Asks the question, What happens when you build a city inside a city, and it develops it's own culture? Only mildly Sci-Fi as far as technology goes.
BTW, other than the solar panel glass, the pictured skyscraper is a horrible example of smart energy use. And space utilization. I'm no architect, but I'd say Habitat 67 was a much more advanced idea, although not designed for energy saving.
The biggest component of this fraud is making up data. Almost half of all reported US temperature data is now fake. They fill in missing rural data with urban data to create the appearance of non-existent US warming.
This picture is certainly worth a thousand words...
It's how people with an agenda who stand to make massive amounts of money off stupid people who act like sheep and follow that masses without asking questions work. Progressives just tend to be the most guilty of this when they try to press their ideology on you.
Sifo, what a joke of evidence. The authors are the kind of bought and paid for "experts" I would expect. They both work for a right wing think tank and Henry Miller has provided over 20 years of lip service defending GMO's and tobacco companies.And Drew L. Kershen is a corporate lawyer. Exactly the kind of expert I would expect you to find.
The article is so fill of misrepresentations, partial truths and lies- I started going through it and disputing it sentence by sentence, but it is not worth my time. The whole "pesticides occur naturally and are just as harmful" is ridiculous. The whole point of the research they misquoted was finding different levels of toxicity in different substances, anything is toxic in significant quantities. If you really believe there is no health risk to eating food thats been grown with and in a bunch of synthetic chemicals well go right ahead (until it can be unequivocally proven that there is a higher risk of carcinogenic (cancer causing) and other health problems, WHY WORRY RIGHT?)
And the cost... "oh no you are telling me it costs more to use good management tools, then when you can just spray synthetic chemicals to alleviate problems"? The US pays less then 5% of earnings towards food, the rest of the world pays on average over 15%.
And of course natural healthy foods can't be produced as cheaply as the crap we call food in this country. Lets take our good ol white bread (or even what passes as wheat)... what crap. Do you understand what "bleached" and "fortified" means? They take all the nutrients out they can (to sell as a separate product) and replace some of the nutrients with industrial equivalents that are cheaper. Have you ever had a heavy dense loaf of real bread, there is no comparison and of course the real thing costs more.
And I love how you conservatives who claim to be all about less government (because that's what you have been taught by your corporate handlers) WANT MORE REGULATIONS over organic agriculture. Now think about that, not a one of you will even try to dispute or defend that statement. There is almost no aspect of food growth and processing that is as closely scrutinised as ALL products certified USDA organic. Now you are all going to gloss over this fact because it is really easy for your values to flip flop mattering how you are told to feel by corporate media. But I want you to say that "YES organic food needs more regulations"- that is often the point of Monsanto's hand fed quasiscience you lap up like 2,4-d covered sugar cubes.
Here is my boss (IE these regulations are the final authority on any decisions I make). (full disclosure, I grew up on a organic dairy farm and have worked for 1 of about 50 independent organic certification companies in the country for the last year and a half)
How about you try doing some thinking for yourself. Read through some of this and show me where the loopholes and bad regulations are. The 205-200 section is most of what farmers have to do, some of the 300s are interesting and the Allowed and Prohibited Substances is in the 205-600s.
If you want to claim that things that shouldn't be allowed are then show me what.
As you can see it really pisses me off you can post such corporate backed bullshit and think its a valid reality.
I see a trend. Any information you don't like is backed by evil corporations. BTW, wasn't Miller at the FDA when he was defending GMOs and the "tobacco companies". BTW, according to your link, he was suggesting that the FDA focus on tobacco related diseases, rather than focusing on nicotine in e-cigarettes. Call me crazy if you like, but that seems to be a reasonable stance. Why do I mention this? Only because you brought it up.
Naturally occurring pesticides aren't nasty sometimes? Really? I know better than that. Natural doesn't mean healthy. It's slightly more complicated. Manufactured doesn't mean unhealthy. It's still more complicated.
What's your point about the percent that we spend on food vs. the rest of the world. I know I'm damn lucky to live where we have great excess. That has little to do with the cost of organic, or "non-organic" food.
Then you go on about food processing. Kind of off topic, though I think you would find I tend to agree with you on much of that.
