Cognitive dissonance: Why some people ignore science and reject GMO safety

|

The science of GMOs, so far, is well established. After twenty years and thousands of studies, no credible researcher has found any health effects that have been linked to the consumption of genetically modified crops. Studies that have raised some questions, such as those by Gilles-Eric Seralini or Judy Carman, have been debunked on methodological grounds. Therefore, the issue should be resolved, the consensus as clear as the effectiveness of antibiotics against bacterial infections—the science says no harm, no foul, so everybody’s cool, right?

Wrong. The rhetoric of anti-GMO proponents as Joseph Mercola, Jeffrey Smith, Natural News, and activists at Greenpeace and Consumer Reports, among advocacy NGOs, would have you believe that genetically engineered foods can give you cancer, reduce biological diversity, and spike the use of dangerous pesticides. Natural News head Mike Adams garnered a headline or five when he publicly equated supporters of GMOs with those who collaborated with Nazis. Meanwhile, anti-GMO activist philosopher Vandana Shiva simply asserted that “GMOs are about appropriating life.” Among true believers, it doesn’t seem to matter that none of these claims have any basis in fact. Presenting hard science doesn’t make much of a dent.

Why? It’s because of the way we’re wired to handle risk, a number of psychologists and sociologists contend. In Europe, consumers who at first purchased genetically modified Flavr Savr tomatoes with enthusiasm lost their zeal for the fruit after media reports and environmental activists seized on flawed studies about genetically modified crops. Concern in Europe and the United Stakes spiked and remain high after a high profile study by Seralini accompanied by scare pictures–despite the fact his paper was withdrawn (though later republished in a pay-for-play journal) and the pictures shown to be misleading.

This and other stories about “risky” new technologies feed concerns about GM foods because humans generally don’t trust new things. A paper published in April 2015 in Trends in Plant Science showed three key cognitive processes that can make it easy for us to distrust GM food.

  • “Natural” as a desired and static trait.

Foods that contain additives, processed ingredients or any other food that results from human intervention are seen as less desirable (and less healthy) than foods that are in their “native” form. So, a fresh apple is better than an apple cobbler. And, genetically modified corn is therefore not better than one that was grown conventionally. The fact that conventional corn also has been modified over the millennia is irrelevant to the “natural” point of view—what’s important is that the conventional corn is in a previously established, and therefore more “natural” state.

  • “Essence” of living things.

Related to the “natural” fallacy, this idea tells us that any species, from dogs to bananas to goats to eggplants, is fixed and unchanging. Of course, evolution tells us that species change as quickly as a cell divides, but “essentialism” tells us that DNA somehow doesn’t change much, and determines the basic “being-ness” of an organism. So, it would be very wrong to insert a gene that ultimately expresses vitamin C into corn DNA (which, incidentally, is exactly how three quarters of Vitamin C is made).

  • “Disgust” with inserting an unknown outsider.

Here, the authors found that anti-GMO messages could easily find fertile audiences when GMO mixing was characterized as “contamination,” implying then that they could introduce disease, sterility, environmental issues and so forth.

“Anti-GMO messages strongly appeal to particular intuitions and emotions,” said Stefaan Blancke, a philosopher at Ghent University in Belgium and lead author on the paper. “They tap into our intuitions that all organisms have an unobservable immutable core.”

Intuition can be a good thing. It can keep us from doing something dumb. In most of our awake moments, we do things without being conscious of them. Christof Koch, a neuroscientist at CalTech, called this state of being the “Zombie state,” and has found that most of our thoughts and actions are done without us having given them so much as a “how do you do.” So, we automatically avoid an obstacle in the roadway. Or, feel uncomfortable when presented with something we see as new. Like GM food.

And the anti-GMO activists’ messages show how easy it is to exploit our fall-back reliance on intuition and emotions in making key decisions. It’s a lot easier for Natural News to shout “Nazi!” or “cancer” than it is to explain how transgenic Bt corn actually works. Changing emotional beliefs and attitudes is very difficult–but creating those attitudes can be all too easy.

The Trends in Plant Science findings, then, aren’t particularly new or surprising. But scientists are looking at more about how we evaluate risk, and how to find ways to manage risk as a conscious, civilized society, instead of as an intuitive, reactive lizard.

The psychologist Paul Slovic, known for his decades of work on perceptions of and reactions to risk, points to three things that can impede our ability to think clearly about new technologies like GMOs:

  1. How afraid are we of the technology in the first place?
  2. How much do we know about new technology?
  3. How many people will this new technology affect?

Thanks to the work of Yale University law professor (and another expert on risk assessment) Dan Kahan, we can add a fourth item to Slovic’s list: In what context did we learn about the new technology?

Kahan suggests that we judge new ideas based on what people who we share other views, and who we respect, think about those issues. As humans are social creatures, we tend to surround ourselves (intuitively as well as consciously) with people who share our views, emotions, outlooks and ways of handling new facts.

“People misinform themselves,” he said. “People judge new information based on their group’s belief. Therefore, there is a demand for misinformation.”

And, Kahan points out, this hunger for disbelief “pollutes” the communication of what should be rational, fact-based science, because there are many organizations and institutions (such as anti-GMO organizations or floating yoga instructors) waiting to fill the emotional gap.

In this video, Kahan addresses the psychological and social issues that impact decision making (he doesn’t address GMOs until the very end):

So, once a fear of GMOs is embedded, how do you get rid of it?

Kahan suggests that a new generation of Americans (and Europeans, Asians, and Africans) will soon have grown up accustomed to reading about and consuming genetically modified food. For them, it won’t be new. For them, the fear will have ebbed. And protesting against GMOs will no longer be “cool.”

Andrew Porterfield is a writer, editor and communications consultant for academic institutions, companies and non-profits in the life sciences. He is based in Camarillo, California. Follow @AMPorterfield on Twitter.

  • The visitor

    ‘Trying to patent our food, telling us there are too many people to feed, yeah right!

    • First Officer

      It’s not your food until it’s sold or given to you or you produced it yourself.

  • And why exactly should people believe what these scientists are saying and what these studies are finding? Is bowing down to science not just another cultural phenomenon? In an age full of deceit why should we believe any of this?

    • JoeFarmer

      “And why exactly should people believe what these scientists are saying and what these studies are finding?”

      Because they know what they’re talking about, genius!

      • The world is full of people who think they know what they’re talking about. Where are the humble ones who accept we don’t know what’s going on in this world?

        • JoeFarmer

          You’re trying to drive traffic to your blog by saying stupid shit. I get that.

          If you’re unable to discriminate information, that’s your problem to fix, no one else’s.

          • My bad!!! I thought the comment section was a place for people to express what they thought about the article. Next time I’ll remember to just copy and paste the article instead of leaving an opinion. I don’t see any link to a blog in the comment I left but maybe there’s some invisible link that only scientists can see.

          • Science Teacher

            My mistake, PK. I thought all along you weren’t expressing what you “thought,” but merely about what you “felt.” Mysteries and vague “feelings” about the way science is. Yeah, you’re welcome to post that stuff. But don’t be surprised, or hurt and petulant, when responders write back about science and about biotechnology.

            Learn something. Or go to church.

          • s k

            Joe, you are a harsh person…no doubt about it.

          • JoeFarmer

            I have a low tolerance for bullshit.

            And all you’re doing is lowering the signal-to-noise ratio.

        • Science Teacher

          In the libraries and classrooms. Learning.
          Surprise, eh?

        • Al Mather

          Mapping the human genome, prosthetic limbs controlled by brain waves, proving the existence of dark matter, reprogramming skin cells into stem cell, cheap water purification devices for the 3rd world, and THOUSANDS of other discoveries, inventions, & puzzles solved every day..all made possible by those arrogant wanna be know it alls.

    • Loren Eaton

      I do this work for a living (for 30 years). I have a family to feed and house. When you actually have some evidence of our deceitfulness, start typing. Until then don’t be so self-righteous and condescending.

      • Is it really self-righteous and condescending of me to embrace that this world is a mystery? Everyone has a family to feed and house, there’s no need to feed people lies so that we can feed our families.

        • Science Teacher

          PK, that is what religion is for. Mysteries. You’re on the wrong website.

    • Science Teacher

      You shouldn’t, PK. You should believe nothing. If you believe, really, that science is “just another cultural phenomenon,” then you should believe nothing at all, since cultural change will alter the mechanics of electricity, gravity, chemistry, biology, medicine, computers, transportation, and whether the sun will rise tomorrow.

      You might just consider drinking yourself into a stupor because science is just a cultural phenomenon.

      (Wait; you are already in a stupor. Scratch that.)

  • s k

    Andrew, get a mirror, look into it…and stop lying to yourself.

    • JoeFarmer

      Brainless response. Nothing that refutes any of the author’s points.

      • s k

        To JoetheGMOFarmer: I consider that it is Your Mind that is hopeless. At least we state our true views.
        I doubt you know anything about the brain at all.

        • JoeFarmer

          Who is, “we”?

          Are you claiming to represent some group?

        • Al Mather

          Yeah Joe…at least we say stuff we believe whether we have any clue why we believe it or not!!!! All you guys ever point to is stupid science and evidence and stuff! That stuff is all mumbo jumbo made up by corporations and Monsatan and dumb scientists!

          • agscienceliterate

            Great response, Al! Yeah, dang; reason, statistics, science, and logic are soooooo boring. I’d rather be on vacay with the Food Boob rather than having to read all that hard stuff. I’m with you, Al, on all that mumbo jumbo stuff. Being literate is too hard. lol

  • s k

    Monsanto and the World without Bees.

    Monsanto is killing off the bees and buying the companies that are reporting on bee issues being caused by Monsanto products. Then Monsanto partners with Harvard and Darpa…to create the ‘Robo Bee’
    project…large fleets of tiny drones to pollinate the Monsanto crops.
    If this doesn’t give you the creeps,….Andrew, you will need more than a simple mirror to change your mind….if you are part of this creepy insane mess, get out while you can. If that’s called a ‘career’ I feel
    for you.

    • JoeFarmer

      “Monsanto is killing off the bees…”

      Citation required.

      Better yet, provide citations for the rest of your cra-cra post. It should be entertaining reading!

      • s k

        To JoetheGMOFarmer: Find the citation on the net yourself, Pal. Do a little research outside of limited deleterious circles of influence. I doubt you read much at all. Find the articles, which is easily done, then actually read them..and then report back here with your findings about said ‘cra-cra’. I think you will find yourself misinformed…once you research properly. Tsk.

        • JoeFarmer

          If you make a claim, it’s up to you to back it up.

    • Farmer Sue

      Well, well, well. And all along I kept hearing the activists shriek “It’s the neonicitinoids that are killing bees!” (did I get your shriek wrong?)
      Mosanto doesn’t make neonics.
      I love the robo bee idea, btw – genius. Saw a wonderful exhibit on them at the Boston Science Museum.

  • RossM

    Note typo under the “Natural” bullet.

    “And, genetically modified corn is therefore better than one that was grown conventionally”

    Should read:

    “And, genetically modified corn is therefore not as good than one that was grown conventionally”

    Otherwise the paragraph does not make sense.

  • s k

    TO JOETHEFARMER: The World Health Organization declares Monsanto products ‘likely carcinogen’s. You must be saying your
    science is better than theirs? HMMM? I think not. Rather, you are politically motivated.

    Mark Twain once gave a famous quote, which serves to wit:

    “If you’n tell me whar a man gits his cornpone, I’ll tell YOU what his
    opinions are.”

    So much for the opinions of those who eat GMO cornpone….!!!

    There is such a thing as being worse than useless…

    • WHO did no such thing. One small agency within WHO classified glyphosate as a “probably carcinogenic” to humans when being handled and exposed on a daily basis but is not harmful in the minute amounts consumed in food. It made a clear distinction. It was also not a “risk” determination, but what’s called a precautionary determination, which places glyphosate in the same category, used by the same agency, as sunlight and coffee. Glyphosate, from a risk perspective, is non carcinogenic to humans and is biodegradable. That’s the science according to every major western science agency in the world.

      • For everyone who’s not a farm worker, it means “not harmful”.

        • A moment ago we were talking about carcinogens… so do you accept that by the WHO sub-agency classification, glyphosate does not pose a carcinogenic risk to food consumers?

          Re. the gut effects, I don’t have a research link at hand. But I don’t understand how people who make this point can reconcile it with the fact that both acute and chronic toxicity studies of glyphosate have shown little effect. That covers a whole range of possible effects, extremely few of which were seen. The hypothesis that the biochemical pathway targeted by glyphosate could dangerously disrupt gut flora is a reasonable one, but in practice toxicity studies have shown no health effect along those lines, probably reflecting that the level of glyphosate residue on food is so low that it just doesn’t trigger that problem at a perceptible level.

          • Why do you say that the toxicity studies don’t include the microbiota? If they use generic features to characterise toxicity, aren’t the microbiota implicitly included? Depends on what is taken to characterise “toxicity” of course, so I’d appreciate if you can provide some extra information. Thanks.

            I don’t understand the second part of your comment: you seem to have written two incompatible statements one after the other. As I mentioned above, I don’t know what effects are used to characterise toxicity (I’m sure it is documented, though) but there is information on the observed chronic toxicity levels, with references to follow up, here http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.html#chronic

      • Glyphosate is bioegradeable–but it is common to find 10% of it persisting ½ year after application.

        A study finds glyphosate carcinogenic–Glyphosate Induces Human Breast Cancer Cells Growth Via Estrogen Receptors–Food and Chemical Toxicology 2013.

        And then there is the interaction of glyphosate with each and all of the pesticides that it is commonly used with–a totally pertinent area that you go-go GMOers can only brush under the rug, and avoid addressing. Talk about willful ignorance!

        • Michael McCarthy

          “A study finds glyphosate carcinogenic–Glyphosate Induces Human Breast Cancer Cells Growth Via Estrogen Receptors”
          Yeah, that doesn’t make glyphosate carcinogenic. It means glyphosate mimcs estrogen in the growth of cancer cells. In that experiment, the cancer was already in culture, so it didn’t induce breast tissue to become cancerous.

