|
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. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 15 2016 03:53 farvacola wrote:This notion that SCIENCE and SCIENCE alone can provide us with an answer to a problem like energy production is hilariously stupid. If you come to the table with oneofthem goggles on and assume that someone with an anti-nuclear or anti-fracking perspective is inherently ignorant of science, good luck leaving that table having accomplished anything. Here's a hint Mohdoo; arguments against the encouragement of nuclear energy doesn't rely exclusively on issues of safety, they instead usually turn on issues of waste, and if you don't think the latter deserves at least some lip-service, well, go visit Yucca Mountain  edit: puerk gets it.
all the stupid levle of risk set for waste derives from truly overboard requirements not applied to any other power source and also relying on a discredited model of radiation harm.
e.g.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663584/
international standards already have evolved to take into account the scientific conclusion
|
GMO's are fine for people. The problems are more around the genes getting into other crops and messing with biodiversity and peeing in the gene pool. There are also concerns about using higher levels of pesticides on crops that have higher tolerance among a few others, but concerns are pretty minor. Nothing that supports the need for stuff to be labeled GMO. I'm somewhat biased, but also somewhat better informed, I worked in a research lab for the USDA's Agricultural Research Center.
A problem with nuclear is that building plants is Expensive with a capital E. And yeah, the potential harm is huge, though the risk is low. Evidence shows that it's a really great source of energy. On the other hand, we do have worrying stuff like with Fukushima where radiation is so high apparently it kills even robots.
+ Show Spoiler [ Partisan Bernie nuclear stuff] +Speaking of nuclear waste, remember that time Bernie dumped a bunch of waste by a poor, mostly Hispanic community in Texas? It was pretty low-grade stuff, but he was a pretty huge dick about it. Sierra Blanca
|
Any genetically modified food should be labeled. I have nothing against it and will eat it, but that information should be available. It doesn't need to be front and center, but it should be some place on the package. There is no justifiable reason to deny people that information.
|
United States43596 Posts
What about genetic selection? Should we label for that too?
|
It's going to be a pain in the butt to track through the supply chain (similar to the hubub about marking produce or something from Mexico) and the problem is the label doesn't actually mean anything. We've also been doing all sorts of modifications (just not messing with genes directly) since humans started farming, look at the domesticated vs. wild cultivars of many things.
I'm looking forward to the day we can get filet mignon grown in vitro personally, so that's where I sit on the entire food and science issue. 
|
Here's something unique: it looks like Trump's campaign is brewing up a storm over at Breitbart, everyone's favorite conservative news site!
Conservative mainstay Breitbart News is in turmoil over Donald Trump.
Reporter Michelle Fields and at least three other staffers have resigned in opposition to their company's coverage of Trump and to its handling of an alleged assault on Fields by a top Trump aide.
Fields, who has claimed that she was yanked and bruised by Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, and Ben Shapiro, one of the site's top editors, told BuzzFeed late Sunday night that they would be leaving the company.
Then on Monday, Breitbart editor Jarrett Stepman and national security correspondent Jordan Schachtel announced they were also resigning in protest.
"Today I informed the management at Breitbart News of my immediate resignation," Fields said on Sunday. "I do not believe Breitbart News has adequately stood by me during the events of the past week and because of that I believe it is now best for us to part ways."
In his own statement, Shapiro said that Breitbart News had become Trump's "personal Pravda," referring to the communist newspaper.
Stepman similarly said he believed Breitbart News "is becoming less of a news site and more of a propaganda organization dedicated to the Trump campaign." Schachtel wrote that he had signed up to be a journalist, not "a member of the Donald J. Trump for President media network."
The announcements came after a week in which Breitbart News appeared to side with the Trump campaign's version of events over that of Fields.
Fields, who has also brought criminal charges against Lewandowski, claims that he grabbed her and bruised her arm while she was trying to ask Trump a question after his press conference last Tuesday night.