Conservatives want more regulations for organic farmers? I'm unaware of that. Kind of a broad brush there too. I have no clue what you are rambling about there.
OK, I know this wont translate well into print, but I just took a break from typing for some local organically grown corn. The farmer is less than 2 miles down the road. Delicious. I really have nothing against organically grown anything. Still, does "organically grown" really mean what most people would think?
So you want me to read farming regulations... Why?
Oh, nice finish about corporate backed BS, but you still want me to buy, hook, line and sinker, what is touted by a corporation that does organic farming. Sure, that makes sense!
Read your own supplied article which you laid out as somehow being proof of the lack of substance to organic agriculture.
do I have to take you by the hand and walk you through your own article and explain the points I am arguing.
No shit its more complicate.
everything that organic farming means is in those regulations, so yes I want you to look into them instead of using the mental capacity of a 2nd grader to cut and paste a hack job that you think is sufficient evidence to validate your opinion. In those regulations you can read exactly what is allowed and not, or is the idea of having to make up your own mind to strenuous? You want to throw down articles critical of the practices of organic agriculture and ask what it really is, and that is your answer, those regulations are the minimum of what it is.
If you cant see the difference between papers published by a think tank whose whole existence is to supply articles to bolster the position of corporations- pure propaganda, and mine or the Rodale institutes then well thats to bad. But most of the evidence supporting your views is supplied by such. Often your material is from 3rd rate blogs with hardly a sited source to it.
And are you saying he was in the Government at the time so we should trust him?? You are proving my point, regulations are to lax because we put Monsanto's Minions in charge of farming, BP's buddies in charge on the environment and Lehman Brothers lackeys in charge of banking. Just wait till Bernie gets in there, he'll stir things up!!
And that is very astute of you to notice that trend, do you care to try to dissuade that correlation?
Your main argument of my points is "well your sources are involved in the topics at hand so they don't count". But all your sources and opinions are supplied by the side with all the money and the most to loose if the statues que is upended... But Gore probably started a CSA(Community Supported agriculture share program) and organic agriculture is all a rouge to make him more money- right?
and do you really want me to go back and show how often you and others (and your article) have criticised the amount of regulation and said its not trustworthy? And how about you show me some evidence that natural plant substances are anywhere near as likely to be harmful for people. (though yes there are some nasty and amazing substances mother nature has concocted over the years, too bad we are busy burning and bulldozing so much of it into extinction before we could study all the fascinating coping mechanisms that have flourished over millions of years).
good luck on matching my points to yours, the orders all jumbled, and you probably don't deserve my venomance but its been a long couple days for me so I am slightly uncareicull!
And I'm not asking you to buy anything (though if everybody purchased 10% of their food organic the rise in demand and the greater supply that would follow would bring prices down somewhat! ), I am asking you though to ask yourself how much of your data is supplied by the purveyors of the statues que? Can you explain why all of your positions seem to align with corporate desires?
Several petitions to ban dihydrogen monoxide have gotten many signatures on college campuses and by young people across America. So you can feel safe from such evil chemicals in the near future.
Back from camping. One of the main complaints among my fellow campers was that the Pennsylvania government cracked down on raw milk sales, driving several farmers out of business. .... mostly organic Amish milk production. Don't know the real motive. Religious intolerance? Massive bribes from George Soros? Monsanto? Satan?????
In any event the local ( Butler PA area) milk farm no longer sells to the public, just bulk commercial sale. So we can no longer buy the truly awesome pasteurized. ...but not homogenized chocolate milk.
Which, btw, we used to make the most delicious hand cranked ice cream ever every year to the delight and astonishment of our fellow campers.
No more. Gee. Thanks. Government nanny state anti small business scum. May they grow boils on their tiny manhood. A$$ holes.
Accuweather is predicting 105°F for Kilgore, Texas today. Just as the Obama administration is making electrical power more expensive. Lots of lower income families are going to be hurt by the anti-coal policies. But then that will justify ever more govt subsidies to "help" them. Coward-Piven on steroids.
Uh yes blame the tragedy on the government (us) who got stuck with the mess and the bill. Who owns the company that left this toxic mess up there 80 years ago? Mining companies are making huge profits and then leaving the toxic waste for us to clean up.
I think you have a reading comprehension problem. Or you just like spouting non sequiturs.