          • I disagree with your analysis. If glphosate increased the proliferation or growth of cancer cells, it is being carcinogenic. “A carcinogen is a substance that is capable of causing cancer in humans or animals. If a substance is known to promote or aggravate cancer, but not necessarily cause cancer, it may also be called a carcinogen.”–wisegeek.org

          • There are approximately a dozen studies that show that glyphosate DECREASED rates of cancer. Again: the WHO study is a hazard study. THERE IS no evidence from a risk based analysis that glyphosate is carcinogenic as consumed. Zero. Not in the WHO study. Not anywhere. Confirmed by European and US and Canadian and Australian authorities. Case closed.

          • This study–Glyphosate Induces Human Breast Cancer Cells Growth Via Estrogen Receptors–Food and Chemical Toxicology 2013–disagrees, although it is not clear what you mean by your caveat, “as consumed.”

            According to Science Daily, in pathology a carcinogen is any substance or agent that promotes cancer.

            Like, for example, glyphosate, according to this recent peer-reviewed journal article.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Cancer.org defines a carcinogen as such, “Substances and exposures that can lead to cancer are called carcinogens”. I will admit it has been some time since I have read the full paper, I no longer have access to it, and I cannot recall all of the details from that experiment. I was trying to jog my memory from the abstract, but it isn’t coming to me. There was something unusual, if I recall, I believe it was that the estrogenic effect was reduced at higher concentrations.

          • “Genic” means, among other things, “producing or causing.” If a chemical enhances the growth of cancerous cells, it is carcinogenic. No one owns the word.

          • Michael McCarthy

            producing or causing, hmm, producing means to cause to happen or come into existence. Therefore, carcinogenic would indicate cancer causing or, to cause cancer to happen or come into existence. Correct? So, by either definition, proliferation of cancer would not be covered. And, I think most people would accept the definition provided by The American Cancer Society over some definition pulled up by wisegeeks.

          • ScienceDaily–
            In pathology, a carcinogen is any substance or agent that promotes cancer.

          • Michael McCarthy

            so, now you are changing the standard by which you make the definition. Way to backpedal pal.

          • Garbage. Carcinogenicity is a word–it does not have a precise authorized definition. Many people do, in fact, use it to include the affect that was found in that study–Glyphosate Induces Human Breast Cancer Cells Growth Via Estrogen Receptors–Food and Chemical Toxicology 2013.
            Pal.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Many people? Well, I prefer the opinion of a body that deals with cancer as their sole endeavor, and I think that most people would agree with me that their definition is the proper one. So you can take your “many”, I will take my “most”. Carcinotrophic would indicate that it feeds cancer or causes cancer to grow.

          • Michael McCarthy

            And let’s put aside the semantics of the word for now. You’re hanging your hat on a 3 year old study (since it was published 2 years ago, we can assume that the experiment is at least 1 year older) done on cancer cells in vitro. Well, lots of things can induce, proliferate or destroy cancer in vitro that have no effect in vivo. Until there is a study published with in vivo results (using an Emca strain of rat, most likely), the results of this only indicate a possible ER response within an organism.

          • I repret myself–I am not hanging my hat on that or any study. I merely cited it. My bigger argument, made oh so often, is that we do not even know what we are doing, because little is understood of the effects of multiple, varied combinations of pollutants, such as occur in our fields (and cities.)

          • Michael McCarthy

            No, you very clearly stated “that study is evidence that glyphosate is carcinogenic”. Are you taking that statement back now, because it isn’t evidence of causing cancer, only evidence of a possible mechanism?
            Way to move the goalposts with this one “we do not even know what we are doing, because little is understood of the effects of multiple, varied combinations of pollutants, such as occur in our fields (and cities.)”. You’ve gone from this study is evidence of causing cancer to the effects of varied combinations of pollutants. Yes, we cannot be certain of all effects and interactions, but the same could be said for anything. For example, we don’t know that living in Maine and eating organic brussel sprouts while watching television doesn’t have an adverse effect. You’re making a broad generalization that is impossible to quantify.

          • The study is evidence of increasing cancer–i.e., causing more cancer.

            What chemicals induce or proliferate cancer in vitro without doing so in vivo?

            You are discounting such a potent possibility–why? Are you intelligent? The combined affects of multiple toxic chemicals is nothing like combining individually harmless things.

          • The study is evidence of increasing cancer–i.e., causing more cancer.

            What chemicals induce or proliferate cancer in vitro without doing so in vivo?

            You are discounting such a potent possibility–why? Are you intelligent? The combined affects of multiple toxic chemicals is nothing like combining individually harmless things.

            Moving goalposts–Ha! We are discussing a complex topic.

          • Michael McCarthy

            I am not discounting the possibility, but at this time there is no evidence that the mechanism works in vivo, only in vitro, so the statement that it causes cancer is false at this time.
            I don’t know if you are simply unaware or trying to be obtuse. I don’t know of a specific example off the top of my head. However, things like water and soap are toxic to cells in vitro, for example, and thus why in vitro results are not valid unless replicated in vivo.
            “The combined affects (sic) of multiple toxic chemicals is nothing like combining individually harmless things.”
            Nothing that I know of that we take into our bodies is completely harmless, the dose makes the poison. It is possible to kill yourself by drinking too much water, too much Vitamin A, too much salt. Would you consider any of those things toxic? Everything reacts with something, those results can be unpredictable in the body. It is no more true with glyphosate than anything else.

          • The possibility that I feel you are discounting is that the effects of individual pollutants combine in significant ways–which no one will address. Why?

            There you go again. Dismissing significant things. Get this–if an organism is significantly affected by 1 PPM of chemical A, and it is significantly affected by 3 PPM of chemical B, the effects of being exposed to both 1PPM of A and 3 PPM of B are unknown–but they may well be large.

            That being the case, it is irresponsible simply to spread A and B until the combined effects are understood.

          • Michael McCarthy

            And like I said, the effect you are trying to measure is impossible. You cannot measure the effects of every single chemical with every single other chemical, nothing would ever be released. When new information comes along, we adapt, much as we have done with certain drugs and grapefruit.

          • Yea, but actually you have studied so little of the combined effects of combinations of new chemicals that you chemists and farmers are in fact making us into guinea pigs. And you pretend that you are scientifically well-informed. Garbage! You are causing cancers, hormonal disruption, loss of intelligence, failure to reproduce and asthma due to your lack of precaution, lack of care, and selfish focus. We do not have to spread broadly toxic chemicals throughout the biosphere, in order to live. I am not suggesting that it will be easy to create an ecologically beneficial agriculture. But we ought to try.

          • Michael McCarthy

            And now we come to the crux of it. All these days. #1 I am neither a chemist nor a farmer. #2 Now I can see that you are only interested in pushing an agenda. You’re blaming all of these disorders that have been around for eons on industrial agriculture. That is garbage, as you say. Without modern agricultural methods, we cannot feed the people. Period. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying, and if you believe it you are a fool.

          • Modern agricultural methods would better be ecologically sensible. Refute that, and then tell me how ignorant I am! Spread your puerile poisons–everyone thanks you.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “ecologically sensible”
            And we’ve changed agriculture a great deal in the past 40 years to be more ecologically sensible. Just grow your own, live in a tent in the woods, forget about society.

          • Agriculture is now more ecological, than it was after taking a humongous, unprecedented dip. Thanks to those responsible. But it still spreads tons of very toxic chemicals, with unknown, untested, quite possibly serious effects. This is ecologically dufus.
            We, as a people, can do better. We could, if people would stop being so selfish, and were more weish. You perhaps don’t know–that is “enlightened”.

          • Michael McCarthy

            I think you’re a crackpot hippie.

          • I think that you’ve lost your soul, and will soon (within 100 years) lose your life. What will have been your effect on the world–creation, or destruction? Actually it will be a mix. But which will weigh heavier? Your advocacy of the irresponsible use of chemicals suggests that destruction will weigh heavier.

          • Michael McCarthy

            I’m sure that we will both be dead within 100 years. I am also sure that neither of us will have had any measurable impact, those that affect the world singularly are extremely rare, most of us are simply along for the ride.

          • I’m sure we will both be dead. Both of us, and everyone else, will have substantial impacts, both good and bad. I think we should try, though we will often fail, to have good impacts. We can improve our impacts–and we should.

          • Michael McCarthy

            You should probably focus your efforts in places like Brazil, China, India, Sulawesi, Indonesia where the environmental destruction dwarfs the US.

          • We should clean up our own act. The U.S. has been a leading polluter, in numerous respects.

          • Michael McCarthy

            China and India are far worse polluters at this stage of the game. Brazil continues to deforest and built a dam on the Rio Xingu which decimated more than 40 species of fish endemic to only that river, despite international protest of building it. Same in China with the 3 Gorges Dam, which managed to kill the last of 1 of 2 species of endemic river dolphins. Deforestation in Indonesia for palm oil plantations is pushing the orangutan to the brink. India’s rivers have become so polluted that fish that were plentiful just 10 years ago are all but gone (e.g. Sahyadria denisonii).

          • We should clean-up our own pollution, which remains massive. We spread large amounts of radioactive debris all over Iraq–dumb! We use massive amounts of coal and oil. We create new chemicals wily-nily! We fund massive deforestation around the globe. The U.S. has the biggest ecological footprint.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Uh, ever heard of superfund cleanup?

          • Uh, ever heard of Failure To Clean Up? Like, for example, the many tons of radioactive material the U.S, spread in Iraq? How about all the toxic chemicals BP spread in the Gulf? How about fracking chemicals? How about plasticizers? How about lead? How about mercury, still deposited in the upper atmosphere by some planes.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “How about mercury, still deposited in the upper atmosphere by some planes.”

            Um, mercury DISSOLVES planes.

            “How about all the toxic chemicals BP spread in the Gulf?”

            You mean Corexit? Basically a soap. Perhaps you would have preferred the oil slick to contaminate beaches rather than being dissipated.

          • I’m sorry, I meant lead is still in aviation fuel.
            (Not mercury. Just lead.)

            BP Gulf–what I remember is that they weren’t even telling what they were dumping.

            And America irradiated an entire region. For–just several million years.

            And the companies pollute groudwater massively.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “lead is still in aviation fuel”

            only used in some piston prop planes. Not jets or commercial airliners.

            ” they weren’t even telling what they were dumping.”

            Uh, yes they did because it required EPA clearance to be used.

            “And America irradiated an entire region. For–just several million years.”

            War is hell. While I neither agree with the war or the means, it happens. Let’s not forget these same people were exposed to mustard gas and sarin gas by their own leader. The use of DU in armor rounds spreads very little radioactive material, only 3% U-235, so weakly radioactive (long half-life). Uranium poisoning from dust inhalation would be worse than the amount of radiation.

            “And the companies pollute groundwater massively”
            You know this happens in nature all the time, right? Salt creep is a huge issue in FL. Many parts of South America and Asia have groundwater heavily polluted by arsenic.

          • Spreading almost any lead in the air seems inexcusable.

            After long delay, BP told what was in the chemicals they dumped. They were extremely toxic chemicals, which had vast, uncountable deleterious effects on the ecosystem.

            War is hell–and the U.S. brought it to a new, unprecedented level of long-term destructiveness. We wreaked havoc on those people. It was an incredibly selfish, short-sighted action. Massive radiation pollution. Americans should be ashamed.

            The (undisclosed) chemicals companies are spreading underground is unprecedented, very different from natural processes. Big short term profits for a tiny minority–the owners of those companies. Huge, unfathomably large costs for many–all of humanity.

            In short, we are chemical idiots, spreading massive quantities of toxic chemicals throughout the biosphere. We are spiritually bankrupt–and many of you say–aw, we are doing nothing wrong. That is a height of ignorance and stupidity!

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Spreading almost any lead in the air seems inexcusable”

            agreed, but when it start to actually affect you from the small amounts used, please let me know

            “After long delay, BP told what was in the chemicals they dumped”

            Nope, this information was provided to the EPA prior to use

            ” Massive radiation pollution”

            Nope, that would have been Hiroshima and Nagasaki. DU has a very low radioactivity level, you get more from X-rays. Again, the accumulation of the heavy metal uranium in the body is more harmful than the radiation, and you’d have to inhale A LOT of dust.

            “The (undisclosed) chemicals companies are spreading underground is unprecedented”

            Comparative to what? Landfill leaching, pretty noxious. Pre-1950’s ore refining? Nope, the leftover slag still pollutes more.

            “We are spiritually bankrupt–and many of you say–aw, we are doing nothing wrong”

            Who cares if we’re spiritually bankrupt? Oh no, I might have to pay for my actions in a non-existent after life. Look at me shake. And I never said we aren’t doing anything wrong. You’ve yet to provide a reasonable alternative, your hippie natural fallacy ensures massive human casualty. At least I am up front about being OK with a massive population reduction.

          • Obviously, no one will ever be able to trace their illness to lead from planes–but it will degrade life.

            I disbelieve this. The info was finally released to the public–tons of toxic crap.

            During the first and second Gulf wars, the U.S. released many thousands of times as much radioactivity as was released by the WWII atomic bombs. A massive amount of damaging radiation.

            Deliberately putting massive amounts of i’ll bet very toxic chemicals into groundwater supplies is a height of stupidity, selfishness, and small to non-existent mindedness.

            Being spiritually alive is better for this life. The alternative to mad chemical farming–practice ecological agriculture.

            There will be population reduction, at some point.

            Are we making a hell here on Earth, or will it be a little bit better?

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Obviously, no one will ever be able to trace their illness to lead from planes–but it will degrade life”

            The amount is such a pittance, I really don’t know why you are worried about it.

            “I disbelieve this. The info was finally released to the public–tons of toxic crap”

            well, I live in FL, it was well known here. It is far less toxic than the oil.

            “During the first and second Gulf wars, the U.S. released many thousands of times as much radioactivity as was released by the WWII atomic bombs. A massive amount of damaging radiation.”

            Nope, totally different. Gulf war used U238, WWII bombs used 80% U235. U238 isn’t a radioactive hazard, the problem is heavy metal toxicity.

            “The alternative to mad chemical farming–practice ecological agriculture.”

            how many times can I say your version of agriculture won’t feed the population before it sinks in?

