|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
A lobbyist for Monsanto, who claimed the company’s Roundup weed killer was safe for humans to drink a large quantity of, refused to consume some himself when offered it during a television interview with French cable channel Canal+.
Patrick Moore told the journalist that the active ingredient in the herbicide, glyphosate, was not causing cancer rates in Argentina to increase.
“You can drink a whole quart of it and it won’t hurt you,” he said.
But when the reporter told him that they had prepared a glass and invited Moore to drink it, he refused, saying “I’m not stupid.”
“So, it’s dangerous?” the interviewer asked.
“It’s not dangerous to humans,” Moore replied.
Source
|
On March 28 2015 00:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +A lobbyist for Monsanto, who claimed the company’s Roundup weed killer was safe for humans to drink a large quantity of, refused to consume some himself when offered it during a television interview with French cable channel Canal+.
Patrick Moore told the journalist that the active ingredient in the herbicide, glyphosate, was not causing cancer rates in Argentina to increase.
“You can drink a whole quart of it and it won’t hurt you,” he said.
But when the reporter told him that they had prepared a glass and invited Moore to drink it, he refused, saying “I’m not stupid.”
“So, it’s dangerous?” the interviewer asked.
“It’s not dangerous to humans,” Moore replied. Source
Reminds me of Thomas Midgley Jr, one of the guys who helped developed leaded gasoline. When responding to criticism of his product he "poured TEL over his hands, then placed a bottle of the chemical under his nose and inhaled its vapor for sixty seconds, declaring that he could do this every day without succumbing to any problems whatsoever." Of course he got lead poisoning and said he would never do it again, and the plant was closed.
Source
|
My healthcare plan is the cheapest and most basic plan my employer offers, and a regular doctor's appointment is a twenty dollar co-pay. The report you shared is based on survey data (strike 1), and is conducted by an organization called the International Federation of Health Plans (strike 2). One of its graphs states the average routine visit in the United States is 95 dollars, or a whopping 176 dollars for those in the 95th percentile. This is outrageously inaccurate (strike 3, yo ass is out). I'd liken this study to the survey they give the studio audience before taping "Family Feud." It's not credible.
On March 28 2015 00:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +A lobbyist for Monsanto, who claimed the company’s Roundup weed killer was safe for humans to drink a large quantity of, refused to consume some himself when offered it during a television interview with French cable channel Canal+.
Patrick Moore told the journalist that the active ingredient in the herbicide, glyphosate, was not causing cancer rates in Argentina to increase.
“You can drink a whole quart of it and it won’t hurt you,” he said.
But when the reporter told him that they had prepared a glass and invited Moore to drink it, he refused, saying “I’m not stupid.”
“So, it’s dangerous?” the interviewer asked.
“It’s not dangerous to humans,” Moore replied. Source
Good ole Monsanto, back in action. Slowing altering our DNA, one spray of Roundup at a time. There does need to be more extensive research surrounding this, and these organizations do need to be held accountable for environmental transgressions, but the only reason they're acting with the impunity that they do is because of these lobbyists and the vast amount of money they throw at our government to shape policy. Lobbyism is the true culprit here, and must be exterminated like the unwanted, invasive, blood-sucking weed that it is.
|
On March 28 2015 00:53 always_winter wrote:My healthcare plan is the cheapest and most basic plan my employer offers, and a regular doctor's appointment is a twenty dollar co-pay. The report you shared is based on survey data (strike 1), and is conducted by an organization called the International Federation of Health Plans (strike 2). One of its graphs states the average routine visit in the United States is 95 dollars, or a whopping 176 dollars for those in the 95th percentile. This is outrageously inaccurate (strike 3, yo ass is out). I'd liken this study to the survey they give the studio audience before taping "Family Feud." It's not credible. Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 00:24 GreenHorizons wrote:A lobbyist for Monsanto, who claimed the company’s Roundup weed killer was safe for humans to drink a large quantity of, refused to consume some himself when offered it during a television interview with French cable channel Canal+.
Patrick Moore told the journalist that the active ingredient in the herbicide, glyphosate, was not causing cancer rates in Argentina to increase.
“You can drink a whole quart of it and it won’t hurt you,” he said.
But when the reporter told him that they had prepared a glass and invited Moore to drink it, he refused, saying “I’m not stupid.”
“So, it’s dangerous?” the interviewer asked.
