rfidler, April 24 at 4:02 pm #

Anderson:
No I’m not an idiot. I’m not a shill.
**********************************************

Sure you are. You are either a shill, a troll or someone masquerading under a new handle.

Me, too.  I get that every now and then when I show someone’s argument to be bullshit.  They immediately accuse me of being one of those three things. 

One trap I continually fall into: If you (or I) argue with an idiot, what does that make you (or me)?

Anderson:
No I’m not an idiot. I’m not a shill.

Nowhere in the quote you posted about birth defects in Fallujah is there a link between them and uranium munitions.

And NO,depleted uranium shells are NOT “dirty bombs”!

It’s good that the pretty birds are safe because without them, there would be no people.

Because without birds, who typically eat tons of insects each year, there would be no one alive. No agriculture, no lives stock nothing would be alive not even us.

There is plenty of proof that depleated uramium causes toxic effect, its well known that most vets who return from the Gulf region continued to test positive in their urine for radioctive istopes of depleated uranium after they return.

In fact, what is happening to babies in the city of Fallujah is beyond horrifying. Back in November, one major U.K. newspaper described the situation this way….

” In September this year, say campaigners, 170 children were born at Fallujah General Hospital, 24 per cent of whom died within seven days. Three-quarters of these exhibited deformities, including “children born with two heads, no heads, a single eye in their foreheads, or missing limbs”. The comparable data for August 2002 – before the invasion – records 530 births, of whom six died and only one of whom was deformed.

The top brass in the U.S. and the U.K. militaries know full well the impact that depleted uranium munitions have had on many areas of Iraq, but they simply do not care.

So what exactly are depleted uranium munitions?

They are essentially “dirty bombs” made from nuclear waste. “

http://gulfwarvets.com/du.htm

http://gulfwarvets.com/du_greatest_enviomental_horrors.htm

rfilder - You are either an idiot or a paid shill, but I guess it really doesn’t matter which one because there are both the same..

Anarcissie:
Do you make this stuff up as you go!!??

Who strews uranium dust around?

What, in anything I’ve said on this issue, makes you think I “support” one policy over another? I was merely trying to discuss the nature and use of deplete uranium munitions. I NEVER mentioned my opinion on the morality or justifiablity of their use. Never. Just because I don’t suffer a Tourettes outburst at the mention of “uranium” like you do doesn’t make me a right wing wacko. And what does US policy in Iraq have to do with this thread anyway?

rfidler—Since you don’t believe me, I suggest you look into the uranium issue yourself.  If you’re supporting policies which lead to uranium dust being strewn about somewhere I suppose you have a kind of moral obligation to check it out.  As I’m opposed to imperialism as a national policy, I’m opposed to any kind of ammunition been strewn about Iraq, and the uranium aspect is just a detail.  Enthusiasts of the imperium have a heavier burden to carry.

Anarcissie:
“Incidentally, depleted uranium is still radioactive.” That’s just a quibble. Everything is radioactive if you want to get technical. The carbon in your body is radioactive; hence we can use its decay rate to date ancient fossils, etc. Depleted uranium shells are safe to handle without any special clothing or shielding. They’re just heavy bullets, no more no less.

Also, uranium shells are used to blow up tanks and other hardened targets, NOT schools and kids for God’s sake.

“The effect of spraying fragments of uranium around human populations isn’t known;” So then why do you and others wail and gnash your teeth about it’s use as if you DO know how bad it is? That’s called a straw man argument.

Getting back to the thread, the effects of banning DDT, on the other hand, ARE known. Millions of unnecessary cases of malaria worldwide, spread from mosquitoes which would have otherwise been eradicated by it. But hey, the pretty birdies are safe.

rfidler, April 24 at 8:45 am:
’... And NO about depleted uranium. The word “depleted” means “no longer radio-active”. The reason uranium is used is because it is very heavy, and the shells are very effective for their size. It has nothing to do with our rabid desire to kill Iraqi children. ...’

Well, it might be seen as a side benefit.  Presumably if one chooses to go on killing Iraqi children over a long period of time one wants a lot of them to be dead.  But primarily I think the people putting uranium to such uses just don’t care very much.  As Secretary of State Albright memorably said, “We think it is worth it.”

