Go Back   EcoModder Forum > Off-Topic > The Lounge
Register Now
 Register Now
 


Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 11-11-2012, 12:58 PM   #131 (permalink)
...beats walking...
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: .
Posts: 6,190
Thanks: 179
Thanked 1,525 Times in 1,126 Posts
Q: "When Will It All Be Gone?"

A: "When the last oil well starts making 'slurping' sounds."


Last edited by gone-ot; 11-14-2012 at 03:26 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 11-11-2012, 06:52 PM   #132 (permalink)
radioranger
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Canton CT
Posts: 442
Thanks: 140
Thanked 44 Times in 33 Posts
time spent worrying is lost forever, do what you can help your friends , try to help your enemies and enjoy life, so much of enviromentalism is fear and worry , you can't win there game, they are in fact a bit off, as a nice way to put it, example one, flourescent bulbs, sure lets import a few hundred tons a year of mercury in bulbs , then have no system in place or even a deposit on them to get people to recyclye the metal in them . so smart, 99.9 % of people toss them and they get incinerated into the air and then our water, now there is a worry ! not much common sense, i have liberal friends who heat with wood and believe in global warming,, LOL most carbon dirty way there is to heat anything, unless you really heat it up. but that's different, meanwhile asthma rates go up all over, just sayin ! do whats doable,
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2012, 02:11 AM   #133 (permalink)
Human Environmentalist
 
redpoint5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 12,390

Acura TSX - '06 Acura TSX
90 day: 24.19 mpg (US)

Lafawnda - '01 Honda CBR600 F4i
90 day: 47.32 mpg (US)

Big Yeller - '98 Dodge Ram 2500 base
90 day: 21.82 mpg (US)

Prius Plug-in - '12 Toyota Prius Plug-in
90 day: 57.64 mpg (US)

Mazda CX-5 - '17 Mazda CX-5 Touring
90 day: 26.68 mpg (US)

Chevy ZR-2 - '03 Chevrolet S10 ZR2
90 day: 17.14 mpg (US)
Thanks: 4,187
Thanked 4,378 Times in 3,353 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by suspectnumber961 View Post
READ IT ALL...

"Experts" claim organic food is no better or safer than food drenched with pesticides. But still, you can choose organic.

You have a right to know. And then, knowing, you have a right to make your choice...

It's no accident. The powers-that-be want it that way...
I would be embarrassed to attach my name to this poorly argued article. No proof of claims were included, and it relied entirely on appeal to emotion. Putting quotes around "experts" is intended to make me disbelieve the credibility of people that aren't even named.

Then it tries to appeal to my sense of entitlement, which is the lowest of roads to travel. I have "the right to know"? Do I have the right to know if crops weren't told words of affirmation and handled with a loving touch? It would be easy for me to claim that crops that aren't brought up in a loving environment end up causing disease to people that eat them, but I would have no basis for credibility without evidence to support that claim.

What we are talking about is causing a known harm to companies by forcing them to comply with a certain type of labeling, all for the sake of some unknown and unseen "badness", to which there is no evidence.

I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; not to products displaying a list of everything it does and does not contain. That would be impractical.

Lastly, who are the "powers that be"? This article has all the earmarks of an alarmist conspiracy theory since it suggests we should be alarmed and mad as hell about some unknown bad thing that some unknown bad people have forced upon us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by niky View Post
You know, that post would have Jonathan Salk spinning in his grave.
That guy, and likely Jonas Salk as well.
__________________
Gas and Electric Vehicle Cost of Ownership Calculator







Give me absolute safety, or give me death!
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to redpoint5 For This Useful Post:
radioranger (11-12-2012)
Old 11-12-2012, 07:43 PM   #134 (permalink)
Moderate your Moderation.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Troy, Pa.
Posts: 8,919

Pasta - '96 Volkswagen Passat TDi
90 day: 45.22 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,369
Thanked 430 Times in 353 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5 View Post
I would be embarrassed to attach my name to this poorly argued article. No proof of claims were included, and it relied entirely on appeal to emotion. Putting quotes around "experts" is intended to make me disbelieve the credibility of people that aren't even named.