“It’s not dangerous to humans,” Moore replied. Source Good ole Monsanto, back in action. Slowing altering our DNA, one spray of Roundup at a time. There does need to be more extensive research surrounding this, and these organizations do need to be held accountable for environmental transgressions, but the only reason they're acting with the impunity that they do is because of these lobbyists and the vast amount of money they throw at our government to shape policy. Lobbyism is the true culprit here, and must be exterminated like the unwanted, invasive, blood-sucking weed that it is.
Are you aware that without these chemicals, we'd never be able to feed all the people we do now?
There's no two ways about it. Either you accept industrial farming methods, or millions of people starve.
|
On March 28 2015 01:15 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 00:53 always_winter wrote:My healthcare plan is the cheapest and most basic plan my employer offers, and a regular doctor's appointment is a twenty dollar co-pay. The report you shared is based on survey data (strike 1), and is conducted by an organization called the International Federation of Health Plans (strike 2). One of its graphs states the average routine visit in the United States is 95 dollars, or a whopping 176 dollars for those in the 95th percentile. This is outrageously inaccurate (strike 3, yo ass is out). I'd liken this study to the survey they give the studio audience before taping "Family Feud." It's not credible. On March 28 2015 00:24 GreenHorizons wrote:A lobbyist for Monsanto, who claimed the company’s Roundup weed killer was safe for humans to drink a large quantity of, refused to consume some himself when offered it during a television interview with French cable channel Canal+.
Patrick Moore told the journalist that the active ingredient in the herbicide, glyphosate, was not causing cancer rates in Argentina to increase.
“You can drink a whole quart of it and it won’t hurt you,” he said.
But when the reporter told him that they had prepared a glass and invited Moore to drink it, he refused, saying “I’m not stupid.”
“So, it’s dangerous?” the interviewer asked.
“It’s not dangerous to humans,” Moore replied. Source Good ole Monsanto, back in action. Slowing altering our DNA, one spray of Roundup at a time. There does need to be more extensive research surrounding this, and these organizations do need to be held accountable for environmental transgressions, but the only reason they're acting with the impunity that they do is because of these lobbyists and the vast amount of money they throw at our government to shape policy. Lobbyism is the true culprit here, and must be exterminated like the unwanted, invasive, blood-sucking weed that it is. Are you aware that without these chemicals, we'd never be able to feed all the people we do now? There's no two ways about it. Either you accept industrial farming methods, or millions of people starve.
Sounds a lot like ultra-conservative rhetoric surrounding oil reliance in the face of developing alternative energy technologies. Then they were developed and it stopped.
|
On March 28 2015 01:15 Millitron wrote:
Are you aware that without these chemicals, we'd never be able to feed all the people we do now?
There's no two ways about it. Either you accept industrial farming methods, or millions of people starve.
source?
also, the west is known to produce way more food that it needs, and there are still millions of people who starve, despite industrial farming methods
|
On March 28 2015 00:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +A lobbyist for Monsanto, who claimed the company’s Roundup weed killer was safe for humans to drink a large quantity of, refused to consume some himself when offered it during a television interview with French cable channel Canal+.
Patrick Moore told the journalist that the active ingredient in the herbicide, glyphosate, was not causing cancer rates in Argentina to increase.
“You can drink a whole quart of it and it won’t hurt you,” he said.
But when the reporter told him that they had prepared a glass and invited Moore to drink it, he refused, saying “I’m not stupid.”
“So, it’s dangerous?” the interviewer asked.
“It’s not dangerous to humans,” Moore replied. Source
urine won't kill you either, but i am not about to drink a glass of it.
|
On March 28 2015 01:42 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 00:24 GreenHorizons wrote:A lobbyist for Monsanto, who claimed the company’s Roundup weed killer was safe for humans to drink a large quantity of, refused to consume some himself when offered it during a television interview with French cable channel Canal+.
Patrick Moore told the journalist that the active ingredient in the herbicide, glyphosate, was not causing cancer rates in Argentina to increase.
“You can drink a whole quart of it and it won’t hurt you,” he said.
But when the reporter told him that they had prepared a glass and invited Moore to drink it, he refused, saying “I’m not stupid.”
“So, it’s dangerous?” the interviewer asked.
“It’s not dangerous to humans,” Moore replied. Source urine won't kill you either, but i am not about to drink a glass of it.
Yeah I was trying to think of an analogy like this. Just because it is not harmful does not mean I would want to drink a glass of it on national television as a stunt. That is such a loaded proposition: if he doesn't do it, he's condemned; if he does do it but makes a face or doesn't get all the way through his glass of herbicide, he's condemned; if he does do it and chokes down a glass of herbicide, he just degraded himself on television, for what?