Incidentally, depleted uranium is still radioactive; it just isn’t radioactive enough for refinement into weapons- or industrial-grade material.  The effect of spraying fragments of uranium around human populations isn’t known; and, as I note above, I don’t think the people in authority care.  They have other concerns, like their ambitions, powers, repute, wealth, and so forth.  They think it is worth it.

Anderson:
I agree. It is like arguing with a plant.

And, like banning DDT to save the birds, let’s reduce crop yields by a factor of five to save some frogs some sexual embarassment in the lilly pond.

And NO about depleted uranium. The word “depleted” means “no longer radio-active”. The reason uranium is used is because it is very heavy, and the shells are very effective for their size. It has nothing to do with our rabid desire to kill Iraqi children.

And, you’re right again. It is a struggle to inform people about GWS. On the level with trying to inform people about Evo Morales’ good intentions.

It is dificult to reason with someone who is ignorant about what they are dicussing.

Try to understand, GMO’s are genetically altered to produce herbacides.

Let me spell it out, the plant produces it’s own herbacides. The same herbacides that are sprayed on the plant, because the weeds that the herbacides are supposed to kill are now resistant to it.

Those same herbicides have been shown, by real “honest to goodness scientists” to alter, the development of secondary sexual characteristics in amphibians.

As I said feminizing males and speeding up the development in females. This is what Evo Morales is upset about.

I know it’s a struggle, to inform people who are so misinformed, about the existance of Gulf War Syndrome, and the horrendous radiation effects of depleated Uranium poisoning on Iraqi children.

When a person lives in lies for so long it’s hard to hear the truth.

Anderson:
Let me apologize. The thread in fact is about Chemical additives, not GMOs per se. I’m sorry. You were more on point than I.

tropicgirl:
I rarely agree with nemesis, but I’m going to pile on.

First, it is totally settled that yields for GM grains are far superior to original strains. More people and animals are fed on less acreage and water than ever before. Second, “hormone laced” chickens grow faster, use less feed and less water and are less expensive than free range chickens. More people can get more food for less money.

Second, it is often true, though completely counterintuitive, that shipping foods half way around the world, while ignoring local sources IS cheaper. The arguments are convoluted and arcane, but valid. Just use price as a measure of the validity of the practice.

Third, chickens DO NOT have opinions about drug use for God’s sake!

@ tropicgirl:

A chicken can think of things like: “I really don’t like these chemicals that those mean homo sapiens injected into me.”? Do they have the concept of self? Do they reason?

Huh, I can understand your feeling for chickens but perhaps you’d be better off thinking before typing.

Well, gotta go, we’ve a family get-together tonight and we’re bar-b-queing chicken! Don’t worry, I have the concept of self and I only eat free range chickens. I raise then in the spare bedroom!

Enjoy your weekend!

Anderson:
If you need to get off thread to make some point about pesticides, ok. But the article was about Evo’s juvenile view of GMOs. Once again there’s a big difference between GMOs and “poisons” and your conflation of the two demonstrates your intellectual laziness.

And depleted uranium is not poisonous in anyone’s but the loopy left’s pharmacopia. And gulf war syndrome, if such a thing exists, is still looking for a cause. There is no connection between it and combat, or weaponry. And the Saudi’s, to my knowledge don’t use a lot of “poisons”. Maybe it was camel shit.

And Bhopal was NOT an “epidemic”! It was a tragic, local, short lived chemical accident.

God Anderson, you have got to be more careful with your choice of words. When you are that careless, you drain words of all meaning and force, and your agruments of all seriousness.

No, Poison, is poison. When children die of cancer from nitrates in hot dogs, it’s not because we don’t know why. When brain cancer rates increase, if you live next to a golf course, it’s not that we don’t know why, it’s because of exposure to toxic, poisonous chemicals.

Chemicals and Biochemical substances that are released into the enviornment for profit only.

Ignorance is bliss, as is unconsciousness, it’s easy to imbibe poison when your unconscious, because in your ignorance there’s always a belief that it will happen to someone else and not to you.

Yes, there are people who belive that smoking ciggarettes will not cause cancer, that it will happen to someone else.

It’s much harder to defend poisoning children with depleated uranium, or allowing Gulf War VEts to sicken and die by the thousands of gulf war syndrome.

But the same principals are at work here, someone wants to make money, by risking your life and health, and the lives of your loved ones. By selling poisonous products to the public. They hope that people will are too illiterate to understand what their doing.