Then it tries to appeal to my sense of entitlement, which is the lowest of roads to travel. I have "the right to know"? Do I have the right to know if crops weren't told words of affirmation and handled with a loving touch? It would be easy for me to claim that crops that aren't brought up in a loving environment end up causing disease to people that eat them, but I would have no basis for credibility without evidence to support that claim.

What we are talking about is causing a known harm to companies by forcing them to comply with a certain type of labeling, all for the sake of some unknown and unseen "badness", to which there is no evidence.

I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; not to products displaying a list of everything it does and does not contain. That would be impractical.

Lastly, who are the "powers that be"? This article has all the earmarks of an alarmist conspiracy theory since it suggests we should be alarmed and mad as hell about some unknown bad thing that some unknown bad people have forced upon us.



That guy, and likely Jonas Salk as well.
I don't disagree with this in it's entirety, but I do feel that it's in our best interests to know what's in our food.

Also, part of our liberty (as a right) is having the ability to make informed decisions as they pertain to our health and life choices, whether or not those "informed" decisions are based on nonsense. That said, since we're not growing our own food, I feel that we're right and well within our natural rights to ask that it be disclosed whether or not our food is someone else's science experiment.

Personally, I'd rather eat natural food. But then again, I generally buy my fresh foods from local farms anyway, and all you have to do is ask.
__________________
"¿ʞɐǝɹɟ ɐ ǝɹ,noʎ uǝɥʍ 'ʇı ʇ,usı 'ʎlǝuol s,ʇı"

  Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2012, 11:02 PM   #135 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
sendler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Syracuse, NY USA
Posts: 2,935

Honda CBR250R FI Single - '11 Honda CBR250R
90 day: 105.14 mpg (US)

2001 Honda Insight stick - '01 Honda Insight manual
90 day: 60.68 mpg (US)

2009 Honda Fit auto - '09 Honda Fit Auto
90 day: 38.51 mpg (US)

PCX153 - '13 Honda PCX150
90 day: 104.48 mpg (US)

2015 Yamaha R3 - '15 Yamaha R3
90 day: 80.94 mpg (US)

Ninja650 - '19 Kawasaki Ninja 650
90 day: 72.57 mpg (US)
Thanks: 326
Thanked 1,315 Times in 968 Posts
What is natural food. Just about every variety of food grown on farms has been selectively bread to improve it for decades, if not centuries.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 05:29 AM   #136 (permalink)
The PRC.
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Elsewhere.
Posts: 5,304
Thanks: 285
Thanked 536 Times in 384 Posts
Oh dear.

Oh dear oh dear.

Ahh well.

Back to the MPGs.
__________________
[I]So long and thanks for all the fish.[/I]
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 06:25 PM   #137 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
freebeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 27,561
Thanks: 7,736
Thanked 8,554 Times in 7,041 Posts
Now that right there is funny.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 06:54 PM   #138 (permalink)
Corporate imperialist
 
oil pan 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NewMexico (USA)
Posts: 11,175

Sub - '84 Chevy Diesel Suburban C10
SUV
90 day: 19.5 mpg (US)

camaro - '85 Chevy Camaro Z28

Riot - '03 Kia Rio POS
Team Hyundai
90 day: 30.21 mpg (US)

Bug - '01 VW Beetle GLSturbo
90 day: 26.43 mpg (US)

Sub2500 - '86 GMC Suburban C2500
90 day: 11.95 mpg (US)

Snow flake - '11 Nissan Leaf SL
SUV
90 day: 141.63 mpg (US)
Thanks: 269
Thanked 3,522 Times in 2,796 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arragonis View Post
I see nothing has changed since the last time I was over there.
__________________
1984 chevy suburban, custom made 6.5L diesel turbocharged with a Garrett T76 and Holset HE351VE, 22:1 compression 13psi of intercooled boost.
1989 firebird mostly stock. Aside from the 6-speed manual trans, corvette gen 5 front brakes, 1LE drive shaft, 4th Gen disc brake fbody rear end.
2011 leaf SL, white, portable 240v CHAdeMO, trailer hitch, new batt as of 2014.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 05:02 AM   #139 (permalink)
EcoModding Alien Observer
 
suspectnumber961's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: I flitter here and there
Posts: 547

highcountryexplorer - '86 Nissan 720 KC 4x4 ST with fiberglass cap
90 day: 21.78 mpg (US)