If a private company had been contracted to clean it up, you can bet your ass they'd get fined.
History repeats itself.
Spill coal ash and you're a private company? 100 million dollar EPA fine. Set a world record for coal ash discharge, and you're the federally owned TVA? Zero EPA fines. Zero penalties for those culpable. The government is above the law.
It seems Tod wants more regulations for other businesses, but less for his own. That's a normal desire, but really no well thought out. Reasonable regulations are necessary. Government however, know no reasonable boundaries. Don't bitch to me about the regulations on your business while promoting bigger government.
No0 I have no problem with the level of regulations and scrutiny of organic agriculture, actually, in many ways the rules should be more stringent - but it is the most regulated aspect of agriculture. You guys on the other hand have spouted off about how organic products cant be trusted, and sifo's BS article says the same and derides the regulatory process. I was complaining of the rights assertion that OG ag. isnt regulated enough, while bemoaning every other aspect of regulations as being "Job Killing" and unneeded.
Yes the government should definitely be fining itself over this. (really?? what ?? OK)
You are ignoring my bigger point, Who left this mess sitting here?????
So you guys are in agreement that all aspects of ag. should be scrutinised as close as OG ag, right? And if there had been stronger regulations about mining waste ponds this travesty could have been stopped? -Right?
At least with private industry, there is generally accountability and liability for screwups, and the worst of the offenders die quickly from those and other mistakes.
If that was still a private business that did that to that river, would you buy stock in it at any price? Would you do business with it at all? It would be a company killing mistake.
A government screwup is the gift that keeps on giving...
My position has always been that the larger the bureaucracy, the worse a thing is. That is true of private capitalistic enterprises, of highly empowered democratic government, and authoritarian governments. All three are likely to do bad things.
The problem with government, is that governmental bad ideas scale SO much better. A private enterprise that makes many mistakes self destructs. A government enterprise that makes many mistakes often expands, sometimes to the point where the country itself falls. And when a country fails, it's not just rich guys becoming poor guys. It's usually people dying in large quantities.
So I, like Winston Churchill, am in favor of capitalism because it self corrects the quickest.
Capitalism is the worst form of government, except for every other form that has been tried.
Tod, you claim the article I linked to be BS, but seem to sidestep the main thrust of the article, which is that the general population probably isn't aware that organic practices are probably not what they would expect. In the fourth sentence they link to this http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/FST-56 .pdf from the University of Hawaii. Is it BS when the UoH claims...
As of 2013, over 600 commercial suppliers of over 2,000 organic fertilizer, soil amendments, and pesticides were listed on the Organic Materials Review Institute’s (OMRI) website, www.omri.org.
That's the main point of the article, and the point I made when I posted it. People don't think of "organic" has having up 2,000 different products being added to the mix. You do nothing to refute the article beyond ad hominem of the author. That's a very weak defense on your part.
As for the additional regulations you suffer to use the organic label, you do understand that without those regulations, anyone could claim the label "organic" and there would be zip you could do to differentiate your more expensive product. Those regulations are there to protect you as well as consumers. You could easily get around those regulations any time you desire. You just will be prohibited from using he "organic" label. Personally, I really don't care. If it's all that you claim, you can still make more money doing organic farming than the corporate farms can, even if the Feds were to decide that the organic label can be used by anyone on anything. I'm all for it. Are you?
"As for the additional regulations you suffer to use the organic label, you do understand that without those regulations, anyone could claim the label "organic" and there would be zip you could do to differentiate your more expensive product. Those regulations are there to protect you as well as consumers. You could easily get around those regulations any time you desire. You just will be prohibited from using he "organic" label. " EXACTLY! EXACTLY! EXACTLY! well articulated.
Tell me what product or substance that is allowed for use shouldn't be. If you read the Hawaii pamphlet a lot of your questions would be answered.
Every single product a producer has on farm, and used for OG ag has to be verified... by me. As ive said its a major part of my job. Your argument has no sustenance. The number of synthetic substances allowed is very short and many substances have restrictions. Lots of farmers don't understand why they have to show a soil test delineating need of micronutrients before they can be used.
Do you want me to explain why Super Gro's 5-5-35-5S fertilizer is prohibited but 5-0-30-1S is allowed... (its whats in it) :0