Totally OT question

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Hammerojustice

Chief Caveman, Keeper of Thor's Hammer
Joined
Jul 10, 2013
Messages
5,006
Likes
144
Points
63
Could someone please explain to me what is the deal with Monsanto and why it's such a big deal and how it differs from the myth that is global warming??? I don't understand why it's such a big deal...
 
the long term effects of new genetically modified food has not been studied, so maybe in 20 years, everyone gets cancer from it.

basically, america is their guinea pigs, and some people arent in favor of that

sad story is, its too late, they won, and it is in EVERYTHING
 
...I was talking to someone the other day about food additives that are fed to chickens, beef, etc. and whether or not it may be part of the reason that cancer seems to be more and more common as opposed to several years ago. I have also noticed that chickens, while larger, are generally tougher and are less flavorful than they used to be. Today, due to high protein steroid feed, they can grow a chick ready for processing in about 6-7 weeks instead of 2 years.
...I brought up the point that when I was a kid young, I don't remember 12-13 year old girls being as "well developed" as they are nowadays. If young girls had been stacked back then as they are today, I would have gotten off that damned bicycle at a much earlier age. I'm not sure if it is because of the pre-natal care that have been available to Mothers for the last several years or something in the food these young girls eat, but there is a clear difference in the development of young girls today as opposed to when I was a teenager.
 
Last edited:
...I was talking to someone the other day about food additives that are fed to chickens, beef, etc. and whether or not it may be part of the reason that cancer seems to be more and more common as opposed to several years ago. I have also noticed that chickens, while larger, are generally tougher and are less flavorful than they used to be. Today, due to high protein steroid feed, they can grow a chick ready for processing in about 6-7 weeks instead of 2 years.
...I brought up the point that when I was a kid young, I don't remember 12-13 year old girls being as "well developed" as they are nowadays. If young girls had been stacked back then as they are today, I would have gotten off that damned bicycle at a much earlier age. I'm not sure if it is because of the pre-natal care that have been available to Mothers for the last several years or something in the food these young girls eat, but there is a clear difference in the development of young girls today as opposed to when I was a teenager.

Regarding cancer being more prevalent now.. I have a few thoughts on it (not related to Monsanto)... I've lost a few people to cancer, but I can't in good conscience blame it on anything you listed...

1.) The population is larger than it's ever been before especially in the geriatric population (no offense intended towards anyone), and as a result, you are obviously going to see significantly more cases as there are significantly more people....

2.) Technology has continually been progressing to the point where more cancers are a) known about, b) caught earlier, and c) discovered...

3.) Costs are escalating out of control for a multitude of reasons leaving many unable to pay for treatment...

4.) The genetic pool is ever deteriorating... Contrary to popular belief, mutations aren't a good thing, and while many species can adapt to many things, cancer is one tough bitch to beat...

Yes, there are some "environmental" (by that I mean things around us, not just things natural) factors that have been a factor, but I really don't see them as a primary driver in the "increase" in incidence...

All that being said, chickens don't taste nearly as well as they once did... I agree...
 
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/04/health/who-world-cancer-report/

Cutting smoking rates would have a significant impact, as lung cancer remained the most commonly diagnosed cancer (1.8 million cases a year, or 13% of total cancer diagnoses) and the deadliest, accounting for about one-fifth (1.6 million) of all cancer deaths worldwide.

There is a silver lining to the report, some experts said: It may lend urgency to the fight against cancer. Countries such as the United States present examples of success stories stemming from legislation and financial resources devoted to cancer prevention.

"The good news is, in (the United States), cancer mortality is trending downward, and that would be more true if you make an age adjustment," said Dr. Walter Curran, chairman of the Department of Radiation Oncology at Emory University's School of Medicine in Atlanta.

"Since we have an aging population, the cancer rate increases, and if you adjust for the aging of America, the cancer rate is declining notably."
 
...I'm not sure the government or the medical industry or the pharmaceutical companies really want a cure for cancer.
 
...I'm not sure the government or the medical industry or the pharmaceutical companies really want a cure for cancer.

