When will it be ALL GONE?

[Duffman]

How do GMOs have anything to do with fuel or fuel economy or is this all part of some hippy agenda?

[sendler]

Originally Posted by Duffman

How do GMOs have anything to do with fuel or fuel economy or is this all part of some hippy agenda?

This is a forward thinking forum.

[Duffman]

No this is a forum centered on resource conservation and specifically related to transportation related topics. Not that the OP had much credibility with me in the first place but he lost the remainder trying to link topics that are unrelated. To me the documentary “food Inc.” did the same thing when they got off the topic of food and started talking labour issues.

If you want to tie in organic vs non-organic food you should be talking about how bad organic is because its yield/inputs ratio is much poorer. To argue the reverse and especially with such bad sources only suggests that the OP is not interested in debating a specific issue but is more interested in promoting a larger political agenda.

[sendler]

At least we are not discussing how to make your pick up truck go from 18 mpg to 20.
.
Agree on the food topic though. The world is starving. Better crops are better crops.

[niky]

Normally I wouldn't go on like this, but the "anti-GMO" movement is a pet peeve. Just as bad as the "vaccines cause autism" movement. Alarmist noise based on nothing but pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo and a bias against technology people refuse to understand or actually take the time to understand.

Originally Posted by 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.

Oh come on. The quote clearly states that "the researchers said" so and so, then the author goes on to refute the findings. The fact that the study covered two years means nothing if they did not control for variables. I've seen too many "health studies" in which outside variables were more significant factors than the tested ones. And those studies covered more than just two years. Sloppy work is sloppy work, and should not be excused.

Really should read the study with a critical eye instead of accepting the findings at face value simply because they seem to support a position you favor.

Would I drink fertilizer? No. There's a reason there's a prescribed safe limit for levels in groundwater. Which nobody is denying. Would I eat GMO corn? Sure. I've been eating genetically modified food products since the day I was born. So have you, actually. And you still do, whether you like it or not.

-

The whole ethos of ecomodding is grounded in science. Which is based on improvement through rigorous experimentation and validation. And this study makes a wild claim that needs validation. Just like someone's claim that an intake netted him fuel economy savings without ever bothering to perform easy-to-do A-B-A tests to validate whether this is true or not.

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ord-22437.html

Your data covers two years. Does that make it any more valid than data gathered in a single day? Nope. Even less so, since you refuse to control for outside variables and test the improvement under controlled conditions.

[freebeard]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffman View Post
How do GMOs have anything to do with fuel or fuel economy or is this all part of some hippy agenda?

This is a forward thinking forum.

Same thing.

[suspectnumber961]

Originally Posted by Duffman

How do GMOs have anything to do with fuel or fuel economy or is this all part of some hippy agenda?

Guess you caught me...I'm a hippy and we intend to take over the world.

It's just a subject that I've been interested in and is probably off topic

I would like to see someone attempt an aerodynamic high mpg hospital bed complete with intravenous drip....oxygen supply....with a capacity of 1000 lbs for the obese among us. For those overweight individuals with lots of big lumps.

[suspectnumber961]

Originally Posted by niky

Normally I wouldn't go on like this, but the "anti-GMO" movement is a pet peeve. Just as bad as the "vaccines cause autism" movement. Alarmist noise based on nothing but pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo and a bias against technology people refuse to understand or actually take the time to understand.

Studies are expensive. I find it curious that Monsanto and others with mucho bucks are not required to do long term studies on the safety of GMOs.

My dog gets minimal vaccinations on the advice of a holistic vet who has seen health issues when too many are given.

You DO understand that MONEY buys "truth" and it buys elections? People you might think are Luddites are actually around on the other side of the coin and are seeing both sides? Reality is a bit more complex than you might think?

I mention issues because of interest in them...but the real test is that of actually making changes in one's life...talking about it doesn't change much?

[niky]

There are only two sides to the coin. Truth and non-truth.

You arrive at truth by checking all the evidence. And you arrive at non-truth by making up the conclusion then paying attention only to the evidence that you think supports your conclusion while ignoring evidence that doesn't. This is called confirmation bias, and it's a fallacy that many people fall victim to.

-

It surprises me that you haven't even cited sources for the "Farmer Suicide meme", when a short google search will turn up a history of massive suicide rates for Indian farmers dating back to before Monsato started selling GMO crops.

Whoops. Maybe that's why.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/colu...cle3595351.ece

Wow. Monsato must have been pretty influential to cause a massive uptick in suicides four years before they started business there, eh?

-

I wouldn't be surprised if Monsato was a greedy, bloodsucking corporation. I wouldn't even be surprised if Monsato cotton had hidden downsides. Having all farmers rely on a monoculture brings us right back around to the problem of industrial agriculture... crop hardiness and the disease resistance inherent in a varied genetic pool is sacrificed for maximum volume. And it doesn't hurt the company to have a monopoly on the cotton. Monopolies, especially state-supported ones, are bad stuff.

But to program your products specifically to fail? What would the point be? If you kill off your customers, then you have less profits. The only agricultural concerns that rely on such hardcore rip-off tactics are fly-by-night miracle crop proponents like Jatropha-pushers (also state supported!), who sell a product supported by shoddy research and false market claims.

-

You're talking to a Luddite. One who refuses to buy into hybrid hype, baby formula marketing, smartphones and credit cards. But my objections are based on simple, provable facts, not conspiracy theories with no sound basis.

How do you know you're on the path to truth? The ability to change your mind in the light of new evidence. I've changed my stance on oil, energy futures and climate change based on the quality of evidence I've reviewed. Have you ever had the guts to change yours?

[Christ]

Suspect...

The fact that you use a question mark as nearly your sole punctuation leads me to believe that you speak with an upward inflection at the end of sentences.

Unfortunately, because of this, your "in my head" voice is akin to a 14 year old blonde (stereotypical) teenager.

I just thought you should know that. And don't be offended. It's not the worst "in my head" voice.