Elroy - '03 Ford Focus ZX3 w/Zetec DOHC engine
90 day: 32.89 mpg (US)
Thanks: 6
Thanked 78 Times in 65 Posts
A relatively SANE page on the GMO issues?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a..._HLTH_20121113


In the end, the public was swayed by the No on Prop 37 campaign, which convinced people that the economic costs were too high and the science didn't make sense. As of November 6, Prop 37 is dead. The deck was stacked against the pro-Prop 37 camp, funded by companies like Nature's Path Foods and Amy's Kitchen, from the start. It just wasn't as well-funded; the No on Prop 37 movement saw pesticide companies like Monsanto and Bayer Cropscience sinking millions of dollars into the campaign. In the last 20 days before the election, No on Prop 37 spent an average of over $1 million each day on an ad blitz, killing the proposition's momentum--it dropped from 67% support in September to 39% support by the election.

Genetic Engineers Explain Why Genetically Modified Food Is Dangerous | Co.Exist: World changing ideas and innovation

The authors include John Fagan, a former genetic engineer who gave back his National Institutes of Health grant money because of safety and ethical concerns (he now runs a GMO testing company); Michael Antoniou, the head of the Gene Expression and Therapy Group at King’s College London School of Medicine in London; and Claire Robinson, research director of Earth Open Source.

What are these scientists worried about?

Genetic engineering is not, as proponents claim, an extension of natural plant breeding. While natural breeding takes place only between related kinds of life, genetic engineering happens in a lab, where tissue cultured plant cells undergo a GM gene insertion process that couldn’t happen in nature. This is not in and of itself a bad thing.

One of the problems, say the researchers, is that genetic engineering is imprecise and the results are unpredictable, with mutations changing the nutritional content of food, crop performance, and toxic effects, among other things. Every generation of GMO crops interacts with more organisms, creating more opportunities for unwanted side effects.

GMO technology is becoming more precise, but the authors contend that accidents will always happen and, in any case, plant biotechnologists don’t really know much at all about crop genomes--so inserting genes at a supposedly safe area could still lead to all sorts of side effects.

GMO crops can be toxic in three ways: The genetically modified gene itself (i.e. Bt toxin in insecticidal crops); mutagenic or gene regulatory effects created by the GMO transformation process; and toxic residues created by farming practices (i.e. from the Roundup herbicide used on GMO Roundup Ready crops).

GMO food regulation varies widely by country. In the U.S., the FDA doesn’t have a required GMO food safety assessment process--just a voluntary program for review of GMO foods before they go on the market (not all commercialized GMO food crops have done this).

Independent GMO crop risk research is hard to come by because, as the report explains, "independent research on GM crop risks is not supported financially--and because industry uses its patent-based control of GM crops to restrict independent research. Research that has been suppressed includes assessments of health and environmental safety and agronomic performance of GM crops." A 2010 licensing agreement between Monsanto and USDA scientists should make it easier to conduct research--but the report explains that it’s still restrictive.

The Genetically Modified Food You Eat Every Day | Co.Exist: World changing ideas and innovation

To avoid most GMOs...at this point...avoid these foods...if you can?



About the only way to do this is to avoid most processed foods.

REMEMBER: if you don't care...I'm pretty sure I don't care. We makes our choices and we takes our chances.

...
__________________
Carry on humans...we are extremely proud of you. ..................

Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. GALLUP POLL
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 11:04 PM   #140 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Philippines
Posts: 2,173
Thanks: 1,739
Thanked 589 Times in 401 Posts
Unless you're eating original, pre-Indian corn (if it even exists), that graph should read 100%

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5 View Post
That guy, and likely Jonas Salk as well.
My bad. Obviously Jonathan is his poorly remembered half-brother who swept floors at night.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com