Cures are fine, that increases life expectancy.... Aging in the incurable disease pharma is banking on. Vanity is a profit engine!
 
the long term effects of new genetically modified food has not been studied, so maybe in 20 years, everyone gets cancer from it.

basically, america is their guinea pigs, and some people arent in favor of that

sad story is, its too late, they won, and it is in EVERYTHING

Well that about covers the anti-GMO position that hasn't much of a firm basis in real science. I'll try to keep this as simple as I can. Most feed crops are polyploidy, which means when a plant breeder crosses two plant strains, the offspring end up with not one but two complete genomes. Compare that the diploid or haploid higher species where you get a blending of the genomes. OK 59, no gay corn jokes.

Over time, farmers have been focused on crop size, accelerated growth, pest and pathogen resistance, etc. What we have now are tomatoes that don't taste or smell like tomatoes when we were kids. Same with corn, etc. GMO is a process where scientists look at the changes these plants have undergone, and rather than selective breeding traits back in....we use gene splicing (knockin or knockout) to build the desired outcome. There are ways to naturally breed plants to the same outcome that can be achieved by genetic manipulation, the latter is faster and more precise.

Of course Monsanto uses the technique to make plants addicted to Roundup, that is a problem. That is no better than filling chicken and beef full of steroids and other crap. I know scientists that were reengineering plants natural defenses, pathways that were turned off by the super size me plant breeding process.

GMO can be very good IF its used properly.
 
Cures are fine, that increases life expectancy.... Aging in the incurable disease pharma is banking on. Vanity is a profit engine!

...sure it may increase life expectancy but what about "the quality of life"? ...hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies make more money when people are ill and that gravy train slow to a crawl if/when people are cured. Why cure them when they can farm humans like cattle?
 
...sure it may increase life expectancy but what about "the quality of life"? ...hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies make more money when people are ill and that gravy train slow to a crawl if/when people are cured. Why cure them when they can farm humans like cattle?

25 years in this business, never seen cure not developed where treatments existed. The bad PR alone is a risk that would be avoided. Pharma companies....just another big evil strawman for Obama mushheads. You want to lower drug costs, get the government completely out of the process including tort reform. When I got out of school 20 years ago, it cost $100M to develop a new drug. It's approaching $1B due to regulatory hurdles as we tackle much more complex diseases.

We should also be clear on how we define cure. If by that we agree a treatment or serious of treatments that results in molecular remission of the disease state...then we are curing some cancers everyday. If you want to talk about repair on the gene level, this is also underway for things that can't be address at the molecular level. The latter will be used for things like brain tumors and viral infections.

And the longer you live, the more cures you will need/want.
 
...trying to figure out if we're actually agreeing or disagreeing. But the reason that you may not have seen everything is that your were kept from knowing by the people who are privy to such info.

...I do agree about government red tape making things more difficult than they are...I just think it's wrong for people to work all their lives only to have their life savings wiped out and insurance companies milked because of a one month stay in the hospital.

...as far as living longer, personally, I have absolutely no desire to live if I cannot take care of myself and still be productive...and I won't.
 
Last edited:
"Since we have an aging population, the cancer rate increases, and if you adjust for the aging of America, the cancer rate is declining notably."

^^^ Basically one of my points... smoking would definitely help too
 
Cures are fine, that increases life expectancy.... Aging in the incurable disease pharma is banking on. Vanity is a profit engine!

Vanity is far different than pharma... just saying...
 
^^^ Basically one of my points... smoking would definitely help too


...the tobacco industry...anyone else see the hypocrisy?... the government tells us on one hand how bad it is for us, but they not only allow it to continue, they also reap mega-bucks is taxes.
 
So what do you want 59, to not have to pay anything for healthcare? It has to cost someone, nothing is free. Personally I think insurance, medicare, social security, etc. only serve the purpose to capitalize on laziness and apathy....making people grossly undervalue their own health and how they prepare to be self sufficient. If everyone had to pay the true cost, and not the bloated govt/insurance rates...but true free market rates, then it would be affordable.

You'd also see a lot more socially responsible behavior. Hey smoke all you want, just make sure you have set aside another 100k for the lung cancer you're gonna have. Will there be people that fall through the cracks, can't perform in this type of society...yup. Well they can go be illegal aliens in another country or become wards of their own extended families/communities. Nobody rides for free.

Is this harsh, perhaps, but only for those that are too dependent on the nanny state.
 
Vanity is far different than pharma... just saying...

