prove is besides the point, the point is that studies and issues were being raised. Also I believe at least two of those articles also say that their information is now outdated anyway, and unless you want to assume that the situation has miracurously got better in the last 3-4 years, I think it is a pretty safe bet to say the opposite is true.

[NoCalMike 0]

No, they're trying to force their dogma on people in similar ways to the Puritans.

-=Mike

"don't put toxins and pollutants in the water, or it might have harmful effects to our drinking water"

 

SURELY, a DOGMA if I've ever seen one........

[Guest MikeSC]

No, they're trying to force their dogma on people in similar ways to the Puritans.

            -=Mike

"don't put toxins and pollutants in the water, or it might have harmful effects to our drinking water"

 

SURELY, a DOGMA if I've ever seen one........

You WILL spend untold millions of public funds for a recycling program with no real benefit to anybody involved.

 

You WILL have DDT banned, so fuck all of you who have a problem with malaria.

 

You WILL have to remove freon from coolers because we THINK it MIGHT cause a problem.

 

You WILL spend untold millions in increased costs because we THINK further safety with no measurable benefit is worth the risk --- and if you disagree, then FUCK you!

 

You WILL spend more on gas than is necessary because we think drilling for oil might well destroy the Earth.

 

You WILL starve because we think genetically engineered food is horrible.

 

You WILL have your land stolen from you because some obscure breed of rat might be living on your property. No, we won't recompensate you one fucking red dime for it, either.

 

Remember when toilets actually flushed with enough force to actually deal with your shit? FUCK THAT! We're going to give you toilets that can barely handle urine, much less feces.

 

Yes, a dogma with no scientific or rational justification for it.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Umm, you didn't find any "flaws" in the articles actually.

Hmm, the lack of any measurable correlation with a health risk in the FIRST report doesn't slow you down, eh?

 

How 'bout that the models that they use to determine mercury levels are inherently flawed? Not good enough for you, eh? Well, if you have to support a pseudo-science, I doubt it would.

 

The lack of any ACTUAL correlation between health problems in the 3rd story? Nope, no possible flaw with THAT study, either.

 

These are kinda fundamental issues.

You said the issues were not being discussed before Bush came into office, I claimed differently, and posted articles that pre-date the Bush administration.

Reports with no ACTUAL statement of finding of any ACTUAL correlation.

 

That's not even close.

What the articles, say, prove, or don't prove is besides the point, the point is that studies and issues were being raised.

Saying "WE DON'T KNOW!!" isn't raising an issue.

Also I believe at least two of those articles also say that their information is now outdated anyway, and unless you want to assume that the situation has miracurously got better in the last 3-4 years, I think it is a pretty safe bet to say the opposite is true.

Yup. Fortunately, they didn't pretend to even have an ANSWER back then, either.

 

So, we're basing GOVERNMENTAL POLICY on GUESSES without actual proof behind it?

 

Yeah, great plan.

-=Mike

[2GOLD 0]

Remember when toilets actually flushed with enough force to actually deal with your shit? FUCK THAT! We're going to give you toilets that can barely handle urine, much less feces.

 

This one sucks. They just did adjust our water pressure and now I have to flush TWICE for urine. TWICE! I mean, come on!

[NoCalMike 0]

So, we're basing GOVERNMENTAL POLICY on GUESSES without actual proof behind it?

 

Yeah, great plan.

          -=Mike

Well it seems more logical then your "pilliage and plunder the earth, makes no difference" plan.

 

It would have been different if I would have said, "I am going to post articles that PROVE Mercury levels are dangerously high" I didn't say that. All I meant to do was to show you that this was an active issue before Bush came into office. Do you get it yet?

[NoCalMike 0]

No, they're trying to force their dogma on people in similar ways to the Puritans.

             -=Mike

"don't put toxins and pollutants in the water, or it might have harmful effects to our drinking water"

 

SURELY, a DOGMA if I've ever seen one........

You WILL spend untold millions of public funds for a recycling program with no real benefit to anybody involved.

 

You WILL have DDT banned, so fuck all of you who have a problem with malaria.

 

You WILL have to remove freon from coolers because we THINK it MIGHT cause a problem.

 

You WILL spend untold millions in increased costs because we THINK further safety with no measurable benefit is worth the risk --- and if you disagree, then FUCK you!

 

You WILL spend more on gas than is necessary because we think drilling for oil might well destroy the Earth.

 

You WILL starve because we think genetically engineered food is horrible.

 

You WILL have your land stolen from you because some obscure breed of rat might be living on your property. No, we won't recompensate you one fucking red dime for it, either.

 

Remember when toilets actually flushed with enough force to actually deal with your shit? FUCK THAT! We're going to give you toilets that can barely handle urine, much less feces.

