"There is no evidence to support that."

[Gravekeeper]

Man, where to start.

Number 1:

As a general rule, technology at the end of its life cycle will be more reliable than technology at the beginning of its life cycle. Simple as that. Due to continued refinement in the technology and manufacturing processes. Its not some grand evil conspiracy. Its simple logic. An early CRT monitor is just as shit as an early LCD monitor. Conversely, I have a later LCD monitor in the closet that's gotta be a decade old that still works fine. That doesn't mean it's better though. Which is something you completely ignore in your thesis.

A CRT monitor might still work, but its complete shit vs a modern LCD or LED monitor by every possible metric. You're also ignoring the fact that modern electronics have quite a bit more in the way of safety technology and damage resistance. My current computer could survive a power surge, cooling failure, short circuit, etc with at worst me only having to replace one component. My computer in 1997 would have just burst into flames and need to be completely replaced.

Your 1972 oven may still be holding up, but it uses three times as much power as a modern oven and would die to a power surge or other unforeseen electrical fault. Probably burning your kitchen down in the process.


Number 2:

I have a ton of food allergens: Wheat, soy, dairy ( all dairy, goat included ), eggs, yeast, peanuts and various things vaguely related. That said;

Food allergens are not triggered by pesticides, hormones, chemicals, etc. Food allergens are triggered by an increase in exposure to the allergen which can be made worse by avoiding exposure to the allergen in early childhood. Food allergens are also something that has seen increased awareness and screening in recent years. So of course the rate of it is going to increase as we test for it more often. When I was 16 and having problems due to the allergens, it wasn't even on the radar of my doctor. It went undiagnosed until this year at age 33 when I went to a new doctor that knew about allergens and recognized the symptoms for what they were.

Food allergens normally go undiagnosed because they generally manifest as digestive problems and people just start to avoid those foods. Completely unaware they have a sensitivity. Its not exactly uncommon for someone to have a food or foods they don't eat because it causes gas, indigestion, etc. That's a food allergen. But most people wouldn't come to that conclusion and think to go get tested.

The "thing you saw on the news" that is "baffling scientists" is specifically the dramatic increase in peanut allergens. Which has increased by 50% in children in the last 15 years or so. Peanuts are a strong allergen to begin with and have become more and more widely consumed over the last 20 years. These days they're a very common additive to food and its much much MUCH more common for foods to be cross contaminated during manufacturing. As most companies these days produce multiple products at the same facility.

However, severe peanut allergens only affect 0.1% of the US population after that 50% increase. Its not the wide spread bizarre conspiracy theory you're labouring under. It was an increase from 0.05% to 0.1%. Thus, the big picture here is utterly insignificant.

[wolfie]

Your 1972 oven may still be holding up, but it uses three times as much power as a modern oven and would die to a power surge or other unforeseen electrical fault. Probably burning your kitchen down in the process.

There's very little difference in efficiency between a 1972 oven and a current one, with improvements in insulation being accountable for all of it. After all, resistance heaters are inherently 100% efficient. As for susceptibility to damage from a power surge, the 1972 oven will tolerate surges that would destroy a modern one. Mechanical thermostats are extremely durable - unlike the electronic ones in use now.

[s_stabeler]

There's a simple reason why old items tend to keep working: the unreliable ones have ALREADY broken irreparably. To use an example, the life expectancy of someone in the UK at birth is 80 years. However, people don't drop dead on their 80th birthdays. Why? because it's an average.

to cut a long story short, the 1950s oven is still working because x thousand ovens have already failed. (not least because the ovens that have survived were probably the better-made ones in the first place) If we got into a time machine and went forward to 1950, we would probably find that they are talking about how our ovens were better than whatever ovens they have.

[Gravekeeper]

There's very little difference in efficiency between a 1972 oven and a current one, with improvements in insulation being accountable for all of it. After all, resistance heaters are inherently 100% efficient. As for susceptibility to damage from a power surge, the 1972 oven will tolerate surges that would destroy a modern one. Mechanical thermostats are extremely durable - unlike the electronic ones in use now.

Incorrect, you're forgetting some rather important factors such as insulation or convection. Hell, my land lady recently replaced my old scary oven ( I think it may have been as old as I am >.> ) with an energy efficient modern version to reduce the power bills. Its much more than just the heating coils.

The situation gets more grim when you move outside of ovens to other appliances like refrigerators. An old refrigerator is a total power whore compared to a modern one.

There's a simple reason why old items tend to keep working: the unreliable ones have ALREADY broken irreparably.

Good point, also consider that the average oven has a life span of at least 20 years ( modern included ) and having a functional oven from the 70s isn't impressive in the slightest.

[LewisLegion]

i disagree with this a bit. just because it's such a diffrent level of comparison. saying: 'more testing = more known cases of allergies' is not the same thing as saying 'voting causes allergies'. like... it's beyond sensibilities and strikes me as a bit of a strawman.

i mean, we now have tests for things like cancer, which before would have just been referred to as "wasting illness" or something similar. but we can't say the ability to test for cancer has to do with there being more recorded cases? i'm sorry but that makes no sense.

**LOL** Ok, now I'M confused.

My point was a bit of an exageration but that was to prove the point, and had nothing to do with testing for allergies.

The claim was made that the rise in pesticide use correlates with the rise in food allergies, therefore pesticides cause food allergies. My point was that correlation is NOT causation, and I illustrated this with more women voting ALSO correlates with the rise in food allergies. Using their argument, that must then mean voting leads to food allergies.

