Independent Research? [modified]
-
Why are asking me? Dan Bennett made the claim[^]
oilFactotum wrote:
Why are asking me? Dan Bennett made the claim[^]
Which you then followed up with "which is true"...Then you spent another half dozen posts trying to convince yourself you meant to say that it was "true" that they "thought" there research was unbiased. So are you now going to say you didn't say that? :omg: Astonishing....
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Why are asking me? Dan Bennett made the claim[^]
Which you then followed up with "which is true"...Then you spent another half dozen posts trying to convince yourself you meant to say that it was "true" that they "thought" there research was unbiased. So are you now going to say you didn't say that? :omg: Astonishing....
I'm tempted to say that your continued trolling is astonishing, but it isn't.
-
You are indeed wrong. Every step of the way.
oilFactotum wrote:
You are indeed wrong. Every step of the way.
You know...I'm almost convinced that you actually believe yourself. :laugh:
-
Great, you have basis for your claim in one instance.
oilFactotum wrote:
Great, you have basis for your claim in one instance.
It took a minute to find that. I suspect it would not be hard to find others.
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
One exists to push an extreme anti capitalist / envronmentalist agenda
Exactly the theory I reject.
You think wanting to ban a element[^] is not extreme?
-
Greenpeace said a study it had commissioned that was published in the
journal Archives of Environmental Contamination and Technology showed rats fed for
90 days on Monsanto's MON863 maize showed "signs of toxicity" in the liver and
kidneys.And...
"It is the first time that independent research, published in a peer-
reviewed journal, has proved that a GMO authorized for human consumption presents
signs of toxicity," Arnaud Apoteker, a spokesman for Greenpeace France said in
statement.I also find it interesting that a group which includes such organizations as PETA among its "comprehensive list of all [their] favourite sites[^]" would commission a study designed to induce cancer toxicity in rats. Of course, I guess that comes as no surprise. After all, they are leading global warming advocates[^].
Red Stateler wrote:
showed rats fed for90 days on Monsanto's MON863 maize
Christ. If I had to eat corn for 90 days straight, I'd be showing signs of toxicity too. I don't care if it's biodynamic soil, organic seed, and homeopathic water!!! Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith -
Rob Graham wrote:
I'm staggered. I think you said something intended as a reply, but i'll be damned if I can make one iota of sense out of it.
It's amazing isn't it? And people wonder why I can't hold back calling him an idiot. He's like Ilion on tranquilisers.
Red Stateler wrote:
He's like Ilion on tranquilisers too much pot.
:)
-
Greenpeace said a study it had commissioned that was published in the
journal Archives of Environmental Contamination and Technology showed rats fed for
90 days on Monsanto's MON863 maize showed "signs of toxicity" in the liver and
kidneys.And...
"It is the first time that independent research, published in a peer-
reviewed journal, has proved that a GMO authorized for human consumption presents
signs of toxicity," Arnaud Apoteker, a spokesman for Greenpeace France said in
statement.I also find it interesting that a group which includes such organizations as PETA among its "comprehensive list of all [their] favourite sites[^]" would commission a study designed to induce cancer toxicity in rats. Of course, I guess that comes as no surprise. After all, they are leading global warming advocates[^].
I have access to the journal (of course, the newspaper article could have screwed up which journal it's in, which they FREQUENTLY do) but unless it's not actually published yet, searching for "maize," for "MON863", "Monsanto," or even "Greenpeace" didn't turn up anything. So if anyone else figures out where it is, let me know - I'd like to see what they think "signs of toxicity" meant. Not that I don't trust Greenpeace, of course. :rolleyes: However, let's say they did find "signs of toxicity." Well, here's Monsanto's contribution.
Hammond B; Lemen J; Dudek R; Ward D; Jiang C; Nemeth M; Burns J. Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn rootworm-protected corn. Food And Chemical Toxicology. 2006 Feb; Vol. 44 (2), pp. 147-60.
