So you deny that OWS had of a much higher crime rate per participant?

This thread is about the OWS crime and arrest record. It's about unlawful and destructive behavior.

You accused the Tea Party of being comparable to OWS. Given the topic of this thread, that the comparison was to similar behavior was implied. I didn't put words in your mouth; I responded to your post.

Your judgement of their political philosophies is hardly the same topic as a discussion of their criminal behavior--or lack thereof, in the case of the tea party.

It sounds like you have absolutely no interest in the topic of this thread and just want to complain about random political philosophies.

We obviously need to invade Iran. God forbid there are tyrants in the desert on the other half of the planet. They might form a navy that can compete with us in the next two hundred years! Or develop the technology to fire missiles at us which we can shoot down on their long flight to our shores!

Tyrants in the desert is obviously justification for Amerikans to station soldiers over there... in bases we have on the land of other tyrants we prop up with billions of dollars every year. Hypocrisy much?

You_Fool, the notion that OWS and the Tea Party were remotely similar in regard to breaking the law is completely false and idiotic.

Whereas the Tea Party people were commended for cleaning up after themselves, the OWS people were breaking laws by even staying in the locations they gathered at after hours. Private land owners and stewards of public land were pressured to let them break the law and stay because they were demanding more government power--over banks, over school loans, over giving everyone jobs, etc etc etc.

Einstein didn't even cite vandalism and destruction of property (both public and private). That numbers would surely be in the thousands if not for the more serious crimes which caused it to be ignored for the duration of the OWS homeless/jobless gatherings.

You have no basis for that comparison whatsoever. You know you're wrong.

Though I agree, protesting ridiculous tax rates and unsustainable spending which will collapse our government and our currency is totally moronic. [cluck] our kids. It's so stupid to not dick over future generations. We can have nice stuff now and make them pay for it! Obviously a good decision.

hahahaha

Einstein,

"No.... the selective breeding of plants and selective breeding of animals is exactly what this topic is about."

No. The genetic modification this thread is about is not "selective breeding." You are factually incorrect. You have no idea what we're talking about. You're spamming; you clearly have no interest in learning anything about the topic. You don't even know what the topic is.

You think the creation of GMOs today is parallel to the creation of a mule. Enough said. GMOs are organisms created by DNA modified in a way that does not occur naturally. Clearly, you claim, that's the same thing as organisms modified naturally! You're violating logic's law of identity.

I'm sure you'll make an appeal to authority; you're smarter than the laws of logic, so they don't apply to you! Whatever it takes to keep rambling about this topic, which you know absolutely nothing about.

The Yell,

"I should be against GMO corn because rats eat GMO corn and have a spike in observed cancers.   Therefore it will cause more cancer in human beings! That's science!"

You're right. All the tests we do on mice and rats are completely pointless. It's not evidence of anything when something is toxic to a mammal. All animal testing is a huge waste of money, The Yell has discovered. Nevermind statistical correlations between toxins that harm other mammals and toxins that harm humans, there's a slight chance that these toxins which all harm rats don't harm humans at all! Let's cling to that chance and presume it's true. It's not like our lives are at risk. What's a little cancer and organ failure anyway? No big deal!

"But of course I can't just watch citizens of the United States consume tons of corn and corn-based fructose syrup for a higher rate of cancer. "

GMOs were only commercially introduced to the world less than two decades ago. Human beings require time to harm themselves and show cancer, and GMOs just haven't been in most people's food long enough, in large enough quantities, to offer obviously an observable statistical trend.

Rather importantly, which you overlook, we don't have the necessary data. Nobody is filling out a "GMO as % of diet" field in hospital patient information forms. Neither hospitals nor statisticians know which cancer patients ate barely any GMOs (such as the ones in this study) and who stuffed their faces with them daily. The data doesn't exist. It's impossible for anyone to "prove" to you or offer your impossibly high standard of "evidence" of GMO harm to humans because the necessary data isn't collected.

Chemical and healthcare mega industries don't want you to put two and two together and realize that toxins in your food aren't good for you. So they collect no data which can be used to study any/all harm that is/might be happening. And you're satisfied that this is proof of no harm. Of course nothing has been proven in humans; it's not being studied. The necessary data to study it isn't being collected. This is not evidence of no [possibility of] harm, as you keep suggesting.

The people who consume the most of these products already have high cancer rates. Nobody is surprised when they stay high. With such a multitude of carcinogens in modern life, corn as an added carcinogen isn't going to spike national or global cancer rates. That's not rational. You expect some obvious spike in cancer rates which isn't expected, even if the study's findings completely apply to humans. There are too many sources of carcinogens for one to have a major impact on rates. And nobody is collecting the data to identify it.

No massive increase in cancer rates this year? Then, clearly, nothing new is causing cancer! Everything new is safe forever! Science has spoken.

Farmers should be sued for introducing this genetically engineered, toxin-ridden crap into the wild. I don't want food that creates its own pesticides. Any farmer putting this crap out there, resulting in it inadvertently contaminating the organic produce I buy, should be sued out of house and home. Nobody has the right to contaminate my food supply with unnatural plants that produce their own pesticides--toxins that cause cancer and organ failure.

My points on why measuring a correlation between GMOs and cancer isn't as easy in humans as it is in rats seemed to be lost on you.

The similarity between rats and humans is that they're both mammals and what's toxic to one is usually toxic to the other. The similarity is physiology and reactivity to the same toxins.

