Totally OT question

[yankeesince59]

...no, I mean no way the government does "the right thing".

 

[Denny Crane]

That looks right for all the occupational related deaths. Radon exposure is 3-4x bigger category. But keep in mind a lot of these people also smoked, so 90% of all lung cancer is attributed to active smoking.

The biggest gain, by far, would be for people to stop smoking. It could save 480,000+ people a year. On top of saving those lives, the people would have a better quality of life as they age. Not so much hacking and coughing up crap, less COPD, emphysema, more oxygen for the blood and brain, etc.

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/

 

[Rick2583]

The biggest gain, by far, would be for people to stop smoking. It could save 480,000+ people a year. On top of saving those lives, the people would have a better quality of life as they age. Not so much hacking and coughing up crap, less COPD, emphysema, more oxygen for the blood and brain, etc.

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/

Emphysema is a part of COPD. I have it & I NEVER smoked.

And keep in mind that aside from smoking one could develop lung cancer from exposure to asbestos & other pollutants like carcinogenics found in work places. And exposure to RADON (a colorless, scentless radioactive gas) that is found in some houses & is another leading cause to lung cancer.


I've stood on corners waiting to cross the street behind a stopped bus. And the fumes that come out from the exhaust as it pulls away is probably equivalent to a carton of cigarettes. Its enough to choke a horse.

 

[Denny Crane]

480,000+ smoking related deaths.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/radon

How many people develop lung cancer because of exposure to radon?


Cigarette smoking is the most common cause of lung cancer. Radon represents a far smaller risk for this disease, but it is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the United States. Scientists estimate that 15,000 to 22,000 lung cancer deaths in the United States each year are related to radon.

Exposure to the combination of radon gas and cigarette smoke creates a greater risk of lung cancer than exposure to either factor alone. The majority of radon-related cancer deaths occur among smokers. However, it is estimated that more than 10 percent of radon-related cancer deaths occur among nonsmokers.

(Roughly 2200)

 

[Rick2583]

480,000+ smoking related deaths.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/radon

How many people develop lung cancer because of exposure to radon?


Cigarette smoking is the most common cause of lung cancer. Radon represents a far smaller risk for this disease, but it is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the United States. Scientists estimate that 15,000 to 22,000 lung cancer deaths in the United States each year are related to radon.

Exposure to the combination of radon gas and cigarette smoke creates a greater risk of lung cancer than exposure to either factor alone. The majority of radon-related cancer deaths occur among smokers. However, it is estimated that more than 10 percent of radon-related cancer deaths occur among nonsmokers.

(Roughly 2200)

Yes Denny, I know it's the LEADING cause. I'm only trying to point out that it is not the ONLY cause of lung cancer as many would have people believe.

 

[Hammerojustice]

But bringing it back to the topic...

What is the deal with Monsanto? Nothing is definitely known, right? so it's all conjecture, right? I mean nothing has been proven at all, or am I missing something???

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes Denny, I know it's the LEADING cause. I'm only trying to point out that it is not the ONLY cause of lung cancer as many would have people believe.

I don't think most people believe smoking is the only cause of lung cancer.

It does look like the "cure" for 90% of lung cancers is to abolish smoking.

I'm an ex-smoker. I don't care if people smoke or not - it's their bodies, they can do what they want.

 

[Denny Crane]

But bringing it back to the topic...

What is the deal with Monsanto? Nothing is definitely known, right? so it's all conjecture, right? I mean nothing has been proven at all, or am I missing something???

As was pointed out earlier, GMOs sure seem like a brilliant way to mass produce foods of the qualities we desire. The big deal with Monsanto is that they've patented their genetically altered seeds and they're suing farmers who end up growing plants from those seeds when the seeds blow onto their property from a neighboring farm.

If you want to read about it:
http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-patents-sue-farmers-547/

 

[Hammerojustice]

As was pointed out earlier, GMOs sure seem like a brilliant way to mass produce foods of the qualities we desire. The big deal with Monsanto is that they've patented their genetically altered seeds and they're suing farmers who end up growing plants from those seeds when the seeds blow onto their property from a neighboring farm.

If you want to read about it:
http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-patents-sue-farmers-547/

OK, let me clarify my question then... is it more the fact that people are using their products or the fact that they are suing farmers?

And if seeds are blowing onto their land, it wouldn't be entire crops, right? it would just be some plants here or there, so how would they be able to sue over some plants mixed in with their crops? Now if it was an entire crop, the seeds didn't just blow onto their fields... it would then be cause for possible litigation then even if it was a giant going after a david...

 

[Denny Crane]

OK, let me clarify my question then... is it more the fact that people are using their products or the fact that they are suing farmers?

And if seeds are blowing onto their land, it wouldn't be entire crops, right? it would just be some plants here or there, so how would they be able to sue over some plants mixed in with their crops? Now if it was an entire crop, the seeds didn't just blow onto their fields... it would then be cause for possible litigation then even if it was a giant going after a david...

Read the article. It talks about how the US Supreme Court ruled in Monsanto's favor, that they can sue farmers for inadvertently growing (some) crops with their seeds.

Some people are overly (IMO) paranoid about GMO foods, so they're not going to like Monsanto or the companies growing food with their products (ADM?).

 

[Hammerojustice]

Read the article. It talks about how the US Supreme Court ruled in Monsanto's favor, that they can sue farmers for inadvertently growing (some) crops with their seeds.

Some people are overly (IMO) paranoid about GMO foods, so they're not going to like Monsanto or the companies growing food with their products (ADM?).

I read the article... so it's more about a giant being allowed to sue farmers (who in theory should be proud their product is being used if it's as good as they are saying) more than anything...

The article states

The appeals court decision was based on Monsanto’s supposed promise not to sue farmers whose crops - including corn, soybeans, cotton, canola and others - contained traces of the company’s biotechnology products.

In a June 2013 ruling, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC said it was inevitable, as the farmers’ argued, that contamination from Monsanto’s products would occur. Yet the appeals panel also said the plaintiffs do not have standing to prohibit Monsanto from suing them should the company’s genetic traits end up on their holdings "because Monsanto has made binding assurances that it will not 'take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes (because, for example, some transgenic seed or pollen blew onto the grower's land).'"

The panel’s reference to “traces” of Monsanto’s patented genes means farms that are affected by less than 1 percent.

So if a farmer only uses traces of it, Monsanto can't sue them... but if it's anything more then that, either the farmer is being deceitful or someone somewhere mislabeled the seeds...

I agree with this quote though...

“If Monsanto can patent seeds for financial gain, they should be forced to pay for contaminating a farmer’s field, not be allowed to sue them,” said Dave Murphy, founder and executive director of Food Democracy Now!, in a statement “Once again, America’s farmers have been denied justice, while Monsanto’s reign of intimidation is allowed to continue in rural America.”

“Monsanto has effectively gotten away with stealing the world’s seed heritage and abusing farmers for the flawed nature of their patented seed technology,” said Murphy. “This is an outrage of historic proportions and will not stand.”