The results of a 90-day rat feeding study with YieldGard (YieldGard Rootworm Corn is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology, LLC.) Rootworm corn (MON 863) grain that is protected against feeding damage caused by corn rootworm larvae are presented. Corn rootworm-protection was accomplished through the introduction of a cry3Bb1 coding sequence into the corn genome for in planta production of a modified Cry3Bb1 protein from Bacillus thuringiensis. Grain from MON 863 and its near isogenic control were separately formulated into rodent diets at levels of 11% and 33% (w/w) by Purina Mills, Inc. Additionally, six groups of rats were fed diets containing grain from different conventional (non-biotechnology-derived) reference varieties. The responses of rats fed diets containing MON 863 were compared to those of rats fed grain from conventional corn varieties. All diets were nutritionally balanced and conformed to Purina Mills, Inc. specifications for Certified LabDiet 5002. There were a total of 400 rats in the study divided into 10 groups of 20 rats/sex/group. Overall health, body weight gain, food consumption, clinical pathology parameters (hematology, blood chemistry, urinalysis), organ weights, gross and microscopic appearance of tissues were comparable between groups fed diets containing MON 863 and conventional corn varieties. This study complements extensive agronomic, compositional and farm animal feeding studies with MON 863 grain, confirming that it is as safe and nutritious as existing conventional corn varieties.
So at face value they're even. One study shows something, one study shows nothing. Though, I can't compare the study quality if I can't find one of th
-
You think wanting to ban a element[^] is not extreme?
No, not on the basis of your link. It wouldn't be the first chemical to be banned[^] So what is it about Chlorine that makes this an extreme position? -- modified at 18:42 Wednesday 14th March, 2007
-
I'm staggered. I think you said something intended as a reply, but i'll be damned if I can make one iota of sense out of it.
I'm staggered that you are incapable of understanding a simple response. Perhaps a more wordy response will help. There is an assumption behind your question that I reject. That assumption is that Greenpeace with an annual budget of $100 million is anything like ExxonMobil with annual revenues near $100 billion. ExxonMobil has produced research that has been scientifically discredited and was provided by organizations that exist only because of ExxonMobil funding and whose stated goal is to disprove global warming. At this point I am not aware of any evidence that the reseach done for Greenpeace is not independent. I haven't seen any evidence by anyone in this thread to support that accusation.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
You are indeed wrong. Every step of the way.
You know...I'm almost convinced that you actually believe yourself. :laugh:
You know... I am totally convinced that you don't actually believe yourself.
-
No, not on the basis of your link. It wouldn't be the first chemical to be banned[^] So what is it about Chlorine that makes this an extreme position? -- modified at 18:42 Wednesday 14th March, 2007
You misunderstand the link.. CFC's are not the issue, Greenpeace campaigns against the use of chlorine in any industrial chemistry because of the potential reactions in incinerators.
-
You misunderstand the link.. CFC's are not the issue, Greenpeace campaigns against the use of chlorine in any industrial chemistry because of the potential reactions in incinerators.
I'm aware that CFC's are not the issue. My point is that Chlorine would not be the first chemical that was ever banned. So, what is it about banning chlorine that is extreme? -- modified at 19:08 Wednesday 14th March, 2007 I just noticed - That article that you linked to is 13 years old! How is that even relevant?
-
I'm aware that CFC's are not the issue. My point is that Chlorine would not be the first chemical that was ever banned. So, what is it about banning chlorine that is extreme? -- modified at 19:08 Wednesday 14th March, 2007 I just noticed - That article that you linked to is 13 years old! How is that even relevant?
Because it is near ubiquitous in organic chemistry, including the manufacture of many many pharmaceuticals. Chlorine is an element, present in both benign compounds and dangerous ones. Banning its use is either scientific illiteracy or ecological fanaticism, your choice. Its relevant because that policy is still on their books, and therefore illustrative of their position.