            “There will be population reduction, at some point”

            One can only hope.

            “Are we making a hell here on Earth, or will it be a little bit better”

            what is your obsession with hell on Earth? Seriously.

          • That lead pollution will add onto, and combine in affects with, all the other pollution.

            Yea. Maintain your “we cause no problems” stance. It is ignorant, and you seriously degrade the world. Thank you so much–it’s so good of you.”

            Corexit–bad stuff.

            Radiation is radiation. It is cumulative, and purely destructive of life.

            Ecological agriculture can feed the world.

            I seriously think that many people are acting follishly, and are bringing hell to Earth. The American nation, of which I’m a part, is making huge contributions to this–and it is a dumb, destructive, evil trap.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Radiation is radiation, it is cumulative, and purely destructive of life”
            Boy is that ever incorrect. Alpha radiation is fairly benign, gamma radiation is rather deadly. If radiation was purely destructive of life, there would be no life on this planet. The ozone layer didn’t always exist, you know.

            “Maintain your “we cause no problems” stance”
            Please point to where I ever said we don’t cause problems or even implied it. Everything causes problems, it is the severity of the problems that we disagree on.

            “Corexit–bad stuff”
            Free floating oil slick–much, much worse

            “I seriously think that many people are acting follishly, and are bringing hell to Earth”

            I really wish you would do some reading on the ecological damage 1800-1970. Compare that to 1980-present. So many horrible things we used to do that we do not anymore, so many horrible messes we have cleaned up (or are remediating). Look at air and water quality data 1940-1970 and 1980-present. Look at soil data for the same period. Are things perfect? No, but far far better.

          • I will get back to these comments–when I have time.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “I will get back to these comments–when I have time”
            oh boy, I’ll be waiting with baited breath.

          • Mr. McCarthy, It’s hard to be polite to you–you seem to be in an extremely negative place.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “It’s hard to be polite to you–you seem to be in n extremely negative place.”
            No, you’re the one being all negative, this is how you sound: “This is evil”, “that is killing the environment”, “you’re minimizing the effects”, “you’re creating hell on earth”, “your death will come soon”

          • Go right ahead–poison us all! You are, and will.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Go right ahead–poison us all! You are, and will.”
            please explain how I am poisoning anyone.

          • You sure do advocate for endless pollution.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “You sure do advocate for endless pollution.”
            I certainly do not. You and I simply have different definitions of pollution. You seem to think it is any chemical.

          • No, I think that before anyone goes spreading around any chemical, especially one known to be extremely toxic in some respects (like Roundup or 2,4-D or Dicamba), it only make sense to be sure that doing so will not degrade everyone’s environment. However, this country falls massively short of that idea, not because it is impossible, but because it would reduce profits for a tiny, but powerful, minority.

          • Michael McCarthy

            ” I think that before anyone goes spreading around any chemical, especially one known to be extremely toxic in some respects (like Roundup or 2,4-D or Dicamba)”
            and see, there is the proof that we disagree on toxic.

          • Round-up is obviously extremely toxic in some respects–in the case of plants, there is no doubt.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Round-up is obviously extremely toxic in some respects–in the case of plants, there is no doubt.”
            Of course it is toxic to plants, it isn’t toxic to animals and we spray it on weeds to better be able to feed animals and people.

          • Animals have organisms inside of them that are affected by herbicides. Plus, when inhaled for 4 hours, 2.6 mg Roundup/liter of air will kill a rat. But don’t worry–Roundup couldn’t hurt a flee.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Animals have organisms inside of them that are affected by herbicides”

            No, that hasn’t been proven at all.

            “Plus, when inhaled for 4 hours, 2.6 mg Roundup/liter of air will kill a rat”

            well, that sounds like a real life kind of situation. Did they hook them up to tiny C-PAP machines in order to get them to inhale that concentration (which is very high) constantly for 4 hours?

          • Oh, if it kills a rat, which is not a plant, at that tiny dose, mightn’t a much smaller dose have serious effects? But we don’t want to look there–might find something.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Oh, if it kills a rat, which is not a plant, at that tiny dose”
            it (I guess you mean glyphosate) doesn’t kill rats in tiny doses!!!!!! And the doses we consume are so small, in the ppb range, it is a non issue.
            *pulls out hair because this clown doesn’t understand exposure*

          • LC 50–kills half the rats.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “LC 50–kills half the rats”
            And what is that value exactly, because I don’t even know of one for rats? The LD50 is 5600mg/kg, an impossible quantity to consume.

          • I’ve recently cited two figures, and gave a referance for one of them–here is a different reference, from Monsanto—Inhallation LC 50, Roundup promax, Rat–2.58 mg./Liter.
            http://www.monsanto.com/sitecollectiondocuments/ito/roundup%20promax_factsheet_april%202010_final%20.pdf

          • Michael McCarthy

            “I’ve recently cited two figures, and gave a referance for one of them–here is a different reference, from Monsanto—Inhallation LC 50, Roundup promax, Rat–2.58 mg./Liter.”
            And when you figure out how to achieve those inhalation rates in the real world, please do let me know. Because, you know, it is rather improbable to say the least.

          • 2.58 mg/L. That is roughly equivalent to 2.58 parts per million re: volume. That is not a difficult rate of contamination to acheive.

            But most significantly, this figure shows that the statement that Roundup is only toxic to plants is bogus. It is very toxic to rats, when inhaled. What other ecological effects will it have in the biosphere? We don’t know. You claim we have full scientific knowledge of this subject. Looney Tunes.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “It is very toxic to rats, when inhaled”

            Which is UNREALISTIC. What part of that don’t you get?

            “What other ecological effects will it have in the biosphere”

            It becomes inert, so none. What part of that don’t you get?

            “Looney Tunes”

            That is you. I am done, because you clearly just want to argue endlessly but have little to no knowledge or understanding, just this “perceived” understanding of the working and harmony of nature, and you don’t even actually have that as best as I can tell.

          • OK, pretend every thing is peachy keen. My point is that the toxicity of roundup, when it is inhaled by rats in minute quantities, is a clear indication that there must be further study before it’s widespread use is deemed safe.
            Yea, you can discount that, call me the most ignorant son of a bitch who ever walked the earth, and go on your merry way. You are ecologically ignorant, and a disgrace to careful stewardship. But don’t worry. You have plenty of company, in both regards.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “My point is that the toxicity of roundup, when it is inhaled by rats in minute quantities, is a clear indication that there must be further study before it’s widespread use is deemed safe. “

            It isn’t being inhaled in small quantities, that is the point you aren’t getting. 3.2 mg/L is a solute concentration, not atmospheric.

          • Jason

            Like you said, 3.2mg/L is essentially 3.2 parts per million (or 2.58.. whichever number you’re using). Real life concentrations found in the air are measured in nanograms. Even in the peak spraying period (May) near to a field, concentrations are over 100,000 times less than that. Beyond the field or in non-peak spraying periods, it’s millions to billions times less than that. In other words, it’s an extremely high air concentration and virtually impossible to encounter in the real world.

          • Michael McCarthy

            I was trying to edit my previous post to this, but disqus was not allowing it. So. 3.2 mg/L of glyphosate translates to 0.43 ppm atmospheric. You think this is a low concentration. Do you know what the max safe level for ozone is? 80 ppb (at rest, it decreased with activity). So, they got rats to inhale 60 times the max safe level for ozone to kill them and you think that is an unsafe chemical? A high pollution day for ozone would be around 200 ppb. Atmospheric concentration of glyphosate following spraying was measured in nanograms/mL, or 100,000 times LESS than the LC50. I will say again, NOT REALISTIC.

          • .

          • Glyphosate is more toxic to rats than hydrogen cyanide, hydrogen sulfide, or phosgene gas.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

            But if glyphosate effects a molecular pathway not even found in animals (other than in their gut microbiome), why should glyphosate be toxic to rats, when breathed in sufficient concentration (tiny amounts)?

            “Atmospheric concentration of glyphosate following spraying” will of course vary widely.

          • Michael McCarthy

            a link to the wiki main page tells me nothing about your claims. But I do so love that you have switched your stance from one area to another in an effort to prove a failing point. Have a nice life.

          • My point–failed? That if we make bad GMO’s that require bad toxic chemicals to cultivate, as we are doing even now, it will cause us grief? You think that is lost?
            Yea–some people think that DDT was a great thing.
            Some people think that lead in pipes, or paint, or gasoline, was a great thing.
            Some people think depleted uranium is no problem.
            Some people think creating new chemicals has no downside.
            Some people think that it is alright to poison the ecosystems.
            Some people think it is alright or needed to degrade the biosphere.
            Some people think fracking is appropriate.
            Some people think tar sands oil is no problem,
            Some people think global warming is a hoax.
            Some people think environmentalists have gone too far.

            I think ecological ignorence is vast,
            and spiritual bankruptcy is common.

            Swtch my stance? It’s a complex subject, dude.

          • JoeFarmer

            “I think ecological ignorence is vast…”

            Oh, the irony!

          • Yea, you know tons of ecology. Roundup is like an ecological blessing–and so are 2,4-D and Dicamba! So was DDT and Agent Orange! So is tar-sands oil, and depleted Uranium! I wonder if you are aware of your death wish, or at least death-actions.

          • Michael McCarthy

            I think you’ve smoked too much of something or eaten too many paint chips in your life, and that’s that. But let’s stop progress because you say so, so we can test anything and everything to make sure that there isn’t one single negative effect, because nature is perfect and doesn’t do anything negative to the ecosystem or biosphere. I guess the Permian extinction was a manmade event, we sent global warming through a time machine. That’s how ridiculous you sound.

          • I certainly never said or implied that nature is perfect or that there is not also much natural (not man made) disintegration. That is totally your misinterpretation, and it is a very weak one of anything I wrote. What I say is that there is natural integrity, and that we should live in such a way, in so far as possible, that the natural integrity with-in us and around us increases, builds, grows. I know that that is a new idea for many people, but really it is not a difficult one. I frankly don’t understand how any one can seriously dispute it in a sensible, good way.

            But many people do not realize it, and so procede in ways that are very destructive.

            I certainly am not against true progress. I am against people causing needless environmental degradation, for example by spreading around the Earth very toxic chemicals that are not fully understood. But that is all the rage among many modern people–people who are not sufficiently careful about what they do.

            People had better realize that society must make vast improvements in our impact on the biosphere, if we are to survive even a century as a species that experiences a decent life, in balance.

            I really don’t know that we will survive a century in any decent shape–especially considering how much people fight against the idea that we would much better live carefully, working with nature, respecting life, and trying to enhance the biology of the Earth, not muck it up.

            Climate change due to CO2 is a huge imminent threat–which blind as bats people continue to deny explicitly, and which most deny implicitly–but there are other big threats–disruption of the Earth ecosystem, lack of water, starvation, disease. These are all serious problems today, but will become much worse. …

            And then there is the mad warfare, which this country stokes. But that is another issue.

          • Here is the link–

            wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highly_toxic_gases

          • Michael McCarthy

            Read your own link in regards to exposure time. Your argument is once again FALSE. Drop it dude.

          • JoeFarmer

            Sheesh. This guy is unrecoverably retarded.

          • Michael McCarthy

            I have to agree. And what really makes me mad is it started with glyphosate causes cancer and it’s been all over the field ever since, meanwhile there is less ball movement in a soccer game.

          • JoeFarmer

            When you challenge idiots like him, the goalposts move.

          • What the heck, water would do that !!

          • You people think or pretend that you’ve got all this science on your side–face it, you give your puny verified knowledge vastly more credit for being comprehensive than it deserves–i.e., you claim to understand much more than you actually do. Take, for example, sub-chronic effects. Isn’t it extremely likely that toxic chemicals will have significant deleterious effects at much lower concentrations than those at which they are toxic? Of course it is. But you blow the danger away–gee, ozone is ever so much more toxic–as if that means it is safe and wise to be spreading your toxin over crops and fields all over the world!
            This is scientific ignorance–very common among you brilliant scientists.

          • You want to have scientific proof laid out clearly before you, before you determine that precaution is appropriate. That is scientific blindness. You can deny that glyphosate is biologically potent, but that is just senseless. That is the kind of fatuous thinking that, not long ago, led people to put lead in gasoline, causing untold brain-damage.

          • JoeFarmer

            Fyi, when I spray glyphosate, I use spray nozzle tips that generate large droplets to reduce drift potential. There’s no vapor or mist coming off the rig. To compensate for the large droplet nozzle tips, I use certain adjuvants to make the glyphosate more effective. But the adjuvants aren’t an issue either.

            So anyone that claims that there’s any appreciable amount of glyphosate being introduced into the atmosphere is flat-out wrong.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Right, I know the truth. I know you’re making sure all of your chemicals contaminate the organic farm next door because that’s what you corrupt GMO pesticide industry disinformation spin goons do to poor organic farmers. Don’t try and deny it, I know the Koch brothers are paying you to do it.
            Beware the Reptile Overlords!

          • Warren Lauzon

            Uhm.. no 2.58 mg/L is NOT 2.58 ppm in air. Unless your air is the same density as water.

          • Yes, you are right. So take the significant part of my statement, which stands true–“most significantly, this figure shows that the statement that Roundup is only toxic to plants is bogus. It is very toxic to rats, when inhaled. What other ecological effects will it have in the biosphere? We don’t know. You claim we have full scientific knowledge of this subject. Looney Tunes.

          • “This clown”–yea right. LC 50 Roundup, inhallation, in Rats–3.2 mg/L.
            http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/herb-growthreg/fatty-alcohol-monuron/glyphosate/glyphos_prf_0285.html

            No death there–I’m such a clown.
            And what concentration do the insects birds mammals and soil biota inbibe?

          • Michael McCarthy

            “LC 50 Roundup, inhallation, in Rats–3.2 mg/L.”
            UNREALISTIC dosage. Period. You could literally stand under a spray bar and not get that. You are a moron. Plain and simple.

          • Such a warm-hearted man. Guess what–death is an extreme consequence. You don’t think there are sub-lethal effects at much lower concentrations? What insight!

