rob Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Even funnier is running into hip, with-it, "pro-science" parents that are vocally lamenting the scientific illiteracy of the American public who are fretting over the slightest exposure to traces of a weak estrogen mimetic like BPA while their kids are sucking down gallons of soy-based formula that contains vastly higher concentrations of genistein, an even more potent estrogen analog. Ditto for fretting over pesticide use while campaigning against the introduction of disease and pest resistant crops that can dramatically reduce pesticide use. +1 It's a shame that so many of my liberal counterparts are total luddites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 (edited) The point is that the type of Mom worrying about the kinds of things I cited is worrying about stuff that has risks that range from zero (consuming transgenic crops) to infinitesimal (consuming trace amounts of agricultural pesticides), instead of infectious diseases that are many orders of magnitude likely to actually harm her children *and* put the health of the very young, the very old, and the immunocompromised at risk. E.g. lots of worry about stuff that's not actually a threat to her kid's health, while obsessively campaigning against things that can actually protect her kids and others from very real threats that do very real harm. There is no way that you can come up with these comments based on a synthesis of the scientific evidence. 1) a significant number of modern studies show correlation between average levels of some pesticides (like organochlorines) in populations (esp. children and mothers) with specific disorders (like adhd or developmental problems for example). Causality has often not yet been shown but, 2) dozens of pesticides widely used over decades have eventually been banned when manufacturers and regulators couldn't deny the evidence anymore, which suggests that application of the precautionary principle is in order rather than flippantly dismissing concerns about exposure to ~50,000 untested new chemicals since ww2. 3) it's not reasonable to claim 0 risk to humans from GMO consumption since the proper studies haven't been done (no, the live experiment of feeding GMOs to populations isn't controlled). The couple of studies that have been done are controversial, esp. since those finding 0 risk have terrible methodology, are conducted and cherry-picked by an industry that has zero credibility (read up on Monsanto's history). Moreover, many refuse GMOs for other reasons than health like environmental cost so what motivate these people as a group is mostly your opinion. 4) infectious risk is time and space dependent and you'll need more than your frivolous assertions to make the case there is a greater risk right now from infectious disease (in an overwhelmingly vaccinated population) in the NW islands than that incurred through pesticide expsoure (good luck) 5) despite all the bile spewed by your lap dogs, it appears that you are definitely meaning to minimize the risk of pesticides and deride people concerned for their health and that of their children, as it seemed obvious to me from the beginning. Even funnier is running into hip, with-it, "pro-science" parents that are vocally lamenting the scientific illiteracy of the American public who are fretting over the slightest exposure to traces of a weak estrogen mimetic like BPA while their kids are sucking down gallons of soy-based formula that contains vastly higher concentrations of genistein, an even more potent estrogen analog. Ditto for fretting over pesticide use while campaigning against the introduction of disease and pest resistant crops that can dramatically reduce pesticide use. Well, first, there are studies showing that on average pesticide use has increased with the increase in GMO use and its remarkable that you ignore them to spew the industry line. Second, your example shows the need for strong regulations because despite what your claim otherwise average folk have no way to control on their own what goes into their food. Edited December 22, 2011 by j_b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Ban SOY! I hate that fucking shit. Except miso. Love it. Don't ban miso. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Edamame, DOOD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Miso soup with clams and spring onions. Yum! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted December 22, 2011 Author Share Posted December 22, 2011 The point is that the type of Mom worrying about the kinds of things I cited is worrying about stuff that has risks that range from zero (consuming transgenic crops) to infinitesimal (consuming trace amounts of agricultural pesticides), instead of infectious diseases that are many orders of magnitude likely to actually harm her children *and* put the health of the very young, the very old, and the immunocompromised at risk. E.g. lots of worry about stuff that's not actually a threat to her kid's health, while obsessively campaigning against things that can actually protect her kids and others from very real threats that do very real harm. There is no way that you can come up with these comments based on a synthesis of the scientific evidence. 1) a significant number of modern studies show correlation between average levels of some pesticides (like organochlorines) in populations (esp. children and mothers) with specific disorders (like adhd or developmental problems for example). Causality has often not yet been shown but, 2) dozens of pesticides widely used over decades have eventually been banned when manufacturers and regulators couldn't deny the evidence anymore 3) it's not reasonable to claim 0 risk to humans from GMO consumption since the proper studies haven't been done (no, the live experiment of feeding GMOs to populations isn't controlled). The couple of studies that have been done are controversial, esp. since those finding 0 risk have terrible methodology, are conducted and cherry-picked by an industry that has zero credibility (read up on Monsanto's history). Moreover, many refuse GMOs for other reasons than health like environmental cost so what motivate these people as a group is mostly your opinion. 