-
Because it is near ubiquitous in organic chemistry, including the manufacture of many many pharmaceuticals. Chlorine is an element, present in both benign compounds and dangerous ones. Banning its use is either scientific illiteracy or ecological fanaticism, your choice. Its relevant because that policy is still on their books, and therefore illustrative of their position.
Here is a relevant quote from the memo: "Greenpeace says the largest dioxin sources are incinerators burning chlorinated wastes, pulp mills that use chlorine and chlorine dioxide bleaches, and the manufacturer of PVC (or vinyl) plastic; but all other sectors that use or burn chlorine also result in dioxin formation. Greenpeace said that the EPA should take emergency action to address these three priority areas, while long-term plans are initiated to phase out all other chlorine-based processes. . ." Nothing in that suggests that salt(for example) should be banned. It's talking about industrial use. It state there are 3 areas that should be addressed immediately, but gives no time line under which it must be accomplished, and then it talks about long term(very open-ended) plans to complete the ban. Doesn't sound particularly extreme to me. As a side note I'm curious why you would link me to the web site of the Center for Media and Democracy (sounds leftist to me) that contains a 13 year old internal memo from the Chlorine Chemistry Council that describes Greenpeace's position and it is on this website because "It offers a revealing example of the extent to which the chlorine industry is engaged in surveillance activities against environmentalists.", rather than Greenpeace's own website that, no doubt, has it's current position?
-
Here is a relevant quote from the memo: "Greenpeace says the largest dioxin sources are incinerators burning chlorinated wastes, pulp mills that use chlorine and chlorine dioxide bleaches, and the manufacturer of PVC (or vinyl) plastic; but all other sectors that use or burn chlorine also result in dioxin formation. Greenpeace said that the EPA should take emergency action to address these three priority areas, while long-term plans are initiated to phase out all other chlorine-based processes. . ." Nothing in that suggests that salt(for example) should be banned. It's talking about industrial use. It state there are 3 areas that should be addressed immediately, but gives no time line under which it must be accomplished, and then it talks about long term(very open-ended) plans to complete the ban. Doesn't sound particularly extreme to me. As a side note I'm curious why you would link me to the web site of the Center for Media and Democracy (sounds leftist to me) that contains a 13 year old internal memo from the Chlorine Chemistry Council that describes Greenpeace's position and it is on this website because "It offers a revealing example of the extent to which the chlorine industry is engaged in surveillance activities against environmentalists.", rather than Greenpeace's own website that, no doubt, has it's current position?
I had trouble locating the original press release: "Why Chlorine chemistry must be phased out"[^]. If you don't think that wanting to ban an entire class of chemistry is an extreme environmentalist position, then there really isn't much point in continuing the discussion as we are tripping over subjectivity. It was certainly enough to prompt the departure of a Greenpeace director however.
-
I have access to the journal (of course, the newspaper article could have screwed up which journal it's in, which they FREQUENTLY do) but unless it's not actually published yet, searching for "maize," for "MON863", "Monsanto," or even "Greenpeace" didn't turn up anything. So if anyone else figures out where it is, let me know - I'd like to see what they think "signs of toxicity" meant. Not that I don't trust Greenpeace, of course. :rolleyes: However, let's say they did find "signs of toxicity." Well, here's Monsanto's contribution.
Hammond B; Lemen J; Dudek R; Ward D; Jiang C; Nemeth M; Burns J. Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn rootworm-protected corn. Food And Chemical Toxicology. 2006 Feb; Vol. 44 (2), pp. 147-60.