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Guess what–death is an extreme consequence. You don’t think there are sub-lethal effects at much lower concentrations? “
            of course there are. But, again, you’re not going to come anywhere close to that dosage. Is it that you are being intentionally obtuse or you just don’t understand. Because I think it is obtuse. I’m not even going to reply anymore.

          • “sub-lethal effects at much lower concentrations”. You accept that there are, but how are you sure those dangerous concentrations are not reached?

            Right–you just know that what you, perhaps, have been doing is no problem–case closed.

            I will remind you that many of those who sold and used DDT were convinced, and strenously tried to convince others, that DDT presented no risk, or only slight, acceptable risk.

            I am so obtuse! One would be unusually fortunate to ever get anything worthwhile out of me!

          • Michael McCarthy

            “”sub-lethal effects at much lower concentrations”. You accept that there are, but how are you sure those dangerous concentrations are not reached?”
            Because the ones that are most at risk, the people applying it, aren’t dropping dead or running off to the hospital due to glyphosate exposure. Hell, some 400 people have tried drinking roundup (by the gallon) to kill themselves, a total of 8 succeeded. Not a very good poison with that mortality rate.

          • Bloody fools, I’d say.

          • Those were brilliant demonstrations of the total non-lethality of Roundup–a mere 2% lethal.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Those were brilliant demonstrations of the total non-lethality of Roundup–a mere 2% lethal.”
            That is a horrible fatality rate for a compound, drink 10,000 times the dose and 2% death. But, tell you what, you can have a teaspoon of paraquat (which glyphosate replaced), I’ll drink a quart of roundup. After I wash the taste of soap out of my mouth, I will go ahead and call you an ambulance.

          • And paraquat was introduced by people who had no realization that we have to work with nature. Hopefully, farmers will realize that.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Dude, just get off the natural fallacy boat or stop responding. I tire of your “yay, let’s work with nature because nature is rainbows and kittens” crap

          • JoeFarmer

            This guy is a complete tool. Impervious to learning, the worst kind of person.

          • You can be as ugly as you choose.

          • JoeFarmer

            More nonsense from you. I guess that’s because your brain is scrambled.

          • Sense? Nonsense? Duh, well I dunno.

          • JoeFarmer

            No, you don’t know.

            That’s the point.

            You yammered on about soil a while back. I pointed out that I have so many soil microbiota on my farm that I actually need to slow them down to protect the environment. Remember that? Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter? Use of Nitropyrin to slow them down? You conveniently ignored that, and just spooged your usual “nature” shit. But you don’t know shit about nature. Which is why I call you an idiot.

          • You can be as ugly and senseless as you choose, fella.

          • JoeFarmer

            Nothing ugly about telling the truth and stating that you’re an idiot.

          • I see personal ugliness lies deep within you.

          • It pollutes you, not me.

          • JoeFarmer

            And still, you can’t carry on an intelligent conversation about soil biota, yet you just puke up, “NATURE!1!1!1!”

            Which makes you an idiot.

          • John Zohn

            You’ll have to excuse BitterJoe, he pretends to be a farmer but he is actually a full time troll. He spends hours a day insulting people and calling them names. I really get the impression he is truly a very miserable example of a human being. He’s one of those guys takes enormous amounts of crap from people in everyday life so he goes on-line to call everyone names to compensate for his passive-aggressive tendencies with people he doesn’t have to see face to face.

          • JoeFarmer

            “…he pretends to be a farmer but he is actually a full time troll.”

            Prove your claim, or STFU.

          • John Zohn

            Gosh BitterJoe, you sound so angry! It’s so obvious who and what you are by the nasty things you say about people every day. It’s kinda obvious to anyone who’s paying attention, just the fact that you would say “prove it or STFU” is a demonstration that you’re just insulting everyone’s intelligence. But remember you frustrated little troll- there are alternatives!

          • JoeFarmer

            I asked you to prove your claim and you didn’t.

            Your post has been flagged for making false claims.

          • John Zohn

            Oh BitterJoe, that will ruin my whole day if they delete my post, or MAYBE NOT!

          • JoeFarmer

            And you still can’t prove your brainless claim.

          • JoeFarmer

            I’m not sad at all. But you’re an idiot, and you can’t change that. I insult idiots, deal with it.

          • John Zohn

            Oh I think you’re very sad BitterJoe, you insult anybody that doesn’t agree with your gospel of the biotech industry, hence, you’re a troll, accept it!

          • Michael McCarthy

            come on Joe, just go out there and talk nice to the insects and ask them to kindly get off your crops. If that doesn’t work, just collect them up in some jars and release them out in a field. And go out and dig up any weeds and replant them somewhere else. Work with nature, I am sure you can do it if you just try. LOL

          • JoeFarmer

            That’s what’s completely baffling.

            Misinformed consumers say, “Organic farmers don’t use any pesticides”, which is factually incorrect, obvi.

            But what the Hell do they think? Good intentions and good vibes keep the bugs and weeds away? Fertilizing with animal s**t repels bugs and weeds? It makes no sense. It’s like saying if we had an organic Air Force they wouldn’t actually need any planes or pilots.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “organic Air Force”
            Why am I thinking this?

          • JoeFarmer

            LOL!

          • I am sorry that you are fulll of negative stuff–but throwing it at people won’t help.

          • JoeFarmer

            I’m not full of negative stuff. But your brain is full of dead neurons.

          • As long as you choose blindness, it is yours.

          • JoeFarmer

            As long as you suffer brainlessness, I’ll laugh at you.

          • I love it when farmers are so careful. Gives me confidence in their stewardship.

          • JoeFarmer

            You’re a retard.

            How much stewardship do you think is involved in over 100 years of ownership, genius?

            What about Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter?

            When are you going to share your expertise, sport?

          • Depends on how effected plants, animals, and bacteria are by your husbandry.
            I’m actually more interested in the effects of pesticides. And in the scientific wall of ignorance, by which chemicals that are only slightly understood but which are very toxic in some ways are deemed, by profit seeking people, “no problem”, and are spread over vast acreages.

          • Go right ahead–poison us. Thanks.

          • I’m through, JF. I’m thru with discussing with people who throw too many meaningless personal attacks. It’s misspent time–unproductive. If you want to engage about substantive stuff, I’m up for it. Otherwise, I’ll be closing with you real soon.

          • Brilliant.

          • What a great guy.

          • Poison the world, go for it, you are free!

          • You sure produce lots of it.

          • hyperzombie

            Work with nature??? Are you using an all natural computer, powered by all natural bioluminescence? Or is there a hand crank on the side of your computer?

          • Work with nature–cause less destruction. But perfection is rarely possible.

          • hyperzombie

            Maybe we should start a Grizzly bear, wolf puppy, Children Daycare center? I bet it would be very popular with the intercity folks, Hell they don’t even have to vaccinate the kids.

          • There is lots of conflict that occurs naturally. But there is also much natural harmony–it makes sense, and is good, to try to increase that. This works sometimes, and is helpful.

          • Adding to my reply to this comment–Some dis-harmony is an un-avoidable thing. But other disharmony can, and should, be avoided.

          • I’m not naive about harmony. But I’m not dead to it, either.

          • 3.2 parts per million?

          • Michael McCarthy

            “3.2 parts per million”
            And as soon as you figure out how to INHALE constantly 3.2 mg/L, let me know. Oh, wait, you can’t because it ISN’T REALISTIC!

          • And then there is this “scientifically informed” mantra, that ROUNDUP ONLY AFFECTS PLANTS.
            Yea. I’ll bet.

          • Michael McCarthy

            ” ROUNDUP ONLY AFFECTS PLANTS. “
            Never said that, did I? I said when applied as instructed, essentially harmless to everything but plants. You seem to think chemicals are free and farmers are just out there spraying them willy nilly. Get over it, that isn’t how it works.

          • If you don’t look, you won’t find. Unfortunately, this is a principle widely relied on by our pesticide manufacturers–and, unknowingly, by our gullible public.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “If you don’t look, you won’t find. “
            how do you find issues with a substance that becomes inert? Really? You better go back to school and refresh your chemistry.

          • A significant part of Roundup is around for months. A significant part of 2,4-D is around for weeks. A significant part of Dicamba is around for months.

            “If you don’t look, you won’t find. ” My meaning in writing this was that our scientific exploration of chemicals has utterly failed to even look at many important aspects of the way given chemicals will affect the environment, and the people in it.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “A significant part of Roundup is around for months”

            half life is around 45 days, but it is inert when bound to soil, so a non-issue

            ” A significant part of 2,4-D is around for weeks

            Half life is 15 days

            “A significant part of Dicamba is around for months.

            Half life is 45 days

            And these are typically used once, perhaps twice, in a season. So?

          • And have you ever looked into the effects of these chemicals in the real world, where there are also many other pollutants? If not, are you blind?

          • Michael McCarthy

            “And have you ever looked into the effects of these chemicals in the real world, where there are also many other pollutants? If not, are you blind?”
            No, you’re trying to make something happen that doesn’t. Do you understand the concept of application rates? Do you understand how these are applied? Obviously not.

          • You just know effects are in no way cummulative, in any sense. No, you don’t know that, your just giving youurself the benefit of the doubt.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “You just know effects are in no way cummulative, in any sense. No, you don’t know that, your just giving youurself the benefit of the doubt.”
            No, I understand application rates, half life and application timing, which doesn’t leave room for cumulative effects. Go visit a GD farm.

          • Oh I see, on farms there is no such thing as combined effects. Last I checked, some of a chemical that has a half life of 20 days will be around one year later.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “some of a chemical that has a half life of 20 days will be around one year later”
            Check your math again using actual amounts that would be in the environment, not some BS quantity you came up with in your head. Or, maybe, go to a GD farm.

          • It’s a small proportion–something like i/5000–but we are dealing with extremely biologically potent chemicals.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “but we are dealing with extremely biologically potent chemicals.”
            No, we aren’t.

          • Right–take a little bit of Roundup, spray it on a field, and it kills all the plants. “Biologically potent?” Na.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Right–take a little bit of Roundup, spray it on a field, and it kills all the plants”
            Actually, it probably doesn’t. But, of course, that’s what it is designed to do. it isn’t killing the rest of the biome. I think you’re argument should be against insecticides, but you’re not able to get that.

          • No, we are not dealing with extremely biologically potent chemicals. Hell, water will do that. It doesn’t kill the entire biome, so how can say that roundup is an “extremely biologically potent chemical?” Just my unrealistic hyperbole.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Hell, water will do that”
            water can kill an entire field, what point are you trying to make.

          • How many farmers are PhD. chemists? Or PhD. ecologists?

          • Michael McCarthy

            “How many farmers are PhD. chemists? Or PhD. ecologists?”
            They don’t have to be, that’s why there are application rates, nitwit.

          • People who are ecologically ignorant act in terribly destructive ways.

          • Half-life>>20 days. Persistence>>may be years.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Half-life>>20 days. Persistence>>may be years.”
            check your math again using real world quantities. 2 quarts(2lbs)/acre is the max application. Figure 50% of that (at least) is hitting the target to control. Now redo your math and tell me it is a wildly uncontrolled application. P/S, it helps to put it in perspective if you convert acres to square feet.

          • Your science just is not nearly sensitive enough or comprehensive enough. Oh, wait, doing that science would cut into the precious profits of the chemical manufacturers–better not do it.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Your science just is not nearly sensitive enough or comprehensive enough.”
            No, your total ignorance is on full display.

          • I am so ignorant, I shouldn’t even bother to get out of bed.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “I am so ignorant, I shouldn’t even bother to get out of bed”
            When it comes to science, that is probably true. Science can detect pesticide residues to the nanogram, so we know what is out there (even to the tiniest fractions) and can look at/for interactions, which they aren’t seeing.

          • Yea, those guys are geniuses.

          • Yea, better leave the field to the self-perceived “brilliant scientists”, especially those who are ecologically ignorant and spiritually bankrupt.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “those who are ecologically ignorant and spiritually bankrupt.”
            I’ll say it again, get over it. Live in your little la la fantasy world of wonderful and beautiful natural fallacy.

          • Yea, my fantasy world, where there is such a thing as natural integrity and harmony. It’s a big problem that people do not see the natural integrity and harmony. Not that it isn’t assaulted and attacked–that it stands, is knocked down, lies down for awhile, and then gets back up. People who are living without any sense of natural integrity and harmony, I urge them to go deeper–and find it. And behave yourself, so that you don’t destroy it. Which is the common course of people, today.

          • A large portion of society does not have a deep understanding of ecology.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “A large portion of society does not have a deep understanding of ecology.”
            What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? I don’t think you actually have any breadth of understanding of it either.

          • It has much to do with the fact that many/most people are using chemicals wildly and irresponsibly.

            Say what you will. Your argument speaks volumes.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “It has much to do with the fact that many/most people are using chemicals wildly and irresponsibly”
            Yeah, the idiots that buy them at the garden center and don’t follow the label directions.

          • And all those morons who think “the label” tells one everything they need to know about environmental health effects, and safe/best practices.

          • Do you undertand the idea of synergistic effects? Obviously not.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Do you undertand the idea of synergistic effects? Obviously not.”
            No, I do. But again, you’re being obtuse. Farmers have been tank mixing herbicides for decades.

          • Oh, well if they have been doing it for decades, it must be alright.

          • Few chemicals become wholly inert.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Few chemicals become wholly inert.”
            Glyphosate does. That’s why you can use it on a field and plant non-GMO crops after application if you choose to.

          • Warren Lauzon

            Actually most chemicals do.

          • Don’t fear. All these chemicals couldn’t possibly be a problem! The companies own studies prove it! They know everything, and are only motivated by pure benevolence! There profit isn’t even a factor in what they do! They are honest to a fault.

          • Warren Lauzon

            I don’t think you know what a chemical is. Pretty much everything in the entire universe that is not an element is a chemical.

          • Elements (hydrogen, helium, lithium, …) are chemicals. H, He, Li, Be, C, N, O…Chemicals. Elements. Chemical elements.

          • “These chemicals”–I’m talking about the synthetic chemicals applied to our fields. Man-made. New. Not well-enough understood to be spreading massive quantities of them.