 

Yes, a dogma with no scientific or rational justification for it.

-=Mike

What does my statement have anything do do with that little stupid rant you just went on.

 

Oh and the world starving without GM foods, is certainly a hilarious bunch of bullshit you seem to want to spout off quite often without anything to back it up with.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

They seem to hold up primitive societies as an example of how we should live, but ignore that our significantly higher life expectancy might be a sign that we're doing something right.

We're doing some things right, but we're doing some things wrong as well. Thanks to our dependency on the clown, the king, the jack, the colonel, and the smiling yellow star, some nutritionists are predicting that very soon a generation will arrive that won't outlive it's parents.

 

Keep in mind I enjoy cheeseburgers myself, so I'm not advocating hippie granola or anything, but it's becoming a very real threat, and one that's local to America.

 

However, when faced with the light of other countries that don't hit the chain restaurants as hard as we do, yes, those claims that we need to start living like scavengers don't really hold up.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

You WILL starve because we think genetically engineered food is horrible.

The United States grows so much food that the agriculture industry used to throw food away because even after feeding our own people and our very generous donations overseas, we still had more food than we knew what to do with. Nowadays, the crops have gone down a bit to where we aren't throwing food away, but we're still meeting all our old standards in regards to feeding ourselves and others.

 

Although I believe that it's unfortunate to stifle science, using hunger as an arguement about genetically modified food is about as dogmatic and illogical as a lot of enivronmentalist arguements themselves.

[Vyce 0]

They seem to hold up primitive societies as an example of how we should live, but ignore that our significantly higher life expectancy might be a sign that we're doing something right.

We're doing some things right, but we're doing some things wrong as well. Thanks to our dependency on the clown, the king, the jack, the colonel, and the smiling yellow star, some nutritionists are predicting that very soon a generation will arrive that won't outlive it's parents.

 

Keep in mind I enjoy cheeseburgers myself, so I'm not advocating hippie granola or anything, but it's becoming a very real threat, and one that's local to America.

 

However, when faced with the light of other countries that don't hit the chain restaurants as hard as we do, yes, those claims that we need to start living like scavengers don't really hold up.

Then Jesus Christ, what the fuck is WRONG with America?

 

I went on a diet about a year ago. Cut out all of the really bad shit I used to eat. Know what happened? I lost SEVENTY pounds. Now, I pretty much never eat McDonalds, or Burger King, or KFC, etc. I eat out maybe ONCE a week, and then if it's fast food it's usually at a sub place or some place where I can eat a reasonable meal. I plan out my meals so that I don't go crazy with my food intake, and you know what? It's goddamn easy.

 

Please don't tell me that our future generations are doomed because they're too fucking lazy to exercise or actually cook & eat healthy meals rather than simply chown down on the greasy shit they sell at McD's.

 

God, how I fucking hate fat people.

[Guest MikeSC]

 

So, we're basing GOVERNMENTAL POLICY on GUESSES without actual proof behind it?

 

Yeah, great plan.

          -=Mike

Well it seems more logical then your "pilliage and plunder the earth, makes no difference" plan.

Who said anything about plundering the Earth? My way says that we don't make anything illegal or make demands without a damned good bit of knowledge and research indicating that there is a problem. We've seen, for nearly 20 years, alarmism taking the place of actual science and/or medicine (see saccharine, silicone breast implants). It's no different the burning people at the stake because you think they're witches.

It would have been different if I would have said, "I am going to post articles that PROVE Mercury levels are dangerously high" I didn't say that.  All I meant to do was to show you that this was an active issue before Bush came into office.  Do you get it yet?

Except in the case of Bush, they are openly SAYING "This is a problem". Under Clinton, they refused to say anything.

 

Get it yet?

 

And they ALSO bitched at Bush for "permitting putting mercury in water" for daring to repeal Clinton's order that he passed in his last week in office.

What does my statement have anything do do with that little stupid rant you just went on.

 

Oh and the world starving without GM foods, is certainly a hilarious bunch of bullshit you seem to want to spout off quite often without anything to back it up with.

Guess what?

 

There is less and less farmland everyday.

 

Since there has been NO evidence what so FUCKING ever that bio-foods actually cause any problems, it is no more than environmental Puritanism to protest something that DOES feed many, many people all over the world.

We're doing some things right, but we're doing some things wrong as well. Thanks to our dependency on the clown, the king, the jack, the colonel, and the smiling yellow star, some nutritionists are predicting that very soon a generation will arrive that won't outlive it's parents.

The same nutritionists who advised that saccharine can be a carcinogen --- well, provided its consumed in quantities so vast that cancer would be the LEAST of your concerns if you consumed it at the level necessary for it to cause cancer?