Roundup being safe for human consumption is supposed to make people feel better about moderate amounts of it being applied to your food long before it reaches your table and you wash it off. It's still not meant to go in your fridge as a refreshing beverage. The whole thing is laughable.
|
Obviously, but accoring to that source he made a claim that You can drink a quart of it safely. He should be more carefull.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
direct ingestion is not recommended anyhow.
|
The CEO of Bayer can drink a quart of Miralax safely as well.
|
On March 28 2015 01:59 Silvanel wrote:
Obviously, but accoring to that source he made a claim that You can drink a quart of it safely. He should be more carefull.
He should, because when you say that you are inviting this kind of trap, but there are plenty of things that I can drink safely that I do not want to drink, and would scoff if someone tried to force me to drink it on television. It doesn't prove or show anything other than bad interviewing practices.
|
Barack Obama faces a slew of Middle East crises that some call the worst in a generation, as new chaos from Yemen to Iraq — along with deteriorating U.S.-Israeli relations — is confounding the president’s efforts to stabilize the region and strike a nuclear deal with Iran.
The meltdown has Obama officials defending their management of a region that some call impossible to control, even as critics say U.S. policies there are partly to blame for the spreading anarchy.
“If there’s one lesson this administration has learned, from President Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech through the Arab Spring, it’s that when it comes to this region, nothing happens in a linear way — and precious little is actually about us, which is a hard reality to accept,” said a senior State Department official.
Not everyone is so forgiving. “We’re in a goddamn free fall here,” said James Jeffrey, who served as Obama’s ambassador to Iraq and was a top national security aide in the George W. Bush White House.
For years, members of the Obama team have grappled with the chaotic aftermath of the Arab Spring. But of late they have been repeatedly caught off-guard, raising new questions about America’s ability to manage the dangerous region.
Read the rest here.
You know its bad when the Politico posts an article like this. Anyone still want to argue that Obama has not been a foreign policy disaster over the past six years?
|
On March 28 2015 02:04 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 01:59 Silvanel wrote:
Obviously, but accoring to that source he made a claim that You can drink a quart of it safely. He should be more carefull. He should, because when you say that you are inviting this kind of trap, but there are plenty of things that I can drink safely that I do not want to drink, and would scoff if someone tried to force me to drink it on television. It doesn't prove or show anything other than bad interviewing practices.
well, it is a good interview practice because it riles up uneducated people who prefer anecdotal evidence to scientific studies.
|
On March 28 2015 01:15 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 00:53 always_winter wrote:My healthcare plan is the cheapest and most basic plan my employer offers, and a regular doctor's appointment is a twenty dollar co-pay. The report you shared is based on survey data (strike 1), and is conducted by an organization called the International Federation of Health Plans (strike 2). One of its graphs states the average routine visit in the United States is 95 dollars, or a whopping 176 dollars for those in the 95th percentile. This is outrageously inaccurate (strike 3, yo ass is out). I'd liken this study to the survey they give the studio audience before taping "Family Feud." It's not credible. On March 28 2015 00:24 GreenHorizons wrote:A lobbyist for Monsanto, who claimed the company’s Roundup weed killer was safe for humans to drink a large quantity of, refused to consume some himself when offered it during a television interview with French cable channel Canal+.
Patrick Moore told the journalist that the active ingredient in the herbicide, glyphosate, was not causing cancer rates in Argentina to increase.
“You can drink a whole quart of it and it won’t hurt you,” he said.
But when the reporter told him that they had prepared a glass and invited Moore to drink it, he refused, saying “I’m not stupid.”
“So, it’s dangerous?” the interviewer asked.
“It’s not dangerous to humans,” Moore replied. Source Good ole Monsanto, back in action. Slowing altering our DNA, one spray of Roundup at a time. There does need to be more extensive research surrounding this, and these organizations do need to be held accountable for environmental transgressions, but the only reason they're acting with the impunity that they do is because of these lobbyists and the vast amount of money they throw at our government to shape policy. Lobbyism is the true culprit here, and must be exterminated like the unwanted, invasive, blood-sucking weed that it is. Are you aware that without these chemicals, we'd never be able to feed all the people we do now? There's no two ways about it. Either you accept industrial farming methods, or millions of people starve.
That's a false dichotomy. There's lots of farming techniques that have comparable (or better) yield. They just happen to also be less profitable since they aren't dependent on the Monsanto family of GMO's, pesticides and other chemical accessories.
Besides, Monsanto has some pretty lousy business practices, like selling seeds which have been modified in a way that the seeds produced by the plants are non viable, and farmers have to go back and buy from Monsanto each year. That's just a dick move. They also have all sorts of disgusting arrangements that are basically modern day sharecropping.