More staffers flee Breitbart News over Trump
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
im not going to sit here and bait several rabit anti-nuclear dudes into talking about nucular power. it's simply the case that if bernie wants to phase out nuclear while also cut carbon emissions he will increase the price of energy.
|
The Breitbart News drama is amazing. Watching not really very nice people people find out the "News" agency they work for is filled with spineless worms. They are not far off that the site is basically a propaganda organization. But its good to see that when the going gets tough, the reporters get thrown right under the Trump bus. Lets them know where they stand and how to report on Trump.
|
On March 15 2016 04:10 KwarK wrote:
What about genetic selection? Should we label for that too?
People get riled up when corn used to feed pigs are resistant to disease, but don't get riled up when their mustard is labeled Brussel Sprouts/Broccoli.
Humans don't make sense man.
|
On March 15 2016 04:08 Plansix wrote:
Any genetically modified food should be labeled. I have nothing against it and will eat it, but that information should be available. It doesn't need to be front and center, but it should be some place on the package. There is no justifiable reason to deny people that information.
I am fine with labeling GM food, since I know that most GM food is probably fine (and in fact is a good thing in most cases). Ultimately, who gives a shit. If people are irrational and it can't support a market for itself for that reason, then who cares, people are irrational and are only harming themselves through more expensive food. It's at least an interesting factoid to know about the food I'm eating. Plus, if GM food is cheaper for me due to lower demand because hipsters don't want it, then I win out there.
That being said, I'm not at all in favour of genetic modification in circumstances where modified domesticated organisms actively interbreed with wild populations. It should still be regulated and restricted in those cases.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that's precisely the wrong way of thinking about the cost issue. some snobs force everyone to bear the cost, including the working poor. very bad stuff.
|
On March 15 2016 03:55 puerk wrote:
"nuclear" is not about reactor safety but falsely calculating the price of electricity by offloading the waste disposal and mining recultivation problems onto the general public and outside of the power plant operators balance sheet
no mate, nuclear waste is a hoax and doesn't exist. I swear.
|
On March 15 2016 04:08 Plansix wrote:
Any genetically modified food should be labeled. I have nothing against it and will eat it, but that information should be available. It doesn't need to be front and center, but it should be some place on the package. There is no justifiable reason to deny people that information.
Well in that case I want to know if the person responsible for harvesting my corn has a criminal record. There is no justifiable reason to deny people that information.
There are relevant food labels and then there are irrelevant food labels. Adding to the stigma surrounding GMOs as a concept does not help anyone. If people care enough for some inexplicable reason, they should be able to research where their food comes from, that much I agree with. But putting it on the package just gets people to pick up something else for no reason at all.
|
On March 15 2016 04:30 oneofthem wrote:
that's precisely the wrong way of thinking about the cost issue. some snobs force everyone to bear the cost, including the working poor. very bad stuff.
It's better than some snob telling everyone that he knows best and to just eat whatever is cheapest/most profitable for our food businesses to make for you; "you should be thanking me for saving you money."
If it's better it shouldn't be hard to sell. Who should bear the costs and risks? That's easy. Greater transparency in a democracy should win every time. If Kelloggs and Monsanto can't work together to allay the public's fears then too bad for them.
|
On March 15 2016 04:33 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 04:08 Plansix wrote:
Any genetically modified food should be labeled. I have nothing against it and will eat it, but that information should be available. It doesn't need to be front and center, but it should be some place on the package. There is no justifiable reason to deny people that information. Well in that case I want to know if the person responsible for harvesting my corn has a criminal record. There is no justifiable reason to deny people that information. There are relevant food labels and then there are irrelevant food labels. Adding to the stigma surrounding GMOs as a concept does not help anyone. If people care enough for some inexplicable reason, they should be able to research where their food comes from, that much I agree with. But putting it on the package just gets people to pick up something else for no reason at all.
If you can get a majority of the public to agree with you go ahead and push that on the manufacturers.
