291–300 of 302 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where can I read more about the effectiveness of the inert interments and their dosage?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475001... This always takes me a lot longer to find than i hope, since "roundup inert ingredient toxicity" has, you know, hundreds or thousands of DOI attached to it. as i've heard said - "Inert doesn't mean inactive in this context"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That comment doesn't really say anything other than that you believe cost vs. calories is a false dichotomy, but since that's an extraordinary claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence. Let's start with this part: > That comment doesn't really say anything other than Three things. / First, this comes across as dismissive to many readers. I hope you are aware of this, and I hope you would choose different phrasi…
I found your comment lengthy, yes, but not as substantive as you did.
Remember when Bayer (who now owns Monsanto) intentionally sold HIV infected blood in South America? The people that own these companies would sell their own grandmother for $5. They’re poisoning the world, as science and litigation they couldn’t buy their way out of has evidenced, and we get people on here “hacktually”ing their defense. Glyphosate is used for only one reason, it’s profitable for Monsanto.
Things are often not black and white. Farmers used to plough fields after harvest. This kills weeds. It also uses a lot of power, so burns a lot of diesel and releases CO2. Ploughing also allows carbon trapped in organic material in the soil to break down and releases yet more CO2 as well as destroying soil structure. Low/no till farming seeds directly into last year's stubble. This uses much less diesel so releases…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Salt and vinegar can do the same. Chemically-intensive pollution and contamination of the food supply, air, soil, and water is a choice. But it's not a Hobson's choice. Go organic.
There are no salt and vinegar resistant crops. The desirability of glyphosate is that it lets you selectively cull all but your GM crops.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Salt and vinegar can do the same. Chemically-intensive pollution and contamination of the food supply, air, soil, and water is a choice. But it's not a Hobson's choice. Go organic.
I'd like to hire you to eradicate the multiflora rose and wild parsnip on my property using only salt and vinegar. What would you charge to do this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Peer-reviewed research isn’t a great standard, imo, for many reasons. What is your recommended alternative?
Depends on the topic. If you're trying to prove (or, more accurately, fail to falsify) a certain set of results or a discovery, open data plus reproducibility should be the gold standard. If you're trying to make decisions about personal health, it pays to take a cautious approach (IMO) and let people decide for themselves. It is not inconceivable that commercial entities finance "peer-reviewed research" in order to…
(This applies to empirical sciences only. In contrast, for a mathematical paper, rigorous reviews of the formal logic are the gold-standard.)
I choose the phrase 'review' intentionally; it doesn't need to follow one of the typical [1] 'peer review' processes from a journal. There are likely alternative methods that are (at least as) or (more) effective. Some fields have seen amazing contributions from 'lay people' all across the world.
> If you're trying to make decisions about personal health, it pays to take a cautious approach (IMO) and let people decide for themselves.
For a person equipped with the time, skill, rationality, and motivation, I agree. But it is an empirical question to assess how many people have these skills. I also want to push back against what might be an individualistic bias [2] in the statement above. Even if one is an individualist, it isn't optimally efficient nor practical for an individual to 'take on' all this responsibility. It is rational and efficient to place some degree of trust in others.
[1] These processes vary and should be treated with a fair bit of skepticism. I want to to dig in more; e.g. to what degree have these processes been designed to account for human realities so as to maximize quality?
[2]: See also https://so2020.isosonline.org/conference/the-individualist-b... "Individualism claims that social entities (e.g. groups, institutions) are essentially nothing but suitably arranged aggregates of individuals. This is usually tried to be demonstrated through developing accounts of reduction or supervenience. Holism, on the other hand, claims that social entities are sui generis as something over and above individuals."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I found your comment lengthy, yes, but not as substantive as you did.
Is this an insult? It sure appears to be a passive aggressive insult. That would not be useful nor kind. I invite you to engage substantively.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this an insult? It sure appears to be a passive aggressive insult. That would not be useful nor kind. I invite you to engage substantively.
No, I'm being sincere: you write long responses, which is fine, but they're full of abstractions, and when I tried to make one of them concrete (about patented crops), you fled back into the abstraction rather than confronting and resolving the issue into a concrete position. You're not making substantive points about the topic, just lengthy ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is the way it was sold but peer review fraud is a major problem.
Do you have a peer reviewed source on that? Major usually implies 50%+ . Are you saying that 50%+ of the peer reviewed scientific papers out there bogus and fraudulent?
That said, this issue has received a lot of attention in recent years. Some articles try to put a positive spin on it but the stark truth of where we are today is that there are no standards enforced requiring data publishing (“available on request” doesn’t cut it) and reproducibility. This, combined with the amount of money in this industry and the impact that it has on public policy is an acceptable situation.
Some good coverage:
https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-...
(Lots of links to follow on this above post)
https://www.science.org/content/article/what-massive-databas...
(This one puts a positive spin on the editorial process but the fact remains that there is a massive flood of fraudulent papers being published. Going back to standards of open data plus verified reproducibility would go a long way to mitigate this problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No way. Show me the proof. If it’s the inert ingredients, why don’t they kill the GMO corn and beans, too?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475001...
That's crazy.
However, I'm still left wondering how Roundup-resistant crops work. It's not the effects of Glyphosate they are resistant to, but rather the effects of the "inert" ingredients?
Edit: Also... it turns out that glyphosate is safe?! Conspiracy theory: they found a safe chemical, glyphosate, named it the "active" ingredient, and focused all the research around that ingredient, knowing that it would be found safe. Then they were free make pesticides from unsafe chemicals, swap new ones in, etc.