The results of a 90-day rat feeding study with YieldGard (YieldGard Rootworm Corn is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology, LLC.) Rootworm corn (MON 863) grain that is protected against feeding damage caused by corn rootworm larvae are presented. Corn rootworm-protection was accomplished through the introduction of a cry3Bb1 coding sequence into the corn genome for in planta production of a modified Cry3Bb1 protein from Bacillus thuringiensis. Grain from MON 863 and its near isogenic control were separately formulated into rodent diets at levels of 11% and 33% (w/w) by Purina Mills, Inc. Additionally, six groups of rats were fed diets containing grain from different conventional (non-biotechnology-derived) reference varieties. The responses of rats fed diets containing MON 863 were compared to those of rats fed grain from conventional corn varieties. All diets were nutritionally balanced and conformed to Purina Mills, Inc. specifications for Certified LabDiet 5002. There were a total of 400 rats in the study divided into 10 groups of 20 rats/sex/group. Overall health, body weight gain, food consumption, clinical pathology parameters (hematology, blood chemistry, urinalysis), organ weights, gross and microscopic appearance of tissues were comparable between groups fed diets containing MON 863 and conventional corn varieties. This study complements extensive agronomic, compositional and farm animal feeding studies with MON 863 grain, confirming that it is as safe and nutritious as existing conventional corn varieties.
So at face value they're even. One study shows something, one study shows nothing. Though, I can't compare the study quality if I can't find one of th
How accurate any of this is ... you make your own mind up http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/genetic-engineering[^] http://www.monsantowatch.org/uploads/pdfs/2005innovest.pdf[^] http://www.mercola.com/2005/jul/30/monsanto_report.htm[^]
-
How accurate any of this is ... you make your own mind up http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/genetic-engineering[^] http://www.monsantowatch.org/uploads/pdfs/2005innovest.pdf[^] http://www.mercola.com/2005/jul/30/monsanto_report.htm[^]
Those links made me very sad. In general, Greenpeace's propaganda regarding genetic engineering is ignorant, potentially harmful, and makes me ridiculously angry. But I'd like to think I'd give any sound scientific evidence they came up with a fair shot. If they're actually going to present any. *crickets*
- F "You are really weird." - Kyle, age 16
-
I had trouble locating the original press release: "Why Chlorine chemistry must be phased out"[^]. If you don't think that wanting to ban an entire class of chemistry is an extreme environmentalist position, then there really isn't much point in continuing the discussion as we are tripping over subjectivity. It was certainly enough to prompt the departure of a Greenpeace director however.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
then there really isn't much point in continuing the discussion
Perhaps you are right. You haven't really provided any reason to believe that the position is extreme. Why is banning the idustrial use of an extremely toxic and evironmentally persistant chemical an extreme position? The paper you linked to provides that there are numerous alternative to the use of chlorine. There is no timetable that would suggest that the ban be implemented immediately. The following quote comes from the link about the CFC ban that I provided a few posts back "The production and consumption of halons was phased out by Jan. 1, 1994, and of CFCs, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, and hydrobromofluorocarbons by Jan. 1, 1996, subject to an exception for agreed essential users. Methyl bromide was to be phased out by 2005 but a number of users of the chemical have won temporary exceptions from the ban, and hydrochlorofluorocarbons are to be phased out by 2020. (Phaseout dates are later for developing countries.)" Notice the exception provided for "essential users" as well as "a number of users of the chemical have won temporary exceptions from the ban" and the 26 year time frame for the complete phase-out(longer for developing nations). Note this statement as well: "not all parties to the main protocol are parties to these amendments" This agreement is voluntary. There is no world cop to enforce this protocol. You cannot take Greenpeace's call for a ban on the industrial use of chlorine and call it extreme without understanding the context in which it would be implemented. Remember - your link to the Chlorine Board's internal memo lists a number of serious consequences to humans from an exposure to dioxins. Why is it important to continue the use of a highly toxic chemical that there are alternatives to?
-
Those links made me very sad. In general, Greenpeace's propaganda regarding genetic engineering is ignorant, potentially harmful, and makes me ridiculously angry. But I'd like to think I'd give any sound scientific evidence they came up with a fair shot. If they're actually going to present any. *crickets*
- F "You are really weird." - Kyle, age 16
I ask this question in all seriousness: Based on you statement above, Am I to assume that you are angry that there is opposition to the widespread industrial use of GMO's until we know more about the impact on our food supply and environment? If so, why? It can't be economic, the industry is barely a blip on the radar at this point. What is the problem with waiting?