EDIT: That lobbyist is an idiot. He literally set himself up for that, hope he's better at talking usually, otherwise Monsanto is wasting money on him, lol.
|
On March 28 2015 02:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +Barack Obama faces a slew of Middle East crises that some call the worst in a generation, as new chaos from Yemen to Iraq — along with deteriorating U.S.-Israeli relations — is confounding the president’s efforts to stabilize the region and strike a nuclear deal with Iran.
The meltdown has Obama officials defending their management of a region that some call impossible to control, even as critics say U.S. policies there are partly to blame for the spreading anarchy.
“If there’s one lesson this administration has learned, from President Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech through the Arab Spring, it’s that when it comes to this region, nothing happens in a linear way — and precious little is actually about us, which is a hard reality to accept,” said a senior State Department official.
Not everyone is so forgiving. “We’re in a goddamn free fall here,” said James Jeffrey, who served as Obama’s ambassador to Iraq and was a top national security aide in the George W. Bush White House.
For years, members of the Obama team have grappled with the chaotic aftermath of the Arab Spring. But of late they have been repeatedly caught off-guard, raising new questions about America’s ability to manage the dangerous region. Read the rest here.You know its bad when the Politico posts an article like this. Anyone still want to argue that Obama has not been a foreign policy disaster over the past six years?
A big problem in Iraq was that the US continued to support a government that alienated about half the population, aka the Sunni, including a lot of former military which then pretty much lead to the creation of ISIS. Most of that happened before Obama even entered office.
|
On March 28 2015 02:23 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 02:05 xDaunt wrote:Barack Obama faces a slew of Middle East crises that some call the worst in a generation, as new chaos from Yemen to Iraq — along with deteriorating U.S.-Israeli relations — is confounding the president’s efforts to stabilize the region and strike a nuclear deal with Iran.
The meltdown has Obama officials defending their management of a region that some call impossible to control, even as critics say U.S. policies there are partly to blame for the spreading anarchy.
“If there’s one lesson this administration has learned, from President Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech through the Arab Spring, it’s that when it comes to this region, nothing happens in a linear way — and precious little is actually about us, which is a hard reality to accept,” said a senior State Department official.
Not everyone is so forgiving. “We’re in a goddamn free fall here,” said James Jeffrey, who served as Obama’s ambassador to Iraq and was a top national security aide in the George W. Bush White House.
For years, members of the Obama team have grappled with the chaotic aftermath of the Arab Spring. But of late they have been repeatedly caught off-guard, raising new questions about America’s ability to manage the dangerous region. Read the rest here.You know its bad when the Politico posts an article like this. Anyone still want to argue that Obama has not been a foreign policy disaster over the past six years? A big problem in Iraq was that the US continued to support a government that alienated about half the population, aka the Sunni, including a lot of former military which then pretty much lead to the creation of ISIS. Most of that happened before Obama even entered office.
This is incorrect. Iraq was stable under American guidance when Obama entered office in 2009. Obama then washed his hands of Iraq and removed American support, which precipitated into the current shit show over there. And Obama had five years to manage the Iraqi government before ISIS showed up. Bush had less than that (invasion was summer 2003, government was not set up until years afterwards).
|
On March 28 2015 02:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 02:23 Nyxisto wrote:On March 28 2015 02:05 xDaunt wrote:Barack Obama faces a slew of Middle East crises that some call the worst in a generation, as new chaos from Yemen to Iraq — along with deteriorating U.S.-Israeli relations — is confounding the president’s efforts to stabilize the region and strike a nuclear deal with Iran.
The meltdown has Obama officials defending their management of a region that some call impossible to control, even as critics say U.S. policies there are partly to blame for the spreading anarchy.
“If there’s one lesson this administration has learned, from President Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech through the Arab Spring, it’s that when it comes to this region, nothing happens in a linear way — and precious little is actually about us, which is a hard reality to accept,” said a senior State Department official.
Not everyone is so forgiving. “We’re in a goddamn free fall here,” said James Jeffrey, who served as Obama’s ambassador to Iraq and was a top national security aide in the George W. Bush White House.
For years, members of the Obama team have grappled with the chaotic aftermath of the Arab Spring. But of late they have been repeatedly caught off-guard, raising new questions about America’s ability to manage the dangerous region. Read the rest here.You know its bad when the Politico posts an article like this. Anyone still want to argue that Obama has not been a foreign policy disaster over the past six years? A big problem in Iraq was that the US continued to support a government that alienated about half the population, aka the Sunni, including a lot of former military which then pretty much lead to the creation of ISIS. Most of that happened before Obama even entered office. This is incorrect. Iraq was stable under American guidance when Obama entered office in 2009. Obama then washed his hands of Iraq and removed American support, which precipitated into the current shit show over there. And Obama had five years to manage the Iraqi government before ISIS showed up. Bush had less than that (invasion was summer 2003, government was not set up until years afterwards).