4) infectious risk is time and space dependent and you'll need more than your frivolous assertions to make the case there is a greater risk right now from infectious disease (in an overwhelmingly vaccinated population) in the NW islands than that incurred through pesticides (good luck) 5) despite all the bile spewed by your lap dogs, it appears that you are definitely meaning to minimize the risk of pesticides and deride people concerned for their health and that of their children, as it seemed obvious to me from the beginning. Even funnier is running into hip, with-it, "pro-science" parents that are vocally lamenting the scientific illiteracy of the American public who are fretting over the slightest exposure to traces of a weak estrogen mimetic like BPA while their kids are sucking down gallons of soy-based formula that contains vastly higher concentrations of genistein, an even more potent estrogen analog. Ditto for fretting over pesticide use while campaigning against the introduction of disease and pest resistant crops that can dramatically reduce pesticide use. Well, first, there are studies showing that on average pesticide use has increased with the increase in GMO use and its remarkable that you ignore them to spew the industry line. Second, your example shows the need for strong regulations because despite what your claim otherwise average folk have no way to control on their own what goes into their food. Just so we're clear - your claim is that eating GMO's, eating fruits and vegetables that may have trace amounts of agricultural pesticides, and exposure to BPA from plastic containers is literally as great or greater threat to children's health than all of the diseases that we vaccinate children against? If so - I find that fascinating. Ditto for all of the energy expended making that case in the above post, if that was your intention. BTW - how confident are you that you are refuting the caricature I offered up earlier, rather than lending it more credence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Just so we're clear - your claim is that eating GMO's, eating fruits and vegetables that may have trace amounts of agricultural pesticides, and exposure to BPA from plastic containers is literally as great or greater threat to children's health than all of the diseases that we vaccinate children against? No. My claim is that I doubt you know whether someone not vaccinated in the midst of an overwhelmingly vaccinated population (such as the children of the people you are talking about) incurs greater risk from infectious disease than from exposure to pesticides (spare me the "trace amounts" spin as I have exposed it for what it was and you apparently declined to discuss it) If so - I find that fascinating. Ditto for all of the energy expended making that case in the above post, if that was your intention. BTW - how confident are you that you are refuting the caricature I offered up earlier, rather than lending it more credence? spare me the posturing as well and answer the points I made, for a change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Even funnier is running into hip, with-it, "pro-science" parents that are vocally lamenting the scientific illiteracy of the American public who are fretting over the slightest exposure to traces of a weak estrogen mimetic like BPA while their kids are sucking down gallons of soy-based formula that contains vastly higher concentrations of genistein, an even more potent estrogen analog. Ditto for fretting over pesticide use while campaigning against the introduction of disease and pest resistant crops that can dramatically reduce pesticide use. +1 It's a shame that so many of my liberal counterparts are total luddites. It's the lack of meat protein in their diets. Makes their skin leathery, their vision poor, their pits smelly, and their brains slow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Even funnier is running into hip, with-it, "pro-science" parents that are vocally lamenting the scientific illiteracy of the American public who are fretting over the slightest exposure to traces of a weak estrogen mimetic like BPA while their kids are sucking down gallons of soy-based formula that contains vastly higher concentrations of genistein, an even more potent estrogen analog. Ditto for fretting over pesticide use while campaigning against the introduction of disease and pest resistant crops that can dramatically reduce pesticide use. Tis amusing. I'm avoiding Vashon because of the cluster of non-vaccine crazies out there. +1 It's a shame that so many of my liberal counterparts are total luddites. It's the lack of meat protein in their diets. Makes their skin leathery, their vision poor, their pits smelly, and their brains slow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted December 22, 2011 Author Share Posted December 22, 2011 Just so we're clear - your claim is that eating GMO's, eating fruits and vegetables that may have trace amounts of agricultural pesticides, and exposure to BPA from plastic containers is literally as great or greater threat to children's health than all of the diseases that we vaccinate children against? No. My claim is that I doubt you know whether someone not vaccinated in the midst of an overwhelmingly vaccinated population (such as the children of the people you are talking about) incurs greater risk from infectious disease than from exposure to pesticides (spare me the "trace amounts" spin as I have exposed it for what it was and you apparently declined to discuss it) If so - I find that fascinating. Ditto for all of the energy expended making that case in the above post, if that was your intention. BTW - how confident are you that you are refuting the caricature I offered up earlier, rather than lending it more credence? spare me the posturing as well and answer the points I made, for a change. Yes - thankfully the risks of kids in the US being killed or permanently injured/disabled as a consequence of contracting one of the