Is it? Go back 50 years. You got cancer then, you got your shit in order, bought a casket and a plot and waited. Today people go through tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars to get as much more time as they can. Why? Because of they can...even if they can't pay for it. You don't think there is any vanity in there at any level? I'm not saying it is the only motive, but it is the common thread.
 
...the tobacco industry...anyone else see the hypocrisy?... the government tells us on one hand how bad it is for us, but they not only allow it to continue, they also reap mega-bucks is taxes.

Exactly. Don't do that...wink. But if you do, were gonna take our cut. Oh, and thank you for the donations to our reelection campaigns.
 
Totus...or anyone in the know-

What can you tell me about the Dairy Cow Business. I forget more than I can remember. To little of a closet with to many clothes. What's not used from the past, to often gets lost in the closet.

I recall about 15 or more years ago, the controversy over (I believe it was:) giving Dairy Cattle, a Hormone? something along those lines, to create more production out of milk cows. Yet, the, whatever it was or is, they give some Dairy Cattle, was or is, causing problems with the very health of those milk producing cows. Anything from digestive tract ulcerations, causing pus found in milk on the molecular levels.
Yes, that issue, what can you enlighten me about in this issue, which I hear little of these days, and don't see the labels on milk I used to. I forget as well, the acronym call letters, which defined milk on shelves which used this questionable process. I do know Alta Dena Dairy Farms, promised their customers, they would never utilize this questionable process or practice.


What can anyone tell me on this, to bring me back up to speed....
 
I'm not a smoker but it bothers me that to rid everyone of cigarettes they make it out that all lung cancer patients deaths are the result of cigarette smoking. I mean there are many ways to get lung cancer. I had two friends of mine over the years that never smoked a day in there lives. One was a regular mechanic & the other worked in a garage at a bus depot. But I guess they have to make everyone think that if they want to bring down the tobaco industry.
 
So what do you want 59, to not have to pay anything for healthcare? It has to cost someone, nothing is free. Personally I think insurance, medicare, social security, etc. only serve the purpose to capitalize on laziness and apathy....making people grossly undervalue their own health and how they prepare to be self sufficient. If everyone had to pay the true cost, and not the bloated govt/insurance rates...but true free market rates, then it would be affordable.

You'd also see a lot more socially responsible behavior. Hey smoke all you want, just make sure you have set aside another 100k for the lung cancer you're gonna have. Will there be people that fall through the cracks, can't perform in this type of society...yup. Well they can go be illegal aliens in another country or become wards of their own extended families/communities. Nobody rides for free.

Is this harsh, perhaps, but only for those that are too dependent on the nanny state.


...did I say health care should be free?...no. That's not at all what I said or implied.

...but if you admit that "someone has to pay for it", but at the same time you also "think insurance, medicare, social security, etc. only serve the purpose to capitalize on laziness" how is it supposed to be paid for?
 
Is it? Go back 50 years. You got cancer then, you got your shit in order, bought a casket and a plot and waited. Today people go through tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars to get as much more time as they can. Why? Because of they can...even if they can't pay for it. You don't think there is any vanity in there at any level? I'm not saying it is the only motive, but it is the common thread.

That isn't vanity... that is a desire to live... desire to go on... vanity is wanting to do it better... you want to talk vanity, lets talk those who make wigs, cosmetics, plastic surgery, etc. That would be vanity...
 
So what do you want 59, to not have to pay anything for healthcare? It has to cost someone, nothing is free. Personally I think insurance, medicare, social security, etc. only serve the purpose to capitalize on laziness and apathy....making people grossly undervalue their own health and how they prepare to be self sufficient. If everyone had to pay the true cost, and not the bloated govt/insurance rates...but true free market rates, then it would be affordable.

You'd also see a lot more socially responsible behavior. Hey smoke all you want, just make sure you have set aside another 100k for the lung cancer you're gonna have. Will there be people that fall through the cracks, can't perform in this type of society...yup. Well they can go be illegal aliens in another country or become wards of their own extended families/communities. Nobody rides for free.

Is this harsh, perhaps, but only for those that are too dependent on the nanny state.