And if they aren’t well there are crooked lawyers by the hundreds who prevent any sort of redress.

But maybe if the USA suffers from some tragedic poisoning epidemic like Bhopal India then maybe this will change.

Until then rfidler, drink up, enjoy..spray away..

Earth Day Took the Paved Road     empirePie   April 23, 2010

Earth Day took the paved road
and the cheers could still be heard: “Drill baby drill”
as Ocean derricks tumbled and tankers went aground.

Our payday is a Mayday and our status is the clown,
there is just no way out of town and green has turned to brown.

Nest blessed with dirty oil,
we refugees don’t till the soil;
but slow simmer with the Superfund
to turn us blue with toxins that don’t check your bank
and metastasize even if you are Gold sacked Hank.

@ tropicgirl:

I’m not quite sure what you’re saying with: ” this is the typical party line of the GMO-ers…” Are you saying that their party line is that they also are unable to provide enough food for that size population or that they claim that GMO is the only way to feed such a large population?

Evo Morales has accomplished much in his life. I’ve been to Bolivia and was there when the Chicago Boys were wreaking havoc on the country. What those people endured was incredible. The fact of the matter is that Evo Morales is not that well educated, he has what we consider a high school education—and not a very good one. He worked as a brick layer, baker, and ranch hand to pay for his high school education. He’s from a very poor people. There’s nothing wrong with that and even more reason to admire his accomplishments given such humble beginnings. But what does he really know from a technical and scientific standpoint about biology, gene science, chemistry, etc.?

Are most men in Europe bald? Has there been any surveys taken and if so where can we find the results? I know that there is an obesity problem in the U.S. and many claim that it is due to the corn sweeteners. While I don’t argue that, I would also say that much of the obesity has to do with over-eating due to an overabundance of really crappy food and the sedentary life-styles of AmeriCorp’s aging population. (Conservatism has to accept much of the blame because a conservative is someone who sits and thinks… sits mostly.) If this wasn’t tongue in cheek ridicule of the first world, where’s the evidence? Remember the big to do over coffee?

I don’t agree that it’s only a matter of diet change. Hoping not to be seen as a Malthusian, I believe that we have a real problem with the size of the earth’s population. Carrying capacity in the U.S. is—supposedly—300 million; we’re now at about 325 and growing. Something will have to give.

If those concerned want others to stop taking this so lightly all they have to do is produce some scientific evidence that backs those claims being made. I personally have always wondered why the sudden increase in homosexuality. When I was in junior high—in a small city—we knew of about 3 men who were queer (that was the term used back then). Perhaps Morales is on to something here; who knows?

Anderson:
First, you play fast and loose with the word “poison”.

Second, there’s a huge difference between “tested” and “banned”.

Of course some chemicals are bad for you, and should be controlled. That’s what happened to DDT, because it killed some birds which fed on the sprayed plants.

Of course, now, millions (I don’t overstate the number) of people unecessarily get sick or die from malaria around the world, but mostly in Africa, because the mosquitoes that DDT was so good at killing are rampant.

But we can feel good about ourselves because the birds are safe and who, after all, gives a damn about Africans?

“Glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient, is the most widely used herbicide in the United States.  About 100 million pounds are applied to U.S. farms and lawns every year, according to the EPA.”

“Last month, an environmental group petitioned Argentina’s Supreme Court, seeking a temporary ban on glyphosate use after an Argentine scientist and local activists reported a high incidence of birth defects and cancers in people living near crop-spraying areas. Scientists there also linked genetic malformations in amphibians to glysophate. In addition, last year in Sweden, a scientific team found that exposure is a risk factor for people developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=weed-whacking-herbicide-p&page=2

Why would they want to pump people full of poison? To make lots of money, of course. Since people would rather poison themselves and their entire neighborhood, rather than make a little effort to bend over to pull out a weed.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=chemical-controls

” Consequently, of the more than 80,000 chemicals in use in the U.S., only five have been either restricted or banned. Not 5 percent, five. The EPA has been able to force health and safety testing for only around 200. ” Yes I know, I stand correct but not by much.

politicky says : Nobody who makes comments like Morales did will approach the subject of human population growth.