            Just to tell–I’ve studied Organic Chemistry, of course all prerequisites, Physics, Biology, Human Physiology, Cell Biology, Evolution, Ecology, Human Ecology, Agricultural Ecology, neurology, some cosmology, themodynamics. Plenty of math. Computer science. Religion and spirituality. The history of the sciences.
            I have some idea what a chemical is.

          • Warren Lauzon

            “Massive” quantities? You should take a look at how massive the application of organic approved pesticides is.

          • I think some of the pesticide use by certified organic is misguided and irresponsible.

          • hyperzombie

            But it is 100% natural, and can’t even hurt a fly, and that is why not one organic pesticide has ever been banned. Oops, well except for the ones that have been banned.

          • I’m not here defending the use of natural pesticides by certified organic agriculture.

          • hyperzombie

            Plenty of math.

            LOL, I highly doubt that.

            Religion and spirituality

            I am guessing you focused on spirituality,,,

          • Well, you’d be wrong.
            Aye.

          • First Officer

            Why is Man Made worse than Nature Made? Venom, mycotoxins and botulism are 100% Mother Nature made.

          • Well look, if you propose to or begin to manufacture some venom, and spread it over many fields, that also is ecologically very questionable.

          • First Officer

            To wax spiritually, When 2 or more atoms are gathered in His name, there is chemistry.

          • First Officer

            like O2 and water. Oxygen as chemically active as chlorine.

          • First Officer

            In the case of dogs, so is chocolate.

          • Now that is pertinent.

          • Yea–you know next to nothing about the effects of the combinations of pollutants that occur in the real world, but you don’t think those chemicals present any problems. That is what we call scientific ignorance. And bullheadedness.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Yea–you know next to nothing about the effects of the combinations of pollutants that occur in the real world”

            No, that is just proof of your lack of understanding of how these chemicals react in the environment. Glyphosate, for example, binds to soil (becomes inert) and degrades rapidly.

            “That is what we call scientific ignorance.”

            I think you are the one that has displayed that particular trait.

          • We can disagree about toxic, but when you spread chemicals that degrade life, you are acting terribly.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “but when you spread chemicals that degrade life”
            I suggest you stop urinating then.

          • Some chemicals are worse than other–and some are more avoidable.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Some chemicals are worse than other”
            agreed, but you’re singling out some of the more benign ones. Maybe you would prefer to go back to DDT?

          • Certainly not. We are getting better, but people are still using chemicals wildly. 2,4-D–benign?

          • Michael McCarthy

            ” but people are still using chemicals wildly. 2,4-D–benign?”
            No, they aren’t “using them wildy”, that is garbage activist information speak. Again, pesticide use is regulated, these things have application rates, farmers must track any and all use. And yes, 2,4-D is relatively benign, assuming you are not getting truly unrealistic exposures. I really think you don’t understand that concept.

          • Do you know that many farmworkers are killed by pesticides every year in the U.S.? This CDC document cites pesticide poisonings, not deaths, and found over 10,000 pesticide poisonings of farmworkers every year.

            The CDC estimates that 10,000-20,000 physician-diagnosed pesticide poisonings occur each year among the approximately 2 million U.S. agricultural workers.
            http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pesticides/
            Gee, why is moronic me making something out of nothing! What an absurd idea–that people are using chemicals wildly!

          • Michael McCarthy

            You are a total idiot. Do some math. 20,000/2,000,000 is what percentage? 1%, and that is ESTIMATED!

          • There are many deaths from pesticides in the U.S. every year. In fact.

            Gee, just a mere 1% of American farmworkers experience physician reported illness caused by pesticides every year. And many of them aren’t even Americans.

            Those, of course, are just the acute illnesses. The chronnic illness, disability, and death is uncounted. And not known.

            What a TOTAL IDIOT I am to think that a problem.

            Those chronic illnesses just COULDN’T amount to much.

          • Michael McCarthy

            You are an idiot.
            “There are many deaths from pesticides in the U.S. every year. In fact”
            “An average of 23 deaths occur each year with pesticides as the underlying cause of death, most due to suicidal ingestions”

            “Gee, just a mere 1% of American farmworkers experience physician reported illness caused by pesticides every year”

            Read your own citation, it wasn’t just agricultural workers, it was also exposure for things like dog grooming, jackass.

          • I’ve tried to get used to your habitual senseless name-calling, but every time you do it, you degrade–not me. You degrade yourself.

          • Well, “jackass” ” idiot”. You are so well moved, and such a spakling debater.
            Chronic illnesses? Oh of course–nothing to be concerned about. Acute ilness, short of death?–Nothing to be concerned about. Chemicals–how could they hurt? Gee, the whole world is made of chemicals–how could they possibly hurt us?
            “Most due to suicidal ingestions”–that is, NOT ALL. I.E., pesticides poisin farmworkers.

          • I’m an idiot–because I point out what garbage you all are spreading around wily-nily. You poison us, man.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Yes, you are an idiot.

          • Yes, you spread toxic stuff.

          • Face it–the scientific understanding of this stuff is hollow–as any person who is not overimpressed with few facts would realize.

            But the chemical companies, and their rich owners particularly, are getting away with a boatload. Of money. Congratulations–now the many can be ruled by the few–the filthy rich.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Face it–the scientific understanding of this stuff is hollow”
            No, only yours is.

          • Blah blah.

          • You do advocate for massive pollution.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “You do advocate for massive pollution.”
            Nope.

          • You have, in this discussion.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “You have, in this discussion.”
            Nope.

          • Oh I’m sorry, your perfect.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Oh I’m sorry, your perfect”
            Never said that, never implied it either. So you have no evidence of any actions which I take which are poisoning anyone. You should be more careful with your choice of words then.

          • When people are literally spewing tons of toxic spam over the Earth, it is not being negative to point out that truth.
            My death will come soon to. Everyone’s will. See?

          • Michael McCarthy

            “When people are literally spewing tons of toxic spam over the Earth, it is not being negative to point out that truth. “
            Yes it is.

          • No, it’s positive–trying to get them to stop.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “No, it’s positive–trying to get them to stop.”
            whining on a message board does nothing to get them to stop, it’s just negative feedback.

          • Well look, if I had a few billion dollars, I’d run a TV campaign. Maybe even buy a TV station.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Well look, if I had a few billion dollars, I’d run a TV campaign.”
            TV campaigns don’t cost billions of dollars.

          • If anybody is thinking, I may alert them. Most people are closed minded, so I try to catch them.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Most people are closed minded”
            You’re one of them, actually.

          • Tell me about it.

          • What do you suggest?

          • Michael McCarthy

            “What do you suggest?”
            Start a blog, with real facts, not the crap you are spouting. Get lots of followers, hope Oprah sees it.

          • Oh, what a lovely man. And deep, too.

          • Mr. McCarthy, your head in the sand denial of problems with chemical pollution makes me think that you work for, or own part of, some big chemical company. And don’t really care much about life or harmony or good. But it may be something else.
            Honest? I wish.

          • Michael McCarthy

            ” your head in the sand denial of problems with chemical pollution makes me think that you work for, or own part of, some big chemical company”

            You couldn’t be farther from the truth. I have a small bottle of roundup in the garage to keep the weeds out of the pavers.

            “And don’t really care much about life or harmony or good.”

            no, my disregard is human life.

          • Such a fine man!

          • Ionizing radiation is very destructive of living things.

            You sure do blow of the need for carefulness in using chemicals.

            BP, from their selfishnes, made a catastrophy. Who knows how large?No one.

            Yea, Fracking. Mega-Roundup. Mega 2,4-D. Melting glaciers. We’ve got everything under control.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Ionizing radiation is very destructive of living things.”

            Nope, there would be no life on this planet if that were true.

            “BP, from their selfishnes, made a catastrophy”

            No kidding, whoever said they didn’t. The only worse oil spill was the Exxon Valdez.

            “Yea, Fracking. Mega-Roundup. Mega 2,4-D. Melting glaciers. We’ve got everything under control.”

            I don’t think I ever implied that we have everything under control. I’m not a fan of fracking. Nothing wrong with roundup or 2,4-D with proper use.

          • Corexit–basically a soap.>>You and I wish. Not true.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Corexit–basically a soap.>>You and I wish. Not true”
            true, it is a mixture of surfactants and solvents. But i suppose you would rather the oil spread to FL beaches during sea turtle nesting season, and poisoning pelicans and willets. Some nature lover.

          • Go ahead, minimise the problems created by Corexit–it is Extremely Toxic stuff. The massive negative impact it had is mostly not understood.
            I agree–we were in a bad spot, caused precisely by BP’s sloppy, irresponsible, and criminal excess profit seeking.
            Your argument was that China, Brazil, Indonesia, and India are far worse polluters at this stage of the game. Sure–if you self-righteously ignore the mega-environmental catastrophes of this country–massive chemical pollution, massive iradiation of people, massive ecosystem destruction.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Sure–if you self-righteously ignore the mega-environmental catastrophes of this country–massive chemical pollution, massive iradiation of people, massive ecosystem destruction”
            The US has nothing on China or Brazil when it comes to chemical pollution. Read up, chump. Even India puts us to shame. Same goes for air pollution.
            Here we go with the massive irradiation of people argument again. For the I don’t know how many times, U238 is BARELY radioactive.
            Massive ecosystem destruction, please, again read up on China, Brazil and Indonesia.
            I’m not saying the US is perfect, but please, comparative to the worst offenders, no.

          • Depleted Uranium contains .2 % U235. The U.S. dispersed at least 1500 tons of depleted Uranium in Iraq. That means that the U.S. dispersed 3 tons of U235 in Iraq.

            Depleted Uranium is radioactive. It emits about 1/150 as much gamma radiation as U235. That means the Gamma radiation released by the depleted uranium spread around Iraq is almost three times that released by the U235 alone.

            This is significant irradiation of people–but they were just Iraqis.

            The release of new, not fully understood chemicals–U.S.specialty.
            The massive use of not-fully-understood chemicals–U.S. does far more.
            Injecting massive quantities of undisclosed chemicals into ground water supplies (fracking)–U.S. specialty.
            Lead in the atmosphere, from planes–U.S. does far more.

            The burning of fossil fuels, causing global warming–US. has much more than other nations.

            I really don’t understand this wish to minimize the U.S. role in global pollution. It is a huge failure to live responsibly. It comes, I think, from small-mindedness and piggishness.

            I mean, the first thing for us to do is clean-up our own act.

            But Americans, fueled by monumental egotism, and stoked by the mass media, love to think that America is God’s gift to humanity.

            I really don’t know how to get the self-righteous to be self-critical.

            Probably too much to want.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Depleted Uranium is radioactive. It emits about 1/150 as much gamma radiation as U235”

            Uh, U238 doesn’t release gamma radiation, it is alpha, the least dangerous of the ionizing radiations. The half life is 4.5 billion years. Therefore, HARDLY radioactive.

            “The release of new, not fully understood chemicals–U.S.specialty.The massive use of not-fully-understood chemicals–U.S. does far more.”

            Oh no, I assure you, China takes the lead there. Try reading, really.

            “Lead in the atmosphere, from planes–U.S. does far more.”

            still crying about that? Canada, Brazil, Russia and Australia all use it.

            “The burning of fossil fuels, causing global warming–US. has much more than other nations.”

            Wrong, China uses twice as much and has no regulations on coal burning plants for air scrubbing/reduced emissions. India is nearly level with the US and also has no regulations like China.

            “I really don’t understand this wish to minimize the U.S. role in global pollution. It is a huge failure to live responsibly. It comes, I think, from small-mindedness and piggishness.”

            As soon as you realize the US is no longer the big bad wolf of environmental destruction, the sooner you can get on with your life. My mind is not small, but yours is wide-shut.

          • MM, you can be cynical as long as you want–but it is ugly.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “you can be cynical as long as you want–but it is ugly”
            I agree, killing all those animals is ugly. Thankfully they used the corexit.

          • And thereby killed and injured millions.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “And thereby killed and injured millions.”
            nope.

          • Sure, you can deny it–“It’s just soap!” Right!
            Don’ worry–it is extremely common, especially I believe in America, to not realize how unwisely and irresponsibly we the people are using chemicals. (It is we the people, but a large part of it is they the fat cats–who are trying to get much fatter.)

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Sure, you can deny it”
            I don’t have to deny anything. There has not been one report of the corexit killing wildlife, just the oil.

          • I’ve nothing more to say to you.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “I’ve nothing more to say to you.”
            excuse me while I go in the corner and cry now.

          • You got poison words, man

          • Michael McCarthy

            “You got poison words, man”
            so much for your threat of having nothing more to say.

          • I haven’t given up hope the maybe, you will be a decent person.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “maybe, you will be a decent person.”
            That’s hilarious. People have been waiting for that for, oh, 35+ years. I don’t think it is going to happen.

          • It is doubtful.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “It is doubtful”
            doubt implies some measure of possibility.

          • I agree. Best of luck. Really.

          • It would do you some good.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “It would do you some good.
            No, it wouldn’t. Crying is weak.

          • Well, we don’t know the exact effects of the chemical cocktails we have been treating the fields and every other place to, do we? Those disorders I mentioned are some very common effects of chemicals.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Asthma has little to do with agricultural chemicals and has been known for eons. Cancer can be caused by literally anything and has been around for eons. Loss of intelligence? Not sure where you’re going with that, plenty of viral infections can cause it though. I think you’re grasping at straws.

          • You think I’m grasping at straws–I think that you are making it much more likely that the Earth will become hell for even a higher percentage of people, by refusing to act responsibly or sensibly in regards to very toxic chemicals.

          • Michael McCarthy

            You’re really sounding more and more like a pot smoking hippie.

          • Actually, I’m a college educated, widely read, nearly full-time working Quaker.

          • Michael McCarthy

            none of those things preclude you from being a pot smoking hippie. I’ve known many college educated, full-time (gainfully) employed pot smoking hippies.

          • I will bet you that I use fewer drugs than you.

          • Michael McCarthy

            I bet not. The occasional aspirin/tylenol/ibuprofen is all I take.

          • Well, you take more than me.