diseases that we have vaccines to protect against is very small. Of course, this is because thankfully most of the population isn't composed of paranoid retards who refuse to vaccinate their children. Having said that, as small as the risks are, both the probability of being killed or injured as a consequence of failing to vaccinate and killing or injuring someone else by serving as a vector are many orders of magnitude greater than either happening as a result of the three "risks" I mentioned, which range from zero to infinitesimal. My larger point is the irony inherent in people that fancy themselves to be pro-science and spend a great deal of time lamenting the many faults of creationists putting on their own set of ideological blinders when their own pet causes are undermined by science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Certainly one of the most pressing issues of our time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 It's telling that JayB claims to be pro-science while being either deliberately or willfully ignorant of the scientifically documented differences in health effects between an endocrine disruptor like BPA and phytoestrogens found in soy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 One of the main things I was taught in my ecology class in biology was that a healthy ecosystem has animals dieing of disease and being eaten....darwinian in its themes. Do humans belong in an ecosystem? If so, then a healthy ecosystem would say disease is good and normal for mankind. Sucks for man though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 "One small strep for man..." I'd like to know what's been happening in the Electric Sector. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 One of the main things I was taught in my ecology class in biology was that a healthy ecosystem has animals dieing of disease and being eaten....darwinian in its themes. Do humans belong in an ecosystem? If so, then a healthy ecosystem would say disease is good and normal for mankind. Sucks for man though. Hell yeah! Bring back polio and smallpox!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted December 22, 2011 Author Share Posted December 22, 2011 It's telling that JayB claims to be pro-science while being either deliberately or willfully ignorant of the scientifically documented differences in health effects between an endocrine disruptor like BPA and phytoestrogens found in soy... Both are estrogen mimetics that bind to the estrogen receptor and cause it to dissociate from chaperone proteins and form homodimers that bind to promoter regions adjacent to estrogen sensitive genes and drive transcription of the said genes. Ergo they're both "endocrine disruptors." Exposure to anything that turns on the machinery driven by hormones can have adverse health effects when the exposure is too high for too long. As of now there isn't sufficient evidence to conclude that exposure to estrogen mimetics like genistein from soy or much lower levels of BPA as a consequence of using certain kinds of plastic containers to store food or water is anything to worry about, and people would be better off worrying about eating a balanced diet, getting enough exercise and rest, reducing stress, and...getting vaccinated. When and if there's definitive data that clearly demonstrates otherwise I'll change my mind. http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/BisphenolA_FactSheet.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 When and if there's definitive data that clearly demonstrates otherwise I'll change my mind. "More research is needed. The science isn't settled yet." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 One of the main things I was taught in my ecology class in biology was that a healthy ecosystem has animals dieing of disease and being eaten....darwinian in its themes. Do humans belong in an ecosystem? If so, then a healthy ecosystem would say disease is good and normal for mankind. Sucks for man though. God, you're dumb. Are you really saying that humanity should avoid using the innate intelligence bequeathed it by nature? That's basically our only gift, and you're saying that a healthy ecosystem says we're not supposed to use it? It sounds like you didn't understand evolution at all. Did you pass that class? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 http://www.pnas.org/content/104/32/13056.abstract?cited-by=yes&legid=pnas;104/32/13056 Eating genistein can protect humans from endocrine disruption caused by BPA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 http://www.pnas.org/content/104/32/13056.abstract?cited-by=yes&legid=pnas;104/32/13056 Eating genistein can protect humans from endocrine disruption caused by BPA *crickets* JayB? Cat got your tongue? Peer reviewed research here. Exactly contradicting your position. You choking on some crow feathers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 You can practically hear the frantic googling.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Hell yeah! Bring back polio and smallpox!!! How do you think we evolved?...and do you think we are evolving? I am vaccinated...and I recommend it...but I also recognize the long term setbacks it causes. Someday in the future humans will need 200 vaccines...where there used to be none...and we accepted death as a part of life. Darwiniasm sucks. Death brings life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Tell that to smallpox, dumbass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Death brings life. Retard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Hell yeah! Bring back polio and smallpox!!! How do you think we evolved?...and do you think we are evolving? I am vaccinated...and I recommend it...but I also recognize the long term setbacks it causes. Someday in the future humans will need 200 vaccines...where there used to be none...and we accepted death as a part of life. Darwiniasm sucks. Death brings life. By this logic, we should strive to be as unhealthy as possible, for the good of the species. Time to put the bong down Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.