When will it be ALL GONE?

[freebeard]

Hemp oil, man; and turn the rest of the plant into Biochar.

NeilBlanchard -- You make it sound like oil and natural gas switch teams between the first and second paragraphs.

You sound real down. Did Sandy get to you?

I expected the seas would be wall to wall jellyfish, but if there's no plankton...

[niky]

He didn't switch. Just pointed out the net EROEI for oil is positive in the first but the social costs are possibly worse in the second.

Jellyfish taste weird, but pretty soon, we'll have to get used to eating those pests.

[suspectnumber961]

I can't say as I understand all the details of the study...but then it lasted 2 yrs using the same rats that the biotechs use to do safety studies that only last 90 days....with no oversight. Studies cost $...but then poorly designed 2 yr studies beat 90 day studies???

Obama has put probably a dozen or so Monsanto execs into his admin and they are rolling out the GMOS as fast as they can. Most countries have banned GMOs. All recent Pres and families eat (have eaten) organics...while you get GMOs. OBOMBYA smells, but not as much as un-MITT-igated disaster Robnya?

I do seriously try to avoid GMOs...meaning avoiding most processed food...corn...soy...canola....also sugars...wheat...

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...1103_DNL_art_1

The world’s first lifetime feeding study discovered that rats fed a diet containing 11 percent GE corn developed massive breast tumors, kidney and liver damage and other serious health problems in the 13th month of life.

To put this into human perspective, if the average lifespan of a person is 80 years, these health problems would start rearing their ugly head somewhere during the 43rd year of life, provided your diet contained just over 10 percent GE foods and you began eating them in early childhood

According to a report released by the Environmental Working Group, Americans are eating their weight and more in genetically engineered food every year—an average of 193 pounds of GE foods annually

Want to know what is going on with food? Subscribe to these videos...

NutritionFacts.org | The Latest in Nutrition Related Research

Originally Posted by niky

So a study finds out that rats exposed to fertilizers suffered tumors, and rats fed exclusively on corn LACED WITH THE SAME fertilizers suffered tumors, but not as much as rats who drank the fertilizer straight? And that rats who drank no fertilizer and ate no GMO corn suffered a premature death rate of around 20-30%?

Am I missing something here? Color me stupid, but I thought that study controls were supposed to isolate all elements being studied thoroughly?

All I see is a study proving that RoundUp fertilizer is carcinogenic. Shocking, yes. But it tells me nothing about GMOs, nothing about what particular genes were modified, what effects the modification had on the modified organisms and what inherent qualities or chemicals the modified organisms possessed that would cause cancer.

Aside from the fertilizer, of course.

That's the problem with reading something with the idea of proving a case, you miss the bigger picture. Thankfully, more sober news agencies are calling it as it is... RoundUp is possibly carcinogenic. Not the plants.

And after all that, we will have to examine what it is in non-GMO corn that causes a 20-30% premature mortality rate in rats.

---

This is not to say that Monsato isn't an abusive, bloodsucking corporate agricultural monopolist with no conscience... But the study strikes me as almost as flawed as a recent one that pointed out diet softdrinks are linked to higher incidences of heart problems versus fruit juice. Only admitting, in the fine print, that most of the fruit juice respondents were vegetarians, while most of the softdrink drinkers ate lots and lots of red meat. Whoops.

[jakobnev]

Color me stupid, but I thought that study controls were supposed to isolate all elements being studied thoroughly?

That's only for scientific studies, nutritional stuuuuuudies* are not.


*) Stretching the word, har har.

[cujet]

Originally Posted by freebeard

So we can pump oil until the skies turn black. Should we?

Nice.

[niky]

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961

I can't say as I understand all the details of the study...but then it lasted 2 yrs using the same rats that the biotechs use to do safety studies that only last 90 days....with no oversight. Studies cost $...but then poorly designed 2 yr studies beat 90 day studies???

Obama has put probably a dozen or so Monsanto execs into his admin and they are rolling out the GMOS as fast as they can. Most countries have banned GMOs. All recent Pres and families eat (have eaten) organics...while you get GMOs. OBOMBYA smells, but not as much as un-MITT-igated disaster Robnya?

I do seriously try to avoid GMOs...meaning avoiding most processed food...corn...soy...canola....also sugars...wheat...

David versus Monsanto: A Documentary on GMO

The world’s first lifetime feeding study discovered that rats fed a diet containing 11 percent GE corn developed massive breast tumors, kidney and liver damage and other serious health problems in the 13th month of life.

To put this into human perspective, if the average lifespan of a person is 80 years, these health problems would start rearing their ugly head somewhere during the 43rd year of life, provided your diet contained just over 10 percent GE foods and you began eating them in early childhood

According to a report released by the Environmental Working Group, Americans are eating their weight and more in genetically engineered food every year—an average of 193 pounds of GE foods annually

Want to know what is going on with food? Subscribe to these videos...

NutritionFacts.org | The Latest in Nutrition Related Research

Again, we're talking about a study in which the chosen rats had a premature death rate of 20-30% in the control group. That would be akin to doing a long term study on smoking and finding that 20-30% of non-smokers died of lung cancer. Doesn't sound fishy to you? Fine. Keep posting links to the exact same "study", as if it makes it any more valid.

Politics and dirty business aside, the study suggested nothing to me (even if it were entirely valid) of any carcinogenic effects of genetically-modified corn. It only suggested that "safe" levels of fertilizer-slash-pesticide (and the only modification to the corn was to make it resistant to the pesticide) might cause increased tumors in rats that are ridiculously easy to induce tumors in if you force feed them corn laced with said pesticide. In fact the rats used are so easy to induce tumors in that a fourth of the "control group" developed tumors.

Most respectable scientists are shocked by how poorly constructed the study is, and the announcement is getting torn to pieces by every science writer out there with half a brain. Hell, all I've read is the abstract, and I can call the findings complete and utter bullcrap.

http://news.discovery.com/earth/gm-c...dy-120920.html

[suspectnumber961]

http://news.discovery.com/earth/gm-c...dy-120920.html


SAME RESULTS for GM corn and glycophosphate?

In the groups that ate engineered maize, the researchers reported that 70 percent of female rats and 50 percent of males died prematurely. Numbers were the same for rats that ate herbicide-treated food.

In comparison, 20 percent of females and 30 percent of males in the control group that ate herbicide-free, non-GM maize.

Final note: they can b*tch about this study all they want but it sure beats the 90 day study done to prove? SAFETY.

[niky]

Not reading the link properly.

The study showed no clear link between the amount of RoundUp and the incidence of cancer.

I.E.: If something is carcinogenic, more of it should be more carcinogenic. But the statistics are all over the place, and the animals on the highest doses showed the longest lifespans, for some reason.

And a control group of just ten animals versus an experimental group of over 200 is not a "control" group. Not even remotely.

[radioranger]

where does the BBC have any credibility !!

[suspectnumber961]

Bottom line for me is...I try to avoid GMOs. I'll take a poorly done (?) 2 yr study over a 90 day study any day. Cancer takes time to develop....as the longer study shows.

Maybe you should try the higher doses and see how it goes....then get back with us in a few years or so?

Link was what was visible...in other words...the quote is from the link you provided.

Originally Posted by niky

Not reading the link properly.

The study showed no clear link between the amount of RoundUp and the incidence of cancer.

I.E.: If something is carcinogenic, more of it should be more carcinogenic. But the statistics are all over the place, and the animals on the highest doses showed the longest lifespans, for some reason.

And a control group of just ten animals versus an experimental group of over 200 is not a "control" group. Not even remotely.