          • Michael McCarthy

            My guess would be you take things like St John’s Wort and melatonin, things that are unregulated pharmaceutical that pander under the guise of natural and safe.

          • I’m blessed with good health, need no drugs. I do consume healthful herbs, selected based on thousands of years of experience, and scientific studies.

            Now, when I have to (occasionally), I do use dental anesthesia.

          • Michael McCarthy

            healthful herbs=unregulated pharmaceuticals

          • healthful herbs=good stuff, for health

          • Michael McCarthy

            nope, that’s the lie you’ve been told. Herbal supplements can have dangerous adverse reactions, same as pharmaceuticals.

            http://health.usnews.com/health-news/health-wellness/articles/2013/06/22/herbal-supplements-may-not-be-as-safe-as-they-sound

          • You make your choice, I’ll make mine. People have been using certain herbs, and avoiding others, for many thousands of years. But if you think the accumulated wisdom of humankind is worthless, ignore it. I’m sure that the massive pharmaceutical companies know better, and they will tell you the complete and unvarnished truth, motivated only by selflessness.

          • Michael McCarthy

            So you’re denying that herbal supplements can have adverse reactions? Yeah, the 6 hours I spent in the ER after taking Ma Huang must have been my imagination.

          • I never denied possible bad reactions. I suggest researching herbs deeply before using them, and I suggest only using ones that have very good rep.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “only ones that have a very good rep”
            and that will somehow protect you from contamination? Or adverse reactions from combinations of supplements. Nope.

          • Do you relize that there are a huge number of adverse drug reactions from physician prescribed drugs, every year, including MANY deaths? It’s amazing, this problem is so big.

            Use reliable companies. Use safe herbs.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “a number of adverse drug reactions from physician prescribed drugs”
            Gee, I had no idea.
            “use safe herbs”
            there’s that word again. There is risk with everything.

          • Sounds like it.

            Try to act safely.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Sounds like it”
            Why? Because I think your “safe herbs” carry risks similar to pharmaceuticals? You’re the one being naive, not me.
            “Try to act safely”
            Why? Self preservation is hardly a driving force for me.

          • It sounds that you aren’t aware of the danger involved in taking prescribed drugs because you make such a big thing of the danger’s of using herbs.

            Herbs are, in general, much much weaker than modern pills.
            The well-guided consuption of herbs is healthful.

            I’m sorry if you are, as you seem to say, disonterested in life.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “it sounds that you aren’t aware of the danger involved in taking prescribed drugs”
            Do you think I live in a magic bubble that filters out negative press?
            “The well guided consuption of herbs is healthful”
            Maybe, maybe not. Goldenseal can cause dangerous changes in blood pressure, for example. Natural doesn’t mean safe or healthy.

          • Many people do not, I think, realize how many die from taking Dr. prescribed drugs.

            It seems to me that, while being careful, consuming good herbs is a healthful practise.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Believe what you will.

          • Oh yea–our tests haven’t shown the combinations of various chemical pollutants is a problem, therefore, it isn’t! Scientific Genius! We haven’t tested those things!

          • Michael McCarthy

            You know, the more you throw darts at the dartboard, the more likely you are to get a hit. Doesn’t make you any good.

          • Brilliant. Ignore the nose in front of your face. See if that helps.

          • Michael McCarthy

            you prefer stabbing away in the dark.

          • No, actually I prefer trying to put things together.

          • Michael McCarthy

            No, it only seems that way to you. You’re throwing darts at a dartboard looking for correlation to prove causation.

          • Feed the people–put huge, unprecedented effort into studying ecological agriculture. This is TOTALLY NEEDED.

          • This combined effect is certainly not impossible to measure. Start by very carefully exposing some experimental groups, but not others, to a small concentration of chemical A and a small concentration of chemical B. It is true, for us to know what we are doing, this will have to be repeated, with various changes, many times. But until we do this, we are simply acting blindly. Short-sightedly. Irresponsibly.

          • Michael McCarthy

            No, it is impossible because you have to measure it against every single chemical. Are you implying we should be doing this on people?

          • We could start by measuring some of the more obvious combinations. Testing on people? What is this?

          • Michael McCarthy

            “more obvious combinations”
            like what? Do we test it against man made or plant-produced pesticides? Because, you know, we eat a lot more produced by plants than we do man made, right?

          • I’d start with the most commonly used pesticides. Test them in pairs, to start. Then triplets.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Why the used pesticides? Plants produce far more of them.

          • It makes little sense that the pesticides plants have been using cause big ecological problems–it seems likely that the pesticides people have made may, when combined effets are considered, be causing big problems.

            Do you know, if we found out one thing–what is killing so many honey bees, that alone would justify every expense–I mean zillions of dollars. Without honeybees, kiss it goddbye.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Well, they found out it isn’t neonics. Also, there are still lots of bees.
            You weren’t talking about ecological damage, I believe you were talking about cumulative effects in humans.

          • Colony collapse disorder is back very big time. We have some time–how much? Dismissing the problem is stupid.

            Ecological damage, and direct human effects, are both of the essence.

          • Michael McCarthy

            CCD is happening, but it hasn’t decreased the bee population at all.
            Ecological damage and human damage would be quite different for testing.

          • The agricultural working bees? The ones we rely on? Their population is vastly decreased.
            Ecological damage and direct human damage must be tested.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Nope, the population of bees is increasing. “According to U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization statistics, the world’s honeybee population rose to 80 million colonies in 2011 from 50 million in 1960. In the U.S. and Europe, honeybee populations have been stable—or slightly rising in the last couple of years—during the two decades since neonics were introduced, U.N. and USDA data show. Statistics Canada reports an increase to 672,000 honeybee colonies in Canada, up from 501,000, over the same two decades.”

            http://www.agprofessional.com/news/bee-population-rising-around-world

          • Bee deaths is a huge problem–42% of U.S. hives died since April 2014, according to a study from the U.S.D.A. and others.—–
            http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_28106672/bee-die-off-42-percent-u-s-colonies

            You can deny it–be oblivious, if you like.

          • Michael McCarthy

            I believe I provided you a source showing that the number of hives is actually stable. Overwintering loss is being overstated.

          • Hives are quickly replaced. Loss is huge–why cover this up?

          • Michael McCarthy

            I’m not covering anything up. Your concession is that the bees are dying, you can’t have net gains in hives if the losses are as massive as you seem to believe.

          • Bees reproduce quick. But massive die-offs is obviously a big problem.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Well, when you find a way to kill varroa mites without killing bees, please let me know.

          • The problem (CCD) is not understood.

          • Michael McCarthy

            nope, they know varroa mites are the main culprit

          • Really?

          • Michael McCarthy

            Yup. Australia has no mites and no CCD, they use all the same insecticides we do.

          • JoeFarmer

            If you want to learn about bees, go here:

            http://scientificbeekeeping.com/

          • There’s much he won’t tell you.

          • JoeFarmer

            And you’re an idiot.

          • What a good person you are, JF.

          • I don’t believe that The American Cancer Society is or deserves to be arbiter.

          • Michael McCarthy

            and yet you completely ignore that, by your own definition of genic, it supports the definition by the American Cancer Society. How convenient for you. Would you like to redefine denial?

          • You are wrong. It does not say, producing or causing de novo–i.e., producing or causing anew. If you have changed the cancerous growth from 1 to 2 grams, you have caused and produced cancerous growth–with a carcinogenic material or action.

          • Michael McCarthy

            try to spin it whatever way you want, bucko.

          • Ducko, it is you trying to split hairs–that study is evidence that glyphosate is carcinogenic.

          • Michael McCarthy

            No, kiddo, I explained it to you, but I will repost it here:

            And let’s put aside the semantics of the word for now. You’re hanging your hat on a 3 year old study (since it was published 2 years ago, we can assume that the experiment is at least 1 year older) done on cancer cells in vitro. Well, lots of things can induce, proliferate or destroy cancer in vitro that have no effect in vivo. Until there is a study published with in vivo results (using an Emca strain of rat, most likely), the results of this only indicate a possible ER response within an organism.

          • I am not hanging my hat on that or any study. I merely cited it. My bigger argument, made oh so often, is that we do not even know what we are doing, because little is understood of the effects of multiple, varied combinations of pollutants, such as occur in our fields (and cities.)

          • Yea, it’s terrible when you don’t own the language.

          • agscienceliterate

            Who should? The Fraud Babe? Who’s YOUR “go-to” for information about GMOs and cancer?

          • There is no arbiter of words–not even in France.

            For information, I go to the universe–not certain select parts of it.

          • agscienceliterate

            Shen, I repeat my question. Who’s YOUR “go-to” for information about GMOs and cancer?

            I’m sure your answer is more profound than “…the universe.”

          • Yea–you want some subset. Untrue simplification, you want.

    • JoeFarmer

      No one will ever accuse you of being smart.

      p.s. Still no citation from you about the bees, 4 days later. I beginning to think you just made that up!

  • My point is that you don’t need to understand the microscopic mechanism to observe empirically if there is an effect in systematic feeding trials aimed at chronic toxicity testing. “Toxic means it does not benefit the body” is a vague and imprecise statement and certainly not the operational definition that will have been used. Chronic toxicity testing will not have involved daily samples of gut flora, but it doesn’t really need to if the study does not flag up *any* health impacts, from gut mechanisms or anything else.

    The document I pointed at cites two animal feeding studies, and three tests for human exposure via spraying (not feeding). All gave glyphosate a very clean bill of health. The two animal feeding studies were Monsanto internal reports shown to the regulators — I’d be interested to see them, to understand the methodology, if anyone knows where a copy can be found. The quantities used daily in the animal feeding tests were 1000 times higher than the estimated max daily rate of consumption for a lifetime which would not be expected to have a significant health impact, based on the assessment in these studies. That sounds like a heck of a safety factor to me.

    So, given that there have been several animal feeding trials on concentrations of glyphosate *far* above normal exposure, with no observation of adverse effects from gut microbiota disruption _or_ any other source, what is it that concerns you and that you characterise as a lack of knowledge and testing?

    • Al Mather

      ” If we can adjust our current testing techniques, toxicity scales, and other graphs we use to determine probabilities, we will advance even faster.”
      Adjust how.. specifically?

      • Al Mather

        “testing should use current foods and products created by earth and search for benefits rather than man made chemicals and applications.”
        GMOs are grown from the earth. And every marketable vegetable and fruit we consume ..be it “organic” or GM.. has been modified by man. If you can show that they have a negative effect on health then show that… and of course they should be curtailed. If you can show no negative effect compared to similar consumption of non GMO fruits or vegetables after decades …then keep monitoring, and studying, and testing.
        Holistic medicine is a mixed bag IMO. Rife with BS and snake oil and charlatans .. Western medicine relies too heavily on pharmacology .. the magic pill over common sense and healthy lifestyles.. no doubt. I think the Insurance/provider model is broken. But in the vacuum left by that ..you can not just deny science and make up fantasy ‘magic medicine” that abandons evidence and observable physiological documentation.

        • Al Mather

          “The consensus on many GMOs are up in the air”…not really. At least not if you are talking scientific consensus.

          “There really is no proof on either side.”.. again .. since you can not prove a negative .. to say “Prove there is no unforeseen harm” is a fallacy. They have been studied ..http://genera.biofortified.org/ Over 1700 studies..The consensus IS there.
          GM is a technology not a product. The results of the technology can be predicted and tested. No one is discounting other methods. Gm is just another tool in the farming tool box.

          • The increase in certain diseases, like autism, tracks almost identically with the consumption of organic foods and the use of natural/homeopathic remedies and supplements, none of which have been tested. Since there is zero evidence of any human or animal harm linked to GMOs–not so much as a cough–and organic food consumption and supplement consumption have both been blamed for hundreds of deaths and thousands of sicknesses between them, they are far likelier suspects. SCIENTIFIC argument for GMOs as cause= zero. Hysteria/activist/pseudo science argument=100% PS: I don’t really believe it’s organics, though I don believe supplements and “natural remedies” has definitely had an adverse health impact. Just demonstrating how silly your anti-GMO rant is…zero science to support it. The consensus on GMO safety is HIGHER than the consensus on evolution and global warming. That’s the playing field you have wandered into.

          • Al Mather

            “Scientific consensus is an infant in truth maybe even still in the times of pregnancy…” Please explain the meaning of that. To me it sounds like someone trying hard to be profound.

            The reason to point the finger at organics to make a point is simple ..You make comments such as…
            “No correlation to date to certain GMOs, pesticides, or synthetics, but I can say we have many illnesses and diseases that have unknown causes.”
            That’s like screaming “Witch!” when your crops don’t yield… YOU seem perfectly comfortable saying that although there’s no proof of any kind of harm after years of observation and study.. we do have these diseases over here.. and although there is no indication at all that GMOs are connected in any way ..no one has ever proven that they aren’t.
            Organic produce is generally pitted against GMOs, despite the fact that they are 99.99999999999999999999% genetically identical.So it makes perfect sense to point out that the same faulty logic that you apply to GMOs applies to Organics.. or a host of other unrelated guesses.

          • Bulloney. GMO’s can cause huge problems, and certainly no scientific study disproves this, or even gives any evidence that it is not true.

            1) If the chemicals used in the cultivation of specific GMO’s cause ecosystem problems, than those GMO’s are causing problems.

            2) If the cultivation of specific GMO’s favors certain insects over others, there will be effects on many other forms of life in the ecosystem

            3) If the cultivation of specific GMO’s favors certain bacteria over others, in the human gut or in the soil, there will be ecosystem effects.

            Specific GMO’s have been found to cause problems–deny this flatly, and you clearly distort the truth.

          • Good4U

            1. Right…but they don’t, and haven’t, so they aren’t.
            2. Right…but they don’t, and haven’t, so there won’t be.
            3. Right…but it doesn’t, so there won’t be.

            Neither you nor anybody else has been able to find that GMOs cause problems. It’s you who’s distorting the truth. If there was any single case of problems being caused by GMOs then someone would shout it from the rooftops. I’m listening….crickets are chirping….