Is that what Evo said? He speaks Amayra [?], an Indian languge, as his first language, and Spanish is his 2nd language. Now the goofy author of this article claims Evo thinks all these chemical additives create - oh my god! Gays.

How in the hell would this writer, who probably was no where near Bolivia while Evo addressed the Climate Conference, have any idea what was said? 3rd and 4th hand story-telling, after going thru several translations does not make for great, factual, reporting.

Get a clue!

rfidler, April 22 at 9:58 am #

ITW:
I’m usually with you, but I need you to explain the locution, “proof of the unknown effects.” How do you prove something unknown? How do you prove you don’t know something?
**************************************************

I thought G. Anderson’s post was clear evidence that he had personally been exposed to too many bad chemicals and it was reflected in his content and logic.

(it’s called ‘sarcasm’....)

Nobody who makes comments like Morales did will approach the subject of human population growth. 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2002.html

nemesis:
You have a sense of humor! Excellent! There’s hope for ya yet.

loneagle: I have no beliefs about GMOs except that yields are much higher than with “natural” varieties. As for the rest of your post, do you have ANY proof for your any of your loopy accusations?

This blurb confuses genetic engineering with the presence hormones and hormone-like compounds in our foods.  They are two very different things.

The term “Frankenfood” refers to genetically engineered organisms.  The Frankenstein part comes from inserting foreign genes into the genomes of other organisms, including even genes from the animal kingdom being introduced into plant species.  The result is not a bizarre monster with bolts in its neck, but the original species with some new characteristic, one which its makers hope will be beneficial, such as the ability of a food crop species to ward off insect pests or a specific disease.  But neither can it be claimed with any certainty that these foods are safe.  The frightening fact is that scientists have no way to know how these alterations will change the species’ interactions with the environment or their effects on the human body, especially when ingested regularly over the long term.  This is why the European Union, which so far has not been as thoroughly corrupted by Big Business as the U.S. Congress, has been cautious about the introduction of GMOs.

In the quoted comment, Morales is not talking about genetic engineering but about the presence in foods, especially meats, of chemicals which have estrogen-like effects in the human body.  Those chemicals are real, abundant, and really can have serious effects.  (Do a few web searches if you think I’m making it up.) They don’t turn men into women and may not make boys turn out to be gay,  but they can cause real trouble.  Unsurprisingly, the dangers are being ignored and downplayed by the corporate media, because corporate America is responsible.  (We wouldn’t want to let a trivial concern like public health affect the bottom line, now would we?)

Truthdig and Slate should be more careful.  Only a jackass jokes about things like this. This blurb is pretty shoddy.

@ rfidler:

Jose Boliviano? ROFLMAO! Good one!
_____________

@ G.Anderson:

Men scheming within the framework of a corporation are capable of many evils; even the intentional poisoning—in an effort to effeminize most men so that Republican and conservative politicians would be guaranteed wonderful “family valued” experiences throughout the millions of public restrooms in AmeriCorp—of other human beings, but you have to present evidence of your and Evo’s claims in order to have a modicum of credibility.

Rfidler—albeit a conservative—makes valid points. World population levels without GMO would mean massive starvation around the globe. Conventional agriculture simply cannot produce enough food to feed 6 billion Homo sapiens. Something has to give. We can resort to cannibalism but then the question arises; what to do about veggies and will there be enough Chianti for everyone?

Perhaps a soylent green solution is the answer?

rfidler, April 22 at 10:41 am:
‘Anderson:
Why would anyone pump them full of “poison”?...’

There are several reasons to put substances in or on food crops which do not have to do with their nutritional content and may be unsafe, the most common being pesticides.  Another common tactic is to use fertilizers, hormones and so on which promote “woody” growth, which makes plants larger without increasing their nutritional value or improving their taste.  (Indeed, this is the source of the famed rubbery, tasteless supermarket tomato.)  Similarly, cattle are injected with antibiotics and hormones—sometimes as many as 200 of them—which increase their weight; nobody knows exactly why, and few in the meat industry care.  You were really unaware of all this?  I feel as if I am reciting boring common knowledge.

Anderson:
Why would anyone pump them full of “poison”? And which five chemicals have been “tested”?

Just imagine how crop yields will fall when people realize the crops can’t be eaten, because their full of poison?

That’s right out of 80,000 chemicals in common use only 5 have been tested.