By the way there are totally explicable reasons for wanting to know. Ticklish outlined some half-heartedly, but agriculture system robustness, pesticide/herbicide use, biodiversity, and the risk of unintended consequences are legitimate reasons for supporting GMO labeling.
|
This is hilarious. First ripping Sanders for going after Hillary's relationship with Rahm, give me a break. You don't get to say Hillary's "win at any cost" strategy is just good politics and then act disappointed when Bernie calls her out on a legitimate issue. Rahm covered up a murder to win an election and Hillary backed him AFTER that. Please don't go around explaining it away as "inheriting" a problematic police force.
As for nuclear that's also pretty funny. About 2 weeks ago Hillary supporters were coming out of the woodworks with manufactured outrage about a tiny Texas town and some "radioactive" hospital equipment Bernie voted to put there (since there was no plan on what to do with the waste in the first place). Now folks are going to try to make him seem anti-science because he knows much of fracking's damage is done during extraction and he doesn't want to have nuclear since we have a shit plan for disposal of waste.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that's just not acceptable.
|
On March 15 2016 03:55 puerk wrote:
"nuclear" is not about reactor safety but falsely calculating the price of electricity by offloading the waste disposal and mining recultivation problems onto the general public and outside of the power plant operators balance sheet
This is true for all energy sources to an extent. If you want to go green a carbon tax is still the best way imo.
edit: Although that doesn't help against nuclear I guess.
|
The Environmental Protection Agency is guilty of “flat-out incompetence” over the toxic water crisis in Flint, Michigan, according to the chairman of a powerful congressional committee that is set to hear evidence from the man and woman at the heart of the disaster.
The EPA’s role as a national regulator of water is questioned by Jason Chaffetz, the Republican chairman of the House oversight committee, who said the Flint crisis demonstrated serious flaws in the federal agency’s ability to protect the public.
“There has been a catastrophic failure from top to bottom, and someone has to be held responsible,” Chaffetz told the Guardian. “We aren’t going to say, ‘Oops, let’s just move on.’”
“It’s shocking that the EPA knew about Flint and yet never let anyone know about it. What good are they if they knew about it and didn’t do anything? This is an organization that wants to control every puddle in the country but they can’t handle it. This isn’t solved with more money or authority, because they’ve been flat-out incompetent.
“It’s impossible to think the federal government can monitor every situation with 300 million people and who knows how many water systems. We have national standards, but states should be warned to not rely upon the EPA. Conceptually, we need less EPA, not more. They’ve failed at every chance they’d had.”
On Tuesday, the committee will hear from former EPA regional administrator Susan Hedman and Darnell Earley, the former emergency manager of Flint. Earley was in charge in April 2014 when it was decided to switch Flint’s water supply to the Flint river, which led to pipes being corroded and lead leaching into drinking water at dangerously high levels.
Source
|
On March 15 2016 04:33 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 04:08 Plansix wrote:
Any genetically modified food should be labeled. I have nothing against it and will eat it, but that information should be available. It doesn't need to be front and center, but it should be some place on the package. There is no justifiable reason to deny people that information. Well in that case I want to know if the person responsible for harvesting my corn has a criminal record. There is no justifiable reason to deny people that information. There are relevant food labels and then there are irrelevant food labels. Adding to the stigma surrounding GMOs as a concept does not help anyone. If people care enough for some inexplicable reason, they should be able to research where their food comes from, that much I agree with. But putting it on the package just gets people to pick up something else for no reason at all.
Someone’s desire for GMOs to be labeled could be due to very practical concerns, including allergies and an inability to digest some GMOs. Not every request is some left wing hippy trying to eat only pure food. These are not lethal allergies, but its no fun to buy food that makes you feel like shit.
People deserve information about what is in their food, if for the sole purpose so they can make informed buying decisions on what they eat. That is why they are labeled, so people can know what is in them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