You mean the treaty that was signed by Bush that required Obama to leave Iraq?
yeah totally Obama's fault. Esp when the government wanted America out aswell.
Treaty
|
On March 28 2015 02:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 02:23 Nyxisto wrote:On March 28 2015 02:05 xDaunt wrote:Barack Obama faces a slew of Middle East crises that some call the worst in a generation, as new chaos from Yemen to Iraq — along with deteriorating U.S.-Israeli relations — is confounding the president’s efforts to stabilize the region and strike a nuclear deal with Iran.
The meltdown has Obama officials defending their management of a region that some call impossible to control, even as critics say U.S. policies there are partly to blame for the spreading anarchy.
“If there’s one lesson this administration has learned, from President Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech through the Arab Spring, it’s that when it comes to this region, nothing happens in a linear way — and precious little is actually about us, which is a hard reality to accept,” said a senior State Department official.
Not everyone is so forgiving. “We’re in a goddamn free fall here,” said James Jeffrey, who served as Obama’s ambassador to Iraq and was a top national security aide in the George W. Bush White House.
For years, members of the Obama team have grappled with the chaotic aftermath of the Arab Spring. But of late they have been repeatedly caught off-guard, raising new questions about America’s ability to manage the dangerous region. Read the rest here.You know its bad when the Politico posts an article like this. Anyone still want to argue that Obama has not been a foreign policy disaster over the past six years? A big problem in Iraq was that the US continued to support a government that alienated about half the population, aka the Sunni, including a lot of former military which then pretty much lead to the creation of ISIS. Most of that happened before Obama even entered office. This is incorrect. Iraq was stable under American guidance when Obama entered office in 2009. Obama then washed his hands of Iraq and removed American support, which precipitated into the current shit show over there. And Obama had five years to manage the Iraqi government before ISIS showed up. Bush had less than that (invasion was summer 2003, government was not set up until years afterwards).
ISI(S) existed in Iraq since 2006, Sunni insurgency groups in Iraq started already in 2003/2004. The country was pretty much in a civil war by 2006/2007 with millions displaced. How is this stable?
|
On March 28 2015 02:38 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 02:32 xDaunt wrote:On March 28 2015 02:23 Nyxisto wrote:On March 28 2015 02:05 xDaunt wrote:Barack Obama faces a slew of Middle East crises that some call the worst in a generation, as new chaos from Yemen to Iraq — along with deteriorating U.S.-Israeli relations — is confounding the president’s efforts to stabilize the region and strike a nuclear deal with Iran.
The meltdown has Obama officials defending their management of a region that some call impossible to control, even as critics say U.S. policies there are partly to blame for the spreading anarchy.
“If there’s one lesson this administration has learned, from President Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech through the Arab Spring, it’s that when it comes to this region, nothing happens in a linear way — and precious little is actually about us, which is a hard reality to accept,” said a senior State Department official.
Not everyone is so forgiving. “We’re in a goddamn free fall here,” said James Jeffrey, who served as Obama’s ambassador to Iraq and was a top national security aide in the George W. Bush White House.
For years, members of the Obama team have grappled with the chaotic aftermath of the Arab Spring. But of late they have been repeatedly caught off-guard, raising new questions about America’s ability to manage the dangerous region. Read the rest here.You know its bad when the Politico posts an article like this. Anyone still want to argue that Obama has not been a foreign policy disaster over the past six years? A big problem in Iraq was that the US continued to support a government that alienated about half the population, aka the Sunni, including a lot of former military which then pretty much lead to the creation of ISIS. Most of that happened before Obama even entered office. This is incorrect. Iraq was stable under American guidance when Obama entered office in 2009. Obama then washed his hands of Iraq and removed American support, which precipitated into the current shit show over there. And Obama had five years to manage the Iraqi government before ISIS showed up. Bush had less than that (invasion was summer 2003, government was not set up until years afterwards). You mean the treaty that was signed by Bush that required Obama to leave Iraq? yeah totally Obama's fault. Esp when the government wanted America out aswell. Treaty
This is outright disingenuous. If Bush were still in office, a status of forces agreement would have been signed maintaining American presence in the country. No one disputes this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yCJQarB.jpg)