Commune115:
“Bolivia is engaged in possibly the most important, fascinating social revolution in the hemisphere…”

No, Commune, “Bolivia” is not. Evo Morales is, but I seriously doubt Jose Boliviano is overly impressed by the fact that Evo Morales now owns the tin mine he slaves away in all day, and not some nasty US corporation. And before you say, “No, the PEOPLE own the mine,” ask any random Cubano who owns the nickel mine HE slaves away in all day in that socialist paradise on earth. I seriously doubt he’d say “I do!”

If Evo Morales really wanted to improve the lives of Bolivians instead of dragging them back into worse poverty, he’d embrace GMOs and let his people decide for themselves what they want to grow and eat.

Everybody likes to beat up on GMOs. Let’s assume that the population of the earth stays steady at 6+ billion for a few decades. If we ban GMOs and go back to pre-GMO crop yields, how much more land would we need to put under the plow to feed all of us?

Rice is THE world staple. Do you have any idea how much the yield per acre of GM rice surpasses “natural” rice in China, the Phillipines and the US? Current GM rice also takes far less water to grow, which is a huge benefit.

Does anyone, besides commune115 and Anderson and Evo Morales really believe that Big Ag’s main goal is to turn us all into bald eunuchs, and that the increased yields of GM crops is just an accident?

ITW:
I’m usually with you, but I need you to explain the locution, “proof of the unknown effects.” How do you prove something unknown? How do you prove you don’t know something?

Thanks for the info on lithium. I thought Bolivia was just big into tin. Maybe Morales needs to take a little pharmaceutical lithium and chill.

Anderson:
You rightly condemn ridicule as a debate tactic.

Then you proceed to reel off a whole series of side splitters to destroy any credibilty you might have had:

“each and every American is exposed to tons of the stuff in the food they eat, the water they drink is also a fact”  TONS??!

“Of the 80,000 chemicals in common use in the USA, only 5 have ever been studied, that’s right 5.” ONLY FIVE??!

“when he grows up as a hermaphrodite” How often has this happened so far?

“2 million deaths in this country due to lung failure, related to the consumption of genetically modified corn.” Related how? And how do you cover up 2 million deaths?

Leave your “facts” out of your posts and just give us your opinions, ok.

G. Anderson is 100% right.  His post is proof of the unknown effects of chemicals in our food.

Bolivia’s future is tied to its one, truly unique asset: It supplies something like half the world’s lithium.  Yeah, the stuff in every cell phone, iPod, laptop, notebook, BlueTooth headset, etc. The lithium in your “Lithium-Ion” batteries comes from…Bolivia.

Notice Mr. Morales doesn’t talk about the effects on the body from lithium exposure!

Also, Native Americans are Asiatic, and baldness is just as rampant in Japan, China, SE Asia, etc, as it is in Europe.  I have NO idea about baldness among N.A.‘s I’ll let you know when my 5 year old is 50 or 60!

Bolivia is engaged in possibly the most important, fascinating social revolution in the hemisphere and this is the topic truthdig used to FINALLY report on the guy?

Ridicule….

This is how the petro chemical/Bio Tech industry protects itself from those who have become aware of what is happening.

It is a fact that GMO’s are genetically engineered to produce herbicides that have been shown to cause gender bending in amphibians, and are implicated in hormone problems in children, feminizing males and speeding up the development of secondary sexual characteristics in young girls.

That each and every American is exposed to tons of the stuff in the food they eat, the water they drink is also a fact.  We are exposed at the park, the golf course, the baseball diamond, the home garden, and with almost every GMO that we eat. Because almost everything contains GMO corn, soy, or sugar made from GMO sugar beets.

That the companies that make this stuff admitted to the fact that they don’t have a clue as to what they’ve done because they lied about the data, and there have never been any scientific studies on their effects on people, is also a fact.

Of the 80,000 chemicals in common use in the USA, only 5 have ever been studied, that’s right 5.

If your kid plays soccer down at the park you might want to ask your self how you will deal with it, when he grows up as a hermaphrodite. Counseling, and psychotherapy is not going to help.

Recently the Russian press has been running a story about a coverup of at least 2 million deaths in this country due to lung failure, related to the consumption of genetically modified corn.

One of the side effects of having corporate control over the press is never hearing about these stories, or the riots in Argentina over GMO soy.