Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (131933)	9/24/2012 10:26:09 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

>>Re: The study took 2 years. So?<< Seriously? Yes seriously. "The study took 2 years", is close to nothing as an argument for either "the study was done correctly", or "the studies conclusions are probably correct". Why would GMO industry spend $30 million to avoid labeling in 1 state when they could spend $1 million to prove their GMO products safe? Because the products are safe, because $30mil is a lot more than $1mil, and the labeling itself will have some additional direct cost, and possibly loss sales. They don't want to "anti-advertise" their products. but the lack of direct complaints against the study, coupled with the reliance on various logical fallacies, indicates this study's results are significant. There is no lack of complaints. If there was, or if they where based on logical falalcies (and many of them are not, I haven't seen one that was, not that it would shock me), that wouldn't indicate the studies results where signficant, it would only (if the claims you make about the counterarguments where true) indicate that the study wasn't shown to be faulty and that its results had not been proven to be incorrect. I'll even give you that last one. Even with numerous and legitimate complaints about the study. Those counterarguments show the study to be very weak, but a very weak study could stumble on to the correct conclusion anyway, just as a faulty argument can have a correct conclusion. Do you oppose long term health SCIENCE and RESEARCH on pesticide foods and herbicide saturated food? No. How can you know it is safe if there is no long term research? There is research on pesticides. Also "pesticide food" isn't a very good description. Food that had been grown using pesticides, would be better. Without the use of pesticides, you eliminate any possible danger from those chemicals, but you add danger from pests, and also reduce yields. If you use "natural pesticides" instead some of those might be dangerous as well, and others add costs and might not scale up so well to the mass scales needed to feed the world (and esp. to do so without impoverishing the world by forcing more and more people back on the farms). 1. 250% to 350% is a lot Not with a control group of only twenty it isn't. Also it seems it was more like 66% more.