 

Come back with some ACTUAL evidence.

Although I believe that it's unfortunate to stifle science, using hunger as an arguement about genetically modified food is about as dogmatic and illogical as a lot of enivronmentalist arguements themselves.

Hmm, genetically modified foods have not been shown to actually cause a problem.

 

They have been shown to feed people.

 

Yes, I can see the concern.

 

You do realize how much "modifying" foods has benefitted humanity over the years, right?

 

Unlike the people who bitch about starvation, the bio-food people actually DO somethig about the problem. The hunger advocates should simply get the fuck out of the way and let people ACTUALLY feed people, since their rhetoric hasn't quite filled many bellies.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Farms in foreign lands feed people to, however when Big corporate farms buy up foreign land and plant their seeds, they naturally spread onto the local farmers land, and then take those local farmers to court since the GM seeds overpower their own crop, then are promptly sued, shut down and broke, it certainly hurts the local economies that were growing food just fine in the first place.

 

GM technology has good uses and bad uses, it is something we could turn to if need be one day, but as of now it seems GM is more about profit and taking over more land then "feeding people" Of course you can't say that is causing disease in people yet because studies are too new/recent/current, but that doesn't mean you go and legalize and regulate it based on there not being enough time for ample research. Just like the hormones/steroids/chemicals being pumped into cows to make them produce more milk, I guess you have no problem drinking those chemicals and making them a part of your body's makeup? I won't lie and say I NEVER drink Milk, but I try to keep the amount very low.

[Guest Brian]

They seem to hold up primitive societies as an example of how we should live, but ignore that our significantly higher life expectancy might be a sign that we're doing something right.

We're doing some things right, but we're doing some things wrong as well. Thanks to our dependency on the clown, the king, the jack, the colonel, and the smiling yellow star, some nutritionists are predicting that very soon a generation will arrive that won't outlive it's parents.

 

Keep in mind I enjoy cheeseburgers myself, so I'm not advocating hippie granola or anything, but it's becoming a very real threat, and one that's local to America.

 

However, when faced with the light of other countries that don't hit the chain restaurants as hard as we do, yes, those claims that we need to start living like scavengers don't really hold up.

Then Jesus Christ, what the fuck is WRONG with America?

 

I went on a diet about a year ago. Cut out all of the really bad shit I used to eat. Know what happened? I lost SEVENTY pounds.

source plz~!

[Guest MikeSC]

Farms in foreign lands feed people to, however when Big corporate farms buy up foreign land and plant their seeds, they naturally spread onto the local farmers land, and then take those local farmers to court since the GM seeds overpower their own crop, then are promptly sued, shut down and broke, it certainly hurts the local economies that were growing food just fine in the first place.

The local farms SELDOM grow food "just fine" on their own. The corporate farms, like it or not, INCREASE food yields markedly and, thus, FEED MORE PEOPLE.

GM technology has good uses and bad uses, it is something we could turn to if need be one day, but as of now it seems GM is more about profit and taking over more land then "feeding people"  Of course you can't say that is causing disease in people yet because studies are too new/recent/current, but that doesn't mean you go and legalize and regulate it based on there not being enough time for ample research.

So, we should BAN it JUST IN CASE?

 

Sounds like incredibly bad policy.

Just like the hormones/steroids/chemicals being pumped into cows to make them produce more milk, I guess you have no problem drinking those chemicals and making them a part of your body's makeup?  I won't lie and say I NEVER drink Milk, but I try to keep the amount very low.

Yes, I have ZERO problems with it and drink a great deal of milk. If you point out these potential health risks, please, do so.

 

Keep in mind that until Pasteur came around, you couldn't drink milk period. It tended to spoil REAL quickly.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

They seem to hold up primitive societies as an example of how we should live, but ignore that our significantly higher life expectancy might be a sign that we're doing something right.

We're doing some things right, but we're doing some things wrong as well. Thanks to our dependency on the clown, the king, the jack, the colonel, and the smiling yellow star, some nutritionists are predicting that very soon a generation will arrive that won't outlive it's parents.

 

Keep in mind I enjoy cheeseburgers myself, so I'm not advocating hippie granola or anything, but it's becoming a very real threat, and one that's local to America.

 

However, when faced with the light of other countries that don't hit the chain restaurants as hard as we do, yes, those claims that we need to start living like scavengers don't really hold up.

Then Jesus Christ, what the fuck is WRONG with America?

 

I went on a diet about a year ago. Cut out all of the really bad shit I used to eat. Know what happened? I lost SEVENTY pounds.

source plz~!