          • You are speaking from ignorance. Don’t test, and you won’t find! Then, you can absolutely deny it occurs! Brilliant! This passes, in some circles, for being scientific!
            A GMO likely killed many people, and sickened many more. See Showa Denko–tryptophan affair. It’s been covered up by people like you saying, No GMO Ever Hurt Anybody. Period. What phoney phooey.

          • Science teacher

            OK, go ahead; prove a negative. Prove that there is no harm in organic food. Show how you would go about designing a credible study to show that.

            Do you have any idea with correlation is?? Or causation? You need to go back to junior high science.

            Explain Jon’s point below (for example only, not something he believes): That along with the rise in these diseases, there has been a rise in consumption of organic food.

            (* oh, yeah; and a rise in the number of people using smart phones, drinking Starbucks, eating Thai food, yadda yadda ad infinitum — you worried about those being linked to disease and illness?)

            Just because you have, as you say, “no clue” as to the “cause of many illnesses and diseases” doesn’t mean you get to jump on the latest bandwagon merely because you’re grasping for an answer. Ignorance is bliss, but there’s no excuse for it.

    • Right, but animals were fed substantial — utterly unrealistic — quantities of glyphosate for extended periods and there was no indication of any adverse health effect. You don’t need to understand the detailed roles played by microbiota to conclude that it is probably not significantly disrupted by glyphosate. Unless you can point at a *specific* feature of the testing methodology that you think invalidates that argument. I’m interested… but the above looks very much like “we don’t understand everything, therefore we know nothing”, which is trivially wrong.

  • agscienceliterate

    The GE markets are just fine. Genetically engineered foods have great markets and are increasing exponentially.
    You misread the market.

    • agscienceliterate

      Why? Do you think farmers are stupid and don’t know their markets, and future market potential? Of course the demand can be met by US farmers. US farmers who grow non-organic do so for their own reasons related to being able to sell their crops. It’s all about demand.

      The fact that we import organics does not reflect farmer inability to meet the demand, if they wished to change what they currently grow, of course.

    • Al Mather

      Survey of retailers I read says about 19% of organic produce on average is imported. Nuts, coffees, legumes, certain items much higher maybe 80-90% ..things like corn ..less than .005 %. Organics as a whole represent about 5% of consumer spending on produce.

  • agscienceliterate

    ?? Lots of things, depending on the disease. There is no one cause for any one disease. There is certainly no one cause for ALL of the diseases you list.

    Are you inferring causation by GMOs? Your response below says you aren’t, but your contextual comment seems to indicate that indeed you are trying to make some kind of connection between GE foods and “all these diseases” you mention.

  • agscienceliterate

    You just did, above.
    You’re not looking for “guidance.” You’re looking to push a narrow judgmental perspective that isn’t supported.
    If you want “guidance,” ask a question.

    • Al Mather

      And the point of this massive cut n’ paste is what????

  • Organic food consuption is going up, I believe, because people are concerned about the health of the biosphere–which many conventional farmers, bless their hearts, have unwittingly injured.

    • Michael McCarthy

      No, more people are buying organic because they have fooled everyone into believing those things are true. You do know that something like 50% of the organic produce available is imported from China. The regulation on organics in this country is shoddy, do you think it is in some way better in China? Eat up, because I will bet my last dollar they are sending us conventional produce (and China has fewer regulations than the US on pesticide use) and calling it organic.

      • If more American farmers would realize that they have been inflicting big degradation on the Earth with their conventional farming, maybe they would become responsible growers, and Americans could stop buying organic from China, etc.

        • Michael McCarthy

          How are they inflicting big degradation?

          • Chemical pollution, soil ecosystem destruction, contributing to global warming.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Well, big ag uses no till farming, which is better for the soil than the tillage employed by organic farming.
            How are they contributing to global warming more than other practices? They aren’t burning fields, as done in organic. No tillage, so less equipment being run. I’m not seeing a correlation.
            Chemical pollution is a matter of debate. Glyphosate degrades quickly in the environment (half life less than 100 days), binds to the soil (minimal contamination of water) and does not bioaccumulate (safer for animals). Use of other, older herbicides (e.g. organophosphates), which are more toxic to the environment have dropped sharply. Bt corn and cotton has reduced insectide use by 45% overall. Farmer’s have been working to reduce fertilizer runoff by timing application and using better dosage. These seem like good things to me.

          • Farmer Sue

            Couldn’t have explained it better, Michael – thanks!
            Plus the impact of huge tractors, which are fossil fuel suckers, in multiple passes over the fields. We don’t have to do that anymore, saving in fossil fuel, and also that we’re not compacting the earth with these big machines. All better for the soil.

            Farmers depend on good soil. All the allegations to the contrary — that farmers are “bought off” by seed companies (the money flows the other way), that farmers “drench” their fields, etc. just show total ignorance about contemporary farming methods.

            No-till is one of the biggest eco-benefit made possible by GE crops.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Thank you. 🙂

          • It comes with the huge expense of spreading massive amounts of chemical pollutants that we do not deeply understand–and that could easily cause massive degradation of life–but just on Earth.

          • Artificial fertilizers are terrible for the soil.
            Artificial nitrogen fertilizers are made using fossil fuels. So are pesticides.
            Most people think that the chemicals they are using are no problem. What, in fact, is known about the combined affects of all the various agricultural chemicals combined, as commonly occur in the biosphere? I believe the answer is little–please inform me if this is untrue, and please would you cite studies/sources. I have cited this numerous times, and it is never satisfactorily answered. I am left believing that our agricultural and chemical scientists are behaving ignorantly.
            How long do you think it will be before resistance to Bt is common?

          • Michael McCarthy

            Artificial fertilizers aren’t terrible for the soil. Where did you get that idea? If they were terrible for the soil, productivity and soil health would have declined to the point where land is no longer productive, this is not the case.
            You are aware of the amount of fossil fuels used and greenhouse gases produced in the production of manure in organic agriculture, correct? And we’re using 100% of the manure produced, where would you suggest we get the additional input to support agriculture, or should we abandon 90% of agriculture and let everyone starve?
            Why are you still going on about this combined effect? It is an impossible question to know the answer to, we can only adapt what we do if information presents itself. The number of variables is simply too vast to measure.
            How long before Bt resistance is common? You do know that there was already resistance to some strains of Bt (the bacterium) before the introduction of GE crops? That is the thing, pests will always develop resistance to control. That is why Bt traits are usually stacked in a plant, so that there is more than one type of control which vastly reduces the possibility of resistance developing.

          • Artificial fertilizers, I learned studying organics, have a very bad effect on the soil community. I’m not prepared to debate this now.

            The carbon released by manure was already in the atmosphere recently. That isn’t the problem. The carbon released by artificial fertilizer has been underground for eons–releasing it back into the atmosphere is a big problem.

            Developing a sustainable agriculture is not going to be easy. But simply relying on chemical fixes will be disastrous.

            I go on about this combined effect because when I raise it, I meet a stonewall of massive ignorance–which, as long as it goes on, spells chaos for the human community.

            The question itself, of the combined effect, is far from impossible–it requires study.

            As does the field of Agricultural Ecology–so our action can be informed. So that we might live.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “The carbon released by manure was already in the atmosphere”
            Yup, it went from being CO2 to CH4, which is a much worse greenhouse gas, that’s smart.

            Again, without a massive reduction in the human population, other agricultural methods will not feed the people without destroying all of nature. We can feed the people with conventional agriculture and cater to a select few with other agricultural methods.

          • Yea, the “conventional” ways of agriculture are all we need. Good Learner!

          • The massive animal agriculture is allready producing all that CH4.

            Well, I see little alternative to a massive decrease in human population. Practice as much conventional agriculture as you like–it is obviously not going to feed the exploding population that we have had.

            I think that the question is more, are we going to make hell on Earth, or will we do a little better, or will we do much better?

          • Michael McCarthy

            Your solution is to starve people. I’m all for a massive population reduction, I simply would prefer a more rapid biological extermination method.

          • It is not. “More rapid biological extermination method”–sounds very sick. I’m very sorry that you are so confused. See the harmony, learn how to help it grow.

          • Michael McCarthy

            harmony? In humans? That’s a laugh.

          • It is real, present, and recurring. Many things drive us away from it. There is plenty of chaos. But natural harmony appears.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Not in humans, human nature is to aggregate into small, like-minded or related groups and destroy the competition.

          • Yea, we have seen plenty of that. We can get beyond it.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Pretty unlikely anytime soon.

          • We’ve got to try.

          • Michael McCarthy

            No, not going to happen, barring chemically altering the entire population.

          • I really don’t know if people will find deeper harmony, as a group. Seems to me that it could go either way. It is better for us to put our energy into trying to make it happen.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Sure, puppies and kittens and unicorns and rainbows for everyone! Hooray!
            5000 years of civilization filled with class warfare, interpersonal strife, war, subjugation of “lesser” ethnicities. But sure, let’s all hold hands and sing kumbaya and it will all go away.

          • No–let’s ourselves try to have good effects on others and ourselves, difficult as it is to be consistent about that.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “-let’s ourselves try to have good effects on others and ourselves”
            You honestly believe that is what people want? Sorry, your fellow man will use you and spit you out.

          • Human life stands on an incredible build of harmony–which we can further. Unfortunately, many fail to see this truth of where they stand–because they have not looked deeply enough at the world.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Artificial fertilizers, I learned studying organics”
            Really? Because they are mostly inorganic compounds, with the exception of biosolids.

          • Inorganic compounds could easily have bad effects on the soil, which is far from an inorganic compound. If you are unaware of that, which is not totally obvious, please study a little soil science. Or a lot.

          • Michael McCarthy

            you’re adding in the inorganics and organics that the plants take up, it isn’t rocket science.

          • And what you add to the soil has a huge effect on the living organisms in the soil–there are zillions of them.

          • Michael McCarthy

            yup, and adding fertilizer doesn’t kill them, if it did plants wouldn’t grow, dead soil is pretty unproductive.

          • However, artificial fertiiizers do degrade soil communities, and this can progress far.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Nope, again, if that was happening the soils in the midwest would be producing less, not more. Tilling, the mainstay of organics, is worse. Compacting of soil from frequent passes of heavy machines, as used in organics, is worse.

          • Conventional used as much tilling as organic, until they got away from it by dousing us all in not well tested chemicals which I suspect, with cause, are incompatible with human life before long.

          • Michael McCarthy

            you know that life is incompatible with life, right? Like literally every single second of life everything in life is working against your survival.

          • Baloney.

          • Michael McCarthy

            reality.

          • Well, if you haven’t seen your way through to the deep harmony that exists in nature, I suggest you do some seeking.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “harmony exists in nature”
            Do you live in a land of unicorns and rainbows? Nature is violent and destructive. Volcanoes, tornadoes, tsunamis, predator/prey relationship, pathogen/host relationship.

          • I certainly never denied that there is deep chaos in nature, also.

          • Ever hear of ecosystem services? Living things have given us oxygen to breathe, soil on which to do anything, building materials, clothing, control of disease, food to eat, a good environment, clean water, work to do, even pillows on which to lay our heads while we rest.

            There is much deep conflict in life, and this can not stop. However, in the human community, we can get beyond it. And create a greater, deeper, truer, more fulfilling integrity.

          • Michael McCarthy

            And yet oxygen is actually a toxin. Soil is full of deadly microbes. Building materials can leach out toxins (e.g. Cedar). Life is incompatible with life.

          • Brilliant.

          • The soil was so deep in the midwest, it could take lots of abuse.

          • Michael McCarthy

            wrong again. Poor agricultural practices from the late 19th century to the 40’s stripped away most (in some places all) of the topsoil. Changes in agriculture from 1960’s to present has worked to restore it.

          • Not all organics uses heavy machines. Or tilling.

          • Michael McCarthy

            all organic uses tilling, unless it is a tiny farm. Comparing apples to apples, large scale organics vs large scale conventional, organics uses much more tilling and heavy equipment.

          • Tiny farms, we will probably see much more of.
            By using massive quantities of not fully tested pesticides, conv. farming has avoided tilling–and poisoned us.

          • Michael McCarthy

            tiny farms aren’t the answer, can’t feed enough people. Pesticides have been dumped in the environment for thousands of years. Deny it all you want, what we use today are much friendlier than those of the past.

          • We will need many tiny farms.

            What we use today are far worse than plant produced pesticides.

          • Michael McCarthy

            I’m not talking about plant produced pesticides. Up until the 1940’s, heavy metal insecticides were routinely used. Nicotine sulfate was common from the 19th century to the mid-20th century.

            Tiny farms aren’t the answer. Unless you would like to return to medieval Europe, with small populations and mass famine.
            Give up the natural fallacy.

          • Some people used terrible pesticides, in the past. But most agriculture, throughout human history, was totally organic.

            Many, many small farms could and would be a great boon–less fossil-fuel energy needed, less mono-culture, more work for the unemployed, more in-touch with nature people, more resiliant–less subject to disease, more socially just, less prone to fascist dictatorship, more “real” work.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “But most agriculture, throughout human history, was totally organic.”

            Yup, and crop loss and famine was commonplace.

            “-less fossil-fuel energy needed, less mono-culture, more work for the unemployed”

            Find me average Americans that are willing to do the backbreaking labor of agriculture for peanuts. Sorry, this isn’t medieval Europe.

          • .

          • Michael McCarthy

            “I do think that Americans are spoiled, lazy, selfish, short-sighted, and spiritually impovershed–as a group”
            Yup, they are. And going all natural organic won’t change that at all, will just destroy more of nature and increase strife.

          • There are better ways to do things–we need not massively degrade the biosphere, in order to live.

            I’m sorry, I do think that Americans are in many respects spoiled, lazy, selfish, short-sighted, and spiritually impovershed–as a group. And damn bloody violent!

            However, Americans as a group are also hard-working, creative, and well-moved. When it is apparent to people that many small farms, worked by many people, are much more practical, healthy, and satisfying than our current monoculture mega-farms, society will move in that direction. That certainly will not mean that we have returned to medieval Europe. It will mean that we are advancing to an ecological future.

          • Michael McCarthy

            ” It will mean that we are advancing to an ecological future.”
            At the price of all advancement (technological, medical, etc.), since you’re moving 50% of the labor force back into agriculture. That would make it medieval Europe. With maybe less smallpox and plague, but otherwise the same.