There is no similarity in lifestyle between rats in a study and free human beings in life. There's no similarity in how easy it is to measure GMO toxins impacting cancer rates. There's no "having it both ways" about this simple and obvious fact. It's easier to measure a correlation in rats in a study where variables are controlled and lifespans are short. For all the reasons I mentioned, it's much more difficult to measure such a correlation in human beings, where GMO food consumption is often linked with other cancer-causing behavior. In humans, the other cancer causing behavior would be [is] attributed the increased cancer rates caused by GMO food.

When a guy who eats tons of processed GMO food filled with corn syrup, who eats tons of filled with "acceptable" levels of pesticides on it, who eats a generally unhealthy and high-acid diet, who drinks the tap water filled with "acceptable" levels of all kinds of toxins gets cancer, what do we attribute the cancer to? All of the crap he does and all the crap he ate. Adding in one more factor, GMO food increasing his exposure to carcinogens, we could never single out this factor in this man (or any man's) life.

Additionally, even if we find that Joe Schmoe is experiencing increased cancer rates, we could find all kinds of other sources of carcinogens to attribute it to. There are all kinds of chemicals in food and behaviors that we already know contribute to cancer rates. He's probably just not minding his health and eating too many of those foods! Or cleaning with the wrong products and breathing too much in!

Any change in rates is sure to be slow and attributed to these multitudes of other factor. In complicated and long human lives, there are all kinds of sources of cancer. Rarely can we identify a single carcinogen through human lives and cancer rates, because we're all exposed to many.

But none of this invalidates the study or makes it any less likely that what these toxins do to rats they don't do to us. It's evidence, and it's not evidence of harmlessness. That it's proof doesn't negate this. That other foods have small amounts of toxins doesn't negate this.

This GMO corn has toxins that other corn does't have. And it harms rats that other corn doesn't.

At least he reads at a 12 year old level!

The Yell,

"Exposure to this "carcinogen" would occur as often as people eat corn in anything.
There should be a significant spike in cancer rates in the United States compared to countries that don't eat as much corn.
There isn't one."

We ship this crap all over the place. It's grown all over the place. We do have very high cancer rates, because of a multitude of factors of unhealthy living in our society. Obviously we don't expect to see an easily noticeable trend because of one contributing factor which is consumed at varied rates among different people.

"No it is not evidence, it raises a hypothesis."

It's evidence of toxicity of these GMOs to mammals. We are mammals. While it is possible that these toxic GMOs harm rats and not humans, they would be the exception, not the rule. Most things toxic to one mammal are toxic to most/all others.

Seeing as humans have much longer lives, exposed to carcinogens and lifestyle choices which impact cancer rates orders of magnitude more than rats are exposed to such variables, apparently the only "evidence" you'd accept is a 50+ year human study in which people were enslaved in order to standardize all variables? You're setting an impossible standard to even accept information as "evidence." Presumably, then, since you're taking the position that nothing is ever knowable, there's no reason for us to muse over evidence here.

Altruist,

I've seen other Russian studies with similar findings in mice. They found high rates of infertility after just a few generations, which this study didn't look for.

The wealthy don't eat this stuff. They even import soil from overseas to grow organic produce because of all the chemicals they put in the air which fall to the soil here.

People do knowingly eat this stuff, they're just not very knowing about its existence or what it is. Corporate interests don't want them to know about it. That's why companies in California fought the legislation which would have required them simply to label GMOs as GMOs in their ingredients (Einstein complained about it here, because label modification costs billions!), specifying that they're not the original forms of those organisms.

The same wealthy who own our chemical mega industries own our healthcare industries. They make money feeding the livestock (people), then they make money as the livestock slowly dies, futilely treating their cancers with even more chemicals. They think people are a parasite on the earth anyway (you know, the lesser people who aren't them). They have no problem killing off a few billion.

That's why natural doctors are prosecuted in this country. There's no big money to be made in natural medicine. The FDA reigns, and you can either buy their approved chemicals and shut up or risk going to jail. The more knowledge and control over their health people have, the less they can be controlled. Control is always the goal of the corrupt human beings with the most power on the globe. History is consistent on this one.

It's more profitable to keep people ignorant and bilk them for every dime they're worth than virtuously pursue science and medicine. What a shocker, the corrupt people at the top with power choose profit over our lives.

But Einstein doesn't understand the scientific method. His slave master said this stuff was safe, even though it produces its own toxic pesticides. And he's a big health nut--very healthy--and knows a lot about food. So maybe he's right.

Non GM corn does not cause these effects in rats. GM corn does. This is strong evidence that the GM corn--which includes new toxic chemicals not present in non-GM corn--harms mamals in ways that non GM corn does not. There is no parallel between acorns and beans.

The presence of toxicity in raw GMO foodstuffs which is not in non-GMO foodstuffs is conclusively a problem. Some amount of these chemicals will always remain after cooking--healthy food is processed less. And many foods--again, healthy foods especially--are consumed raw. This study shows some of the horrible things these toxins cause in mammals.

"For each type of GM maize, only two feeding doses were tested per sex. This consisted of either 11 or 33% GM maize in an otherwise equivalent equilibrated diet; that is when the diet contained only 11% GM maize, the difference was made up by adding 22% non-GM maize (varieties not indicated)."

Good job, Einstein. You've clearly refuted the study, even though you have no knowledge of what's in its abstract. "Why only fed corn?" you ask? They weren't. Thank you for your valuable input.

[Non GM] Corn is not naturally toxic to humans nor rats, The Yell. If you're getting at something, please advise.

I don't see anything dumb about enjoying orgasms. I keep this pretty blonde around largely for this purpose. Please don't tell her I said that.