No, nothing is free, but there should be better decisions being made... no free rides for welfare... ditches can be dug somewhere... work can be done somewhere, but no, lets give people money to sit on their ass... there are projects/programs to keep and projects/programs to toss... Like welfare or food stamps, give them a helping hand, sure, but don't make it a career opportunity... and Veterans affairs... shouldn't be a program cut... ya know? Programs should be re-evaluated... not just given blind passes...
 
I'm not a smoker but it bothers me that to rid everyone of cigarettes they make it out that all lung cancer patients deaths are the result of cigarette smoking. I mean there are many ways to get lung cancer. I had two friends of mine over the years that never smoked a day in there lives. One was a regular mechanic & the other worked in a garage at a bus depot. But I guess they have to make everyone think that if they want to bring down the tobaco industry.

asbestos for example...
 
asbestos for example...

Berylliosis (sp?), much worse than asbestos-mesothelioma, from working with Beryllium, a rare exotic metal. All Space Shuttles- External Tank Doors are made of Beryllium. Hard enough a Mack Truck can run over it, and not dent the Beryllium, yet destroy the Mack Truck. Hinge Holes for the ET Doors, are drilled under water, with robotics, and very expensive, water filtration and hazardous waste disposal, after work is complete. Berylliosis fries the lungs, blistering the lining, & usually killing those unfortunates, who worked with the metal, within a month, maybe two, more or less, drowning in the pus fluid inside of ones lungs.

Worse yet, Hydrazine...! One Part per Million of Hydrazine, if breathed by any living organism, esp., Humans, will kill any one within 1/4 mile of a very small drop of Hydrazine. Or 1 part Hydrazine per 1,000,000 parts of Oxygen, and your dead.

In a Haz Mat Class, when informed of the hazards and evacuation emergency plans, for Hydrazine Leaks, one guy asked, what does it smell like??? An odd question, who would ever live long enough to say, how it smells. For the record, in days of Apollo, one Technician did stumble upon a Hydrazine leak, and died within an hour. He kept saying it smelled like Tuna! So if you worked on the Shuttles, Apollo, or even the 1st Four B2s, those all carried Hydrazine. If you smelled Tuna, you should first look around, see if anyone is eating lunch! Then grab your ass and kiss it goodbye, only after you call your wife or kids, tell them goodbye as you choke to death, and your brain becomes mush, as would the organs, lungs, etc.

Anyway, back to Monsanto, and those Dairy Cows, how and what do they use besides Hormones, to get Dairy Cattle to produce more milk, with less quality of product. I've heard info. tho' none of it has been good. Including, as stated prior, pus found within the Cows digestive tract, and milk bags, having infectious pus, which can and has been found in milk at a molecular level.

Can anyone educate me on this one?
 
That's a PERFECT example of someone who could die from lung cancer with ever having smoked.

4800 deaths a year from lung cancer due to asbestos. Out of 158,000 total.
 
4800 deaths a year from lung cancer due to asbestos. Out of 158,000 total.

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.
 
...did I say health care should be free?...no. That's not at all what I said or implied.

...but if you admit that "someone has to pay for it", but at the same time you also "think insurance, medicare, social security, etc. only serve the purpose to capitalize on laziness" how is it supposed to be paid for?

No, I didn't say you did. I asked you a question.

How to pay for it...great question. I'll have to go find the source, its been awhile since I looked at it. John Stossel did a series of stories a few years back on FBN, essentially the libertarian solution. When you add up all the income that has been diverted from a person to the govt as withholdings and/or taxes, it really adds up over time. Transform that into a tax free health savings account which can be managed as a collective pool like a 401K or a REIT, etc. so you get some interest gain while protecting the fund against risk/loss. You deposit/withdraw as you need work. Medical costs become highly competitive, and people take control of managing their care. Eliminating all the middle men would significantly roll back costs. Further removing govt intervention also lowers costs.

Its not a process that can be implemented all at once. You need to cut off say at 45 and below for the new program, and refund those people their contributions and provide additional tax breaks to compensate for lost interest opportunities. 46 and about stay on the same social surity/health insurance trajectory. The system gets transformed over 30-40 time frame.

Its also been modeled that an approach such as this can also help shrink govt and eliminate the deficit. Also note that this approach virtually eliminates and/or transforms all the benefits generally attributed to unions and that has some cost shrinking effects to. Both the economy in term of GDP and personal wages would increase significantly with a model such as this.

Its all about getting govt to give up the control.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top