I was expanding my point to the absurd in order to make my point. I personally don't think we really have a rise in food allergies. I think you're absolutely right...we're now just able to better identify what they are, and we're more widely exposed to certain allergens (peanuts, for example) which cause allergies to manifest faster and more visibly. It has absolutely nothing to do with pesticides OR women voting!

It's like the argument that there are suddenly more gay people than before. No, there's not...there's just more visibility because more and more gay people are coming out and feeling comfortable in their lives and identities. There have always been a steady amount of gay people...they're just not hiding any more.

[siead_lietrathua]

**LOL** Ok, now I'M confused.

my apologies. my sarcasm detector goes on the fritz when i'm tired.

[s_stabeler]

Pesticides? I think they should be banned when they are bioaccumulative basically, with some pesticides, they can't be eliminated by predators of the bugs they kill, so they build up until they kill the predator)
GM food? I have two main objections. 1) they tie farmers to use just one herbcide. And Monsato et al have been known to be greedy in the past. I can't see it ending well if farmers are required to buy just one herbicide. Or worse, they decide to make each different crop only resistant to a different herbicide, forcing farmers to buy every single herbicide Monsato sell) 2) there isn't much data on how safe they are. This is true of any new variety, incidentally: prove that they are as safe as current varieties, and you can import them.

In short, I don't want to see GM crops at the moment, but if they are proved safe, and varieties are made which are resistant to more than the herbicides made by one company, then I'd be willing to consider it fine.

[KitterCat]

1. Appliances and electronics.
Going by that logic that older technology is better, then let me introduce a wood burning stove and oven. Keep in mind you need to keep a steady supply of wood to convert into coals to keep the oven hot. You will be paying more for the wood than an electric or gas stove cost to run. That there is really no temperature control features. Nothing is insulated so make sure you touch nothing without proper handling equipment. Oh and did I forget during the summer your going to have to crank that ac to the max to combat the heat coming off the thing. But hey they last forever, why would you ever want one of those 1970's thing?

2. Food Allergies
There are multiple organizations over the world that have yet to find a problem with GMOs*. While I'm no scientist I've yet to read a study that's been peer-reviewed, been redone from a third part with similar results, or gone through double blind studies that show that they do what you accusing them. Further, even if somehow they were causing allergies I don't think an increase of point anything would be cause for significant concern. This isn't a disease, it's an allergy. If .5% of the population can't eat peanuts there are plenty of other foods they can eat.

Now if you want to make the argument that Monsanto has messed up ethics in how they handle farmers who inadvertently grow their product and problems on how they treat copy rights on plant/organic copy rights then I'm right with you. However those are completely different than GMOs are bad because you think they cause allergies.



*http://sleuth4health.wordpress.com/2...-globe-answer/

[s_stabeler]

As I said, any new variety must prove itself safe. If there is a body of evidence proving a specific variety of GM food is safe, then submit it for approval for import. Monsato et al have been trying to bypass the requirement to prove their varieties are safe rather than proving they are safe. I have no objections to the technology. I have an objection to any crop being permitted on a preferential basis.

Oh, and I never said I was concerned about allergies. My primary concern is what use of a small number of herbicides will do to resistance i the bug population.

[BlaqueKatt]

As I said, any new variety must prove itself safe.<snip>I have no objections to the technology. I have an objection to any crop being permitted on a preferential basis.

There is ZERO safety testing done on any crop other than Transgenic crops, conventional hybrids ARE NOT TESTED(they're assumed to be safe, if the original two strains were), Transgenic crops are tested for a minimum of 5-10 YEARS before being approved for use.

Try again.

There have been two cases of note with traditional cross breeding-potatos that were toxic due to unregulated gene transfer, and celery that caused skin burns.

[smileyeagle1021]

The technology, first point, some stuff does last longer and/or requires less maintenance (my 2012 Chevy will take less work to keep it running 10 years than my mom's old VW Bug took to keep it running a year). Second point, and this has been made before, efficiency and longevity aren't the same thing. A new fridge may not last as long as an older fridge, but the total resources used will still be less.
As far as the food allergy, just saying "it's obviously pesticides and GMOs because those were introduced about the same time as the rise in food allergies" ignores the fact that there are many other things that have happened. Global trade has increased, it is now possible to eat food that you never would have before and in quantities that you never would have before... of course people are going to discover new allergies when that happens. Second has been changes in medical treatments that affect the immune system. I know my tolerance to airborne allergens has gone down because of the anti-hestimines that I have to take (because why would my body develop its own tolerances when the pills do it for it). Speaking of airborne allergens, there are so many new airborne pollutants, that aren't even related to agriculture, that are bombarding us now that may be keeping our immune systems so busy that they can't handle food allergens that previously it could handle.
I don't like Monsato, but saying wait, there may be other reasons for more people to be diagnosed with allergies than pesticides and GMOs hardly makes me a shill.

[Gravekeeper]

There have been two cases of note with traditional cross breeding-potatos that were toxic due to unregulated gene transfer, and celery that caused skin burns.

Okay, that IS impressive.

[Ladeeda]

Genetically altered produce is better than people starving.

Though tell that to gung-ho groups that burn GM crops in other countries because going green is more important than starvation.

[Gravekeeper]

Genetically altered produce is better than people starving.

Though tell that to gung-ho groups that burn GM crops in other countries because going green is more important than starvation.

I'm still curious as to how the hell you create skin burning celery. Seeing as the only way that could feasible happen is if you already had a contact allergy with celery. ;p

[SongsOfDragons]

I can see the toxic potatoes; they already contain - or probably more accurately have the potential to contain solanine. It's even in the genus name.

Burning celery...possibly an anti-bug chemical the plant naturally produced migrating accidentally to the stem?