**official** Environmentalists Do The Dumbest Things Thread

[solderz 0]

But there couldn't be, because no one has been eating them long enough. It's a basic scientific principle that you cannot affirm a null result. There are plenty of drugs for example, which made it through the rigorous FDA process, were given to people, and eventually turned out to have negative health consequences.We simply don't have enough experience feeding this stuff to humans to conclude as strongly as you have that they are safe. Nor does it mean that it won't. I agree if people need the food to survive they should have it. But I also think we should remain cautious. I"m not suggesting we ban GM foods or anything. I'm just saying we should continue to monitor the situation with a healthy dose of skepticism. When we get too cocky about these things, we get into trouble.

Lets just agree to disagree. I happen to believe your position is overly cautious. If we were talking about a slightly changed form of a complex medication which is already known to have side effects, then we should be cautious and study it for extreme side effects for a longer period of time, and it should be labeled as a similar in effect to the other medication. But that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about combining plant genes with other plant genes. Only one trait is targeted at a time. The plant cannot change dramatically where these changes are being made. I happen to believe current testing for GM foods is already too stringent and should be relaxed. Genetics are complicated, but we understand them fairly well now. And the kind changes being made in crop plants is anything but dangerous.

[Sal Paradise 57]

personally I'm cool with any kind of food.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

personally I'm cool with any kind of food.

Even downloadable pizza!

[solderz 0]

personally I'm cool with any kind of food.

Don't knock cannibalism. Way underrated.

[SAM_Hard8 50]

Soylent Green is people!

[vbnautilus 48]

Lets just agree to disagree.

I disagree with this.

[Sal Paradise 57]

Even downloadable pizza!

genetically modify THAT shit.

[solderz 0]

I disagree with this.

Lets disagree on the agreeing and go smoke a blunt, or have a beer (choose your poison)

[strategy 4]

speaking of GMOs, I want to buy some of those fish that have GFP inserted into their DNA.sweet idea if you ask me

[hblask 1]

We simply don't have enough experience feeding this stuff to humans to conclude as strongly as you have that they are safe.

Except to the extent that we've been eating food selected for natural genetic modifications since the dawn of agriculture. I'm not sure why anyone would be worried about this particular subset of genetic modifications.But OK, I'm with you, as long as nobody tries to ban it or prevent the people who want it from having it, we can be cautious and keep an eye on it. But there is no theoretical or empirical data to date to worry about it. You may as well believe in Flying Spaghetti Monsters as harmful effects of GM food.

[strategy 4]

Except to the extent that we've been eating food selected for natural genetic modifications since the dawn of agriculture. I'm not sure why anyone would be worried about this particular subset of genetic modifications.

specifically fashioning virii to insert the correct DNA sequences from other species... I can understand why packaging laws and such get passed in Europe.personally I'm not too concerned about it after a quick introduction in bio 101. I think it's an awesome use of technology and wish it could be more easily used to help the third world AND recoup R&D costs.

[vbnautilus 48]

You may as well believe in Flying Spaghetti Monsters as harmful effects of GM food.

Are you implying there is reason to doubt The Noodly One?

[Mercury69 3]

personally I'm cool with any kind of food.

Soylent Green is people!

Mmm...Soylent Green...

[Balloon guy 158]

For a recent story, it would appear that plastic is bad for the environment...Yes, they have found that plastic is really bad because...it decomposes.Seems the old cliche of plastic never going away has been corrected because plastic does go away and when it does it's bad.Plastic Breaks Down in Ocean, After All -- And Fast

Carolyn Barryfor National Geographic NewsAugust 20, 2009Though ocean-borne plastic trash has a reputation as an indestructible, immortal environmental villain, scientists announced yesterday that some plastics actually decompose rapidly in the ocean. And, the researchers say, that's not a good thing. The team's new study is the first to show that degrading plastics are leaching potentially toxic chemicals such as bisphenol A into the seas, possibly threatening ocean animals, and us. Ocean Debris: Habitat for Some, Havoc for Environment, Experts Say Cousteau Finds "Horrifying" Trash on Desert Islands Loving Our Coasts to Death (National Geographic Magazine) Scientists had previously thought plastics broke down only at very high temperatures and over hundreds of years. The researchers behind a new study, however, found that plastic breaks down at cooler temperatures than expected, and within a year of the trash hitting the water.

So is plastic bad because it breaks down, or because it doesnt break down?And how much plastic must break down to create levels in the oceans to affect sealife? I am guessing like thousands of plastic bags minimum.

[hblask 1]

So is plastic bad because it breaks down, or because it doesnt break down?And how much plastic must break down to create levels in the oceans to affect sealife? I am guessing like thousands of plastic bags minimum.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2...land-of-garbageI think if you bury it, it lasts for thousands of years. If you dump it into the ocean, it breaks down into toxic components. We should use other things, except that the total pollution from others is just as high.

[Balloon guy 158]

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2...land-of-garbageI think if you bury it, it lasts for thousands of years. If you dump it into the ocean, it breaks down into toxic components. We should use other things, except that the total pollution from others is just as high.

Yea, but we are going to process the petroleum anyway, might as well use all of it.

[El Guapo 8]

Yea, but we are going to process the petroleum anyway, might as well use all of it.

