181–190 of 300 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ARPANET was created in 1969. Distract all your geniuses with cat pictures and flame wars, and doom is sure to follow.
Did arpanet already have porn? Then i blame men are whacking it more since 1969...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The burden of proof is on the one making unsupported claims, not on the one questioning the unsupported claims. When public health issues are concerned, the burden of proof is on the ones saying exposure does not present any risks worth worrying about. The FDA doesn't usually come in with the approach that we should just try everything out and see how it goes.
the FDA is actually very permissive when it comes to food - generally, things are allowed to be in it unless there is strong evidence it's harmful. It's the opposite with drugs.
If you come up with some kind of new petrochemical food-item to mimic tofu they’ll want you to get some pre-market approval first. If you’re starting up a new large food business, you’re also going to be subject to inspection to make sure your processes are safe and you’re not adulterating your products, intentionally or unintentionally, with stuff that might not be safe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I put the word "chemicals" in quotation marks because, of course, everything is a chemical. I just wanted to point out that we shouldn't pick just one chemical (e.g. BPA) and heap all the blame onto it. As a society, we have to be concerned about the potential dangers of every synthetic chemical
If it is some sort of chemical, it was introduced around 70s (later than most plastics) and is still in widespread and increasing use. Few such targets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good epidemiology is a great investment. I wouldn't use the term "throw a lot of money"- we want a few good studies with unambiguous conclusions.
Quality costs.
My belief is that the primary cause is environmental chemicals, specifically Phthalates and BPA (and related chemicals). The science on this is fairly conclusive. We can show that these chemicals bind to estrogen receptors, that they're present in everyone's body, and that if you're acutely exposed to a higher dose, your testosterone goes down. In my opinion, these chemicals are having social and cultural effects bey…
Why are we to assume this is a bad thing, or that it is even something that won't be sorted out by natural selection?
I'm upset with your question. Technology is moving faster than the pace of evolution! We know very little of how evolution works to be certain we will adapt. Besides, why are you so keen on rendering the people who were not born before the age of current tech as a class unfit in our current context?
Why not ask the question? What ever happened to discussion? Good discussion can come from bad ideas. I think it's a good question and I loosely answered it elsewhere in this thread.
My belief is that the primary cause is environmental chemicals, specifically Phthalates and BPA (and related chemicals). The science on this is fairly conclusive. We can show that these chemicals bind to estrogen receptors, that they're present in everyone's body, and that if you're acutely exposed to a higher dose, your testosterone goes down. In my opinion, these chemicals are having social and cultural effects bey…
Would like to hear your thoughts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's low frequency radio waves from submarines. No, wait, it's copies of Jane Austen novels, that's what causing the problem. Hang on; it's headphones being worn by people near you. That's what doing it. Wait one; it's the after-effects of that landfill of ET game cartridges. If you disagree, have you got any proof that these aren't the causes? Otherwise I guess it's start removing Jane Austen novels from the librari…
Since you’re so comfortable with it, just go ahead and dose yourself with everything you can get your hands on. Here in the real world people express some hesitation before shoveling suspicious new products down their gullets.