          • Baloney. I think technology is great–just don’t bring ecological chaos with what you do. Which the industrial world is seriously threatening. Oh–I’m sorry. The Repubs don’t believe climate change is human induced. Maybe you don’t.

            We’ve got to adapt.

          • JoeFarmer

            “Tiny farms, we will probably see much more of.”

            Explain the consolidation of U.S. farms that started even before WWI.

          • The future is not the past.

          • JoeFarmer

            Nonsense. Where do you come up with this stuff?

            We have enough nitrosomonas and nitrobacter activity that we actually use inhibitors to slow them down.

            Use your addled brain to google, “nitrapyrin” and commercial products like Dow’s N-Serve and Instinct II.

          • My addled brain?

          • JoeFarmer

            Did I stutter?

            Yes, your addled brain.

            So, tell the class about nitrapyrin.

          • I won’t take much from people throwing meaningless insults–to throw insults is simply vacuus.

          • JoeFarmer

            And you still can’t carry on a conversation about soil bacteria or bacteria inhibitors or their use in agriculture.

            You just spew out naturalistic fallacy-based bullshit. Which makes you an idiot in my book.

          • “Naturalistic fallacy-based bullshit.” Yea–like, “there is harmony in nature.” What a fool I am. To think that there is harmony in nature!

          • JoeFarmer

            Go face down a tornado while you’re giving your harmony spiel.

            Or next time you’ve got a bacterial infection, tell the doctor you don’t want antibiotics because of harmony in nature.

          • There is also plenty of chaos in nature. We should add to the harmony, not the chaos.

          • Yea–poison the world in your realism.

          • JoeFarmer

            Grow up, doosh. Your brain was scrambled when you crashed your bicycle. No one cares.

          • No one cares! Poison the world! Ra, ra, they can do it–our modern, ecologically ignorant, chemical spewing farmers! Go for it! Screw us all up!

          • JoeFarmer

            Get a grip, addled boy!

          • Joe Farmer doesn’t care–he is oh so ready to farm without ecological regard! It’s just the natural world? Who needs that?

          • JoeFarmer

            Whatever you say, addled-boy.

            If you had ever been to a farm, you would know that farmers value their land. But you’re an idiot, so keep typing.

          • While you value your land deeply, you might consider not putting poisons on it that you do not understand. Which is what you have been doing. With good intentions, possibly.

          • JoeFarmer

            Who the hell do you think you are to think you have the slightest idea what I know or what I do?

            I’ll guarantee you I know a hell of a lot more about soil science, biology, chemistry, engineering and agronomy than you’ll ever know.

            But somehow you got an internet connection and that makes you think you’re some kind of genius. But you’re really an idiot.

          • You are a fine gentleman, who has a good heart. Somewhere.

          • JoeFarmer

            You don’t know squat about farming. Shut up, already.

            I’m working ground that has been farmed continuously for over 100 years. What do you do, pal?

          • Farmer Sue

            Hi, Joe. What he does is troll. Click on his name and find out the many subjects that he pontificates on. That’s what he does.
            Trolls are unfortunate beings with a high need for attention, either positive or negative. They don’t care what they sayy as long as they get a response. Your bothering to respond to him to clarify a specific point goes right over his head; it just “feeds the troll.” He doesn’t care about farming or science; he only cares about getting a reaction; it makes him feel Important.

            (But we’ll still feed him because we feel sorry for him …)

          • JoeFarmer

            You’d think some information would eventually sink in with him, but no…

          • And how is that ground being affected by the toxic chemicals you spread on it?

          • JoeFarmer

            It’s in the best shape it’s ever been since it’s been farmed, champ.

          • You don’t really know, do you?

          • JoeFarmer

            I absolutely do know.

            Unlike you, I actually know about soil science, biology chemistry and agronomy. And I spend thousands of dollars a year on soil sampling and testing.

            So blow your typically ignorant comment out your backside, pal.

            BTW, are you ready to talk about soil bacteria yet? Weeks ago I asked what you knew about Nitrosonomas and Nitrobacter, and you’ve dodged my questions ever since. What’s the problem? No idea what you’re typing about? Yeah, I think so.

          • And how many toxic chemicals do you put into everyone’s environment? Just how many lbs. would that be? And what effect are they having, and will they have?
            Soil life, I studied some–but, like I said, it’s been years, so I won’t discuss that now.
            A contest–who can spew the most inane insults. Hands down–you win. Congrats.

          • I haven’t studied soil science for years, so am not really up on it. However, it is clear that much of conventional agriculture is but a poor attempt to work with nature.

          • Michael McCarthy

            that organic agriculture works with nature is another lie they feed you. Agriculture, by definition, is against nature.

          • If you don’t work with nature (i.e., do things a way that works to increase the natural harmony), you are going into a pit.

          • Michael McCarthy

            natural fallacy at it’s finest.

          • You show your spiritual poverty.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Did I ever make the pretense of being spiritual? Nope. Doesn’t change the fact that you’re under the sway of the natural fallacy. If you believe it, then abandon modern society because it does not jibe with nature. There aren’t many untouched places left to go to, and you probably won’t live very long because of disease, but enjoy.

          • That is the problem.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Are you running out of things to complain about so you’re going back to something from a week ago that we’ve already talked about?

          • Trying to respond positively to you is challenging.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Really? Because I am a pessimist or because I find your version of progression to be regression?

          • You throw tons of potash at me. I’m not “primarily complaining about things.” I’m trying to step out of the “group think” that has so many sounding like parrots, and acting like automatons.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “You throw tons of potash at me”
            is that a polite way of saying I sling sh*t?

          • No, you sling garbage.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “No, you sling garbage.”
            It’s all a matter of perspective in life.
            I provide a glimpse of reality, you call it garbage.
            You provide a glimpse of a magical realm where we can abandon the agricultural revolution and everyone lives happily ever after, puppies and kittens and rainbows and unicorns for everyone. I call it bullsh*t.

          • Yea, wise you realizes that, to live, we have just gotto poison the biosphere severly–I disagree, so I’m naive.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “wise you realizes that, to live,we have just gotto poison the biosphere–I disagree, so I’m naive”
            Oh, now you want to go all the way back to when we didn’t poison the biosphere? Interesting. Tell me, what are you doing on a computer, using electricity, probably driving a car, using a cell phone, drawing water (municipal or from a well) if you are so concerned about the biosphere? Nice double standard you have there, so yes you are naive.
            If you don’t want humans to poison the biosphere, you have to go back to the point before we tamed fire because we’ve been doing it ever since. Good luck with a fools errand.

          • Jackson

            As far as poisoning the biosphere goes, probably the biggest instance of this was the evolution of photosynthesis, which started pumping out HUGE quantities of O2, which was incredibly toxic to the life that existed on the planet at the time.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “evolution of photosynthesis, which started pumping out HUGE quantities of O2, which was incredibly toxic to the life that existed on the planet at the time”
            I bet the photosynthetic bacteria were put there by Monsanto. I knew they had a time machine. Started poisoning the planet 2 billion years ago. Their evil knows no bounds!

          • Guess what, id. I’m not pure. I do try to refrain from blatant corruption, which, if you choose, you can defend and practice till your death–which won’t be long.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “I do try to refrain from blatant corruption”

            As you sit and type on a computer through your ISP, which is probably a service monopoly.

            “till your death–which won’t be long.”

            probably not, has nothing to do with corruption, defending corruption or poisoning the biosphere, it’s called genetics.

          • You know nothing about what efforts I make to not be involved in evil stuff–they are considerable.

            I was not implying that just your death will not be long in the future. 100 years is a blink of time.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “I was not implying that just your death will not be long in the future”
            Nope, you stated it very clearly ” till your death–which won’t be long”

            “You know nothing about what efforts I make to not be involved in evil stuff–they are considerable”

            I really couldn’t care less. Do you want a medal or something?

          • Reality, BS. You think your so realistic. I think your weighed down by tons of negative refuse.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “You think your so realistic”
            Yup, honest to a fault, so I’ve been told many times.

            ” I think your weighed down by tons of negative refuse.”

            Not really. I live a pretty carefree existence.

          • Your phoney attempts at characterizing me as some king of unrealistic puppy-loving hippie, when what I have actually done is write out against the irresponsible chemical pollution of the world by farmers and others, makes me think that you are “weighed down by tons of negative refuse”.

          • Michael McCarthy

            ” phoney attempts at characterizing me as some king of unrealistic puppy-loving hippie”
            I think your own personal statements have done that, not me.

            “what I have actually done is write out against the irresponsible chemical pollution of the world by farmers and others”

            And yet you’re still using that computer, electricity and presumably driving a car. I bet you ride in airplanes too.

          • Idiotic.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Idiot.”

            And your next reply: “You can be as ugly as you choose.”

            Well, one of us is showing a very ugly side.

          • O yea, I’m such a hypocrite. You can say that–I guess it was just an observation. But you know nothing about my life. Well, at least you can’t be a hypopcrit–you lay it right out there–be a snot ball! It’s a snot ball world!

          • Michael McCarthy

            “But you know nothing about my life. “

            that has nothing to do with calling me an idiot and then saying you can be as ugly as you choose.

            “Well, at least you can’t be a hypopcrit–you lay it right out there”

            Like I said once before, honest to a fault.

          • I should have said, “idiotic.” When you say idiotic things, don’t be surprised if people say, “idiot”.
            Same with “ugly.”

            Honest, and extremely selfish.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Same with “ugly.”
            Now you’re calling me ugly. Not very kind from someone that is all peace and love.

          • When you say ugly things…

          • A magical realm–where people can act decently, rather than from near pure selfishness. Which is the bottom line–for selfish pigs.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “A magical realm–where people can act decently”
            I’d say that about sums it up.

            “rather than near pure selfishness. Which is the bottom line–for selfish pigs”

            The bees and butterflies, moths and bats that visit my yard every day don’t seem to think I am selfish, they enjoy the abundance of nectar I provide. I do kill a lot of snails, doesn’t seem to reduce the population at all though.

          • Yea, you support the notion that we can’t act decently in this world.

            Well I’m glad if you do help feed some of the creatures of this world. Why do you want to poison them, and assert that trying to not do so is some kind of magical fantasy?

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Yea, you support the notion that we can’t act decently in this world”
            Human nature, we’re a violent, destructive species. Kind and decent folks get crushed like bugs. It’s a kill or be killed world.

            “Why do you want to poison them

            Don’t like the swarms of snails eating everything in the yard.

          • We can do better than that, and many many people do.

            We’ve got to find better ways of dealing with pesky critters than dousing them, and the world, with broadly toxic chemicals–regardless of the ecological consequences. Which is what most “modern” farmers have been doing.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “We’ve got to find better ways of dealing with pesky critters than dousing them, and the world, with broadly toxic chemicals–regardless of the ecological consequences”
            are we back to this again? So, you want crop failures and mass starvation. Kind of counter to your philosophy of getting along, since it would lead to more violence.

          • You can be as ugly as you choose.

          • You sure discuss like a selfish individual.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “You sure discuss like a selfish blob”
            Are you cracking a fat joke? I find that terribly offensive.

          • Make the “individual”. Selfish individual.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Selfish individual”
            You’re the one being selfish, expecting that everyone should conform to your ridiculous ideals of utopian existence which are totally impractical.

          • “I’d say that about sums it up.”—-Spiritually bankrupt.

          • Because you are sick.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Because you are sick.”
            Well, you’ve finally gotten something right. Is being a misanthrope a bad thing?

          • Sorry you are sick. I suggest doing something helpful. Something good.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Sorry you are sick. I suggest doing something helpful. Something good”
            I help the animals. People can slag off.

          • People are animals.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “People are animals”
            animals I don’t have any interest in helping, I think I made that abundantly clear a few times. However, to eliminate the problem of humans needs to be swift and decisive, not some slow war and starvation strategy which will be worse for the environment than now.

          • Honestly? You are so honest.

  • Al Mather

    All the illnesses you mention where prevalent before GM..

  • Al Mather

    What corellation ?Where did any of that draw a corellation and to what ? Candida exists ..it’s a yeast in pretty much everybody’s system . It’s also been one of the biggest scams quacks have perpetrated consistently of their sucker flocks..
    “Candida does not infect the small intestine nor does it overgrow in the colon. In fact, searching the term “Candida overgrowth” in PubMed, the national database of over 22 million published biomedical research studies maintained by the National Institutes of Health, turns up nothing. Unless every medical researcher who studies Candida, digestive health, infectious disease or immunology is in on a conspiracy to hide the truth, it’s pretty safe to say that “Candida overgrowth” is not an actual phenomenon..”

    http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/2013/12/10/we-all-have-candida-and-its-ok

  • Farmer Sue

    Our GE crops sell like wildfire. What the heck do you mean?? Our market is booming. Talk to a farmer, please.

  • agscienceliterate

    So? What’s your point?

  • RJB

    Flagged as inappropriate for cutting and pasting without acknowledging source(s), omitting citations.

    • Michael McCarthy

      No, you are the scam artist. You started off by asking questions and devolved into some bizarre rants about Candida, food coloring, acetaldehyde and hyperactivity.

      • Al Mather

        Quest.. you just posted a huge cut’n paste of info from some unknown source ( FDA from what I could gather) which had nothing obvious to do with the discussion. Is there a question or a point?

        • Al Mather

          You posted about yeast and food coloring. It would appear you don’t even comprehend what is being discussed. Hence all the cut and paste and vague ramblings .BTW if you are going to try to insult someone’s intelligence it helps if you don’t use bad grammar. It’s YOU’RE an idiot …as in YOU ARE an idiot. You completely give away the intellectual high ground when you use the wrong tense. Not that you ever had it.

          • Al Mather

            Really? All I did was ask you the point of your lengthy unexplained cut n’ pastes about yeast.. YOU are the one that got nasty and devolved into name calling. My “agenda” is to have the debate or discussion on topic.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Apparently the mod got tired of that one. Probably the comment about the GLP being a joke that did it.

          • Al Mather

            I’ll miss her.

  • Michael McCarthy

    That’s the best you can come up with? Hopeless.