If more guys get married, then there would be a bigger demand for this:Which we could recycle the plastic into, bettering the environment.It's no wonder greenies are pro gay marriage.

[akoff 0]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Balloon guy 158]

This would fall under the "Ideas that are the dumbest thing ever" catagory for the environmentalist wackos;There is an idea floating around to offer carbon credits to couples who only have one child.That's right, we are going to be giving tax benefit style incentives to people to only have one kid.Now let's think that one through...the only people who would need want or care about any kind of tax credit would be families who actually make money and need write offs...which means that the productive class in America will be bribed to reduce their offspring, while the non-productive would continue to be bribed to pump out more kids.Eventually this would lead to the money all being held in the hands of the smaller and smaller class of productive people, making us a two class society, kind of like Russia, and Mexico.Is there any requirement to have your brains checked when you get a position of influence in Washington?

[strategy 4]

.

[Balloon guy 158]

"Three environmental groups sued the Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday to force it to prevent lead poisoning of wildlife from spent ammunition and lost fishing tackle. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court by the Center for Biological Diversity, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and the hunters group Project Gutpile. It comes after the EPA denied their petition to ban lead ammunition and lead fishing tackle, which the groups say kills 10 million to 20 million birds and other animals a year by lead poisoning."

10 million birds and animals die from eating lead from spent ammunition and fishing weights????

[Balloon guy 158]

Read it before it goes bankrupt

For a while now scientists have been somewhat perplexed that the rise in the Earth's temperatures paused for a time during the 2000s. It's not that the Earth cooled—the last decade was the hottest on record—but global surface temperatures stopped showing a continuing rising trend even as carbon emissions grew year by year. Something had to be acting to offset the warming that should otherwise have been caused by increasing carbon concentrations in the atmosphere.According to a study published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, we can blame—or thank—China and its coal industry. The authors of the study—led by Robert Kaufmann of the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Boston University—noted that during the time period there was an 11-year decline in solar input, as well as a cyclical shift from an El Nino to a La Nina climate pattern, which is associated with cooling. But the larger effect might have come from the rapid growth in Chinese coal combustion, which doubled between 2003 and 2007—, leading to an increase in sulfur emissions and that white China sky.Sulfate particles can have a cooling effect on global temperatures because they can reflect sunlight back into space—something seen most recently in 1991, when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines, spewing up to 30 million tons of sulfur dioxide high into the atmosphere. That led global temperatures to fall about 0.5 C in 1992 and 1993, before the sulfur eventually fell from the atmosphere. The sudden spike in sulfur from Chinese coal combustion over the past decade could have had a similar cooling effect that would have offset at least some of the expected warming from rising greenhouse gas emissions. It wouldn't even be the first time that had happened—there was a similar slowdown in warming during the 30 years following World War II as the global economy boomed on the back of fossil fuels, only to see warming pick up as pollution controls kicked in and companies installed scrubbers in coal-fired power plants.

Cliffs: Because China is burning massive amounts of coal and spewing huge amounts of pollution into the air...they have stopped Global Warming, which was caused by the US burning massive amounts of fuel and spewing huge amounts of pollution into the air.Yea China!Finally socialism/communism is proven to be good!

[SilentSnow 1]

Cliffs: Because China is burning massive amounts of coal and spewing huge amounts of pollution into the air...they have stopped Global Warming, which was caused by the US burning massive amounts of fuel and spewing huge amounts of pollution into the air.Yea China!Finally socialism/communism is proven to be good!

Sounds like another dumb joke, but I've learned from experience that Neocons are often serious even when saying absurd things. So I'll point out the obvious-First of all, they didn't stop global warming. The last decade was the hottest in human history. At most they slightly slowed global warming in the short run. Second, burning coal strongly increases global warming. The pollution it puts out only last a few months, but the carbon lasts for centuries. As soon as they stop burning coal or run out of coal to burn then global warming will increase faster than ever.

[Balloon guy 158]

Sounds like another dumb joke, but I've learned from experience that Neocons are often serious even when saying absurd things. So I'll point out the obvious-First of all, they didn't stop global warming. The last decade was the hottest in human history. At most they slightly slowed global warming in the short run. Second, burning coal strongly increases global warming. The pollution it puts out only last a few months, but the carbon lasts for centuries. As soon as they stop burning coal or run out of coal to burn then global warming will increase faster than ever.

But we've been increasing coal burning for all of human history...so your hypothesis goes up in smoke.Anyway at least Algore and Clinton had the foresight to exempt China from the Kyoto Accords. You know, to help slow global warming.

[SilentSnow 1]

But we've been increasing coal burning for all of human history...so your hypothesis goes up in smoke.

I hope you're just trolling and aren't this dumb. Even though I shouldn't bother I guess I'll explain the obvious once again. Coal burning was insignificant until the industrial revolution. At that point pollution started a steady increase, and the warming trend started as well. Pollution peaked in the mid 20th century. Once some of the pollution was reduced then global warming sharply accelerated. What I've said about pollution and global warming fits exactly with the facts. Burning more coal will increase global warming because the long term CO2 effects hugely outweigh the short term pollution effect. You'll also have the short term cost of killing countless thousands of people due to pollution and making life worse for everyone else.