7sigma

14 ms·

91.
by 7sigma 9y ago
Its one of the many debunked rumours about the cause of zika http://www.who.int/emergencies/zika-virus/articles/rumours/e... http://www.snopes.com/zika-microcephaly-outbreak-pesticide&#x2
92.
by 7sigma 9y ago
"The days of pure/basic research are dead, especially with funding from the public sector drying up." I take issue with that statement, there is still a lot of basic research done that is publicly funded or funded via organis
93.
Prosecutors withheld evidence that would have freed daughter(nytimes.com)
5 points by 7sigma 9y ago|0 comments
94.
by 7sigma 9y ago
Just because i'm mainly interested in a certain issue doesn't mean i work for the agribusiness industry (see my other comment, I don't have any links). While it looks like i'm defending the agribusiness industry to you,
95.
by 7sigma 9y ago
What do you mean by "valid concern" though? And what do you mean by "this particular genetic modification"?
96.
by 7sigma 9y ago
Sorry, i missed the TLDR part, the rest just jumped at me, because i've seen it so many times before. I don't have any industry connections at all whatsoever (I'm a plain old software dev). I'm mainly interested in the w
97.
You Say Data, I Say System(hackernoon.com)
12 points by 7sigma 9y ago|0 comments
98.
by 7sigma 9y ago
No the World Health Organisation didn't say that. The IARC did, basing their decision on a hazard criteria, not a risk based one. The WHO and FAO's statement is that it is not carcinogenic [0]. Most regulatory agencies follow a ri
99.
by 7sigma 9y ago
If you use Seneff's paper as proof of glyphosate's harmful effects, it probably means you have no idea how to distinguish good science from junk science.
100.
by 7sigma 9y ago
caffeine is about thirty times more toxic than glyphosate. According to wikipedia: "The LD50 of caffeine in humans is dependent on individual sensitivity, but is estimated to be 150 to 200 milligrams per kilogram of body mass (75–100 c
101.
Glyphosate study showing no harmful effects for glyphosate was ignored by IARC(reuters.com)
1 points by 7sigma 9y ago|0 comments
102.
by 7sigma 9y ago
Organics also use pesticides which are not a s effective as synthetic ones and therefore need to be applied more often so they it can be more harmful
103.
by 7sigma 10y ago
A lot of of the criticism of GMOs is based on flawed science and misleading use of statistics That article you linked was flawed on quite a few levels. It argued for example that France was able to reduce its levels of pesticides without us
104.
by 7sigma 10y ago
This is the complaint: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-pJR4cGo9ckUU1OQjJjcVQ4aUU... Its basically a motion to compel an EPA guy to go under oath and sounds like the complainant had some run ins with Rowland. Th
105.
by 7sigma 10y ago
Maybe instead of being cynical about people's motives you should try to go through what they are saying and see if it makes sense or not, or if the evidence its based upon is correct. "The first red flag that there are corporate i
106.
by 7sigma 10y ago
You mean Anthony Samsel ? If so, he's known to have published shoddy research along with Seneff that makes wild claims about glyphosate being the cause of many ills like autism and celiac disease based on correlation and without much e
107.
by 7sigma 10y ago
better than wooden sticks and flossing are the interdental brushes. Those clean a lot better in my experience and my oral health improved a lot after i started using them.
108.
by 7sigma 10y ago
Where in that link does it say that organic techniques use fewer pesticides? Organic farming is restricted to naturally occurring pesticides which are often less effective than synthetic ones and so they need to be applied more often. Also,
109.
by 7sigma 10y ago
Well in the case of BT (bacillus thurigensis) cotton and corn, for example, the GM plant produces the Cry toxin which is bad for the insects that eat the crop, so better than spraying it (Also BT is used in organic agriculture via spraying
110.
by 7sigma 10y ago
Terminator gene was never commercialised
111.
by 7sigma 10y ago
"It's because they're optimised to withstand heavy pesticide use" Actually, GMOs need less pesticides than non GMO crop. Some of them produce their own pesticide (BT corn and BT cotton). "Pesticides are bad." T
112.
by 7sigma 10y ago
" point to the 'overwhelming evidence' that proves GMOs and roundup is safe" You can't prove with absolute certainty that any food is safe, only what the risks are. And yes there is a lot of real scientific and inde
113.
by 7sigma 10y ago
Not really related, but I noticed the name of the prosecuting attorney: Carmen M. Ortiz. She's the one who prosecuted Aaron Swartz IIRC
114.
by 7sigma 10y ago
Kevin folta breaks down the flaws in the article pretty well: "1. No genes for yield were ever installed. The current suite of biotech traits were not meant to improve yields, they were made to ensure yields. In other words, they he
115.
by 7sigma 10y ago
The thing to remember as well with IARC is that it does its classifications with a hazard based approach, while most regulatory agencies use a risk based approach. A hazard is something that can harm potentially harm you. Risk quantifies h
116.
by 7sigma 10y ago
The article is quite misleading with its claims of organic being better than conventional agriculture 1) The UNCTAD report that is cited actually has the following text: "The views expressed in the articles contained in this Review are
117.
by 7sigma 10y ago
"and respect the process and fruits of natural history" sounds to me like an appeal to nature fallacy. The crops we grow have been modified beyond recognition from their wild counterparts. Add to that use of mutagenics to randomly
118.
by 7sigma 10y ago
not necessarily. if they get paid to do the tests whether or not it there is a positive or negative outcome, that incentive is reduced. The choice of 3rd party should be open, transparent and done by the regulating agencies.
119.
by 7sigma 10y ago
I think they were referring to unintended risks. There's probably less chance modify a plant in an inadvertently bad way with GE as its more precise. But yes if you want to weaponise an organism, it easier with GE. However, from my und
120.
by 7sigma 10y ago
I agree, but that doesn't mean that the safety testing has to be done by the company. A system where the company pays for the a 3rd independent party to do the testing is desirable IMO

More ›