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I'm not necessarily against GMOs--just wanted to point out that world hunger doesn't exist because there isn't *enough* food, so producing greater yields won't necessarily solve the problem.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The same nutritionists who advised that saccharine can be a carcinogen --- well, provided its consumed in quantities so vast that cancer would be the LEAST of your concerns if you consumed it at the level necessary for it to cause cancer?

 

Come back with some ACTUAL evidence.

Well, their claims are their claims and not mine. I have no idea how much of it is scary words meant simply to alarm people, although I wouldn't be shocked if that claim about the generational thing isn't true.

 

Point is, though, that this nation is putting away a lot more fast food than other nations, and the average waistline is representing that more and more. In the long run, that can't be good unless people do like what Vyce suggested and cut down on that and exercise.

 

And again, I'm not some granola hippie, I ate Burger King last night to be honest. I'm just smart enough to know that man cannot sustain himself on Extra Value Meal alone. And if Congress is going to waste their time on something as trivial as MLB steroids, they need to take a look at this, too.

 

And calm down on the genetically modified food. You and I are on the same side on that one, just for different reasons. I don't like it when anyone tries to put a stop to science and deny us any benefits of that science or what it will lead to in the future. Even if we grow enough food that we don't need GM foods, it's no reason to close the lid on it and not learn anything.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Vyce is Jarod?...

[Guest MikeSC]

Vyce is Jarod?...

Shhhhhhhh.

 

It's a big secret.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Well if it is, Vyce, can you hook a brother up -- I got a footlong to give those chicks.

 

Ah who the hell am I kidding? It's more like one of those little hippie round sandwiches that I don't think Subway makes anymore, and that's before I jump in a swimming pool...

[NoCalMike 0]

The same

 

And calm down on the genetically modified food. You and I are on the same side on that one, just for different reasons. I don't like it when anyone tries to put a stop to science and deny us any benefits of that science or what it will lead to in the future. Even if we grow enough food that we don't need GM foods, it's no reason to close the lid on it and not learn anything.

I am not even against GM food either, I just feel for one, food should be labled in stores if it is GM, the way it is in Europe(OMG modeling us after EVILEUROSLOLO).

 

The science of it is important of course, and I never said experiments should not be done to see what we can make of it, however at the same time, before the stuff is stocked on the shelves and before it becomes a regular part of our diet, we should know what the rammifications of putting the chemicals into our bodies are, ala producing a tomato that can fight off roundup pesticides, thus being allowed to be sprayed down with 10x of the stuff, might be semi-harmful to eat over a long period of time, do I know FOR SURE, NO, but how can you say it is 100% safe when studies like these to determine effects on the body could take up to twenty or thirty years for long term effects to be produced?

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

The same

 

And calm down on the genetically modified food. You and I are on the same side on that one, just for different reasons. I don't like it when anyone tries to put a stop to science and deny us any benefits of that science or what it will lead to in the future. Even if we grow enough food that we don't need GM foods, it's no reason to close the lid on it and not learn anything.

I am not even against GM food either, I just feel for one, food should be labled in stores if it is GM, the way it is in Europe(OMG modeling us after EVILEUROSLOLO).

 

The science of it is important of course, and I never said experiments should not be done to see what we can make of it, however at the same time, before the stuff is stocked on the shelves and before it becomes a regular part of our diet, we should know what the rammifications of putting the chemicals into our bodies are, ala producing a tomato that can fight off roundup pesticides, thus being allowed to be sprayed down with 10x of the stuff, might be semi-harmful to eat over a long period of time, do I know FOR SURE, NO, but how can you say it is 100% safe when studies like these to determine effects on the body could take up to twenty or thirty years for long term effects to be produced?

He can't cuz we're too busy "burning him at the stake" or something. Who is the alarmist?

[Guest MikeSC]

The same

 

And calm down on the genetically modified food. You and I are on the same side on that one, just for different reasons. I don't like it when anyone tries to put a stop to science and deny us any benefits of that science or what it will lead to in the future. Even if we grow enough food that we don't need GM foods, it's no reason to close the lid on it and not learn anything.

I am not even against GM food either, I just feel for one, food should be labled in stores if it is GM, the way it is in Europe(OMG modeling us after EVILEUROSLOLO).

 

The science of it is important of course, and I never said experiments should not be done to see what we can make of it, however at the same time, before the stuff is stocked on the shelves and before it becomes a regular part of our diet, we should know what the rammifications of putting the chemicals into our bodies are, ala producing a tomato that can fight off roundup pesticides, thus being allowed to be sprayed down with 10x of the stuff, might be semi-harmful to eat over a long period of time, do I know FOR SURE, NO, but how can you say it is 100% safe when studies like these to determine effects on the body could take up to twenty or thirty years for long term effects to be produced?

So label things as being "POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS" --- even if no evidence actually exists that they are?

 

Got it. Good plan.

-=Mike